![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
Why is there nothing about Jesus in Pop culture in this article?.-- ikiroid | ( talk) 21:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no mention in the article that Muslims consider Jesus to be the promised Messiah.
The sentence :
"In Islam, Jesus (known as Isa), is considered one of God's most-beloved and important prophets."
is better to be changed to
"In Islam, Jesus (known as Isa), is considered one of God's most-beloved and important prophets and the long awaited Messiah."
How is that?
The title of Messiah is only used for Jesus in Quran and Hadith; Mahdi is never called with the title of Messiah in Hadith. So it is justified to use the Messiah instead of messiah. Also, Although intro says that muslims consider Jesus to be Messiah, but it is better to include this in the part about islam as well. Why not?
Also Another suggestion:
The sentence: “However, unlike Christians, Muslims do not consider Jesus to have been the son of God, and do not believe that he died on the cross”
To
“However, unlike Christians, Muslims do not consider Jesus to have been the son of God by nature, and do not believe that he died on the cross”
The reason is that everywhere the Quran denies that Jesus is the son of God, clearly uses “son of God” in this sense and therefore considers it blasphemy. Jesus is considered as one the closest to God and Abraham was considered as a friend of God in Quran. I think the following verse makes the matter clear:
How could it be that (Allah) should have a child without there ever having been a mate for Him -since it is He who has created everything, and He alone knows everything? - Qur'an 6:101
OK, to clarify things, according to the Koran, there are two saviours - Jesus and the Mahdi, a person that will emerge from Mecca. Jesus will return AFTER Mahdi emerges from Mecca.
I am not advocating putting in what people are skeptical about, but rather what even secular people would agree on -- This is a biography article, after all.
This article is meant to be biographical not biased to any opinion. In a biography it is important that the sources are verifiable and accurate. The intro SHOULD mention that there are no extant contemporary documents which refer to his existence and that there is no mention of him for over a generation. Robsteadman 09:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene (circa 4 BCE – 30 CE), is mentioend in several religions but is the central figure of Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ (from Greek Ιησούς Χριστός) with "Christ" being a title meaning "Anointed One" or "Messiah".
The main sources regarding his life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels from the New Testament, which were written several decades after his death. There are no extant contemporary documents which has led a minority of scholars to hold that Jesus did not exist at all (see Historicity of Jesus).
Christians generally believe Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides at the "right hand" of God the Father until the Second Coming.
In Islam, Jesus (called Isa) is considered one of God's most beloved and important prophets, a bringer of divine scripture, and also the messiah. Muslims however do not share the Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus. Jesus is also considered a manifestation of God in the Bahá'í Faith.
everything else should then be moved to the body of the article not in the intro. Just a suggestion..... Robsteadman 18:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll keep going and do the rest if the article if you want ;-) Robsteadman 19:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to simplify the intro, make it all verifiable and factual and allow it to lead on!
Robsteadman
20:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Two about Hannibal is two more than about "jesus" Robsteadman 06:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
This discussion is entirely off-track. NOR is a core Wikipedia policy. It is not the place of editors to weigh the evidence the supports or raises doubts about the existence of Jesus. Any sentence in this or the preceeding sections asserting that there are or are no contemporary documents attesting to Jesus' life are irrelevant because they can play no role in how we edit the article, as they represent original research. What we are supposed to be doing is discussing the current state of research on Jesus and the New Testament from a variety of views, and make sure those views are respresented in the article. We also need to identify the source of those views (i.e, is is important to know if the source is a Catholic cleric, a Rabbi, or a critical Bible scholar). It does not matter whether I or anyone else here agrees or disagrees with these views, or believes that there is or is no evidence to support those views. That violates NOR. Our task is not to debate whether or not Jesus existed. Our task is not to decide on "the truth." Or task is to write a well-researched article that complies with our core policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Robsteadman is wrong. When I said we should be discussing the current state of researchon Jesus, i thought it was clear from the context that I mean on this talk page as I go on to say that we should then make sure that the various views on Jesus are appropriately represented in the article. Robsteadman's statement, "the article is about "jesus" not the state of research into him" is a non-sequiter. An article about Jesus has to be based on research. There has indeed been a good deal of research on Jesus and the New Testament, and we should draw on this research. I stand by what I said: it is not for us to say that "Sanders is wrong" or "Crossan is right." Our job is to present the result of their (and others') research, and whatever context is appropriate for people to know the perspective or approach of the source (e.g. a theologian or a critical scholar etc.) "The lack of documents" is original research if you Robsteadman use it to make your own interpretation, synthetic or analytic claim, and add it to the article. This is our policy. If your claim that there are no documents concerning Jesus contemporary with his life, then it should be very easy to provide a source for this claim. In any event, my point was not about asserting the fact that there are no sources concerning Jesus that are generally believed to date to the time Jesus lived. I do not object to adding this to the article. What I object to is using it to argue a point. This is uncontroverably a violation of Wikipedia policy. Articles are not venues for editors to argue their own views. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I have posted this link several times, though it has now been mpoved to the archive: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm - a "chrsitian" source making it clear that there are no extant contemporary documents that refer to "jesus". I am not suggesting it is used to make any "claim" just that it needs to be stated taht this is a verifiable fact - one of the few verifiable facts about "jesus" life. It is also verifiable fact that, as a result of this several scholars do not believe he ever existed - FACT. If the intro does not state this verifiable fact it remains a poorly written, factually inaccurate biased POV aintro to an article which is also highly contentious in its lack of verifiablilty and POV. Slrubenstein please be careful with your accusations - I await your retraction and apology. Robsteadman 17:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Yet again I have provided a source for the info - and I can provide many more - unless someone has some documents secretly hidden there are none http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm - It is a simple statement of verifiable fact - There are no extent contemporary documents that mention "jesus".
If WIKI is to be credible it must highlight the verifiable not the doubtful unverifiable fictitious or completely nonsensical. Robsteadman 19:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
No - this is what I asked to be included:
"Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene (circa 4 BCE – 30 CE), is mentioend in several religions but is the central figure of Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ (from Greek Ιησούς Χριστός) with "Christ" being a title meaning "Anointed One" or "Messiah".
The main sources regarding his life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels from the New Testament, which were written several decades after his death. There are no extant contemporary documents which has led a minority of scholars to hold that Jesus did not exist at all (see Historicity of Jesus).
Christians generally believe Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides at the "right hand" of God the Father until the Second Coming.
In Islam, Jesus (called Isa) is considered one of God's most beloved and important prophets, a bringer of divine scripture, and also the messiah. Muslims however do not share the Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus. Jesus is also considered a manifestation of God in the Bahá'í Faith.
That's all! - it is all verifiable and factual. It gives a NPOV intro to the article.
So time to unprotect? Robsteadman 20:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Any chance of an agreement having been reached? I don't have time to read every single post here, but this talk page does look a little calmer than it did yesterday. AnnH (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I got fed up with scrolling to the bottom all the time so I started a new section.
So where are we now?
If it get's the article unlocked I'm happy with the sentence at the bottom of the Background section and a mention and a link in the Historicity section. This I feel does not give undue weight to the minority view but gives info and a link for the interested reader. Sorry Rob but we're back to the snowball in hell with trying to get it in the intro. Any comments? SOPHIA 21:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know where you get your figures but they're not correct, Jim. Christians and Muslims alone compromise some 55% of the world's population, with the ability to gauge true Christian populations in Muslim countries or those such as China severely limited; so that is a conservative estimate at best. Secondly, the article is concerning the central figure of Christianity, thus we can expect that due to Jesus' prominence in said religion, it will be given the most weight, followed by Islam, and finally minority religious views and scholarly views. If you read the NPOV policy, weight is not determined simply by population, but by prominence. The dissenting views are well-developed and included in the Historicity of Jesus section in the article, with links to articles that explore the subject in great depth. No more is needed in a biographical article such as this. A lot of people are simply agressively POV-pushing here, such as Robsteadman, who for some reason needs to place quotes around the name Jesus. There's very little evidence of many historical stories or individuals, so what's your point? Aiden 18:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I still don;t see what was wrong with the NPOV totally verifiable version I suggested. What Os is suggesting is hinting at a POV. Robsteadman 21:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Why are we still discussing opinions and percantages of people who believe certain things? That is irrelevant - WIKI should be presenting the v erifiable fact irrespective of whether lots believe or don;t believe it. Without verifiable fact wikipedia is meaningless. It's also not about religious or non-religious - but a biographical article about a person. I would like a straight answer from those opposing it - what is wrong with my suggestion new introduction (above)? Robsteadman 20:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Please - tell me how this is problematic to anyone:
"Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene (circa 4 BCE – 30 CE), is mentioend in several religions but is the central figure of Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ (from Greek Ιησούς Χριστός) with "Christ" being a title meaning "Anointed One" or "Messiah". The main sources regarding his life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels from the New Testament, which were written several decades after his death. There are no extant contemporary documents which has led a minority of scholars to hold that Jesus did not exist at all (see Historicity of Jesus). Christians generally believe Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides at the "right hand" of God the Father until the Second Coming. In Islam, Jesus (called Isa) is considered one of God's most beloved and important prophets, a bringer of divine scripture, and also the messiah. Muslims however do not share the Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus. Jesus is also considered a manifestation of God in the Bahá'í Faith.
Robsteadman 21:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Put the sentence you've added at the end of the intro and I'll sign on. Aiden 00:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
OK - let;s use SOPHIA's version - either will do - they are boith NPOV statements based on verifiable fact. Now let's get the page open and things rolling. Perhaps now we can aress someof the POV statements in the rest of the varticle? Robsteadman 07:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
We are not adding in skeptic content at the expense of other more prominent information in the intro. Give it a rest, Rob. — Aiden 18:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Aiden - for making your position quite clear. You only want a "faith" position, you don;t want verifiable fact and anyone who disagrees is a skeptic. That position s contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. I find your approach unencyclopedic and, to be honest, dangerous in that it is suppressing the facts in favour of mysticism and the supernatural. Shameful. Robsteadman 20:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Aiden's comments make it clear he doesn;t want any "religious" comment removed. That means the article would stay POV and biased. Robsteadman 07:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that sidelines the issue rather. The intro, as with the rest of the article, needs to be based on verifiable FACT. As has been stated before - this should make it clear that there are no extant contemporary documents which mention anyone called "jesus" and that none exist for quite some time (more than a generation) after his supposed death. After that its fine to say that despite this some choose to believe x and some choose to believe y - this article is about "jesus" and the important thing is to show where the information about him and his life has come from. The most important fact is that there is no mention of him during his lifetime or for many decades afterwards. Robsteadman 18:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Rob, your proposal above is decidely POV IMHO. Your comment would seem more appropriate for the Historicity section and not the title. The article is about Jesus of Nazareth and is told from that perspective. WIKI seeks to be balanced; your edit would not result in a balanced article, but rather only meet your specific concept of "facts". You might want to consider that a great deal of history is recorded and written years after the incident takes place. As an aside, it is always surprising to me when "man" thinks he knows the facts about things. It does not take long before those things we thought were factual were really false. Facts seem to have changed alot in human history. Storm Rider 19:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Wiki is, and should remain, to be about verifiable FACTS. The current article is and intro is POV. The intro must state, preferably before anything else, that there is no contemportary evidence of an historical "jesus" - FACT. Then it can go on to discuss the various veresions and beliefs including the view that he never existed. Would love to know what FACTS you feel have changed and how that has any relevance to the article. An encyclopedia must presnt the latest and most honest facts - verifiable. To want to sideline the truth seems very unwiki! Robsteadman 19:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh and the article is JESUS - not Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus Christ - it should be bhiographical and, as with any biography, the lack of evidence is vital to a balanced understanding of the story. Robsteadman 19:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
OK - wrong phrase - though it would be correct and verifiable to state there is no extent contemporary evidence of any sort! Robsteadman 20:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. — Aiden 00:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
Why is there nothing about Jesus in Pop culture in this article?.-- ikiroid | ( talk) 21:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no mention in the article that Muslims consider Jesus to be the promised Messiah.
The sentence :
"In Islam, Jesus (known as Isa), is considered one of God's most-beloved and important prophets."
is better to be changed to
"In Islam, Jesus (known as Isa), is considered one of God's most-beloved and important prophets and the long awaited Messiah."
How is that?
The title of Messiah is only used for Jesus in Quran and Hadith; Mahdi is never called with the title of Messiah in Hadith. So it is justified to use the Messiah instead of messiah. Also, Although intro says that muslims consider Jesus to be Messiah, but it is better to include this in the part about islam as well. Why not?
Also Another suggestion:
The sentence: “However, unlike Christians, Muslims do not consider Jesus to have been the son of God, and do not believe that he died on the cross”
To
“However, unlike Christians, Muslims do not consider Jesus to have been the son of God by nature, and do not believe that he died on the cross”
The reason is that everywhere the Quran denies that Jesus is the son of God, clearly uses “son of God” in this sense and therefore considers it blasphemy. Jesus is considered as one the closest to God and Abraham was considered as a friend of God in Quran. I think the following verse makes the matter clear:
How could it be that (Allah) should have a child without there ever having been a mate for Him -since it is He who has created everything, and He alone knows everything? - Qur'an 6:101
OK, to clarify things, according to the Koran, there are two saviours - Jesus and the Mahdi, a person that will emerge from Mecca. Jesus will return AFTER Mahdi emerges from Mecca.
I am not advocating putting in what people are skeptical about, but rather what even secular people would agree on -- This is a biography article, after all.
This article is meant to be biographical not biased to any opinion. In a biography it is important that the sources are verifiable and accurate. The intro SHOULD mention that there are no extant contemporary documents which refer to his existence and that there is no mention of him for over a generation. Robsteadman 09:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene (circa 4 BCE – 30 CE), is mentioend in several religions but is the central figure of Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ (from Greek Ιησούς Χριστός) with "Christ" being a title meaning "Anointed One" or "Messiah".
The main sources regarding his life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels from the New Testament, which were written several decades after his death. There are no extant contemporary documents which has led a minority of scholars to hold that Jesus did not exist at all (see Historicity of Jesus).
Christians generally believe Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides at the "right hand" of God the Father until the Second Coming.
In Islam, Jesus (called Isa) is considered one of God's most beloved and important prophets, a bringer of divine scripture, and also the messiah. Muslims however do not share the Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus. Jesus is also considered a manifestation of God in the Bahá'í Faith.
everything else should then be moved to the body of the article not in the intro. Just a suggestion..... Robsteadman 18:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll keep going and do the rest if the article if you want ;-) Robsteadman 19:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to simplify the intro, make it all verifiable and factual and allow it to lead on!
Robsteadman
20:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Two about Hannibal is two more than about "jesus" Robsteadman 06:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
This discussion is entirely off-track. NOR is a core Wikipedia policy. It is not the place of editors to weigh the evidence the supports or raises doubts about the existence of Jesus. Any sentence in this or the preceeding sections asserting that there are or are no contemporary documents attesting to Jesus' life are irrelevant because they can play no role in how we edit the article, as they represent original research. What we are supposed to be doing is discussing the current state of research on Jesus and the New Testament from a variety of views, and make sure those views are respresented in the article. We also need to identify the source of those views (i.e, is is important to know if the source is a Catholic cleric, a Rabbi, or a critical Bible scholar). It does not matter whether I or anyone else here agrees or disagrees with these views, or believes that there is or is no evidence to support those views. That violates NOR. Our task is not to debate whether or not Jesus existed. Our task is not to decide on "the truth." Or task is to write a well-researched article that complies with our core policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Robsteadman is wrong. When I said we should be discussing the current state of researchon Jesus, i thought it was clear from the context that I mean on this talk page as I go on to say that we should then make sure that the various views on Jesus are appropriately represented in the article. Robsteadman's statement, "the article is about "jesus" not the state of research into him" is a non-sequiter. An article about Jesus has to be based on research. There has indeed been a good deal of research on Jesus and the New Testament, and we should draw on this research. I stand by what I said: it is not for us to say that "Sanders is wrong" or "Crossan is right." Our job is to present the result of their (and others') research, and whatever context is appropriate for people to know the perspective or approach of the source (e.g. a theologian or a critical scholar etc.) "The lack of documents" is original research if you Robsteadman use it to make your own interpretation, synthetic or analytic claim, and add it to the article. This is our policy. If your claim that there are no documents concerning Jesus contemporary with his life, then it should be very easy to provide a source for this claim. In any event, my point was not about asserting the fact that there are no sources concerning Jesus that are generally believed to date to the time Jesus lived. I do not object to adding this to the article. What I object to is using it to argue a point. This is uncontroverably a violation of Wikipedia policy. Articles are not venues for editors to argue their own views. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I have posted this link several times, though it has now been mpoved to the archive: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm - a "chrsitian" source making it clear that there are no extant contemporary documents that refer to "jesus". I am not suggesting it is used to make any "claim" just that it needs to be stated taht this is a verifiable fact - one of the few verifiable facts about "jesus" life. It is also verifiable fact that, as a result of this several scholars do not believe he ever existed - FACT. If the intro does not state this verifiable fact it remains a poorly written, factually inaccurate biased POV aintro to an article which is also highly contentious in its lack of verifiablilty and POV. Slrubenstein please be careful with your accusations - I await your retraction and apology. Robsteadman 17:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Yet again I have provided a source for the info - and I can provide many more - unless someone has some documents secretly hidden there are none http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm - It is a simple statement of verifiable fact - There are no extent contemporary documents that mention "jesus".
If WIKI is to be credible it must highlight the verifiable not the doubtful unverifiable fictitious or completely nonsensical. Robsteadman 19:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
No - this is what I asked to be included:
"Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene (circa 4 BCE – 30 CE), is mentioend in several religions but is the central figure of Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ (from Greek Ιησούς Χριστός) with "Christ" being a title meaning "Anointed One" or "Messiah".
The main sources regarding his life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels from the New Testament, which were written several decades after his death. There are no extant contemporary documents which has led a minority of scholars to hold that Jesus did not exist at all (see Historicity of Jesus).
Christians generally believe Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides at the "right hand" of God the Father until the Second Coming.
In Islam, Jesus (called Isa) is considered one of God's most beloved and important prophets, a bringer of divine scripture, and also the messiah. Muslims however do not share the Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus. Jesus is also considered a manifestation of God in the Bahá'í Faith.
That's all! - it is all verifiable and factual. It gives a NPOV intro to the article.
So time to unprotect? Robsteadman 20:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Any chance of an agreement having been reached? I don't have time to read every single post here, but this talk page does look a little calmer than it did yesterday. AnnH (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I got fed up with scrolling to the bottom all the time so I started a new section.
So where are we now?
If it get's the article unlocked I'm happy with the sentence at the bottom of the Background section and a mention and a link in the Historicity section. This I feel does not give undue weight to the minority view but gives info and a link for the interested reader. Sorry Rob but we're back to the snowball in hell with trying to get it in the intro. Any comments? SOPHIA 21:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know where you get your figures but they're not correct, Jim. Christians and Muslims alone compromise some 55% of the world's population, with the ability to gauge true Christian populations in Muslim countries or those such as China severely limited; so that is a conservative estimate at best. Secondly, the article is concerning the central figure of Christianity, thus we can expect that due to Jesus' prominence in said religion, it will be given the most weight, followed by Islam, and finally minority religious views and scholarly views. If you read the NPOV policy, weight is not determined simply by population, but by prominence. The dissenting views are well-developed and included in the Historicity of Jesus section in the article, with links to articles that explore the subject in great depth. No more is needed in a biographical article such as this. A lot of people are simply agressively POV-pushing here, such as Robsteadman, who for some reason needs to place quotes around the name Jesus. There's very little evidence of many historical stories or individuals, so what's your point? Aiden 18:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I still don;t see what was wrong with the NPOV totally verifiable version I suggested. What Os is suggesting is hinting at a POV. Robsteadman 21:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Why are we still discussing opinions and percantages of people who believe certain things? That is irrelevant - WIKI should be presenting the v erifiable fact irrespective of whether lots believe or don;t believe it. Without verifiable fact wikipedia is meaningless. It's also not about religious or non-religious - but a biographical article about a person. I would like a straight answer from those opposing it - what is wrong with my suggestion new introduction (above)? Robsteadman 20:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Please - tell me how this is problematic to anyone:
"Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene (circa 4 BCE – 30 CE), is mentioend in several religions but is the central figure of Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ (from Greek Ιησούς Χριστός) with "Christ" being a title meaning "Anointed One" or "Messiah". The main sources regarding his life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels from the New Testament, which were written several decades after his death. There are no extant contemporary documents which has led a minority of scholars to hold that Jesus did not exist at all (see Historicity of Jesus). Christians generally believe Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides at the "right hand" of God the Father until the Second Coming. In Islam, Jesus (called Isa) is considered one of God's most beloved and important prophets, a bringer of divine scripture, and also the messiah. Muslims however do not share the Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus. Jesus is also considered a manifestation of God in the Bahá'í Faith.
Robsteadman 21:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Put the sentence you've added at the end of the intro and I'll sign on. Aiden 00:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
OK - let;s use SOPHIA's version - either will do - they are boith NPOV statements based on verifiable fact. Now let's get the page open and things rolling. Perhaps now we can aress someof the POV statements in the rest of the varticle? Robsteadman 07:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
We are not adding in skeptic content at the expense of other more prominent information in the intro. Give it a rest, Rob. — Aiden 18:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Aiden - for making your position quite clear. You only want a "faith" position, you don;t want verifiable fact and anyone who disagrees is a skeptic. That position s contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. I find your approach unencyclopedic and, to be honest, dangerous in that it is suppressing the facts in favour of mysticism and the supernatural. Shameful. Robsteadman 20:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Aiden's comments make it clear he doesn;t want any "religious" comment removed. That means the article would stay POV and biased. Robsteadman 07:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that sidelines the issue rather. The intro, as with the rest of the article, needs to be based on verifiable FACT. As has been stated before - this should make it clear that there are no extant contemporary documents which mention anyone called "jesus" and that none exist for quite some time (more than a generation) after his supposed death. After that its fine to say that despite this some choose to believe x and some choose to believe y - this article is about "jesus" and the important thing is to show where the information about him and his life has come from. The most important fact is that there is no mention of him during his lifetime or for many decades afterwards. Robsteadman 18:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Rob, your proposal above is decidely POV IMHO. Your comment would seem more appropriate for the Historicity section and not the title. The article is about Jesus of Nazareth and is told from that perspective. WIKI seeks to be balanced; your edit would not result in a balanced article, but rather only meet your specific concept of "facts". You might want to consider that a great deal of history is recorded and written years after the incident takes place. As an aside, it is always surprising to me when "man" thinks he knows the facts about things. It does not take long before those things we thought were factual were really false. Facts seem to have changed alot in human history. Storm Rider 19:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Wiki is, and should remain, to be about verifiable FACTS. The current article is and intro is POV. The intro must state, preferably before anything else, that there is no contemportary evidence of an historical "jesus" - FACT. Then it can go on to discuss the various veresions and beliefs including the view that he never existed. Would love to know what FACTS you feel have changed and how that has any relevance to the article. An encyclopedia must presnt the latest and most honest facts - verifiable. To want to sideline the truth seems very unwiki! Robsteadman 19:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh and the article is JESUS - not Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus Christ - it should be bhiographical and, as with any biography, the lack of evidence is vital to a balanced understanding of the story. Robsteadman 19:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
OK - wrong phrase - though it would be correct and verifiable to state there is no extent contemporary evidence of any sort! Robsteadman 20:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. — Aiden 00:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)