Talk:Jesus/Archive 65

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Christianity Template, part 2

Previous talk at Talk:Jesus/Archive 64

Do you have any (unbiased) evidence that NT is accepted as historical evidence as the sole source? I for one would be interested in such scientific uses for the NT or Bible in general. Your reference to Iliad is false because while Troy (or eg. Jericho) is known to have existed the events pictured in Iliad or Odyssey have not been shown to be true - Nor are they accepted at face value without archeological or other historical sources to back them up. - G3, 21:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

I am listing this survey under WP:POLLS. This survey does not determine who "wins" or even what course of action this article may take. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

For everyone who wishes to participate, please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, preferably adding a brief comment (please, no more than a sentence). If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed above in the appropriate subsection, not here:

Q: Does placing the Christianity template at the top of the Jesus article rather than in the "Christian views" section give one religious viewpoint {...} preference over othersWP:BIAS?

Yes

  1. All religions need equal representation under policy. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. I'm not sure if people are reading your question correctly. Obviously placing the Chrtistianity template at the top of the article instead of the "Christian views" section gives one religion preference over others. The issue is, however, is it problematic to give the religion that stemmed from this individual preference over the religion that he allegedly practiced, or other religions that hold him as a holy figure, but not their founder. Maybe this poll needs to be reworded. I have commented elsewhere about there I feel this template should go and why.--Andrew c 02:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. This is the Jesus article (not the Christianity article) & the Jesus template should come first --JimWae 04:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Yes Jesus is a figure in other religions besides Christinaity. JPotter 17:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Yes it does, and that's fine since any article on this Jesus will be mostly about Christianity. That said, the Jesus template is a better one for the top of the article. -- Jeandré, 2006-06-30t18:02z
  6. The Jesus template is the obvious for the top of this article. POV would be putting the "Christian views" section at the end. As Jesus is an important figure in other religions I don't really see how we cannot put the template in the "Christian views" section. Sophia 18:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jesus was a historical figure and is a notable figure in religions besides Christianity. It would seem most appropriate to place the Christianity template in the "Christian views" section. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 15:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Yes, it does, in my opinion, give undue weight. I have no POV concerns if the box is moved to the Christian views section, however. --Joe Decker 17:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. If placed at the top of the article it most definitely yes. Jesus is not only a Christian figure - he also plays a major part in Islam.--Konstable 03:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Religious POV template tagging harms the project. — JEREMY 03:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. The Jesus template at the top and the Christianity template in the Christian views section (which already receives due prominence in its placement as the first and main religion associated with Jesus) seems most appropriate. Honestly, though, it wouldn't be that big of a deal to have the Christianity template in the main part of the article, after the Jesus template. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 05:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. Yes, I support the current organization.--Amerique 15:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  13. Marginally, but still, "yes." The problem is that the presence of the thing enflames passions in a way that its absence (or it's movement to the Christian Views section) would not. We sit battling over ephemera instead of improving what could become a superb article. Anything that causes this much strife amongst Wikipaedians of all faiths is simply not worth the effort. Kevin/Last1in 23:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  14. It makes more sense this way; if the infoboxes in this subject are at the top, why have an infobox about Jesus at all unless it's at the top of the Jesus entry? The alternative would be to have all the Jesus boxes at the bottom and all the Christianity boxes at the top (or vice versa) throughout the 'pedia. 'At the top' isn't necessarily better or worse - it's just a direction. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 16:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  15. Jesus plays a major part in both Christianity and Islam (although clearly more prominent in the former), in a manner incomprable to the role of Muhammad to the Bahá'í Faith. He is also a figure in many other religions. However, I wouldn't make a big fuss if the template were moved back to the top (it really wouldn't be worth the effort), although some may argue that in that case, the {{Islam}} template would belong at the top as well. -- joturner 13:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  16. Yes, Jesus is recognized by more than just Christianity; the Christianity template should not be at the top. - Draeco 15:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  17. Yes, Jesus is the secondmost important prophet of Islam, not to mention that he plays a role in other non-Christian religions aswell. I also think the Jesus template should be at the top simply for formatting concerns - this is the Jesus article, not the Christianity article, which means the Jesus template should logically be at the top. --Joffeloff 17:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No

  1. The policy is not "equal representation", but avoiding undue weight. Sxeptomaniac 19:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC) -- Clarification: I am only voting that putting it near the top is not an NPOV violation. The best location for it could still possibly be elsewhere, but that is not the subject of this poll. Sxeptomaniac 19:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Per undue weight, the Christian view should of course be given more prominence. Secondly, the template itself must also maintain a neutral point of view and thus in no way compromises the neutral point of view of the article. —Aiden 20:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. The other faiths that acknowledge Jesus, only do so 600 or more year later, and without their own valid source documents. rossnixon 01:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. What Aiden said. Jesus is much more prominent in Christianity than in other religions, hence the Christian template should receive more prominence here. Wesley 03:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. I haven't really commented on this whole issue because it looked very confusing and the problem didn't seem to have to do so much with placing the template as much as the content of the template, but I don't see why the template should be stricken forever simply because it might not conform to NPOV in some people's perspectives right now. Besides, Christianity does have the word "Christ" in it, and im sorry, but other religions sort of don't. I can't help this, and neither can Wikipedia. Homestarmy 04:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Per User:Sxeptomaniac and User:Aiden. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 06:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Storm Rider (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Without Christianity I doubt there would even be an article about Jesus. Islam would most likely not even exist. I find this whole situation distateful; it takes NPOV and turns it on its head. Jesus and Christianity is inseparably linked.
  8. per Sxeptomaniac, putting it at the top does not violate neutrality. Tom Harrison Talk 21:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. per user:Rossnixon (mainly) and user:Sxeptomaniac, user:Aiden -- Adriatikus 01:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Religions need due representation. Jesus is the most important person in Christianity (the world's largest religion) and not a key person in any other major religion. The Bahá'í Faith considers Muhammad a prophet, but we would never consider removing the Islam template from Muhammad's page. --Ephilei 05:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Jesus is a key figure in Islam, just not the (primary) key figure. He'd probably be number two (after Muhammad). -- joturner 12:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. This is silly, Jesus' role in Christianity far outstrips his role in any other religion. It also outdates his role in any other religion, since Islam only appeared 600 years later, and Islam's regard for Jesus is pretty obviously a result of Jesus' role in Christianity, and not independent of it. john k 17:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. Agreeing with the Baha'i example vis-a-vis Muhammad above, I think that Christianity is the religion(s) that sprouted from the seed of Jesus' teachings, and it isn't overly POV to add the template to the top of the Jesus article. It's an undue weight issue to try to "equalize" things here. I suggest that non-christian views of Jesus be summarized on this page in a paragraph or two, with a Template:main link to a daughter article "Non-Christian views of Jesus of Nazereth" provding the necessary comparative detail. (Could also be "Alternative views of Jesus of Nazereth" if one were to include varying less traditional christian interpretation). --Christian Edward Gruber 15:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  13. As per comments by Ephilei and ChristianEdwardGruber. -- Jeff3000 02:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  14. Jesus plays a MAJOR role in Christianity. Also per John k. --WikieZach| talk 19:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  15. Per John K.; Jesus was central to Christianity; he wasn't central to any other religion. --Pcj 12:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  16. I'm with John K. Aithon 19:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Conditional

  1. Though I believe Jesus is an integral part of Christianity, as is Buddha in Buddhism for example, I would accept the template move, so long as it is completed wherever else is applicable, i.e. at Buddhism, immediately. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 17:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, CrazyInSane, this does not answer the question above. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 18:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. If the introductory shared part of the article's text could be stripped of Christian bias then there would be no need of Christianity template on top of the article. As the article stands, accepting Bible as a historical document without criticism makes this article, IMO, heavily biased towards Christianity and leaving the template out can give a casual reader the wrong impression. - G3, 15:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

June 29th to July 5
  1. Does Muhammad as it is today violate our policy on neutrality? Tom Harrison Talk 20:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fresh from WP:CS and a scan of the article – meaning I deliberately have not read anything on the talk page other than the thread for this survey – I'd say the current positioning of the {{Jesus}} and {{Christianity}} templates neither promotes nor demotes a POV. Regards, David Kernow 21:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your take on things (and I agree). However, if the Christianity template was taken out of the Religious Perspectives section and placed at the very top of the article (a la the Islam template on the Muhammad article), would that change in lay out change your position on this matter?--Andrew c 22:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so, although I think I'd prefer the status quo as the {{Jesus}} template appears more understated... on third thoughts, perhaps it's also better to keep the {{Christianity}} template beside the "Christian views" section as Christianity isn't the only faith to acknowledge Jesus in some way. (Is Islam the only faith to acknowledge Muhammad in any significant way?)  Intriguing, David 01:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
David: No, Islam is not the only religion in which Muhammad is significant. He is also considered a "manifestation of God" in the Baha'i faith. However, the editors at Muhammad have (as we had done in the past here) concluded that not just the Islamic biography section, but all of the historical and cultural context provided in the article is pertinent to Islam and an integral part of the series of articles on Islam (which the template represents). Likewise, all of this article, not just one section, is an integral part of Christianity in a way it is to no other religion. —Aiden 05:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Aiden, I unfortunately continue to see that as no excuse to violate a "non-negotiable"WP:NPOV policy. :-( If this were truly the case, then you would also be arguing for the Christianity template to appear at the top of Historical Jesus as "all of the historical and cultural context provided in the article is pertinent to {Christianity}." אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 12:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
All of us and all of our brothers and cousins agree that NPOV is non-negotiable, inviolable, sacrosanct, and not to be taunted. We disagree on what constitutes neutrality. It is an increasingly tedious rhetorical device to label your oppononts position POV and then to ask how they can defend a position that is non-neutral. Tom Harrison Talk 13:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
After taking a plain reading of the NPOV policy, no stretching of semantics, a plain face-value reading as to what constitutes bias according to our own rules as quoted above, I took a look at the Jesus article and I saw the Christianity template in a place that appears to violate those rules. This, again at face value, appears to be a genuine problem. I start a discussion thread about it and a straw poll and I find that I am not the only one who sees this. If it was just myself and no one agreed with me, then yes I suppose I was seeing things incorrectly. However, there is apparently something to this that needs to be dealt with. If we disagree as to what constitutes neutrality, then we must find some way to resolve this issue amicably. When I started this thread, all sorts of accusations were flung at me and I have been trying my best to address them and focus upon the sole reason why I started this discussion: Adherence to our own policies. So I implore of you that we discuss our policies, not how I seem "rhetorically tedious." אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 13:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Aiden. I'd hope it's possible to write an article on Jesus or Muhammad (or...) without needing to involve Christianity or Islam (or...) from the very start. My understanding is that Christianity as is generally known and practised today was almost all (if not completely) built by people other than Jesus himself, starting with the Apostles, St. Paul, etc. Perhaps somewhere there is where the distinction lies. (I'm also guessing the same is likely to be the case as regards Muhammad and Islam, although I recognise there's a tighter link between himself, the religion spawned and its scripture.)  As regards the templates, I suppose this translates to "keep the status quo" here and perhaps reconsider it at Muhammad and other articles featuring religious figures. Regards, David 01:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Do 2 wrongs make a right for Xns now? If all wrongs must be righted before one wrong is righted, then everyone has an "excuse" to continue their wrongdoing--JimWae 06:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Are there multiple articles on Muhammed? Are there articles & sections of articles on Xn view of Muhammed? Jewish view of Muhammed? --JimWae 06:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
So, yes Muhammad as it is now does violate your understanding of npov? or No, it does not? Tom Harrison Talk 13:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment to Homestarmy. Two things. I'm not sure if anyone is advocating simply removing the Christianity template, only moving it to the actual section about Christianity instead of putting it at the top. What do you think about the placement of the template? Secondly, this article is not about Christ (that has its own article), not is it only about the Christian views on Jesus, the New Testament views on Jesus, or Christology (all of which have their own pages). In my mind, there are portions of this article that go along with a series of articles on Christianity, but there are portions of this article that do not, therefore keeping the Christian template in the Christian views section seems most logical. Besides, we get into crowding the opening top of the page with tables if we decide to just place them all at the top (and then we argue over which one goes above the other...)--Andrew c 14:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Well alot of the discussion up there seemed to be about "This template is evil because it says "Jesus(Son of God), how detestable and non-NPOV!" rather than anything primarily about whether it deserved to be placed at the top of the article, and the Christian views section isn't the only part that exibits how Jesus is clearly the most important in Christianity, most of the history section is straight from the gospels. Is there a part of template policy which says that templates should only be used at the top for articles which share the templates relation all throughout? Homestarmy 15:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Homestarmy, where was this discussion (summarized "Jesus(Son of God), how detestable and non-NPOV!") you're referring to? Unfortunately, there is no seperate template policy on Wikipedia and the only time that templates are explicitly mentioned (contentwise) in WP:POLICY is in WP:NPOV which I listed above. This proposal is not against the Christianity template, only about putting it in it's most appropriate place. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The section entitled "Removal of the Xty template" seems to be where that sort of discussion was. Homestarmy 18:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The undue weight clause of the NPOV policy states, Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. This is an article directly about Jesus, and not directly about Christianity or Jesus within Christianity (we have a seperate article about that). To put anything other than the Jesus template at the top of this article, I believe, would give that subject undue weight. The article is about Jesus, and there is a template completely dedicated to Jesus that we have in place; hence, the religious views section would be the best place for the Christianity template to live. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 13:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If you read the undue weight clause, it's talking about how not to give undue weight to less prominent views. Christianity is the most prominent view one could associate with Jesus and is thus entitled to due weight. —Aiden 13:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Christianity is one of the most prominent religious views, followed very closely with Islam (on a scale of billions of people). There is an entire body of scholarship and research about Jesus as a person, which is what the Jesus template includes and the Christianity template lacks. But note, even the Jesus template as it is now puts some Christian views at the top giving more than due weight to Christianity. Also note, that these views are specifically about Jesus within Christianity rather than a general overview of Christianity itself. Having references to Ecumenical councils, the Great Schism, the Crusades, and the Reformation has nothing to do with Jesus in this context of this article and would be out of place. How is the Jesus template, as it is now with references to Christianity, not sufficient? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 14:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. It seems to me that Christian views of Jesus come from Christianity (and ultimately from God IMHO, but that's a matter of faith). Ergo, the Christianity template should go in the "Christian views of Jesus" section of this article, or, alternately, the Christian views of Jesus page.

Note, too, that the Islam template isn't even in this article. It's in the Islamic view of Jesus article. To be consistent, one would expect to find the Christianity template in the Christian views of Jesus page.

However, this is just my opinion. You may now load the rotten tomatoes and commence firing when ready. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No rotten produce from me. I agree completely and couldn't have worded it better. Thanks for your civility and for weighing in. --Andrew c 02:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There appear to be several votes from users I've not seen edit or participate in this article before. I sincerely hope no one is attempting to rig the vote or organize a cabal. —Aiden 23:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

July 5 to July 11
Aiden, I made note at the very top of this section that this straw poll was listed on WP:POLLS as outlined under policy. There very well may be people who aren't involved with this article come through, read the poll and vote (which in theory is supposed to reduce bias). Making note of such a thing as that in the words that you have selected I personally find very upsetting and passive-aggressive. Everyone who has voted, thusfar, on the straw poll appears to have a solid history with Wikipedia, and they do not seem to be the kind of one-shot deal that might occasionally be found on AfD, no? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 00:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure Aiden meant no offense. This year it seems we've had a lot of polls and the accusation has come up before (although then, some were alledging a Christian Cabal, which later became DWEECS). There's probably still some bad feelings all around. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
For me it was like that: browsing WP - seeing the poll - being interested in the subject - thinking - voting. Cheers. -- Adriatikus 01:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I am shocked that there even is a debate about this. It may seem to many people that Jesus is overwhelmingly predominant in Christianity, but in Islam Jesus is also a very major figure. Christian views on Jesus are not the same as Islamic views, and also the various views of historians on Jesus ae even more different. So labelling this article "an article on Christianity" is very severe POV. I have seen some people comment above that Jesus is a predominantly more major figure in Christianity (of course - God, rather than a Prophet or historical figure) - this is irrelavent, because there are over 1 billion Muslims, over 1 billion Atheists, and many more from other religions, who would not consider Jesus to be the Christian God. So in fact this would work out to be the majority of the world's population that does not share this view.--Konstable 03:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

As a student of Islam, I very much disagree that Jesus is a major figure in it. Most Muslims disagree, but this is mostly to appeal to all the Christians who hold Jesus so highly. In essence, Jesus is just like every other Islamic prophet, no more, no less, and no more. --Ephilei 05:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Also as a student of Islam, many Muslims do hold Jesus to a high regard and an important part of their religion, regardless of Christian interpretation (and certainly not in the same sort of adoration one finds in Christianity). He is more than just an average prophet, he is also al-Masih and the precursor to Muhammad. :-) As a result, both Islam and Christianity should have their series templates in their respective sections with the Jesus template on top. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 14:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Isn't Jesus considered one of the five main Prophets of Islam? Less than Mohammad; on a par with Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses; greater than the others? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Konstable, do you then see a POV issue with the Islam template at the top of the Muhammad article? Does that in any way change the neutral presentation of the article or convey that the Islamic view is the correct view? Does including a template which itself must adhere to WP:NPOV--regardless of its place in the article--convey any one POV? I think most would agree it does not. Having the Islam template at the top of the article simply signifies that this is an integral part of a series of informative articles on Islam. In no way does this say "Muhammad is a Prophet of Islam, not a Manifestation of God as the Baha'i Faith teaches." No, it simply says, "Here are other articles related to Islam." That's all the template is! —Aiden 19:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

After reading what Arch O. La wrote, I seriously like the suggestion to keep the Christian template on the Christian POV articles and the Islamic template on the Islamic POV article(s?). This Jesus article is not part of a series on Islam or Christianity. Both section have a main see also tag pointing to that actual articles about these topics (and both already use the proper respective templates). Instead of trying to fit both templates in an article about so many different perspectives, I say leave them for the pages that solely talk about those POV. --Andrew c 02:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, politically corectness is becomeing (and I think in some parts of the world already is) a new social doctrine. I'm saying this as one who once lived in a doctrinal society. A doctrine applied to social relations is nothing else but limits to free thinking, its side effect being the perversion of reality and of the truth. In the problem discused here -- As Buddha isn't just "a" prophet (religious figure) of the Extreme East, but "the" central figure of Buddhism, saying Jesus is (firstly) "a" prophet of Abrahamic (or others) religions is denying its essence. Jesus didn't just found, but identifies itself to Christianity. He is not just a common figure of some religions. He represents the very center of Christianity. I think it's wright to emphasise it. As for the other religions claiming him, I think a chapter (or a sepparate page, or a template on the page, or something like this - it's not important, I'm not discussing the outward appearance) bearing a title like "Jesus in non-Christian world" would be proper. As about an "objective" (neutral, scientific) point of view, I really don't think this could be done or generally accepted (excepting a non-religious, academic views on Jesus section/chapter) - NPOV is desirable, but not always feasible as expected. PS1: I didn't use capitals in pronouns to show I didn't judge this as Christian. PS2: I didn't read other oppinions to make my own POV. Thank you. -- Adriatikus 10:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree wiht the above sentiment, and I think "Non-Christian perspectives on Jesus" is a reasonable place to collect such things. A paragraph or two that summarizes such on the Jesus page, with a main template link to the Non-Christian views page would be very helpful. This way the Jesus page stays in the Christian template sphere, but the non-christian views page can be outside of all templates, but may be categorized within any and all religious categories where such religions take a strong position on the role or nature or person of Jesus. --Christian Edward Gruber 15:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems an odd, biased split to divide between Christian views on the one hand, and all other views on the other. There's already a family of articles on the various views of Jesus. Besides Christian views of Jesus, there is Historical Jesus, Jesus Myth, Islamic view of Jesus, and Judaism's view of Jesus, for example. Also, Religious perspectives on Jesus lists some that aren't in this article, such as Scientology's view and Urantia's view. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually an article on Jesus should include all views, otherwise it fails the most basic WP:NPOV test. Guettarda 15:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Space permitting ;) Since space doesn't permit, we have the family of articles on various views of Jesus. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Sort of true. It needs to include all non-trivial views to pass basic WP:NPOV. However, if it highlights clearly that the conception of Jesus presented is typical of most Christian denominations, with a clear reference to other views, it still passes NPOV. As a Baha'i (yes I realize the irony of my name, though it's not as ironic as most people suppose), I would not feel comfortable with a presentation of every single available view on Baha'u'llah on His biography page, though referring in summary to other views of his role/mission might be appropriate, with a break-out link to a daughter or peer article that describes such in more detail. It keeps undue weight from skewing NPOV in the other direction. Certainly, as a Baha'i I believe in Jesus, and Baha'u'llah and Abd'ul-Baha talk quite a bit about Jesus. Jesus is one of the "stars" of the Qur'an, as a morrocan friend of mine once put it. Yet, the most common conception of Jesus, among people who pay attention to Him at all, is the Christian view, or are direct reactions to the historical Christian view of Jesus. It might be ideal to represent all views in one article, but it would make it unwieldly. To use yet another analogy, if we were to add Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Baha'i, and secular views to the Moses page and give them substantially equal treatment, it would be undue weight. I'd love to list all sorts of aspects of the Baha'i view of Jesus, his nature and mission on the Jesus page... if I were being apologetic. However, in the spirit of Wikipedia, I would prefer to keep things encyclopedic. In that light, I cannot support adding lots of Baha'i text to a Jesus article (or Muhammad for that matter). Just a small summary with a link to a larger article.--Christian Edward Gruber 22:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Well put. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

So, Steve, does this poll have a time period? I think we would all like to get back to work on the article. —Aiden 05:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the poll, at the moment is 50/50 (but not that the outcome of the poll makes anything written in stone :-P ), and unless we can come to a compromise that all editors involved are willing to implement, then we may have to go onto the next step of dispute resolution. I agree that we do need to get back to work on the article, however what work we may disagree on. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 14:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The section is getting rather long and I'd like to archive it. Subpage, maybe? I have split the comment section by weeks because long sections are hard to follow. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 16:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

July 12 to July 18
Brilliant idea, Archola :-) I'd say we should make the move soon. The beginning of next week look good? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Remove/don't re-insert the Christianity template not for NPOV reasons (I understand both sides, and cannot decide strongly for either one) but for aesthetic reasons. With the Jesus template already there, it's simply too crowded to have both. Since there's a dispute over it anyway, and both sides make valid points, the deciding factor might as well be something unrelated to either (and, in my humble opinion, valid in its own right). (Not sure where else to put this, as it's not actually supporting either side, so I hope it's okay here.) ----Icarus (Hi!) 18:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
That can be solved by using a simple floating table. —Aiden 20:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
But that fails to fix the redundancy between the templates. The Jesus template already has a lot of links about Christianity (first, too) and gives it due weight, where the Christianity template has many "several-times-removed" issues. Why do we need both to clutter the page? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Icarus pegged it. The argument is whether it should be there. When consensus cannot be reached on a certain question, rephrase the question. We're split on whether having the Christian template enforces an unacceptable POV. Fine. Change the question to, "Would the absence the Christian template imply a POV?" If half of us think adding it creates a POV and ten percent think leaving it off creates a POV, the decision becomes much more palatable and, frankly, more obvious. Kevin/Last1in 22:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, I would appreciate it if you were to directly address why the Jesus template is not sufficient to be at the top of the article by itself, seeing that the first section of the template gives direct mention to Christianity and Jesus' role within it (with proper due weight without unrelated links) and other related articles that the Christianity template does not have, as well as being the template specifically about and tailored for the figure in question. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 23:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It's very simple: Because the article itself, not one section, is an integral part of the series on Christianity in the same way that Muhammad is an integral part of the series on Islam. I've stated this multiple times. You still haven't explained, however, how placing a template which itself must conform to WP:NPOV at the top of an article, rather than the middle, makes the article POV. —Aiden 23:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you arguing that Jesus is more of an integral part to the Christianity series than he is in the Jesus series? Jesus has the most critical and integral part to the Jesus series, hands down. Under NPOV, listing the Christianity template at the very top of the article gives preference to Christianity over Islam and other religions, all which have sections that are most appropriate for such things. Furthermore, listing such links to Ecumenical councils, Great Schism, and The Crusades that the Christianity template has are things that bear little to extremely removed signifigance to Jesus as a person. Like the article Old Testament and New Testament, firmly rooted in the Christianity series, the most appropriate template should be on top, or at the very least higher in the article. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 03:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
We're going in circles here, Steve, and you seem to keep asking the same answered questions. As the article was before, both templates were at the top. —Aiden 06:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I think that the article as it stands post-discussion, with the Jesus template at the introduction of the article and the Christianity template in the Christian viewpoint section is inoffensive and logical. I think also that that is the consensus of the discussion. So we shouldn't see any more reverts on this, should we? Joel Bastedo 01:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunently, I had to revert, an anon removed the template altogether. Homestarmy 01:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems that Aiden just moved the Christianity template back up to the top, citing the discussion here. Aiden, it seems there is general agreement that the template would be better placed in the Christian views section, even if, by right of NPOV, it might be justifiable at the top. So why did you change it? Joel Bastedo 18:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
There was by no means any consensus. Thus, I restored the template positions to how they have been for months. —Aiden 18:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Poppycock. In complete defiance of the consensus slowly building here, and against the specific plea from the admin who unlocked the page (that we continue discussion on the templates), you jumped in and changed it the way you wanted to see it. This is the very antithesis of WP:FAITH and WP:CON. Kevin/Last1in 18:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Unless somebody cares to record Aiden's brainwaves during his reverting and then put them through some tests to determine his motivations, I daresay there isn't much way to prove whether or not he was acting in the very antithesis of WP:FAITH or WP:CON. It was just one revert folks, and if it was really the way Aiden says it was before the dispute began, I can certainly see some merit to changing it back to the pre-dispute conditions. Homestarmy 18:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Homestarmy, you're right. I have no way to know, and should have impugned, the motives of another editor. I apologize. Let me rephrase: The action of moving the template whilst consensus-builing continues is the antithesis of WP:FAITH and WP:CON. Better?Kevin/Last1in 18:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Good Lord, Kevin. I'd dare say you are blowing this entire thing out of proportion. Has a consensus been achieved thus far? No. Then the template should remain in its original position until such a consensus is achieved. As I said in my comment below, I have no problem respecting such a consensus; but as of yet there is none, and thus the original position of the template should remain. —Aiden 22:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)