Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate/9

message: Right. I ran out of time at the library and I didn't have a chance to finish my comment until now.
I was fine with the word "healer," which simply means one who treats illness, independent of theory or method or effectiveness. Jesus was, in fact, a healer in the context of first-century Galilee, and he was not the only one. Either that, or I've been seriously misled. However, at least three people objected to the word "healer," so we came up with "regarded as a healer." Then someone objected to that. Perhaps "cultural anthropology" was the wrong phrase, but something I read recently reminded me of CTSWyneken's remark about shamanism. It was just meant to clarify that the word "healer" is used to denote a social status, independent of how one views or "regards" that status.
Rather than coming up with another bad idea, I'll simply ask you how you would respond to the objections that have been raised over the past few weeks. Please don't shoot the messenger. I'm not saying that any of these are or are not valid. I am simply repeating them: Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No sweat (and if you ever think I am being rude, to the messenger or to anyone else, tell me. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Let us leave it to the body of the article to work through the implications.Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I will give my own opinion ;) We should, but we currently don't. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Which is why I am fine with "healer."  That said, historians are not really concerned with whether Jesus was "really" a healer any more than whether Jesus was "really" a messiah - only, did anyone (him or others) claim he was messiah and what did they mean.  What he and his followers believed by "healer" is definitely something that must be explored later in this article or a linked a article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could perhaps cover this better, Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it simply provides those points on which a manority of scholars agree.  Anyone who thinks that this means that this is all any one particular scholar thinks is a sloppy reader.  Now, I am sure Wikipedia has sloppy readers.  But you know what?  no matter how well-written the articles on Evolution or on Special Relativey are, some people will misread them.  Be that as it may, the introduction is only an introduction.  Again, the body of the article, or linked articles, should explain what specific historians have argued more fully, and how different historians differ.  I believe that what I am saying is not unique to this article but the way all articles with have introductions and bodies are organized. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I think the words "majority" and "minority" speak for themselves.  But if you asked me to parse the sentence, this is what I would say it "implies:" that people who reject Jesus' existence have one reason, and people who believe he was a seditious healer have many reasons. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your reasoning, but the paragraph still looks unbalanced. Perhaps we could add the phrase "for a variety of reasons." Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I strongoy believe these non-scholas must be emoved.  The paragraph is concerned with what scholars believe.  There is absolutely no reason to believe that pious Christians and academic scholars are the only people with views on Jesus.  The article should present the views of others including people like Freke and Gandy.  Just put it in another paragraph. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, who defines what a scholar is? Dispute over the word "scholar" goes all the way back to the very first draft of the paragraph.Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: So what?  This paragraph claims to be what the majority of scholars think, not what the Gospels say.  NPOV requires that we present multiple points of view.  We should provide an account of what the Gospels say.  We should also provide an account of wha people other than the authors of the Gospels say.  Delete their views because they differ from the view of the Gospels?  That is a clear and simple violation of one of our core policies, NPOV.  Anyone who questions this should simply be directed to the policy page. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, one is the scholars' POV, and the other is the Gospel's POV. However, this is what Drogo recently called a "contradiction or NPOV violation," despite the attribution to scholars on the one hand and the gospels on the other. I don't agree with Drogo, though. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: See above comment.  This paragraph is not claiming to represent th Gospel account.  The article must comply with NPOV meaning it must provide views other than those in the Gospels.  Period. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I agree. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally I think this goes without saying.  Does the article on Special Relativity say "physicists who focus on gravity?"  In an article on orchids, would we say "botanists who study orchids?"  That said, I don't object to being more specific, except we would then have to add, "using modern critical academic methods" or something.  Again, why not spell all this out in the body of the article or in linked articles?  It is poor style for th introduction to be too detailed.  We must remember that it is only an introduction and as such is part of a larger whole. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should clarify in the article, but I'm not sure that we do. I also agree that we shouldn't bury the lead in this paragraph. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I really appreciate your efforts.  However, we will never satisfy all objections - few articles do.  What we need is some reasonable principles for deciding which objections merit attention and which do not.  I would in general dismiss all objections that do not reflect our NPOV policy, and that in focusing on the introduction ignore tht it is part of a larger article (or that in focussing on one paragraph ignores the fact that it is part of a larger section.) I sincerely elieve all objections should be considered and I hope that my responses reflect an understaning of the objection.  But understanding an objection does not require agreeing withit.  Moreover, we should not just ty to accept and accommodate all objections - to do so is lazy, as it means it does not matter whether we actually understand the objection.  In other words, i think trying to understand an objection even when it leads one to dismiss it, takes the objection more seriously than one who tries to accomodate all objections blindly.  Some people here are so conflict-aversee they think that continued objction is a bad thing.  It is not - not necessarily.  It depends on what the objection is.  Some objections reflect a commitment to our policies and to a desire to produce excellent encyclopedia articles and these are worth accommodating.  Some are clearly motivated by these commitments, but are nevertheless misplaced, but these objections merit serious discussion.  Others are just silly and we have to accept the fact that given the open quasi-anarchic nature of Wikipedia, there will always be silly objections.  So, Archola (and anyone else) - I suggest that instead of attempting to list all the objections we can to the best of our memoy, we should stick to dealing with those objection that we believe really have merit.  Which of the above objections do you think really have merit?  If your response is different from mine, can you explain why?  I don't object to continued discussion.  I do object to trying to come up with a paragraph that treats all objections as having equal merit, that accommodates all objections without considering their merit, that onstitutes an attempt to deflect all conceivabl objections.  I just don't think it is a good strategy for writing a good encyclopedia article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm beginning to suspect that we've been chasing our tails, but I'm not sure what to do. Rather than dismiss such objections, perhaps we could take CTSWyneken's idea from a while back and create a FAQ? Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not object to an FAQ.  However, I think the fundamental point is this: articles on controversial topics will always - always - periodically provoke the exact same objections.  It does not matter how carefully the article is written because some objections are really reflexive and owe to deep-seated prejudices.  Look at the evolution article.  It has for some time had a section that responds to all the main criticisms made by creationists (those criticisms that pose as being "scientific").  Nevertheless, every month or so someone write extensive comments on the talk paes rehashing these criticisms.  I honestly do not know what exactly is going on - either they do not read the article at all, or read it but not carefully, or read it and just do not understand it, or are so deeply motivated by their faith that they are blind to any response.  My point is, after a while you just have to say "read the article" and stop responding to objections.  I want to reitterate; I do not believe that all objections are silly and should be dismissed out of hand.  only that some are, yet these are objections people will continue to raise.  Any editor working on an article on a controversial topic just has to get used to it.  We have to be prepared to get some criticisms over and over that will not disappear no matter how many people respond to them reasonably, and no matter how much time people take to explain why the objection is misplaced.  I hope you do not think of it as chasing your tail, Archola.  Just understand that thoughtfulness, good intentions, and patience do not solve all problems.  I do appreciate your efforts.  Some issues are worth it.  But some aren't.  Don't feel bad about giving up dealing with some claims in order to focus constructively on others.  I know we agree in principle, you have said as much already.  I jut want to encourage you to trust your judgement in deciding what issues to focus on and where to let go. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of common objections

message: Instead of loading the paragraph with qualifiers, why not create a FAQ? Then if someone raises the same old tired questions or objections, we can just tell them to RTFM. If anyone comes up with something we haven't considered, we should of course be courteous and consider what they have to say. However, the FAQ can cover the meaning of "healer" as a social role, while scholarly opinion may differ from the gospel accounts, and other things that we have talked to death. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 19:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a great idea! --MonkeeSage 22:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was originally CTSWyneken's idea, but I just think now that it would be so much easier. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 06:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A different solution