Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jesus Christ as myth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Jesus-myth hypothesis article is being now repeatedly reverted to a presplit version in the middle of this AFD conversation which may influence people's understanding and create the appearance of more similarity in topics. . A version which contains post split information is Chensiyuan's revision. jbolden1517Talk 21:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh - please. When he spilts the article with no discussion it's concensus - but when others try to take it back to where it was so we can work from there it's vote tampering. Sophia 21:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, well, those are some of the classic signs of a true POV warrior. •Jim62sch• 21:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
You miss the point entirely. It's about clarifying that the two articles are intended to discuss different issues. Paul B 17:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't "miss the point", neither do Sophia, OM, KillerChihuahua, Kenosis, Guy or any other editors who see this split as the POV farce that it is. Yourself, Jbolden and dab keep saying the articles discuss different issues: well, let's pretend I'm from Missouri, show me. •Jim62sch• 17:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh I think they do, and you do too. I have explained this several times, so here I go again. One article is intended to elaborate on parallels between Christianity and other myths, showing how these have been modelled by both Christian and non-Christian writers. One is supposed to be about the thesis that Jesus was not, in a meaningful sense, an historical character. Paul B 13:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Since when have you shown any interest in evidence? Evidence has been presented throughout this debate and all you've done is make sarcastic comments like As of yet you have relied on personal insults, and aggression almost entirely in this debate.
  • "That's utter nonsense" [1]
  • Article is a piece of shit [2]
  • "Uh, yeah. Profound." in response to a counter argument. [3]
  • Bragging about a violation of WP:AGF [4]
  • Deliberate misquoting [5]
  • Out of context quote (point of which was later verified) [6]
That's getting to be enough for an RFC here. And that's on an AFD debate in 2 days. I think you've clearly shown you have no interest in reasoned discussion. jbolden1517Talk 18:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Ever heard the old saw about pots and kettles, or the one about removing the log from your own eye? Your edit comments alone show your incivilty, refusal to act in good faith, propensity for ascribing motives and tendency for personal attacks. You want to file an RFC, go for it, but you'd better come up with more substantive evidence. To wit:
  • "That's utter nonsense" is stating a fact. I don't know what you think it violates ... certainly not anything more than you violated with "(rv post split version so that STR1977 stops wasting his time. If we are going to have a 3rd party judge let him judge the actual material being discussed)" [7], or "(removing mickey mouse (lets see if this was really about the intro))" [8] or "(rvv Kenosis. This is an attempt to prejudice a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Christ as myth to make the two article appear similiar and influence votes)" [9]. In fact the last two violate several policies.
  • "Article is a piece of shit" -- yep, it is. Again, a statement of fact.
  • "Uh, yeah. Profound." -- do you really think your car/train analogy was valid? In fact, it was just as sarcastic as my response. Makes us even on that one.
  • "Bragging about a violation of WP:AGF" -- nope, no bragging (and why you would infer it was is beyond me). In actual fact, however, I doubt you've ever read WP:AGF, and if you did, you must've missed this part, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary.". Note that the examples given are not all-inclusive. In fact, other editors have pointed this out to you as well.
  • " Out of context quote (point of which was later verified) " -- first, you fauiled AGF, and you ascribed motives. Second, the quote is not out of context, it is very much in context, and is precisely the type of quote (especially based on the policies it violates) one might use in an RfC on you.
  • Uh, this was not a correction of my edit. Please get it right. (rv to dbachman. Jim's edits are incorrect. TJs shouldn't be grouped with them.) [10]
Besides, how was my edit of "according to the Bible..." incorrect? Is not the NT part of the bible? Are not certain aspects of the Jesus story based on the OT -- the misreading of "almah" for example, or the reconstruction of Psalm 22, especially, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?"
In looking through the archives, and in talking with several other editors and admins, I see that the simple fact remains that people have tried to hold "reasoned" discussions with you, only to be rebuffed, belittled, insulted, marginalised and otherwise abused.
But, the real bottom line here is that you appear to be rather incensed that I nominated this article for deletion. •Jim62sch• 19:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Once again, let's remember three editors, without consensus, or even making a pseudo-attempt at consensus (unless we count the three) split and destroyed these articles. I will continue to revert these edits on both articles until they attempt to gain consensus (which now that good faith has been destroyed, isn't going to be fun).Orangemarlin 19:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
You mean of course "by the three" the 3 people who were discussing the issue at the time on the talk page over the several days before everyone present agreed worked together and did it. We had consensus you all showed up and launched a diatribe of personal attacks and abuse of process. Oh and what about the other dozen that have agreed with the split since then? Your side has yet to make a good counter argument. Paul has been asking again and again and again for what POV you think is being pushed and so far no answer. And that is because you know this was just an excuse and there was no POV fork. jbolden1517Talk 19:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow, in one nastly little diatribe you managed to violate WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and Ascribing Motives (for ref see [11]).
"before everyone present agreed worked together" -- seems like the sentence structure is a bit off. Are you saying that everyone who has commented on this page has now agreed to work together? If so, how is that a bad thing? •Jim62sch• 21:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No what I was saying was the people on the talk page at the time were all working together well on this issue. It was very cooperative. All the articles were progressing. Exactly what wikipedia aims for. It was only the people who had written the original later showed up and started recruiting friends like yourself from Intelligent Design that everything turned nasty. jbolden1517Talk 21:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)