Talk:Jesus/Historicity Reference

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the archive of discussion for the second paragraph Historicity reference.

Contents

[edit] Final and Utter Consensus Vote

THIS VOTE HAS ENDED, PLEASE DO NOT ADD ADDITIONAL VOTES!

Okay, the biggest problem there seems to be on this page is that there are way, way, way too many votes and schtuff going on inside of this page. We've got several different suggestions and I think all of us are ready to decide on it and move freakin' on.

So here's my proposition. I've placed here the current suggestions on the table, those which have been involved in discussion or debate, or have received a voting process. If I have missed a suggestion that would be considered a final, ready-to-vote upon line of text, please add it within the first two hours of this vote.

After that, no more debating, no more discussion, let's finish this bloody sentence and move on. For the next 48 hours, this section is to remain a voting only section, no talk, no discussion, no comments, no neutrals (because we just need to pick one), no "accept with conditions." At the end of the day, the twenty or so editors on this page have been arguing about one sentence for over thirty days now, and there is a lot more work that could be done.

Please sign (#~~~~ only) between the text and dividing line of the ONE text which, for at least the next thirty days, you could live with. It does not have to be the one whose semantical, definitional, theological, et ceteraical machinations you agree with or believe in. At this point, we are never going to finish the sentence if we're trying to sculpt one to which every single editor adheres. Your vote will count for the suggestion that it is placed directly under

I will tally the votes and in the event that any suggestion receives more than 80% support (the current number used to pass RfD and RfAdmins), we will place that line on the page and move on. If a clear majority is not present, the percentages will be calculated and any item that received less than 20% support will be removed. If all votes match this mark, the lowest scoring item will be removed. We will vote again until we are either down to two suggestions or one suggestion receives an outright 80% vote.

If your voted suggestion is removed, please select the choice out of those remaining that, again, you could live with for the sake of civility and ending this war.

At this point, the final choice will be used on the main page and all changes to that line will be reverted as per concensus, even if an editor vehemently disagrees with the vote, and reverts here will be subject to WP:3RR like all others. I know this seems rather drastic or rather totalitarian, but honestly, this has dragged on long enough. In the end, not every editor is going to be completely satisfied with the end result, but this is the only way we will drop this matter. At that point, every single piece of material on this talk page that has to do with that line should be archived and any further debate (such as that from authors who wish to provide a new suggestion after the thirty days) should take place on the archive page.

Finally, I have added two other fields. One, if you absolutely disagree with this suggestion in its entirety, please place your stamp on the appropriate field. If that field reaches a majority vote, we will disregard this and continue on with the debate. Two, it is theoritically possible to remove the line entire as we must also consider the existence of a Historicity section just down the page and two seperate articles designed to discuss the topic, Historicity and Jesus-Myth.

Consider, however, how much good seems to be coming out of this as opposed to how much bad. I see a lot more frustration, attacks, edit wars, revert wars, and anti-editor sides being created than any positive work towards the future of Wikipedia.

Agreement to Concensus and Honesty: Another editor brought me to realize that I hadn't addressed this here. By placing your signature on a suggested text line on this voting board, you agree to abide by the concensus of a selected line for the proposed thirty day term. There is no point in placing a vote which you later choose to disavow, or voting in a decision which you later choose to ignore. If you feel that you cannot abide by the decision of the editors here (meaning leaving this line alone and discussing it on a subpage for the duration), please mark your signature in the last section, designating that you cannot promise to abide by concensus. If you have already posted a vote on this board, you may revoke it or move it to a new section in light of this agreement, but please do so only once, and let that vote be final. Please do not move your vote after you have placed it (unless you placed it by mistake, at which point we would expect you to immediately move it. Ten hours later is unacceptable). Any editor caught moving or removing another editor's vote will be immediately referred to an admin and have his or her vote nullified. (I have extended the vote duration to reflect this recent change. --AWK)

Please, only place a bullet and your signature inside of this section. Please do not comment on your vote, please do not add stipulations, please do not reply to others votes. This must end. --Avery W. Krouse 03:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Avery, I appreciate very much what you are trying to do, and welcome anything that will help us move on. However, I refuse to limit myself to voting for only one of the three options. Such a rule is devisive and makes consensus impossible. I should think the reason is evident: I may prefer one version, but for the sake of compromise be perfectly willing to accept another version. If I were limited to picking one, I would be forced to appear uncompromising. All voters would be forced to appear uncompromising. This is in my opinion the last thing on earth that we need. There may in fact be people who find only one of the three acceptable. But what if one person finds 1 and 3 acceptable, and another finds 1 and 2 acceptable? Restricting the vote to one choice per person might lead one to pick 2, and the other to pick 3, when in fact there is a compromise both may be willing to accept. Whatever the mechanism, it should be open to possible compromises and must not foreclose on the possibility of compromise. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
And I am trying to synthesize the debate (while of course respecting NOR, NPOV and all that). I have decided to abstain from further voting because the votes to this point have been polarizing, and have not reflected concensus. I don't know if your approach will work any better than the previous voting, but good luck. Arch O. La 18:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
First round voting will end on 04:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC).

THIS VOTE HAS ENDED, PLEASE DO NOT ADD ADDITIONAL VOTES!

[edit] Table of Suggested Lines (Primary Tally)

Please read through the above instructions before voting. (AWK)
All percentages have been truncated to two decimal places. (AWK)

However, citing a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making reference to him, a small minority question the historicity of Jesus.[1] (current form and Feb 20th consensus) 15/39 (38.46%)

  1. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Alienus 21:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Robsteadman 08:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. KHM03 12:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Guettarda 16:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Storm Rider 17:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Wesley 17:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Giovanni33 17:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)My preference is for the Sophia version, though.
  9. Jayjg (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC) (preference 1)
  11. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC) (preference 1)
  12. SOPHIA 22:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC) Hope I haven't messed up the Venn diagram!
  13. Str1977 (smile back) 22:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC) as a 2nd preference if preferences are counted.
  14. JimWae 16:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC) this is the version just agreed upon in latest big vote - yet has been repeatedly proposed for revision - we do not need to vote 3 times per week on same sentence when there is nothing particularly wrong with it
  15. ems 18:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

However, a small minority of others consider the lack of extant contemporaneous documents making a reference to him significant and therefore question the historicity of Jesus.[2] (Sophia version) 6/39 (15.28%)

  1. Alienus 03:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Robsteadman 08:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Paul B 13:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Giovanni33 17:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC) (preference 3)
  6. SOPHIA 22:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

A small minority of others question the historicity of Jesus.[3] (CTSWyneken Version) 16/39 (41.02%)

  1. Homestarmy 02:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. CTSWyneken 03:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Aiden 03:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. KHM03 12:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. StanZegel (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Gator (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. drboisclair 14:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Wesley 17:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. DanielDemaret 17:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. Str1977 (smile back) 17:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC) as a first preference if preferences are counted, as sole vote if only one vote counts.
  12. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC) (preference 2)
  13. Jbull 18:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC) (preference 2)
  15. AnnH ♫ 21:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. Darwiner111 04:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  17. Ztsmart 17:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Remove the line entirely 2/39 (5.12%)

  1. rossnixon 19:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Remove it Raisinman 00:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Raisinman

All suggested texts are unacceptable / more debate needs to occur / will not abide by concensus 0/39 (0%)

[edit] Final Vote Discussion

Once again, please keep all comments out of the above field, for the sake of clarity, honesty, and fairness. I have moved them all down here.

Also, those of you who have voted twice, please go back and remove ONE of your votes. Voting twice does not help us narrow the field down, it just unbalances the equation. Thank you. --Avery W. Krouse 16:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on Votes

Whoever moved these comments here, isolating them from specific vote' has made a nonsense of these comments - Stop trying to dictate what others CAN and CAN'T do. Robsteadman 19:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I think this is fine and well-written. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have voted for two as they are both accurate, informative, verifiable and NPOV whereas the 3rd option does not meet basic encyclopedic standards. Robsteadman 08:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This would work for me; quite accurate and NPOV. KHM03 12:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • best written of the three. Guettarda 16:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This seems to be the best of the options, since it briefly gives one of the reasons for the doubt. In my opinion, it's not the most important reason by a long way, but this seems to be the one that the consensus has adopted. Paul B 13:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This would work for me; quite accurate and NPOV. KHM03 12:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it should say more than simply question the historicity of Jesus. Most scholars, even those who accept Jesus as a real person, at some point have to question it, before coming to their stance, assuming that real Jesus existed. To quesiton something doenst mean they reject or conclude on the issue one way or the other; it can mean simply that they have an open mind, or that they are skeptical enough to have questions about it, perhaps even doubts--- not that they believe that Jesus is nothing but myth. This possition is not represented by the current wording. What it should say is that not only does the lack of evidence cause some scholars to question the historicity of Jesus, but also to argue that Jesus is a complete mythical construction. Stating this more accurately represents this "small minority" possition. They go beyond just questioning or reasonable doubt. They argue that the evidence points to Jesus not having existed at all. Giovanni33 17:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • All three choices are reasonable, I've ranked them in order of my preference. My only concern was that the earlier option using weasel words, the "what they consider" clause, not be used. It was unencylopedic as it gave the impression that Wikipedia was dismissing the view and drawing conclusions for the reader, which violates NPOV. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've made my votes in the past. I feel that further voting may be polarizing, hence I choose to abstain. Beyond that, many should learn to respect others' points of view. After all, we do not experience another's subjectivity, so we cannot directly judge another's subjectivity. The real issue is that there are various points of view that should be explained accurately, fairly and while respecting NPOV.Arch O. La 18:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)PS: I agree with those who say that a weighted vote (1st, 2nd and 3rd choice) would be less polarizing. Arch O. La 23:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Why has Rob voted twice? —Aiden 19:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perhaps those voting for the (CTSWyneken Version) could explain why...

...Why are you voting for something that leaves out important information that explains why these scholars don't agree that "jesus" was real? Why are you trying to make the article less informative, less verifiable and less encyclopedic? Robsteadman 14:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

All versions are fine by me. I voted for the shortest text because this is an introduction, there is a full length article on the subject that explores (or should) every significant view on the subject and why and six out of seven encyclopedias that I've checked (Britannica included) do not mention the minority position at all and the seventh does only to refute it. I think it is good wiki practice to note the minority position, even though it is small, and to point to the article. If we do select the first or the second option, we will then eventually have to craft a text that explains why the majority reaches its conclusions, if we hope to avoid more than a few objections in the future.
The proposed rules are binding only in so far as the editors here and in the future are willing to honor them. It is truth in advertising to note I will, even to reverting changes I agree with and will wait the month after to propose the latter addition in the paragraph above, should one of the longer versions prevail. --CTSWyneken 14:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, because the sentence is linked directly to the article on the historicity of Jesus and is discussed in depth there and in the Historicity section of this article. If you would review Wikipedia policy concerning WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, you'd see this fring belief need not even be mentioned at all, but in order to acheive a consensus many of us are voting to leave this limited version in the article. We are not removing anything except cause for argument, as there is plenty of linkage that would satisfy any readers search for information on the historicity of Jesus and it is discussed further in the concording section. Why would we insist on overrepresenting a fringe view in contradiction of Wikipedia policy? —Aiden 20:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You, and the other POV pushers, keep calling it a fringe view whilst being highly selective about which scholars are allowed to be considered - I contest that it is a fringe view. Remember verifiable and accurate. There are no extant contemporaneous documents is verifiable and factual - this MUST be in this article and in the introduction - to not do so is to be unencyclopedic. Robsteadman 22:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
And again Robsteadnan insults other users. --CTSWyneken 23:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
This proposal is simple, streamlined, and to the point, and offers a link to an article where historicity is most appropriately discussed. The proposal is NPOV and accurate. KHM03 23:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
A strongly worded comment yes - an insult - really? The constructive thing to do is to remind Rob to keep to the point without bringing personality into it - ad hominem and all that. The majority need to stop acting like they are somehow doing us a favour by mentioning the minority view. As I have previously explained - the historicity of jesus is the subject of many books that readers can currently buy from high street bookshops. To not mention the controversy makes the article look out of date and irrelevant. SOPHIA 23:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It does not matter whether anyone thinks it is a fringe view. Almost all agree it should be represented in the intro, with a link to a more detailed article. It makes good sense to be as concise as possible in the introduction. An introduction is meant to orient readers to what comes after the introduction; and introduction is not the place for argument. Note that the sentence about the other view, that many historians believe Jesus existed, does not goi into all their reasoning - that too belongs in the body of this article or a linked article. In the intro we should state the main points of view. We should wait for the body of the article, or a linked article, to elaborate on that view, who holds it, and why. I would say the same thing about any other article. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Now, this I agree with. Thank you, Slrubenstein. Arch O. La 12:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)