Talk:Jesus/Archive 12

message: CheeseDreams' reason for rejecting the scholars I mention is absurd.  It reveals that he does not take this process of writing an encyclopedia seriously, and is a vandal who will reject anything I write, not because doing so improves the article but because he objects in principle to anything I write.  The fact is, I and others have explained patiently whad doubts we have about the scholars he mentions, and have asked him to justify their inclusion -- no one has said that the names he mentions don't count simply because he mentioned them.  He owes other contributors -- indeed, he owes wikipedia -- the same respect.  I explained why I thought the scholars I mention are valid.  The fact is, I believe if you went to any major university that had a professor teaching 1st century and early Christianity history, they would recognize and probably use all the authors I mention.  That CheeseDreams does not even know who they are (let alone how important they are) reveals his ignorance. Slrubenstein
:Let me quote you your own words he calls my edit "vandalism" which is a real violation of courtesy here.
:Your comments above are slander and I demand an apology. In combination with the equally offensive comments elsewhere, I will otherwise be making a formal complaint against you. CheeseDreams 20:33, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slander 

message: The to do list on this page has never been updated, and has points of discussion rather than article tasks. Would someone interested in improving this article be willing to map what needs to be done to improve it? - Amgine 07:05, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  ToDo list 

message: I should like to inform the contributors to this article of the passage of Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement, which allows admins to ban users if they violate the 3RR. - Amgine 03:36, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Could you people PLEASE make an attempt to discuss the matter (triviality?) on this page, and before committing edits, rather than in your revert summaries? Fredrik | talk 03:44, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And please note "the mere incidental fact of one side outnumbering the other does not, alone, make the majority right, each side of an argument should be limited to 3 reverts per day" CheeseDreams 17:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert Rule Enforcement 

message: Resolved: The mention of "Koans" should not be included in this article.
===Agree===
#--Josiah 18:35, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
#scc 03:35, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Koans - Poll 

message: #--Josiah 18:35, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
#scc 03:35, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Agree

message: # popularity is no indicator of factual accuracy CheeseDreams 18:38, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Disapprove of a poll

message: This whole debate over koans is silly.  What Bible critic, historian, or theologian has said that Jesus used Koans (and used the word "koan" specifically)?  If a published scholar made this claim, we simply add a sentence "X has argued that Jesus' questions are Koans" or "X has suggested a connection between Jesus and Buddhism" or whatever it was that X claimed.  Of course, if it is merely CheeseDreams' opinion that Jesus used koans, we can ignore the entire debate.  Wikipedia is not for original research or personal essays; CheeseDream's opinion has no place at all in an article.  If CheeseDreams has done research and has found a scholar who has made this claim, then again there is no debate -- we include the claim, but provide the attribution. Slrubenstein
:I seem to remember that the Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy points out that those who resort to asking for published scholars are on a weak argument. Appealing for more, and more, and more, and more, evidence, is pathetic. It is also standard practice for fundamentalists. This one in particular. CheeseDreams 21:04, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You remember incorrectly. It says, and has never said, any such things. If you're going to make a comparison to a koan (and I can't think why the article needs it), you'll need to back it up with a reputable published source. To be honest, even if you did find a reputable published source, I can't see a need to expand what has to be a short article into a discussion on the point. jguk 21:25, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: The above user is demonstrably a sock puppet - see his (very very short and recent) edit history, and the difficult-to-come-accross-as-the-first-article-to-comment-on nature of the first article he edited. (and he only uses an IP address not an account)CheeseDreams 00:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Darling reader, be aware of attempts at obfuscation.
"Verifiable" not "verified".
CheeseDreams 23:33, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  more blah blah blah 

message: One user persists in inserting Buddhist terminology into this section. The words "according to the New Testament" seem unambiguous to me. And the New Testament, unsurprisingly enough, does not use Buddhist terminology. Is it too much to ask reason to prevail on this one? jguk 00:31, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Life and teaching according to the New Testament