Talk:Jesus/Archive 91

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.

POV pushing in introduction / Both POV's presented in introduction

I just reverted a bad edit to the second paragraph. Currently, the introduction has four paragraphs. The first introduces Jesus with information about his name and dates of birth and death. The second paragraph provides information about historical research on Jesus. The third paragraph describes Christian views. The fourth, Muslim views.

An editor just changed a sentence in the second paragraph concerning what most historians believe, to a statement about what Christians believe.

This is both misleading and poor organization. It is misleading because it might confuse people into thinking that the second paragraph is really about Christian scholars, or that al historians believe in the resurrection. It is poor organization because we should keep accounts of different points of view separate - the view of critical and other general historians and scholars of the Bible in one paragraph, and the views of Christians (including clerics, theologians, and other scholars) in another paragraph.

Many people spent a lot of time working on this introduction to make sure it complies with NPOV and is clear. We shouldn't change it without a consensus. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm the said editor. I have tried to bring attention to the followingstatement:
"Few critical scholars believe that all ancient texts on Jesus' life are either completely accurate or completely inaccurate."
I understand it was arrived at by consensus, however I've read the discussion and I truly believe it is a workaround that ends up being a non-statement. This sentence is trying to avoid mentioning the issue that some authors have presented the theory that Jesus is not an historical character, which is what all the references state. The weird wording is a result of that situation.
User Leadwind agreed that some work needed to be done, and SLRubenstein believed it didn't. There weren't any other users on this discussion. I believe the only way to bring attention to this issue is to go ahead and make the edit and try to get other users involved.
By the way, I'm in no way trying to push a POV as SLRubenstein is stating on the title of this paragraph, I sincerely believe both points of view should be presented by wikipedia policies. It would be very hard to argue that this is a case of undue weight for an argumentSchicchi (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

But the other point of view is already in the article, in the paragraph on what Christians believe. You just want to duplicate that POV so there is one paragraph on what critical historians and Christians believe, and then another paragraph on what Christians believe. This is sloppy editing and yes, POV-pushing. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't find the point of view referenced by [6] anywhere on the paragraph on what Christians believe. I don't think we're communicating here. My main concern, and you should know it by now, is that sentence that states that few scholars consider ancient text accurate or inaccurate.
During the discussion that lead to the sentence as it currently stands there was a proposed sentence that said Few critical scholars believe that all ancient texts on Jesus' life are completely accurate, some have even questioned his existance I believe that sentence describes the situation presented by the references in a more accurate form. Schicchi (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line: the sentence you added: "Christian scholars consider some or all of the Gospels' miracles, such as Jesus' Resurrection as true [5]" belongs in the paragraph on Christian points of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I added that per Leadwind's proposal, I am OK with that whole paragraph except for that ambiguous last sentence. Schicchi (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Few critical scholars believe that all ancient texts on Jesus' life are either completely accurate[5] or completely inaccurate

OK, what about this sentence: A few scholars have questioned Jesus' existence[6], position which has faced strong opposition among Christian scholars [5], this reflects the information of the reference in a much clearer way. Schicchi (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I don't appreciate your edit summary to your last main article edit. Wikipedia works on consensus, and if an editor in good faith doesn't like your changes, then there isn't consensus for its inclusion and therefore has no place in the live main article in the first place. That said, I appreciate you taking the time to discuss things on the talk page, and perhaps it wouldn't hurt to have a little more patience to make sure that the community is on the same page as you. Once there is a clear consensus on what to do in the article, then making the change to the live article won't be controversial, and won't be reverted (or cause an edit war). But enough about that. I think the use of the term "Christian scholars" is misleading here. Robert M. Price is Episcopal and therefore Christian and he is also a scholar, so that makes him a "Christian scholar", although he has not strongly opposed questioning Jesus' existence. Similarly, there are most likely non-Christian scholars who have been highly critical of the myth camp. Furthermore, the footnote after "Christian scholars" [5] are not referencing books that are critical of the myth camp, but instead referencing apologetic works.-Andrew c [talk] 14:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Glad to read you here Andrew. I understand that there's a need to get consensus first, but I tried to get attention to this and the issue got lost, it was only by modifying it that people got back to looking into this issue again. I understand that the Jesus myth issue is a touchy one, but the references made in the lead are all Jesus Myth proponents, and the sentence in question as it stands seems to be a workaround to avoid calling the issue by it's real name. I can't believe I'm the only one that finds that sentence ambiguous. I was proposing to remove the term "Christian scholars" from the second part of the sentence per your last paragraph. Schicchi (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
If we have a sentence that reads "A few scholars have questioned Jesus' existence[6], a position which has faced strong opposition", then we'd be getting rid of the information regarding the literalist/apologetic POV. We'd need another sentence to cover the POV (which is represented by the footnote [5]). I agree with you that it makes sense to link to or mention the Jesus myth hypothesis outside of a footnote, but for whatever reason it has been very difficult to agree on a wording. -Andrew c [talk] 16:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A book writer and an atheist philosopher are not scholars in this area , especially in regards to history and on historical persons or events. The Jesus myth idea is dismissed by historians as a crock pot scholarship. Hardyplants (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hardyplants, I believe that you're violating wikipedia policies by disqualifying atheists and "book writers" -a priori-, you're preventing a POV from being presented, and it's certainly NOT a POV that's being given undue weight. I can present at least 20 books on the subject written by serious scholars. There's no reason why a "book writer" and an "atheist philosopher" cannot be considered serious scholars. Schicchi (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I think what he means is "scholar" in a stricter sense. Otherwise, there's also no reason why any given person cannot be considered a scholar. Chensiyuan (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Chensiyuan, I don't think that the scholars who are referenced in the introductory paragraph have been any less thorough or less informed than the ones Hardyplants may be discussing. Schicchi (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
IFeito, your missing the point, they are not historians and historians for the most part dismiss their "ideas" as poor scholarship. There are plenty of good scholars that are atheists, but when atheism is the reason for their research especially in a field they are not trained in, its very problematic. And yes its undue weight too, because the vast majority of "scholars" accept the Historical Jesus, if you want to mention that some people do not believe that Jesus existed - put it somewhere lower down and we can then add in plenty of quotes and research from legimently recognized historical researches. Hardyplants (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Hardyplants. Lets not discuss the accuracy of their statements, since that's not what Wikipedia is about. Go to Amazon and do a book search for "Jesus Myth". You'll be overwhelmed at the number of books on the subject. This is certainly NOT a case of an argument being given "undue weight". Go to Yahoo Answers and do a quick poll of the number of people who believe in the Jesus Myth hypothesis, I have found it to be between 15-20% (highly unscientific, I know), but it shows it's NOT something that should be ignored in an article such as this. Hey, I'm not arguing that the lead sentence should not state that he existed (like it currently does), but I do believe that if the references made are to authors that propose the Myth hypothesis then it should be spelled out in the sentence and not shyly worked around like the sentence as it currently stands does. Schicchi (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that the way they do it for other controversial subjects like Evolution, Holocaust and Global warming. Hardyplants (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to chime in and add another voice. Yes, IFeito, you can do a book search on amazon to find many Jesus Myth books. But compare that to the number of books on Jesus in total, and it's simply insignificant. But that shouldn't be a factor here, because it seems to loosely resemble the common "Google Test" notability fallacy in AFD discussions. Hardyplants is correct, but the current sentence is perfectly balanced and carefully crafted and even supports your request in slightly different wording. "Few critical scholars believe all ancient texts on Jesus' life are ... completely inaccurate." This is roughly what you want to say - that thare are a few scholars who question Jesus' existence (in better wording) - it simply has both POVs. What you propose is to eliminate a very interesting, helpful accompanying POV: that few scholars believe the texts are completely accurate, either. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 19:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Okiefromokla, I'm not suggesting that we use the google test, I'm just saying that mentioning that some authors have posted the theory that there was no historical Jesus is NOT an argument that should be eliminated due to undue weight. I mostly understand where all the people defending that sentence are coming from, but I certainly don't share that view. I certainly do not believe that the Jesus Myth theory has seen it's heyday, but we'll have to wait and see. I believe that popular wisdom made Jesus into the character he is today and it will be popular wisdom who will make him disappear. I can say without fear of being wrong that the destiny of Jesus is to join all the forgotten gods in the history of mankind. Schicchi (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for making the motivation for your request clear to us. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 05:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course I believe it to be the other way around. I would like to clarify that I'm not trying to push a POV, I initially entered the discussion only because the sentence seemed completely wrong for wikipedia, I can't believe the reaction that I got from trying to change it. Schicchi (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"Few critical scholars believe that all ancient texts on Jesus' life are either completely accurate[5] or completely inaccurate.[6]" This sentence is terrible. Let's state a positive. "Critical scholars generally see the gospels as combining genuine history and pious fabrication, reflecting the different intents and audiences of the authors." Leadwind (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a NPOV. First of all, historians don't necessarily think any of the scriptures are "fabricated," there are many ways in which they could have arisen, not just by being deliberately fabricated, which your proposal implies. We aren't going to even begin to imply that religious scriptures are lies (as is implied by that wording), as doing so would probably mean bedlam on the talk page and constant attempts to change the sentence. Plus, it isn't our place, and who is to say they are fabricated? Maybe they are 100% true. There is no scientific proof either way, so we can't say. The sentence is perfect as is, as it gets the point across without making judgment or swaying in favor or against the scriptures. Seriously, people, leave this sentence alone. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 17:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
OK. "Critical scholars generally see the gospels as combining history, legend, and invention, reflecting the gospels' various sources and authors." In any event, a sentence that says very little isn't worthy of such an important topic.Leadwind (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Or even, ""Critical scholars generally see the gospels as reliable documents reporting historical events." I'd rather see a sentence that clearly says something false than a sentence that doesn't say much of anything. Leadwind (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
OR "Critical scholars generally see the gospels as documents reporting historical events; combining history with theological points of view made in a context of faith, reflecting the gospels' various sources and authors." Hardyplants (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me chime in again. I don't think we should elaborate into what Christian Scholars believe, like Andrew C. has stated, that is discussed on the next paragraph. The issue here is that the sentence as it currently stands is a workaround to avoid mentioning the Jesus Myth hypothesis. I'm not discussing whether its correct or not, just that if that's what's being referenced and should be mentioned in the article's lead. "A small minority of scholars has questioned Jesus existence, this idea has faced strong opposition among traditional and Christian scholars" Schicchi (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentencre in question is NPOV, well-written, and accurate. It is not a terrible statement, it provides the view of historians concerning historical sources which is what historians are most concerned with. The sentence is not a "workaround" as is not meant to avoid mentioning anything, it is what it is, an accurate description of what most historians believe. Leadwind and Schicchi both had POVs to push and want to change the sentence to insertr their POVs. let us put an end to this. This is a sock puppet of User:Okiefromokla expressed this issue very well. There is nothing left to discuss. I will say nothing more on the topic. Leadwind and Schicchi can continue to use this as a WP:soapbox as long as others let them, but until i see a proposed real improvement for which there is consensus, I will revert any attempt to muck with what is already a clear and accurate sentence. And I will not provide additional reasons, all my reasoning has already been expressed here. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, no question about it, that's the spirit that makes Wikipedia improve! Schicchi (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
SLR, is the sentence "an accurate description of what most historians believe"? That's the sort of sentence that would make sense. Unfortunately, when I read it, it reads like a description of what few historians believe, not most. ""Few critical scholars believe..." it says. Why state it as a negative? Why not have a straightforward sentence that says, "Most critical historians believe. . . "? Leadwind (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
On the topic of whether we should mention the Jesus Myth hypothesis at all in the lead, I had previously said Yes, and now I don't know. If we cracked open the Encyclopedia Britannica and looked up Jesus, what would we see? How prominent would the Jesus Myth idea be? Anyone can find scholars who believe anything, but if there are other good encyclopedias that spell out the Jesus Myth idea prominently, then we should, too. If not, then not. Leadwind (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed a description of what few historians believe. But what few historians believe is as valid a POV as what most historians believe. In fact, because of the phrasing, this one sentence covers two points of view: those few who believe sources are wholly accurate, and those few who believe they are wholly inaccurate. I think that one sentence that explicitly describes two points of view, and implicitly describes the other point of view, is pretty good. Moreover, these views are very straightforward and easy to state in one sentence in the introduction. The views of the majority of scholars are obviously more complex and it would be impossible to do justice to them in the intro ... better save it for the body. As for using a negative, well, that is unavoidable - i.e. "Most critical scholars believe that all ancient texts on Jesus' life are neither completely accurate nor completely inaccurate" - and besides, what is wrong with saying what scholars do not believe? the fact is, in many sciences scholars are far more certain of what they do not know, than of what they do know. Certainly in the case of historians studying these sources, they express more certainty about what they do not know than what they do know. Accepting an acknowleding this is part of understanding their point of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to take a step back and remember the context of the article. We aren't trying to list what scholars believe about scripture, as this attempts to do: "Critical scholars generally see the gospels as combining genuine history and pious fabrication, reflecting the different intents and audiences of the authors." First of all, if we were attempting to do that we would need a wagon load of new sources to back up a claim about what "most" scholars believe, since there is by far no consensus. Even then, I would doubt its accuracy. There's just no way to cover the majority of views on the gospels. This is why the simple, straightforward "few scholars believe..." is most appropriate, as pointed out by Slrubenstein. It covers them all without having to pull reasons out of our butts. Secondly, and most importantly, is that we seem to be forgetting that this is an article about Jesus, not the gospels. We simply shouldn't care if the gospels are accurate. "Texts on Jesus' life" include more than those texts considered gospels. None of the attempted revisions take this into account, but any further attempts at the "positive" instead of "neg" word in front would probably fail due to the first reason I mentioned. Its just too broad for an issue with little historical consensus (depending on what type of scholar is talking - that makes a huge difference). Also, slight POV probalems show up in every attempt I have seen so far. This isn't criticism to those trying, as my additions to certain articles may sometimes have a POV I wasn't aware if I feel a certain way. It's normal. It just helps that people who don't share the POV read it as well, as they might see something missed by the writer. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 15:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Just Curious

I know this may sound ignorant and out-of-place, but what kind trolling do you guys get around here? This is a good article, so it must take a lot of upkeep and patience for that sort of stuff.--CM (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well alot of it is based on the following:
  • Historicity of Jesus
  • Sexuality of Jesus
  • Gospel authenticity
To name a few (very blasphemous to me) points that are raised with no aim other than to disrupt. For the most part. Tourskin (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Tourskin, why would you find questioning the historicity of Jesus or the authenticity of the Gospels to be blasphemous? Don't you think that evidence should be given precedence over faith in Wikipedia? Schicchi (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
He only said it was blasphemous to him, which he is entitled to. Chensiyuan (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Compared to some other articles I watch, this one is very quite. Compare waterboarding, global warming, Holocaust denial, Flood geology... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, so a troll stops by, says, "I think Jesus was married/heterosexual/gay/bisexual/etc. and the gospels are fake/dumb/false etc." and poof, 85 archives.--CM (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, for one, Jesus dates back to Dezember 2001 - its among the oldest articles of Wikipedia. For another, there is a lot of legitimate discussion going on (including at least 2 of the 3 topics above). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Well the thing is, questioning science is not easy for trolls - most trolls are probably stupid because of their intention to disrupt. Its easier to disrupt the Jesus article because its easier to reject religion then science, because science seems to have more empirical proof involved. Also, vandalizing Jesus will get many Christians to be angry - vandalizing Global warming will not get people fired up with religious fever. Oh and I think its Blasphemous, but that doesn't mean I will not discuss it in a civilized manner, it just means that I have an opinion on the matter that believes its very wrong. Tourskin (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Clyde Miller's first comment was that this is a good article. He then commented that there are lots of archives. It is true as Stephan Schulz points out, that this is in part because it is an old article ... but, 2+2=4, perhaps a lot of that talk is one reason why this is such a good article. Yes, we have had to deal with trolls - and it doesn't matter what the "kind of trolling" is - in the end it almost all trolling is the same, anywhere: a violation of NPOV, V or NOR. People can comment on any topic whatsoever, what makes them a troll is their unwillingness to edit in good faith or to comply with the core policies. But it also takes a lot of discussion to write a good article on a complex topic and we - a heterogeneous group of people with diverse knowledges and points of view - have amanaged to do that through a lot of good discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Well props to you guys, and good to know. Its a shame regarding its unlikely ability to reach FA (stability), but I'll keep an eye out and hope.--CM (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
"Unlikely to reach FA." Indeed. I used to be fairly active on this page, trying to get the different sides to talk to each other and reach some sort of compromise. However, the more time I spent on this page, the more I noticed we were going in circles. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 18:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Come to think of it, I think about 80 of the 85 archives are full of the one particular troll favorite: AC/DC vs. Judas Priest (or something along that lines). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)