Talk:Jesus/Archive 96

"Me!"
A user appears to have vandalised this page, and has not been corrected. I do not have the ability to correct it, please revert it back to its previous state.

76.19.215.204 (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Joseph dies
I removed this from the section on the Gospel account:
 * John's account of Jesus commending Mary into the care of the beloved disciple during his crucifixion suggests that Joseph had died by that time.

for two reasons. First, in principle I think that the section on "according to the Gospels" shoule be just that, what the Gosepels say. So John doesn't explicitly say Joseph died. Hmmm. Curious. Why not? i do not know. What I do know is, John doesn't say he died. Any further discussion is interpretation, and doesn't belong in this section. Second, the reason given is one POV and a specifically Christian one. here is another interpretation: by the time John wrote his book, Christians stopped thinking of Jesus as a human and son of two humans and were starting to assert his divine nature. Maybe John couldn't write "Joseph died ..." because there were still accounts circulating that made more mention of Joseph, who knows? But maybe John did put in this line in order to call attention to the importance and authority of jesus' disciples. I realize this is a view Christians will reject out of hand. So what are we going to do, get into a revert war? I suggest that we put what the Gospels say in the Gospels section, what historians think in the historians section, and what Christians think in the Christian section. "Undue weight" is not just about one hundred sentences as opposed to one sentence. it is also about presenting one point of view and not mentioning any other possible views. This article has a structure that provides space for various views, let's honor that. And I also continue to believe that interpretations about joseph belong in the Joseph article. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just the other day I was thinking that sentence didn't seem to fit in the gospel summary section.-Andrew c [talk] 18:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A biography of Jesus has to include discussion of his parents or alleged parents. Otherwise it wouldn't be a biography ("life story").  One sentence, with supporting source, stating that Joseph might have already died, seems perfectly apt.  It would not bother me if you moved it to another section of this article.  But completely ignoring whether his father was yet living in his own article seems a bit too far.Wjhonson (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"A biography of Jesus has to include discussion of his parents or alleged parents. Otherwise it wouldn't be a biography ("life story")" is a silly sentence for two reasons. First, it is a little silly because this is an article on Jesus, not specifically a "biography." Second, it is very silly because it calls for a cookie cutter approach (all articles must follow the same format, contain the same kinds of information) using circular reasoning (a biography has to include x because all biographies include x and if this doesn't include x it is not a biography ... good grief! Thank god Picasso didn't follow your rules for portraiture!). Wjhonson, let's stick to reality, shall we, and Wikipedia policies? Wikipedia articles reflect the current state of research. They provide accounts of all notable views, from reliable sources. The Gospels do not state that Joseph "might have died" and I know of no notable historian who has a notable view on this. Do you? If there is a reliable source with a notable view, by all means, we put it in. But if there are no notable views we don't just go about making things up because it suits our fancy. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Good cut, SLR. I'm embarrassed that I missed it. Leadwind (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Birthdate
Shouldn't it be from 7-4 BC, since Herod died in 4 BC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.199.102 (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding "Peace Be Upon Him"
I insist that Peace Be Upon Him or PBUH be added after every reference to Jesus (PBUH) on this page and on every page which mentions Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him) in Wikipedia. In many articles on Islam and Muhammad, this is done. If Wikipedia is allowing the Muslims to put this phrase after every mention of their "prophet," then I think it is only fair that Christians should get to do this for Jesus Peace Be Upon Him.

Please take care of this promptly so that Wikipedia can stop endorsing Islam and start endorsing all religions equally.

Praise be to Jesus Peace Be Upon Him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.141.32.117 (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * At least in the Muslim tradition, PBUH is a common phrase. That phrase is not used traditionally in Christianity. That said, we shouldn't be using honorifics for people, see Manual_of_Style_(Islam-related_articles) and Manual_of_Style_(biographies). I also get a sense that this isn't a serious suggestion, so you may also want to read WP:POINT. The best solution to take care of POV is not to add opposite POV in other article, but to correct the improper POV in the first place. Could you perhaps name some of the offending article on Islam?-Andrew c [talk] 05:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To anonymous editor: Your request is denied, per WP:NPOV and WP:POINT. Just because other articles contain a phrase characteristic of Muslim bias, doesn't mean this article should. =Axlq (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What you write, O original poster, is not true. The name of Muhammed is not followed by PBUH. See Muhammed for details. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Aaah... I'm pretty sure the guy was just joking with you! Atleast I hope I'm right about this :-). --PureRumble (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Other religions"
Currently the article says "Jesus...was a 1st century Jewish teacher who is the central figure of Christianity, and is also an important figure in several other religions."

The word "religions" is linked to Abrahamic religion. While many religions have views, to some degree or another, on Jesus, which religion, besides Christianity, considers Jesus "an important figure"?

Islam is one, and the Bahaism would be another. If there are only two, then why not just mention them by name, instead of using a more vague term "other religions"?Bless sins (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Presumably because there are other groups such as the Latter-Day Saints whose status as Christian groups is controversial but for whom Jesus is undeniably important. Heck, the Latter-Day Saints even put Jesus's name into the name of their church! By saying "other" religions" we avoid having to take sides on which religions are CHristian and which aren't.

65.213.77.129 (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Also Jehovah's Witnesses. These groups are named-- but lower down in the article.--Carlaude (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the better topic?
I was just wondering something here. Is there any way to have this article to be the main article on Wikipedia? Colleenthegreat (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Featured articles are presented on the front page, and represent the highest-quality content created by the Wikipedia community. There are strict criteria for quality which must be met for an article to be considered, for neutrality, completeness, accuracy, and formatting among other things. ~ S0CO ( talk 01:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Does this article to meet these qualities? Can we make it so it can be the main article, or a featured article? How do we do this? Colleenthegreat (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Presently, the article is rated as a Good article, which is more than can be said for most articles on Wikipedia. This means that this article has met the quality standards of a somewhat looser set of guidelines. As Wikipedia is a collaborative project, everyone is allowed to make edits to improve the article. I would advise you to look through the list of conditions which featured articles must meet. If this article has improved to the point where it meets these high standards, it may be considered for featured article status. The article must first undergo peer review before it can be nominated for featured status, though. For more information, I would recommend that you drop a note on Raul654's talk page. He is a Wikipedia admin and the present Featured Article Director, and I'm certain he could answer any questions you have more thoroughly than I could. Best of luck. ~ S0CO ( talk 04:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thank you for being so nice and answering my questions so thoughtfully! You're a credit to what Wikipedia can and should be :) Take care! Colleenthegreat (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Peer review is compulsory now? Chensiyuan (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Alos this article is painful to read. Could it be made written in a less academic style? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.52.219 (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There's always the (very) plain-english version ~ S0CO ( talk 04:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I find the plain English version painful to read - can't we make that one more, well, interesting? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I also have had difficulty with both english wikipedias. The normal english version is too hard to read and the simple english version is just too trivial and doesnt tell much. Couldnt anyone make a wikipedia where the english would be easy to read by the middle-ranked (normal) people?Skele (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I consider this article indicitive of what a "normal" native english speaker can understand. Are there any words or sentences that confuse you in this article? If this is a general issue you have with the English Wikipedia, you could propose a new Wikipedia but I doubt a "moderate English" Wikipedia will pass, and I seem to recall such an attempt already failing. Gathering support for such a wikipedia would be difficult. Instead, I would suggest being bold and trying to simplify any overly complicated sentences you encounter on this wikipedia. Or, you could always ask someone to do it for you. Okiefromokla questions? 20:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you know what "arrogated" meant? I just changed it. rossnixon 00:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Now there's a good example of a word that may be confusing. Okiefromokla questions? 19:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)