Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:49, 5 February 2006

Historicity of Jesus received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Common Era v. Anno Domini

To remove accusations of POV it is important that we use the CE for dates not AD. Robsteadman 16:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That is absolute nonsense, AD is no more POV than CE, its only much more widely understood. There was a "ceasefire" declared site wide months ago, and backed up by official policy not to convert articles from one to the other, and now you are liable to open the site wide edit war all over again by breaking the ceasefire. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I have put this on your talk page:

You have reverted the dates 3 times - contrary to Wiki rules - I am therefore suggesting that you should stop or risk suspension. There is no reason why the article should be an "AD article" as you put it - AD is outdated and irrelevant though many find it\d |"christian" slant offensive. Please stop reverting without discussion and please stop wanting to install a POV date system. Robsteadman 16:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

One of the biggest cries at the time of the massive edit warring was that AD should not be used on articles that are about other faiths, and that Christians should restrict it to articles about their own faith. Now we are seeing even that being invaded. Only the most extreme individuals consider AD to be in any way, shape or form POV, it is simply the norm throughout the world. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No, your statement is false. AD is POV. There is no need for it and this article is not about "faith" but about whether "jesus" actually existed. PLEASE STOP REVERTING - Common Era tagging is appropriate, AD is not. I will revert one last time and then I will contact an admin to seek advice about your vreach of the 3RR. Robsteadman 17:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. If he keeps inserting AD, I will be glad to help you restore it to CE. This way, you don't run afoul of the 3RR. Alienus 17:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Robsteadman 17:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob and Alienus, the consensus style used in this article is AD. Accordingly, Wiki policy rules that it should stay AD. Neither version is considered POV under Wiki rules. Siniaticus' edits were perfectly allright and in line with Wiki policy. In fact, your edit-warring can be considered vandalism and hence reverting it is not breaking 3RR. Str1977 18:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The consensus WAS to use AD, but newer editors recognized this as POV and therefore changed the consensus. Now you have to live with it. Or, of course, you could launch an edit war and lose. Up to you, but I recommend the former. Alienus 19:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Really, could you please point out exactly where wikipedia policy "consensus" was changed on this matter??? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I maintain that Wiki needs to update its policy - AD is POV. Codex regularly puts POV slants on stuff that need to be removed. It was not vandalism - just trying to get a NPOV article.Robsteadman 18:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

POV is POV as defined by Wiki policy. As long as the policy stands, Siniaticus' actions were defending that policy. Your actions however were pushing your POV (namely, that AD is POV) unto the article and at least bordering on vandalism. Quite apart from the issue whether you think something POV or not. Str1977 18:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree AD is pushing a POV, but so is CE. The issue is which one is more apros. The secular system (standard in academia) is better sinces its more inclusive by nature and in fiting with this article. Also, I don't think that edit waring to revert it back to AD can escape the 3RR rule under the pretext of reverting vandalism. Clearly to change the date to CE is not vandalism. 3RR is in effect. BelindaGong 18:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, of course. CE is neutral and academic, as is appropriate for a encylopedia article, while AD is inherently biased. Alienus 19:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

A loud voice (or a quick finger) doesn't stand in for intellectual substance. Belinda, you may think "CE" is "better" - then go and try to change the policy. AD is just as standard (if not more) in academia. Ad isn't biased. CE isn't more inclusive as it still the same reckoning, only with another name. The edit war is on your and your friends' part. I could live with CE, if it were the established consensus (and have done so on other pages or reverted to CE). Str1977 19:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

So where does the debate need to take place to get Wiki to change to CE and drop the offensive and biased AD? Robsteadman 19:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, you might want to try Wikipedia_talk:Eras/Compromise_proposal if you have a spare month or two to read all the associated fork pages and debates. The ultimate outcome of consensus is that AD is not biased, and neither is CE... but that there is to be a cease fire on changing from one to the other, articles that use one or the other should be left as they are and such changes are not welcome and may be reverted. I'm sure everyone will just love you if you really wish to reopen this whole can of worms, when there are much more serious issues than whether or not AD is slanted... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Proof that the Misplaced Pages bureaucracy is capable of failure. Alienus 19:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

But we do have a policy for that! Misplaced Pages:No binding decisions. In other words, any decision may be revisited. So failures for today don't mean eventual failure of the project, just as an article that's currently in an incomplete or even vandalized state doesn't have to stay that way. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course you're right in principle, but not necessarily in practice. In practice, revisiting an ugly issue that the bureaucracy had previously stalemated on is a scary thing, a potential time drain yielding nothing but frustration. Look a how Codex Sinaiticus essentially threatened Robsteadman with sarcastic phrases like "everying will just love you". Unfortunately, it turns out that there are people who thrive on conflict and avoid resolution, pretty much ruining any chance of genuine consensus. Alienus 20:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If you don't hold hope that consensus and the NPOV policy will eventually result in a high quality encyclopedia, you're probably doomed to frustration and disappointment on Misplaced Pages. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 04:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

protected

because I really hate these CE vs. AD edit wars. Either agree to stick with what was here first, which seems to be BCE, or agree here to change it over, but knock off the edit war. —Charles P._(Mirv) 19:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice work guys. We have so many really good things to fight over - why is so much energy being wasted in technical details? BC/AD is as POV as saying the days of the week are pro Roman gods. However since the article seemed to start out as BCE/CE it should stay at that and I would have supported the original dating system whatever it had been. SOPHIA 20:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

How about we simply put it to a vote? Alienus 20:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Although I have joined in with the vote I think this is a rather silly way to resolve this. AD is POV and offen sive. It should not be used in a neutral encyclopedia article. Robsteadman 12:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, could you please stop bickering about it, as this is really "POV and offensive" and not a perfectly common abbreviation. Str1977 18:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep it open for one week (closing Feb 10th) . Please sign one of the following with # and four tildes:

This article should use AD format

1. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Darwiner111 23:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC).
3. Homestarmy 23:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
4. 10:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Str1977 11:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
6. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 16:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Flamarande 22:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC) agreed with below
8. AnnH 13:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Though it doesn't have to be plastered all over the place. Once it becomes obvious that we're talking about AD rather than BC, we don't have to insert AD after every single date. Jdavidb has pointed out (on Rob's talk page) that CE/BCE are relatively unknown in many former British empire countries; that in itself is a good reason from preferring BC/AD. Others have pointed out that AD is no more POV than "Thursday", which is named after the god Thor. See also here, where the manual of style says both are acceptable. AnnH 13:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This article should use CE format

1. Alienus 20:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
2. SOPHIA 20:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Robsteadman 12:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
4. --maru (talk) contribs 22:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
5. BelindaGong 21:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Giovanni33 21:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Other

We need to agree that NO changes will be made to the articles dating system as it currently stands until after the vote closes then we can ask for it to be unprotected.SOPHIA 21:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's use both BCE and BC, CE and AD. KHM03 22:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should leave things alone until there's a consensus, then abide by that consensus. If anyone tries to change this, I support reverting these changes and, if necessary, restoring protected status. In the meantime, it would be nice to be able to make other, unrelated changes. Alienus 23:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think if this vote gets extremely close, using a BC/BCE AD/CE notation for dates wouldn't be a problem if some sort of edit war gets out, with both notations at once, no matter what you like or dislike about either one, you always know which one means what anyway, and come on folks, 2 or 3 letters are not that offensive, it's not such a huge POV deal. Homestarmy 00:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Misplaced Pages should not be POV. AD is POV. Its very simple. Robsteadman 12:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that BC/AD is POV. Yes, the system relates to what was once thought to be Jesus' birth year (most scholars now think it's off by a few years, 6-4 BC, but I digress), but it also became the dominant system of reckoning in the West, and remained that way for centuries. Most people know it. It's grown out of the POV to become a common, recognized dating system. Still, I think using both might be the best compromise. KHM03 12:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we please just agree to not make any changes at the moment and abide by the vote so that we can ask for the page to be unlocked? SOPHIA 12:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I insist that the days of the week like Tuesday, Wednesday not appear in wikipedia, because they are simply a POV slant to the English gods, and offensive to me since I don't believe in the English gods. They must be replaced with NPOV terminology "first day", "second day", etc. Also, the names of the certain months like "January" "March" are not acceptable and POV slanted to Roman gods I don't believe in, and therefore I demand they be removed from wikipedia. There's no point in voting on a consensus on these things: They simply are POV, because I say so, and I'm offended.... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman, First I must tell you that I am political incorrect person. Second, I am a atheist and proud of it by choice. But (and I am being completely honest here) I never even heard or read about CE and BCE before joining Misplaced Pages (and I have read and still read all too much) except in very few books of the old communist GDR were it was sometimes used, V.U.Z. = vor unserer Zeit = before our time (translated into english).

Then you write (see above): "I disagree. Misplaced Pages should not be POV. AD is POV. Its very simple.".

Look, in truth (joke) I must laugh and ask you : According to whom? YOU? ME? Be reasonable, Everything is POV and nothing is very simple (or there wouldn´t be any opposition to it, would there?)

AD (Anno Domini) and BC (Before Christ) is simply the most widely used version in this world and nobody can reasonably argue against that. In fact, they are only really used when somebody is writting about ancient history (mainly to help the average reader and not to impose any religious views upon the reader).

We live in a increasingly globalized World which as a whole was and still is culturally dominated by western civilization even if you, myself or anyone likes it or not. The world simply uses the western calendar to a overwhelming extent.

What is BCE (Before Current Era) and CE (Current Era) in my personal opinion? Its political correctness and nothing more. It is something like this: we are going to use religious neutral "BCE/CE", so that we and everybody else can still use the western calendar and we can "reasonably" deny its cultural and religious origins and importance in order not to hurt any NOT-Christian in his personal fellings.

Nobody is going to fall for that one. Does anyone for a second believe that a atheist, a budhist, a muslim or any not-christian is going to be offended in his personal sensibilities by the use of AD/BC? He will be offended only if he wants to be offended by it. He might also be offended (as I am) by BCE/CE for "you" are trying to deny the impact of Jesus of Nazareth and his teachings upon world history in the name of political corectness or worse, that you think that he is a ignorant fool and doesn´t know that and will be decieved by the use of BCE/CE.

Are you simply going to deny the profound impact of christian religion upon world culture? Notice that I am not telling anyone that christanity is good or bad for that truly depends on your personal POV but its cultural influence (good and bad) is simply undeniable.

You couldn´t even use another calendar (like for Example Sputnic era) confusing a lot of readers who never saw CE/BCE before (it confused me).

You are trying to impose your POV about AD/BC and BCE/CE in which one pair is "good" and the other one is "bad". Notice, that I am not doing that, I am telling you that AD/BC is simply the better known pair and that we should use it in the name of common sense.

To finalize: You are a ZEALOT who is trying to save/change Misplaced Pages. I am stating a fact and I hope you won´t be offended that word, but I personnaly think it is the more correct description.

But hey, that is only my POV, fell free to disagree, perhaps you can even convince us through truly convincing arguments and perhaps I will change my mind. Flamarande 00:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Is Robsteadman a zealot or is he Christophobic? 08:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I am anti-the influence of "faith" - I am for rational thought and reason. I am a Bright. Whilst I accept that religions have had a profound effect on the formations of societies I wonder how much better that would have been without the division, suppression and evils that the "faiths" brought with them. However, that is irrelevent. I am trying to get this article to be NPOV and balanced. Currently it is not, and AD doesnt help. Robsteadman 15:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he's got a little tired of living in a country where the "christian" majority (most of which never put their heads inside a church from baptism to burial) are so sure they are right that they can't seem to understand other people have a different, just a passionate, view without thinking they are misinformed or just plain pig headed. A country where non christian children (as 2 of mine have) come home from school crying because their "christian" school mates have told them they are going to burn in hell because they are not christened, even though Jesus did not baptise babies. These issues do arouse passionate feelings and we need to avoid ranting, raving and labeling as this will only entrench views and create a partisan atmosphere. We need to keep as neutral as possible and give referenced views rather than personal diatribes as this is the only way we will reach a peaceable consensus. Not subscribing to any faith I have had my moral system, my parenting and my suitability to work with young people called into question by "christian" aquaintences (I have used quotes not to offend but rather to illustrate that I don't feel the core teachings of Jesus in anyway justifies what these people have said or done). Choosing to live without a faith can be a little isolating as we all have come to this decision for different very personal reasons and there is no cozy church to go to with lots of other people who think exactly like we do. As I have illustrated with personal examples if you don't align yourself with an established faith you can get rather used to being on the defensive. If everyone accepts that everyone elses POV is just as valid as their own to that person then hopefully we will reestablish a respectful and calm environment. SOPHIA 09:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I can only say that all young children are capable of great cruelty everywhere, and the faith issue was just the stone that happened to be used (for example: they could have insulted the parents). A live without faith does not isolated noone, you isolate yourself from the rest of society only if you want to. Notice that ostracism (being isolated by all the others) is a totally diffrent issue. This country wouldn´t be the U S of A, right? Flamarande 18:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Historical vs Historicity

While this is locked and we can't start a new edit war, can someone please explain why we have two articles essentially about the historical background of Jesus? I always try to write for the layman and I really think most people would consider them the same thing. I certainly did until I got into this wiki. The problem is that when you are new you think you must be missing something and when you've been around for a few weeks you've got so used to it that you forget it ever puzzled you. The current Historical Jesus seems to take most of it's data from the NT so should be encompased in the Biblical Jesus article. The only bit that sticks out is the section on the synagogue of Nazareth which really looks as if it belongs here.

This article should be expanded to include examination of the events recorded in the Gospels such as the census, the existence of Bethlehem, the star of Bethlehem, the slaughter of the innocents etc. all of which should have been recorded by other sources. There are views and arguments on both sides for these events which if I was searching for information I would expect to find here. Thoughts and explainations most welcome. SOPHIA 22:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The existence of Bethlehem? You mean the existence of Nazareth? Paul B 00:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No I mean the existence of Bethlehem in Galilee . SOPHIA 08:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The Historical Jesus is supposed to be an account of Jesus in the cultural context of his time. The "Historicity" article is supposed to be about whether he was a real historical person, a conflation of real individuals plus myth, or a purely fictional/theological construct. Paul B 00:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't that article be called a Historical construct of Jesus or something like that for clarity. Most people assume that a historical page has the undisputed historical data marked and the analysis and interpretation of that data also clearly marked. The current Historical Jesus refers in the main to biblical accounts of him with external contemporary social evidence used to fill this out. That is not how I understand a" history" of a subject as it is prone to POV assumptions. SOPHIA 10:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Sophia. "Historicity ..." is the proper title as this is what is disputed. Str1977 11:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to push an agenda here other than the problems of keeping data in sync spread across multiple pages. I understand that there is a lot to say and it may not all fit into one page but the current Biblical Jesus page seems like a subset of the Historical Jesus. Maybe, since the bible is also a historical document (we can discuss for ever it's accuracy but it IS a histiorical document) the current small amount of different info in the Biblical Jesus page could be added to Historical Jesus and then redirected there. I think maybe I'll put a note on both those pages and see what's said. SOPHIA 12:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sophia, I am heartened by your classification of the Bible as a historical document (among other things), as too many people around here lately have denied this. I haven't looked into Biblical Jesus and don't know what it says. The title suggests a difference to Historical Jesus. The former is "Jesus as the NT potrays him", the latter is "Jesus as the historical craft can reconstruct him based on the sources, including the NT". Note that the latter is not identical to "Jesus, the real Jesus as he walked the face of the earth". But if the two articles say the same, there is no point in having two articles. And BJ can be included as "representation of what the primary sources say".

I didn't want to suggest that you were pushing an agenda. I was only honestly answering your suggestion. Str1977 12:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The Bible is an historical document - just not a reli=able or contemporary historical document - it is a secondary or tertiary source with a massive POV. Robsteadman 18:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That, Rob, might be your POV, but it's painting with a much too broad a brush. Some books of the Bible are contemporary to their events while others aren't, some are more reliable than others. The NT is contemporary to Jesus and the Apostles. All books of the Bible are primary sources. As for POV (I guess you are using the strictly-wikipedia term to denote they have a certain interpretation or view on things), well, every source (except for relics) has a view and the Bible has no more of a POV than other ancient or modern sources. Str1977 18:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The New TEstament is NOT contemporary to "jesus" that is false. Most books of the bible are NOT primary sources as they are written many decades after the events they "recount". To claim it is not POV is staggrering in its naivety. Robsteadman 11:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said - we can still disagree over the bible's independence and accuracy : ) but seriously I would appreciate your view of the value of Biblical Jesus as an independent article. I used to be a data base administraitor and dislike having multiple copies of the same data as keeping them in sync is so difficult. I'm just going out but when I get back I'll take this to that page as it really should be there. SOPHIA 13:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I have taken a first glance at both articles and I don't think they ídentical. BJ (or rather New Testament view on Jesus' life gives an account of Jesus according the NT), while Historical Jesus discusses certain historical issues (birth place etc.) I will update you when I can say more. Str1977 13:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree that these two articles should be merged - but then so should many of those explaining "jesus" from a "christian" angle. Basically there are TOO many articles about him! Robsteadman 18:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen any reasons for merging the two, as they cover two different perspectives. Or are you offended by "TOO many articles about" Jesus? Str1977 18:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No it just seems that there are such a vast number, nearly all with a POV and Misplaced Pages could do with streamlining and NPOV. Robsteadman 19:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Back to the real issue. The only reason I've been looking at this is that we all agree (I think) that the NT is virtually the only early source of info on the life and teachings of Jesus (the later stuff is about christianity and christian theology). To have Historical Jesus and New Testament view on Jesus' life as separate articles almost implies that the NT is not a historical record of his life. I can see that the historical article has more external info in it to put the NT into context but the NT perspectives article does seem to follow a very similar chronological format of the events in his life. If there is different info in them you could ask why as if the NT is pretty much the sole source for the details all the important stuff should be the same. The one section on the Synagogue at Nazareth seems more appropriate here. Setting aside personal POV's as to what is true etc... (I see this as a wikipedia data integrity issue) is there really a case for separate articles? I don't want Rob to hijack the agenda here - this is not about streamlining wikipedia or reducing the number of Jesus articles. For me it's about making sure there is minimal data duplication as it's a nightmare to keep the copies in sync. What's "true"and what's POV etc....etc... are completely seperate problems. If it's going to be controversial or start more bad feeling edits I'll leave well alone. I really wasn't trying to stir up problems. I'm aware I do look at things in a simplistic data lead way which may not be appropriate in this case. SOPHIA 23:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think "Historical Jesus" refers to the so-called "Jesus Quest", which started in the 19th century (pretty much), included scholars such as Albert Schweitzer, and is seen today in the works of people like the Jesus Seminar. They're all trying to "demythologize" or, better put, "detheologize" Jesus to get a "real" picture of what the man was like. The article may not deal with this issue well, but the phrase "Historical Jesus" has a long and specific history in academia. My two cents. Go Steelers! KHM03 10:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I did guess there was some back story to the current article splits and it's interesting to find out what it is. If it's generally agreed then they are the best classifications then they should stand. I started out questioning historicity vs historical but I on further thought I'm really asking why there seem to be two different historical articles when the core data of each comes from the same source (I'm referring to BJ and historical J here). I don't want to flog a horse if it's truely dead but I'll go and have a thorough look at them both and post my thoughts on those pages. Thanks for the info KHM03. SOPHIA 10:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

non-Christian writings

These need to be at the beginning, since they are the best evidence that he really existed. The people who wrote them had no motive to have made it up, so they are more likely to be true.

Nonsensical, you say there are non-Christian writings regarding Jesus, meaning that non-Christians accept his existence. Doesn't that verify that Jesus did indeed exist? If so, then the Christian writings wouldn't be POV in believing that he existed but would be more precise and observant, therefore more reliable. Darwiner111 02:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Read the article. See what the non-Christian texts say. Your last sentence is a complete non sequitor. It's like saying that Muslim writings about Muhammad are likely to be "more precise and observant, therefore more reliable" than non-Muslim writings, and this is because non-Muslims accept that he existed. Paul B 03:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review