Talk:Jesus/Archive 33

message: I propose that this article not be in the category of Dead People Rumored to be Living, as it is contentious, lacking in NPOV, and highly offensive to orthodox Christians. --Aaron Walden 10:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just Orthodox but also Catholic and Protestant and probably all other Christians. Not to mention the fact that the category does not really apply. regardless of faith. Christians assert that Christ died and came back to life. Everyone else in the catgeory is rumored to have never died. Outside of satirical religions, no one seriously asserts that Elvis Presley (for example) died in 1977 and rose again three days later. Arch O. La 20:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moot point now. I changed the category and someone else removed it. Arch O. La 20:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: I can go either way. I like short and to the point, but it does help to state the principle objections of the minority. If we were to reference the historicity article, then I could live with it. --CTSWyneken 15:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. We should keep the current reference to the minority position and spend some time finding precise citations for each author. --CTSWyneken 16:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prove it.  Prove that Crossan's history is dictated by his faith.  No BS which is all you have been spewing: provide actual "evidence."  Provide a quotation from his book that supports your claim.  Moreover, you have not addressed the other scholars who were actually more important than Crossan in writing the sections on the historical Jesus: Shaye Cohen, E.P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, and Paula Fredriksen.  You are lying and slandering them without offering a shred of evidence.  Prove it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I would still love to see your version fo this page, Rob.  Even thoughy uo hate me. ;)Gator (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems that two users are rejecting because they want less mention of the fringe view.  So here is my question, if the last sentence just read: "However, a small minority of others question the historicity of Jesus." (leaving out the reasons like the sentence originally looked) Would that create more consensus (causing rejects to go to accept or would it cause more accepts to reject? I am fine with it either way.  Let me know and I can change the paragraph (nothing written in stoen just yet).Gator (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "However, a minority of others question the historicity of Jesus. Or, "However, a minority of others question the historicity of Jesus." The details can be kept on the linked pages. archola 14:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Fair enough. That eliminates the first version, but the second (with a link to Historicity of Jesus) still applies. archola 14:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Additional comment: I wasn't aware that the Jesus Myth theory extended to "influencing Christian doctrine." One could make a similar argument based strictly on the New Testement. After all, Paul said that he became like a Gentile when among the Gentiles (1 corinthians 9:21). He also identified the "unknown god" with YHWH (Acts 7:23-31). archola 19:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  It's fine, although I'd feel better about saying something that marks that these others include scholars, who are not historians. --CTSWyneken 15:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: We currently have a 14-4 vote in favor, so your attempted accomodation may be unneccesary. As I've said, my quibles are small caveats, so they're not dealbreakers. archola 18:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General

message: * Where did "and similarities to various mythological figures" go? --JimWae 15:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See paragraph above "Accept." --CTSWyneken 16:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There's also a school of thought (theological, not historical) that states that the similarities between Christianity and other religions are the result of God preparing the world for Christ's incarnation. I'm not sure if it would fit in this article, but it might merit a mention in Christianity and world religions, for example. archola 17:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nice thoughts, but, could we keep this on the topic of the 2nd paragraph? 8-) --CTSWyneken 17:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. The thread started as a response to JimWae's remark on the 2nd paragraph but quickly went off on a tangent. ;-} Both Homestarmy and I pointed out alternative interprations of the mythology debate. This demonstrates that recognition of the similarities need not lead to a skeptical position on the historicity of Jesus, and thus casts doubt on whether "and similarities to various mythological figures" should be included in the second paragraph (at least without a caveat). archola 17:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It was certainly quite a familiar claim in the early 20th century that "Jesus" was an amalgam of mythic archetypes derived from Mithraism, Orisis, Orphism and "death-rebirth" deities. It fitted with ideas about myth-formation that were emerging from Max Mueller's followers, Frazer's Golden Bough, Jung etc. As you say, though, it was rather more common to argue that these religions affected the growth of Christian doctrine rather than that Jesus had been conjured up out of pure mythic imagination. Most of the Jesus myth arguments are based on supposed mythic precusors of the Jesus-persona, not on the lack of contemporary documents, which is, I think, pretty much a red herring. Paul B 17:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One question: is the minority position we're discussing one and the same as the Jesus Myth school, or are there other skeptics outside the Jesus Myth school? If they are one and the same, I reccomend a link to Jesus-Myth in the second paragraph of the Jesus article. Since the Jesus Myth article currently has a point-counterpoint structure, a discussion of the debate over "lack of contemporary documents and similarities to various mythological figure" would fit well there (without cluttering up the intro to the Jesus article). archola 18:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly speaking, there are those in this camp that do not do the mythology theory.--CTSWyneken 19:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The mythology debate 

message: Why not mention that the idea that Jesus is entirely mythical has been discussed and largely dismissed by academic historians? This is somewhat akin to saying that astronomers once believed in geocentricism, currently believe in heliocentricism and that geocentricism is now considered to be a fringe theory. This acknowledges both the debate among historians and the current concensus among historians. archola 00:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Metahistoricity

message: And I've copied previous discussion on the third paragraph to Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro. The archive dates back to Jan. 8, when the paragraph was added to the intro.
I don't mean to jump the gun, but when we are ready to move on, we might want to review the previous discussion. archola 10:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd recommend that anyone who has suggested changes read the Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro discussion. Then, in respect of the comprimise, that a discussion be undertaken here, and, unless it reaches consensus, the main page not be edited. --CTSWyneken 17:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Fair enough. I was just setting up the discussion. Arch O. La 02:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem. I just am very bad at multitasking. --CTSWyneken 02:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: He proposed this a week and a half ago (it's in the archive) but unfortunately we've been bogged down in paragraph 2. People. it's time to move on to ¶ 3. Arch O. La 02:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, despite whatever happened to that proposel, Drbiosclair's change makes sense to me :/. Homestarmy 02:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that he made the proposal and got drowned out by the Rodsteadman debates, so finally he made the change himself. But, yes, I also vote yea. Arch O. La 02:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to point this out, but we need to quickly be careful that we don't get into the habit of voting on every single word change and letter replacement on this page. I would doubt there is another one that does so. At some point, we have to treat this page like any other highly vandalized page: with care and reverts for all. --Avery W. Krouse 02:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we can't help it when 1 or 2 editors take extreme issue with big changes (Or really, even little changes) unless we pound out clear consensus :/. Homestarmy 02:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Friends, can we wait on this one a day or two. We need to get the 2nd paragraph in place and watched until we can be sure it won't be constantly changed. Then I'll come on board. In the mean time, would someone do me the favor and be sure all the relevant discussion is in the subject archive for "Christian Views" and, while you're at it, create one for AD/CE - BC/BCE? --CTSWyneken 12:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I archived the discussion of what was put in the intro, but there was considerable discussion before that on the issue. Ditto historicity and AD/CE. The archives are chronilogical and somewhat confusing for those of us who came in late. I leave it to the veterans to sort the archives by subject. Arch O. La 12:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph 3 (Christian views)

message: I don't want to get into a debate over interpretations of the Nicene Creed, but the reference to John 3:16 seems redundant. Or at least confusing: it's not clear what's being cited to the creed, and what is being cited to the Gospel. (Of course, the creed itself is based on an interpretation of the Gospels, as well as the rest of the New Testament. "Life and Teachings" starts with Some other relevant verses, so John 3:16 might fit in better there.) Arch O. La 18:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I was just setting up the discussion. Arch O. La 02:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem. I just am very bad at multitasking. --CTSWyneken 02:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: John 3:16

message: I have made an emendation to the "Christian view of Jesus": Jesus is a member rather than part of the Holy Trinity. According to orthodox Christianity the Holy Trinity is not divisible into parts. Each divine Person is totus Deus, each having the fulness of deity. It is not the orthodox Christian view that Jesus is a third of God while the Father and the Holy Spirit are the other two thirds. There is no denomination of Christendom which publically believes and teaches that the Holy Trinity is divided up into parts. Of course, anything is possible. I would like to assist in editing this article as I am a Christian theologian dedicated, though, to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I am glad, by the way, that the red neutrality flag has been removed. We want to try to make this article the best it can be in the greatest online encyclopedia. With all respect to all. drboisclair 01:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He proposed this a week and a half ago (it's in the archive) but unfortunately we've been bogged down in paragraph 2. People. it's time to move on to ¶ 3. Arch O. La 02:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, despite whatever happened to that proposel, Drbiosclair's change makes sense to me :/. Homestarmy 02:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that he made the proposal and got drowned out by the Rodsteadman debates, so finally he made the change himself. But, yes, I also vote yea. Arch O. La 02:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to point this out, but we need to quickly be careful that we don't get into the habit of voting on every single word change and letter replacement on this page. I would doubt there is another one that does so. At some point, we have to treat this page like any other highly vandalized page: with care and reverts for all. --Avery W. Krouse 02:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we can't help it when 1 or 2 editors take extreme issue with big changes (Or really, even little changes) unless we pound out clear consensus :/. Homestarmy 02:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Friends, can we wait on this one a day or two. We need to get the 2nd paragraph in place and watched until we can be sure it won't be constantly changed. Then I'll come on board. In the mean time, would someone do me the favor and be sure all the relevant discussion is in the subject archive for "Christian Views" and, while you're at it, create one for AD/CE - BC/BCE? --CTSWyneken 12:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I archived the discussion of what was put in the intro, but there was considerable discussion before that on the issue. Ditto historicity and AD/CE. The archives are chronilogical and somewhat confusing for those of us who came in late. I leave it to the veterans to sort the archives by subject. Arch O. La 12:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus "member" or "part" of Trinity?

message: I normally avoid commenting on this page for the simple fact that I have neither the time nor patience to take up arms and join the battle against Rob (please, poke all you want at that metaphor), but I did want to take a moment to give praise to the writers of the subsection Point, Counterpoint, and Wikipoint above. This was one of the most well constructed, well thought pieces of rhetoric that has been issued since Operation Robsteadman began a short while ago. I appreciate the fact that the subjects of this talk page have now been proven to have a better scope of discussion than the "I'm right, you're wrong!" material that had been flying between Rob and several other Wikipedians over the last few weeks.
I herald the opportunity for Wikipedians to join together to discuss differences in a rationally sound and rhetorically solid manner without resorting to backbiting and bickering. Perhaps other Wikipedians should be so wise as to take the time to process their thoughts before launching an assault or counterassault against one another. Whereas I gladly support any side which attempts to academically affirm my personal theories concerning Jesus Christ, I support even more so a forum for civil discussion, understanding that in any given room of one hundred given people of which I am one, 99% of those in the room will not share my opinion on every matter. --Avery W. Krouse 20:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Praise of Progress 

message: Note: This first vote is on the historicity paragraph as cited below. Discussion on this version of the paragraph is located above. A second, line-item vote addresses specific objections raised during the first vote.
I'd like us to summarize where we would like this paragraph to go and our reasons for it. For the sake of clarity, let's please not rehash the argument above. Let's not engage each other for the moment and see if we can't come to something we can live with.
I'm for retaining the paragraph more or less as it is and finishing the documentation of the views. Why? It represents the consensus of scholarship in the disciplines of ancient history and Biblical Studies, yet gives voice to the minority view that has a lot of popular support and even some academic support from outside the discipline. --CTSWyneken 11:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Towards a relatively final form of the second paragraph 

message: #Gator (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Accept

message: # I think it needs to be added that only non historians working outside their field who say Jesus never existed.  The Jesus mythers have yet to cite a history professor in the world who has stated that Jesus never existed.  Furthermore, it should be stated the extreme minority of scholars say Jesus never existed. ken 18:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reject

message: I noticed your edits on the 2d paragraph.  I hope you're aware that we've reached a strong consesn for that paragraph that will render your edits pretty much moot in a short while.  I encourage you (if you haven't already) to offer your opinion here. I'd just hate to see you get upset when your edits will be replaced and enforced by a consensus that you may not have known was forming around that paragraph.  Thanks.Gator (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm concerned with the "what they consider" phrase. It's excess wording, and incorrect; there simply are no extant contemporaneous documents. Jayjg (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, at this point in the game I don't think making those kind of changes would be productive and would start our process all over again. We have consensus with the pargraph ads it stands and that's a great accomplishment. If its that important to you, feel free to change your vote.  I don't know what else to say at this late point...Gator (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Noting" and "citing" both work for me. The minority assert that this casts doubt. The majority assert that this is an argument from silence. Anyone disagree? Arch O. La 17:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Jayjg (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Any change which is factually more accurate, and shortens the intro text while imparting equal information, is obviously better. Keep in mind this is still a wiki.  Is there anything in my statement that you disagree with on factual grounds? Jayjg (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't mind the word "suggesting" being deleted, but it is confusing to do it with the live version and there is some debate over the meaning of the word "contemporary." I do not wish to reopen the can of worms, which I'm afraid going into it will do. So I'll not contest it. (in short, contempoary could mean "people who lived at the same time as," in which case the letters of Paul, the Gospel of Mark, etc. might count...) BUT I'M NOT DEBATING IT.  --CTSWyneken 17:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Contemporaries" and "contemporaneous documents" are different things.  Also, Paul never claimed to have met Jesus during his life, so his letters would not be relevant. Jayjg (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anybody have a thesaurus? I think we agree on the basic concept but disagree on the wording. Or perhaps the semantics (again). Arch O. La 17:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Why not copy the consensus version here and discuss it together before we post it? After all, we want a version that will stick. I do not object to the word going. Anyone want to drop the word "vast" before majority, since we're talking about what those in favor of the piece had concerns with? --CTSWyneken 17:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "lack of known contemporaneous documents" is factual (by one definition of "contemporaneous"). Known can mean either "known to exist" or "known to be contemporaneous," addressing both the argument from silence objection and the debate over the dating of the documents. I don't want to get involved in another semantic quibble: is there a word or phrase we can use that has a more exact meaning than "contemporaneous"? PS: this also addresses Robsteadman's objection that we don't have absolute knowledge. Arch O. La 17:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, known extant contemporaneous documents. Look at Troy--a whole city for which there were no extant contemporaneous artifacts, until there suddenly was. Ditto Pontius Pilate, as CTSWyneken pointed out. Arch O. La 17:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: "Extant" allows for the possibility that such documents once existed, but no longer do. "Known" allows for the broader possibility that such documents continue to exist, but we haven't found them yet. There is no proof (in the sense that we don't have them) for either extinct or unfound documents, but it seems odd to allow for one, but not the other. It may be splitting hairs, but I want to be sure that we say what we mean and mean what we say, to avoid confusion. Arch O. La 18:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable to me. Jayjg (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we can stay with the wording of that phrase as Jayg has framed it. It isn't worth the debate. --CTSWyneken 19:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Also, I'm not sure "extant" necessarily precludes documents surfacing in the future. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: With this definition of "extant," I agree. Arch O. La 19:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Extant means very roughly "what we have at this time." It does allow for discovery of other items. All of which is beside the point, since it reflects what the nonexistence school philosophers do indeed argue. As long as it is what they say, we are doing our job. --CTSWyneken 19:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a debate over definition 1 & 2 in Wictionary. Both are denotation; connotation is accepting one definition over another. I vote that we define "extant" broadly (ie, accepting both definitions as applying). Arch O. La 19:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jayig's Objection 

message: Note: the final vote is below.
Deletions proposed by CTSWyneken
Accept:
#Accept Arch O. La 20:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Line Item Vote

message: :::I suggest this as less POV.
The  majority of critical Bible scholars hold that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean preacher and healer who was at odds with the Jewish religious authorities (Sadducees and Pharisees), and who was crucified outside of Jerusalem during the rule of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate.However, citing a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making references to him, a minority of others question the historicity of Jesus.
Otherwise it is POV
Robsteadman 19:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Best I can tell is you wish to delete "historians" and all the citation information, correct? --CTSWyneken 19:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Add "current historians" to Rob's paragraph. This reflects that historians have discussed the "Jesus did not exist" hypothesis (re:Paul B's comment on early 20th century scholars under Talk:Jesus#The mythology debate) and the majority consensus does not accept this hypothesis. See Talk:Jesus#Metahistoricity for a scientific analogy. I've also gone on record as saying that superlatives may be POV—in this I agree with Rob.Arch O. La 19:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm opposed to deleting "historians" or adding "current," which is not necessary. There are scholars listed thant are recognized either historians, one of them, Paul L. Maier, is fully credentialled as a historian of ancient history, another, Cohen, is a historian of Ancient Judaism. When I'm finished tracking down passages from the writings of the other cited authors, I will add Michael Grant, preeminent historian of the ancient world, and others.--CTSWyneken 20:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm opposed to "current" too, as those few historians who in the past have entertained the "Jesus did not exist" hypothesis are already sufficently covered by sayin that a "vast/large/- majority" affirms Jesus' existence - that leaves room for some opposition even in the past. Str1977 11:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. It's such a small point that I really don't care either way ;) Arch O. La 18:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm also opposed to not saying at least a "large" majority, "small" minority, which I've demostrated (see footnotes and the Talk:Jesus/Cited Authors Bios --CTSWyneken 20:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from POV, it's redundant. A majority is always larger than a minority. Arch O. La 20:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I favour including "vast" as it is not actually a mere majority that affirms Jesus' existence, it is practically all of them. Putting in merely "majority" implies that there might be substantial opposition (up to 49%) when there isn't. Str1977 11:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as we can agree on what "vast" means ;) I have no doubt the majority is vast, but I doubt whether this can be said in a meaningful way. I do accept "large majority" as a compromise between "majority" and "vast" majority. However the vote goes, the concensus will help to demonstrate how well our perception of words like "vast" correlate with each other's perceptions (hence demonstrating NPOV). Arch O. La 18:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Robsteadman proposal

message: We should link "question the historicity of Jesus" in the paragraph to Historicity_of_Jesus#The_idea_that_Jesus_never_existed, which is specifically about the nonexistence hypothesis. Our sources can also be used to clear up the "citation needed" tags there, in Historical Jesus and perhaps Jesus-Myth. Arch O. La 01:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonexistence Hypothesis

message: There seems to be a fair amount of support for "large majority" as a second-vote compromise between the proponents of "majority" and the proponents of "vast majority." Any comments (either here or in the voting comments above? Arch O. La 05:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rob - see the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar. --JPotter 16:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And what relevanbce has the "jesus: seminar to neutral scholarship? Absolutely none. "faith" apologists supporting their irrational posiiton. Robsteadman 17:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why is it at the bottom the article notes evangelical people sometimes take issue with the conclusions of this seminar? You'd think people promoting an "irrational" position would take everything they had on the issue. Homestarmy 18:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point. Rob, I hope you realize that, now that we've brought up the Jesus Seminar and the "demythologize Jesus" branch of Higher Criticism, what you categorize as faith overlaps with what many Christians categorize as unfaith. Now, that's nothing if not ironic. I assert that the truth lies along the middle path. Arch O. La 20:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point is that, a very wide range of scholars from the Biblical Studies and Historical disciplines assert the existence of Jesus and some other basic facts about his life. This is just about all that everyone agrees on, but it is significant and goes to the point, that very few scholars have ever supported the nonexistence hypothesis and I have yet to see one historian cited as supporting it. By the rules of wikipedia, we need not even mention the hypothesis. Indeed, six out of the seven encyclopedias I consulted on the matter, including Encyclopedia Britannica do not mention it at all. But in the spirit of NPOV I think we should include it and refer to the larger discussion. --CTSWyneken 11:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But this is based on nothing - it is guesswork. Totally unencyclopedic and unverifiable. Robsteadman 11:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I can affirm this is an un-biblical finding, so much for Biblical scholars. Homestarmy 21:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The seminar contains scholars of Christian (liberal), agnostic, and atheist beliefs.  Conservatives generally hate it.  I like their work, though I don't always think they apply it responsibly.  KHM03 21:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "What kind of majority?" and "The Jesus Seminar"

message: *Conditionial Support. The text implies that there is a lack of sources. It should say that these people suggest that that there was a lack of sources. Otherwise, okay. Str1977 21:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nay

message: #I vote yea. </b>. Arch O. La 13:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yea