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.
The discussion seeking consensus on the most-recent question has stalled. I would like to suggest that we "call" that one, and present a revised question based on the comments of JimWae and the compromise suggestions from Aiden, above. Hence, the new and (hopefully) improved question:
Will placing the Jesus Template at the top of the article and placing the Christianity Template in the "Life and teachings based on the Gospels" section be an acceptable arrangement?Kevin/Last1in 19:25, 20 July 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 in the Comments subsection, not here:
Yes
I think it's an excellent compromise. Kevin/Last1in 19:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Although I do believe that the Christianity template would be most appropriate in Christian views, this is the best workable compromise that I have seen and one that I will fully support. :-) אמרSteve Caruso(desk/AMA) 02:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
No
I am normally big on compromising, but in this instance, this is giving "too much". I agreed with Arch's initial comments, that the Christianity template does not need to be here, but instead, moved to the Christian views of Jesus spinout article. The compromise was to allow the template in the article, but keep in in the most logical place, the Christian views section. I cannot think of one reason why the "Life" section is more appropriate. If we absolutely need this template on this article, keep it in the religious perspective's section.--Andrew c 20:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes - The appropriate place for the template is at the top as Jesus is the central figure of Christianity, not any other religion. However, this is at least more suitable than the current situation forced upon us (despite a lack of consensus on a change). —Aiden 21:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes - Although I think it would be also acceptable in the Christian views section. The whole "equal representation" debate in the last poll muddied the waters a lot. Sxeptomaniac 16:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no perfect solution to the template dilemma. I think this comes as close as possible within the bounds or reason and civility. It limits the appearance of POV without denigrating Christianity, and keeps the article readable and accessible. I commend Aiden for suggesting this course of action and JimWae for offering a way out of the rut. Kevin/Last1in 19:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Andrew, as you can tell from my comments in the past, I'm inclined to agree on principle; religion-specific templates belong in religion-specific sections. However, the entire "Life...Gospels" section is, by definition, exclusively within the Christian milieu -- non-Christian faiths don't subscribe to the Gospels. Once (or if) the rebuild of the "NT Views..." article is complete and the current section turned into a summary-with-link, perhaps we can revist the underlying issue. As present, it's a great end to a potential edit war and, with luck, will let us get back to focusing on the article itself. Kevin/Last1in 01:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I have mixed thoughts on this myself. Part of me sees Jesus' centrality to Christianity and his relative non-centrality to non-Christian faiths as an indication that not having the Christianity template at the top is an undue-weight POVism. However, there is increasing scholarship using non-synoptic-gospels to get a better picture of Jesus, and if you add in citations from apocryphal "gospels" and the Qur'an and other sources that claim authoritative knowledge of Jesus' life, then you get a different picture. However, I'm really not sure. Very bifurcated view here. My own religious view would be to say "let it go". But WP can't just ignore the Gospel of Thomas, the Qur'an's references to Jesus, etc. These often conflict, and some do not purport to historicity, but are nevertheless citable sources on the person of Jesus of Nazereth. I think I'm just going to go to sleep, as this whole thing is hurting my brain. --Christian Edward Gruber 03:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Call me naive, but why wouldn't one put the Christianity template at the top? The Islam template is at the top of the page on Muhammad, and the Zoroastrian template is at the top of the page with Zoroaster. Lostcaesar 14:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
That's what I said, but apparently people like to ignore that Muhammad plays a role in other religions when arguing why it's OK there and not here. I attempted to restore the Christianity template to its long-standing position at the top of this article but was met with another revert war. This is at least somewhat of a compromise, even if annoyingly arbitrary. —Aiden 15:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Aiden, I think you might want to change your password to Wikipedia. Someone using your ID posted the following, above, "I wouldn't have a problem with the Jesus template being on top, but the Christianity template should not be confined to the one small Christian views section. How about this: We place the Christianity template in the Life and teachings based on the Gospels section? —Aiden, 18 July 2006 (UTC)." Based on the current post, I can only assume that the other post was a forgery. Kevin/Last1in 18:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The issue is that Jesus has about 100 spinout articles, which means this article is a summary of a large amount of more complex topics, including about a dozen different POV. ONE of the POV (and probably the most prevelant) is the Christian POV. However, there are articles that deal specifically about that and nothing else, such as Christian views of Jesus (and possibly Christology or any number of other articles). The fact of the matter is that this article is NOT part of a series on Christianity. Parts of this article are, but not the whole thing. Comparing this article to the Muhammad article isn't fair because there are not 100 different spinout articles and the summary of differeing POV and presence of non Islamic material is noticably lacking. There isn't a Islamic view of Muhammad article or more sutiable place to put the template. --Andrew c 17:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
So, to see if I follow, Jesus is treated primarily separate from Christianity, with a subsection on "Christian views of Jesus", whilst Muhammad is not treated separately from Islam, nor is Zoroaster treated separately from Zoroastrianism, nor is Buddha treated separately from Buddhism (in the sense that Muhammad, Zoroaster, and Buddha all have "ism" templates at the top). What is the reasoning behind this (and how does the number of spinout articles affect this reasoning)? Lostcaesar 22:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Jesus has one main article and a number of sub articles specifically about the Christian POV, while this article is clearly not specific about the Christian POV (it summarizes a large number of POVs, including the Christian one). Therefore, this article is NOT entirely relevent to the "Series of articles" mentioned in the Christianity template. The other religious figures named are not comparable because there isn't a Muslim views of Muhammad or Buddhist views of Siddhartha Gautama or Zoroastrian views of Zarathushtra etc. In fact, the comparative number of spinout articles is dramatic. Just look through Archola's list. No other religious figure has as many spinout articles. I guess that is the down side for having so many articles about Jesus, eh? Obviously, the corresponding religious views have a monopoly on those other religious figure articles, which I admit is problematic. However, we are working on the Jesus article here, not those articles. I think it is a good thing that this article has numerous worldviews, and only hope those other articles can follow suit. But once again, the down side is that the Christian POV no longer has a monopoly on this article (well the down side to some, like I said, part of NPOV is to include more than one POV).--Andrew c 22:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
What I am inquiring here is merely to understand the reasoning behind the current wikipedia presentation. What I am observing is inconsistency. I do understand the points about spin off articles, and I appreciate the explanation. Let me see if I can explain why I am still a bit confused. I do not understand the "pov" talk. I don't see adding a "Christianity template" at the top of the article to be a pov issue. Rather I simply see it as informative and common sense. I don't think the other articles I mentioned are somehow less pov, least of all dominated by a pov, just because they have the corresponding template attached. I think it just makes sense that Muhammad ought to have an Islam template, &c. I understand that we are working with the Jesus article, and not the others, but if all articles about major historical religious figures use X format save one, I think the reason deserves examination. As far as your argument that this is some "downside to having so many articles about Jesus, eh?", well, I find that misplaced. Such a response makes me think that you are misreading my statements. How is that relevant? Concerning the quantity of spin-off articles, my question here is: is this the goal? In other words, is the format of this article considered the standard, to which the Muhammad, Buddha, Zoroaster sections have not yet attained? That might be the point of confusion, because I don't see what justification there is for that kind of standard. Perhaps that is because I don't understand the pov issues. So (and I thank you for your patience and help in this matter), why would placing the Christianity template at the top incur a pov slant (also, why does such a placement make the Buddha article less NpoV)? In my understanding, placing such a template is merely informative and useful for the reader.Lostcaesar 04:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I feel like I am repeating myself. I apologize if I did not come across clearly above. I understand that you want to compare this article to other religious figure articles, but I am saying you can't. The reason why those articles have the template at the top is because there are not spinout articles specifically about the religious POV (as is the case with Jesus), and the plethora of POV in this article are not present there. Take, for example Buddha. This article is not about a person, but a concept specific to buddhism, hence the template. However, the historical figure commonly called The Buddha (although there have been many buddhas) is Gautama Buddha, and the Buddhism template is not at the top. This is similar to Christ being a christian concept (and having the template there). All I'm saying is that Jesus is unique because there are articles specifically about the Christian POV (multiple ones at that), where NO OTHER religious figure has these spinout articles. The fact of the matter is that this article is NOT about the Christian POV (only sections of the article are), and therefore the template that states "Part of a series of articles on Christianity" is simply false. By placing that template at the top of the article, you are giving the false impression that the article is about the Christian POV (instead of any number of spinout articles that cover that). This is why some editors (myself included) claim placing this template at the top of the page (instead of the much more relevent Jesus template) is POV pushing. So go to Christian views of Jesus, and notice the Christianity template. That makes perfect sense, right? We can all agree that an article dealing with the Christian POV deserves this template at the top. Now come here. This article is NOT the Christian POV (there is a section that summarizes that page). It covers scholarly views, historical questions, other religious perspectives, pop culture references, a "plot synopsis" of the canonical gospels, etc. Placing the Christianity template at the top of the page is sort of claiming that all of these diverse POVs go under the banner of Christianity, which obviously isn't the case. The German wikipedia has, what I think, is a slightly better solution that would avoid this problem. They have an article on "Jesus Christ" and they have an article on "Jesus of Nazareth". While obviously most Christians consider them the same person, we could probably all agree that a Christianity template would only be suitable on one of those articles. The problem is, we have a number of articles that fall under "Jesus Christ" and we have this article that talks about both figures. My argument is that because we include perspectives that are not Christian, and because we have spin out articles specifically discussing the Christian POV, placing the Christianity template at the top of the article (instead of in the "Christian views section") is giving a false impression about the content and "ownership" of this article. Oh, sorry. I wrote more than I had anticipated.--Andrew c 05:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Andrew, I don't see how pov is a factor. To me, since the first sentence says: "Jesus...is the central figure of Christianity", it would merely be helpful for the template to appear. I suppose one difference is, if I gather correctly, you see the Jesus article as a standard to which the Muhammad article and others should attain, and at present the Muhammad article is too pov. In my view, concerning the template alone, I think the opposite. I think there are too many spin off articles, too much redundancy, too much purging of content from the main page, &c, and that the Muhammad article is overall a better presentation stylistically. That, I think, is the source of the difference (and that I don't see a pov problem with the template on the Muhammad page).Lostcaesar 13:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Let me take a stab at it, Caesar & Aiden: (1) There are at least 58 articles specifically about Jesus. Adding a template on the subject makes sense, as does putting that Jesus template at the top of the Jesus article. I can find SEVEN articles on Muhammad (plus another three stubs and several book reviews). If a Muhammad template was created (see next), I would advocate that it belongs at the top, also. (2) Now, if you wish to create and implement a Muhammad template, more power to you. Put it at the top of the Muhammad article and move the Islam template down to the "Life based on Islamic traditions" section. That article needs a lot of serious work anyway (for instance, it has a quote in the middle longer than most articles). I'd suggest, however, that you'd have a serious lack of info to put in such a template. Will that result in an edit war in that article? Maybe. (3) The section on "other traditions" of the Muhammad article contains a total of six tiny items and no links to "fleshed out" articles on the topic(s). Muhammad is simply not a significant "player" outside Islam; hence, the Islam template has a good claim at the top of the article. (4) I flat do not CARE what the Muhammad or Buddha or Zoroaster or David Koresh articles look like. I want this article to conform to Wiki standards, to be presentable and, if possible, to excel. To quote our mothers, "if the other kids jumped off a cliff, would you follow?" Kevin/Last1in 18:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
What does the number of spin-out articles have to do with the fact that there is a blatant double-standard here? Either this is an NPOV issue and should be resolved everywhere, or it is not. You know where I stand; but I also know where you stand. So why is it that even though there is an Islamic traditions section in Muhammad it's OK to have the Islam template at the top, but the same cannot be said of the vehement situation here? —Aiden 02:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
To repeat, I flat do not care if other people have done it wrong. I don't care if the guy next to me speeds on the highway or if my neighbour refuses to recycle. If you have a problem with the layout of the Muhammad article, please take it up here. If you detect a wiki-wide problem, feel free to make that your mission or start a project; my only objective is to improve this article. My (hopefully) last point on that is said better in Mat 7:3-5 and Luk 6:41-42. In case you don't consider those two guys reliable sources, I can find others. As for the other point, the shear volume spin-out articles (or lack thereof) makes a difference because the whole reason for a template is to help organize a wiki-wide subject. There is no wiki-wide subject in Muhammad, since there are not enough articles for there to be; hence, no template. Kevin/Last1in 23:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes it is fun to have a good free-for-all, but this is getting out of hand. The best way to change this, and do it immediately, is to finish the vote. Obviously this is a significant issue for some people. However, let the majority rule here and move on.
My personal opinion is it is a complete farce. Jesus does not exist without Christianity. Islam would not exist without Christianity; its genesis is inexorably entwined with the product of 600 years of the early Christian movement. To attempt to hide behind very minor views only serves as a red herring to personal agendas. On the other hand, I am not sure it really matters. The Jesus template seems complete and its existence does not negate the importance of Jesus' role within Christianity.
Since we're mostly distracted by the template thing, can we please use that as an excuse to put one of the pictures of Jesus up top, I mean, I don't see how we could have the capability to argue over two things that big at once, it can only improve the article, and by the time we get around to arguing over it, the article will at least of looked better for a few days. How about that Greek orthodox one down at the foresnic section, it doesn't actually relate to the section at all since that section is mostly discussion scholar stuff, and it's origins not-with-standing, how many people are going to come to this page and go "AHA, ORTHODOX BIAS!!!1!!!11!"? Homestarmy 05:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess i'll be bold about it, we'll see what happens. Homestarmy 19:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Well done, mate. I like the picture and like having it with the intro (which probably means it's doomed). Kevin/Last1in 19:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I like the Jesus template being at the very topic because it lists a good number of the spinout articles right then and there, and sort of puts a header on the article. Perhaps we could have the image down about 3 paragraphs into the intro and on the left side? I'll be bold and try that out, but feel free to revert or move elsewhere if it looks bad.--Andrew c 19:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I tried to make the picture stack directly on top of the template, but for some reason, it just wouldn't work out right :/. Homestarmy 19:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
To stack vertical items, you need to put them in a table. Look at the code at this page to figure out how. Images or templates or whatever can go in each cell.--Andrew c 19:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
In all honesty, and I say this with only the slightest crack of a smile on my face, that Jesus looks either a) evil, or b) constipated. Completely honest. Can't we get a smiling icon or "neutral faced" icon to put in its stead? Also I fear that we may be running into one of the same problems that we faced when the Christianity template was at the top: Everything's smushed and harder to read. אמרSteve Caruso(desk/AMA) 00:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
You mean like the generic smily face which was proposed for that forensic thing? Because I think that was just a joke. Homestarmy 01:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Good_shepherd_draw.gifLol, <joking>yes I completely endorse having Buddy Christ™ at the top, too.</joking> :-) And in all honesty, the Richard Neave forensics image, although probably the closest thing we have to Jesus physically, is not -completely- easy on the eyes (the face looks quite agape). In all seriousness, though, can we find an icon that is not frowning? Might I suggest this rubbing of an early second-century carving? אמרSteve Caruso(desk/AMA) 01:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it possible this picture is just Jesus being serious? I mean think about it, the Greek Orthodox fellows probably realized that Jesus was sort of on a serious mission, saving the world from a mandatory eternal damnation for our sins and all that, I can totally understand Jesus having a serious expression. Homestarmy 02:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Serious or no, he doesn't need to be frowning (and that is a very distinct frown). :-) But also, as I mentioned earlier, between the image and the infobox, together, on some displays I'm only getting 3 or 4 words per line of the introduction. I strongly suggest that we move our Orthodox-interpreted friend back down to where he was before. Things are far too cluttered. אמרSteve Caruso(desk/AMA) 02:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
We could try to stack it on top of the Jesus template then. Homestarmy 02:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Everyone go and check out the formatting of Buddha. It has an image (fairly iconic statue) stacked on top of the Buddha template. I think that the right hand stuff is too long and looks weird when butting up against horizontal rules, and I also feel articles look better with a template, not an image, at the top (but that is just personal preference). Anyway, if other people like the formatting there, we can use that. (and keep in mind Buddha is to Christ, as Siddhartha Gautama is to Jesus, if anyone was worried about what template goes at the top of an article...)--Andrew c 03:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
If somebody can figure out all that horizontal box stuff, that article's example seems like a good choice as well. Homestarmy 04:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the current image is a little, um, stern. At the risk of talk-page immolation, I would like to suggest the following (both in Wiki-Commons) for the picture at the top of the article. Please note: I was unable to find reference to these in the archived talk pages. If this ground has already been covered (or if anyone finds them controversial or favouring a particular faith/worldview), I will happily withdraw the suggestion. Also, if we're going to use the 2nd C. Good Shepard (Museo Epigrafico), I'd rather see the original tablet instead of the rubbing. Two such appear in Commons. Kevin/Last1in 20:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's a larger image of the mosaic Kevin posted above. (I really like this modern icon) —Aiden 02:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think i've ever seen either picture in our discussions here before, the second one has the added advantage of being from the 6th century, as opposed to the 11th, it seems slightly better that the Greek orthodox one in that regard. Homestarmy 02:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I really like the image of the mosaic. It looks a bit clearer and has better color than the current one. Since it predates the schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions by several centuries, it's a bit more inclusive, too. Sxeptomaniac 22:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Well I have tried and tried to figure out how to get the image to float above the template like in the Buddha article but can't seem to figure it out. The Buddha article is done exactly the same way as this one but it comes out different. Perhaps it has something to do with our template? —Aiden 02:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes I'm pretty sure it the Jesus template causing the problem: I previewed the page using the Buddhism template and the images stacked as desired. —Aiden 02:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Is the Bhuddhism template formatted differently than the Jesus one? Perhaps the Christianity template will work better? Homestarmy 21:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
{{Deep sigh}}, no other comment. Kevin/Last1in 22:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Oy, there's no need for accusations, it's not my fault if the Christianity template might work and the Jesus one won't. Homestarmy 23:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Vey. No accusations (and no aspersions on anyone, especially not you, H) intended. Just resignation. Kevin/Last1in 00:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Andrew solved it. I think it looks really good. —Aiden 00:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Excellent! A mildly-amused looking Jesus. Pretty stadnard iconography. Although I'd still like to see the 2nd century image up there, this one with its setup has two thumbs way up from me. :-) אמרSteve Caruso(desk/AMA) 15:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
But only one thumb even shows in the picture. (sorry, mate; couldn't resist) Kevin/Last1in 18:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Introduction Suggestion
The introduction, second paragraph, begins: " The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John." Then, however, in the following sentence it reads: " Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was…". First, the use of a weasel word in the second paragraph is foreboding for the entire article. Second, the opinions of scholars might best be discussed below the introduction considering the divisive topic. Instead, I propose that the second sentence merely follow from the first, providing a summary of who Jesus was according to the four sources mentioned. Any later treatment of Jesus will have to take up this presentation, even if to just dismiss it, before continuing discussion. Thus the purpose of the introduction would be fulfilled, and scholarly opinion can be dealt with more specifically later on. Lostcaesar 14:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The introduction is supposed to summarize the article. A large portion of the article is the Historicity or scholarly views section. A summary of that section, to some extent, needs to be in the intro. That said, each and every sentence in the introduction has been over with a fine tooth comb. Voting and debating and consensus was involved in their creation. I suggest digging through the archives and subpages to learn more about the process on how we arrived at those decisions. A new perspective is always good, and suggestions are welcome, but if you want to know more about the background of those sentences, there is always the archive.--Andrew c 17:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, please, no! To rephrase Dorothy, templates and pictures and intros, OH MY! Even without that, combining the sentences would be a poor edit, since they deal with two separate issues: what people use as the major sources of info, and what scholars believe based on the Gospels and a plethora of other sources like the apocrypha and records from surrounding (and often conquering) cultures. I so very strongly recommend that we don't poke that particular bear. Kevin/Last1in 19:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Historicity of Texts
I think this section needs work. The main reason why is because it doesn't talk about the historicity of texts. The first paragraph merely describes in extreme brevity the writings of the Gospels and of St. Paul. The next paragraph talks about the composition of the cannon. The last paragraph merely describes in extreme brevity the apocryphal texts. The word "historicity" does not appear in the actually body text (only in the title), nor is any attempt at describing the historicity of the texts taken up. Lostcaesar 22:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Intro to "life" section
As it seems, nothing on this article can be changed without coming to talk, so here I am. The "Life and teachings based on the Gospels" does not have an introduction, and I personally dislike two headings in a row without some sort of intro (the "Historicity" section also has this fault, but the "Religious perspectives" does not). I thought I found a solution to this problem when browsing the Gautama Buddha article, so I simply copy and pasted the text and changed the names. I would like anyone to comment on this edit, but I would like Aiden (talk·contribs) to specifically comment on the 'over the top.. POV'. I urge everyone to go the the Gautama Buddha article and read the text there and see if it is equally POV. If not, could someone explain the differences in the applications to me? If so, how could we change the text in both articles so we have an intro to that section that doesn't have these alleged POV issues. This also reminds me of complaints found in the archive, of the article sounding too much like sunday school (i.e. pushing a POV). While I dislike disclaimers, I feel that this is an adequate solution that introduces the section, while establishing the POV, without implying the gospel narative is the same thing as a historical biography. --Andrew c 03:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm normally a POV hawk, and even I can't find anything objectionable in that one! Why would anyone strike it? I can't even see which POV one could argue that it favours. But then again, the battles over this article are more Byzantine than a dialogue twixt Constantine and Licinius. Why is it that every edit turns into a validation for our harshest critics? To quote an extremely wise man, "I just know that the Big-Brotherish Two Color Data website is only going to take this as further evidence of a DWEEC cabal." How can we disprove those paranoid ramblings when our actions fit his DWEEC model perfectly? Kevin/Last1in 03:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the main problems with editing this page just come from introductions, I find that when one does something like add references, (Especially to sections not dealing with Christianity) much less argument ensues. Though oddly, somebody did revert my additions to the Islamic view section awhile ago, and Jayjg has been in a slow edit war with somebody trying to insert some random Jewish scholar person in the Judaism's view section, but eh, it's not that bad as introduction parts. Homestarmy 04:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... maybe its POV to say that part of the gospel acounts are "myth" because there is a small population of biblical literalists? But would editing that section be pandering to a minority POV (undue weight), or would it be better to find a citations and say "the majority of biblical scholars and historians..." This gets so complicated. Why isn't this an issue on the Gautama page.--Andrew c 05:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Buudhism has an official, nearly-universal canon of works though, does it? Homestarmy 21:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I modified the intro to what I believe is a more NPOV version and also removed the self-referencing of the second sentence:
As few of the details of Jesus' life can be independently verified, it is difficult to guage the historical accuracy of Biblical accounts. The main sources of information on Jesus' life are the four canonicalgospels, the earliest available Christian texts.
I don't think it's very neutral to assume parts are myth. Will that work? —Aiden 16:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to modify the Gautama article to also avoid assuming those stories are mythical as well. Also, I think we can all agree that "the earliest available Christian texts." is simply false. Paul wrote decades before the Gospels. We could change it to be more accurate by saying "the earliest available Christian texts on Jesus' life" or "the earliest existing accounts of Jesus' life" or something like that.--Andrew c 16:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... on second thought, I don't like parts of those changes. I can understand taking out "myth", but I feel the self-reference is necessary. We need to say that the following paragraphs are the story of Jesus' life as told by the Christian orthodox gospels, as opposed to an actual biography. I think the changes remove this idea, and maybe even give the impression that the earliest Christians texts are historically accurate. hmm... any other ideas how to tweak the wording a little more? --Andrew c 16:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I didn't make any changes, but... The Christian orthodox Gospels are actually biographies, or a least they claim to be (Luke claims so explicitly, as does John). Questions of historicity aside, I think it correct to call them biographies. Lostcaesar 16:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Well that gets into the whole "what genre" debate. Graeco-Roman biography is different from contemporary biography. The Christian gospels are different from contemporary biography as well. I think using the simple word "biography" can be misleading without a discussion of ancient genre, which I don't feel needs to be included in this article. --Andrew c 17:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe the manual of style says to avoid self-references, which is why I modified that sentence. I think also that as the title of the section is "based on the Gospels", it is fairly evident that the section is the Gospel account. About the dating, perhaps we should just say "some of the earliest" versus "the earliest", or as suggested above insert "biographica" so that the sentence reads, "The main sources of information on Jesus' life are the four canonicalgospels, the earliest available biographical Christian texts." —Aiden 17:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Or even "the earliest accounts of Jesus' life." —Aiden 17:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe you are misinterpreting the guideline (which is not part of the MoS) Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. You are not supposed to refer to "wikipedia". The rule of thumb is, if it would make sense on a mirror, then the self-reference is ok. Also, I like your solution to the "earliest" issue, either one works for me.--Andrew c 17:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I tried something out and was reverted. I don't understand why. The edit summary was completely ludicrious. I changed The main sources of information on Jesus' life are the four canonicalgospels, some of the earliest Christian texts. to The following is a summary of Jesus' life based on the narratives found in the four canonicalgospels. The former repeats information included in the opening and the historicity section, and doesn't give any introduction to the following sections, where my edit clearly states what the following section is going to be about. The issue is, we have a statement about how it is difficult to determine what is historically accurate about Jesus. If we follow that with a statement about the 4 gospels being the main source of information on Jesus, we give the impression that the following life section is describing history. Where the whole point of this introduction is to make it clear that we are giving a PLOT SUMMARY of Christian scripture, instead of presenting history. I am trying to be as neutral as possible, but I feel it is very important that this section has an introduction, and it makes it clear that we are summarizing the most popular account without critically examining questions of historicity (a whole different section). Str1977 (talk·contribs) reverted me with the edit summary of this isn't what the article is about, is it? and I would answer that by saying "Yes, indeed, that is exactly what this section is about. "The following is a summary of Jesus' life based on the Christian gospel narratives". Nothing more, nothing less. There isn't any critical examination, there isn't any historical information, it is a straight forward plot summary. --Andrew c 21:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I honestly don't see what the big deal is Andrew. The same information can be conveyed without the poorly styled self-reference. See the current version which I believe addresses the redundancy issue you raised. —Aiden 01:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts to work with me and come to talk. I made a case for why self-references are not always bad, and quoted policy and you didn't reply. That is why I put a self-reference back into the article. Your edits are starting to get there. I feel that any discussion the quality of sources doesn't really belong here unless we are covering questions of historicity (another section), so I simply removed the comment about the earliest sourcing. I also added a clause. This section isn't about Jesus' life. It's about the story of Jesus' life as told by the gospels. When we say "Jesus' life" we get into questions of historicity. We have scores of scholars who comb through the gospels pointing out what is and isn't historically credible or likely. And they all give a different portrait of "Jesus' life". As I have said above, I think we need to make it clear that we are giving a plot summary of the gospels, and not accidentally (or intentionally) present it as anything else. I'm sorry this issue means a lot to me, but by the way I have been reverted, it seems like it means a lot to other editors as well. I've been totally honest about why I would like to have an introduction, and more specifically, what I would like to accomplish with it. If there is anything problematic with my position, I would appreciate comments addressing this (especially from those who revert me). --Andrew c 01:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Your most recent changes look good to me. —Aiden 01:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
