Talk:Jesus/Archive 72

message: Swami Vivekananda compares Jesus to Buddha saying they both found and achieved God. Buddha by Meditation and Jesus by Christ. He criticises christians for a variety of reasons (not similar to that of Gandhi), he too believes the true teachings of Christ have become polluted today.
I think it should be added--71.163.67.245 15:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this the "Hindu view" of Jesus, or the view of one Hindu?  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Vivekananda was a disciple of Sri Ramakrishna.  Iirc it was Vivekananda who wrote the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, from which this quote most likely is.  That movement, to essentially see all religions as having a single source, is now a world-wide event.  I think that one of the Beatles had gone to India to meet with some of those disciples, albeit, in their third or fourth generation already. Wjhonson 15:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Hindu Views 

message: points out that where this article currently reads "He is commonly referred to as Jesus Christ, where
'Christ' is a Greek-derived title meaning 'Anointed One' which corresponds to the Hebrew-derived 'Messiah'," it should probably say "He is commonly referred to as Jesus Christ, where 'Jesus' is the Hellenized name of 'Joshua' and 'Christ' is a Greek-derived title meaning 'Anointed One,' which corresponds to the Hebrew-derived 'Messiah.' The name 'Joshua' means 'Jehovah saves,' and he was sometimes called Joshua bar-Joseph, where the prefix bar means 'son of,'
in Aramaic." I basically concur, except that instead of "the Hellenized name" I would say "a Hellenized form". Anittas's suggestions on such things are usually good; I'm leaving this on the talk page rather than editing, because I'm sure this is a continually controversial article, it's not one I watch, people may have been over this territory before, etc. I leave it to someone working on this article to actually make the edit. - Jmabel | Talk 17:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the archives. There is extensive debate over the origin of Jesus' name. You can also see some of what we agreed on in the past in the Historicity section of this article, specifically Jesus#Forensic_reconstructions_of_Jesus.27_day_to_day_life. —Aiden 04:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: More specifically, see Talk:Jesus/Archive 41. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 04:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "The name 'Joshua' means 'Jehovah saves'". Not precisely. The "shua" part isnt the verb "saves" but a noun. "Shua" literally means "a cry for help", or a "shout" like "Save me!", the kind that someone might give if attacked or drowning. Thus, "Yahu shua" literally means "'God' is a shout-for-saving". Where a person might shout, "Police!" or "Lifeguard!", the person shouting (usually a parent praying to have a child), says "God!" (The newborn child then is literally the answer to the parent's prayer.) The loose translation of the name as "God saves", takes for granted God never ignores a cry for help, thus "God saves" whenever someone shouts for God. --Haldrik 20:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "commonly referred to" 

message: I am requesting a new vote to decide, at least for a while, which of these notations to use in this article. I think this is the time to make such a decision because Wikipedia has finally become "mainstream" and a new vote can more accurately gauge the actual feelings of the public, rather than hardcore wikipedians. I honestly believe that Wikipedia is a far greater resource than Britannica, Encarta, etc; and all that is holding it back from perfection are things like this, where nobody can reach an agreement and compromises have to be made, at the sake of the usefulness and elegance of the entry on a whole. If problems like these were solved, Wikipedia could improve itself 10 times over. These teachers, these librarians, who lambast our project do so because they think that millions of people, especially young people, will never be able to work together and agree on anything. They are wrong. I think that this generation won't be remembered for popularizing ipods or blogs or anything technological. I think we will be revered as the generation that was closer to each other than any other, not in the fact that we know everyone on our street or can name everyone in our grade, but that we can collaborate with each other and actually do things together with others that we will never even see or live in the same country with. Like a realization that we are better together, instead of breaking off from everyone else and declaring your dissatisfaction with everyone else like the baby boomers, or generation x, we will work together to better satisfy every one of us as individuals.
And now that I have brought to a close my lamentations and hope for the future, you may stop reading and respond.
--Spotswood Dudley 01:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This again? Debating the date notation seems to be a recurring event. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 01:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a long time, and we should seek to make the article look better. And by "Better" I of course mean "AD and BC only" :D. Homestarmy 02:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that would look far better! But anyway, Wikipedia policy should apply instead. I presume there is a policy on this issue by now? If anyone can point us to it please? - to save us trawling through archived discussions to find it? rossnixon 03:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think the issue has pretty much been solidly changed to an article-by-article basis. I haven't seen any sign of the dispute breaking out over any new policies or anything. Homestarmy 03:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Homes is right, Ross. The relevant policy is WP:Date#Eras. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 03:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Not that long, Homes, it seems to happen every other month or so. Still, if Spotswood wants to vote, then let us vote (with much fear and trembling....) Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 03:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Four hours and 36 minutes before the first revert. What a long time! Then again, America was probably still asleep when the change was made. Arcturus 18:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Is that method of tallying standard operating procedure at WP? It sounds like an underhanded and unexpected (as in, the rules weren't set before the vote. I'm sure most people thought CE/BCE and "Neutral/Abstain/Protest" were two distinct votes) way to get around the vote results. 2nd Piston Honda 17:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we should count every editor on WP that didn't vote as being in the "Neutral/Abstain" category.  Therefore, the number of people against just using BC/AD is more like a million. Absurd? Yes. Let's tally this a little differently. That's 16 for it being just BC/AD and 12 against just BC/AD. Now the question becomes, is 16 to 12 a concensus? Kylef81 17:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Was the decision to use the double notation agreed upon using the same super-majority standard? 2nd Piston Honda 06:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was offered as a compromise and accepted after much discussion. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 07:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: A plurality is not a consensus. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 07:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I voted for Ralph Nader, so... Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 07:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *AD/BC is not the consensus. The vote was to change the dating notation, and the majority oppose this. While the double notation is cumbersome, this vote has confirmed two things: 1. The forces that forced a double notation in the first place are still in play. 2. Many editors are sick and tired of this vote occuring again and again and again and again. --Haldrik 18:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia policy on dates says that BC/AD and BCE/CE are both acceptable.  Regardless of whatever debate you had on some other article, the policy is the same and has been that way for some time. Peyna 19:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course. How are the unsophisticated masses going to swallow such change but by calculated transitional steps. 2nd Piston Honda 01:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well this is the article about Jesus, who's introductions of the beliefs and teaching's of Christianity did sort of form the backbone of most of the western world in some way or another, so it's certainly a rather important topic. Homestarmy 22:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Also what makes this article unique is that its editors are knowledgeable about Jesus, and acutely aware of what the terms mean, BC "Before the Christ" and AD "In the year of our Lord", and their implication. So, the luxury of blissful ignorance cant happen. --Haldrik 22:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, does that mean every article that touches Christianity should the same rule regarding dates used on this article? Peyna 01:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's a case by case thing per article based on the new Era notation policy thing, generally saying that if it's in one notation, it should not be changed to another unless there is a clear consensus/agreement/what-have-you on the subject. Homestarmy 01:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Go ahead. That discussion is still open, too. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 00:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Err, actually, I counted 8 instances of BC/BCE or AD/CE. Homestarmy 01:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ack, I take that back. For some reason I didn't realize that we use AD/CE on a number of dates as well. Wikipedia policy says that positive years do not need an era notation, unless in a range of dates that starts in BC/E. However, discussion has suggested that AD/CE may be necessary for some positive years if it isn't clear contextual what the number represents (for example single and double digit year numbers). Anyway, I'd propose simply removing some of the AD/CE era notations on the triple digit years. And just to avoid confusion, what I am proposing is changing between 325 and 787 AD/CE to say between the years 325 and 787 and Council of Carthage in 418 AD/CE. to Council of Carthage in 418. However, I apologize for saying "only 3" above, there would still be about 10 instances of the dual eras.--Andrew c 01:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you got your point across though, I admit, it is a small number of letters. But these days, they sure can be extremely noticeable letters nonetheless. Homestarmy 01:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's see if I can't fix it.--Andrew c 03:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting a new vote to decide whether to use "BC/AD" or "BCE/CE" 

message: Voting ends 0600 UTC on 3 September 2006 (Voting now ended).
The voting might have ended but the issue won't go away.  Any bets as to how long before the article is reverted to the "dual format"?  Why not just remove AD and leave BC - wouldn't that satisfy most people? Arcturus 12:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Four hours and 36 minutes before the first revert. What a long time! Then again, America was probably still asleep when the change was made. Arcturus 18:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Is that method of tallying standard operating procedure at WP? It sounds like an underhanded and unexpected (as in, the rules weren't set before the vote. I'm sure most people thought CE/BCE and "Neutral/Abstain/Protest" were two distinct votes) way to get around the vote results. 2nd Piston Honda 17:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we should count every editor on WP that didn't vote as being in the "Neutral/Abstain" category.  Therefore, the number of people against just using BC/AD is more like a million. Absurd? Yes. Let's tally this a little differently. That's 16 for it being just BC/AD and 12 against just BC/AD. Now the question becomes, is 16 to 12 a concensus? Kylef81 17:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Was the decision to use the double notation agreed upon using the same super-majority standard? 2nd Piston Honda 06:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was offered as a compromise and accepted after much discussion. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 07:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: A plurality is not a consensus. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 07:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I voted for Ralph Nader, so... Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 07:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *AD/BC is not the consensus. The vote was to change the dating notation, and the majority oppose this. While the double notation is cumbersome, this vote has confirmed two things: 1. The forces that forced a double notation in the first place are still in play. 2. Many editors are sick and tired of this vote occuring again and again and again and again. --Haldrik 18:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Final vote tally: 16-11-1-9

message: #Homestarmy 03:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AD/BC

message: #Haldrik The archeology of Israel's Early Roman Period (Jesus's lifetime) uses CE. To me, AD just looks odd.
# In my humble opinion, both systems are well-known enough that readers will recognize what they are. But, BC and AD refer to Jesus, and Wikipedia should not favor any particular religious group. After all, we don't just have the Christian version of Jesus in this article; why should we only have a date scheme biased in favor of Christianity. In all, I think that if we use BC an AD, we might as well also give the dates using all other calendar systems, for completeness, including the Hebrew, Muslim, and Chinese calandars. -- Where 01:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia policy on dates says that BC/AD and BCE/CE are both acceptable.  Regardless of whatever debate you had on some other article, the policy is the same and has been that way for some time. Peyna 19:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course. How are the unsophisticated masses going to swallow such change but by calculated transitional steps. 2nd Piston Honda 01:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CE/BCE

message: # --CTSWyneken(talk) 09:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Both (AD/CE and BC/BCE)

message: # Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 03:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral/Abstain/Protest

message: What makes this page so special as compared to every other page on Wikipedia where it has been accepted that use of one or the other is fine? Peyna 22:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this is the article about Jesus, who's introductions of the beliefs and teaching's of Christianity did sort of form the backbone of most of the western world in some way or another, so it's certainly a rather important topic. Homestarmy 22:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Also what makes this article unique is that its editors are knowledgeable about Jesus, and acutely aware of what the terms mean, BC "Before the Christ" and AD "In the year of our Lord", and their implication. So, the luxury of blissful ignorance cant happen. --Haldrik 22:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, does that mean every article that touches Christianity should the same rule regarding dates used on this article? Peyna 01:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's a case by case thing per article based on the new Era notation policy thing, generally saying that if it's in one notation, it should not be changed to another unless there is a clear consensus/agreement/what-have-you on the subject. Homestarmy 01:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Go ahead. That discussion is still open, too. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 00:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Err, actually, I counted 8 instances of BC/BCE or AD/CE. Homestarmy 01:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ack, I take that back. For some reason I didn't realize that we use AD/CE on a number of dates as well. Wikipedia policy says that positive years do not need an era notation, unless in a range of dates that starts in BC/E. However, discussion has suggested that AD/CE may be necessary for some positive years if it isn't clear contextual what the number represents (for example single and double digit year numbers). Anyway, I'd propose simply removing some of the AD/CE era notations on the triple digit years. And just to avoid confusion, what I am proposing is changing between 325 and 787 AD/CE to say between the years 325 and 787 and Council of Carthage in 418 AD/CE. to Council of Carthage in 418. However, I apologize for saying "only 3" above, there would still be about 10 instances of the dual eras.--Andrew c 01:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you got your point across though, I admit, it is a small number of letters. But these days, they sure can be extremely noticeable letters nonetheless. Homestarmy 01:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's see if I can't fix it.--Andrew c 03:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussions (re this choice?)