![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The introduction says: 'It is common to refer to him as a "carpenter", although the modern English words "joiner" or "cabinet-maker" might fit the sense of the Greek better.' The footnote cites two places in the Gospels that presumably use the term τεκτων (I can't check the Greek text), but does not provide evidence that τεκτων really means "joiner" or "cabinet-maker". The German Wikipedia article on Joseph gives a wider meaning to the term, even including the meaning of "architect". (This may seem hair-splitting, but in the light of passages about tearing down the temple and rebuilding it in three days, it may be very important.) -- ChristopheS ( talk) 10:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
John, seeing as how the ref says "iron", and not "metal", oughtn't we stick with what the ref really says? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I added a 'fact' tag to the comment that Joseph and Mary weren't "really" married after their betrothal and therefore weren't allowed to begin sexual relations. In Jewish law (see Mishnah and /or Talmud tractate 'Kiddushin' -- I'll try to get some sources in here later on), "betrothal" is as much a marriage as needed and sexual relations may legally begin immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfhaugh ( talk • contribs) 01:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I have found this interesting claim that Saint-Germain/Enoch/Metatron was also Saint Joseph, the husband of Mary. This would mean theologically that Joseph is an incarnation of the Holy Spirit and that he is divine. [1] ADM ( talk) 03:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a peculiar Bahai document called tablet of Joseph that mentions someone named Joseph, who is perhaps the same person as Saint Joseph. [2] ADM ( talk) 01:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Tag added for the following original conclusion: Plus he has a Bentley
The issue is the "from which it follows that..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.150.5.2 ( talk) 16:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Why have whole sections been blanked? patsw ( talk) 18:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
An anon editor drive-by added the original research template [3] without explanation. Lacking any follow-up, I intend to remove it, if there is no discussion here. patsw ( talk) 18:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
There's been no discussion of a move (i.e. change to the name) of this article. There is no consensus to move the article.
To start the discussion, the most common name in English for the article's subject is "Saint Joseph". patsw ( talk) 18:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason that Salome, who the page says may have been Joseph's first wife, links to the Salome who is a nemesis of John the baptist, was born after Jesus, and a daughter of Herodias. Even the disambiguation does not have the correct Salome. Wouldn;t it be better just to remove the link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.140.118.193 ( talk) 09:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious about the area that talks about St. Joseph being the Patron Saint of Canada. If I am reading it correctly, it's more referring to abstract, rather than the particular? I'm wondering because I've always understood St. Jean de Brebeuf to be the Patron Saint of Canada..? Dphilp75 ( talk) 16:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The section entitled "In the canonical Gospels" begins with "The next event related is when Joseph is told by the angel in another dream." [emphasis added] Since this doesn't follow the lead, which ends with a discussion of sainthood, I wonder if text was removed from the beginning of this section? -- Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Some clarification would be welcome on the matter of whether or how the line of inheritance of the Throne of David passed through Joseph. If Joseph was the uncrowned King of the Jews this was presumably not known to King Herod or his agents ( Matthew 2:16–18), or he would have been killed, but clearly was known to the disciples who contributed the genealogy of Jesus to the Bible ( Matthew 1:1–17, Luke 3:23–28) - so where and how and by whom was this traditional knowledge preserved? If, as the Orthodox Church maintains, Saint James the Just was the natural son of Joseph by his first marriage then why does the Throne of David pass from Joseph not to James but to an adopted son by his second marriage? What were the traditional Judaic laws of inheritance of such titles? If Joseph was the living heir to the throne why do the Magi ( Matthew 2:1–2) honor his stepson as King of the Jews rather than him? [unsigned]
Presumably our readers want to know whether Joseph really existed. I've found two notable viewpoints on the topic. I'd invite other editors to add other historical citations. I'd also like editors to stop deleting this cited, notable information. Leadwind ( talk) 05:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Morenooso. IMO, one person's fringe theory does not merit its own section. There are fringe and conspiracy theories on almost anything; it does not mean it merits its own section on such articles. Flash 16:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash ( talk • contribs)
From WP:Fringe theories
If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether.
The theory, which makes up most of the historicity section, is clearly undue weight. It is also misleading to say that scholars disagree when you only have one author as a source. Not only that, historicity in and of itself is not an important topic on pages such as this since historicity is assumed by the vast majority of scholars. Flash 21:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash ( talk • contribs)
Historicity isn't even an important topic, which is why it has never been in the article. A fringe theory in an unimportant topic merits no mention in the article. Furthermore, just because guidelines do not forbid it from being included doesn't mean that it MUST be included. Flash 03:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash ( talk • contribs)
FTR, here's more historical information that's being excluded from the page.
===Historicity of the infancy narratives=== Modern historians question the accuracy of the genealogies and infancy narratives, in which Joseph plays an important part. Geza Vermes, an important representative of contemporary research into historical Jesus,<ref name = "TM1998 1">Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). Chapter 1. Quest of the historical Jesus. p. 1-16</ref> describes Joseph's genealogies as artificial and the infancy narratives as legendary. E. P. Sanders, another major historical voice on the topic,<ref name = "TM1998 1"/> concurs that both birth narratives can't be accurate and it's improbable that either one is.<ref name = "Sanders 7">Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993. Chapter 7, Two contexts. p 78-97.</ref> Scholars of the Jesus Seminar depict the infancy narratives as late additions to the Jesus tradition with little historical value.<ref name = "ActJBirth">[[Robert W. Funk|Funk, Robert W.]] and the [[Jesus Seminar]]. ''The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus.'' HarperSanFrancisco. 1998. "Birth & Infancy Stories" p. 497-526.</ref> Scholars, however, overwhelmingly acknowledge that Jesus' had a father named Joseph.
Historical information belongs in an article about a historical figure. Leadwind ( talk) 05:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
This information belongs on other articles, and is in fact, already included in other article.
Furthermore, there's already a historicity section. One such section is more than enough; this article is about saint Joseph, not a commentary about the gospels. Flash 00:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash ( talk • contribs)
In response to other editors, I moved this material to the historicity section. ReaverFlash reverted it without discussion. ReaverFlash, please discuss your latest deletion. Morenooso, what's your take? Leadwind ( talk) 21:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I did say why I removed that information, as seen by the edit history, although I may have replied in another section. Flash 02:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash ( talk • contribs)
Here is the material that keeps getting deleted. Excluding the question of Joseph's historicity is a POV violation; thus the POV tag.
Gerd Theissen, an important representative of contemporary research into the historical Jesus, affirms that Jesus was the son of Joseph.[29]
According to the controversial theologian John Shelby Spong, the figure of Jesus is apparently a literary invention.[5] In Mark, Jesus is “Mary’s son,” and Joseph isn’t mentioned.[5] Joseph appears in later gospels, but there he matches the Old Testament Joseph so closely that he seems to be a fabrication.[5] The scholars of the Jesus Seminar concluded that Joseph may have been Jesus' father, or it might have been someone unknown man.[30]
Let's address this information in the article, one way or another. Leadwind ( talk) 03:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the historicity section is still in the article. It is understandable that a historicity section on Joseph is included. However, there is no reason to include a historicity section on the infancy narratives. The article is about Joseph, not the Gospels nor the infancy narratives. Flash 05:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash ( talk • contribs)
This page has a POV tag because it has excluded historical context. The page should tell the reader not only who Saint Joseph was in the tradition of the Church but also what historians can tell us about Joseph. Here's what historians can tell us about Joseph: He was a Jewish builder from Nazareth in Galilee, living some two thousand years ago. At that time, Galilee was a backwater exploited by Romans and far from the Holy City of Jerusalem. Nazareth itself was a tiny, poor village, excluded from the nearby wealthy Hellenic city of Sepphoris. Joseph was a builder, working in wood and stone. He was married to Mary and was the father of the famous Jesus. He also fathered four other sons (James, Judas, Joses/Joseph, and Simon) and some daughters. Unlike Mary and James, Joseph played no role in Jesus' ministry or in the Christian church in Jerusalem. Scholars offer various explanations for why Mark refers to Jesus as Mary's son rather than as Joseph's, such as that Joseph had died or that Jesus was illegitimate. Most historians consider Joseph to be Jesus' biological father, though some contend that Mary may have been seduced or raped by another man. In any event, in Joseph's culture a son's legitimacy was defined by the father's acceptance of the boy, not by biological paternity.
It's only fair that we give the historical account of who Joseph was. Leadwind ( talk) 05:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
So I guess I'll go ahead an put something like this in the article. You two probably don't want to see it there, but you apparently can't think of a good reason to exclude it. If you'd like to improve this content, speak up now. Leadwind ( talk) 17:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
You are the one who is making changes to the article against concensus. I have already stated why it should NOT be included, the onus is on you to provide policy which says that it SHOULD be included. Flash 18:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash ( talk • contribs)
I know that you're happy to outnumber me, but the issue is WP policy. By what policy should this information about Joseph be excluded? We both know that the real reason you want the information left out is because you disagree with it, but WP is about what the experts say, not about what editors like you and me say. Leadwind ( talk) 21:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The reason for me excluding that information is because it belongs on other articles; it is already on other articles. Those scholars you included have opinions on a wide variety of topics, as well as many other scholars. It is unreasonable to include each of those opinions in each and every topic which these scholars discuss.
Historicity hasn't been a part of the article since you added it to the article, and IMO, I don't think it is very important and am perfectly fine with excluding it all together. Addressing the reasons I gave will be much more productive than simply demanding us to cite Wikipedia Policy which forbids your additions. Flash 02:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash ( talk • contribs)
Can you cite any policies for making a change against consensus? Flash 03:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash ( talk • contribs)
I've removed the POV tag from the article. New editors have shown up to point out that "consensus" doesn't count as a reason to reject a proposed change to an article, and that historical information should be included. I added in some more basic information. I trust that all of us editors will be able to continue to work productively together now that some of these issues have been clarified. Leadwind ( talk) 01:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I've already said why that information should not be included, and I did not use consensus as an argument.
The reason for me excluding that information is because it belongs on other articles; it is already on other articles. Those scholars you included have opinions on a wide variety of topics, as well as many other scholars. It is unreasonable to include each of those opinions in each and every topic which these scholars discuss. Flash 02:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash ( talk • contribs)
The POV tag was re-established 2010-05-10 as this article is receiving Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing which has spread to another article like Paul of Tarsus. Continued edits like this can be taken to WP:ANEW. -- Morenooso ( talk) 03:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me just what the reason is for the POV tag? I gather that Leadwind put it there first because material on the historicity of Joseph was being removed; and now, if I follow correctly, Morenooso is putting it there because the same material is put in? And Sean.hoyland has yet a third interpretation, which I gather is that the bible can't be taken as history? Can we at least decide what we're discussing, folks. PiCo ( talk) 04:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
The editors who think that historical analysis doesn't belong in this article are directed to the perfect article. There they will see that the perfect article "acknowledges and has a very nice car explores all aspects of the subject; i.e., it covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject." Voila, a WP guideline says that we should address, among other things, historicity in this article, even if that information does appear elsewhere in WP.
The perfect article also "is completely neutral and unbiased; it has a neutral point of view, presenting competing views on controversies logically and fairly, and pointing out all sides without favoring particular viewpoints. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views are given a lower priority; sufficient information and references are provided so that readers can learn more about particular views." In other words, we should present both the traditional Christian and this historical view.
Since I have a WP guideline on my side, it is incumbent on those who disagree to find a WP policy that the information would violate. Good luck. Before you cite consensus, remember that consensus favors neither side, as neither side has it. Leadwind ( talk) 03:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
And the article, as it is, ALREADY includes historical information anyways. Flash 03:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash ( talk • contribs)
<- It's true that WP:CONSENSUS is policy. It's also true that ""according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions." is policy per WP:CONSENSUS. Making non-policy compliant arguments won't help resolve the content dispute here so I suggest the consensus argument is put aside. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Sean. You make me wish that I had read the policy that Morenooso was citing. As it turns out, "it's against consensus" is no reason to reject a proposed change. Morenooso, that's the very reason you've given repeatedly. Now that we see that it's against WP policy to use consensus that way, maybe we can have an actual discussion on the merits of the material. Again, adding historical content is in line with the perfect article guidelines. Unless there's a neutral reason not to add it, we should do so. Morenooso and Flash, now that you can't rely on consensus to keep this information off the page, can we discuss how to add it? Or do we need to deal with other objections first? Remember, the point of consensus is to encourage productive conversation among editors who disagree with each other. Let's do that! Leadwind ( talk) 17:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
<- Some comments for what it's worth
Sean.hoyland - talk 02:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
According to Maimonides he was a Gentile! I'm confused... anyone know what the basis of this is? 91.106.178.140 ( talk) 13:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Would some of the new, knowledgeable editors hazard a judgment on whether Spong's argument against Jesus having no father counts as a fringe theory unworthy of mention? The discussion is above. Spong points out that the first two sources (Mark and the body of Matthew) name Jesus only "son of Mary" or "son of the builder." Then when Joseph first appears (the infancy narrative at the front of Matthew), he is suspiciously similar to the beloved Joseph of Genesis. Spong is generally farther out there than Erhman, Sanders, or me, but he seems to be a notable voice among modern writers. Or is he fringe? Leadwind ( talk) 00:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Johnbod removed a munch of information about Galilee and Nazareth. I restored it and added some refs. Are there any refs that say that Galilee was something other than a backwater and that Nazareth was anything other than a one-horse town? Leadwind ( talk) 01:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Information was recently added which I believe falls outside the scope of the article:
His genealogies in the Gospels and the infancy narratives in which he appears, however, are credited with little if any historical value. [1] [2] [3] [4]
Not only is this information in other articles, and even the sources cited only address Joseph indirectly. Furthermore, there are dissenting opinions. I propose removing the information. Flash 21:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash ( talk • contribs)
I could not find any policy on relevancy.
The issue is that the sources mainly talk about either the geneaologies, or the nativity narratives, but they do not address the issue of Saint Joseph directly. The information added is already included in other articles, subjects that are directly addressed, instead of indirectly mentioned. Flash 01:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash ( talk • contribs)
<-If there is something about the scope of this article that would result in a policy based reason to exclude the historicity information (and I don't think there is) then I suggest the scope is changed so that it can be included. I can't think of any reason to not present the information in this article. It's where the reader would expect it to be isn't it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Anyone still reading this? Anyway, if we're talking scope of the article, the Mercer Bible Dictionary has a neat little discussion of Joseph arranged by gospels, pointing out the differences of each and their intentions. (You'll have to scroll upwards, as I didn't copy/paste the exact page). It looks like it might make a good structural skeleton for at least part of the article, as well as providing information. Out of curiosity, I can't see any similarity between the NT Joseph and the OT one - what does Spong actually say? PiCo ( talk) 07:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I have removed these newly added bits from the lead:
Pertaining to the first bulleted point above, the Catholic Church clearly is one source representing tradition, especially pre-reformation tradition. Catholic encyclopedia says "It may be safely said that patristic tradition does not regard St. Luke's list as representing the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin." while the above cited source says "Since at least the time of Annius of Viterbo in A.D. 1940 it has been traditional to assume that Matthew's genealogy traces Jesus' lineage through Joseph" Which one is it? Does the Catholic Church/encyclopedia know more about Church tradition, or does the Dictionary of Jesus...? Because of the source conflict, I don't think we should favor one over the other, and therefore I don't think we should mention this at all in the lead. It is too controversial, and not a clear basic fact related to the topic (which is Saint Joseph after all).
Furthermore, dealing with the second bulleted point above, the cited Dictionary goes on to say "these genealogies serve primarily theological and christological purposes and only secondarily historical ones. Our authors were not concerned to present detailed or exhaustive lists of Jesus' actual ancestors, but only to highlight some aspects of his heritage which would best illuminate for their respective audiences Jesus' significance and nature." Because of this conclusion, I believe it is at beat misleading, if not simply inaccurate to represent this source as saying "the genealogies of Jesus are historically accurate." Finally, relating to the historicity of the infancy narratives, I don't believe their is a proper implementation of weight. I don't believe Roberts, Waters, and Bock are on the same level as Funk, Vermes, Sanders, and Theissen. We are doing a disservice to our readers by making all views seem equal. NPOV does not say to present all views with parity, as equals, if there is clearly a majority/minority separation. It is my understanding, that at least historians clearly find little historical accuracy in the infancy narratives. This may not be the same in other fields (such as apologetics), so at least we need to add some weight considerations, and some qualifies so we are presenting exactly who views what. Therefore, I think we should explore these views in more detail in the specific "Historical_Joseph" section, and then consider whether it is appropriate or not to alter the lead, and then discuss how we should make those changes. Anyway, hope this isn't too much. But I want to make my reasoning behind my partial revert clear, and be open to further discussion, and collaboration. - Andrew c [talk] 16:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Leadwind, Regardless of your assessment of the cuteness of my reply, I can not agree with your self assessment of your own reasonableness in following Wikipedia policies, either on this page or elsewhere. I must now point you to WP:OYE (WP: open your eyes). If you follow that policy you will observe that you are sailing against the wind my friend. When I went to issue you a WP:Battleground warning on your talk page regarding Resurrection of Jesus, I noticed that your talk page has several previous warnings about your actions. And having looked over the issues, I must agree with the previous editors who issued the warnings to you. Moreover, on this very talk page, if you follow WP:OYE and look further up you will see dissatisfaction with your edits. I think you must heed the WP:Battleground warning issued to you and calm your edits. History2007 ( talk) 16:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Leadwind has reverted my attempts to make the "historical Joseph" section less misleading, especially the part that now again goes:"Historians agree with the Gospel accounts in that Joseph was a Jewish builder from Nazareth in Galilee. Two thousand years ago, Galilee was a backwater[44] exploited by Romans and far from the Holy City of Jerusalem.[5] Nazareth itself was a tiny, poor village,[45] excluded from the prosperity of the nearby Hellenic city of Sepphoris. Joseph was a builder, working in wood and stone.[15]". I'll point out at the start that if you're going to start your section "Historians agree ..." you'd better be representing a solid consensus. In fact none of these statements really do. There is certainly no agreement that "builder" is the best term to describe his work; the various options for what "tekton" might mean are now discussed far more fully in the section I had added higher up; there is in fact not the slightest evidence that Joseph worked stone at all, though he may have done. Early Christian tradition is solid that wood was Jesus' material, though he may have been a coppersmith for all we know, without contradicting the Gospels at all. That Nazareth was "excluded from the prosperity of the nearby Hellenic city of Sepphoris" would be disputed by many who speculate that the villagers, and especially craftsmen, may have done very well from the city; again this is discussed above. "tiny" - is there actually any evidence at all as to its population, I don't think so. It just isn't mentioned often in the few other sources we have. What does "tiny" mean anyway - it's a hopeless word to use across vast distances of time and culture. "far from the Holy City of Jerusalem" - why not just say about 65 miles, which is not very far if you're from Texas, I dare say; at least that's oner thing we actually know. "exploited by Romans" - really? More than the rest of the Mediterranean world? What does this mean? The rest of the section is nearly as bad, and hardly referenced. Johnbod ( talk) 02:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I added more refs and removed material I couldn't find references for. If there's any dispute over whether Nazareth was Nowheresville or that the Galileans were exploited by Roman occupation, let's just find RSs that say it was a big, prosperous town. In my understanding, there's actual archeological evidence now that Nazareth was home to about 50 families that lived in caves, which were modified internally and built out externally. Leadwind ( talk) 23:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Amazon.com is now selling Tshirts (I kid you not) that promote Josephology as a term. It also sells books on it, so the article should probably say more on that since until 3 days ago, it did not even include the term. History2007 ( talk) 21:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I had not even seen this article until a few days ago, but now that I have looked at it, I think it is pretty low quality and disorganized. And recently it seems to have been the subject of many patched edits and half finished facelifts - reminds me of some people you see walking down the street in Beverly Hills who have had 4 facelifts too many.
But, this article may still be fixed, and in the process I may learn about the topic. I would like to open a discussion on improving this article. To begin with, the order of the sections seems haphazard:
I think if the secondary material such as church names is better organized, we can begin to see the rest better.
As a start, let us not touch the art section for now, and leave that to the end. But it does seem out of place in the order of sections. But we can move that after all other issues have been discussed.
The feast days section takes up space with a chant! The first paragraph is very terse and needs to be opended up. But overall the material is ok.
The Institutions and places named after Joseph needs 2 new pages, one like List of places named after St. Thérèse of Lisieux and another like St. Michael's Church. There is no point in taking up space with that info in this page and a main will be good. And there is also Saint Joseph (disambiguation) which overlaps with places - a real mess overall.
The section on Modern literature just has 3 bullet points and refers to a few novels. I think that should move to the very end and not have a description. Why just select these 3 novels? It did not teach me much to read that section. And it should probably move to the very end.
The next item is the section on Sainthood. It overlaps with churches and feasts. So that needs to be cleaned up. I am not sure how that section was organized, but seems patch like.
I was surprised to see a section called "as a tekton". I had never heard the term before and having it in the section title seemed confusing. Section titles should be clear. And I do not understand what that section is trying to teach me anyway. Jumps from a definition of tekton to a discussion of how far Nazareth was from somewhere else. Is that section supposed to mean "his profession" and discuss carpenter vs builder etc. Just seems like a confused selection of sentences, each surviving there by the virtue of having a reference. But they do not fit together.
After all of these issues have been cleaned up, we can discuss the rest. But first I will appreciate comments on Sainthood and tekton sections, because I think the church names and place names are easy to fix and I will do that in a few days. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 02:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I assume EO means EastOrtodox, so if you know that please add it. I think your re-arrangements of my edits were fine, but think that Murillo on top is too small and dark - needs another. The patronages and churches needs both trim and development, e.g. San Giuseppe or São José as names of places and churches need to be worked on. However, the article itself is still way, way below the quality level of elsewhere in the wiki-world, e.g. Wiki Italian version which is much better developed and can act as a good source for new material. I had not even used that as a source of ideas yet - but will do later.
Now, there are just 3 sections that have not been discussed here, the Biblical, Apocryphal and Historical. I do not see why the historical item is out by itself in an island. And it has a POV tag which needs to be addressed and cleaned up. Also I still do see why Tecton is a section by itself either. Is that section trying to describe the socio-economic structure of Nazareth? The whole flow between the sections seems to get stuck. The Italian version calls that section "profession" and has material.
Finally, let us not assume that the intro is perfect - far from it. It is riddled with Bible-refs that make it hard to read and intros usually have less refs and the refs are fully developed in the text. The intro should summarize and motivate. But that can wait until the rest of the article has been brought up to better quality standards. History2007 ( talk) 16:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
John: Thanks for correcting teh Carravaggio title. I even found a dream one by itself that is a key event rather than rest. Now, should teh altarpiece be before or after Joachim? It is a nice piece, but is there any basis for which comes first?I have no idea. History2007 ( talk) 17:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I think Pico's June 16 reorg of Sainthood is pretty logical in that Sainthood should absorb feasts, places and devotions. I suggest we just leave it that way. History2007 ( talk) 04:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Pico, I must say I have been laughing since I read the stories from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas about Jesus striking the parents blind at the PTA meeting in Nazareth. That was funny information. But I think these "top 10 stories from the 3rd century" are probably getting too much space in the article and need to be summarized - although the details just go to make them laughable enough to discredit them. On that note, there is a rumor that just as there are accounts in John and Paul, there are also accounts in the hidden Gospels of George and Ringo that makes the Fab4 package complete. The new documents will soon be discovered in sealed earthenware jar in a park in North London. And those Gospels can talk about young Jesus playing soccer in Nazareth. In any case, I think we need to cut back on apocrypha, although I did get a laugh out of reading it. Cheers. History2007 ( talk) 12:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
ActJMark
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Vermesepi
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).TM1998 R
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Sanders 7
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The introduction says: 'It is common to refer to him as a "carpenter", although the modern English words "joiner" or "cabinet-maker" might fit the sense of the Greek better.' The footnote cites two places in the Gospels that presumably use the term τεκτων (I can't check the Greek text), but does not provide evidence that τεκτων really means "joiner" or "cabinet-maker". The German Wikipedia article on Joseph gives a wider meaning to the term, even including the meaning of "architect". (This may seem hair-splitting, but in the light of passages about tearing down the temple and rebuilding it in three days, it may be very important.) -- ChristopheS ( talk) 10:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
John, seeing as how the ref says "iron", and not "metal", oughtn't we stick with what the ref really says? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I added a 'fact' tag to the comment that Joseph and Mary weren't "really" married after their betrothal and therefore weren't allowed to begin sexual relations. In Jewish law (see Mishnah and /or Talmud tractate 'Kiddushin' -- I'll try to get some sources in here later on), "betrothal" is as much a marriage as needed and sexual relations may legally begin immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfhaugh ( talk • contribs) 01:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I have found this interesting claim that Saint-Germain/Enoch/Metatron was also Saint Joseph, the husband of Mary. This would mean theologically that Joseph is an incarnation of the Holy Spirit and that he is divine. [1] ADM ( talk) 03:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a peculiar Bahai document called tablet of Joseph that mentions someone named Joseph, who is perhaps the same person as Saint Joseph. [2] ADM ( talk) 01:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Tag added for the following original conclusion: Plus he has a Bentley
The issue is the "from which it follows that..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.150.5.2 ( talk) 16:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Why have whole sections been blanked? patsw ( talk) 18:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
An anon editor drive-by added the original research template [3] without explanation. Lacking any follow-up, I intend to remove it, if there is no discussion here. patsw ( talk) 18:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
There's been no discussion of a move (i.e. change to the name) of this article. There is no consensus to move the article.
To start the discussion, the most common name in English for the article's subject is "Saint Joseph". patsw ( talk) 18:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason that Salome, who the page says may have been Joseph's first wife, links to the Salome who is a nemesis of John the baptist, was born after Jesus, and a daughter of Herodias. Even the disambiguation does not have the correct Salome. Wouldn;t it be better just to remove the link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.140.118.193 ( talk) 09:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious about the area that talks about St. Joseph being the Patron Saint of Canada. If I am reading it correctly, it's more referring to abstract, rather than the particular? I'm wondering because I've always understood St. Jean de Brebeuf to be the Patron Saint of Canada..? Dphilp75 ( talk) 16:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The section entitled "In the canonical Gospels" begins with "The next event related is when Joseph is told by the angel in another dream." [emphasis added] Since this doesn't follow the lead, which ends with a discussion of sainthood, I wonder if text was removed from the beginning of this section? -- Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Some clarification would be welcome on the matter of whether or how the line of inheritance of the Throne of David passed through Joseph. If Joseph was the uncrowned King of the Jews this was presumably not known to King Herod or his agents ( Matthew 2:16–18), or he would have been killed, but clearly was known to the disciples who contributed the genealogy of Jesus to the Bible ( Matthew 1:1–17, Luke 3:23–28) - so where and how and by whom was this traditional knowledge preserved? If, as the Orthodox Church maintains, Saint James the Just was the natural son of Joseph by his first marriage then why does the Throne of David pass from Joseph not to James but to an adopted son by his second marriage? What were the traditional Judaic laws of inheritance of such titles? If Joseph was the living heir to the throne why do the Magi ( Matthew 2:1–2) honor his stepson as King of the Jews rather than him? [unsigned]
Presumably our readers want to know whether Joseph really existed. I've found two notable viewpoints on the topic. I'd invite other editors to add other historical citations. I'd also like editors to stop deleting this cited, notable information. Leadwind ( talk) 05:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Morenooso. IMO, one person's fringe theory does not merit its own section. There are fringe and conspiracy theories on almost anything; it does not mean it merits its own section on such articles. Flash 16:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash ( talk • contribs)
From WP:Fringe theories
If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether.
The theory, which makes up most of the historicity section, is clearly undue weight. It is also misleading to say that scholars disagree when you only have one author as a source. Not only that, historicity in and of itself is not an important topic on pages such as this since historicity is assumed by the vast majority of scholars. Flash 21:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash ( talk • contribs)
Historicity isn't even an important topic, which is why it has never been in the article. A fringe theory in an unimportant topic merits no mention in the article. Furthermore, just because guidelines do not forbid it from being included doesn't mean that it MUST be included. Flash 03:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash ( talk • contribs)
FTR, here's more historical information that's being excluded from the page.
===Historicity of the infancy narratives=== Modern historians question the accuracy of the genealogies and infancy narratives, in which Joseph plays an important part. Geza Vermes, an important representative of contemporary research into historical Jesus,<ref name = "TM1998 1">Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). Chapter 1. Quest of the historical Jesus. p. 1-16</ref> describes Joseph's genealogies as artificial and the infancy narratives as legendary. E. P. Sanders, another major historical voice on the topic,<ref name = "TM1998 1"/> concurs that both birth narratives can't be accurate and it's improbable that either one is.<ref name = "Sanders 7">Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993. Chapter 7, Two contexts. p 78-97.</ref> Scholars of the Jesus Seminar depict the infancy narratives as late additions to the Jesus tradition with little historical value.<ref name = "ActJBirth">[[Robert W. Funk|Funk, Robert W.]] and the [[Jesus Seminar]]. ''The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus.'' HarperSanFrancisco. 1998. "Birth & Infancy Stories" p. 497-526.</ref> Scholars, however, overwhelmingly acknowledge that Jesus' had a father named Joseph.
Historical information belongs in an article about a historical figure. Leadwind ( talk) 05:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
This information belongs on other articles, and is in fact, already included in other article.
Furthermore, there's already a historicity section. One such section is more than enough; this article is about saint Joseph, not a commentary about the gospels. Flash 00:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash ( talk • contribs)
In response to other editors, I moved this material to the historicity section. ReaverFlash reverted it without discussion. ReaverFlash, please discuss your latest deletion. Morenooso, what's your take? Leadwind ( talk) 21:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I did say why I removed that information, as seen by the edit history, although I may have replied in another section. Flash 02:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash ( talk • contribs)
Here is the material that keeps getting deleted. Excluding the question of Joseph's historicity is a POV violation; thus the POV tag.
Gerd Theissen, an important representative of contemporary research into the historical Jesus, affirms that Jesus was the son of Joseph.[29]
According to the controversial theologian John Shelby Spong, the figure of Jesus is apparently a literary invention.[5] In Mark, Jesus is “Mary’s son,” and Joseph isn’t mentioned.[5] Joseph appears in later gospels, but there he matches the Old Testament Joseph so closely that he seems to be a fabrication.[5] The scholars of the Jesus Seminar concluded that Joseph may have been Jesus' father, or it might have been someone unknown man.[30]
Let's address this information in the article, one way or another. Leadwind ( talk) 03:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the historicity section is still in the article. It is understandable that a historicity section on Joseph is included. However, there is no reason to include a historicity section on the infancy narratives. The article is about Joseph, not the Gospels nor the infancy narratives. Flash 05:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash ( talk • contribs)
This page has a POV tag because it has excluded historical context. The page should tell the reader not only who Saint Joseph was in the tradition of the Church but also what historians can tell us about Joseph. Here's what historians can tell us about Joseph: He was a Jewish builder from Nazareth in Galilee, living some two thousand years ago. At that time, Galilee was a backwater exploited by Romans and far from the Holy City of Jerusalem. Nazareth itself was a tiny, poor village, excluded from the nearby wealthy Hellenic city of Sepphoris. Joseph was a builder, working in wood and stone. He was married to Mary and was the father of the famous Jesus. He also fathered four other sons (James, Judas, Joses/Joseph, and Simon) and some daughters. Unlike Mary and James, Joseph played no role in Jesus' ministry or in the Christian church in Jerusalem. Scholars offer various explanations for why Mark refers to Jesus as Mary's son rather than as Joseph's, such as that Joseph had died or that Jesus was illegitimate. Most historians consider Joseph to be Jesus' biological father, though some contend that Mary may have been seduced or raped by another man. In any event, in Joseph's culture a son's legitimacy was defined by the father's acceptance of the boy, not by biological paternity.
It's only fair that we give the historical account of who Joseph was. Leadwind ( talk) 05:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
So I guess I'll go ahead an put something like this in the article. You two probably don't want to see it there, but you apparently can't think of a good reason to exclude it. If you'd like to improve this content, speak up now. Leadwind ( talk) 17:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
You are the one who is making changes to the article against concensus. I have already stated why it should NOT be included, the onus is on you to provide policy which says that it SHOULD be included. Flash 18:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash ( talk • contribs)
I know that you're happy to outnumber me, but the issue is WP policy. By what policy should this information about Joseph be excluded? We both know that the real reason you want the information left out is because you disagree with it, but WP is about what the experts say, not about what editors like you and me say. Leadwind ( talk) 21:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The reason for me excluding that information is because it belongs on other articles; it is already on other articles. Those scholars you included have opinions on a wide variety of topics, as well as many other scholars. It is unreasonable to include each of those opinions in each and every topic which these scholars discuss.
Historicity hasn't been a part of the article since you added it to the article, and IMO, I don't think it is very important and am perfectly fine with excluding it all together. Addressing the reasons I gave will be much more productive than simply demanding us to cite Wikipedia Policy which forbids your additions. Flash 02:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash ( talk • contribs)
Can you cite any policies for making a change against consensus? Flash 03:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash ( talk • contribs)
I've removed the POV tag from the article. New editors have shown up to point out that "consensus" doesn't count as a reason to reject a proposed change to an article, and that historical information should be included. I added in some more basic information. I trust that all of us editors will be able to continue to work productively together now that some of these issues have been clarified. Leadwind ( talk) 01:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I've already said why that information should not be included, and I did not use consensus as an argument.
The reason for me excluding that information is because it belongs on other articles; it is already on other articles. Those scholars you included have opinions on a wide variety of topics, as well as many other scholars. It is unreasonable to include each of those opinions in each and every topic which these scholars discuss. Flash 02:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash ( talk • contribs)
The POV tag was re-established 2010-05-10 as this article is receiving Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing which has spread to another article like Paul of Tarsus. Continued edits like this can be taken to WP:ANEW. -- Morenooso ( talk) 03:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me just what the reason is for the POV tag? I gather that Leadwind put it there first because material on the historicity of Joseph was being removed; and now, if I follow correctly, Morenooso is putting it there because the same material is put in? And Sean.hoyland has yet a third interpretation, which I gather is that the bible can't be taken as history? Can we at least decide what we're discussing, folks. PiCo ( talk) 04:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
The editors who think that historical analysis doesn't belong in this article are directed to the perfect article. There they will see that the perfect article "acknowledges and has a very nice car explores all aspects of the subject; i.e., it covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject." Voila, a WP guideline says that we should address, among other things, historicity in this article, even if that information does appear elsewhere in WP.
The perfect article also "is completely neutral and unbiased; it has a neutral point of view, presenting competing views on controversies logically and fairly, and pointing out all sides without favoring particular viewpoints. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views are given a lower priority; sufficient information and references are provided so that readers can learn more about particular views." In other words, we should present both the traditional Christian and this historical view.
Since I have a WP guideline on my side, it is incumbent on those who disagree to find a WP policy that the information would violate. Good luck. Before you cite consensus, remember that consensus favors neither side, as neither side has it. Leadwind ( talk) 03:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
And the article, as it is, ALREADY includes historical information anyways. Flash 03:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash ( talk • contribs)
<- It's true that WP:CONSENSUS is policy. It's also true that ""according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions." is policy per WP:CONSENSUS. Making non-policy compliant arguments won't help resolve the content dispute here so I suggest the consensus argument is put aside. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Sean. You make me wish that I had read the policy that Morenooso was citing. As it turns out, "it's against consensus" is no reason to reject a proposed change. Morenooso, that's the very reason you've given repeatedly. Now that we see that it's against WP policy to use consensus that way, maybe we can have an actual discussion on the merits of the material. Again, adding historical content is in line with the perfect article guidelines. Unless there's a neutral reason not to add it, we should do so. Morenooso and Flash, now that you can't rely on consensus to keep this information off the page, can we discuss how to add it? Or do we need to deal with other objections first? Remember, the point of consensus is to encourage productive conversation among editors who disagree with each other. Let's do that! Leadwind ( talk) 17:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
<- Some comments for what it's worth
Sean.hoyland - talk 02:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
According to Maimonides he was a Gentile! I'm confused... anyone know what the basis of this is? 91.106.178.140 ( talk) 13:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Would some of the new, knowledgeable editors hazard a judgment on whether Spong's argument against Jesus having no father counts as a fringe theory unworthy of mention? The discussion is above. Spong points out that the first two sources (Mark and the body of Matthew) name Jesus only "son of Mary" or "son of the builder." Then when Joseph first appears (the infancy narrative at the front of Matthew), he is suspiciously similar to the beloved Joseph of Genesis. Spong is generally farther out there than Erhman, Sanders, or me, but he seems to be a notable voice among modern writers. Or is he fringe? Leadwind ( talk) 00:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Johnbod removed a munch of information about Galilee and Nazareth. I restored it and added some refs. Are there any refs that say that Galilee was something other than a backwater and that Nazareth was anything other than a one-horse town? Leadwind ( talk) 01:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Information was recently added which I believe falls outside the scope of the article:
His genealogies in the Gospels and the infancy narratives in which he appears, however, are credited with little if any historical value. [1] [2] [3] [4]
Not only is this information in other articles, and even the sources cited only address Joseph indirectly. Furthermore, there are dissenting opinions. I propose removing the information. Flash 21:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash ( talk • contribs)
I could not find any policy on relevancy.
The issue is that the sources mainly talk about either the geneaologies, or the nativity narratives, but they do not address the issue of Saint Joseph directly. The information added is already included in other articles, subjects that are directly addressed, instead of indirectly mentioned. Flash 01:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash ( talk • contribs)
<-If there is something about the scope of this article that would result in a policy based reason to exclude the historicity information (and I don't think there is) then I suggest the scope is changed so that it can be included. I can't think of any reason to not present the information in this article. It's where the reader would expect it to be isn't it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Anyone still reading this? Anyway, if we're talking scope of the article, the Mercer Bible Dictionary has a neat little discussion of Joseph arranged by gospels, pointing out the differences of each and their intentions. (You'll have to scroll upwards, as I didn't copy/paste the exact page). It looks like it might make a good structural skeleton for at least part of the article, as well as providing information. Out of curiosity, I can't see any similarity between the NT Joseph and the OT one - what does Spong actually say? PiCo ( talk) 07:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I have removed these newly added bits from the lead:
Pertaining to the first bulleted point above, the Catholic Church clearly is one source representing tradition, especially pre-reformation tradition. Catholic encyclopedia says "It may be safely said that patristic tradition does not regard St. Luke's list as representing the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin." while the above cited source says "Since at least the time of Annius of Viterbo in A.D. 1940 it has been traditional to assume that Matthew's genealogy traces Jesus' lineage through Joseph" Which one is it? Does the Catholic Church/encyclopedia know more about Church tradition, or does the Dictionary of Jesus...? Because of the source conflict, I don't think we should favor one over the other, and therefore I don't think we should mention this at all in the lead. It is too controversial, and not a clear basic fact related to the topic (which is Saint Joseph after all).
Furthermore, dealing with the second bulleted point above, the cited Dictionary goes on to say "these genealogies serve primarily theological and christological purposes and only secondarily historical ones. Our authors were not concerned to present detailed or exhaustive lists of Jesus' actual ancestors, but only to highlight some aspects of his heritage which would best illuminate for their respective audiences Jesus' significance and nature." Because of this conclusion, I believe it is at beat misleading, if not simply inaccurate to represent this source as saying "the genealogies of Jesus are historically accurate." Finally, relating to the historicity of the infancy narratives, I don't believe their is a proper implementation of weight. I don't believe Roberts, Waters, and Bock are on the same level as Funk, Vermes, Sanders, and Theissen. We are doing a disservice to our readers by making all views seem equal. NPOV does not say to present all views with parity, as equals, if there is clearly a majority/minority separation. It is my understanding, that at least historians clearly find little historical accuracy in the infancy narratives. This may not be the same in other fields (such as apologetics), so at least we need to add some weight considerations, and some qualifies so we are presenting exactly who views what. Therefore, I think we should explore these views in more detail in the specific "Historical_Joseph" section, and then consider whether it is appropriate or not to alter the lead, and then discuss how we should make those changes. Anyway, hope this isn't too much. But I want to make my reasoning behind my partial revert clear, and be open to further discussion, and collaboration. - Andrew c [talk] 16:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Leadwind, Regardless of your assessment of the cuteness of my reply, I can not agree with your self assessment of your own reasonableness in following Wikipedia policies, either on this page or elsewhere. I must now point you to WP:OYE (WP: open your eyes). If you follow that policy you will observe that you are sailing against the wind my friend. When I went to issue you a WP:Battleground warning on your talk page regarding Resurrection of Jesus, I noticed that your talk page has several previous warnings about your actions. And having looked over the issues, I must agree with the previous editors who issued the warnings to you. Moreover, on this very talk page, if you follow WP:OYE and look further up you will see dissatisfaction with your edits. I think you must heed the WP:Battleground warning issued to you and calm your edits. History2007 ( talk) 16:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Leadwind has reverted my attempts to make the "historical Joseph" section less misleading, especially the part that now again goes:"Historians agree with the Gospel accounts in that Joseph was a Jewish builder from Nazareth in Galilee. Two thousand years ago, Galilee was a backwater[44] exploited by Romans and far from the Holy City of Jerusalem.[5] Nazareth itself was a tiny, poor village,[45] excluded from the prosperity of the nearby Hellenic city of Sepphoris. Joseph was a builder, working in wood and stone.[15]". I'll point out at the start that if you're going to start your section "Historians agree ..." you'd better be representing a solid consensus. In fact none of these statements really do. There is certainly no agreement that "builder" is the best term to describe his work; the various options for what "tekton" might mean are now discussed far more fully in the section I had added higher up; there is in fact not the slightest evidence that Joseph worked stone at all, though he may have done. Early Christian tradition is solid that wood was Jesus' material, though he may have been a coppersmith for all we know, without contradicting the Gospels at all. That Nazareth was "excluded from the prosperity of the nearby Hellenic city of Sepphoris" would be disputed by many who speculate that the villagers, and especially craftsmen, may have done very well from the city; again this is discussed above. "tiny" - is there actually any evidence at all as to its population, I don't think so. It just isn't mentioned often in the few other sources we have. What does "tiny" mean anyway - it's a hopeless word to use across vast distances of time and culture. "far from the Holy City of Jerusalem" - why not just say about 65 miles, which is not very far if you're from Texas, I dare say; at least that's oner thing we actually know. "exploited by Romans" - really? More than the rest of the Mediterranean world? What does this mean? The rest of the section is nearly as bad, and hardly referenced. Johnbod ( talk) 02:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I added more refs and removed material I couldn't find references for. If there's any dispute over whether Nazareth was Nowheresville or that the Galileans were exploited by Roman occupation, let's just find RSs that say it was a big, prosperous town. In my understanding, there's actual archeological evidence now that Nazareth was home to about 50 families that lived in caves, which were modified internally and built out externally. Leadwind ( talk) 23:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Amazon.com is now selling Tshirts (I kid you not) that promote Josephology as a term. It also sells books on it, so the article should probably say more on that since until 3 days ago, it did not even include the term. History2007 ( talk) 21:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I had not even seen this article until a few days ago, but now that I have looked at it, I think it is pretty low quality and disorganized. And recently it seems to have been the subject of many patched edits and half finished facelifts - reminds me of some people you see walking down the street in Beverly Hills who have had 4 facelifts too many.
But, this article may still be fixed, and in the process I may learn about the topic. I would like to open a discussion on improving this article. To begin with, the order of the sections seems haphazard:
I think if the secondary material such as church names is better organized, we can begin to see the rest better.
As a start, let us not touch the art section for now, and leave that to the end. But it does seem out of place in the order of sections. But we can move that after all other issues have been discussed.
The feast days section takes up space with a chant! The first paragraph is very terse and needs to be opended up. But overall the material is ok.
The Institutions and places named after Joseph needs 2 new pages, one like List of places named after St. Thérèse of Lisieux and another like St. Michael's Church. There is no point in taking up space with that info in this page and a main will be good. And there is also Saint Joseph (disambiguation) which overlaps with places - a real mess overall.
The section on Modern literature just has 3 bullet points and refers to a few novels. I think that should move to the very end and not have a description. Why just select these 3 novels? It did not teach me much to read that section. And it should probably move to the very end.
The next item is the section on Sainthood. It overlaps with churches and feasts. So that needs to be cleaned up. I am not sure how that section was organized, but seems patch like.
I was surprised to see a section called "as a tekton". I had never heard the term before and having it in the section title seemed confusing. Section titles should be clear. And I do not understand what that section is trying to teach me anyway. Jumps from a definition of tekton to a discussion of how far Nazareth was from somewhere else. Is that section supposed to mean "his profession" and discuss carpenter vs builder etc. Just seems like a confused selection of sentences, each surviving there by the virtue of having a reference. But they do not fit together.
After all of these issues have been cleaned up, we can discuss the rest. But first I will appreciate comments on Sainthood and tekton sections, because I think the church names and place names are easy to fix and I will do that in a few days. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 02:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I assume EO means EastOrtodox, so if you know that please add it. I think your re-arrangements of my edits were fine, but think that Murillo on top is too small and dark - needs another. The patronages and churches needs both trim and development, e.g. San Giuseppe or São José as names of places and churches need to be worked on. However, the article itself is still way, way below the quality level of elsewhere in the wiki-world, e.g. Wiki Italian version which is much better developed and can act as a good source for new material. I had not even used that as a source of ideas yet - but will do later.
Now, there are just 3 sections that have not been discussed here, the Biblical, Apocryphal and Historical. I do not see why the historical item is out by itself in an island. And it has a POV tag which needs to be addressed and cleaned up. Also I still do see why Tecton is a section by itself either. Is that section trying to describe the socio-economic structure of Nazareth? The whole flow between the sections seems to get stuck. The Italian version calls that section "profession" and has material.
Finally, let us not assume that the intro is perfect - far from it. It is riddled with Bible-refs that make it hard to read and intros usually have less refs and the refs are fully developed in the text. The intro should summarize and motivate. But that can wait until the rest of the article has been brought up to better quality standards. History2007 ( talk) 16:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
John: Thanks for correcting teh Carravaggio title. I even found a dream one by itself that is a key event rather than rest. Now, should teh altarpiece be before or after Joachim? It is a nice piece, but is there any basis for which comes first?I have no idea. History2007 ( talk) 17:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I think Pico's June 16 reorg of Sainthood is pretty logical in that Sainthood should absorb feasts, places and devotions. I suggest we just leave it that way. History2007 ( talk) 04:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Pico, I must say I have been laughing since I read the stories from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas about Jesus striking the parents blind at the PTA meeting in Nazareth. That was funny information. But I think these "top 10 stories from the 3rd century" are probably getting too much space in the article and need to be summarized - although the details just go to make them laughable enough to discredit them. On that note, there is a rumor that just as there are accounts in John and Paul, there are also accounts in the hidden Gospels of George and Ringo that makes the Fab4 package complete. The new documents will soon be discovered in sealed earthenware jar in a park in North London. And those Gospels can talk about young Jesus playing soccer in Nazareth. In any case, I think we need to cut back on apocrypha, although I did get a laugh out of reading it. Cheers. History2007 ( talk) 12:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
ActJMark
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Vermesepi
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).TM1998 R
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Sanders 7
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).