Talk:Jesus/Archive 52

No Criticism Allowed
I thought this [link removed] might be of interest to some of you on this page: Just Thought Id Mention It 11:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * (external link edited, as it made this page uneditable) -- Eugene van der Pijll 23:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the double blue page, although I wasn't aware of this discussion forum. Thank you for mentioning it. For the record, User:KHM03 retired from Wikipedia because the personal information revealed about him led to harrassment of his family and colleagues. After the incident was reported, the site removed the personal information, but the harm was already done. This is a matter not of censorship, but of privacy and security. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF  11:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think doubleblue included any information that the editors hadn't included on their own userpages. I think some are protesting too much. 86.137.36.128 12:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * They did until SOPHIA reported the incident. I've been watching the site since I became aware of it, and they do change their content every once in a while. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 18:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm more than a little disturbed by this. Accusations of education are serious...--Mrdarcey 14:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Just as there are over-zealous Christians who think that if an article about Christianity doesn't read like an evangelism pamphlet, that means Christianity is being suppressed and anti-Christianity being pushed; so there are over-zealous Atheists and members of other religions who think that unless an article about Christianity reads like a Steven Conifer article on infidels.org, that means Christianity is being pushed and anti-Christianity being suppressed. Of course, the consensus stands against both of these positions and says that as long as the page meets the criteria of the three policies (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V), there is no problem. » MonkeeSage « 16:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Robert Steadman banned for spreading personal information? Try again double blue people.... Homestarmy 16:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that Rob quit Wikipedia because he felt he was being stalked by people who had followed him from another website (namely tes.co.uk). Doubleblue allegedly stalked KHM03 in exactly the same way that those people allegedly stalked Rob. The irony is biting. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 18:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Quite pathetic. — Aiden 22:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I am personally offended and disgusted with anyone that stalks another editor to the point that their personal life becomes part of WIKI. If an individual shares those facts; great. If not, it is no one's business! I do not think it acceptable that those involved were banned for only one month. Their actions deserve nothing less than a permanent ban from all WIKI sites. They have demonstrated a a shocking lack of integrity and are unworthy of participation on this site. Storm Rider (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Careful, you might be making yourself a target. If you've read the page, you know that you've been listed as one of the "DWEECS." Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 00:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So where do I fit in? I'd support permanent bans too. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalk TCF 00:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You're not a target, so go ahead. As near as I can tell, this started in February with troubles on the Christianity page, and comments by User_talk:John1838 AKA User_talk:J1838 (the user pages have been protected-deleted). Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 00:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am aware of being on the list. I think he/she/they would be hard pressed to prove merit to be so listed, but that is now moot.  If someone wants to know who I am, I encourage them to ask.  I do not have the personal/occupational concerns of our friend User:KHM03.  However, I am truly incensed by this sorry tale.  They are cyber terrorists and think themselves "cute" in their efforts.  This "espèce d'humain" is not stopped until we collectively stand up and name them permanently persona nongrata on all WIKI sites.  ADMINS, are you listening to this???
 * I would not seek it out, but if it came to someone trying to find out about me personally, I suppose I would just put it on the web; it sort of takes the wind out of their despicable efforts. Storm Rider (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess you have to have kids to feel really twitchy about this. The only reason I protect my identity is so there is no link to them and that was KHM03's reason for going (valid in my eyes). I however don't have a web page so I'm internet exdirectory - that is not supposed to be a challenge by the way. I would like to see some real action by Jimbo to stop what happened to Gator and KHM03 happening again. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalk TCF 00:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Funny that their manipulation of wikipedia being exposed results in them going off in a huff. They are two of the worst offenders. Good riddance. The cabal must be smashed. Robsteadman 06:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This person is not who we think it is. I assume as Rob's account was deleted there was nothing to stop it being recreated by anyone else. Not sure what the rules are but this doesn't seem right. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalk TCF 09:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously I have no way of knowing, but if someone is impersonating Rob, that in itself is disturbing. I should point out again that Rob suspected that certain people who were harrassing him on his talk page during his attempted Wikibreak had followed him from the tes.co.uk message boards. They were involved with the Robert Steadman article, not any of the Jesus or Christianity articles. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 09:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, now we know how Rob feels. For the record, Rob was banned by Jayjg, not Musical Linguist, and this was weeks before these links were being passed around. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 08:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

See also meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 03:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Despite what HK30 is saying, this is no stunt. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 08:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Pretty sure Rob asked for his page to be deleted....? Homestarmy 18:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but not protect-deleted. Anyone could have recreated the account. SOPHIA has an e-mail from Rob himself saying this account is an imposter. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 18:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Suffer the Children
Kids, chill out. If I felt like taking the time I'd have an admin lock this page until the silliness and stupidity stopped. Ah, but then I suppose there are none so blind as those who will not see (do not correct me on the quote). Person A thinks person B is being silly, while person B thinks person A is, etc. One hopes that this is not the best Christianity, the religion of "love" and "peace" and "understanding", has to offer. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 00:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Jim, go right ahead. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 00:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Jim, I don't think everyone in this discussion is a Christian, are they? Besides, we did come to an understanding eventually....sort of....Homestarmy 00:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to believe that Jean-Paul Sartre was right about Hell. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 01:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Or Groundhog day! While these are emotional issues, folks, can we please not engage in personal attacks, calling people's arguments silly or such, etc. All of these are ad hominem attacks and not valid arguments anyway.


 * Let's remember we're supposed to be about what scholarly sources say. So, it would help if we would not be about arguing the issues themselves, but what scholars say, whether such-and-such fits in the main article, if we can find a better way to say what scholars say, etc. --CTSWyneken 11:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So...what do scholarly sources say? Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 12:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * CTS: I hate to disagree with you, but, I prefer calling a spade a spade: this page has descended into needless bickering, and many of the arguments are, from a historical, scholarly, or semantical perspective, either silly or stupid, or, to be more appropriate to Wiki: vio's of POV, OR, POINT as well as being troll-like. To wit: entombed vs buried.  If one really wants to have such a debate, find an archaeologist who could explain the burial methods of the time.
 * As to what scholars say, that's a touchy issue: define scholar. Additionally, when saying "most Christians believe x", polls may be appropriate.  There's a significant difference between what the various churches teach, and what the people believe.
 * Homes, while a few editors (such as myself) are not Christians, I do not think I am alone in what I said. Bear in mind that other editors have raised similar concerns, whether here on on their talk pages.
 * This article needs a break -- much like it had a month (or probably) two ago. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  13:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Jim, there is more going on here than the usual edit wars and POV clashing. The above section titled "No Criticism allowed" is an indirect reference, but I've sent you an e-mail to a non-WP website that some of us find alarming. Most disturbing of all is what happened to User:KHM03. The issue really started on the Christianity page, but double blue now has there eye on this article as well. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 13:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What are the disputes?
Given that the page is now protected, can someone specify the disputes that need to be resolved?

Given the general agreement, I of course think that my two edits to paragraph 2 (deleting the blasphemy, adding the baptism) should be restored. i responded to one off-point criticism above. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you feel it important enough, you can request a edit to a protected page at WP:RfPP. --Darth Deskana (talk page) (my RfA!) 17:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the page reads like a missionary pamphlet. Far too POV and religion promoting. Just because some so-called scholars say asomething is true doesn't mean it is - where's the evidence? Yummy mummy 17:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter. Our job here is to report what scholars say, not to express our own doubts (or even our own requirements for empirical evidence.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflicted comment, excuse some minor repetition of Jpgordon's comments above) You're right Yummy mummy, it doesn't mean it's true, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. According to the WP:V policy, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". I can understand why you think it reads like a pamphlet. Perhaps you could copy the bits that you feel are the worst for this over to the talk page here so they can be discussed and a concensus reached on them? --Darth Deskana (talk page) (my RfA!) 17:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Then surely it should be made clear, and clearer than it is, that it is a faith only, or fictional version and not based on evidence. There is surely no genuine and reliable evidence that Jesus ever existed and yet this article reads like there is. What a nonsense. I guess I am seeing what all the double blue stuff is about - the cabal at work. Yummy mummy 17:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I find that a funny accusation considering I don't actually even believe in God, nor Jesus. The truth is, I just want a balanced article. So what bits don't you think belong in the article? --Darth Deskana (talk page) (my RfA!) 17:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

All the non-factual bits. Yummy mummy 17:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Im assuming all the bits that come from the gospels and the vast majority of scholarship, this sounds like a very Robsteadman-esque argument. Apparently evidence is no longer evidence?Homestarmy 17:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's ignore the troll. john k 17:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Stop calling people trolls. That is not what talk pages are for. -- Drogo Underburrow 18:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, lets ignore john k and his missionary gang. [[Image:rolleyes.png|thumb|I have no idea if this image exists if it doesn't please upload one]]eeemess 15:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the page should have been semi-protected rather than full protected. It seems as if the only problem with habitual vandalism and reverts is with anons. — Aiden 19:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Not exactly. Read the talk page itself, and check the history.  When the arguments reach the level of entombed versus buried (a faux semantics argument given that the person raising the article knows no Greek), it's time for a break.  Obviously, the admin agreed with Archola and I that there are significant problems.  Work them through, then get the protection either lifted or changed to semi.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  19:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Geez, does this merry-go-round ever stop??? Yummy, I suggest you spend the next 12 hours reading the archives. Believe me, you have nothing new to say that has not been said ad nauseaum. Your points have been fully addressed by others. Please save us the time from regurgitating everything AGAIN. Your thoughts will become more cogent and you may begin to understand the meaning of a balanced article and the status of scholarly research. Cheers. Storm Rider (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Err, I don't think Yummy will be posting again with either cognance or understanding if his user page is any indication.... Homestarmy 21:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, he has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of User:Robsteadman... not surprising, considering the user acted very similar to Robsteadman. --Darth Deskana (talk page) (my RfA!) 21:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It just gets better.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems that there apparently wasn't much of a problem anymore when the page was locked, as there doesn't seem to of been much of a heated discussion outside of sockpuppetry :/. Homestarmy 02:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Must be why Archola left, because everything was so calm. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  18:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

So, are there still any outstanding disputes that prevent the page from being unprotected? Wesley 17:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Only thing I could possibly see as a dispute is the thing Oub pointed out about POV, but that's not that big a deal, I don't think anyone's really fighting about it. Everything else seems to of fizzled away :/. Homestarmy 17:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * On the bright side, the argument over entombed and buried went way.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  18:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Now that Rob has been barred from vandalizing yet again, I don't think there are any outstanding problems except with the AOL IPs that continue to vandalize and revert consensus. I recommend a semi-protect so we registered editors can get back to work. — Aiden 18:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that, a.) the page stay protected for a few more days before requesting semi-protect, and b.) that you work out what needs to be put into the article here, before changing the article. Keep in mind, this is not the first time this page has been protected.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  18:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Oub wanted to change like what, one sentence somewhere in the body, it sounded like a reasonably fair change to me. Homestarmy 18:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The "entombed" versus "buried" debate was settled by using the phrase "buried in a tomb," as bad as that sounds. — Aiden 04:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You prefer "entombed" but that sounds like its from Night of the Living Dead. It also sounds very Protestant, and hence POV. Its a rejection of the wording used in the Nicene Creed, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The only reason I even support the entire sentence, is if it reads the same as both of those, because if it doesn't, then I don't accept it as a fact, that most Christians believe it. If people think this is quibbling over words, they are right; such quibbling is at the basis of serious theological disputes, and responsible in history for wars. Drogo Underburrow 06:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Nicene Creed says "ascended" into heaven &mdash; we better not say "was taken up on a cloud", because most Christians don't believe Jesus "was taken up on a cloud" into heaven, that is a Protestant view &mdash; we have to say "ascended" into heaven. Pshaw. » MonkeeSage « 09:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Jim's right - a few more days peace won't do any harm. I take Drogo's point on "entombed" so lets see if the compromise sticks - it does seem to hedge the bets on the tomb vs creed wording issues. Having said that this was the same way of thinking that got us the awful "extant contemporaneous" phrase so I won't enter that bun-fight!  Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalk TCF  09:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course there are no more disputes - if it's in teh Bible it's true and accurate and anyone who says otherwise is talking rubbish and should be ignored. RobSteadman 13:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC) ''Note: This user was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Robsteadman. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 14:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)''
 * ................. Homestarmy 13:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * ...I'm assuming sarcasm ... I hope I'm not let down. :-) --Steve Caruso 14:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Responses to "Come Together"

 * Re: Grigory DeepdelverHi, thanks for that. I agree completely. I think it would be really much better to collaborate and to try to improve the article then to go into endless circles. As for the trial, for be both is fine, to take what I proposed (but still it was a proposal) or to try to emphasise the differences. As for John 8, well we can leave that discussion out for the moment, but maybe return to it in the future. (For me John was always the odd one out of the Gospels, but that is just my impression). So yes let us go on. Oub 16:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC):


 * Very well put, Arch. If everyone can get on board -- keeping their opinions, of course, but also being willing to compromise and keep things under control -- you might finally be on your way with this article.
 * How about this idea -- since I had the article locked, I'll ask to have it semi-protected (keep out the anons) if five of you sign below? At least that way, we can say that progress has been made.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  17:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, I made this a subpage template so that people wouldn't interrupt my long discourse with inline comments (that always seems to happen with long statements). I'm neutral about the semi-protect thing. I will now move this back to the talk: Jesus page. Grigory DeepdelverTalk 17:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with pretty much everything said. — Aiden 03:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotect?

 * 1) &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  17:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) For now. --CTSWyneken 18:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Arr! Homestarmy 21:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) I haven't been fighting so I don't know if my vote counts - but it all looks quiet now Sophia   Gilraen   of Dorthonion  23:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Please. --Steve Caruso 23:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Yup. — Aiden  03:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Yes, please.Oub 12:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC):
 * 8) Agree with the above. --Andrew c 21:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes I feel the voting on this article can get a bit excessive... perhaps we should take a vote to see if other users support this sentiment! --Darth Deskana (talk page) 21:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sometimes I feel that voting on RfA's becomes such a chore...you have to look the person up, find out if they are "sandwich artists" (does subway qualify as an art studio?), determine whether or not he can speak Klingon...such a chore. ;)  Humour me, Dan.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm not objecting to this vote in particular... I just feel we vote too much in this article sometimes. Don't get me wrong... just a thought, is all. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 22:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems like we haven't voted in a good bit really. Homestarmy 23:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Not since the beginning of March ;) BTW, once we're all agreed on what to do, feel free to update Talk:Jesus/to do. Arch O. La Grigrory   Deepdelver  16:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Damn, I guess I made a bit of a dodgy argument? Hehehehe... I still think we should take a vote to establish concensus on whether I was wrong though! --Darth Deskana (talk page) 21:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, everyone, I was bit busy today. I requested semi-protect so the spectre of vandalism doesn't rear it's ten-horned head. Here's the link. I hope an admin sees it soon -- usually it only takes a half hour or less. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 01:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, we don't have the semi. Somebody just added the blasphemy phrase again. (Yes, it's an anon IP. Namely ). Which is yet another AOL IP.Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  16:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This is getting bothersome. The request was for semi-protection and the result was complete unprotection... :-( Flipping from one side to the other, the mean once again evades us. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 16:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Seriously. The anon vandalism just started again. Can we please get a semi-protect as requested? — Aiden 20:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I left a comment. We'll see.    &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  01:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting. He/she says no and then "cleans up"?   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  02:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Where's the link to the archive? Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  02:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no archive. See link 12 above and go to the history page. Katefan responded at 12:50 UDT, and deleted everything at 12:51 UDT. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 11:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suggest you re-request semi-protection (a few of you should endorse the request). Oh let me know when (or even if) you do so.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  12:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)