Talk:Jesus/Archive 68

message: Since we're mostly distracted by the template thing, can we please use that as an excuse to put one of the pictures of Jesus up top, I mean, I don't see how we could have the capability to argue over two things that big at once, it can only improve the article, and by the time we get around to arguing over it, the article will at least of looked better for a few days. How about that Greek orthodox one down at the foresnic section, it doesn't actually relate to the section at all since that section is mostly discussion scholar stuff, and it's origins not-with-standing, how many people are going to come to this page and go "AHA, ORTHODOX BIAS!!!1!!!11!"? Homestarmy 05:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess i'll be bold about it, we'll see what happens. Homestarmy 19:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well done, mate. I like the picture and like having it with the intro (which probably means it's doomed). Kevin/Last1in 19:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally, I like the Jesus template being at the very topic because it lists a good number of the spinout articles right then and there, and sort of puts a header on the article. Perhaps we could have the image down about 3 paragraphs into the intro and on the left side? I'll be bold and try that out, but feel free to revert or move elsewhere if it looks bad.--Andrew c 19:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to make the picture stack directly on top of the template, but for some reason, it just wouldn't work out right :/. Homestarmy 19:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To stack vertical items, you need to put them in a table. Look at the code at this page to figure out how. Images or templates or whatever can go in each cell.--Andrew c 19:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You mean like the generic smily face which was proposed for that forensic thing? Because I think that was just a joke. Homestarmy 01:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, <joking>yes I completely endorse having Buddy Christ™ at the top, too.</joking> :-) And in all honesty, the Richard Neave forensics image, although probably the closest thing we have to Jesus physically, is not -completely- easy on the eyes (the face looks quite agape). In all seriousness, though, can we find an icon that is not frowning? Might I suggest this rubbing of an early second-century carving? אמר Steve Caruso <B>(desk/AMA)</B> 01:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it possible this picture is just Jesus being serious? I mean think about it, the Greek Orthodox fellows probably realized that Jesus was sort of on a serious mission, saving the world from a mandatory eternal damnation for our sins and all that, I can totally understand Jesus having a serious expression. Homestarmy 02:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Serious or no, he doesn't need to be frowning (and that is a very distinct frown). :-) But also, as I mentioned earlier, between the image and the infobox, together, on some displays I'm only getting 3 or 4 words per line of the introduction. I strongly suggest that we move our Orthodox-interpreted friend back down to where he was before. Things are far too cluttered. אמר Steve Caruso <B>(desk/AMA)</B> 02:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could try to stack it on top of the Jesus template then. Homestarmy 02:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If somebody can figure out all that horizontal box stuff, that article's example seems like a good choice as well. Homestarmy 04:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I don't think i've ever seen either picture in our discussions here before, the second one has the added advantage of being from the 6th century, as opposed to the 11th, it seems slightly better that the Greek orthodox one in that regard. Homestarmy 02:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really like the image of the mosaic. It looks a bit clearer and has better color than the current one.  Since it predates the schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions by several centuries, it's a bit more inclusive, too. Sxeptomaniac 22:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes I'm pretty sure it the Jesus template causing the problem: I previewed the page using the Buddhism template and the images stacked as desired. —Aiden 02:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Is the Bhuddhism template formatted differently than the Jesus one? Perhaps the Christianity template will work better? Homestarmy 21:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: , no other comment. Kevin/Last1in 22:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oy, there's no need for accusations, it's not my fault if the Christianity template might work and the Jesus one won't. Homestarmy 23:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Vey. No accusations (and no aspersions on anyone, especially not you, H) intended. Just resignation. Kevin/Last1in 00:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: But only one thumb even shows in the picture. (sorry, mate; couldn't resist) Kevin/Last1in 18:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About a picture

message: The introduction, second paragraph, begins: " The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John."  Then, however, in the following sentence it reads: " Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was…".  First, the use of a weasel word in the second paragraph is foreboding for the entire article.  Second, the opinions of scholars might best be discussed below the introduction considering the divisive topic.  Instead, I propose that the second sentence merely follow from the first, providing a summary of who Jesus was according to the four sources mentioned.  Any later treatment of Jesus will have to take up this presentation, even if to just dismiss it, before continuing discussion.  Thus the purpose of the introduction would be fulfilled, and scholarly opinion can be dealt with more specifically later on.  Lostcaesar 14:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The introduction is supposed to summarize the article. A large portion of the article is the Historicity or scholarly views section. A summary of that section, to some extent, needs to be in the intro. That said, each and every sentence in the introduction has been over with a fine tooth comb. Voting and debating and consensus was involved in their creation. I suggest digging through the archives and subpages to learn more about the process on how we arrived at those decisions. A new perspective is always good, and suggestions are welcome, but if you want to know more about the background of those sentences, there is always the archive.--Andrew c 17:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, please, no! To rephrase Dorothy, templates and pictures and intros, OH MY! Even without that, combining the sentences would be a poor edit, since they deal with two separate issues: what people use as the major sources of info, and what scholars believe based on the Gospels and a plethora of other sources like the apocrypha and records from surrounding (and often conquering) cultures. I so very strongly recommend that we don't poke that particular bear. Kevin/Last1in 19:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction Suggestion 

message: I think this section needs work.  The main reason why is because it doesn't talk about the historicity of texts.  The first paragraph merely describes in extreme brevity the writings of the Gospels and of St. Paul.  The next paragraph talks about the composition of the cannon.  The last paragraph merely describes in extreme brevity the apocryphal texts.  The word "historicity" does not appear in the actually body text (only in the title), nor is any attempt at describing the historicity of the texts taken up. Lostcaesar 22:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historicity of Texts 

message: As it seems, nothing on this article can be changed without coming to talk, so here I am. The "Life and teachings based on the Gospels" does not have an introduction, and I personally dislike two headings in a row without some sort of intro (the "Historicity" section also has this fault, but the "Religious perspectives" does not). I thought I found a solution to this problem when browsing the Gautama Buddha article, so I simply copy and pasted the text and changed the names. I would like anyone to comment on this edit, but I would like  to specifically comment on the 'over the top.. POV'. I urge everyone to go the the Gautama Buddha article and read the text there and see if it is equally POV. If not, could someone explain the differences in the applications to me? If so, how could we change the text in both articles so we have an intro to that section that doesn't have these alleged POV issues. This also reminds me of complaints found in the archive, of the article sounding too much like sunday school (i.e. pushing a POV). While I dislike disclaimers, I feel that this is an adequate solution that introduces the section, while establishing the POV, without implying the gospel narative is the same thing as a historical biography. --Andrew c 03:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think the main problems with editing this page just come from introductions, I find that when one does something like add references, (Especially to sections not dealing with Christianity) much less argument ensues. Though oddly, somebody did revert my additions to the Islamic view section awhile ago, and Jayjg has been in a slow edit war with somebody trying to insert some random Jewish scholar person in the Judaism's view section, but eh, it's not that bad as introduction parts. Homestarmy 04:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think Buudhism has an official, nearly-universal canon of works though, does it? Homestarmy 21:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm going to modify the Gautama article to also avoid assuming those stories are mythical as well. Also, I think we can all agree that "the earliest available Christian texts." is simply false. Paul wrote decades before the Gospels. We could change it to be more accurate by saying "the earliest available Christian texts on Jesus' life" or "the earliest existing accounts of Jesus' life" or something like that.--Andrew c 16:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm... on second thought, I don't like parts of those changes. I can understand taking out "myth", but I feel the self-reference is necessary. We need to say that the following paragraphs are the story of Jesus' life as told by the Christian orthodox gospels, as opposed to an actual biography. I think the changes remove this idea, and maybe even give the impression that the earliest Christians texts are historically accurate. hmm... any other ideas how to tweak the wording a little more? --Andrew c 16:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I didn't make any changes, but... The Christian orthodox Gospels are actually biographies, or a least they claim to be (Luke claims so explicitly, as does John).  Questions of historicity aside, I think it correct to call them biographies.  Lostcaesar 16:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that gets into the whole "what genre" debate. Graeco-Roman biography is different from contemporary biography. The Christian gospels are different from contemporary biography as well. I think using the simple word "biography" can be misleading without a discussion of ancient genre, which I don't feel needs to be included in this article. --Andrew c 17:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the manual of style says to avoid self-references, which is why I modified that sentence. I think also that as the title of the section is "based on the Gospels", it is fairly evident that the section is the Gospel account. About the dating, perhaps we should just say "some of the earliest" versus "the earliest", or as suggested above insert "biographica" so that the sentence reads, "The main sources of information on Jesus' life are the four canonical gospels, the earliest available biographical Christian texts." —Aiden 17:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Or even "the earliest accounts of Jesus' life." —Aiden 17:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you are misinterpreting the guideline (which is not part of the MoS) Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. You are not supposed to refer to "wikipedia". The rule of thumb is, if it would make sense on a mirror, then the self-reference is ok. Also, I like your solution to the "earliest" issue, either one works for me.--Andrew c 17:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I honestly don't see what the big deal is Andrew. The same information can be conveyed without the poorly styled self-reference. See the current version which I believe addresses the redundancy issue you raised. —Aiden 01:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your efforts to work with me and come to talk. I made a case for why self-references are not always bad, and quoted policy and you didn't reply. That is why I put a self-reference back into the article. Your edits are starting to get there. I feel that any discussion the quality of sources doesn't really belong here unless we are covering questions of historicity (another section), so I simply removed the comment about the earliest sourcing. I also added a clause. This section isn't about Jesus' life. It's about the story of Jesus' life as told by the gospels. When we say "Jesus' life" we get into questions of historicity. We have scores of scholars who comb through the gospels pointing out what is and isn't historically credible or likely. And they all give a different portrait of "Jesus' life". As I have said above, I think we need to make it clear that we are giving a plot summary of the gospels, and not accidentally (or intentionally) present it as anything else. I'm sorry this issue means a lot to me, but by the way I have been reverted, it seems like it means a lot to other editors as well. I've been totally honest about why I would like to have an introduction, and more specifically, what I would like to accomplish with it. If there is anything problematic with my position, I would appreciate comments addressing this (especially from those who revert me). --Andrew c 01:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your most recent changes look good to me. —Aiden 01:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro to "life" section