Talk:Jesus/Archive 48

message: I've semi protected the page. Let me know when you would like to lift it.Gator (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi Protect

message: The debate concerns this article as well, the topic being Jesus as a factual/historical figure as opposed to a figurehead. All comments welcomed! (bring a cuppa tea)
Sfacets 13:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The notation issue is settled here, as far as I'm concerned. --CTSWyneken 19:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CTS, the user isn't talking about era notation he's concerned about whether to link the term "Jesus", at the Common Era article, to the article "Jesus" or the article "Historical Jesus". I assume you misunderstood, but you're welcome to add discussion at Talk:Common Era, which has already began. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 19:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep. Sorry about that. --CTSWyneken 02:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate on [[Common_Era]] - concerning Jesus as a historical rather than a spiritual figure

message: ===To do list===
I took the liberty of archiving old talk. I thought we might also take a moment to assess the current state of the article.
It seems we are currently discussing:
*1. Improving the biography section (cf. Aiden's remarks about how an outsider might be confused).
*2. Revising the intro as per Hurtstotalktoyou's recommendations above.
*3. Nicene creed (dropping this from the intro, as it's redundant to the discussion of trinitarian and nontrinitarian views).
*4. The charge of sedition and other issues with the second paragraph (see /2nd Paragraph Debate). Also how it synchs with the rest of the article.
*5. Incorporating the Apocalyptic Prophets school of the historical Jesus, as per John K.
Some other things to consider (not sure where we stand):
*6. Incorporating the suggestions at /PR-and-FA, including the fairly recent suggestions about the Historicity section that I just archived.
*7. Incorporating the findings of the Jesus Seminar into the article.
Some things to consider for the future:
*8. Condensing the article (it's getting a bit long) and moving appropriate data to appropriate subarticles (see /Related articles).
*9. Conducting an Article Improvement Drive to build on our recent work at Good Article Collaboration of the Week.
*10.  Requesting a Peer Review, perhaps even an External Peer Review if possible.
===Comments===
Any comments? Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 07:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good plan of action. --MonkeeSage 07:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice one Archie. I have been busy elsewhere the last few days but I was wondering how the FA drive was going. I'll have a look at the historicity archive as I think I missed some of that. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 11:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where do we stand?

message: Any comments? Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 07:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good plan of action. --MonkeeSage 07:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice one Archie. I have been busy elsewhere the last few days but I was wondering how the FA drive was going. I'll have a look at the historicity archive as I think I missed some of that. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 11:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Are we ready to remove this one? Our article, while it still needs sourcing, is better documented than most. --CTSWyneken 12:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  KHM03 (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that category is added automatically by the  template.  There is still one such tag in the article (as well as one on this page).  Powers 13:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed the unsourced comment (it was peripheral to the article anyway).  It seems the category is gone.  KHM03 (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup  is what did it: "This tag will categorise tagged articles into Category:Articles lacking sources. . ." (from ). --MonkeeSage 13:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Computers are amazing! Except when they think Luther's Bondage of the Will is not about philosophy, but... ;-) --CTSWyneken 13:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles Lacking Sources Category

message: Let's see what the world of Peer Review has to say about this article now that it's been edited for, what, a year since the last peer review? Homestarmy 21:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, the rule is different for re-requests, hold on a second. Homestarmy 21:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Half a year. The last peer review was October 5, 2005. I wouldn't mind a peer review now, but check my to do list in the next section. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 21:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I already moved the old one, so it might not be sporting to just, you know, not have the review :/. Homestarmy 21:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well the instructions said to move old peer reviews to an archive, so that's what I did. Before the new request just kinda linked to the old one :/. Homestarmy 21:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Say, did those paragraphs up there marked "insert today" ever get inserted? is that what that discussion is about? Homestarmy 22:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, half in Jesus#Ministry (what the Gospels say), and half in Jesus#Historical reconstructions of Jesus's life (what scholars say). Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 22:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Slightly OT. I saw Robert M. Price speak today. I wonder what he would think of this article. I should have asked him :P --Andrew c 00:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slightly Old Testament? Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 00:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! O.ff T.opic.--Andrew c 01:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review time!

message: Add this?
I've found a nice link, which supports the 3BC birth date - http://www.versebyverse.org/doctrine/birthofchrist.html :) Brand 12:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, some of it's justification comes from what appears to be some really odd allegorical looks at Revelations..... Homestarmy 14:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kepler's research