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.
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)
(external link edited, as it made this page uneditable) -- Eugene van der Pijll 23:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I am aware of the double blue page, although I wasn't aware of this discussion forum. Thank you for mentioning it. For the record, User:KHM03 retired from Wikipedia because the personal information revealed about him led to harrassment of his family and colleagues. After the incident was reported, the site removed the personal information, but the harm was already done. This is a matter not of censorship, but of privacy and security. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 11:17, 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)
They did until SOPHIA reported the incident. I've been watching the site since I became aware of it, and they do change their content every once in a while. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 18:12, 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)
Just as there are over-zealous Christians who think that if an article about Christianity doesn't read like an evangelism pamphlet, that means Christianity is being suppressed and anti-Christianity being pushed; so there are over-zealous Atheists and members of other religions who think that unless an article about Christianity reads like a Steven Conifer article on infidels.org, that means Christianity is being pushed and anti-Christianity being suppressed. Of course, the consensus stands against both of these positions and says that as long as the page meets the criteria of the three policies (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V), there is no problem. » MonkeeSage « 16:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Robert Steadman banned for spreading personal information? Try again double blue people.... Homestarmy 16:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention that Rob quit Wikipedia because he felt he was being stalked by people who had followed him from another website (namely tes.co.uk). Doubleblue allegedly stalked KHM03 in exactly the same way that those people allegedly stalked Rob. The irony is biting. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 18:12, 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)
Careful, you might be making yourself a target. If you've read the page, you know that you've been listed as one of the "DWEECS." Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 00:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
So where do I fit in? I'd support permanent bans too. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 00:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I am aware of being on the list. I think he/she/they would be hard pressed to prove merit to be so listed, but that is now moot. If someone wants to know who I am, I encourage them to ask. I do not have the personal/occupational concerns of our friend User:KHM03. However, I am truly incensed by this sorry tale. They are cyber terrorists and think themselves "cute" in their efforts. This "espèce d'humain" is not stopped until we collectively stand up and name them permanently persona nongrata on all WIKI sites. ADMINS, are you listening to this???
I would not seek it out, but if it came to someone trying to find out about me personally, I suppose I would just put it on the web; it sort of takes the wind out of their despicable efforts. Storm Rider(talk) 00:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess you have to have kids to feel really twitchy about this. The only reason I protect my identity is so there is no link to them and that was KHM03's reason for going (valid in my eyes). I however don't have a web page so I'm internet exdirectory - that is not supposed to be a challenge by the way. I would like to see some real action by Jimbo to stop what happened to Gator and KHM03 happening again. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 00:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Funny that their manipulation of wikipedia being exposed results in them going off in a huff. They are two of the worst offenders. Good riddance. The cabal must be smashed. Robsteadman 06:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
This person is not who we think it is. I assume as Rob's account was deleted there was nothing to stop it being recreated by anyone else. Not sure what the rules are but this doesn't seem right. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 09:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Obviously I have no way of knowing, but if someone is impersonating Rob, that in itself is disturbing. I should point out again that Rob suspected that certain people who were harrassing him on his talk page during his attempted Wikibreak had followed him from the tes.co.uk message boards. They were involved with the Robert Steadman article, not any of the Jesus or Christianity articles. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 09:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, now we know how Rob feels. For the record, Rob was banned by Jayjg, not Musical Linguist, and this was weeks before these links were being passed around. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 08:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Pretty sure Rob asked for his page to be deleted....? Homestarmy 18:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but not protect-deleted. Anyone could have recreated the account. SOPHIA has an e-mail from Rob himself saying this account is an imposter. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 18:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Suffer the Children
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)
Jim, I don't think everyone in this discussion is a Christian, are they? Besides, we did come to an understanding eventually....sort of....Homestarmy 00:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Or Groundhog day! While these are emotional issues, folks, can we please not engage in personal attacks, calling people's arguments silly or such, etc. All of these are ad hominem attacks and not valid arguments anyway.
Let's remember we're supposed to be about what scholarly sources say. So, it would help if we would not be about arguing the issues themselves, but what scholars say, whether such-and-such fits in the main article, if we can find a better way to say what scholars say, etc. --CTSWyneken 11:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
CTS: I hate to disagree with you, but, I prefer calling a spade a spade: this page has descended into needless bickering, and many of the arguments are, from a historical, scholarly, or semantical perspective, either silly or stupid, or, to be more appropriate to Wiki: vio's of POV, OR, POINT as well as being troll-like. To wit: entombed vs buried. If one really wants to have such a debate, find an archaeologist who could explain the burial methods of the time.
As to what scholars say, that's a touchy issue: define scholar. Additionally, when saying "most Christians believe x", polls may be appropriate. There's a significant difference between what the various churches teach, and what the people believe.
Homes, while a few editors (such as myself) are not Christians, I do not think I am alone in what I said. Bear in mind that other editors have raised similar concerns, whether here on on their talk pages.
This article needs a break -- much like it had a month (or probably) two ago. •Jim62sch• 13:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Jim, there is more going on here than the usual edit wars and POV clashing. The above section titled "No Criticism allowed" is an indirect reference, but I've sent you an e-mail to a non-WP website that some of us find alarming. Most disturbing of all is what happened to User:KHM03. The issue really started on the Christianity page, but double blue now has there eye on this article as well. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 13:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
What are the disputes?
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)
If you feel it important enough, you can request a edit to a protected page at WP:RfPP. --DarthDeskana(talk page) (my RfA!) 17:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the page reads like a missionary pamphlet. Far too POV and religion promoting. Just because some so-called scholars say asomething is true doesn't mean it is - where's the evidence? Yummy mummy 17:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. Our job here is to report what scholars say, not to express our own doubts (or even our own requirements for empirical evidence.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflicted comment, excuse some minor repetition of Jpgordon's comments above) You're right Yummy mummy, it doesn't mean it's true, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. According to the WP:V policy, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". I can understand why you think it reads like a pamphlet. Perhaps you could copy the bits that you feel are the worst for this over to the talk page here so they can be discussed and a concensus reached on them? --DarthDeskana(talk page) (my RfA!) 17:14, 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)
I find that a funny accusation considering I don't actually even believe in God, nor Jesus. The truth is, I just want a balanced article. So what bits don't you think belong in the article? --DarthDeskana(talk page) (my RfA!) 17:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
All the non-factual bits. Yummy mummy 17:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Im assuming all the bits that come from the gospels and the vast majority of scholarship, this sounds like a very Robsteadman-esque argument. Apparently evidence is no longer evidence?Homestarmy 17:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's ignore the troll. john k 17:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Stop calling people trolls. That is not what talk pages are for. -- Drogo Underburrow 18:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, lets ignore john k and his missionary gang. File:Rolleyes.pngI have no idea if this image exists if it doesn't please upload oneeeemess 15:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the page should have been semi-protected rather than full protected. It seems as if the only problem with habitual vandalism and reverts is with anons. —Aiden 19:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Not exactly. Read the talk page itself, and check the history. When the arguments reach the level of entombed versus buried (a faux semantics argument given that the person raising the article knows no Greek), it's time for a break. Obviously, the admin agreed with Archola and I that there are significant problems. Work them through, then get the protection either lifted or changed to semi. •Jim62sch• 19:57, 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)
Err, I don't think Yummy will be posting again with either cognance or understanding if his user page is any indication.... Homestarmy 21:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, he has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of User:Robsteadman... not surprising, considering the user acted very similar to Robsteadman. --DarthDeskana(talk page) (my RfA!) 21:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems that there apparently wasn't much of a problem anymore when the page was locked, as there doesn't seem to of been much of a heated discussion outside of sockpuppetry :/. Homestarmy 02:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Must be why Archola left, because everything was so calm. •Jim62sch• 18:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
So, are there still any outstanding disputes that prevent the page from being unprotected? Wesley 17:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Only thing I could possibly see as a dispute is the thing Oub pointed out about POV, but that's not that big a deal, I don't think anyone's really fighting about it. Everything else seems to of fizzled away :/. Homestarmy 17:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
On the bright side, the argument over entombed and buried went way. •Jim62sch• 18:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Now that Rob has been barred from vandalizing yet again, I don't think there are any outstanding problems except with the AOL IPs that continue to vandalize and revert consensus. I recommend a semi-protect so we registered editors can get back to work. —Aiden 18:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest that, a.) the page stay protected for a few more days before requesting semi-protect, and b.) that you work out what needs to be put into the article here, before changing the article. Keep in mind, this is not the first time this page has been protected. •Jim62sch• 18:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, Oub wanted to change like what, one sentence somewhere in the body, it sounded like a reasonably fair change to me. Homestarmy 18:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The "entombed" versus "buried" debate was settled by using the phrase "buried in a tomb," as bad as that sounds. —Aiden 04:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
You prefer "entombed" but that sounds like its from Night of the Living Dead. It also sounds very Protestant, and hence POV. Its a rejection of the wording used in the Nicene Creed, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The only reason I even support the entire sentence, is if it reads the same as both of those, because if it doesn't, then I don't accept it as a fact, that most Christians believe it. If people think this is quibbling over words, they are right; such quibbling is at the basis of serious theological disputes, and responsible in history for wars. Drogo Underburrow 06:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The Nicene Creed says "ascended" into heaven — we better not say "was taken up on a cloud", because most Christians don't believe Jesus "was taken up on a cloud" into heaven, that is a Protestant view — we have to say "ascended" into heaven. Pshaw. » MonkeeSage « 09:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I think Jim's right - a few more days peace won't do any harm. I take Drogo's point on "entombed" so lets see if the compromise sticks - it does seem to hedge the bets on the tomb vs creed wording issues. Having said that this was the same way of thinking that got us the awful "extant contemporaneous" phrase so I won't enter that bun-fight! Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 09:23, 26 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. --DarthDeskana(talk page) 14:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
................. Homestarmy 13:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
...I'm assuming sarcasm ... I hope I'm not let down. :-) --Steve Caruso 14:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Come together, right now, over Jesus
(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 DeepdelverTalk 15:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Responses to "Come Together"
Re: Grigory DeepdelverHi, thanks for that. I agree completely. I think it would be really much better to collaborate and to try to improve the article then to go into endless circles. As for the trial, for be both is fine, to take what I proposed (but still it was a proposal) or to try to emphasise the differences. As for John 8, well we can leave that discussion out for the moment, but maybe return to it in the future. (For me John was always the odd one out of the Gospels, but that is just my impression). So yes let us go on. Oub 16:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC):
Very well put, Arch. If everyone can get on board -- keeping their opinions, of course, but also being willing to compromise and keep things under control -- you might finally be on your way with this article.
How about this idea -- since I had the article locked, I'll ask to have it semi-protected (keep out the anons) if five of you sign below? At least that way, we can say that progress has been made. •Jim62sch• 17:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Um, I made this a subpage template so that people wouldn't interrupt my long discourse with inline comments (that always seems to happen with long statements). I'm neutral about the semi-protect thing. I will now move this back to the talk: Jesus page. Grigory DeepdelverTalk 17:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with pretty much everything said. —Aiden 03:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree with the above. --Andrew c 21:43, 27 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! --DarthDeskana(talk page) 21:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes I feel that voting on RfA's becomes such a chore...you have to look the person up, find out if they are "sandwich artists" (does subway qualify as an art studio?), determine whether or not he can speak Klingon...such a chore. ;) Humour me, Dan. •Jim62sch• 22:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not objecting to this vote in particular... I just feel we vote too much in this article sometimes. Don't get me wrong... just a thought, is all. --DarthDeskana(talk page) 22:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems like we haven't voted in a good bit really. Homestarmy 23:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Damn, I guess I made a bit of a dodgy argument? Hehehehe... I still think we should take a vote to establish concensus on whether I was wrong though! --DarthDeskana(talk page) 21:46, 27 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. LaGrigoryDeepdelver 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. אמרSteve Caruso(poll) 16:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Seriously. The anon vandalism just started again. Can we please get a semi-protect as requested? —Aiden 20:32, 28 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)
I would suggest you re-request semi-protection (a few of you should endorse the request). Oh let me know when (or even if) you do so. •Jim62sch• 12:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
