Talk:Jesus/Archive 88

message: I have reverted a large addition to the Jehovah's Witnesses section. We have to keep in mind that this article is already pretty long, and that being a top tier article, we are basically only summarizing content found elsewhere. On top of that, we have to always keep in mind undue weight. The JW's are a very small movement when compared to Islam or Catholicism or any number of other groups we discuss elsewhere in the article. By expanding the JW's section, we are giving them more space, and thus undue weight. I think we should work to have a good, strong concise paragraph that states straightfowardly how JWs view Jesus. But the smaller details belong in another article. Perhaps we can work on finding out the most important facts that should be covered, and work up a version here on the talk page. Also, I wanted to make sure that others agreed with me that we need to be conscious of size and undue weight. What do others think? How can we improve this section without making to too wordy?-Andrew c [talk] 22:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; I'd noticed quite a bit of information being added to this section by BrotherLawrence, but it seemed to me that up until this point, the majority of text was actually in the footnotes (therefore, the concern for undue weight was not so pressing).--C.Logan (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree also -- I came close to reverting it myself, but wanted to see what others thought. LotR (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right. Sorry. --Brotherlawrence (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  JW view 

message: What say we add a "don't feed the troll sign" to the talk. Something like:
	This page is often frequented by trolls. Do not feed the trolls by attempting to argue with them.
bibliomaniac15 00:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: agree.Tourskin (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It certainly wouldn't be an exaggeration to say so. LotR (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: how do you know who is a troll and who is trying to say something but no one wants to listen. does this phrase make me a troll? LOL  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iulian28ti (talk • contribs) 20:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: This section contains very little expert citation. Why is that? Aren't we supposed to cite expert opinion on WP? Certainly there are experts who've said things about Jesus as portrayed in the gospels. Plus, there's a main article on the topic already, so this can just be a summary (per summary style). And the four gospels are basically treated as a unit, rather than as four separate and distinct works. Is there a WP guideline I don't know about that says "describe important religious texts yourselves, and cite the primary texts"? What gives? Leadwind (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sectin is meaqnt to provide a summary of the primary source material, hopefully with no explanation or analysis.  It thus does not lend itself to expert citation.  This article is already too big to contain the many articles that would merit expert citation - for example, an article on the formation of the Gospels (drawing heavily on research by Bart Ehrman I imagine) and then articles on specific books of the NT with both critical (e.g. Anchor Bible) and theological or homiletic interpretations, or the article on Christology, which focuses specifically on Christian interpretations of these 9and other) books). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the point of this section? If we want to know what the gospels say about Jesus, aren't there experts who can tell us? Why invent an original harmony of the gospels?  If we want to know what the gospels say about Jesus, why not summarize each gospel? If the gospels are four books, why merge them into one narrative? Leadwind (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If there are places where the Gospels are in agreement, we can compress the narrative.  When they differ, i agree with you, we should note the differences.  In short, we should provide as neutral an overview as possible, and leave it for other articles - which would indeed rely on commentaries by experts - to cover apparent inconsistencies or other elements that demand some interpretation. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not let the experts tell us what the gospels say about Jesus? Why invent an original harmony? Isn't it WP style to represent expert opinion? There's no expert opinion in this section, and there's plenty of expert opinion to be had on the topic. Leadwind (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It is perfectly legitimate in ikipedia to provide a summary of a document as long as we introduce no new interpretation or synthesis.  As for "experts," Wikipedia is unconcerned with "experts."  What we are concerned with are notable views from verifiable and reliable sources.  This is an article on jesus, not on the Gospels.  In the article(s) on the Gospels we should provide all nobable points of view as to the meaning of the Gospels, as I already explained to you.  Here we just need to provide a concise summary.  Now please tell me in my three responses to you where have I ever said we should provide some invented harmony?  Why should anyone respond to you when you do not read people's responses to you? Why do you keep bringing up "invented harmony" when I have made it clear we do not do this? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have never suggested that we invent a harmony, but that's what this section is. It's a harmony of the gospels. It comes not from some outside source but from the collaboration of editors. It's an original work. According to original research policy, "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." This section implies that there is some valuable information for the reader in a narrative that blends the four gospels. Who says that's true? What RS says we should read the four gospels as if they were all parts of a single story? And if WP doesn't care about experts, let's call them reliable sources instead. WP cares very much about reliable, secondary sources. This section doesn't. Leadwind (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I read what you wrote, but you misunderstand Wikipedia and our policies, or haven't read my responses.  The section does come from an outside work, the Gospels.  All wikipedia articles are the result of collaboration among editors. Neither of these are problematic.  Do editors unreasonably go beyond what the original sources say in "inventing" some harmony not originally there?  Well,I responded to this and I responded on 00:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the article at one point did present a "harmony". I went through that section (with the help of other editors) to try to make sure every concept was cited to the bible, and places where there was biblical disagreement, it was noted. Just reading through the first two section again on the nativity and the baptism, it makes it clear that the sources don't all agree, and I don't believe we are presenting a "harmony" in those sections. I too had the same issue that we, as wikipedia editors, couldn't combine an event from Luke and an event from Matthew to create a single narrative. I did feel that it was ok to state that "Luke says X, while Matthew says Y". If you feel there are specific places that still need work in that regard, then please point out where, so we can work to fix it. As for citing experts, what we are doing in this section is basically giving a plot summary of 4 similar books that have overlapping content. We don't need an expert to tell us that Luke 2:41–52 describes the event of Finding in the Temple. As long as we aren't interpreting the source, but instead summarizing the plot, I don't see why we should cite an intermediary. Also, I'm not exactly sure who we could cite. Are there books out there that give "scholarly" plot summaries? I mean I guess we could cite the CliffsNotes. But go to any article about a book or film that describes the plot. What are we using as a source in those sections? The work itself. Likewise, we can use the work itself in this case to cite for our summary of the narratives (as long as we avoid original synthesis or interpretation). -Andrew c [talk] 15:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrew, my goodness, I must sound crazy. I can remember when this section made perfect sense to me. Thanks for your patience. Please bear with me. You say, "As for citing experts, what we are doing in this section is basically giving a plot summary of 4 similar books that have overlapping content." The issue is how similar the books are. To a Christian, they're similar. They're God's Word about Jesus. To a historian, however, they're different. The Synoptics represent Jesus very differently from how John does. The "Ministry" section of this page, for example, doesn't make it clear that in the Synoptics J uses parables to describe the Kingdom of God and denies signs to the people. In John, J gives seven signs and talks at length about himself in prose that sounds more written than spoken. In the Synoptics, J's ministry is one thing. In John, it's another. This page lets you read through the ministry section thinking that the four books say basically the same thing. "Are there books out there that give "scholarly" plot summaries?" Yes. Those are the books we cite for this section. Leadwind (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life and teachings, as told in the Gospels