Talk:Jesus/Archive 64

Removal of Xty template
Once again the Xty template says Jesus was God the Son. This happens over & over again -- this time thanks to Aiden. I have removed the template from this article & encourage others to do the same until the blatant POV is removed --JimWae 05:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please calm down, JimWae. This isn't a violation of WP:NPOV, as articles/templates are supposed to profess their subject's POV in order to maintain an article. Just because "God the Son" links to "Jesus" doesn't mean that's Wikipedia's POV it means thats Christianity's POV&mdash;nothing is wrong here. I'm sure no one else shares your opinion. &mdash; `C RAZY `( IN )`S ANE ` 05:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

We've been through this before & I am sure I was NOT the only one who thought that it compromised the NPOV of the Jesus article to say Jesus is God the Son. "Calm down" & "I'm sure no one else shares your opinion" is arrogant & dismissive --JimWae 05:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well my apologies but I really can't see how a template that already displays "God the Son" would be any more POV by linking this text to "Jesus", as there is nothing else that "God the Son" could possibly stand for. Displaying the text in itself is just as POV as linking this to Jesus–its obvious target. &mdash; `C RAZY `( IN )`S ANE ` 05:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Finding an appropriate link is not my problem. It was OK before - try that one or remove the template from this article. So you really think professing faith is NPOV, eh? --JimWae 05:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I disagree with you in regards to there being an issue with the current Template:Christianity status, as I do not see anything more POV than the previous version. Put it this way&mdash;the previous version had "God the Son" linking to "Christology", which is the study of Jesus. Since we're linking "God the Son" to the study of Jesus, I hardly see the issue with linking it directly to Jesus, which is more to the point. What's the difference between these two links, in your opinion?. &mdash; `C RAZY `( IN )`S ANE ` 05:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Fist of all, Christology is the "study of Christ", not "study of Jesus", as you should already know. But,as I said, the problem is not mine. Can people who think professing faith is NPOV handle this, or does it need another hand? --JimWae 05:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is the study of Jesus. "Christ" is a term often used in describing the figure from a Christian POV, as per "Christmas" as opposed to "Jesusmas", "Christianity" as opposed to "Jesusism", etc. From the Christology article: "Christology is that part of Christian theology which studies and attempts to define Jesus, the Christ. This area of study is generally less concerned with the minor details of his (meaning Jesus') life". In conclusion, linking "God the Son" to an article about the study of Jesus of Nazareth is just as POV as linking it to Jesus himself...except for the fact that it makes more sense simply to link to "Jesus". I am failing to see how you justify your opinion that this is a "blatant POV". As for "people who think professing faith is NPOV"&mdash;your conclusion that linking "God the Son" to Christology is NPOV places you in the same category, apparently. &mdash; `C RAZY `( IN )`S ANE ` 05:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I will say this once more - it is not my problem. If an NPOV link cannot be found for "God the Son" then, for a start, the Xty template has to be removed from the Jesus article --JimWae 06:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How is it that you had no problem with the former link to Christology? You still haven't explained why this link is any more POV than linking to Jesus. Linking "God the Son" to the study of Jesus Christ is an obvious acknolwedgment that Jesus is indeed the aformentioned "Son of God"&mdash;so I cannot see a motive to your actions other than simply to cause unnecessary conflict. &mdash; `C RAZY `( IN )`S ANE ` 06:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Remova;l of this template is nothing more than tiresome edit warring. Jesus is God the Son in the theology of the Trinity. Obviously non-Trinitarians -which includes some Christians - don't accept that. So what? It's just a link. Paul B 10:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I was always of the opinion that the Christianity template should be placed within the Christainity section of the article, as Jesus has a template spread all for himself which is currently in "second place." According WP:NPOV, bias is to be avoided: "A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology." Under this, having the Christianity template at the top of the article appears to be a strong predilection for one particular point of view, i.e. Trinitarian Christianity or just Christianity in general and should, under Wikipedia Policy, be altered. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 22:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not unless you take all the "Islam", "Judaism", "Hindu", and any other POV templates away from all figures associated with them. &mdash; `C RAZY `( IN )`S ANE ` 23:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be 100% behind moving all religion-based templates to religion-based sections of those articles as well. Just because a number of articles are in violation of policy does not mean that they should all be allowed to violate policy, yes? A generally-accepted mistake should be corrected universally. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 01:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You are very right and very brave to say so. The chances of the edits sticking are minimal however as a lot of editors do not see these articles as reports on a religion but rather as an area to put forward the standard teachings of their faith - very different things indeed. Sophia  13:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * To move the Christianity template would lead to editors who personally identify with Jesus within the context of Christianity feeling personally threatened because that identification is so deeply rooted within them. Identification is a tricky issue, and I feel is our duty to deal with and to make sure that fellow editors understand that it would not be a personal attack against themselves or their beliefs, but a step towards complying with the very policies that have allowed Wikipedia to exist as the rich information commons as it is today. In the end, the Christianity template would still be in the article, just in a section that discusses Christianity specifically where theological views can be made mentioned and discussed. The policies we have are based upon consensus, so it would be only appropriate for us to abode by our own rules, yes? אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 14:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is a good example of what I feel is more in-line with WP:NPOV in terms of template placement: Gautama Buddha. The template is placed at the bottom of the article in a fashion that identifies the article as a part on the Buddhism series in a more discrete manner. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 15:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a POV problem with the Christianity article template, but it is not the problem people have been discussing. There is no problem with saying that there are a list of topics related to Christianity, including one on God the father, one on God the Son, and one on God the Holy Spirit.  Such a list does not claim that God is father or son, or holy ghost - it merely claims that there is a belief that God is the father, etc.  The article is about a particular belief.  We have an article on anti-Semitism - the existence of the article does not suggest that there really is something wrong with Jews, only that there is a set of beliefs out there.  None of these violates NPOV.


 * here is what violates NPOV: in the Christianity template, the Jesus the Son link goes to this here article, "Jesus." This is a problem, because this article is not about "Jesus the son."  it is a lead article about a person called Jesus, who some people believe is a fictional character, others believe is the son of God at one with the father, and others believe was a real (non-divine) human being.  The NPOV of this article depends on us not privileging one of these views.  But the Christianity template does just this, it privileges the view that this article is only about Jesus the Son.  This is what is wrong. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But in the Christian view, "God the Son" is Jesus. "God the Son" is not "Christian views on Jesus" or "Christology" or whatnot, it's "Jesus". All those alternative links simply avoid the issue. Just because Jesus is viewed differently by various people doesn't mean that Christians don't see him (the actual historical person) as the Son of God. Linking "God the Son" to anything else is purely and simply dishonest. I am failing to see any fitting alternative link destinations. &mdash; `C RAZY `( IN )`S ANE ` 08:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled, why is there no God the son article? Make that and I think this question will be settled immediately. Alternatively, point to a corresponding article or corresponding section of an article to the phrase "God the son". Netscott 09:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * CrazyInSane I think you misunderstand my point. I am not saying that the link for "Jesus the Son" should be deleted. I agree that this refers to a Christian belief and that there should be an article explaining and elaborating on this belief.  I am only arguing that this particular article should not be it, because this article is about Jesus at the most general level.  Within this article we do state that Christians believe Jesus is the son (and we should not delete this, either).  But we also provide many other views.  So it is simply wrong to characterize this article as being about "Jesus the Son."  Yes, this is what Christians believe, and yes, this is precisely why to do so would be to violate NPOV.  And linking God the Son to this article, which states that there are many who believe Jesus was not the son, is dishonest.  There should be a separate article on Christian including trinitarian views of Jesus.  And the link in the Christianity template should go to that (or those) articles. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you're making this issue more elaborate and unecessarily confusing than it needs to be. My argument for "God the Son" linking to "Jesus" is that there is no other article that is fitting to link. When/if someone creates the article "God the Son", obviously it can link to that article. The previous article that "God the Son" linked to, Christology, wasn't a totally unacceptable choice, but when people click "God the Son" I assume they are looking for either the actual person Jesus or an article "God the Son". Since the latter article does not yet exist, I see fit "Jesus" as the destination of this link. I have yet to see any alternate link suggestions. &mdash; `C RAZY `( IN )`S ANE ` 12:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The God the father links to the God the father article. And yes, we already do have a Son of God article that is very similar in structure and scope to the God the father article.  So this is the more appropriate link.  I fixed the link. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I made the redirect for God the son so looks like we're all good. :-) Netscott 12:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Also, Thadman's recent move is consistent with policy and our practice elsewhere ... but - does anyone know how to reformat stuff so there isn't that huge space? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll fiddle around with things and see if I can poke something together that looks nice. אמר <b style="color:#0033CC; font-family:monospace, monospace;">Steve Caruso</b> <b style="color:#000000;">( desk / poll )</b> 13:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, in my efforts, I created a new template that is like the normal  template, only horizontal, but still, no matter where I place it or fiddle around with where to put the table of contents it doesn't seem to look right, conflicts with another template, or has even more white space. I'm not sure what to do with this one. אמר <b style="color:#0033CC; font-family:monospace, monospace;">Steve Caruso</b> <b style="color:#000000;">( desk / poll )</b> 14:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about Jim? So you have no problem with 'God the Father' being mentioned (seemlingly advocating the POV that there is a God, right?), but 'God the Son' somehow crosses the line? I'm honestly not following. In Christian believe, the Trinity is made up of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. And if I'm not mistaken, this is a Christianity template describing Christian belief. And in Christian belief, Jesus is God the Son/Son of God, not Christology and not an article on the phrase Son of God. — Aiden 14:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, after thinking about it, I see no problem with Jim's version of the template which links to Christian views of Jesus. Heck, this provides a more Christian view, does it not? My issue was with the original link to Christology. That's like linking "God the Father" to theology. — Aiden 15:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Resolving the Christianity template dispute
We've already had a problem with solving this dispute, so I suggest that we all try and adhere to WP:DR and walk through this. Edits as to the placement of the Christianity template have been reverted a couple times. According to policy we must not simply revert changes in a dispute. We have already brought this issue to the talk page, so I believe that we need to talk things out further.

The Policy on NPOV states (all underlined emphasis, minus links, are mine in the following):

NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes maps, reader-facing templates, categories and portals. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is " absolute and non-negotiable ."

Further in the Policy, it states:

A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology.

And as an example of bias, it lists:


 * Religious bias, including bias in which one religious viewpoint is given preference over others.

I doubt that any of us disagree that the Christianity template has a very specific point of view and ideology that it focuses upon. To place such a reader-facing template at the top of the article (where there already is a template about the subject that represents a multitude of different views) gives one religious viewpoint {...} preference over others.

As a result, such a template is not in step with Wikipedia Policy and must be either removed, rewritten, or placed somewhere more appropriate (i.e. the Christianity section of this article). I strongly encourage the third of these options as it is the cleanest and least controversial path towards compliance of the three.

Does everyone else at least see where I'm coming from? :-) אמר <b style="color:#0033CC; font-family:monospace, monospace;">Steve Caruso</b> <b style="color:#000000;">( desk / poll )</b> 16:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Please list comments below.

I think it's contrived to the point of sillyness not to include the Christianity template in the Jesus article. Tom Harrison Talk 17:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, that is not what encouraged, nor thought was the best choice of action. Note: As a result, such a template is not in step with Wikipedia Policy and must be either removed, rewritten, or placed somewhere more appropriate (i.e. the Christianity section of this article). I strongly encourage the third of these options as it is the cleanest and least controversial path towards compliance of the three . I would also appreciate hearing your honest opinions about Wikipedia Policy as it stands, as well as how to implement it. אמר <b style="color:#0033CC; font-family:monospace, monospace;">Steve Caruso</b> <b style="color:#000000;">( desk / poll )</b> 18:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I misunderstood your edits. I thought you had entirely removed the template from the article instead of moving it to the Christianity section. Without entirely endorsing your reasoning, I don't object to that result. Next time I'll read more carefully. Sorry too for causing the page to be locked. Tom Harrison Talk 18:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem! :-) Misunderstandings happen all the time (God knows I've had, and continue to have, my fair share of them). All I'm hoping for now are a few more opinions and we can probably get this lock lifted. אמר <b style="color:#0033CC; font-family:monospace, monospace;">Steve Caruso</b> <b style="color:#000000;">( desk / poll )</b> 18:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This page is now protected due to continual back and forth removal/insertion of the template. Please resolve disputes then either ask me for unprotection or request unprotection at WP:RfPP. Page protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 18:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Christianity has recently been changed, and no longer includes the "controversial" "God the Son" link. The template now has its own section on Jesus Christ, which was an excellent edit in my opinion (I did not perform the edit). I don't know how someone got the idea of moving the template to the "Christian views" section of this article, but it is ridiculous. The opening sentence of this article refers to Jesus being the "central figure of Christianity", and he is certainly known best (perhaps only) for his association with Christianity. If this template is either removed or moved to the "Christian views" section, I will have to begin removing other templates such as Template:Buddhism from Buddha and other related edits to prevent discrimination against Christianity. Please, let's just leave the template at the top where it resided for so long, uncontroversially. &mdash; `C RAZY `( IN )`S ANE ` 19:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, we've had this discussion before (Talk:Jesus/Archive_58) and the Christianity template has remained at the top of the article for quite some time since this initial debate. As we concluded there, Jesus is the central figure of Christianity and is thus a fundamental part of it, making this article an obviously integral part to the series of articles on Christianity. Not only is the Christian views section part of that series, but so is the entire historical context and biography according to the New Testament. In short, the entire article is very very relevant to Christianity in a way it is to no other religion. Similarly, Muhammad has the same relevance to Islam, hence that template being at the top of that article. The same applies to Buddha and the Buddhism template. Funny, I don't see those templates being (re)moved. — Aiden 19:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Non-Christian religions aren't being meddled with because their is clearly an anti-Christian status in today's Western society, much as some may deny. Some may see Christianity as a threat due to its overwhelming population in North America and Europe, and thus are focused more on eliminating, or reducing, Christian influences on Western culture. This is why I hold that if the Christianity template is herein removed, I will subsequently remove the Islam and Buddhism templates from Budda and Muhammad to avoid anti-Christian bias. &mdash; `C RAZY `( IN )`S ANE ` 21:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Fight the Good Fight - huh? Steve is trying to balance the article to achieve what he sees as NPOV (and I personally agree that he has a point) so he doesn't deserve to be faced with this martyr mentality. As for the other religious templates, is there somewhere where we could start a general cross religion discussion to get some sort of consensus on placing these templates? Sophia  21:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, I appreciate the kind words and I believe that your idea about a cross-religion discussion is something that is far long overdue. We need to come up with standards with how to deal with articles on religion, as it is something of universial importance to the human race, and touches each and every one of us in some way throughout the course of our lives.

CrazyInSane, I was the one who made the edit to the Christianity template, which was subsequently reverted. :-( Jesus may be the "central figure of Christianity" but the Christianity template is not centered around Jesus (the Jesus template is). I firmly believe that the template should not be removed, but that at the top of the article, it is in direct conflict with the policies that I have stated above, and unless we are able to collectively conclude that it does not conflict with those policies, putting it in the Christianity section is the most appropriate course of action. This, of course, would also hold true with all other religion templates and their respective figures. It would kill me to only single one out and leave the others alone, but with how things are currently set up, the situation and policy, we need to resolve this and the Jesus article appears to be the first step towards bringing every article into complaince. I have no anti-Christian bias to speak of. I do take concern, however, when the policies of Wikipedia, which came into being through consensus of our fellow editors, are disregarded even if no harm was meant. For now, I must ask you with the most sincere respect to discuss the policies specifically so that we may take further steps towards resolving this in a friendly manner.

Aiden, I truly appreciate your input, but what you linked to doesn't really discuss the Christianity template, but the Islam template, and under my proposal both templates, in their respective sections, could be allowed to co-exist peacefully and without conflicting with NPOV. As I mentioned earlier, I am not biased against Christianity, nor do I believe that there is an anti-Christian conspiracy in the United States. :-) As stated earlier, my proposal would bring all major religious figures under the same wing, in compliance with the policies that I have outlined above, not singling any one or few out. I don't mean this article, or anyone involved with this article any personal distress, but we must focus upon Wikipedia policy in our contribution. What are your thoughts, specifically about the policy?

Once again, to everyone involved if I have misinterpreted the policies, please show me my error. I am willing to be honest in my evaluations and alter my stance if I am mistaken. Peace! אמר <b style="color:#0033CC; font-family:monospace, monospace;">Steve Caruso</b> <b style="color:#000000;">( desk / poll )</b> 01:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought I explained why the entire article, not just one section, is an integral part of the series. This applies to the Islam template at Muhammad and the Buddhism template at Buddha. There is no POV violation going on in any instance. And if you truly believe an NPOV violation is occuring, feel free to move the Islam template to the Life based on Islamic traditions of the Muhammad article and the Buddhism template to an appropriate section in Buddha as well. — Aiden 01:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to agree with Aiden here. Pretty much the entirety of this article's sources for Jesus' historicity are based on writings from the New Testament and Christian writings, not to mention the fact that Jesus is considered God in Christianity, which is overwhelming merit for the Christianity template to have its place at the beginning of the article. Placing it in the "Christian views" section brings it to the same level as "Buddhist views" or "Jewish views", when in fact Christianity and Jesus are very related. But come on, Steve, can you even perceive an issue with this level of ridiculousness surfacing over at Talk:Buddhism or Talk:Islam?? Your declaration of violations of NPOV would probably not be agreed with there, which is giving me the strong inclination to believe that you (perhaps unintentionally) are targeting Jesus and Christianity simply because of their powerful popularity. I don't think that when Jimbo Wales said "absolutely non-negotiable NPOV", he meant it would get this ridiculous. And articles like "Buddha" and "Muhammad" dont even have sections entitled "Buddhist views on Buddha" or similar, so moving the template at those articles would be hard to do, giving the appearance of anti-Christian bias regarding the templates. I don't know how to better explain myself, but I strongly disagree with moving the Christianity template to the Christian views section. And as for your quote, "nor do I believe that there is an anti-Christian conspiracy in the United States", please see Spring holiday and Secularization of Christmas. &mdash; `C RAZY `( IN )`S ANE ` 02:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Aiden and CrazyInSane: Moving the Islam and Buddhism templates would be the next step, as I have previously mentioned. However, before moving on to either of those, since the Jesus article is the article that I have been most active with in the past, it is the beginning. This move towards full compliance with policy needs to start somewhere. Why not here? Simply calling this proposal "rediculous" does not actually deal with the policy as it is written.


 * I also find the following very disppointing, Placing it in the "Christian views" section brings it to the same level as "Buddhist views" or "Jewish views".... On Wikipedia, all views are on the "same level." No view should be given special privileges over another and the policy is explicit about this. This is not an attack against either of you, nor against Christianity in whole or in part. I'm being honestly sincere about this. It is about being fair.


 * Now, let us focus back upon the policy as it stands. Does the placement of the Christianity template at the top of this article allow for one religious viewpoint {...} preference over others ? אמר <b style="color:#0033CC; font-family:monospace, monospace;">Steve Caruso</b> <b style="color:#000000;">( desk / poll )</b> 14:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * (As a sidenote, CrazyInSane, I note that both of the articles on conspiracies you linked to are actively NPOV disputed and you are a major contributor to both of them, the major contributor to Spring holiday it seems. :-) I respectfully request that we solely focus on task at hand here. ) אמר <b style="color:#0033CC; font-family:monospace, monospace;">Steve Caruso</b> <b style="color:#000000;">( desk / poll )</b> 14:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Steve Caruso: Regarding the Secularization of Christmas and Spring holiday articles, any article containing alleged conspiracy or bias will inevitably be NPOV disputed; please don't judge the accuracy and merit of these article based upon my extensive contributions. If you were to read the articles (Spring holiday, especially) you would note that there are extensive sources for all of the claims, and that it's not a bunch of original research and it meets WP:V.


 * Please don't misunderstand me. I had no intention of judging the accuracy of those articles, especially here (it just would not be appropriate). I was merely trying to coax our conversation back to the issue at hand. Off of this discussion thread I would actually like to hear about your theories and possibly contribute to those articles. אמר <b style="color:#0033CC; font-family:monospace, monospace;">Steve Caruso</b> <b style="color:#000000;">( desk / poll )</b> 17:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As for the issue at hand, I am very uptight about it because I want to ensure that there is no singling out of Christianity in regards to certain NPOV issues, when these issues are disregarded at other religious articles. I mean, look at the situation...Jesus has all dates referred to in "AD" and "CE". Out of all Wikipedia articles, Jesus should be one of the articles to have only AD and BC. Ancient Egypt and Ancient Rome–related articles all use only AD/BC, but somehow the Jesus article cannot. I find this alarming and a sign of bias against Christianity at Wikipedia and among its users. This is why I am so defensive of this article, because I feel (and it's a fact) that Christian-related articles are more subject to so-called "extensive NPOV" when other articles aren't. All Jewish articles contain only "BCE/CE", and anyone who suggests "AD/BC" should be used there would be dismissed as incompetent.


 * I completely understand how you feel about the AD/CE issue. I personally feel that it is silly, and I have actually been working on an effective solution to the problem for some time now that you may be interested in, but that is for another thread altogether (hit me on my talk page later and I'll tell you all about it). אמר <b style="color:#0033CC; font-family:monospace, monospace;">Steve Caruso</b> <b style="color:#000000;">( desk / poll )</b> 17:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My point here is that I do not like the fact that this page is currently locked from editing with the Christianity template in the "Christian views" section, and I really am soon going to perform similar actions at the Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and other articles if it is not restored. I do not totally disagree with placing the Christianity template in the "Christian views" section if the same is done for all the other similar articles before we accomplish it here. I do, however, still believe that NPOV is not violated by placing the template at the very top, because although we're not to "place any religious belief above another", Jesus is an integral part of Christianity and his historicity is mainly based on Christian texts. But if there is a large consensus to move the template, I won't disagree if it is done everywhere else first, because I absolutely despise religious bias, whether in favor of Christianity or not. This is where I come to my quote from above, "Placing it in the "Christian views" section brings it to the same level as "Buddhist views" or "Jewish views"..."&mdash;I certainly did not intend to be derogatory here and I apologize. What I meant by that statement was that Jesus is much, much more of an important aspect of Christianity than he is of Judaism or Buddhism, and this is dually noted throughout the article. This should be acknowledged with the template placement as well&mdash;as is when the "Buddhism template" (as opposed to a Christianity template) is placed at the top of the "Buddha" article. &mdash; `C RAZY `( IN )`S ANE ` 16:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No offense taken, I was merely worried by how things were phrased. We do need to deal with these issues Wiki-wide. Christianity, by this proposal, cannot be singled out. If you wish to start moving templates before this issue is concluded here, I would warn against it. Once there is a precedent, it will be much easier to roll everything over. As I said, this has to start somewhere, and there is no reasonable reason why it cannot start here. Also, simply because of the fact that this article, even though Jesus may be "much more of an important aspect" to Christianity does not merit an excuse to make an exception to policy. I can only default to Jim's words. אמר <b style="color:#0033CC; font-family:monospace, monospace;">Steve Caruso</b> <b style="color:#000000;">( desk / poll )</b> 17:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In either case, i expect the Islam template in the Muslim section. , Im not to sure if i like the special treatment of the christian template going to the top, but im not going to bother fighting it... --Striver 02:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of "fighting it," it's a matter of working within Wikipedia policy. No religion should be given "special treatment," be it Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Spaghettimonsterism, whatever. Islam is also not a minority position when it comes to Jesus, as both Christianity and Islam have estimated memberships of approximately 1 billion people, worldwide, each. אמר <b style="color:#0033CC; font-family:monospace, monospace;">Steve Caruso</b> <b style="color:#000000;">( desk / poll )</b> 14:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The general facts contained in the article are mostly derived from the Bible, thus this article has irrevocable Christian viewpoint eg. birth, death and chronology of Jesus located in the shared part of the article are based almost solely on Gospels or various interpretations of thereof. - G3, 07:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Then the unfortunate conclusion is that the entire article must be rewritten to conform with NPOV, or the interpretations based upon theology moved to sections that outline them as the Christian point of view. This is not undoable and it is what the policy requires. :-( However, that is something that I am not asking for at this point in time. אמר <b style="color:#0033CC; font-family:monospace, monospace;">Steve Caruso</b> <b style="color:#000000;">( desk / poll )</b> 14:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thadman, you jump to that conclusion too hastily. This sentence, "The general facts contained in the article are mostly derived from the Bible, thus this article has irrevocable Christian viewpoint" is false.  Many historians who are either not Christian or who bracket their Christianity use the NT as a historical source.  Like other historical sources (say, the Iliad) they use critical methods for analyzing and interpreting the text.  This article already distinguishes between those general elements in the NT most historians accept as fact versus those elements emphasized by Christians, thus acknowledging the two major points of view, plus the third that rejects the existence of Jesus period. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand and agree with what you say Slrubenstein. :-) I merely was following G3's claims to their logical conclusion. I'm well aware of the forms of criticism that are employed to construct a scholarly framework to work with ancient texts, and I have much practical experience with employing them (actually, for a few years I was under the tutelage of Dr. Mahlon H. Smith of the Jesus Seminar). I don't believe that this article has an "irrevocable Christian viewpoint," nor do I think that it is in need of a serious revision to bring it into line with NPOV at this point. What I want to focus upon is the placement of that template, and it's relevance to the equality of religious viewpoint sections. אמר <b style="color:#0033CC; font-family:monospace, monospace;">Steve Caruso</b> <b style="color:#000000;">( desk / poll )</b> 18:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Steve, the problem with taking the Islamic viewpoint as historical is that the Qu'ran was written over 500 years after Jesus death and it does not draw from any historical sources. In fact, the Qu'ran, written entirely by one man (Muhammad) does not draw from any other sources. In the writings of the Gospels (which at the very least can be tracked back to a generation after Jesus life) draw from historical sources. For example, The Gospels mention Caeser, Pontius Pilate, Caiphas, and others who are confirmed to have lived during this time. It's very frustrating to hear someone complain about the historical existence of Jesus when we have enough evidence that indicates that he must have existed (or at least those who lived during his lifetime attest that he had). Its more frustrating to relate to Islamic sources, which were five centuries detached from the events, and among other things confuse his mother's father with another Mary (Miriam sister of Moses). With Judaism, no one would dispute the existence of Moses, or Elijah. With Islam no one disputes the existence of Muhammad. Why then must Jesus be disputed within Christianity? No religion should be given special treatment, nor should any religion be given undue denigration. Bear in mind, they won't even put the word origin and translation of his name in the first paragraph. --Zaphnathpaaneah 15:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * With great respect Zaphnathpaaneah, I'm not trying to discuss historicity or the existence of Jesus, I am trying to deal with issues of religious bias in terms of the placement of that template, solely. At the top of the article, it gives undue weight under Wikipedia policy and would be most appropriate under the Christian views section, just as an Islam template would be most appropriate under the Islamic views section. The existence of Jesus or his role in Christianity is not something that I'm even willing to argue over in this context, as for all intents and purposes concerning the placement of this template, they are moot (do you at least see what I mean?). I'm not disputing Jesus' role within Christianity, nor am I disputing Christianity's connection to Jesus. We have a section dedicated to that subject and that section is most appropriate for our template, no? אמר <b style="color:#0033CC; font-family:monospace, monospace;">Steve Caruso</b> <b style="color:#000000;">( desk / poll )</b> 18:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Steve, undue weight deals more with giving minority or less significant views equal footing with a majority or more prominent view. "Undue weight" is confining the Christianity template to the Christian views section, when as several editors have pointed out, the entire article, including historical and cultural context, historicity, and New Testament accounts are all very integral parts of Christianity. Thus, the entire article, not just the section you're confining the template to, is also an integral part of the series on Christianity. It seems to me you're making an issue where there isn't one, similair to how you've created this Talk section titled Resolving the Christianity template dispute to discuss a dispute which you created. As I've said in the past, this issue has been discussed at length before and most editors seem to recognize the article's pertinence to Christianity and (thus) the Christianity template. In the same respect, having the Islam template at the top of Muhammad is not a POV violation, as not only the Sura section, but also the Popular Muslim traditions, Muslim veneration for Muhammad, Historical significance, et al sections are very related to the Islam series. Secondly, it is not a violation of WP:NPOV to include the template because the template itself must also maintain a neutral point of view. Does having the template at the top of the article convey any POV? No. All it does is provide context to this article in respect to other related articles. Jesus is GOD in (most) Christianity and thus undue weight would be applying the same significance to other views in which Jesus has nowhere near the same significance. — Aiden 20:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The comparison to the Buddha article is off. Buddha is to Christ, as Jesus is to Gautama Buddha. Next, there is already a few templates on this article, and stacking vertical templates is a terrible idea (using tables to separate them is one option. And to whoever reverted the template move and ignored my note in my edit summary... would you like to learn how to not stack vertical templates?) We have: Topics related to Jesus, Major events in Jesus' life in the Gospels, and Christianity. The "Events" template fits nicely in the section about, well, events. The Jesus Topics template seems to go fine at the top. So where should we put the Christianity template? There is a section about religious perspectives. Christianity is a religion... so it seems logical to put the template in that section. What am I missing? That because Jesus is MORE important to Christianity, that their perspective should go at the top of the article instead of in the religious perspective's section? Seriously, I don't get it. --Andrew c 20:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The thing is, Jesus and Gautama Buddha are both inseparable from the religions that they each founded. Even when discussing the historical figures, it's because of those religions that they are notable.  Jesus is not only more important to Christians, but he's more important to everyone else because of Christianity.  Consideration should be given for putting the Christianity infobox near the top not because it gives a Christian perspective (it should be NPOV, same as everything else), but because Jesus' importance is inextricably linked with Christianity, so it is likely to be useful to someone reading the article. Sxeptomaniac 22:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Then if Gautama Buddha is an example of a person who is "inseperable" from the religion he founded and is an acceptable expression of Wikipedia templates, why do we not follow that article's example? The buddhism template is at the very bottom of the page. My point is, that just because a figure is "inseperable" or "the focus" of a religion, does not mean that it must be stamped at the top of the article, as with Jesus, more than one religion wishes to have that stamp. However, each of those religions has their own religious section, and I can only agree with Andrew c's wording: "Christianity is a religion... so it seems logical to put the template in that section." אמר <b style="color:#0033CC; font-family:monospace, monospace;">Steve Caruso</b> <b style="color:#000000;">( desk / poll )</b> 12:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally don't have a strong preference for putting it at the top or near the bottom. However, the debate and the poll is around whether or not something is wrong with placing at the top.  My answer to that remains No.  So, it doesn't matter where they actually put the box on Gautama Buddha, because if the debate came up there, my answer would be the same: that putting the Buddhism box near the top does not violate NPOV. Sxeptomaniac 15:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)