Talk:Jesus/Archive 62

message: This is CLEAR CUT BIASNESS IN FAVOR OF RELIGION.  Wikipedia seems to scared to offend Jesus believers.  There is neutrality for the myth, but no neutrality for the actual guy.  Because, this article is making him A FACT in birth/death. I'm disgusted that there is biasness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
:Keep watching, the POV tag comes by regularly and I'm sure it will return before too much longer ;) Be warned, though, there are many people who have worked hard to ensure that this article does not favor any one particular POV, be it theological, historical or whatever. This includes making sure that no one pushes a Jesus-Myth/nonexistence hypothesis bias over the actual facts of the matter. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 20:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is there no neturality warning for Jesus, but for Jesus-Myth?

message: I was thinking about what this picture would look like under the "ministry" category, and tried to find a photo of Jesus that looked completely neutral.  What do you think?
:Image:Jesus_icon_films.jpg
The caption could read something like:
A neoteric portrayal of Jesus in Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ.
:You will have much argument over the use of photos. A sketch might be better. And he should look Jewish and have shorter hair. rossnixon 04:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely he should have blonde hair and blue eyes, no? David L Rattigan 12:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Slrubenstein here. No one knows what Jesus looked like, and there's not even any universal agreement on what race he was. Any representation is inherently POV, and this article isn't the place to try to address the various views. I wish I knew enough to start the artice Graphic representations of Jesus, but alas I do not. –RHolton≡– 13:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on pictoral representations of Jesus is titled Images of Jesus...but what the hey, I'll make the redirect. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Arch O. La! –RHolton≡– 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: In compliance with the current abject fear of violent Muslims, I agree that there should be no pictorial representations in religious articles.Lestrade 14:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The way I see it, a "POV" picture is better than no picture at all. But somehow, im not really so sure that a movie take on Jesus's picture is really, well, realistic....Homestarmy 14:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the oldest talk archives (1 & 2), the POV issue was settled by using images (paintings, that is; photos are of actors playing Jesus, not Jesus himself) from a variety of perspectives. This seems to be the long-standing concensus (for 3 years or so); does anyone disagree? Personally, I think images enhance any article, but I'm speaking from a (mass media) journalism perspective. Scholarly journals often seem to omit such images. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: But how many people are going to look at the Jesus article if there's a picture, Go "Aha, that's a 7th century Byzantine or whatever take on it, how increadibly biased and POV pushing this article must therefore be!". It seems a mountain out of a molehill honestly. Homestarmy 16:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with Grigory, in that from a mass media / communication standpoint, we need to offer our users the most comprehensive set of information.  It is true that any image, whether sketch, drawing, or photo, will have connotations associated with it, and that is why I tend to prefer this picture.   It is not a photo of Jesus smiling and helping children (a positive portrayal), nor is it a photo of Jesus turning over tables in the temple[] (a negative portrayal).  It simply increases the caliber of the article.Spicynugget 00:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the interests of political correctness and diversity, the image of Jesus should be of a Negroid male, with black skin, thick lips, flat nose, wide nostrils, kinky hair, extended heel, flat arches, elongated forearms and shins, and affable facial expression.Lestrade 17:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify what I meant above...I am suggesting that we attempt to find depictions of Jesus by artists of other cultures. –RHolton≡– 01:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this neutral enough? 

message: I've protected the page because of the edit war. Please try to reach a compromise on the talk page, and when you're ready to edit again, either let me know or post a request for unprotection on WP:RfPP. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't be reverting any more until we reach a consensus on the talk page because right now it is 3 against 1 so it doesn't do any good - feel free to unprotect. standonbible 19:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to add, some people looking at this talk page might just plain be so neutral on this whole issue we don't care much, I for one see the merit in adding Lewis's opinion on this matter, but it doesn't seem consistant when its added in like that, plus its a bit alone when the paragraph in question is supposed to be making a broad generalization about many people. Homestarmy 19:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks, Standonbible. I'll unprotect. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protected

message: I was reviewing the exterior links and deleted several for the following reasons:
:#  Evangelical Lutheran: there was an excellent link to a reformation site; redundant
:#  Questions answered by Campus Crusade for Christ: too narrow.  If we have this, then a site for every view of Christ out there should be listed: they were deleted not too long ago.
:#  Conservative Calvinist:  same reason as Luthern, we have a reformation site that should suffice.
:#  Sayings of Jesus:  This should go on Bible site; latin and english translation does not really belong here.
:#  Non denominational:  I may have deleted one of the two nondenominational sites listed.  It my have been the Smith Bible dictionary on a site not limited to the article.
My intention was not to "ding" any one group, but rather to limit the number so that other groups do not feel obligated to add their site to the list so that their specific view of Christ is also listed.  This list used to be quite extensive and was pared down not too many weeks past; I think we should keep this limited, remove redundancies, and close the door on sites more appropirate for missionary work than providing an explanation.  That's my story and I am sticking with it.  Thoughts?  Storm Rider (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. (I've been away for a while and hadn't noticed the link spam. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 20:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed a nonworking link and readded About-Jesus.org. I find that it is far more informative than WikiChristian, most of whose articles are stubs. —Aiden 20:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But missionary work can be great! :( Homestarmy 00:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for weeding the list. I have in the past tried to make it smaller, but it always seems like the list keeps getting bigger.--Andrew c 02:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links - deletions