Talk:Jesus/Archive 52

message: Given that the page is now protected, can someone specify the disputes that need to be resolved?
Given the general agreement, I of course think that my two edits to paragraph 2 (deleting the blasphemy, adding the baptism) should be restored.  i responded to one off-point criticism above. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel it important enough, you can request a edit to a protected page at WP:RfPP. --Darth Deskana (talk page) (my RfA!) 17:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the page reads like a missionary pamphlet. Far too POV and religion promoting. Just because some so-called scholars say asomething is true doesn't mean it is - where's the evidence? Yummy mummy 17:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't matter. Our job here is to report what scholars say, not to express our own doubts (or even our own requirements for empirical evidence.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflicted comment, excuse some minor repetition of Jpgordon's comments above) You're right Yummy mummy, it doesn't mean it's true, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. According to the WP:V policy, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". I can understand why you think it reads like a pamphlet. Perhaps you could copy the bits that you feel are the worst for this over to the talk page here so they can be discussed and a concensus reached on them? --Darth Deskana (talk page) (my RfA!) 17:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I find that a funny accusation considering I don't actually even believe in God, nor Jesus. The truth is, I just want a balanced article. So what bits don't you think belong in the article? --Darth Deskana (talk page) (my RfA!) 17:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Im assuming all the bits that come from the gospels and the vast majority of scholarship, this sounds like a very Robsteadman-esque argument. Apparently evidence is no longer evidence?Homestarmy 17:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Stop calling people trolls. That is not what talk pages are for. -- Drogo Underburrow 18:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, lets ignore john k and his missionary gang. eeemess 15:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the page should have been semi-protected rather than full protected. It seems as if the only problem with habitual vandalism and reverts is with anons. —Aiden 19:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly.  Read the talk page itself, and check the history.  When the arguments reach the level of entombed versus buried (a faux semantics argument given that the person raising the article knows no Greek), it's time for a break.  Obviously, the admin agreed with Archola and I that there are significant problems.  Work them through, then get the protection either lifted or changed to semi.  •Jim62sch• 19:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Err, I don't think Yummy will be posting again with either cognance or understanding if his user page is any indication.... Homestarmy 21:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, he has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of User:Robsteadman... not surprising, considering the user acted very similar to Robsteadman. --Darth Deskana (talk page) (my RfA!) 21:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It just gets better.  •Jim62sch• 22:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems that there apparently wasn't much of a problem anymore when the page was locked, as there doesn't seem to of been much of a heated discussion outside of sockpuppetry :/. Homestarmy 02:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Must be why Archola left, because everything was so calm. •Jim62sch• 18:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Only thing I could possibly see as a dispute is the thing Oub pointed out about POV, but that's not that big a deal, I don't think anyone's really fighting about it. Everything else seems to of fizzled away :/. Homestarmy 17:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the bright side, the argument over entombed and buried went way.  •Jim62sch• 18:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Now that Rob has been barred from vandalizing yet again, I don't think there are any outstanding problems except with the AOL IPs that continue to vandalize and revert consensus. I recommend a semi-protect so we registered editors can get back to work. —Aiden 18:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that, a.) the page stay protected for a few more days before requesting semi-protect, and b.) that you work out what needs to be put into the article here, before changing the article.  Keep in mind, this is not the first time this page has been protected. •Jim62sch• 18:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Oub wanted to change like what, one sentence somewhere in the body, it sounded like a reasonably fair change to me. Homestarmy 18:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "entombed" versus "buried" debate was settled by using the phrase "buried in a tomb," as bad as that sounds. —Aiden 04:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You prefer "entombed" but that sounds like its from Night of the Living Dead. It also sounds very Protestant, and hence POV. Its a rejection of the wording used in the Nicene Creed, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The only reason I even support the entire sentence, is if it reads the same as both of those, because if it doesn't, then I don't accept it as a fact, that most Christians believe it. If people think this is quibbling over words, they are right; such quibbling is at the basis of serious theological disputes, and responsible in history for wars. Drogo Underburrow 06:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Nicene Creed says "ascended" into heaven — we better not say "was taken up on a cloud", because most Christians don't believe Jesus "was taken up on a cloud" into heaven, that is a Protestant view — we have to say "ascended" into heaven. Pshaw. » MonkeeSage « 09:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Jim's right - a few more days peace won't do any harm. I take Drogo's point on "entombed" so lets see if the compromise sticks - it does seem to hedge the bets on the tomb vs creed wording issues. Having said that this was the same way of thinking that got us the awful "extant contemporaneous" phrase so I won't enter that bun-fight!   Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 09:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: ................. Homestarmy 13:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: ...I'm assuming sarcasm ... I hope I'm not let down. :-) --Steve Caruso 14:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What are the disputes? 

message: #•Jim62sch• 17:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes I feel that voting on RfA's becomes such a chore...you have to look the person up, find out if they are "sandwich artists" (does subway qualify as an art studio?), determine whether or not he can speak Klingon...such a chore.  ;)  Humour me, Dan.  •Jim62sch• 22:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I'm not objecting to this vote in particular... I just feel we vote too much in this article sometimes. Don't get me wrong... just a thought, is all. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 22:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like we haven't voted in a good bit really. Homestarmy 23:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not since the beginning of March ;) BTW, once we're all agreed on what to do, feel free to update Talk:Jesus/to do. Arch O. La Grigrory Deepdelver 16:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn, I guess I made a bit of a dodgy argument? Hehehehe... I still think we should take a vote to establish concensus on whether I was wrong though! --Darth Deskana (talk page) 21:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Seriously. The anon vandalism just started again. Can we please get a semi-protect as requested? —Aiden 20:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I left a comment.  We'll see.   •Jim62sch• 01:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting.  He/she says no and then "cleans up"?  •Jim62sch• 02:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I would suggest you re-request semi-protection (a few of you should endorse the request).  Oh let me know when (or even if) you do so.  •Jim62sch• 12:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semiprotect?