Talk:Jesus myth hypothesis/Archive 4

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

Reverts by A.J.A.

A.J.A. has just reverted my edits thus removing references that have been asked for. It also removed wiki link updates I made and reinserted an error by a previous editor stating that Josephus was alive at the same time as Christ. I am struggling to AGF here as it seems accuracy of the article is a side issue to this editor. I will not revert war to reference an article and remove errors. Sophia Gilraen of Dorthonion 20:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Beside being a POV revert in its own right, your revert tried to slide your POV back in under cover of a few minor improvements. Nope. A.J.A. 21:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The current intro is plain WRONG as you would know if you actually had knowledge of this subject and not just a POV about it. You have not had the decency to redo the wiki links in the references and I can see you solved the Josephus error by just reverting to the stub type article that is obviously your aim for this topic. As for reinserting the background section - there were references there and almost articles start with an introduction section that gives a short precis of the topic. Removal of this should cause more controversy than replacing it. I did not mark my edit as minor and stated clearly in the edit summary that I was adding references. Editing in this trigger happy "revert if you dare to disagree and never mind about the errors" atmosphere is pointless. As to my first revert - if an editor unknown to any page turned up and blanked most of it with his first edit to that page I would consider him a POV vandal and revert. Subsequent interractions with you are only reinforcing my view that first impressions are often correct. Sophia Gilraen of Dorthonion 21:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
What exactly is wrong with the intro?
As for moving the arguments in favor of the theory to the Talk page, [1]. Moving the arguments against it to Talk because they lack sources while insisting the arguments in favor should stay in the article is hypocritical. A.J.A. 22:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You tell me what's wrong - you're currently calling the shots so I assume you've read the books and are up to date on the subject. I know what changes need to be made to the into statement - have made them and you have reverted them with out explaining why. I can give you references as to why this current intro is wrong but I shouldn't need to if you know your stuff should I? I never had the chance to finish the references before you'd reverted. As to the background section - why does this article not need an intro section? Is that because you see it as a permanent stub? Sophia Gilraen of Dorthonion 22:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You know perfectly well that most of the change you made was simply reverting to the previous version. A few tweaks don't make that reversion uncontested. If the parts you don't like have to be put on Talk until the references are "finished", the same should go for the parts you do like. A.J.A. 22:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
References were asked for and given. I did not revert to a previous version - I reinserted the background section as to go straight into the "History" section is not the way an article is usually written. The is always (in my experience) a precis/introduction paragraph. The only exception to this that I have seen is when there is a stub article. It is editorial rudeness in the extreme to undo wiki links and other minor edits along with other changes you don't like. You have previously indicated that the removed material should not be replaced even if it is referenced so please answer my previous question - do you wish to see this article as not much more than a stub? Also please change the intro to properly refect the definition of this subject. The actual wording is not important as long as it acurately reflects the topic which it currently does not - the references need to be added in the right places too. I will not edit war on this and you have undone the first part of the changes needed. Sophia Gilraen of Dorthonion 22:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
There is an intro, the deleted content I mentioned above was the stuff which was off-topic to begin with, and no, it's not my job to figure what you want and do it for you. A.J.A. 22:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
A.J.A., slow down. In particular, this edit had comment to the effect that there was no reason for this revert, but the change seems to be mostly for the worse. As Sophia said, your change removed several references, and reverted the intro paragraph to your version, and removed an obviously wrong statement about Josephus. Which intro is better is debatable, but every other part of that edit, I think Sophia's is hands down better, unless you have some very specific objection to the references. (I haven't tried to look any of them up, much less checked their credentials etc. Have you? We should both assume good faith regarding the refs at least until we do.) Wesley 06:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Related article.

I just found this one: Bible conspiracy theory. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 23:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As per my username: "Last one in's a freemason!" Homestarmy 17:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I've been wondering what "Homestarmy" means, but you'll have to explain the link to freemasonry. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Homestarmy comes from [The Homestarrunner website], and the freemasons are mentioned in the bible conspiracy article. The line I used comes from Strong Bads 150th e-mail. Homestarmy 18:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I read all the info on using the talk page but I don't see the "post a comment" link/button on the discussion page for the Jesus-Myth article. I wanted to leave a note that I edited the title of an external article link but I don't see how to add a new comment. I edited the critique of the Jesus Puzzle to say it is only a critique of two minor points from Doherty's book. ProfessorG 04:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

How many citations are needed?

I haven't looked at this article in a while. I'm sure it all developed gradually and more or less reasonably, but the early sections have gotten to where they read like they were written by a citation-needed maniac. For instance, Frazer's thesis is famous, and it's treated so briefly here that you shouldn't need a special citation. A link to the book in question (The Golden Bough) should be adequate. Interested readers can follow the link to find all the information about editions and scholarship they could want, as well as an external link to an edition of the book itself. Or link to the book directly. I'm all in favor of citations, but this has gotten out of hand. Maestlin 01:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the article needed a whole lot more citation-needed-s.
While adding them, I came across this gem: "[[latria|veneration]]". A.J.A. 02:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The last lot of wikilinks and references I added were reverted by A.J.A. under the pretext that he didn't like another part of the same edit. He didn't have the good manners to put them back either so I am wary of spending anytime on this article as it will just be reverted. Sophia 07:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The scattering of "citation needed" notes is not even; where there is one every sentence or one in the middle of a sentence, it is excessive, whether or not more are needed in other parts of the article. This sort of problem makes Wikipedia look like trash, and it's harder to read the article. Have the regular editors here been seeking outside neutral opinions? Maestlin 20:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Originally the only section left after A.J.A.'s edit was the history one [2]. I placed the citation tags on each point I thought required one to try to find out what sources A.J.A. was using as it bore no resemblance to my knowledge of the subject. Wesley replaced another referenced section thrown out by A.J.A. [3] so I guess A.J.A. is returning the complement. I will confess I am not currently working on this article due to this sort of behavior [4] and am rather disappointed that this is the only real example I have seen of other editors letting "one of their own" get away with it. Sophia 20:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
At least no one here is making unsourced statements about tritheism. It's been an odd day. ;) Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 23:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
This article makes Wikipedia look like trash. At least now the reader is alerted to the massive problems with the section. And, as is obvious, it's not referenced. A.J.A. 00:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The "docetism" footnote is broken. I suggest using the <ref> inline ciation format which would prevent such problems. Shawnc 19:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you people insane? Too many citations needed, thats ridiculous. Use your common sense! --85.76.181.56 16:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that all the citation requests have been removed. As an alternate suggestion for how to deal with the problem, I put a "Not verified" template at the top of the article. Such a warning should be understood to apply to essentially the entire article at present. Maestlin 19:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats better than large amounts of not needed fact templates, which made article unreadable. References and source books are at the bottom of page and warning signs should inform people not to trust everything what theyre reading. Remember that this article is about theory of jesus-myth, not any kind of 100% truth which would need citations. Of course it would be nice if there would be some citations, but not for every sentence. Use your common sense. --Zzzzzzzzzz 02:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Suppporters

John Robertson seems to be conspicuous only by his absence. There must be other absent advocates too. A few supporters are named (mainly in the history section, IIRC). Should we add something more obvious, like a list of notable proponents of the Jesus-myth theory at the end of the article? What about a list of major critics? Maestlin 15:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)