![]() | 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 45 | ← | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
I thought this [link removed] might be of interest to some of you on this page: Just Thought Id Mention It 11:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think doubleblue included any information that the editors hadn't included on their own userpages. I think some are protesting too much. 86.137.36.128 12:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm more than a little disturbed by this. Accusations of education are serious...-- Mrdarcey 14:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I am personally offended and disgusted with anyone that stalks another editor to the point that their personal life becomes part of WIKI. If an individual shares those facts; great. If not, it is no one's business! I do not think it acceptable that those involved were banned for only one month. Their actions deserve nothing less than a permanent ban from all WIKI sites. They have demonstrated a a shocking lack of integrity and are unworthy of participation on this site. Storm Rider (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
See also meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist#Wikipedia Review.. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring Talk TCF 03:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Despite what HK30 is saying, this is no stunt. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring Talk TCF 08:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Kids, chill out. If I felt like taking the time I'd have an admin lock this page until the silliness and stupidity stopped. Ah, but then I suppose there are none so blind as those who will not see (do not correct me on the quote). Person A thinks person B is being silly, while person B thinks person A is, etc. One hopes that this is not the best Christianity, the religion of "love" and "peace" and "understanding", has to offer. •Jim62sch• 00:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm beginning to believe that Jean-Paul Sartre was right about Hell. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring Talk TCF 01:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Given that the page is now protected, can someone specify the disputes that need to be resolved?
Given the general agreement, I of course think that my two edits to paragraph 2 (deleting the blasphemy, adding the baptism) should be restored. i responded to one off-point criticism above. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Then surely it should be made clear, and clearer than it is, that it is a faith only, or fictional version and not based on evidence. There is surely no genuine and reliable evidence that Jesus ever existed and yet this article reads like there is. What a nonsense. I guess I am seeing what all the double blue stuff is about - the cabal at work. Yummy mummy 17:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
All the non-factual bits. Yummy mummy 17:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's ignore the troll. john k 17:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Geez, does this merry-go-round ever stop??? Yummy, I suggest you spend the next 12 hours reading the archives. Believe me, you have nothing new to say that has not been said ad nauseaum. Your points have been fully addressed by others. Please save us the time from regurgitating everything AGAIN. Your thoughts will become more cogent and you may begin to understand the meaning of a balanced article and the status of scholarly research. Cheers. Storm Rider (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
So, are there still any outstanding disputes that prevent the page from being unprotected? Wesley 17:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course there are no more disputes - if it's in teh Bible it's true and accurate and anyone who says otherwise is talking rubbish and should be ignored.
RobSteadman 13:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Note: This user was blocked as a sockpuppet of
User:Robsteadman. --
Darth
Deskana
(talk page)
14:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
(Beatles lyrics altered to make a point)
This is getting ridiculous. Since I have been here, I have seen three main coalitions playing tug-of-war with the article: those favoring religous views, those favoring historical-critical views, and those favoring ahistorical views (ie, the Jesus myth). None of these groups is cohesive enough to call a cabal, and frankly there is no Protocols of the Elders of Christ to establish a Christian cabal. What has been endemic has been conflict and suspicion on all sides. I agree with SOPHIA—it's the herding instinct run amuck, and some of the herd are rams who want to butt heads. Why can't we all just agree to cooperate and create an encyclopedic article?
The "Christian views" section will always read like a Sunday School lesson or a sermon, because that's exactly what it is. We also have a historicity section for the various historical-critical views. There are several of us who have been working to make sure that the Gospel section gives as neutral as possible a summary of what the Gospels actually say. However, we keep getting caught in a POV tug-of-war. We have to fight those who want to push a narrow theological view by selectively quoting scripture, and we have to fight others who want to impeach the Gospels. That's not what the "Life and Teachings" section is for. Those details belong later in the article.
The Zealots are barely mentioned in the NT, and where they are, the translation is disputed. Thus the Zealots don't belong in the Gospel summary section. They do, however, belong in the historicity section. If you want a source linking the Zealots with the Jesus movement, try S.G.F Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots: a study of the political factor in primitive Christianity, Manchester University Press (1967) ISBN 0684310104. That recent Jesus Dynasty book might also be related (not sure), but overall I'm not sure how many sources would agree with Brandon.
"Buried in a tomb" and "entombed" mean exactly the same thing to me, so I could live with either version. If people disagree with the connotations of either one, that's their choice. Similarly I believe that "Born Again," "spiritually reborn" and "Born from Above" are all equivalent translations of John 3:3, but there are others who would dispute the connotations of one or two of these translations.
As I said earlier, if we want the official Roman Catholic position we could always e-mail the Pope. Drogo misses the point that the third paragraph discusses what the majority of Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and Protestants believe. Remember that the "W" in "DWEEC" stands for "Western." By pushing a Catholic POV, and implicitly excluding the views of Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy and the Assyrian Church of the East (for example), Drogo is engaging in DWEECish behavior.
I added what I believed was a balanced paragraph to the "Ministry" section, replacing the earlier phrasing of "Jesus condemned the religious leaders for their legalism and hypocrisy." While that does appear in the Gospels, it is misleading, especially where the Pharisees are concerned. I am open to suggestions on revising the paragraph about Sadducees, Pharisees and Samaritans, if we can ever settle the POV tug-of-war over the Ministry section.
I agree with Oub's revision of the "Arrest, trial, and execution" section. I am not convinced that John 8 is unrelated. For one thing, some would say that John's gospel is out of chronological order (for example, John puts the Cleansing of the Temple at the beginning of Jesus' ministry). For two things, some would say that Jesus was condemned for his entire ministry, and not just for the events following Palm Sunday. Neither was I offended by Oub's remarks; I've always said that reasonable people can (agree to) disagree.
However, I was really responding to the anon IP who keeps adding "accusation or a slur that Jesus was a Samaritan" to the ministry section, which is somewhat out of context. If we're going to mention it, we should summarize John 8 as a whole. It's an interesting chapter that begins with Jesus rescuing a woman caught in adultery ("Let he who is without sin cast the first stone") and ends with Jesus narrowly escaping being stoned himself. Jesus preaches to some Judeans who question his authority, to which Jesus evokes the names of Abraham and (apparently) God Himself.
The passage in Acts shows that the rebellion of Judas of Galilee was still very much on the mind of Judeans even after Jesus was crucified. There are some who would say that those Judeans who did not accept Jesus saw him as just another Galilean troublemaker. Not to mention that in John's Gospel, when Nicodemus stands up for Jesus, they ask Nicodemus if he is also a Galilean (John 7:50-52). It shouldn't be too hard to find sources who make this point. Either way, I believe that we do need to say something in the historicity section about the relationship between Judea and Galilee. This does not belong in the Gospel summary section, but rather in the historicity section.
As noted above, once the Jesus article is unlocked, we are ready to apply Andrew C's revision of the name section (which really belongs in the "Historical reconstruction" section anyway).
Finally, it's not just Robsteadman. Alienus and Giovanni were both recently banned for violating 3RR at the Christianity article, and Alienus' ban was extended for incivility. Yes, they broke the rules, but I think people are missing the bigger picture: the ones who get into trouble are those who are the most frustrated and feel provoked into violating the rules. A liberal might say that they (and Jason Gastrich—it happens to all sides) are all victims of WP society. I just know that the Big-Brotherish Two Color Data website is only going to take this as further evidence of a DWEEC cabal. (I've been advised not to mention the website by name. Of course, HV30 had to point that out at Wikipedia review:further trouble.)
There are others who have been critical, but not as vocal. I am flattered by Silence's remarks at the AID because he seems to be saying that the Jesus article is of better quality than the Christianity article. I honestly believed that we had been making some slow but considerable progress here. However, the recent flare up following the rhetorical napalm of "No Criticism Allowed" shows that problems persist here as well. Why can't we all just stop herding and start cooperating? Grigory Deepdelver Talk 15:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes I feel the voting on this article can get a bit excessive... perhaps we should take a vote to see if other users support this sentiment! -- Darth Deskana (talk page) 21:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, everyone, I was bit busy today. I requested semi-protect so the spectre of vandalism doesn't rear it's ten-horned head. Here's the link [1]. I hope an admin sees it soon -- usually it only takes a half hour or less. •Jim62sch• 01:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Um, we don't have the semi. Somebody just added the blasphemy phrase again. (Yes, it's an anon IP. Namely 205.188.116.66 ( talk · contribs)). Which is yet another AOL IP. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 16:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
This is getting bothersome. The request was for semi-protection and the result was complete unprotection... :-( Flipping from one side to the other, the mean once again evades us. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 16:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Where's the link to the archive? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 02:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
There's no archive. See link 12 above and go to the history page. Katefan responded at 12:50 UDT, and deleted everything at 12:51 UDT. •Jim62sch• 11:49, 30 April 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 45 | ← | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
I thought this [link removed] might be of interest to some of you on this page: Just Thought Id Mention It 11:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think doubleblue included any information that the editors hadn't included on their own userpages. I think some are protesting too much. 86.137.36.128 12:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm more than a little disturbed by this. Accusations of education are serious...-- Mrdarcey 14:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I am personally offended and disgusted with anyone that stalks another editor to the point that their personal life becomes part of WIKI. If an individual shares those facts; great. If not, it is no one's business! I do not think it acceptable that those involved were banned for only one month. Their actions deserve nothing less than a permanent ban from all WIKI sites. They have demonstrated a a shocking lack of integrity and are unworthy of participation on this site. Storm Rider (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
See also meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist#Wikipedia Review.. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring Talk TCF 03:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Despite what HK30 is saying, this is no stunt. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring Talk TCF 08:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Kids, chill out. If I felt like taking the time I'd have an admin lock this page until the silliness and stupidity stopped. Ah, but then I suppose there are none so blind as those who will not see (do not correct me on the quote). Person A thinks person B is being silly, while person B thinks person A is, etc. One hopes that this is not the best Christianity, the religion of "love" and "peace" and "understanding", has to offer. •Jim62sch• 00:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm beginning to believe that Jean-Paul Sartre was right about Hell. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring Talk TCF 01:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Given that the page is now protected, can someone specify the disputes that need to be resolved?
Given the general agreement, I of course think that my two edits to paragraph 2 (deleting the blasphemy, adding the baptism) should be restored. i responded to one off-point criticism above. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Then surely it should be made clear, and clearer than it is, that it is a faith only, or fictional version and not based on evidence. There is surely no genuine and reliable evidence that Jesus ever existed and yet this article reads like there is. What a nonsense. I guess I am seeing what all the double blue stuff is about - the cabal at work. Yummy mummy 17:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
All the non-factual bits. Yummy mummy 17:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's ignore the troll. john k 17:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Geez, does this merry-go-round ever stop??? Yummy, I suggest you spend the next 12 hours reading the archives. Believe me, you have nothing new to say that has not been said ad nauseaum. Your points have been fully addressed by others. Please save us the time from regurgitating everything AGAIN. Your thoughts will become more cogent and you may begin to understand the meaning of a balanced article and the status of scholarly research. Cheers. Storm Rider (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
So, are there still any outstanding disputes that prevent the page from being unprotected? Wesley 17:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course there are no more disputes - if it's in teh Bible it's true and accurate and anyone who says otherwise is talking rubbish and should be ignored.
RobSteadman 13:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Note: This user was blocked as a sockpuppet of
User:Robsteadman. --
Darth
Deskana
(talk page)
14:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
(Beatles lyrics altered to make a point)
This is getting ridiculous. Since I have been here, I have seen three main coalitions playing tug-of-war with the article: those favoring religous views, those favoring historical-critical views, and those favoring ahistorical views (ie, the Jesus myth). None of these groups is cohesive enough to call a cabal, and frankly there is no Protocols of the Elders of Christ to establish a Christian cabal. What has been endemic has been conflict and suspicion on all sides. I agree with SOPHIA—it's the herding instinct run amuck, and some of the herd are rams who want to butt heads. Why can't we all just agree to cooperate and create an encyclopedic article?
The "Christian views" section will always read like a Sunday School lesson or a sermon, because that's exactly what it is. We also have a historicity section for the various historical-critical views. There are several of us who have been working to make sure that the Gospel section gives as neutral as possible a summary of what the Gospels actually say. However, we keep getting caught in a POV tug-of-war. We have to fight those who want to push a narrow theological view by selectively quoting scripture, and we have to fight others who want to impeach the Gospels. That's not what the "Life and Teachings" section is for. Those details belong later in the article.
The Zealots are barely mentioned in the NT, and where they are, the translation is disputed. Thus the Zealots don't belong in the Gospel summary section. They do, however, belong in the historicity section. If you want a source linking the Zealots with the Jesus movement, try S.G.F Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots: a study of the political factor in primitive Christianity, Manchester University Press (1967) ISBN 0684310104. That recent Jesus Dynasty book might also be related (not sure), but overall I'm not sure how many sources would agree with Brandon.
"Buried in a tomb" and "entombed" mean exactly the same thing to me, so I could live with either version. If people disagree with the connotations of either one, that's their choice. Similarly I believe that "Born Again," "spiritually reborn" and "Born from Above" are all equivalent translations of John 3:3, but there are others who would dispute the connotations of one or two of these translations.
As I said earlier, if we want the official Roman Catholic position we could always e-mail the Pope. Drogo misses the point that the third paragraph discusses what the majority of Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and Protestants believe. Remember that the "W" in "DWEEC" stands for "Western." By pushing a Catholic POV, and implicitly excluding the views of Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy and the Assyrian Church of the East (for example), Drogo is engaging in DWEECish behavior.
I added what I believed was a balanced paragraph to the "Ministry" section, replacing the earlier phrasing of "Jesus condemned the religious leaders for their legalism and hypocrisy." While that does appear in the Gospels, it is misleading, especially where the Pharisees are concerned. I am open to suggestions on revising the paragraph about Sadducees, Pharisees and Samaritans, if we can ever settle the POV tug-of-war over the Ministry section.
I agree with Oub's revision of the "Arrest, trial, and execution" section. I am not convinced that John 8 is unrelated. For one thing, some would say that John's gospel is out of chronological order (for example, John puts the Cleansing of the Temple at the beginning of Jesus' ministry). For two things, some would say that Jesus was condemned for his entire ministry, and not just for the events following Palm Sunday. Neither was I offended by Oub's remarks; I've always said that reasonable people can (agree to) disagree.
However, I was really responding to the anon IP who keeps adding "accusation or a slur that Jesus was a Samaritan" to the ministry section, which is somewhat out of context. If we're going to mention it, we should summarize John 8 as a whole. It's an interesting chapter that begins with Jesus rescuing a woman caught in adultery ("Let he who is without sin cast the first stone") and ends with Jesus narrowly escaping being stoned himself. Jesus preaches to some Judeans who question his authority, to which Jesus evokes the names of Abraham and (apparently) God Himself.
The passage in Acts shows that the rebellion of Judas of Galilee was still very much on the mind of Judeans even after Jesus was crucified. There are some who would say that those Judeans who did not accept Jesus saw him as just another Galilean troublemaker. Not to mention that in John's Gospel, when Nicodemus stands up for Jesus, they ask Nicodemus if he is also a Galilean (John 7:50-52). It shouldn't be too hard to find sources who make this point. Either way, I believe that we do need to say something in the historicity section about the relationship between Judea and Galilee. This does not belong in the Gospel summary section, but rather in the historicity section.
As noted above, once the Jesus article is unlocked, we are ready to apply Andrew C's revision of the name section (which really belongs in the "Historical reconstruction" section anyway).
Finally, it's not just Robsteadman. Alienus and Giovanni were both recently banned for violating 3RR at the Christianity article, and Alienus' ban was extended for incivility. Yes, they broke the rules, but I think people are missing the bigger picture: the ones who get into trouble are those who are the most frustrated and feel provoked into violating the rules. A liberal might say that they (and Jason Gastrich—it happens to all sides) are all victims of WP society. I just know that the Big-Brotherish Two Color Data website is only going to take this as further evidence of a DWEEC cabal. (I've been advised not to mention the website by name. Of course, HV30 had to point that out at Wikipedia review:further trouble.)
There are others who have been critical, but not as vocal. I am flattered by Silence's remarks at the AID because he seems to be saying that the Jesus article is of better quality than the Christianity article. I honestly believed that we had been making some slow but considerable progress here. However, the recent flare up following the rhetorical napalm of "No Criticism Allowed" shows that problems persist here as well. Why can't we all just stop herding and start cooperating? Grigory Deepdelver Talk 15:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes I feel the voting on this article can get a bit excessive... perhaps we should take a vote to see if other users support this sentiment! -- Darth Deskana (talk page) 21:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, everyone, I was bit busy today. I requested semi-protect so the spectre of vandalism doesn't rear it's ten-horned head. Here's the link [1]. I hope an admin sees it soon -- usually it only takes a half hour or less. •Jim62sch• 01:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Um, we don't have the semi. Somebody just added the blasphemy phrase again. (Yes, it's an anon IP. Namely 205.188.116.66 ( talk · contribs)). Which is yet another AOL IP. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 16:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
This is getting bothersome. The request was for semi-protection and the result was complete unprotection... :-( Flipping from one side to the other, the mean once again evades us. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 16:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Where's the link to the archive? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 02:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
There's no archive. See link 12 above and go to the history page. Katefan responded at 12:50 UDT, and deleted everything at 12:51 UDT. •Jim62sch• 11:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)