Talk:Jesus/Archive 39

message: == 1st and 2nd Paragraph Documentation Report ==
Fellow editors: 
Before the article was blocked, I finished documentation for all but two of the listed historians and Bible scholars who support the majority position. I was only able to verify one of the persons supporting the minority position. Left to do are: Geza Vermes; D. A. Carson; Bruno Bauer; Michael Martin; John Mackinnon Robertson.
From the vague discussions we've had during our ... vigorous ... debate, I recall one or two more we might want to add. Please help me by listing them here. If they are not in the talk:Jesus/Cited Authors Bios subpage, please add them. No matter how the vote comes out, please list only historians and Bible scholars for the majority (the way we have the position described, Voltaire and Bertrand Russell don't count). I'll check Will Durant to see if he has formal historian's credentials. For the second, anyone with scholarly credentials will do, as long as they support the nonexistence hypothesis.
In the spirit of collaboration I hope can prevail here, I am, of course, open to modification of the above, providing it takes into account that these notes are for providing evidence of the majority and minority views.
Also unfinished on the documentary front, are the subpages on Jesus and the Jewish Authorities and the date range for the life of Jesus. This is the hard work, folks. Help us establish what scholarship says. --CTSWyneken 12:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The absurdist protest to the vote can be found here. Arch O. La 06:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reports

message: Fellow editors: 
Before the article was blocked, I finished documentation for all but two of the listed historians and Bible scholars who support the majority position. I was only able to verify one of the persons supporting the minority position. Left to do are: Geza Vermes; D. A. Carson; Bruno Bauer; Michael Martin; John Mackinnon Robertson.
From the vague discussions we've had during our ... vigorous ... debate, I recall one or two more we might want to add. Please help me by listing them here. If they are not in the talk:Jesus/Cited Authors Bios subpage, please add them. No matter how the vote comes out, please list only historians and Bible scholars for the majority (the way we have the position described, Voltaire and Bertrand Russell don't count). I'll check Will Durant to see if he has formal historian's credentials. For the second, anyone with scholarly credentials will do, as long as they support the nonexistence hypothesis.
In the spirit of collaboration I hope can prevail here, I am, of course, open to modification of the above, providing it takes into account that these notes are for providing evidence of the majority and minority views.
Also unfinished on the documentary front, are the subpages on Jesus and the Jewish Authorities and the date range for the life of Jesus. This is the hard work, folks. Help us establish what scholarship says. --CTSWyneken 12:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1st and 2nd Paragraph Documentation Report 

message: I did some archiving in preparation for the run off vote. Will finish the rest in the AM. If I moved an active discussion, I apologize. Please feel free to move it back. --CTSWyneken 03:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The absurdist protest to the vote can be found here. Arch O. La 06:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived a Bunch 

message: Will editors who do not have 100 edits or are banned count? Dominick (TALK) 20:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll have to ask Avery Krause. I have 1237 edits  and have never been banned, so I guess I'm safe (of course, I also chose to abstain). Arch O. La 20:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We have not disqualified any registered user at all from this vote and I would argue against it if someone suggested it. This matter is really not that important. I am hoping that having everyone's view out, we will not have an edit war while trying to move the article along. --CTSWyneken 21:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check below for a comment from Jayjg. IMHO we may need outside help to settle this. Arch O. La 23:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If necessary, we can open an RfM.  Jim62sch 20:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote Count?

message: Frankly, I'm about sick and tired of this whole thing anyway. The editors complain that we're not getting anywhere, so someone suggests a vote. The editors complain about having to vote, so the vote fizzles out with little result. The editors complain that we've gotten no result, so we suggest another vote. The editors complain about one or two words in that vote, so the vote fizzles out. The editors get into an edit war over two freaking words, so I suggest a final vote. The editors complain that we're voting too much, then vote anyway, and threaten to ignore the results.
Here's the deal, people: Get your act together. Stop complaining if you are not willing to make an effort. Very few of you have done anything to actually forward discussion on this subject besides bicker about the semantical value of a handful of words. I am telling you right now, you are staring down the barrel of another edit war, and those of us who are actually trying to sort it all out are not going to stay for another one. I, for one, would love nothing more than to blank this whole Talk Page and start over. I have given you a solution, a feasible method to end this madness, and you've chosen to pick it apart and have a moan and groan session about it. A good number of you decided that you didn't even need to follow the groundrules because, well, you don't plan on abiding by the results if you don't get your way. Well fine, choose your own path. Have your revert war, have your edit conflict, enjoy it! And while you're sitting here arguing about "lack vs. shortage" and "historians vs. scholars," the rest of the page will sit and rot. You want a Featured Article? You want a Good Article? Then get to work and stop arguing!
Yes, I am angry. Yes, I am venting. If you only knew the level of frustration that I feel every time I see one of you lambast another. Every time one of you outright refuses to work together. Every time one of you chooses to focus on owning the page and proving a point as opposed to doing what is best. You know what, who cares if a minority of scholars gave a rat's fuzzy hind-end about the Historicity of Jesus? In a sixty paragraph page, two words are not going to destroy the rest of the material! But no, those of you that will be not satisfied until the page either reads "Jesus was a fake" or "Jesus is Lord" will never let us move on.
I thank those of you who are making an honest effort to improve this page. You are an asset to Wikipedia. And I condemn those of you who are making every effort to destroy that honest effort. I am not going to name any names, it is rarely unclear who these people are, in either case. --Avery W. Krouse 21:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Exhausted Editors

message: Please note, gentlemen (and we are all gentlemen -- no woman would waste her time splitting hairs the way we have) that we have been debating for days and days about the question of whether or not the sentence that mentions that some doubt the historicity of Jesus include or not include the reason for that doubt!  Talk about angels dancing on the head of a pin!
The whole thing is worth it, for me, thanks to Arch O. La's reference to the official Catholic position, which I never knew until now.  The article he cites should be a major source for this article.  Rick Norwood 22:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not be misandric. Some men also see the waste in splitting hairs. Hence my abstension and absurdist protest. Arch O. La 22:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  And I thought I was spending too much time on Wikipedia. 

message: The vote is close to a tie (it was a tie the last time I looked), and there have been accusations of irregularity on both sides. Americans will of course recall United States presidential election, 2000, the Florida runoff, and Bush v. Gore. The whole thing was eventually decided by the Supreme Court. If we cannot agree on a phrasing for the second paragraph, then it may be time to appeal to a neutral or higher power, be it a neutral admin, RFC, mediation or arbitration—whichever is appropriate. The issue is the vote itself and not any particular user. Now, do we agree or disagree with my statement? Arch O. La 22:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the votes of the two Robsteadman sockpuppets (though, I might add, they voted for the version I preferred).  If there are any other serious suspicions of sockpuppetry, please let me know. Jayjg (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful: at this point they are alleged sockpuppets, and Rob is pretty upset at the allegations. Also, Rob and Alienus (maybe others) have alleged other voting irregularities. Arch O. La 23:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, at this point they are confirmed sockpuppets.  I have confirmed the sockpuppetry myself. Jayjg (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you confirm whether Raisinman is a sockpuppet? Alienus 23:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the vote is, at this point, worthless.  Between allegations of sockpuppets and scabs, there's little chance of a consensus. Alienus 23:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All sockpuppets have been identified; if there are any other editors seriously suspected of being sockpuppets please let me know, and I'll look into it.  As far as "scabs" go, the term seems meaningless in this context. Jayjg (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there were also the Raisinman allegations. At this point I feel that anybody who has posted to this page in the last five weeks is too close to the issue to be truly objective (myself included). Thus my desire that we seek outside help in settling this. Oh, and I know what a scab is: one side has been accused of trying to stuff the ballot box. Arch O. La 23:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a shame that those who have 9apparently) been confirmed of sockpuppetry, will get their way if we throw the vote out. However, for the sake of peace, i say we just use the first version (that was the result of consensus) and move on. At this point, I think that;s the best option. No more voting. No more procedures. Let's jsut edit.Gator (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would that we could all be such pacifists. Otherwise, I don't think this approach is likely to work. Conflict will continue until we find a way to settle this. Arch O. La 23:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So Robsteadman, the one throwing accusations around like mad about the voting being rigged is himself trying to rig the vote? How ironic. —Aiden 00:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Id seriously like to make a joke here and provide a hyperlink, but it might be too mean considering the irony :/. Homestarmy 00:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: And versa vice, to be honest. Also to be honest, I'm a little uncomfortable with how quickly Rob was punished. It seems to me to be a rush to judgement. Arch O. La 01:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well using sockpuppetry to get extra votes or things like that I think qualifies as an immedietly bannable offense or something, the sockpuppetry alone doesn't do it as I remember the rules. Rob seems to be having some problems outside this article though, one of his sockpuppets got in some sort of argument it looks like over his own bio article, (Robert Steadman) looked like personal attacks by this one person against Rob, Rob's sockpuppet apparently was citing sources when Rob himself could apparently do nothing :/. We ought to help Rob out. Homestarmy 01:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll just say that I do not want to be fed to the lions, nor do I want to witness the Crusades. Arch O. La 02:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well judging by his sockpuppet's vast knowlege of Rob Steadman at his article, and lack of activity much elsewhere, I don't think it's hard to believe. Secondly, I've seen Jayjg mediate disputes (he's an Admin and member of the Arbitration Committee) in other articles and if he says they're sockpuppets, they're sockpuppets. —Aiden 04:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess, although there were those of us who thought they might have been friends or students of Rob. I'll have to take your word on Jayjg. I noticed that Gator also asked what the evidence was, I would have too but this was all over by the time I became aware of it. It smells funny when the accused is not allowed to confront the evidence. Arch O. La 05:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The evidence isn't sealed; as I've made clear elsewhere, I'll gladly provide it to any editor with CheckUser access. Outside of that circle, however, privacy issues remain paramount.  And I'm not sure what you consider to be "fishy"; the fact that I blocked and discounted the votes of two sockpuppets that voted the same way I did? Jayjg (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Alright who has such access so we cna just find out what the checkuser found out.  Don;t you see the problem here Jay?  If he can;t even know if the results found that the same IP address was beign used both all three names, then he can NEVER defend himself adn that's NOT fair.  I know you can see this. Shouldn;t he afforded the same ability to defend himself as Deskana was?  Deskana was given the basic info that the same IP address was being used and he was able to defend himseld and preserve his reputation. Please give Rob the same chance.  Privacy issues ahve nothig to do with it.  We don;t want IP addresses, jsut the basic reason why you came to your conclusions.  I know you know what we mean, so if you're not willing to at elast do that, please refer us to another admin who is willing to accomodate (and I know they xist ebcause Deskana was lucky enough to have one).  Thanks again for your tirless efforts here, they do not go without appreciation.Gator (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, really, Deskana knew it was because of his IP address because the vandalism came from an anon IP address that was linked to him through his college. It would be pretty hard for an admin to not say anything about an already known and linked IP address in that case, not because an admin was kind enough to offer extra info. --Oscillate 17:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out Rob's talk page. The question may be academic anyway, since Rob has decided not to pursue an apppeal. If you really want to know why I'm uncomfortable, I gave three reasons on Avery Krause's talkpage, and there has also been some discussion on SOPHIA's talkpage. Gator, Deskana and I have our reasons to be uncomfortable, but it's really in Rob's hands now anyway. Arch O. La 17:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting irregularity

message: I say, then, that we leave it as it stands and move on. It's six of one, half-dozen of the other at this point.
Does anyone vehemently disagree with that idea? --Avery W. Krouse 05:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  More like 17 of one, 19 of another. See proposals below. --CTSWyneken 11:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leave it and Move On? 

message: If Jesus mythers are allowed (who are in vast minority), then conservative scholars who affirm the gospels historicity and Jesus's resurrection should be likewise mentioned in the introduction. 
I say this because scholars who affirm the resurrection and the historicity of the gospels are more plentiful than Jesus mythers.   
I suggest this sentence:  In addition, there are many scholars who affirm the resurrection of Jesus and the historicity of the gospel accounts such as Gary Habermas, F.F. Bruce, William Lane Craig, and Norman Geisler.  Raisinman 21:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point behind this paragraph was to establish what very few things represent the view of the whole scholarly community. (we were putting the finishing touches on this before the current tempest blew in). If we EVER finish with this discussion, I want to turn to paragraph three, where we will talk about what scholars in the Christian community affirm. --CTSWyneken 02:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: An edit summary of "Raisinman is a sock" is pretty accusatory and uncivil.  You BETTER have some SOLID evidence (i.e. a checkuser test) to back that up or you're just trolling.  I don't blame Raisin for removing it.  I would've done the same.  This is not the palce for this anyway.  Either respond to his arguments or don't.  You're not allowed to do this here.  unacceptable. Gator (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Or hey, how bout this?  We stop including all this tertiary nonsense in the introduction and instead link people the the page about the historicity of Jesus? pookster11 21:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What just happened? :/ Homestarmy 21:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People who have a vested personal interest in the contents of this page have become frustrated and are going insane. pookster11 22:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't care particularly if User:Raisinman is a sockpuppet or not (unless we start seeing real violations of policy, such as using socks to evade WP:3RR).  KHM03 22:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't we already do the fake insanity thing, remember "Biblepants" or whatever it was? Homestarmy 22:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was part of my absurdist protest of this absurd voting process. No offense to Avery, I mean the whole process up to this point. Arch O. La
Anyway, if we could get off of this and back to identifying historians that discredit the historicity of Christ based on the lack of sources in order to validate the consensus version, it would be appreciated.  Me?  I've gotta go translate some 4-5 pages of Xenophon and get back to writing, so I'll be away for a while doing my own work. pookster11 22:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow, it's too bad a mere BA prevents Doherty from ever qualifying as a historian! Alienus 22:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did I miss something? Who is this Doherty and what has (s)he written? --CTSWyneken 02:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does he claim to be an historian?  KHM03 00:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the scholarly community accept him as such?  KHM03 00:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Heck, I have a BA in history.  I'm not sure that makes me a top-notch, world-class, widely-accepted-by-the-academic-community expert. Also, Doherty would readily admit to a particular bias, which we have to recognize (he doesn't follow Wikipedia's NPOV policy!  ;) ). KHM03 00:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't disqualify him, he can go and enter the field and become a PhD just like everyone else.  Does it make him a reputable source?  No.  Does he have the training to make such assertions?  No.  Is he therefore taken seriously by the academic community?  No.  Him writing a book and making these assertions is tantamount to anyone here saying the same thing.  Hell, if thats the standard we're going to use I'm going to just start citing myself in my works; I have a BA and probably a better grasp of Latin and Greek than this guy does.  Of course no one will ever take me seriously and I sure as hell won't be getting a position teaching anywhere, but some guy on Wikipedia will take my research as serious, academic work.  If the best source you can come up with is some guy who went to college and wrote a book, then my assertion stands. pookster11 22:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If Jesus mythers are alllowed then conservative scholars who affirm the gospels historicity and Jesus's resurrection should be allowed 

message: ==Question re:  Archives==
I know I took a very broad brush stroke to the discussion page, but it was getting very long.  Many current conversations are now found in Archive 35.  It would help to have a table of contents for each archive, but the current format does not really allow for it and I am uncomfortable making such an edit.  I would be more than happy to fill out the contents of A. 35, but doing one for all the old archives would be a job for several of us in order that it be done quickly.  Any suggestions?  Storm Rider 22:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We do have a table of contents for each archive. See Talk:Jesus/Archive_details. If you could fill it out for the archive you created it would be appreciated. Thanks. Deskana (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't believe this page has been Protected for so long. Alienus 18:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This should be interesting.  Jim62sch 00:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archives and Live Subpages

message: I know I took a very broad brush stroke to the discussion page, but it was getting very long.  Many current conversations are now found in Archive 35.  It would help to have a table of contents for each archive, but the current format does not really allow for it and I am uncomfortable making such an edit.  I would be more than happy to fill out the contents of A. 35, but doing one for all the old archives would be a job for several of us in order that it be done quickly.  Any suggestions?  Storm Rider 22:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We do have a table of contents for each archive. See Talk:Jesus/Archive_details. If you could fill it out for the archive you created it would be appreciated. Thanks. Deskana (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question re:  Archives

message: I've gotten a subpage started with some of the debate over the second paragraph in it. It is at: Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate. It is very rough, may be missing material from yesterday evening and could use a touch up before continued conversation starts there. Perhaps links could be set there to previous discussions in the archives. I'm a bit occupied today, so won't be able to put a lot of time into it. Can someone else do the grunt work? --CTSWyneken 10:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd Paragraph Debate Page Added 

message: I've archived the subpage, as I proposed above, and copied two items from this page. Someone who has a better grasp of tables should pretty it up. 
Anything that would be helpful to the next round of discussions could go there. I'd just ask we keep it to a minimum. --CTSWyneken 17:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't believe this page has been Protected for so long. Alienus 18:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This should be interesting.  Jim62sch 00:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived [[talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate]]