Talk:Jesus/Archive 65

message: Previous talk at Talk:Jesus/Archive 64
:::: Do you have any (unbiased) evidence that NT is accepted as historical evidence as the sole source? I for one would be interested in such scientific uses for the NT or Bible in general. Your reference to Iliad is false because while Troy (or eg. Jericho) is known to have existed the events pictured in Iliad or Odyssey have not been shown to be true - Nor are they accepted at face value without archeological or other historical sources to back them up.  - G3, 21:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *With all due respect, CrazyInSane, this does not answer the question above. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 18:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your take on things (and I agree). However, if the Christianity template was taken out of the Religious Perspectives section and placed at the very top of the article (a la the Islam template on the Muhammad article), would that change in lay out change your position on this matter?--Andrew c 22:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think so, although I think I'd prefer the status quo as the  template appears more understated... on third thoughts, perhaps it's also better to keep the  template beside the "Christian views" section as Christianity isn't the only faith to acknowledge Jesus in some way. (Is Islam the only faith to acknowledge Muhammad in any significant way?)  Intriguing, David 01:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: David: No, Islam is not the only religion in which Muhammad is significant. He is also considered a "manifestation of God" in the Baha'i faith. However, the editors at Muhammad have (as we had done in the past here) concluded that not just the Islamic biography section, but all of the historical and cultural context provided in the article is pertinent to Islam and an integral part of the series of articles on Islam (which the template represents). Likewise, all of this article, not just one section, is an integral part of Christianity in a way it is to no other religion. —Aiden 05:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aiden, I unfortunately continue to see that as no excuse to violate a "non-negotiable"WP:NPOV policy. :-( If this were truly the case, then you would also be arguing for the Christianity template to appear at the top of Historical Jesus as "all of the historical and cultural context provided in the article is pertinent to {Christianity}." אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 12:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of us and all of our brothers and cousins agree that NPOV is non-negotiable, inviolable, sacrosanct, and not to be taunted. We disagree on what constitutes neutrality. It is an increasingly tedious rhetorical device to label your oppononts position POV and then to ask how they can defend a position that is non-neutral. Tom Harrison Talk 13:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After taking a plain reading of the NPOV policy, no stretching of semantics, a plain face-value reading as to what constitutes bias according to our own rules as quoted above, I took a look at the Jesus article and I saw the Christianity template in a place that appears to violate those rules. This, again at face value, appears to be a genuine problem. I start a discussion thread about it and a straw poll and I find that I am not the only one who sees this. If it was just myself and no one agreed with me, then yes I suppose I was seeing things incorrectly. However, there is apparently something to this that needs to be dealt with. If we disagree as to what constitutes neutrality, then we must find some way to resolve this issue amicably. When I started this thread, all sorts of accusations were flung at me and I have been trying my best to address them and focus upon the sole reason why I started this discussion: Adherence to our own policies. So I implore of you that we discuss our policies, not how I seem "rhetorically tedious." אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 13:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Thanks for your reply, Aiden. I'd hope it's possible to write an article on Jesus or Muhammad (or...) without needing to involve Christianity or Islam (or...) from the very start. My understanding is that Christianity as is generally known and practised today was almost all (if not completely) built by people other than Jesus himself, starting with the Apostles, St. Paul, etc. Perhaps somewhere there is where the distinction lies. (I'm also guessing the same is likely to be the case as regards Muhammad and Islam, although I recognise there's a tighter link between himself, the religion spawned and its scripture.)  As regards the templates, I suppose this translates to "keep the status quo" here and perhaps reconsider it at Muhammad and other articles featuring religious figures. Regards, David 01:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: So, yes Muhammad as it is now does violate your understanding of npov? or No, it does not? Tom Harrison Talk 13:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: * Well alot of the discussion up there seemed to be about "This template is evil because it says "Jesus(Son of God), how detestable and non-NPOV!" rather than anything primarily about whether it deserved to be placed at the top of the article, and the Christian views section isn't the only part that exibits how Jesus is clearly the most important in Christianity, most of the history section is straight from the gospels. Is there a part of template policy which says that templates should only be used at the top for articles which share the templates relation all throughout? Homestarmy 15:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Homestarmy, where was this discussion (summarized "Jesus(Son of God), how detestable and non-NPOV!") you're referring to? Unfortunately, there is no seperate template policy on Wikipedia and the only time that templates are explicitly mentioned (contentwise) in WP:POLICY is in WP:NPOV which I listed above. This proposal is not against the Christianity template, only about putting it in it's most appropriate place. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * The section entitled "Removal of the Xty template" seems to be where that sort of discussion was. Homestarmy 18:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I was more referring to the past two threads of conversation that I started (#Resolving the Christianity template dispute and #Straw poll). This is not about removing the Christianity template by any means. Simply moving it. I, for one, will not endorse the mere idea of removing it from the article. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 12:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If you read the undue weight clause, it's talking about how not to give undue weight to less prominent views. Christianity is the most prominent view one could associate with Jesus and is thus entitled to due weight. —Aiden 13:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Christianity is one of the most prominent religious views, followed very closely with Islam (on a scale of billions of people). There is an entire body of scholarship and research about Jesus as a person, which is what the Jesus template includes and the Christianity template lacks. But note, even the Jesus template as it is now puts some Christian views at the top giving more than due weight to Christianity. Also note, that these views are specifically about Jesus within Christianity rather than a general overview of Christianity itself. Having references to Ecumenical councils, the Great Schism, the Crusades, and the Reformation has nothing to do with Jesus in this context of this article and would be out of place. How is the Jesus template, as it is now with references to Christianity, not sufficient? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 14:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No rotten produce from me. I agree completely and couldn't have worded it better. Thanks for your civility and for weighing in. --Andrew c 02:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Aiden, I made note at the very top of this section that this straw poll was listed on WP:POLLS as outlined under policy. There very well may be people who aren't involved with this article come through, read the poll and vote (which in theory is supposed to reduce bias). Making note of such a thing as that in the words that you have selected I personally find very upsetting and passive-aggressive. Everyone who has voted, thusfar, on the straw poll appears to have a solid history with Wikipedia, and they do not seem to be the kind of one-shot deal that might occasionally be found on AfD, no? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 00:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure Aiden meant no offense. This year it seems we've had a lot of polls and the accusation has come up before (although then, some were alledging a Christian Cabal, which later became DWEECS). There's probably still some bad feelings all around. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: For me it was like that: browsing WP - seeing the poll - being interested in the subject - thinking - voting. Cheers. -- Adriatikus 01:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As a student of Islam, I very much disagree that Jesus is a major figure in it. Most Muslims disagree, but this is mostly to appeal to all the Christians who hold Jesus so highly. In essence, Jesus is just like every other Islamic prophet, no more, no less, and no more. --Ephilei 05:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also as a student of Islam, many Muslims do hold Jesus to a high regard and an important part of their religion, regardless of Christian interpretation (and certainly not in the same sort of adoration one finds in Christianity). He is more than just an average prophet, he is also al-Masih and the precursor to Muhammad. :-) As a result, both Islam and Christianity should have their series templates in their respective sections with the Jesus template on top. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 14:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't Jesus considered one of the five main Prophets of Islam? Less than Mohammad; on a par with Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses; greater than the others? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Konstable, do you then see a POV issue with the Islam template at the top of the Muhammad article? Does that in any way change the neutral presentation of the article or convey that the Islamic view is the correct view? Does including a template which itself must adhere to WP:NPOV--regardless of its place in the article--convey any one POV? I think most would agree it does not. Having the Islam template at the top of the article simply signifies that this is an integral part of a series of informative articles on Islam. In no way does this say "Muhammad is a Prophet of Islam, not a Manifestation of God as the Baha'i Faith teaches." No, it simply says, "Here are other articles related to Islam." That's all the template is! —Aiden 19:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm inclined to agree wiht the above sentiment, and I think "Non-Christian perspectives on Jesus" is a reasonable place to collect such things.  A paragraph or two that summarizes such on the Jesus page, with a main template link to the Non-Christian views page would be very helpful.  This way the Jesus page stays in the Christian template sphere, but the non-christian views page can be outside of all templates, but may be categorized within any and all religious categories where such religions take a strong position on the role or nature or person of Jesus. --Christian Edward Gruber 15:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems an odd, biased split to divide between Christian views on the one hand, and all other views on the other. There's already a family of articles on the various views of Jesus. Besides Christian views of Jesus, there is Historical Jesus, Jesus Myth, Islamic view of Jesus, and Judaism's view of Jesus, for example. Also, Religious perspectives on Jesus lists some that aren't in this article, such as Scientology's view and Urantia's view. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Actually an article on Jesus should include all views, otherwise it fails the most basic WP:NPOV test.  Guettarda 15:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Space permitting ;) Since space doesn't permit, we have the family of articles on various views of Jesus. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Sort of true.  It needs to include all non-trivial views to pass basic WP:NPOV.  However, if it highlights clearly that the conception of Jesus presented is typical of most Christian denominations, with a clear reference to other views, it still passes NPOV.  As a Baha'i (yes I realize the irony of my name, though it's not as ironic as most people suppose), I would not feel comfortable with a presentation of every single available view on Baha'u'llah on His biography page, though referring in summary to  other views of his role/mission might be appropriate, with a break-out link to a daughter or peer article that describes such in more detail.  It keeps undue weight from skewing NPOV in the other direction.  Certainly, as a Baha'i I believe in Jesus, and Baha'u'llah and Abd'ul-Baha talk quite a bit about Jesus.  Jesus is one of the "stars" of the Qur'an, as a morrocan friend of mine once put it.  Yet, the most common conception of Jesus, among people who pay attention to Him at all, is the Christian view, or are direct reactions to the historical Christian view of Jesus.  It might be ideal to represent all views in one article, but it would make it unwieldly.  To use yet another analogy, if we were to add Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Baha'i, and secular views to the Moses page and give them substantially equal treatment, it would be undue weight.  I'd love to list all sorts of aspects of the Baha'i view of Jesus, his nature and mission on the Jesus page... if I were being apologetic.  However, in the spirit of Wikipedia, I would prefer to keep things encyclopedic.  In that light, I cannot support adding lots of Baha'i text to a Jesus article (or Muhammad for that matter).  Just a small summary with a link to a larger article.--Christian Edward Gruber 22:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like the poll, at the moment is 50/50 (but not that the outcome of the poll makes anything written in stone :-P ), and unless we can come to a compromise that all editors involved are willing to implement, then we may have to go onto the next step of dispute resolution. I agree that we do need to get back to work on the article, however what work we may disagree on. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 14:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is getting rather long and I'd like to archive it. Subpage, maybe? I have split the comment section by weeks because long sections are hard to follow. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 16:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant idea, Archola :-) I'd say we should make the move soon. The beginning of next week look good? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Remove/don't re-insert the Christianity template not for NPOV reasons (I understand both sides, and cannot decide strongly for either one) but for aesthetic reasons.  With the Jesus template already there, it's simply too crowded to have both.  Since there's a dispute over it anyway, and both sides make valid points, the deciding factor might as well be something unrelated to either (and, in my humble opinion, valid in its own right). (Not sure where else to put this, as it's not actually supporting either side, so I hope it's okay here.) ----Icarus (Hi!) 18:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That can be solved by using a simple floating table. —Aiden 20:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that fails to fix the redundancy between the templates. The Jesus template already has a lot of links about Christianity (first, too) and gives it due weight, where the Christianity template has many "several-times-removed" issues. Why do we need both to clutter the page? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's very simple: Because the article itself, not one section, is an integral part of the series on Christianity in the same way that Muhammad is an integral part of the series on Islam. I've stated this multiple times. You still haven't explained, however, how placing a template which itself must conform to WP:NPOV at the top of an article, rather than the middle, makes the article POV. —Aiden 23:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you arguing that Jesus is more of an integral part to the Christianity series than he is in the Jesus series? Jesus has the most critical and integral part to the Jesus series, hands down. Under NPOV, listing the Christianity template at the very top of the article gives preference to Christianity over Islam and other religions, all which have sections that are most appropriate for such things. Furthermore, listing such links to Ecumenical councils, Great Schism, and The Crusades that the Christianity template has are things that bear little to extremely removed signifigance to Jesus as a person. Like the article Old Testament and New Testament, firmly rooted in the Christianity series, the most appropriate template should be on top, or at the very least higher in the article. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 03:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're going in circles here, Steve, and you seem to keep asking the same answered questions. As the article was before, both templates were at the top. —Aiden 06:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunently, I had to revert, an anon removed the template altogether. Homestarmy 01:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that Aiden just moved the Christianity template back up to the top, citing the discussion here. Aiden, it seems there is general agreement that the template would be better placed in the Christian views section, even if, by right of NPOV, it might be justifiable at the top. So why did you change it? Joel Bastedo 18:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was by no means any consensus. Thus, I restored the template positions to how they have been for months. —Aiden 18:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Poppycock. In complete defiance of the consensus slowly building here, and against the specific plea from the admin who unlocked the page (that we continue discussion on the templates), you jumped in and changed it the way you wanted to see it. This is the very antithesis of WP:FAITH and WP:CON. Kevin/Last1in 18:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Unless somebody cares to record Aiden's brainwaves during his reverting and then put them through some tests to determine his motivations, I daresay there isn't much way to prove whether or not he was acting in the very antithesis of WP:FAITH or WP:CON. It was just one revert folks, and if it was really the way Aiden says it was before the dispute began, I can certainly see some merit to changing it back to the pre-dispute conditions. Homestarmy 18:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Homestarmy, you're right. I have no way to know, and should have impugned, the motives of another editor. I apologize. Let me rephrase: The action of moving the template whilst consensus-builing continues is the antithesis of WP:FAITH and WP:CON. Better?Kevin/Last1in 18:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good Lord, Kevin. I'd dare say you are blowing this entire thing out of proportion. Has a consensus been achieved thus far? No. Then the template should remain in its original position until such a consensus is achieved. As I said in my comment below, I have no problem respecting such a consensus; but as of yet there is none, and thus the original position of the template should remain. —Aiden 22:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Christianity Template, part 2

message: I am listing this survey under WP:POLLS. This survey does not determine who "wins" or even what course of action this article may take. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *With all due respect, CrazyInSane, this does not answer the question above. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 18:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your take on things (and I agree). However, if the Christianity template was taken out of the Religious Perspectives section and placed at the very top of the article (a la the Islam template on the Muhammad article), would that change in lay out change your position on this matter?--Andrew c 22:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think so, although I think I'd prefer the status quo as the  template appears more understated... on third thoughts, perhaps it's also better to keep the  template beside the "Christian views" section as Christianity isn't the only faith to acknowledge Jesus in some way. (Is Islam the only faith to acknowledge Muhammad in any significant way?)  Intriguing, David 01:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: David: No, Islam is not the only religion in which Muhammad is significant. He is also considered a "manifestation of God" in the Baha'i faith. However, the editors at Muhammad have (as we had done in the past here) concluded that not just the Islamic biography section, but all of the historical and cultural context provided in the article is pertinent to Islam and an integral part of the series of articles on Islam (which the template represents). Likewise, all of this article, not just one section, is an integral part of Christianity in a way it is to no other religion. —Aiden 05:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aiden, I unfortunately continue to see that as no excuse to violate a "non-negotiable"WP:NPOV policy. :-( If this were truly the case, then you would also be arguing for the Christianity template to appear at the top of Historical Jesus as "all of the historical and cultural context provided in the article is pertinent to {Christianity}." אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 12:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of us and all of our brothers and cousins agree that NPOV is non-negotiable, inviolable, sacrosanct, and not to be taunted. We disagree on what constitutes neutrality. It is an increasingly tedious rhetorical device to label your oppononts position POV and then to ask how they can defend a position that is non-neutral. Tom Harrison Talk 13:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After taking a plain reading of the NPOV policy, no stretching of semantics, a plain face-value reading as to what constitutes bias according to our own rules as quoted above, I took a look at the Jesus article and I saw the Christianity template in a place that appears to violate those rules. This, again at face value, appears to be a genuine problem. I start a discussion thread about it and a straw poll and I find that I am not the only one who sees this. If it was just myself and no one agreed with me, then yes I suppose I was seeing things incorrectly. However, there is apparently something to this that needs to be dealt with. If we disagree as to what constitutes neutrality, then we must find some way to resolve this issue amicably. When I started this thread, all sorts of accusations were flung at me and I have been trying my best to address them and focus upon the sole reason why I started this discussion: Adherence to our own policies. So I implore of you that we discuss our policies, not how I seem "rhetorically tedious." אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 13:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Thanks for your reply, Aiden. I'd hope it's possible to write an article on Jesus or Muhammad (or...) without needing to involve Christianity or Islam (or...) from the very start. My understanding is that Christianity as is generally known and practised today was almost all (if not completely) built by people other than Jesus himself, starting with the Apostles, St. Paul, etc. Perhaps somewhere there is where the distinction lies. (I'm also guessing the same is likely to be the case as regards Muhammad and Islam, although I recognise there's a tighter link between himself, the religion spawned and its scripture.)  As regards the templates, I suppose this translates to "keep the status quo" here and perhaps reconsider it at Muhammad and other articles featuring religious figures. Regards, David 01:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: So, yes Muhammad as it is now does violate your understanding of npov? or No, it does not? Tom Harrison Talk 13:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: * Well alot of the discussion up there seemed to be about "This template is evil because it says "Jesus(Son of God), how detestable and non-NPOV!" rather than anything primarily about whether it deserved to be placed at the top of the article, and the Christian views section isn't the only part that exibits how Jesus is clearly the most important in Christianity, most of the history section is straight from the gospels. Is there a part of template policy which says that templates should only be used at the top for articles which share the templates relation all throughout? Homestarmy 15:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Homestarmy, where was this discussion (summarized "Jesus(Son of God), how detestable and non-NPOV!") you're referring to? Unfortunately, there is no seperate template policy on Wikipedia and the only time that templates are explicitly mentioned (contentwise) in WP:POLICY is in WP:NPOV which I listed above. This proposal is not against the Christianity template, only about putting it in it's most appropriate place. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * The section entitled "Removal of the Xty template" seems to be where that sort of discussion was. Homestarmy 18:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I was more referring to the past two threads of conversation that I started (#Resolving the Christianity template dispute and #Straw poll). This is not about removing the Christianity template by any means. Simply moving it. I, for one, will not endorse the mere idea of removing it from the article. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 12:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If you read the undue weight clause, it's talking about how not to give undue weight to less prominent views. Christianity is the most prominent view one could associate with Jesus and is thus entitled to due weight. —Aiden 13:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Christianity is one of the most prominent religious views, followed very closely with Islam (on a scale of billions of people). There is an entire body of scholarship and research about Jesus as a person, which is what the Jesus template includes and the Christianity template lacks. But note, even the Jesus template as it is now puts some Christian views at the top giving more than due weight to Christianity. Also note, that these views are specifically about Jesus within Christianity rather than a general overview of Christianity itself. Having references to Ecumenical councils, the Great Schism, the Crusades, and the Reformation has nothing to do with Jesus in this context of this article and would be out of place. How is the Jesus template, as it is now with references to Christianity, not sufficient? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 14:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No rotten produce from me. I agree completely and couldn't have worded it better. Thanks for your civility and for weighing in. --Andrew c 02:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Aiden, I made note at the very top of this section that this straw poll was listed on WP:POLLS as outlined under policy. There very well may be people who aren't involved with this article come through, read the poll and vote (which in theory is supposed to reduce bias). Making note of such a thing as that in the words that you have selected I personally find very upsetting and passive-aggressive. Everyone who has voted, thusfar, on the straw poll appears to have a solid history with Wikipedia, and they do not seem to be the kind of one-shot deal that might occasionally be found on AfD, no? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 00:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure Aiden meant no offense. This year it seems we've had a lot of polls and the accusation has come up before (although then, some were alledging a Christian Cabal, which later became DWEECS). There's probably still some bad feelings all around. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: For me it was like that: browsing WP - seeing the poll - being interested in the subject - thinking - voting. Cheers. -- Adriatikus 01:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As a student of Islam, I very much disagree that Jesus is a major figure in it. Most Muslims disagree, but this is mostly to appeal to all the Christians who hold Jesus so highly. In essence, Jesus is just like every other Islamic prophet, no more, no less, and no more. --Ephilei 05:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also as a student of Islam, many Muslims do hold Jesus to a high regard and an important part of their religion, regardless of Christian interpretation (and certainly not in the same sort of adoration one finds in Christianity). He is more than just an average prophet, he is also al-Masih and the precursor to Muhammad. :-) As a result, both Islam and Christianity should have their series templates in their respective sections with the Jesus template on top. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 14:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't Jesus considered one of the five main Prophets of Islam? Less than Mohammad; on a par with Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses; greater than the others? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Konstable, do you then see a POV issue with the Islam template at the top of the Muhammad article? Does that in any way change the neutral presentation of the article or convey that the Islamic view is the correct view? Does including a template which itself must adhere to WP:NPOV--regardless of its place in the article--convey any one POV? I think most would agree it does not. Having the Islam template at the top of the article simply signifies that this is an integral part of a series of informative articles on Islam. In no way does this say "Muhammad is a Prophet of Islam, not a Manifestation of God as the Baha'i Faith teaches." No, it simply says, "Here are other articles related to Islam." That's all the template is! —Aiden 19:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm inclined to agree wiht the above sentiment, and I think "Non-Christian perspectives on Jesus" is a reasonable place to collect such things.  A paragraph or two that summarizes such on the Jesus page, with a main template link to the Non-Christian views page would be very helpful.  This way the Jesus page stays in the Christian template sphere, but the non-christian views page can be outside of all templates, but may be categorized within any and all religious categories where such religions take a strong position on the role or nature or person of Jesus. --Christian Edward Gruber 15:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems an odd, biased split to divide between Christian views on the one hand, and all other views on the other. There's already a family of articles on the various views of Jesus. Besides Christian views of Jesus, there is Historical Jesus, Jesus Myth, Islamic view of Jesus, and Judaism's view of Jesus, for example. Also, Religious perspectives on Jesus lists some that aren't in this article, such as Scientology's view and Urantia's view. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Actually an article on Jesus should include all views, otherwise it fails the most basic WP:NPOV test.  Guettarda 15:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Space permitting ;) Since space doesn't permit, we have the family of articles on various views of Jesus. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Sort of true.  It needs to include all non-trivial views to pass basic WP:NPOV.  However, if it highlights clearly that the conception of Jesus presented is typical of most Christian denominations, with a clear reference to other views, it still passes NPOV.  As a Baha'i (yes I realize the irony of my name, though it's not as ironic as most people suppose), I would not feel comfortable with a presentation of every single available view on Baha'u'llah on His biography page, though referring in summary to  other views of his role/mission might be appropriate, with a break-out link to a daughter or peer article that describes such in more detail.  It keeps undue weight from skewing NPOV in the other direction.  Certainly, as a Baha'i I believe in Jesus, and Baha'u'llah and Abd'ul-Baha talk quite a bit about Jesus.  Jesus is one of the "stars" of the Qur'an, as a morrocan friend of mine once put it.  Yet, the most common conception of Jesus, among people who pay attention to Him at all, is the Christian view, or are direct reactions to the historical Christian view of Jesus.  It might be ideal to represent all views in one article, but it would make it unwieldly.  To use yet another analogy, if we were to add Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Baha'i, and secular views to the Moses page and give them substantially equal treatment, it would be undue weight.  I'd love to list all sorts of aspects of the Baha'i view of Jesus, his nature and mission on the Jesus page... if I were being apologetic.  However, in the spirit of Wikipedia, I would prefer to keep things encyclopedic.  In that light, I cannot support adding lots of Baha'i text to a Jesus article (or Muhammad for that matter).  Just a small summary with a link to a larger article.--Christian Edward Gruber 22:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like the poll, at the moment is 50/50 (but not that the outcome of the poll makes anything written in stone :-P ), and unless we can come to a compromise that all editors involved are willing to implement, then we may have to go onto the next step of dispute resolution. I agree that we do need to get back to work on the article, however what work we may disagree on. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 14:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is getting rather long and I'd like to archive it. Subpage, maybe? I have split the comment section by weeks because long sections are hard to follow. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 16:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant idea, Archola :-) I'd say we should make the move soon. The beginning of next week look good? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Remove/don't re-insert the Christianity template not for NPOV reasons (I understand both sides, and cannot decide strongly for either one) but for aesthetic reasons.  With the Jesus template already there, it's simply too crowded to have both.  Since there's a dispute over it anyway, and both sides make valid points, the deciding factor might as well be something unrelated to either (and, in my humble opinion, valid in its own right). (Not sure where else to put this, as it's not actually supporting either side, so I hope it's okay here.) ----Icarus (Hi!) 18:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That can be solved by using a simple floating table. —Aiden 20:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that fails to fix the redundancy between the templates. The Jesus template already has a lot of links about Christianity (first, too) and gives it due weight, where the Christianity template has many "several-times-removed" issues. Why do we need both to clutter the page? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's very simple: Because the article itself, not one section, is an integral part of the series on Christianity in the same way that Muhammad is an integral part of the series on Islam. I've stated this multiple times. You still haven't explained, however, how placing a template which itself must conform to WP:NPOV at the top of an article, rather than the middle, makes the article POV. —Aiden 23:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you arguing that Jesus is more of an integral part to the Christianity series than he is in the Jesus series? Jesus has the most critical and integral part to the Jesus series, hands down. Under NPOV, listing the Christianity template at the very top of the article gives preference to Christianity over Islam and other religions, all which have sections that are most appropriate for such things. Furthermore, listing such links to Ecumenical councils, Great Schism, and The Crusades that the Christianity template has are things that bear little to extremely removed signifigance to Jesus as a person. Like the article Old Testament and New Testament, firmly rooted in the Christianity series, the most appropriate template should be on top, or at the very least higher in the article. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 03:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're going in circles here, Steve, and you seem to keep asking the same answered questions. As the article was before, both templates were at the top. —Aiden 06:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunently, I had to revert, an anon removed the template altogether. Homestarmy 01:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that Aiden just moved the Christianity template back up to the top, citing the discussion here. Aiden, it seems there is general agreement that the template would be better placed in the Christian views section, even if, by right of NPOV, it might be justifiable at the top. So why did you change it? Joel Bastedo 18:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was by no means any consensus. Thus, I restored the template positions to how they have been for months. —Aiden 18:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Poppycock. In complete defiance of the consensus slowly building here, and against the specific plea from the admin who unlocked the page (that we continue discussion on the templates), you jumped in and changed it the way you wanted to see it. This is the very antithesis of WP:FAITH and WP:CON. Kevin/Last1in 18:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Unless somebody cares to record Aiden's brainwaves during his reverting and then put them through some tests to determine his motivations, I daresay there isn't much way to prove whether or not he was acting in the very antithesis of WP:FAITH or WP:CON. It was just one revert folks, and if it was really the way Aiden says it was before the dispute began, I can certainly see some merit to changing it back to the pre-dispute conditions. Homestarmy 18:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Homestarmy, you're right. I have no way to know, and should have impugned, the motives of another editor. I apologize. Let me rephrase: The action of moving the template whilst consensus-builing continues is the antithesis of WP:FAITH and WP:CON. Better?Kevin/Last1in 18:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good Lord, Kevin. I'd dare say you are blowing this entire thing out of proportion. Has a consensus been achieved thus far? No. Then the template should remain in its original position until such a consensus is achieved. As I said in my comment below, I have no problem respecting such a consensus; but as of yet there is none, and thus the original position of the template should remain. —Aiden 22:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: #All religions need equal representation under policy. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes

message: #The policy is not "equal representation", but avoiding undue weight. Sxeptomaniac 19:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: #Though I believe Jesus is an integral part of Christianity, as is Buddha in Buddhism for example, I would accept the template move, so long as it is completed wherever else is applicable, i.e. at Buddhism, immediately. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 17:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *With all due respect, CrazyInSane, this does not answer the question above. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 18:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conditional

message: =====June 29th to July 5=====
#Does Muhammad as it is today violate our policy on neutrality? Tom Harrison Talk 20:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your take on things (and I agree). However, if the Christianity template was taken out of the Religious Perspectives section and placed at the very top of the article (a la the Islam template on the Muhammad article), would that change in lay out change your position on this matter?--Andrew c 22:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think so, although I think I'd prefer the status quo as the  template appears more understated... on third thoughts, perhaps it's also better to keep the  template beside the "Christian views" section as Christianity isn't the only faith to acknowledge Jesus in some way. (Is Islam the only faith to acknowledge Muhammad in any significant way?)  Intriguing, David 01:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: David: No, Islam is not the only religion in which Muhammad is significant. He is also considered a "manifestation of God" in the Baha'i faith. However, the editors at Muhammad have (as we had done in the past here) concluded that not just the Islamic biography section, but all of the historical and cultural context provided in the article is pertinent to Islam and an integral part of the series of articles on Islam (which the template represents). Likewise, all of this article, not just one section, is an integral part of Christianity in a way it is to no other religion. —Aiden 05:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aiden, I unfortunately continue to see that as no excuse to violate a "non-negotiable"WP:NPOV policy. :-( If this were truly the case, then you would also be arguing for the Christianity template to appear at the top of Historical Jesus as "all of the historical and cultural context provided in the article is pertinent to {Christianity}." אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 12:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of us and all of our brothers and cousins agree that NPOV is non-negotiable, inviolable, sacrosanct, and not to be taunted. We disagree on what constitutes neutrality. It is an increasingly tedious rhetorical device to label your oppononts position POV and then to ask how they can defend a position that is non-neutral. Tom Harrison Talk 13:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After taking a plain reading of the NPOV policy, no stretching of semantics, a plain face-value reading as to what constitutes bias according to our own rules as quoted above, I took a look at the Jesus article and I saw the Christianity template in a place that appears to violate those rules. This, again at face value, appears to be a genuine problem. I start a discussion thread about it and a straw poll and I find that I am not the only one who sees this. If it was just myself and no one agreed with me, then yes I suppose I was seeing things incorrectly. However, there is apparently something to this that needs to be dealt with. If we disagree as to what constitutes neutrality, then we must find some way to resolve this issue amicably. When I started this thread, all sorts of accusations were flung at me and I have been trying my best to address them and focus upon the sole reason why I started this discussion: Adherence to our own policies. So I implore of you that we discuss our policies, not how I seem "rhetorically tedious." אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 13:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Thanks for your reply, Aiden. I'd hope it's possible to write an article on Jesus or Muhammad (or...) without needing to involve Christianity or Islam (or...) from the very start. My understanding is that Christianity as is generally known and practised today was almost all (if not completely) built by people other than Jesus himself, starting with the Apostles, St. Paul, etc. Perhaps somewhere there is where the distinction lies. (I'm also guessing the same is likely to be the case as regards Muhammad and Islam, although I recognise there's a tighter link between himself, the religion spawned and its scripture.)  As regards the templates, I suppose this translates to "keep the status quo" here and perhaps reconsider it at Muhammad and other articles featuring religious figures. Regards, David 01:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: So, yes Muhammad as it is now does violate your understanding of npov? or No, it does not? Tom Harrison Talk 13:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: * Well alot of the discussion up there seemed to be about "This template is evil because it says "Jesus(Son of God), how detestable and non-NPOV!" rather than anything primarily about whether it deserved to be placed at the top of the article, and the Christian views section isn't the only part that exibits how Jesus is clearly the most important in Christianity, most of the history section is straight from the gospels. Is there a part of template policy which says that templates should only be used at the top for articles which share the templates relation all throughout? Homestarmy 15:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Homestarmy, where was this discussion (summarized "Jesus(Son of God), how detestable and non-NPOV!") you're referring to? Unfortunately, there is no seperate template policy on Wikipedia and the only time that templates are explicitly mentioned (contentwise) in WP:POLICY is in WP:NPOV which I listed above. This proposal is not against the Christianity template, only about putting it in it's most appropriate place. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * The section entitled "Removal of the Xty template" seems to be where that sort of discussion was. Homestarmy 18:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I was more referring to the past two threads of conversation that I started (#Resolving the Christianity template dispute and #Straw poll). This is not about removing the Christianity template by any means. Simply moving it. I, for one, will not endorse the mere idea of removing it from the article. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 12:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If you read the undue weight clause, it's talking about how not to give undue weight to less prominent views. Christianity is the most prominent view one could associate with Jesus and is thus entitled to due weight. —Aiden 13:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Christianity is one of the most prominent religious views, followed very closely with Islam (on a scale of billions of people). There is an entire body of scholarship and research about Jesus as a person, which is what the Jesus template includes and the Christianity template lacks. But note, even the Jesus template as it is now puts some Christian views at the top giving more than due weight to Christianity. Also note, that these views are specifically about Jesus within Christianity rather than a general overview of Christianity itself. Having references to Ecumenical councils, the Great Schism, the Crusades, and the Reformation has nothing to do with Jesus in this context of this article and would be out of place. How is the Jesus template, as it is now with references to Christianity, not sufficient? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 14:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No rotten produce from me. I agree completely and couldn't have worded it better. Thanks for your civility and for weighing in. --Andrew c 02:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Aiden, I made note at the very top of this section that this straw poll was listed on WP:POLLS as outlined under policy. There very well may be people who aren't involved with this article come through, read the poll and vote (which in theory is supposed to reduce bias). Making note of such a thing as that in the words that you have selected I personally find very upsetting and passive-aggressive. Everyone who has voted, thusfar, on the straw poll appears to have a solid history with Wikipedia, and they do not seem to be the kind of one-shot deal that might occasionally be found on AfD, no? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 00:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure Aiden meant no offense. This year it seems we've had a lot of polls and the accusation has come up before (although then, some were alledging a Christian Cabal, which later became DWEECS). There's probably still some bad feelings all around. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: For me it was like that: browsing WP - seeing the poll - being interested in the subject - thinking - voting. Cheers. -- Adriatikus 01:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As a student of Islam, I very much disagree that Jesus is a major figure in it. Most Muslims disagree, but this is mostly to appeal to all the Christians who hold Jesus so highly. In essence, Jesus is just like every other Islamic prophet, no more, no less, and no more. --Ephilei 05:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also as a student of Islam, many Muslims do hold Jesus to a high regard and an important part of their religion, regardless of Christian interpretation (and certainly not in the same sort of adoration one finds in Christianity). He is more than just an average prophet, he is also al-Masih and the precursor to Muhammad. :-) As a result, both Islam and Christianity should have their series templates in their respective sections with the Jesus template on top. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 14:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't Jesus considered one of the five main Prophets of Islam? Less than Mohammad; on a par with Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses; greater than the others? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Konstable, do you then see a POV issue with the Islam template at the top of the Muhammad article? Does that in any way change the neutral presentation of the article or convey that the Islamic view is the correct view? Does including a template which itself must adhere to WP:NPOV--regardless of its place in the article--convey any one POV? I think most would agree it does not. Having the Islam template at the top of the article simply signifies that this is an integral part of a series of informative articles on Islam. In no way does this say "Muhammad is a Prophet of Islam, not a Manifestation of God as the Baha'i Faith teaches." No, it simply says, "Here are other articles related to Islam." That's all the template is! —Aiden 19:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm inclined to agree wiht the above sentiment, and I think "Non-Christian perspectives on Jesus" is a reasonable place to collect such things.  A paragraph or two that summarizes such on the Jesus page, with a main template link to the Non-Christian views page would be very helpful.  This way the Jesus page stays in the Christian template sphere, but the non-christian views page can be outside of all templates, but may be categorized within any and all religious categories where such religions take a strong position on the role or nature or person of Jesus. --Christian Edward Gruber 15:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems an odd, biased split to divide between Christian views on the one hand, and all other views on the other. There's already a family of articles on the various views of Jesus. Besides Christian views of Jesus, there is Historical Jesus, Jesus Myth, Islamic view of Jesus, and Judaism's view of Jesus, for example. Also, Religious perspectives on Jesus lists some that aren't in this article, such as Scientology's view and Urantia's view. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Actually an article on Jesus should include all views, otherwise it fails the most basic WP:NPOV test.  Guettarda 15:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Space permitting ;) Since space doesn't permit, we have the family of articles on various views of Jesus. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Sort of true.  It needs to include all non-trivial views to pass basic WP:NPOV.  However, if it highlights clearly that the conception of Jesus presented is typical of most Christian denominations, with a clear reference to other views, it still passes NPOV.  As a Baha'i (yes I realize the irony of my name, though it's not as ironic as most people suppose), I would not feel comfortable with a presentation of every single available view on Baha'u'llah on His biography page, though referring in summary to  other views of his role/mission might be appropriate, with a break-out link to a daughter or peer article that describes such in more detail.  It keeps undue weight from skewing NPOV in the other direction.  Certainly, as a Baha'i I believe in Jesus, and Baha'u'llah and Abd'ul-Baha talk quite a bit about Jesus.  Jesus is one of the "stars" of the Qur'an, as a morrocan friend of mine once put it.  Yet, the most common conception of Jesus, among people who pay attention to Him at all, is the Christian view, or are direct reactions to the historical Christian view of Jesus.  It might be ideal to represent all views in one article, but it would make it unwieldly.  To use yet another analogy, if we were to add Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Baha'i, and secular views to the Moses page and give them substantially equal treatment, it would be undue weight.  I'd love to list all sorts of aspects of the Baha'i view of Jesus, his nature and mission on the Jesus page... if I were being apologetic.  However, in the spirit of Wikipedia, I would prefer to keep things encyclopedic.  In that light, I cannot support adding lots of Baha'i text to a Jesus article (or Muhammad for that matter).  Just a small summary with a link to a larger article.--Christian Edward Gruber 22:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like the poll, at the moment is 50/50 (but not that the outcome of the poll makes anything written in stone :-P ), and unless we can come to a compromise that all editors involved are willing to implement, then we may have to go onto the next step of dispute resolution. I agree that we do need to get back to work on the article, however what work we may disagree on. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 14:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is getting rather long and I'd like to archive it. Subpage, maybe? I have split the comment section by weeks because long sections are hard to follow. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 16:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant idea, Archola :-) I'd say we should make the move soon. The beginning of next week look good? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Remove/don't re-insert the Christianity template not for NPOV reasons (I understand both sides, and cannot decide strongly for either one) but for aesthetic reasons.  With the Jesus template already there, it's simply too crowded to have both.  Since there's a dispute over it anyway, and both sides make valid points, the deciding factor might as well be something unrelated to either (and, in my humble opinion, valid in its own right). (Not sure where else to put this, as it's not actually supporting either side, so I hope it's okay here.) ----Icarus (Hi!) 18:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That can be solved by using a simple floating table. —Aiden 20:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that fails to fix the redundancy between the templates. The Jesus template already has a lot of links about Christianity (first, too) and gives it due weight, where the Christianity template has many "several-times-removed" issues. Why do we need both to clutter the page? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's very simple: Because the article itself, not one section, is an integral part of the series on Christianity in the same way that Muhammad is an integral part of the series on Islam. I've stated this multiple times. You still haven't explained, however, how placing a template which itself must conform to WP:NPOV at the top of an article, rather than the middle, makes the article POV. —Aiden 23:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you arguing that Jesus is more of an integral part to the Christianity series than he is in the Jesus series? Jesus has the most critical and integral part to the Jesus series, hands down. Under NPOV, listing the Christianity template at the very top of the article gives preference to Christianity over Islam and other religions, all which have sections that are most appropriate for such things. Furthermore, listing such links to Ecumenical councils, Great Schism, and The Crusades that the Christianity template has are things that bear little to extremely removed signifigance to Jesus as a person. Like the article Old Testament and New Testament, firmly rooted in the Christianity series, the most appropriate template should be on top, or at the very least higher in the article. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 03:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're going in circles here, Steve, and you seem to keep asking the same answered questions. As the article was before, both templates were at the top. —Aiden 06:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunently, I had to revert, an anon removed the template altogether. Homestarmy 01:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that Aiden just moved the Christianity template back up to the top, citing the discussion here. Aiden, it seems there is general agreement that the template would be better placed in the Christian views section, even if, by right of NPOV, it might be justifiable at the top. So why did you change it? Joel Bastedo 18:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was by no means any consensus. Thus, I restored the template positions to how they have been for months. —Aiden 18:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Poppycock. In complete defiance of the consensus slowly building here, and against the specific plea from the admin who unlocked the page (that we continue discussion on the templates), you jumped in and changed it the way you wanted to see it. This is the very antithesis of WP:FAITH and WP:CON. Kevin/Last1in 18:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Unless somebody cares to record Aiden's brainwaves during his reverting and then put them through some tests to determine his motivations, I daresay there isn't much way to prove whether or not he was acting in the very antithesis of WP:FAITH or WP:CON. It was just one revert folks, and if it was really the way Aiden says it was before the dispute began, I can certainly see some merit to changing it back to the pre-dispute conditions. Homestarmy 18:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Homestarmy, you're right. I have no way to know, and should have impugned, the motives of another editor. I apologize. Let me rephrase: The action of moving the template whilst consensus-builing continues is the antithesis of WP:FAITH and WP:CON. Better?Kevin/Last1in 18:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good Lord, Kevin. I'd dare say you are blowing this entire thing out of proportion. Has a consensus been achieved thus far? No. Then the template should remain in its original position until such a consensus is achieved. As I said in my comment below, I have no problem respecting such a consensus; but as of yet there is none, and thus the original position of the template should remain. —Aiden 22:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: #Does Muhammad as it is today violate our policy on neutrality? Tom Harrison Talk 20:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your take on things (and I agree). However, if the Christianity template was taken out of the Religious Perspectives section and placed at the very top of the article (a la the Islam template on the Muhammad article), would that change in lay out change your position on this matter?--Andrew c 22:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think so, although I think I'd prefer the status quo as the  template appears more understated... on third thoughts, perhaps it's also better to keep the  template beside the "Christian views" section as Christianity isn't the only faith to acknowledge Jesus in some way. (Is Islam the only faith to acknowledge Muhammad in any significant way?)  Intriguing, David 01:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: David: No, Islam is not the only religion in which Muhammad is significant. He is also considered a "manifestation of God" in the Baha'i faith. However, the editors at Muhammad have (as we had done in the past here) concluded that not just the Islamic biography section, but all of the historical and cultural context provided in the article is pertinent to Islam and an integral part of the series of articles on Islam (which the template represents). Likewise, all of this article, not just one section, is an integral part of Christianity in a way it is to no other religion. —Aiden 05:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aiden, I unfortunately continue to see that as no excuse to violate a "non-negotiable"WP:NPOV policy. :-( If this were truly the case, then you would also be arguing for the Christianity template to appear at the top of Historical Jesus as "all of the historical and cultural context provided in the article is pertinent to {Christianity}." אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 12:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of us and all of our brothers and cousins agree that NPOV is non-negotiable, inviolable, sacrosanct, and not to be taunted. We disagree on what constitutes neutrality. It is an increasingly tedious rhetorical device to label your oppononts position POV and then to ask how they can defend a position that is non-neutral. Tom Harrison Talk 13:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After taking a plain reading of the NPOV policy, no stretching of semantics, a plain face-value reading as to what constitutes bias according to our own rules as quoted above, I took a look at the Jesus article and I saw the Christianity template in a place that appears to violate those rules. This, again at face value, appears to be a genuine problem. I start a discussion thread about it and a straw poll and I find that I am not the only one who sees this. If it was just myself and no one agreed with me, then yes I suppose I was seeing things incorrectly. However, there is apparently something to this that needs to be dealt with. If we disagree as to what constitutes neutrality, then we must find some way to resolve this issue amicably. When I started this thread, all sorts of accusations were flung at me and I have been trying my best to address them and focus upon the sole reason why I started this discussion: Adherence to our own policies. So I implore of you that we discuss our policies, not how I seem "rhetorically tedious." אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 13:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Thanks for your reply, Aiden. I'd hope it's possible to write an article on Jesus or Muhammad (or...) without needing to involve Christianity or Islam (or...) from the very start. My understanding is that Christianity as is generally known and practised today was almost all (if not completely) built by people other than Jesus himself, starting with the Apostles, St. Paul, etc. Perhaps somewhere there is where the distinction lies. (I'm also guessing the same is likely to be the case as regards Muhammad and Islam, although I recognise there's a tighter link between himself, the religion spawned and its scripture.)  As regards the templates, I suppose this translates to "keep the status quo" here and perhaps reconsider it at Muhammad and other articles featuring religious figures. Regards, David 01:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: So, yes Muhammad as it is now does violate your understanding of npov? or No, it does not? Tom Harrison Talk 13:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: * Well alot of the discussion up there seemed to be about "This template is evil because it says "Jesus(Son of God), how detestable and non-NPOV!" rather than anything primarily about whether it deserved to be placed at the top of the article, and the Christian views section isn't the only part that exibits how Jesus is clearly the most important in Christianity, most of the history section is straight from the gospels. Is there a part of template policy which says that templates should only be used at the top for articles which share the templates relation all throughout? Homestarmy 15:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Homestarmy, where was this discussion (summarized "Jesus(Son of God), how detestable and non-NPOV!") you're referring to? Unfortunately, there is no seperate template policy on Wikipedia and the only time that templates are explicitly mentioned (contentwise) in WP:POLICY is in WP:NPOV which I listed above. This proposal is not against the Christianity template, only about putting it in it's most appropriate place. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * The section entitled "Removal of the Xty template" seems to be where that sort of discussion was. Homestarmy 18:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I was more referring to the past two threads of conversation that I started (#Resolving the Christianity template dispute and #Straw poll). This is not about removing the Christianity template by any means. Simply moving it. I, for one, will not endorse the mere idea of removing it from the article. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 12:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If you read the undue weight clause, it's talking about how not to give undue weight to less prominent views. Christianity is the most prominent view one could associate with Jesus and is thus entitled to due weight. —Aiden 13:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Christianity is one of the most prominent religious views, followed very closely with Islam (on a scale of billions of people). There is an entire body of scholarship and research about Jesus as a person, which is what the Jesus template includes and the Christianity template lacks. But note, even the Jesus template as it is now puts some Christian views at the top giving more than due weight to Christianity. Also note, that these views are specifically about Jesus within Christianity rather than a general overview of Christianity itself. Having references to Ecumenical councils, the Great Schism, the Crusades, and the Reformation has nothing to do with Jesus in this context of this article and would be out of place. How is the Jesus template, as it is now with references to Christianity, not sufficient? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 14:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No rotten produce from me. I agree completely and couldn't have worded it better. Thanks for your civility and for weighing in. --Andrew c 02:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: June 29th to July 5

message: :Aiden, I made note at the very top of this section that this straw poll was listed on WP:POLLS as outlined under policy. There very well may be people who aren't involved with this article come through, read the poll and vote (which in theory is supposed to reduce bias). Making note of such a thing as that in the words that you have selected I personally find very upsetting and passive-aggressive. Everyone who has voted, thusfar, on the straw poll appears to have a solid history with Wikipedia, and they do not seem to be the kind of one-shot deal that might occasionally be found on AfD, no? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 00:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure Aiden meant no offense. This year it seems we've had a lot of polls and the accusation has come up before (although then, some were alledging a Christian Cabal, which later became DWEECS). There's probably still some bad feelings all around. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: For me it was like that: browsing WP - seeing the poll - being interested in the subject - thinking - voting. Cheers. -- Adriatikus 01:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As a student of Islam, I very much disagree that Jesus is a major figure in it. Most Muslims disagree, but this is mostly to appeal to all the Christians who hold Jesus so highly. In essence, Jesus is just like every other Islamic prophet, no more, no less, and no more. --Ephilei 05:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also as a student of Islam, many Muslims do hold Jesus to a high regard and an important part of their religion, regardless of Christian interpretation (and certainly not in the same sort of adoration one finds in Christianity). He is more than just an average prophet, he is also al-Masih and the precursor to Muhammad. :-) As a result, both Islam and Christianity should have their series templates in their respective sections with the Jesus template on top. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 14:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't Jesus considered one of the five main Prophets of Islam? Less than Mohammad; on a par with Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses; greater than the others? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Konstable, do you then see a POV issue with the Islam template at the top of the Muhammad article? Does that in any way change the neutral presentation of the article or convey that the Islamic view is the correct view? Does including a template which itself must adhere to WP:NPOV--regardless of its place in the article--convey any one POV? I think most would agree it does not. Having the Islam template at the top of the article simply signifies that this is an integral part of a series of informative articles on Islam. In no way does this say "Muhammad is a Prophet of Islam, not a Manifestation of God as the Baha'i Faith teaches." No, it simply says, "Here are other articles related to Islam." That's all the template is! —Aiden 19:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm inclined to agree wiht the above sentiment, and I think "Non-Christian perspectives on Jesus" is a reasonable place to collect such things.  A paragraph or two that summarizes such on the Jesus page, with a main template link to the Non-Christian views page would be very helpful.  This way the Jesus page stays in the Christian template sphere, but the non-christian views page can be outside of all templates, but may be categorized within any and all religious categories where such religions take a strong position on the role or nature or person of Jesus. --Christian Edward Gruber 15:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems an odd, biased split to divide between Christian views on the one hand, and all other views on the other. There's already a family of articles on the various views of Jesus. Besides Christian views of Jesus, there is Historical Jesus, Jesus Myth, Islamic view of Jesus, and Judaism's view of Jesus, for example. Also, Religious perspectives on Jesus lists some that aren't in this article, such as Scientology's view and Urantia's view. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Actually an article on Jesus should include all views, otherwise it fails the most basic WP:NPOV test.  Guettarda 15:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Space permitting ;) Since space doesn't permit, we have the family of articles on various views of Jesus. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Sort of true.  It needs to include all non-trivial views to pass basic WP:NPOV.  However, if it highlights clearly that the conception of Jesus presented is typical of most Christian denominations, with a clear reference to other views, it still passes NPOV.  As a Baha'i (yes I realize the irony of my name, though it's not as ironic as most people suppose), I would not feel comfortable with a presentation of every single available view on Baha'u'llah on His biography page, though referring in summary to  other views of his role/mission might be appropriate, with a break-out link to a daughter or peer article that describes such in more detail.  It keeps undue weight from skewing NPOV in the other direction.  Certainly, as a Baha'i I believe in Jesus, and Baha'u'llah and Abd'ul-Baha talk quite a bit about Jesus.  Jesus is one of the "stars" of the Qur'an, as a morrocan friend of mine once put it.  Yet, the most common conception of Jesus, among people who pay attention to Him at all, is the Christian view, or are direct reactions to the historical Christian view of Jesus.  It might be ideal to represent all views in one article, but it would make it unwieldly.  To use yet another analogy, if we were to add Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Baha'i, and secular views to the Moses page and give them substantially equal treatment, it would be undue weight.  I'd love to list all sorts of aspects of the Baha'i view of Jesus, his nature and mission on the Jesus page... if I were being apologetic.  However, in the spirit of Wikipedia, I would prefer to keep things encyclopedic.  In that light, I cannot support adding lots of Baha'i text to a Jesus article (or Muhammad for that matter).  Just a small summary with a link to a larger article.--Christian Edward Gruber 22:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like the poll, at the moment is 50/50 (but not that the outcome of the poll makes anything written in stone :-P ), and unless we can come to a compromise that all editors involved are willing to implement, then we may have to go onto the next step of dispute resolution. I agree that we do need to get back to work on the article, however what work we may disagree on. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 14:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is getting rather long and I'd like to archive it. Subpage, maybe? I have split the comment section by weeks because long sections are hard to follow. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 16:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: July 5 to July 11

message: :::Brilliant idea, Archola :-) I'd say we should make the move soon. The beginning of next week look good? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove/don't re-insert the Christianity template not for NPOV reasons (I understand both sides, and cannot decide strongly for either one) but for aesthetic reasons.  With the Jesus template already there, it's simply too crowded to have both.  Since there's a dispute over it anyway, and both sides make valid points, the deciding factor might as well be something unrelated to either (and, in my humble opinion, valid in its own right). (Not sure where else to put this, as it's not actually supporting either side, so I hope it's okay here.) ----Icarus (Hi!) 18:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That can be solved by using a simple floating table. —Aiden 20:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that fails to fix the redundancy between the templates. The Jesus template already has a lot of links about Christianity (first, too) and gives it due weight, where the Christianity template has many "several-times-removed" issues. Why do we need both to clutter the page? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's very simple: Because the article itself, not one section, is an integral part of the series on Christianity in the same way that Muhammad is an integral part of the series on Islam. I've stated this multiple times. You still haven't explained, however, how placing a template which itself must conform to WP:NPOV at the top of an article, rather than the middle, makes the article POV. —Aiden 23:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you arguing that Jesus is more of an integral part to the Christianity series than he is in the Jesus series? Jesus has the most critical and integral part to the Jesus series, hands down. Under NPOV, listing the Christianity template at the very top of the article gives preference to Christianity over Islam and other religions, all which have sections that are most appropriate for such things. Furthermore, listing such links to Ecumenical councils, Great Schism, and The Crusades that the Christianity template has are things that bear little to extremely removed signifigance to Jesus as a person. Like the article Old Testament and New Testament, firmly rooted in the Christianity series, the most appropriate template should be on top, or at the very least higher in the article. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 03:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're going in circles here, Steve, and you seem to keep asking the same answered questions. As the article was before, both templates were at the top. —Aiden 06:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunently, I had to revert, an anon removed the template altogether. Homestarmy 01:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that Aiden just moved the Christianity template back up to the top, citing the discussion here. Aiden, it seems there is general agreement that the template would be better placed in the Christian views section, even if, by right of NPOV, it might be justifiable at the top. So why did you change it? Joel Bastedo 18:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was by no means any consensus. Thus, I restored the template positions to how they have been for months. —Aiden 18:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Poppycock. In complete defiance of the consensus slowly building here, and against the specific plea from the admin who unlocked the page (that we continue discussion on the templates), you jumped in and changed it the way you wanted to see it. This is the very antithesis of WP:FAITH and WP:CON. Kevin/Last1in 18:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Unless somebody cares to record Aiden's brainwaves during his reverting and then put them through some tests to determine his motivations, I daresay there isn't much way to prove whether or not he was acting in the very antithesis of WP:FAITH or WP:CON. It was just one revert folks, and if it was really the way Aiden says it was before the dispute began, I can certainly see some merit to changing it back to the pre-dispute conditions. Homestarmy 18:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Homestarmy, you're right. I have no way to know, and should have impugned, the motives of another editor. I apologize. Let me rephrase: The action of moving the template whilst consensus-builing continues is the antithesis of WP:FAITH and WP:CON. Better?Kevin/Last1in 18:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good Lord, Kevin. I'd dare say you are blowing this entire thing out of proportion. Has a consensus been achieved thus far? No. Then the template should remain in its original position until such a consensus is achieved. As I said in my comment below, I have no problem respecting such a consensus; but as of yet there is none, and thus the original position of the template should remain. —Aiden 22:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: July 12 to July 18