Talk:Jesus/Archive 84

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 80

←

Archive 82

→

For FAC status

The way I see it, the only obvious thing left to fix in this article is reference the new last sentence of the second paragraph, since there are only references to Jesus-myth types, but not to inerrantist or near-interrantist scholars, or to a reference which would just plainly indicate that neither side has many people. After that, would anyone be opposed to another FA nom, I think the last time was a bit problematic because there were a bunch of references things to fix and some weird thing about expanding mention of the Apocrypha and the Jewish Messiah which I think probably wern't appropriate, but the nom was so spur of the moment, I don't think anyone who would of known how to was ready to really respond to those criticisms :/. Homestarmy 01:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If no good reference if found, we could discuss improving the previous sentence that was used - such as Very few scholars question the historical existence of Jesus, or argue for a completely mythological Jesus. ^ross ^nixon 02:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It occurs to me now that, technically speaking, neither the references there now nor references for the more literalist perspective would necessarily support the premise of the sentence, namely that neither side has many people on it. Is the sentence as it stands now really a very controversial assertion anyway? If not, it shouldn't need any references at all, since supposedly, inline citations in a lead should only be used for particularily controversial sentences. Homestarmy 01:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the sentence should read "Very few scholars believe that all ancient texts concerning Jesus are either completely accurate or completely inaccurate concerning Jesus' life, and almost none doubt his actual existence."

My main reason for this is because I've often encountered amongst teenagers and uninformed young adults the view that Jesus is some sort of myth that was completely made up. I think this addition would help dispel a commonly held fallacious belief. Jstanierm 20:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I will add it. I don't feel strongly about it, and I haven't read any previous arguments. I think it sums up the main issue. If for some reason another editor feels its unnecessary then by all means remove it.Jstanierm 20:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I still dislike these sentences, because they are essentially empty of meaning. What does "Jesus existed" mean in this context?

There was a person named Yeshua in Israel?
There was a Yeshua son of Yosef in Israel?
There was a Jewish teacher crucified by the Romans?
There was a Jewish teacher called Yeshua crucified by the Romans?
There was a Jewish teacher, son of Yosef and Miriam, preaching the Sermon on the Mount and later crucified by the Romans?
There was a Jewish teacher, son of Yosef and a virgin Miriam, preaching the Sermon on the Mount, later crucified by the Romans, who rose from the dead?

The first is more or less certain, the last will only be believed by devout Christians. But where does "Jesus existed" start? --Stephan Schulz 22:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The sentence still has the problem with the references not actually citing the entire thing anymore. Homestarmy 22:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Another thing that was bugging me was that it doesn't really seem to flow with the sentences above it. In context, how does "However, scholars do not agree about how much information on Jesus from ancient texts is accurate, and very few believe those texts to be either compleatly accurate or compleatly innacurate" sound? I really think it builds more on the idea that the first two sentences are talking about scholar's mainstream opinions on what basic information is mostly agreed upon about Jesus. Homestarmy 22:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are valid concerns, and your suggestion would be fine (after spell check though ;)-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I recommend enhancing this by including footnote [3] and also provide relevant Wiki-links, thus:

"However, scholars do not agree about how much information on Jesus from ancient texts is accurate, and very few believe those texts to be either completely accurate or completely inaccurate.[3][4]" I also have an additional reference. LotR 13:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this issue is closely tied to the section "questions of reliability" I find that section is very POV and uses weasel words, such as "various people say..." or "according to several etc.." I would like to rewrite it but I'm at work and I'll get to it later if none of you do.

I think this article in an effort to remain NPOV has become a little confusing for a reader who would be unfamiliar with Jesus. I think it's important to dispell assumptions that a. Jesus never existed and b. If Jesus existed we know nothing about that existence because its been so distorted by mythology like Santa Claus, Robin Hood, or King Arthur.

Amongst scholars, aside from a very small and radical minority there is consensus that Jesus was a Jewish rabbi who lived in Palestine around the turn of the first century based on purportedly (and there's little reason to doubt their assertations) first hand records written within that same century. To an ancient scholar this is excellent source material. More than any biographical record we have of Alexander the Great all of whose contemporary biographies have been lost. Of course, people can debate the truthfulness of the documents (was there really a ressurection? were there really miracles?), but it would be nonsensical and unprecedented to assume the authors completely made him up. Jstanierm 16:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, could we implement LotR's version in the meantime? I think it would be very strange if the sentence that's live now was not called out in any future FAC's.... Homestarmy 02:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

So Jstanierm, would you be fine with someone replacing your sentence with LotR's version? Homestarmy 23:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't think this should go for another candidacy until the BC/BCE tags are sorted out - it just looks silly. It's quite clear BC/AD should be used. The Muhammad article uses BCE, so why shouldn't this use BC? Please, none of the "oh but really all articles should use BCE" nonsense. If it's fair to exclusively use BCE for non-Christian religious figures, I think it's perfectly acceptable to exclusively use BC for Christian ones. Otherwise there's one rule for Christian religious articles and another one for non-Christians religious articles. John Smith's 15:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, we should leave this "can of worms". It's annoying visually, but does not affect the details/meaning/information value at all. ^ross ^nixon 02:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Then what you're saying is that articles could have colour/color all over the place and get FA status. I disagree. It is annoying visually, and it can be easily changed to BC/AD. If certain users fight over this, go to mediation or arbitration. There are various ways to resolve this matter - it's a cop-out to refuse to deal with it. John Smith's 11:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've changed it. According to WP:MOS, Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. The first contribution here was fairly major and used BC/AD. WP:MOS urges consistency inside an article - dual usage because some people have got angry in the past is not a reason to refuse consistency, especially where it is more appropriate to use a style like this here (in a primarily Christian article). You don't see people getting their way to have dual usage on the religious pages of non-Christian figures.

If you really want the page to get FA status, you need to make bold attempts like this to make the page better. If you want to keep the previous poor style because some people will fight it, then it doesn't deserve FA status. John Smith's 11:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted you. It was a long process that we have done at least twice in the past (see the archives) that reached us to this compromise. Please respect the consensus. If you believe a couple of letters after a date is so important, you are welcome to try and reach a new consensus, but please don't edit without consensus on a topic that has been so controversial in the past. Discuss first, and only then if a new consensus is reached, make the appropriate changes. I hope you understand why I reverted. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand why you reverted, but I don't accept it. Wikipedia rules are quite clear. People can't hold an article to ransom because they're not happy - that essentially seems to have been what the BCE/CE brigade did in the past. They have to respect the rules, and the rules say that "when in doubt" you go to the earliest major contribution. That's what I've done, also citing the fact an important Christian article is better with the BC/AD terms.

Don't revert me - let's see how long it takes until someone else objects. John Smith's 14:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'm only doing this to try to help the article get FA status - objections would be raised because of the dual terms. Certainly I couldn't support it until the matter was resolved. John Smith's 14:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Umm, regarding FA status. We were up for nomination back in April, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jesus/archive2. Only a single (anonymous, mind you) editor mentioned the era notations. So, I did not get the impression that the reason we failed FAC is because of the era notation, therefore I think our efforts are better spent elsewhere. As for "Let's see how long it takes"... well the answer was 4 minutes. Really, please look at the archives to see the huge votes that took place in the past. We cannot ignore the community consensus when so many people voiced their opinions in the past. I'm going to respond to your "Wikipedia rules are quite clear" here with WP:IAR. If the community supports this notation, and it keeps the peace, then that is more important than the era notation guidelines.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fine - let's have another discussion on it.

Virgin Birth

I think the article would be better if "immaculate conception" replaced "virgin birth" throughout... What do other editors think? Petepetepetepete 11:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Immaculate Conception does not relate to Jesus it refers to his mother - click on the link. "Virgin Birth" for Jesus is correct. -- SECisek 11:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

With respect, that's not a great answer. Jesus was the immaculate conception. Just as Mary was the virgin who gave birth. Neither refers exclusively to Mary or to Jesus. Petepetepetepete 11:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, in theology, Immaculate Conception refers to MARY being concieved with out sin. It has nothing to do with Jesus. Jesus' was a Virgin Birth, again maybe you didn't click on the links. Give them both a read. -- SECisek 12:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the confusion:

Immaculate Conception#Common misinterpretations

--SECisek 12:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Okeydoke... at least I learnt something, keep up the good work Petepetepetepete 12:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The term "Immaculate conception" is fairly unique to Roman Catholic theology, and as previously pointed out, is subject to various misinterpretations. I have never heard nor seen it used in Protestantism. I, too, agree that "Virgin Birth" is theologically correct. It also is consistent with the Apostles' Creed and other historic creeds of Christianity. Afaprof01 05:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Some Anglicans use the term and have faith in the doctrine, but some Anglicans don't self-identify as Protestant. Virgin birth IS what you want here. -- SECisek 06:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Joseph's status as Jesus' "father"

Per User Andrew C's request, my opinion is that we do a disservice to both truth and readership by sticking to the term "father." It is misleading in that it does not take into account the position of most Christians re: the Virgin Birth. I liked the most recent re-word by User RossNixon: "Joseph, husband of 'Mary" And I agree with this user that it allows for multiple beliefs (assumed father, actual father, adoptive father, etc.)

The Wiki article entitled Saint Joseph takes a lot of words, but perhaps we can "borrow" the idea expressed therein:

"...according to Christian Gospel accounts and tradition, the husband of Mary and the legal father of Jesus of Nazareth, although Christian faith tradition holds that Joseph did not physically beget Jesus, but that Mary had conceived him through divine means (see Virgin Birth)."

My personal opinion about the Jesus article is that it has become so "politically correct"--trying to be all things to all people--that it has become quite sterile, far beyond encyclopedic. Irrespective of all the different connotations about Jesus, he is the Founder of Christianity, and I don't think this article needs to apologize for that. Thanks! Afaprof01 05:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What was wrong with:

User RossNixon: "Joseph, husband of 'Mary"

Seems to be all things while remaining NPOV. -- SECisek 06:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying that this came up twice in the past, and it has come up before and we reached an agreement then. If editors want to change things, talk it out and if there is a consensus we can change it. I just want to stress the importance of process and discussion and consensus in such top tier article (especially when we have recently discussed this matter already). My concern is twofold with the text from the Joseph article. First it uses the term "legal" which isn't supported by the source material, and it introduces a Christian POV. Keep in mind that this is the Gospel summary section, and that we have a Christian interpretation section as well. I think the best thing is to follow the source material. Here is a proposal of mine for you to consider: The gospels mention Joseph in a few placed. They describe Joseph as "pledged to be married" to Mary (Matthew 1:17, Luke 1:27) and "husband of Mary" (Matthew 1:16, 1:18). They also describe Jesus as Joseph's son (Luke 4:22, John 1:45, 6:42), Joseph as Jesus' father (Luke 2:33, 2:48, John 6:42), and Jesus as "the son, so it was thought, of Joseph" (Luke 3:23). This way, we are simply following our sources. We are stating what the gospels say, which is the point of the section Life and teachings, as told in the Gospels. We can put other interpretations in other sections (or spinout articles).-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I vote with User RossNixon and User SECisek: "Joseph, husband of 'Mary". It's short and "sweet," not complicated, and totally congruous with scripture and essentially uncontested. Afaprof01 17:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Converts from Judaism?

There is dispute over whether Jesus thought of himself of not being Jewish. Is this category appropriate? I think not simply because it wouldn't be neutral to take sides in the debate. The article doesn't mention Jesus' conversion anywhere either, so the category isn't congruent with the article content.-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Jesus (assuming there is a single historical person behind the myth) almost certainly thought of himself as Jewish. Christianity as a separate religion is a later invention. Hence, Jesus could not have "converted" to Christianity, of course. And from a Christian perspective, he's one with the omniscient Father, so cannot have a belief at all - he just knows ;-) --15:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Nehemia_Gordon claims that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, and that the beginning of [23] indicates that Jesus told his disciples to "observe and do"" what Moses commanded. This would mean that Jesus saw himself not as a Christian but as the Jewish Messiah, the prophet that Moses promised in Deuteronomy [18].

From a Christian perspective, Jesus understood himself as the Jewish Messiah (and therefore was a religiously observant Jew), a role that was not only for Jews but for all nations, per Gen 22:18, Is 42:6, and Matt 28:19 (There are more verses about the Messiah than merely Deut 18 as cited by Nehemia_Gordon). The initial Christians (religious observance) were Jewish (nationality and religious observance); and time went on, the percentage of Christians who were Jewish declined, since Jewish nationality and observance were not understood to be requisites to be Christian. In short, Jesus was Jewish and fulfilled Judaism as had been foretold so that others could participate too. It would not be proper from a Christian perspective to say that Jesus "converted" to Christianity. The.helping.people.tick 02:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

This is a dispute about whether the dating terms BC/AD should be used exclusively, or the dual use of BC/AD and BCE/CE should be used together. 14:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

Some editors have claimed there is a consensus on this issue, but having reviewed the talk pages it appears it was still heavily contested, merely that no one really wanted to push the issue further. In any case, I feel that the current "compromise" was a poor one brought on by obstinant behaviour from some editors that violated Wikipedia guidelines, specifically WP:MOS.

For many years the BC/AD terms were used without problem from the start. WP:MOS says that a style established for so long shouldn't be changed without good reason. There is and was no good reason not to use BC/AD exclusively. So those who wanted to insist on BCE/CE were breaking Wikipedia guidelines.

If there are still any doubts, I refer you to the opening paragraph of WP:MOS.

Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

BC/AD was the style used by the first major contributor, so I believe it should be restored to that. It also makes much more sense given the primarily Christian nature of this article. John Smith's 14:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

This is a non-issue. We have had a stable consensus for years to use both on this page. It was a consensus that was reached by many wikipedia editors who had put a good deal of work into the article. Why change? Instead of trying to stir up trouble oaver this, why don't you do something positive, like, read the latest books by historians or theologians about Jesus, or see if there are any new articles in the major peer-reviewed journals, and actually add valuable content? Wikipedia shouldn't be about going around pushing an agenda, it should be about dedicated research to improve article content. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, maybe you could direct me to where this "consensus" was reached. I've only found archive pages where the matter has been disputed, not approved. It would help if I read that discussion.

Second, there was a stable consensus for a lot longer before-hand. Why was it necessary to change that?

Third, please don't accuse me of trying to stir up trouble or accuse people of pushing an agenda - that is not assuming good faith. If I see an issue that should be resolved, I have a right to raise it. If you don't want to discuss it you don't have to take part in the discussion.

Fourth, other users have raised this issue before so it's clear the "consensus" is no longer a consensus, just a majority view of usual editors to this article. John Smith's 14:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Great comment Slr. I want to say, John Smith's, that it is wrong to phrase the debate in terms of "BC/AD vs. BC/BCE and AD/CE". This really is a Common Era vs. Anno Domini discussion. You are presenting a false dichotomy in your opening statements. I'd also like to note that There is and was no good reason not to use BC/AD exclusively is a disputed statement and is belittling the opposition. Whether their arguments are compelling enough to change is another matter, but I do not believe it is inappropriate to say that there has been "no good reason" presented in the past. I'd prefer that this RfC be withdrawn. The dating issue didn't seriously come up in our last FAC, and this discussion is likely going to stop all other progress on this article for at least the next week.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, why is it false? The discussion is about whether to use BC/AD exclusively or the current dual approach.

I once again ask to see where the consensus was raised. Come on, help me out here and link to the discussion you're talking about. John Smith's 15:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that the link to Talk:Jesus/Archive details had been removed. Please see archives 14-17, 72, and any other archive that mentions BC/BCE.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

And the "false" aspect is that you are giving people two options "Use Anno Domini" or "Use both" when there is a third option, "Use common era".-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Andrew, but can you please find me the part where it shows consensus. I'm not accusing you of lying, I'm just only finding topics where disputes took place. John Smith's 15:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep both. There is little chance that a better consensus will be achieved, and as such this essentially a waste of time. The current system is a bit jarring, but clear and unambiguous. FAC will have to live with it. And this is not a "Christian", but an encyclopedic article, dealing with history, sources, and various religious views about Jesus. --Stephan Schulz 15:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So why is it the only article on a major religious figure (that I know of) that uses both terms instead of one? John Smith's 15:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

All the other ones I checked use CE/BCE exclusively. Apparently some editors objected strongly to that, for reasons I strongly suspect, but have difficulty to comprehend. Using just AD/BC is unacceptable for many people, as both the AD (Year of the Lord) and the BC (Before Christ, i.e. implying Jesus is the Messiah) make implicit statements that conflict with many peoples religious (or anti-religious) beliefs. --Stephan Schulz 15:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So in that case it is fine to use one term exclusively. The question then becomes which.

If you say using just BC/AD is unacceptable to many people, I could retort by saying many people see the use of both that and BCE/CE as unacceptable on a page like this. Indeed they may see the use of BCE/CE at all as being offensive. So that argument doesn't quite wash out. More importantly, and this is the key issue, WP:MOS says that either BC/AD or BCE/CE is acceptable for use. If some people can't cope with BC/AD, they are free to not use wikipedia - the same applies to anyone who can't stand BCE/CE. I see some people have mentioned NPOV before. Again, wikipedia guidelines rather show that NPOV isn't relevant to the issue of what term to use. John Smith's 15:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the examples show that it is ok to just use CE/BCE. As for people being offended by it: Tough luck. These are neutral terms. They make no religious claims at all. So what people are offended about is that they don't get to impose their religion onto others. I have no sympathy. There is no requirement I am aware of in any religion to list dates in a religious format. There are, however, many religions that forbid acknowledgement of other gods. Indeed, a fairly strong argument can be made that "AD 1500" violates the third commandmend (by standard protestant count), and, as far as I know, some Christian groups even agree with that argument. --Stephan Schulz 06:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

One could say "tough luck" to those that don't like BC/AD. If just CE/BCE is acceptable than so is just BC/AD. WP:MOS says that either term can be used. So your argument of "neutrality" is clearly invalid. If you want to argue for a re-write of WP:MOS, be my guest. Until you get that agreement, though, you have to respect those guidelines. John Smith's 07:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how you can reject the neutrality argument. CE/BCE makes no religious claim, either for or against any particular religion. BC/AD makes several such points. The situation is not symmetric. And apparently right now, neither WP:MOS nor WP:DATE prescribe how to select a dating system - the "earliest major contributor" seems to have been dropped. Anyways, as always, common sense and WP:IAR apply. Common sense and experience tell us that this is a useless discussion that will generate a lot of hot air, and that the admittedly ugly compromise has worked fine for years. --Stephan Schulz 07:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that WP:IAR applies here. Common sense in my mind says that there is no real problem with using BC/AD exclusively. If everyone here had merely cited a fear of revert wars, I might understand. However it appears that some people are against it being used at all and are actually using the "fear" as an excuse.

the "earliest major contributor" seems to have been dropped - no it hasn't. Check the third and last paragraph of MOS' introduction. John Smith's 23:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. I was looking for something specifically about dates. Just to make sure, you are referring to that line directly beneath If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason?

And yes, indeed, there are people here that prefer CE/BCE, and some that prefer AD/BC. There has been, however, no-one but you that wants to actually change the compromise solution. Looks like we have consensus (again) for that one. --Stephan Schulz 00:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You need to read the wikipedia definition of consensus. That is that everyone will live with the "consensus". I'm not going to start reverting again, but I'm not going to drop the issue now either. Also Storm Rider said he/she was in favour of BC/AD if the matter were continued. John Smith's 01:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep both. This harms no-one and is a workable consensus. Any attempt to impose one or other notation will lead to revert wars amd accusations. Paul B 15:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So what if various numbers of editors decided the current version isn't good and kicked off revert wars and accusations? What would you do then?

The simple answer is to do what I'm doing, using dispute resolution. You guys could have so easily taken this matter through the various steps and got a final answer if the disputes didn't end. But you're still on square one. A consensus is only useful when everyone agrees to it. As I've said more than once, users have been disputing the "consensus" you mention for years. So it's no longer a consensus, just a majority of views amongst people who watch this page. John Smith's 15:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You wanted opinions. I gave mine. Now you complain that "you guys" have not "taken this matter through various steps" to a "final answer". There is no final answer, and the best method of resolution is on the Talk page, not through instant appeals all the way to the Supreme Court. Paul B 16:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't complaining at all. I merely pointed out that if in the past there was such trouble as people fighting over the terms, matters could have been advanced to something more formal. We are using the talk page now, but in the past that was done a lot and could have been moved to a different dispute resolution method. So to claim as some people here have implied that the only way to resolve the matter was to have the current version is not true. John Smith's 16:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstand the use of "consensus" on Wikipedia. I'll admit the usage of the term is unfortunate, in that Wikipedia:Consensus is not the same as wikt:consensus -- it's most certainly not unanimity, and the fact there is disagreement does not mean there is no Wikipedia:consensus. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that "consensus" as how Wikipedia defines it is a super-majority? All I can see is that "Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome". So if one says they would not abide by the "outcome" (e.g. keeping the current version) then there is no consensus. John Smith's 16:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So your position is that if even you alone keep filling screens full of endless argument, then there is no consensus and we can carry on in permanent pointless disputation? That's not helpful. It's virtually trolling. Paul B 12:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Paul, I suggest you do what I have been advised to do - assume good faith. It is not trolling to have an opinion on a point and not be pushed to drop it. I am responding to what you and others write. So if you are tired to this discussion you can withdraw, having made your point. If you continue to comment you are either "trolling" yourself of feeding the "troll". John Smith's 13:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep both. (BC is kinda peculiar, to put it mildly. "Christ was born 4BC." Hm.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, can someone please dig out the "consensus topic" in the archives. If everyone here is so sure it was formally reached then they must know where it is. John Smith's 16:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

comment - I have always felt that BC/AD was the most appropriate usage for articles in English; I am not much for PC issues. I suspect the majority of average readers are still unfamiliar with the other notation.

This topic is often brought up and I think the concensus, without pointing to it because I don't know where it is exactly and don't want to take the time to find it, was that we were all just tired of seeing/hearing about it. However, I have always felt it was a rather silly outcome; acquiring a stutter just to make sure no personal sensibilities were offended. In the world of academia BCE/CE are used almost exclusively. In the US at large or commonly, one sees BC/AD used the majority of the time. The mere fact that everyone understands what 4 BC means when talking about the birth of Jesus Christ is evidence enough that BC is not taken literally, there is no "hmm" about it. John, I think people are just tired of the discussion; both sides are intransigent in their positions and the current method, though silly to an extreme, works. However, should editors be willing to attempt a final solution, I would be on the side of AD/BC simply because it is the most understood and most common usage in the English language.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Just to reiterate what Stephan Schultz said. This is not a Christian article but an article about a Jew who was the founder of a religion that has its own page. If all the other articles on deities use BCE/CE then for harmony we should use it here but the current system works, has more editor support than any other and has been stable for years. So far only John Smith's has advocated changing the page with Storm stating his preference but being willing to accept the current system. I frankly don't care as there are far more fun things to fight over but labels seem to be an important issue to religious people so I suppose theses cyclical disputes are inevitable. Sophia 08:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Like Storm Rider, my preference would be for BC/AD. I also feel that if we had that originally, it shouldn't have been changed. However, we seem to have a working consensus, and any change is likely to lead to edit wars over something that really isn't worth it. So, even though it's a bit silly, keep both. ElinorD (talk) 09:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Most Jews are offended or irritated by BC and AD because they suggest that Jesus really was Christ and Lord. In contrast, BCE and CE do not imply that Jesus was not Christ or Lord - it simply de-links our calendar from asserting that he is. There is a wolrd of difference between saying that "Jesus really was Christ" or Jesus is everyone's Lord" and saying "I do not believe Jesus is Christ and he is not my Lord." The former statements don't allow for other views; the latter statements definitely allow for other views (not everyone believes Jesus was Christ, but some do; Jesus is not everyone's Lord, but okay, he is your Lord." That is why BCE/CE is less offensive - you can use it and still think Jesus is one with God. Wut how can I say something happened fifty years before Christ without implying I believe Jesus was Christ? In short, the two systems are not comparable. But given how important Jesus is to Christians, I do not object to using AD/BC in this article as long as the other system, CE and BCE, which acknowledge that one does not have to believe Jesus is one's Lord, as well. Be that as it may, this has been relatively stable for years, years during which many people made real contributions to the article by adding content based on research. I still cannot believe that this issue is worth any time or energy when we could instead be reading books and peer-reviewed journal articles (which is time-consuming, but which will provide us with content that will make this a cutting edge encyclopedia). Slrubenstein | Talk 11:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Really, what evidence do you have for that? Jews I've met couldn't give a fig because they understand it's a historic link and most people use it in a non-religious way.

If you believe this to be a non-issue, you wouldn't keep writing so much. The fact you do shows that you do care about it. John Smith's 20:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, if you really did think so many people found the term BC/AD offensive, surely they would find BCE/CE almost as offensive because it's still measuring time in relation to Jesus' supposed birth. If they cared that much they'd insist wikipedia use a date system that wasn't based around Jesus' life at all. John Smith's 21:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Dating in relation to some agreed-upon event makes sense. The supposed birh of Jesus works ok. But calling it "BC" violates religious requirements for many people. I assume you are aware that Christ is not some guy's surname, but rather the declaration that he is "The Anointed One", i.e. the Messiah? --Stephan Schulz 09:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The article's title is "Jesus", not "Jesus Christ". I also think that if people are going to be so pedantic over two letters they're going to get annoyed over the significance over the date as well. Why should some random guy that various people don't think is terribly important be the basis of measuring time? I don't accept your argument on that front. John Smith's 11:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What does the articles title have to do with this? The dating system uses "before Christ", not "before Jesus". Everytime you use this, you implictely accept the core creed that differentiates Christianity from Judaism. Just imagine to be forced to use the phrase "Allahu Akbar" in everyday transactions (and that one does not even contradict Christian teaching...). And no one claims that Jesus (at least the legend, if not the man) is not important. --Stephan Schulz 12:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No I do not accept the "core creed" every time I use the term. I know non-Christians (whether atheists or belonging to another religion) who use BC/AD all the time. They couldn't give a fig, nor do I about what you mentioned.

Of course some people say Jesus was not important/that important. John Smith's 12:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)\

Indeed. There are people who use these as pure labels. Others are more aware of the history and meaning. Why do you care? And what is the reference for that "that" in your sentence? Yes, compared to the status as saviour of all mankind, some people say he is less important. But no-one I'm aware of claims he is not important at all - whether part real or pure myth, he is the central figure of a major family of religions.--Stephan Schulz 23:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did I say "that"? Because opinions can be relative - why else is the term used? John Smith's 23:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a useful answer. I asked why you care about AD/CE (question 1) and what your "that" (in "not that important") refers to (question 2). So what is the reference you compare Jesus to? --Stephan Schulz 00:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What is what reference I compare Jesus to?

Why do I care? Because I feel the article should use a consistent, single term in reference to the dates, and I do not agree with the arguments that BC/AD is so "offensive" so as to require it to sit alongside BCE/CE. As the earliest term used in the first major contribution, BC/AD is the best choice in my opinion. John Smith's 01:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I'm for BCE/CE, as I always prefer PC terms, and beleive this one should replace everywhere the antiquated and religiously based AD/BC terms. I think WP, being a secular encylopedia, should have a preference for the former in all cases, but also because its the standard in academia.Giovanni33 20:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, I'm somewhat surprised you've appeared here. When was the last time you had an interest in religious matters or date terms? Your previous accusations over wiki-stalking towards me are looking rather hollow right now. And please, spare me "assume good faith" - you've declared you have the right to decide when it applies and not in the past. John Smith's 20:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

John Smith's - play nice and AGF (that's what I'm doing with you despite your aggressive style of posting). Gio may not have posted here for a while but he was very active around the times I remember discussing this the most last year. His appearance is not a surprise to me whereas your sudden interest, despite the fact that you were a registered user when this was really hashed over, is. Sophia 12:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sophia, thank you for informing me of his past involvement. However, Giovanni well understands what I mean. He has refused to AGF in the past, claiming he can decide when it applies and not. So if he would like me to assume good faith in this case, he can start AGF himself without making arbitrary decisions as to when he can and cannot.

How can my appearance be a suprise when I have never been here? How can a user thus ever start to get involved in a page? As you said, AGF. John Smith's 12:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to respond since its somewhate off topic. But, John Smith's please do assume good faith. I do check these pages occassionally, and have been involved in this topic many times in the past, as Sophia points out (I actually check Sophias contribs every now and then as we share similar article interests). That you did follow me to several articles before, or so it seemed, has nothing to do with this. Nor is my comment about assuming good faith relevant here (for the record, my point about that was there comes a point where no assumption is necessary given an abundance of evidence making any other interpretation beyond what is reasonable). That is just common sense, so please don't twist that to mean AGF does not apply; it does not invalidate your--or anyone else's--obilgation to AGF, where an assumption is quite necessary. Here that it certainly is the case, as you are making a very big, and rather blind, assumption regarding why I happen to be here despite, or ignorance, of the evidence to the contrary. This makes it a clear violation of AGF where the policy cleary is intended to apply.Giovanni33 20:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"That you did follow me to several articles before, or so it seemed" Yes, or so it seemed. And it seemed to be that was what you were doing here. John Smith's 22:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Showing up on one article that I've been to before and whose issue I have been involved in before, does not resemble in any way your wikistalking me to several articles that you had no history on until I showed up. If I did it to several of your articles (over 3), and it just happened, then you'd have a point. Its the point I had before when you kept showing up to revert me. But that is not what we have here, so for you to say it "seems" that way under these circumstances is a baseless attack and clear violation of AGF. There is no comparison.Giovanni33 00:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Following a comment I wrote to ElinorD, John Smith writes, "The article's title is "Jesus", not "Jesus Christ". I also think that if people are going to be so pedantic over two letters they're going to get annoyed over the significance over the date as well." But he is wrong. I have read (and listened to) lots of comments by people who oppose BC/AD; all of them are satisfied with BCE and CE, and none of them have gotten annoyed over the date. The only people who ever raise the possibility of this objection, in all my experience, are people who actually want to use BC/AD exclusively. In other words, it is a red-herring. I have explained, in good faith, with no insults, why many people are offended by BC/AD and John Smith's' response is, in effect, I am making it up. So we are all now clear on who lacks good faith. He certainly did not take my comment in good faith. He just wants to argue. If you want to fight, go to a pub and pick one. Me, I am checking my watchlist and then going back to reading a book - you know, doing research. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I think you are actually lacking good faith. I have never said anywhere you were making anything up. I merely disagree that so many people care that much. I think you only person picking a fight is you, because you clearly don't like being contradicted. That's not my problem. John Smith's 22:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Did I misinterpret your saying "Really, what evidence do you have for that?" as implying I have no evidence? I informed you that many Jews are offended by the use of BC/AD as general conventions (I mean, they are not offended when a Christian uses them, only when the Christian assumes everyone else has to use them). Why not accept what I say in good faith? I fully understand why Christians want to continue using BC and AD [1] but their reasons are precisely why many Jews do not want to be forced to use these terms.Slrubenstein | Talk 10:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you did misinterpret. I was trying to make the point that everyone's experiences differ. You can say "most" Jews are offended - it is my experience that is not the case. And you did say "most", not "many". If you want to retract your earlier comments, fair enough. Also, why are you bringing up American Baptists? John Smith's 10:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I am bringing up Southern Baptists because this discussion has so far been limited to the opinions of a handfull of editors and I think - especially since this is an encyclopedia - it is worth researching the reasons people outside of Wikipedia provide for preferring AD/BC oor BCE/CE, or opposing them. And no, I will stand by what I said: most Jews I know are irritated by or offended by the presumption that non-Christians should use BC and AD. Look at footnote 1 here - this is not a survey, just something I found on the web - but I think it illustrates the fact that the point I am making is non-controversial; other Jews take my point for granted. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I stand by my opinion that "most" Jews are not irritated or offended by the use of BC/AD on a project like wikipedia. Doesn't mean they like it, merely that they can live with it. Your link says that Jews don't use BC/AD - I'm sure a number (whether some or most) don't. But that doesn't mean they can't stand the idea of an encyclopedia like wikipedia using BC/AD, or that they would refuse to edit a page that uses it. On the subject of encyclopedia, I note that Britannica uses BC/AD exclusively. Does that means Jews refuse to access it?

As to those Americans, it's a red herring. We're discussing the issues here ourselves. So some Christians want to assert the use for religious reasons. Good for them - so what? I'm sure you don't agree with it, but that doesn't mean we can't use BC/AD other than as part of a "religious agenda". As I keep saying, if you're not happy with the use of BC/AD you can campaign to get wikipedia's guidelines changed. But whilst it remains an acceptable term you need to accept that. John Smith's 11:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia guidelines (whcih are only guidelines, not policy) in no way prevent editors from reaching the kinds of compromise they reached here, a compromise that I like most of us here find fully satisfactory, I see absolutely no need to change the guidelines. Obviously I accept the use of the term since I accept this compromise. That is what makes it a compromise, get it? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course compromise can be reached. I was merely pointing out that your view BC/AD is "offensive" is a personal one, not one supported by wikipedia guidelines. That said didn't you try to get the guidelines changed a few years ago? John Smith's 11:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy on these matters, only guidelines. Several years ago I tried to create a new policy. It lost, although my proposal had considerable support (my point only being that my view is not a fringe view. And obviously I accept the fact that the use of BC/AD is not a fringe view - my policy proposal was predicated on it not being a fringe view). As for my being offended - Elinor D, an editor I really respect, expressed her preference for BC/AD and I simply wanted to share with her my reasons for differing. Be that as it may, the policy proposal was some time ago and I don't feel a need to bring it up again. wWat we are dealing with right now is not Wikipedia policy i.e. all articles. We are talking about only one article, this one. As to the Manual of Style, no one here has ever claimed that it forbids AD and BC. What we do claim is that it also allows BCE and CE. Many people may prefer that any given article use only one system. But there is no policy on that, and we are not alking about all Wikipedia articles, only this one. People were divided over which one to use and felt strongly on both sides. And people on both sides acknolwedged that the opposing side felt strongly, and people on both sides expressed a desire for a compromise, and the compromise was to use both. And virtually all the major contributors to this article have been happy with that for years. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

On a side-note I think it's rather ironic that I'm being asked to assume good faith (fair enough) when some editors clearly don't want to take note of that guideline. I don't know, maybe it's a case of "four legs good, two legs bad"..... John Smith's 23:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Avoid neologism, use only BC/AD. I know I'm coming late to this scuffle. For the record, I prefer the use of BC/AD only and think that BCE/CE is rank neologism that ought not appear anywhere in Wikipedia, per WP:Avoid Neologisms. The.helping.people.tick 04:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Check the Common era article. Just because you've never heard of it doesn't make it a neologism. Sophia 05:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It's not that I've never heard of BCE/CE; I've heard this neologism far too much. In the article you cite, the earliest date given (with citation) for the use of the abbreviation BCE is 1856. Sounds new to me! Almost every supporting reference uses the clause, "Recently B.C.E. ... (has been used more and more among academics)", etc. That is why I consider BCE anc CE to be a pestilential neologism that unnecessarily complexifies the English language. Just because Wikipedia has an article on it doesn't mean that it isn't a neologism. The.helping.people.tick 13:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

In 1856 maybe it was a neologism; today it is not. Besides, the concept goes back to the 1770s. Today people say "Common Era" instead of "Vulgar Era" because the primary meaning of "vulgar" has changed. Nevertheless, the practice has its origin in the late eighteenth century, and that is far, far from a neologism. Aren't encyclopedias great? You can learn all sorts of stuff you didn't know! Isn't having an open mind and learning new things better than being ignorant! I love Wikipedia! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Also a latecomer to this discussion, but it strikes me that something as old as the United States should be considered a neologism. Now, I don't think this should decide the issue - the WP policy says avoid neologisms, not eliminate them completely (where would we be if we ignored the fairly recent conventions of grammar and punctuation? The encyclopedia would be different, I'm sure...). But it does allow the point to stand; neologisms don't have a cutoff point of thirty years ago, it's more of a penetration issue - how long has each term been in the public consciousness? BC/AD has the advantage of being nearly a millennium and a half old; BCE/CE has been around a little over a tenth of that time. Again, does this decide the debate? Good grief, no, and I myself am a fan of the established "BC/BCE" and "AD/CE" method. I just thought I'd provide this food for thought.

On a fairly unrelated note, Slrubenstein, you may wish to revise your statement; your last sentence could be construed as an attack, though I'm sure it was far from your intent to call The.helping.people.tick ignorant. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 15:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your constructive intent David, but to be clear, I was indeed saying that The.Helping.people.Tick was ignorant - specifically, of the fact that BCE/CE are not neologisms (though I readily admit that they emerged only around the time when two conditions existed: first, the rapid spread of the Gregorian calendar as a world-wide point of reference, and second, the decline of Church domination of Europe). But lest anyone think that by pointing our a former ignorance I was making a personal attack, let me admit - with pleasure and pride - that until I read the Wikipedia article I was ignorant as to what Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle really is; until Wikipedia, I was ignorant as to what "gravid" meant or the right way to use it (with relation to fish); I was ignorant of many things. I hope no one finds this controverial - who opens up an encyclopedia unless they are ignorant of something? Isn't that the point? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well said Slrubenstein. I had to look up gravid as you made me curious. Using with fish sounded like a posh sauce or something - how wrong can you be! As a real off topic I found this in another thread and it seems to sum up your point [2]. I took your comment as a sharing of the wonder of finding out new things and exploring new unheard of topics, it's a shame it could be misunderstood as an attack and hopefully will not be taken that way. Sophia 16:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Although Slrub may not have been making a personal attack, many wikipedians would (and do) take offence to being called "ignorant". There are politer ways to put the point across. But to be honest I thought the comment "Isn't having an open mind and learning new things" was much more rude and uncalled for. John Smith's 17:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. A better word might be unknowledgable; ignorance implies an undesirable personality fault (see second definition). Again, I didn't assume you were making an attack- I was just pointing out that it could be taken that way. Remember, in a text-only medium, it's far easier to be misunderstood than it is in speech. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 17:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to David and John Smith's for their gentlemanly defense while I have been away. Of course I am ignorant of many things, and take no offense at someone pointing that out in general, even in public. In the particular case of BCE/CE being a neologism, however, I wish to dispell the idea that I am unfamiliar with the history or extent of its use. I am well aware that arguing that it is a neologism may be provocative to those who typically think in shorter spans of time than centuries. I don't mind provoking such people if it means getting a better Wikipedia article, and apparently such people (Sophia, Slrubenstein) do not mind provoking me in return--fair's fair! David provides good food for thought by drawing attention to the parameters of "penetration" and relative length of use. Further, I see no reason to complexify the language unnecessarily--BCE/CE adds nothing, and takes away simplicity and therefore clarity. Using BCE/CE makes this article in Wikipedia worse. I do not expect to "win" this argument, I only wish to register my dissatisfaction with the current usage. Also, please note I am not arguing against the concept of "Common Era" or "Vulgar Era" -- I am arguing that adding BCE or CE as conventions for denominating periods of time detracts from effective communication, and therefore should not be done. Further, using BCE and CE has only been done relatively recently, and by a relatively few people, and not for the sake of clear communication with most people. Cheers! The.helping.people.tick 03:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the.helping.people.tick and I agree concerning the substance of the matter. I don't see any need for me to repeat my explanation for my own position, but I do want to thank the.helping.tick for providing us with an expanded (and I think somewhat different from the neologism claim) explanation for his own view - while I don't agree, I still appreciate the explanation. And while I may have misunderstood what he was (and was not) admitting to when he mad his initial comment about neologisms, I am glad that he and I agree that admitting ignorance is not at all a bad thing. I genuinely believe that one should embark on writing an encyclopedia with humility, and I really just cannot see how anyone would turn to an encyclopedia if not with some sense of humility, and a conscious desire to open one's mind. I actually think these are important values that the Wikipedia community should promote, and I would be disappointed if anyone took my remarks as a personal attack. I took the.helping.people.tick's assertion that he believed BCE/CE to be a neologism on good faith. It appears that he took my comments on good faith as well and I appreciate it. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we're all still being civil. Thank you for your reply, Slrubenstein. My opinion on the matter is that, ideally, we would choose BC/AD as the most effective and easily readable form of communication; however, knowing that ferocious edit warring would harm the article far more badly than the small amount of less-effective communication, I would prefer to leave it as {BC/BCE) and (AD/CE). =David^(talk)_(contribs) 16:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to weigh in on this topic. There are multiple reasons to stick with just the BC/AD convention:
1) it's been in place since the 7th century for everyone

2) to avoid political correctness bandwagon because it is only being changed because people don't like the fact it is based on Jesus but to that I say refer to my item #3

3) the BCE/CE convention is still based on when Jesus was born so what we are really gaining other than angering those who still want BC/AD who feel there is no need to have 2 conventions or a newer convention (we complain when Microsoft creates their own standard when there exists a more universal one; this is no different)

4) this particular page, afterall, is a page on Jesus so why are we wanting to use 2 different conventions that have the same chronological basis with one of them flying in the face of the very person this page is about?

Sophia (08:42, 4 August 2007 ) seems to think this is an issue of Christians going label crazy but, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't it the secularists who are wanting to replace a system that has been in place since the 7th century just because the current convention focuses on a Christian figure and event?

The new convention is solely meant for political correctness (it just so happens to have been created in this age of political correctness, coincidence?) because it is still based on the same standard of defining when BCE occurs compared to CE but just removes references to Christ. Slrubenstein (11:44, 4 August 2007) thinks it is much better to offend those who want to keep BC/AD than those who are offended by BC/AD. Everyone who opposes BC/AD always uses excuses like those who want to keep BC/AD are so pedantic or anal retentive or whatever, but it isn't like we didn't already have a system in place that worked fine for over 1 millennium. Slrubenstein also thinks this topic isn't worth the time. If it isn't worth the time to argue it then why was it worth the time for people to think of a new naming convention to displace the current one that worked just fine? Who is really being the pedantic/anal-retentive group? Does it really hurt those who don't even care about Jesus to use the BC/AD convention or do they want to use BCE/CE just so they can see just how much it does hurt those who do care about Jesus? Are people that childish (or do they prefer domineering, to be politically correct of course?) that they feel the need to offend others every chance they get even with things that they don't even care about? An example being of course a Christian topic having to use secular dating schemes which are still based on Christian events?

Let me suggest something in a satirical manner so people who want BCE/CE/BC/AD or BCE/CE exclusively can (hopefully) see the insanity of their ways. My suggestion is that we remove the entire Jesus and Christ pages because it is only politically correct to do so in this day in age. To not do so would offend anyone who does not believe in Jesus/Christ or who dos not believe Jesus is Christ (some Jews do indeed believe that) even if they would never read those pages (or even care they exist) in the first place. We should not stand for such insults to 4 billion people but instead it is much better to insult only 2 billion people despite the fact this page can be considered to be geared toward them (the 2 billion group). If this is a secular encyclopedia as Giovanni33 (20:10, 4 August 2007) says it is then those pages shouldn't exist in the first place. No hint of religion should ever grace this website because if it does then that means those who read the text related to religion will feel they have to convert in order to uphold the false belief that those pages infringe on their right to not have a religion. Glitch26 03:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but did you more than skim the discussion you are so forcefully joining? No one (here) objects to a dating system based on an agreed upon date, and no-one objects to taking the mythical birth of Jesus as this date. BCE was certainly in use 1856, and hence hardly coined in "this age of political correctness". The Latin form has deeper roots still. And yes, some religious people, including observant Jews and Jehova's Witnesses, have problem with the terms AD and BC. Non-believers can treat those as simple labels, but for non-Christian believers the use of these labels may conflict with their religion. As for your last paragraph: There is a difference between describing a religion, and forcing people to acknowledge it. Political correctness should never stand in the way of actual correctness, but there is no good reason for making peoples lives harder than necessary. --Stephan Schulz 07:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

there is no good reason for making peoples lives harder than necessary

Stephan, so you're telling me that a Jew or Jehova's Witness will refuse to read or edit a wikipedia entry that uses BC/AD? John Smith's 09:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

there is no good reason for making peoples lives harder than necessary ... which is why I say: stick with the BC/AD usage that everyone knows. For those sensitive souls who have a religious problem with that, please let me know what the new, unoffensive names for January and Monday are. The.helping.people.tick 11:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"First month" and "first day"? John Smith's 11:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose those are nearly as good as BCE and CE (i.e., they are colorless, communicate less clearly, and have shallow and narrow usage bases); however, I may quibble with designating Monday as "first day" since I've always considered Suday to be the first day. Maybe we could go with Nivose and Primidi (changing to a ten-day week to get away from the clear religious significance of the seven-day week). The.helping.people.tick 12:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

First, I apologize for any formatting issues with my original post yesterday since that was the first time I contributing to a discussion. Also, because it was my first time there was no other way to join in other than to just do so. There was no forcing because there is only one way to join in. If my method was wrong then this page shouldn't be edited by just anyone. With that said, some of the points I made still applied to this specific article. There is no reason to use a secular dating convention for anything really, but especially for this topic. Once a system works there is no reason to change it. David says below that BCE/CE has been in use for about 150 years but BC/AD has been in use for almost 10x that long so why are we suddenly in need of replacing it? Not everyone in the Renaissance or Dark Ages were Christians but they went about their merry way ignoring things that didn't apply to them. I think that rationale should be justification enough for keeping BC/AD for this article as well as others. As you said Stephan, there is no good reason for making peoples lives harder than necessary so we should just stick to 1 dating convention (the first one). You can't please everyone all the time so why try now to make those who feel their soul conflicted with such angst about a dating convention that we have to change it after all these hundreds of years? We are only showing the letters afterall. Let them makeup something else for the letters to stand for if it's such a problem. You may suggest the same to me for BCE/CE but I say to that that BC/AD were there first and are working great. I guess I'll end with this question: Why is it okay to offend Christians but not everyone else? That's the whole premise behind this issue and many other political correctness topics. Who makes that decision and who gives that right to make that decision? Thanks for reading my comments. Glitch26 22:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Glitch, please explain to me how BCE/CE offends Christians? I can see how BC/AD offends Jews because to call Jesus Lord and Christ is to say that Judaism is wrong. But to say "Common Era" does not make any claims about any religion - it does not mean that Judaism is right, and it does not mean that Christianity is wrong. Why is it that when you tell me my religion is wrong, that is not offensive - but when I tell you that I do not share your religion (note: not that I think your religion is wrong, just that is is not for me, it can be right for you but not for me) that somehow offends you? By the way, if you really believe that "Not everyone in the Renaissance or Dark Ages were Christians but they went about their merry way ignoring things that didn't apply to them," then you are woefully ignorant of history and the centuries of Christian oppression and persecution of Jews. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Risking answering for Glitch, I find it at least inconsistent (if not offensive) that one group wants their sensitivities acknowledged by a change in my language (specifically BC/AD --> BCE/CE), but dismisses the sensitivities of Christians to using the pagan denominations for months and days. Anyone familiar with history knows of the severe persecution of Christians by pagans. And those familiar with Christian beliefs know that Christians do not worship Janus or Mani. So it is not the term BCE or CE that is offensive, but the selective change in what is a common and accepted usage, that is offensive. This arbitrary mangling of my language is not offensive to me as a Christian, but as an English-speaker. The.helping.people.tick 12:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's stick to one topic at a time. Just to be clear, are you saying that BCE/CE does not offend you? Glitch seemed to be suggesting that it is offensive to Christians. I am glad to learn that it does not offend you. If BCE/CE does not offend Jews, and does not offend Christians, then it is a slam-dunk: if we are to use only one terminology, we will use BCE/CE. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It is offensive on 2 fronts. The one that The.helping.people.tick specified (BCE/CE is an arbitrary notation and has no place anywhere, especially in this topic) and the second is a religious one. BCE/CE used for a topic on a Christian icon doesn't make any sense because it was only created to ignore the significance of the birth of Jesus. BC/AD has existed for a long time and I've never heard of any Jew, pagan, or atheist complain about it during that time. Why are there complaints now? If it is offensive why did it only just now become offensive? To say "Common Era" changes the significance and impact of the Christian religion on history therefore it has no place on this topic. Why do we have a need to change history? Muslims invented algebra. Are we going to change history to ignore the impact of that religion on mathematics? It's funny how "Common Era" is still based on when Jesus was born so what are we gaining by using it other than changing its name? What use is that? Proponents of wanting BCE/CE for this article would have a stronger argument if the system actually changed the year in which BCE changes to CE. As The.helping.people.tick noted, the months and days used in the Gregorian calendar are not based on Christian ideas so I guess the need to change their names is not required despite still being based on other religions. Why aren't we trying to come up with a universal set of month/day names that aren't based on any religion? It is obvious why the BCE/CE notation shouldn't be used for this specific topic but all arguments toward not using BCE/CE at all still apply to this specific topic. This topic is just an example of the bigger issue. Glitch26 02:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

tsk, tsk. Read more carefully, my dear Slrubenstein: "This arbitrary mangling of my language is not offensive to me as a Christian, but as an English-speaker." To put it somewhat differently: English speakers should be offended, as I am, at the mangling of their language by the arbitrary adoption of BCE/CE. If you want to say in response, "but it's not arbitrary, I am offended at BC/AD for religious reasons" then (this is where the second issue comes up) I am sure that you will want to be consistent and be sensitive to the (similarly offensive) religious origins of names like "Monday" and "January" as well as the seven-day week. But I will oppose your attempt to change that language too, because mangling language is not a good way of dealing with such sensitivities. In sum: (1) as an English speaker, I am offended by the rank neologism BCE/CE, and think it ought not be used anywhere, including in this article; (2) Unless you also oppose "Monday" and "January," there appears to me to be an anti-Christian bias to your anti-BC/AD position; and (3) despite my dissatisfaction with BC/BCE and AD/CE, I would rather keep that in this article than use only BCE/CE. The.helping.people.tick 01:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I misread you and apologize. But, BCE/CE are not my attempts to change the english languag, they have been part of the English language since the early 1800s. Why did they emerge then? Because of a very significant coincidence: just as Europe was coming to dominate the globe and more and more non-Christians were coming to use the European calendar, the Christian Churches were losing their political domination over Europe. Be that as it may, languages change all the time, and when it comes to common era, no one today has to try to change English, the change happened. Jews have been using it for over a century, and historians too. Former nun Karen Armstrong uses it in her popular books on religion and God. Now i have a question for you, as a Christian: do Christians believe two wrongs make a right? Do Christians believe that if someone slaps them, the Christian should slap them back? I ask because it sounds like you are saying that if i do something that offends you (which is wrong), then it is okay for you to do something that offends me. One ofmy closest friends is a Christian and i have to say, he has led me to think that this is antithetical to Christianity. he led me to believe that he strives to love others, even when they offend him or even hurt others. Based on what you have written i infered you are a Christian and if i am mistaken i apologize (not that I ever thought calling someone a Christian is an insult) but I really never thought a Christian would say "I will be kind to you only if you are kind to me; if you are unkind to me I will be unkind back." Wow. It just isn't what I expected. Now, you know that BC/AD offends me - but i have also made it plain that I will not object to the use of BC/AD in this article if yoiu are willing to use BCE/CE. At this point I leave it up to your consciense as Christian to do what you think is right (from what you write above it seems you are willing to compromise, if I read you correctly I thank you and am willing to end the matter with that). But, to respond to your last comment - when have i injured you? When - I ask you to provide just ONE example of ANY edit I made to this talk page OR to the article - have I insisted that we use pagan names of days or months? you brought it up. you make it sound as if i have injured you. This seems vey unfair to me. Please provide one actual instance where I have done this thing that you insist is offensive to you.? I am serious about this because i do not like to be accused of having harmed another person when it was not my intention, and if you can show me just one example on this page or the article page of my imposing pagan day or month names against the protests of a Christian editor, I will apologize. Please let us avoid hypothetials. Hurting others is no game, and I hope you are not playing games. Did I offend you? What exactly did I actually do (again, please no hypotheticals)? Slrubenstein | Talk 03:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Most people participating in this discussion, on both sides, have constructively stuck to the issue at hand: what convention should be used specifically in this article. I think it is a very bad idea to let this discussion turn into an argument over whether BCE/CE are in and of themselves reasonable or acceptable for general use. This would be comparable to arguing over "the truth" and one thing we know about the major policies of Wikipedia is that they are designed to guide a community of people who will never agree as to what the truth is, byt taking "the truth" out of the picture. Wikipedia is not the place to argue whether AD/BC or CE/BCE are "right" or "wrong" (and John. Smith's, I do question your good faith when you bring up the names of the week - unless you are just joking in which case I take it back with apologies ... but many people do slip from arguing over BCE/CE to names of the week and arguments that anyone who uses BCE/CE is insonsistne and all these amount to arguments against BCE/CE itself i.e. an argument that in some general way it is stupid or wrong. I have never made that argument bout AD/BC, and no one should be making that argument about BCE/CE for this simple reason: in the Wikipedia comunity there are people on both sides who will never change their minds. The only question is, how can such people, with such divergent points of view, work together. People on both sides need to acknowledge that the task is not to change one another's minds about their own beliefs or personal preferences, but rather to seek out acceptable compromises or a framework that enables people with opposing views to work together. So what do we do with this page? We have an NPOV policy that does not address dating conventions but that does make it clear that Wikipedia is not the place to argue over the truth, that multiple points of view should be presented, and that we should present not our own views but views from verifiable sources. I have read history books about Jesus and the Gospels that use AD/BC, and also that use BCE/CE. We also have a manual of style that permits both conventions ... if someone wants to argue that this guideline should be changed, do not do it here, do it on the guideline talk page, or propose a new policy and debate it there. But the manual allows both. It expresses a preference for using the first convention used in an article (which in this case was AD) but it is fair for me to remind people that this is a guideline, not a policy, which means that the people who made it a guideline rather than a policy understood that there could be exceptions. It also expresses a preference for consistent use within an article. Again, these are guidelines, not rules that we must blindly follow. So we are left with this: what do we do with this article? I repeat my initial claim: several years ago people worked out a compromise that satisfied almost everyone on both sides and that has been fairly stable. What John Smith's or other people should be working at is not changing my mind or trying to prove I am wrong, they should be trying to work out an arrangement that will not result in an edit war between editors acting in good faith but with divergent views. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Slrub, you're questioning my good faith? Well I question yours given I didn't bring up names of the week and was clearly making a joke.

I have still not been shown where and when this compromise was worked out. Please direct me to the discussion, because if it's no longer available then I'm going to have to assume it was gained through majority views, not consensus.

I would also like my question answered on the issue of "offence". If it is "problematic" for some wikipedians to have BC/AD used, does that mean they would refuse to edit/read articles than use them, as I have no idea how it is a problem. John Smith's 13:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me agree with Slrubenstein here, and aplogize for getting carried away. This is indeed not a debate about the merits of AD/BC vs. CE/BCE, but the attempt to find a working solution for this article. The compromise has worked for years. Neither extreme case has. This should speak for itself. One more point, John: I distinctly remember me arguing for AD/BC just a few years back - essentially because it was what I was used to. By now I have been convinced that there are people who have real and legitimate problems with this style. I don't share them, but I can recognize and accept them. --Stephan Schulz 13:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

John, I am sorry that you missed the part where I wrote above, "unless you are just joking in which case I take it back with apologies" - I assumed that this would be enough to show you that I intend to be civil, and that I was acting in good faith. It really is possible for me to misunderstand you while acting in good faith, and I do not think that, given that I noted the apolgy to you, you are bieng fair to question my good faith. As to the date of the compromise, I forget when it was. I suggest you go back through the edit history to see when we started using the two together, and then look at the talk at that time. As to your question about whether I will read other articles using AD, I decline to respond. it is none of your business, and it is not relevant to this discussion. You seem to have missed my point entirely, that this is not the place to debate the validity of someone's views. But your bad faith is now evident: you are using my willingness to compromise against me. I have made it clear that I accept the use of BC/AD in certain cases, and you are implying that if I do I have no grounds to insist that BCE/CE should be used. You are implying that I have to be as dogmatic as you, and that if I insist on including BCE/CE I then ought to oppose every instance of BC/AD. I guess you will simply never understand what it is like to be a tolerant and compromising person. Of course compromises lead to inconsistencies. But i am willing to live with that to get along with other people. You are incapable of this and I doubt you will ever understand. If I am wrong I APOLOGIZE but you will convince me that I am wrong only if you stop questioning my beliefs and accept that I have a right to have them even if you do not share or understand them. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw where you said "unless you are just joking, etc". But as I said, I didn't raise it, which is why I questioned your good faith.

It's none of my business? Since when did I address my comments towards you personally? The fact you mentioned what you might do at all is very strange. The question is, however, valid more generally because I don't think for a second anyone who was intelligent and mature would refuse to edit or read an article because of whether it used BC/AD or BCE/CE. Anyone who did is not worth taking into consideration for the purposes of how wikipedia should be edited. It would be like an ultra-sensitive American or whatever refusing to take part in an article that used the word "colour" because it's UK spelling. John Smith's 13:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've looked as best I can, but as far as I can see there is no discussion entry that shows all members taking part in the discussion accepted this "compromise". If anything I found a discussion (15th May) where Slrub said some users weren't satisifed - he talked about a "majority", which is not consensus. If people still believe that every signed up to it, then they can go fish it out. I've spent long enough trying to dig this mysterious thread. John Smith's 14:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I take responsibility for raising the days of the week argument here, and acknowledge that this is not the place for that discussion. My apologies. I dislike the compromise solution of using both dating conventions in this article, but recognize that this is the best that we can do here now, until, like the French Republican Calendar, the ill-conceived system of BCE/CE goes away. :) The.helping.people.tick 14:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this boils down to a matter of what is more important, getting rid of the dual notation, or promoting the notation you prefer (because in wikipedia's eye, neither era notation is superior: both are acceptable). Here is a question. To those who hate the dual notation, would you support choosing the notation you like less over using the dual notation? Do you dislike the dual notation so much that you'd could live with either BC/AD or BCE/CE as long as they both weren't used? Because, the above arguments haven't so much revolved around the dual notation being so bad, but instead arguments for why one specific notation is superior to another. Seriously, ask your self, if you dislike the dual notation so much, could you live with the less preferable era notation? Could John Smith and The.helping.people.tick live with BCE/CE if it meant we got rid of the dual notation? I don't believe, after all the above debate, we've progressed any further than when we started. For those who hate CE, having BC/E is better than BCE by itself, and for those who hate AD, having BC/E is better than having BC by itself. So where are we in regards to getting this article up to FA status? Oh yeah, like I said in my initial post above, all progress towards FA work would halt if we got into another era notation debate. Can we agree that what we have now is the best we will get and finally move on?-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that what we have is the best. If you really want to get me on-side, the least you could do is dig out the "consensus discussion". I will at least remain flexible if you do that. John Smith's 16:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

previous discusions [3][4][5]. I think there are more but this illustrates the wide participation in this subject we have had and why we have come to this compromise that seems to work. Sophia 17:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting around to that - I don't see why it took so long to get a simple request like that actioned, given I asked several times.

However I'm not that impressed. Only five editors agreed to the consensus (Archive 25), and the discussion was there for less than 24 hours. In Archive 28 a large majority voted to keep the dual use, but it wasn't anywhere near consensus.

This is the problem I have. People keep harping on about there being "consensus", when in many respects it seems like a majority bullying editors whenever they want to express a view that disagrees with their's. Sure some are polite, but others start labelling new visitors as essentially being "trouble-makers" and that they should basically "shut up and go away".

This isn't a case of consensus, it's a "tyranny" of the majority. John Smith's 13:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

John, simple request? Sophia did something I would not have done in a million years. That took time and effort to do; if the topic is important to you than you should have done it yourself. Are you impaired or was it that you could not be bothered with pressing the buttons and reading each archive page? I don't mean to ruffle your feathers, but I do want you to understand that you have no room in which to complain. The other editors are not here to serve you or comply with requests simply because you ask when you. You are responsible for doing research just as everyone else is.

The compromise has worked for a while; it is not perfect and it will frustrate or offend advocate editors from both sides. When it isn't broke, it does not need to be fixed. Tyranny is both inaccurate and extreme; what rights are being denied the "minority"? Which minority are we talking about; the one that hates BC/AD or others? It is fully compliant with Wikipedia policy and other style guides. I think what you are really saying is that the majority of editors (from both sides) have taken a position in conflict with your personal wishes. I don't think there is a next step for your position, but I would suggest remember the old saying about accepting the things.... --Storm Rider ^(talk) 14:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider, if I was involved in a dispute with an editor that couldn't find something I kept refering to I would find it for them, especially given I would know better what to look for. If I simply agreed with a position and didn't know the matter in question, then I would be less likely to do so. But if I kept saying "we have consensus on this" I would back my point up with hard evidence. I did have a look through the archives, though missed it - maybe I was looking for the wrong date.

I don't mind what the majority says or feels - everyone has a right to their view. All I have said is that there was no real consensus, only a majority view. It is a tyranny of the majority if people are going to be attacked and labelled from bringing up a point they may deem important - it is basically bullying and intimidation. As I said, some editors have been very polite - others have demonstrated those afore-menetioned negative qualities.

There are many more steps that one can take from here on, such as mediation. What do you mean when you say "I would suggest remember the old saying about accepting the things...." John Smith's 14:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the Serenity prayer that has been stated so often:

God, Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

I am sorry if I was too cryptic. Just so you know I prefer BC/AD as a notation. I find the current situation silly, but recognize that my position is just as silly for someone who is adamant that BCE notation is the only way to go. I suspect that the vast majority of Christians would prefer BC/AD, but I also suspect that a majority of editors realize that using soley BC notation is offensive to nonChristians. Rather than capitulate and use just BCE, we have the current status quo. I hope this makes sense; I find it easier to concede when there really is not way to succeed. Mediation would not be a viable avenue when the outcome would be current situation. Remember that policy and guidelines are being observed; this is strictly a situation of personal preference which goes by the wayside when the majority decides to go another direction. My motivation in writing is to save you frustration; life is short. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I fully understand your position. However I take the view currently supported by WP:MOS that either BC or BCE is acceptable in its use. This is (as far as I know) the only article on wikipedia that uses BC/BCE together (if there are more they are certainly few). If it were wikipedia policy that was how things should be, I would accept it even if I would seek to get it repealed. However, I don't think that any group can hold an article to ransom and insist on a term being used or not being used just because of how they feel. For example, if we follow your logic then the article on the Muhammed pictures scandal should have those pictures removed because some people find them offensive (the compromise would be having external links to the pictures allowed). You can't make exceptions for intolerance in my view. John Smith's 16:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again John Smith's misconstrues the situation. I agree with John that we should not remove something just because it offends some people. But none of the people JS has been arguing against have advocated removing something they find offensive. I and others have only argued for adding another notational system that represents an alternate point of view, thus providing multiple points of view and being consistent with the spirit of NPOV. Doesn't anyone else see the irony? It is John Smith's and as far as I can tell only JS who is arguing to remove something because it offends him - he wants BCE/CE removed. Now he provides the example of people who would remove something they don'tlike, and argues against their intolerance. Well, it is you who wants to remove something you don't like, so I guess it is you who are being intolerant. And disingenuous, if you thought you could use this argument to slur people like me as intolerant, when it is you who is trying to censor a point of view you do not like. Neither I nor anyone else here has srgued for removing a view we don't like. Only you do that. Avery's comment below is right on target: what are you going to do next? Continue to waste time just to spread your own inhtolerance and insult others ... or actually do some research and add to the contents of the article? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not misconstruing anything. I have never alleged anyone here is trying to remove something because they find it offensive - but it has been an argument used as to why the page should not be changed.

Disingenuous. You wrote, "For example, if we follow your logic then the article on the Muhammed pictures scandal should have those pictures removed because some people find them offensive" Slrubenstein | Talk 19:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

How is it disingenuous to say I have never alleged anyone here wants to remove something, only that the argument has been put across that because people take offense something else had to be done?

You wrote, "For example, if we follow your logic then the article on the Muhammed pictures scandal should have those pictures removed because some people find them offensive"

Yeah, because you think policy should be made on what people find offensive.

I also do not want BCE removed because I am "offended" - it has a place on wikipedia whether people like it or not. My position is that one term only should be used throughout the article.

Disingenuous: like those wo woul remove Muhammed's pictures, you would remove BCE/CE. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't. Because it's not against wikipedia rules to have pictures of Muhammed, nor to have BCE.

Yet you wrote, "For example, if we follow your logic then the article on the Muhammed pictures scandal should have those pictures removed because some people find them offensive" Slrubenstein | Talk 20:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, because you think policy should be made on what people find offensive.

Maybe you should take a look in mirror, Slrub, because I think you are misconstruing the situation, not me.

I also think you are rather hypocritical of accusing me of intolerance, given it is you that launched a campaign to get BC/AD removed from Wikipedia.

Liar. I never did any such thing. You lie, you are the hypocrite. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You are the liar. You did start a campaign to have BC/AD labelled POV and that BCE/CE should be used instead at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate, but the motion for the policy failed. By the way, lying is not the same as hypocricy - you could do with buying a dictionary as well as looking in the mirror. John Smith's 20:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You are the liar. You wrote, "it is you that launched a campaign to get BC/AD removed from Wikipedia." You lie. I never did any such thing. I defy you to prove your accusation. You cannot, becuae i never did any such thing. You lie. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I already have - your "policy suggestion", or whatever you called it. You wanted BCE/CE to replace the use of BC/AD. In your own words In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE (Before the Common Era) and CE (Common Era) instead. That would get BC/AD removed from Wikipedia. Or are you going to try to argue that "should use..... instead" doesn't mean what it does for most people in English? John Smith's 20:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You are still lying. You still claim that I wrote that BC/AD be removed from Wikipedia. Nowhere did I even come close to saying so. You provide a quote above, and then say that if means that BC and AD would be removed from Wikipedia. That is not what it says. You either do not understand plain English, or you are making this up, or you are lying. Nothing will change the facts: I NEVER called for the removal of AD/BC from Wikipedia. You are a liar. You owe me an apology. It is wrong to lie about other people. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This is really strange. You pushed for BC/AD to be officially labelled POV and that Wikipedia should use BCE/CE instead. Now if BCE/CE is to be used instead of BC/AD that would require BC/AD to be removed from Wikipedia in day-to-day usage in editing articles. This is simple logic - I'm confused why you cannot understand this. John Smith's 21:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I suppose you think that the fact under your suggestion it could still be used "in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view" would mean that you weren't trying to get BC/AD removed. Yeah, because that wouldn't have removed it from something like 99% of Wikipedia's entries. Wow, you're so generous....... John Smith's 21:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

When I do that then you can wag your finger at me but not before. It is also hypocritical of you to accuse me of wasting time when you continue to comment. As I said below, no one has to keep commenting - I won't allege it's because they concede the argument or anything like that. So by your own logic you are wasting other people's time by continuing to post on this topic. John Smith's 17:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Style guides

Just a quick comment from an editor who hasn't bothered with this article in about two years: Has anyone thought to consult modern style guides? The Wikipedia MoS doesn't provide any help one way or the other, but I'd ask if we've ever checked, say, Chigago, MLA, APA, or any other style guides to see what their position on the matter is. --Avery W. Krouse 13:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Chicago says The choice between one or the other is up to the writer and should be flagged only if the customs of a specific field or community seem to be in danger of being (unwittingly) violated.[6] ALA says For dates, use BCE (Before Common Era) and CE (Common Era). Do not use B.C. or A.D.[7] I believe the APStylebook uses BC/AD based on we're staying with B.C. and A.D. as the more common and understandable abbreviations.[8]. A number of University styleguides don't take sides and say both are appropriate (i.e. Dartmouth, Columbia, University of Illinois). So really, I don't think we can point to any one source to say one era notation is superior to another.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is that this particular can of worms cannot be closed. The CE/BCE notation has been around for over 150 years, and in that time, neither that style nor AD/BC has been deprecated in its use. Both forms are equally valid. You can boil down the argument any way you like: Christian vs. Secular, Traditionalist vs. Progressive, Historian vs. Layman. These are perennial arguments that have not been solved in the decades, even centuries or millennia they've been in play. We're not going to discuss it down in a few months on Wikipedia; especially if we want to push for FA. Either decision results in dissatisfaction and probable vandalism and edit warring down the road. The "BC/BCE" - "AD/CE" standard has been an acceptable compromise for a long while. If new information arises, I'm happy to entertain it in another debate, but I agree with Andrew c above: we need to move on with more important (or, if you prefer, more wide-reaching) edits. Thank you. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 16:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I too thought to look at style guidelines... but both styles are loaded with POV and there is no universal consensus. The WP:MOS states to remain consistent throughout the article and that both styles are acceptable. The MOS also states, "When either of the two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." So I went back to see what the original version was---and this article has been using both for so long that it isn't even funny. With that in mind and the fact that either BC or BCE has POV, I support keeping it the way it is---even if it is tacky.Balloonman 15:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly favor using BC/AD only in this article. For one, there are no other articles I've come across that use both versions; the "common era" or "anno domini" seem to fall to the preference of the primary author. So there's no reason for people to insist that this dualism has to exist in this, the article where it makes the least sense to treat BC/AD as questionable. Since anyone who knows what the "common era" is referring to, is certainly aware of the BC/AD numbering system--since they're exactly the same, after all--then there is no increase in clarity by using BCE/CE. The only difference between the two systems is that one avoids the appearance of admitting that EITHER Jesus's spiritual or historical significance is the reason for the supposed year of his birth being used as the pivot for measuring recorded history.

It would make just as much sense to arbitrarily substitute a different label for the Muslim system of numbering years based on the birth of Mohammed. The only purpose would be to say, "We accept your numbering system, but we wish to erase the notion that Mohammed plays any central role in your history." In fact, it is usually with the excuse that we should try not to offending Muslim sensibilities, that this three-letter method is used for erasing more of Western culture. The fascination with BCE/CE is only one of the methods in vogue with the thought police at today's universities, but it is particularly jarring to have it show up here.

I would truly like to see Wikipedia remove itself from the culture war, and from the forefront of political correctness enforcement, and at the very least allow the reference to Jesus Christ's birth to take place in the year that was named after him. Preston McConkie 08:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

BC and AD vs BC/E and AD/CE arbitrary break

Got fed up with having to scroll so down so much so have started a new section - hope no one minds.

So far John Smith's has not demonstrated any new consensus for changes of dating convention to the article so I think we can safely say we have exhausted this and should go back to the FA status push. Any accusations of "bullying" "tyranny" or other such inflammatory language will be treated with whatever level of intervention is required to get it to stop. We have discussed this to death and I personally have put time into retrieving old discussions to help others understand the background of this compromise (a bit of a waste of time as far as I can see as it seemed to throw petrol on the accusations bonfire). We have been civil and kept to the point despite provocation and attempts to sidetrack so I am confident that any outside bodies reading this thread will see it as (on the whole) wikipedia's discussion methods working well.

As an aside I will confess to have "wikistalked" John Smith's contributions list and have found that the BC/AD change is prominent in his editing - almost to the extent that I would call it a "campaign [9] [10] [11] [12] (there are more but this gives a flavour). This is not healthy and could be considered a violation of WP:POINT. Hopefully we will now move on. Sophia 15:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sophia, accusations of a "campaign" are no better than your complaints over my uses of terms like "bullying" or "tyranny" - indeed they are in some respects a vindication of my earlier statement. One could also accuse you of mounting a campaign against me by drawing attention to edits which are quite acceptable - or do you think that rectifying mixed usage of BC and BCE across a single article is a "bad thing"? Your mentioning of the Japan article is rather hypocritical, because the user(s) in question was/were trying to impose a new variation in the article, when we had used BC previously and in the first major version - that is what I have been accused of doing, and at least here BC/AD was in use for years from the start. Also on the comment you listed, it was clear that the user (PHG) was misinterpreting MOS for his own agenda.

On other pages I have agreed to accept the version present before I arrived on the scene. If I was engaged in a "campaign" I would have edited a far larger number of pages. At the moment I'm more interested in looking for those that have inconsistent usage of terms. John Smith's 15:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is not inconsistent and you have demonstrated no consensus for change. Sophia 15:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I have been talking on this page, rather than restoring the sole BC/AD usage. However, on some other articles I have edited there was not consistency - either in regards to the terms used in the text or between the text and templates in usage. In my previous comment I was making the point that some of the examples you have listed (or made reference to when you said "there are more but this gives a flavour") were misleading in terms of talking about things like WP:POINT. John Smith's 15:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

An outside opinion and a plea for cessation

Well, I've been monitoring this for a couple of days now, and while I certainly don't plan on diving back in like I did in the User:Robsteadman days (we all remember that, eh Sophia, SlRub?), I have noticed an interesting, and frighteningly similar trend. So let me post this question to all: What if this discussion just ... ended ... right now? John Smith's, you seem to be advocating a complete and total change to BC/AD. Well, let's say we do that. Then what? What's your next step? Will you move on to a different article to get the same goal accomplished? Or will you stick around and continue working on improving this article's content and markup? Or, let's say we don't. We leave everything as it is and you decide to move away from this topic of conversation. Again, what do you do? Do you move on to another article and fight the good fight for BC/AD? Or do you stay and work on something else? The point I am trying to make is, at the end of the day, whether or not this article reads BC/AD or BCE/CE has absolutely no functional bearing on the content and encyclopedic information contained within. Wikipedia is not about coming to a universal decision on whether or not the em dash is a valid punctuation mark. Wikipedia is not about finding a grand consensus on the terminating comma in a set. It's about providing information to others. BC/AD and BCE/CE are not pieces of information, they're commas and em-dashes in the grand scheme of an encyclopedia. Two years ago, we engaged in a three month long fight against a user who absolutely could not stand the fact that we didn't begin with a line calling "Jesus" a "possible historical figure that may not have existed at all." Much sockpuppetry, name-calling, backbiting, arguments, and annoyances ensued. Many very valuable editors got fed up and left Wikipedia for short or long times. A lot of people that could have done a lot of good on this article were driven away because of what really was a slightly significant but largely unimportant point. And here we are, arguing over BC/BCE? Come on! If "Jesus may be a completely made up historical figure" is a point for debate that we really shouldn't have spent so much time on, how much less critical is BC/BCE and AD/CE? The sad thing is, this whole issue is starting to reflect those days gone by. People are starting to get frustrated, those little double entendres are starting to fly. The civility is fading, slowly but steadily, and it will come to a head, I assure you. So let me ask you this, what if this discussion just ... ended ... right now? Everything gets left exactly as it stands today and the issue is dropped. Even if only for a week, a month, maybe longer. Perhaps we can put a warning in that upper box that says "The following subjects will not be discussed because of either agreement through consensus or lack of consensus, the chosen action is to leave them as they stand," and slap this one as the first one on the box. Sometimes consensus doesn't mean "everybody agrees." Sometimes it means, not everybody agrees so we back away for a while. And instead of arguing over the equivalent of a semicolon in a doctoral thesis, we instead focus attention on improving the encyclopedic content of Jesus on en.wikipedia.org. I'm certain we must have been doing something more important before this whole thing got started. And John, don't be another Robsteadman. Take a higher road, agree to simply let things end for a while, and maybe put forth a few content edits, or head toward other articles that have genuine issues with a mixed presence of both styles. I'm not asking you to leave Jesus alone, I'm simply asking you, as a former editor who once put forth a lot of effort on this article himself, to consider the greater good of Wikipedia before you engage in battle. Some battles can't be won, but others shouldn't be fought at all. --Avery W. Krouse 16:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Avery, I don't think there are any more articles that use both BC and BCE, so I wouldn't be going anywhere after this, as it were. You fail to understand my position. It isn't so much as to the use of BCE at all, more the imposition of it alongside BC because some people are offended by the use of the latter.

If people want to get on with other things they're free to do so - I'm certainly not going to start reverting the article again. John Smith's 16:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This subject has already been settled by the Manual of Style. It's annoying for readers to have to wade through alphabet soup for no increase in clarity. I quote the pertinent passage: "Note: Editors should choose either the BC/AD or the BCE/CE system, but not both in the same article."

Since we need to choose one or the other, it's obvious we should choose the style which is generally acceptable and still in popular use in nearly all media addressing the general public is BC/AD, and is more pertinent to this article than to any other article where BC/AD is used. Until someone comes up with an argument that the man who created the Christian era should not be referred to in the timeline of the Christian era, this ridiculous "compromise" needs to be set aside in favor of some adult common sense. -- Preston McConkie 17:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The manual of style is a guieline, not policy. It does not and cannot constrain our action. But if you insist on only one, I say: BCE and CE. This article discusses Jesus from various points of view including non-Christian, and I think BCE ands CE is appropriate. I contributed a lot to this article and spin-offs and my sources used BCE and CE. Since Preston McConkie insists on only one style, okay, I will give in to him if he gives in to me: I will change all dates to BCE and CE exclusively. If anyone deletes them I will put them back. Of course, if someont wants to propose a compromise I am all ears. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That viewpoint seems rather closed-minded and prone to edit warring. Please take a look at the MoS boilerplate: "Ignore any of them rather than being clumsy, inaccurate, or unclear." It does not provide for ignoring them in the interest of personal preference. To that end, it strikes me that the Manual of Style should be followed in this instance; and, as Preston notes, it is unreasonable to use a dating system in this article that does not refer to the very person whose birth created it. You seem to have taken a particular interest in this article, which I think is wonderful; an article of this importance deserves as much close scrutiny as it can get. But you must realize that you do not own this article; insisting that "if anyone deletes them I will put them back" violates this important Wikipedia principle. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 19:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

BC and Ad do not reffer to Jesus. Jesus was neithe Christ nor Lord. That is why we cannot use these terms in this article. ButI repeat: I am open to compromise. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The statement "Jesus was neither Christ nor Lord" is personal opinion and has no place as a policy defense. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 19:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, the manual of style exists to create clarity, and exceptions are for the purpose of adding clarity when a hard-and-fast rule would actually get in the way. Citing the emotional sensitivities of any number of contributors is not what the MoS cites as a reason for making an exception to style. Also, saying the MoS is a guideline and not a policy is not persuasive here. Policies themselves are guidelines, since it requires us to use reason and examine context to decide how to apply policies.

Just saying that you feel strongly about something does not give you the right to undo a principle that was adopted for good reasons. I refrained from deleting the BCE/CEs because the issue was contentious and was at an impasse because the participants couldn't overcome the point that the MoS allows the use of both styles. However, in reading the manual of style I discovered a governing principle that clarifies the argument.

Where a principle has been adopted by the Wiki community, it should not be subverted for emotional reasons. Either work to change the MoS's standard, or at least address the issue of why the Jesus article shouldn't be dated using the English language's dominant era tag, which was named for the approximate year of Jesus' birth. Don't duck the issue by saying you've contributed to the article and therefore you have greater claim to deciding how the eras will be tagged. I'm sure you had to justify your other contributions with citations, precedents, etc. I am supporting my own contribution with reference to defined Wiki principles, and I expect other Wikipedians to address the merits of my supporting citation and argument, rather than saying I'm too "young" in here to have any say. -- Preston McConkie 19:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Might it be appropriate to put forth a request for comment on this issue? =David^(talk)_(contribs) 20:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, there was already a RFC posted by John Smith's on WP:RFC/REL on August 3rd. Next, Preston McConkie, please stop edit warrning. Making your changes once, despite the big warning at the top of the article, and the page after page of talk page discussion on this topic seemed inappropriate, but doing it multiple times is nothing but disruption. Keep in mind WP:3RR as well. I believe you are misunderstanding the spirit of the MoS regarding era notations. What the MoS is saying is that it is not appropriate to start an article with BCE then in the middle switch to AD. The MoS argues for consistency. While we do have a slightly unorthodox usage here, we DO use it consistently. The fact of the matter is, these are just a small number of letters. Don't you think there are more important areas to focus on, like actual content? We need to get this article up to FA status, and (IMO) wasting time going over this for the umpteenth time is not helpful to our bigger goals. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. If I'd looked a little bit closer, I would've found it. Thanks for directing me. As for the second part of your post...I disagree with your point on MoS, but I agree that the larger issue (content) should be paramount. Unless more (new!) discussion surfaces, I will not comment further on this, and I urge others to do the same. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 20:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The only difference between edit warring and consensus is that you have more people doing the reverts and hence not risking running afoul of the three revert rule.

This discussion has gone on a long time, and in itself indicates there is not consensus. There is just standoff. I personally think it's an important issue. I'm a professional editor and journalist and while I'm admittedly anal about this stuff, in this case it isn't for mere preference. Changing the use of language for emotional or political reasons has major effects on our ability to communicate, and when we start burdening one article with PC compromises, we're making a statement that language is not for the sake of communication but for the sake of ideology. It's a radical notion, one that marks the difference between the basic ideals of democracy and the planned society.

No, I'm not calling my opponents totalitarians. But I am pointing out that this isn't quite the minor issue that a lot of people are pretending it is. I think most people involved in this discussion sense that it's important; that's why neither side is willing to give up its era tag, and we've ground to a halt with this silly "compromise." I think this is a major test of whether the Wikipedia community is going to stand up for common sense and clarity, or for ideologically motivated revisionism. Preston McConkie 20:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Preston, you wrote (I think) "Just saying that you feel strongly about something does not give you the right to undo a principle that was adopted for good reasons." Doesn't this hold for you too? Why do you really want to change the status quo? Why do you feel so strongly about this? Who agrees with you? The manual of style is only a guideline, it is not a rule. And you cannot make up rules for how to interpret it. Wikipedia is not one coherant community, it is made up of many communities. But in all cases the policies have the same objectives: to create a framework through which people with opposing points of view can write good encyclopedia articles. And that is all we have done here. Our convention of using both systems enables pople with opposing pints of view to get along - surely a good thing. And it does not compromise the quality of the article, which is based on the research we have all put into it, not just dating conventions. As you say, your feeling strongly about this doesn't give you the right to screw with it. I urge you to reread Avery Krouse's wise words at the opening of this section and reconsider your position. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, your argument is at least systematic and logical. And it's true the impasse we have here is at least being handled in a consistent manner that is capable of defusing the objections of some people. But I disagree with your interpretation of the MoS. If the writer(s) of the MoS intended your version of things they could easily have been more clear. If they meant for us merely to be consistent, they could have said "be consistent." What the MoS does say is, "don't use both," and to me that's completely clear. Using both versions, even consistently on every reference, is still using both versions. It is cumbersome and is only used to gratify the writers, certainly not to benefit the readers.

Slrubenstein, please engage the points I've made. You've declined to sign my request for mediation because you say you haven't seen enough "good faith" discussion; if you sidestep my points and just keep repeating that I have no right to object to the current impasse, you're not discussing this in good faith.

I don't need to defend my choice of following the MoS; only the choice to ignore it needs to be justified, and I don't think we have a compelling reason here. And when there isn't a compelling reason for making an exception to Wikipedia standards, the settled principles of the style manual should govern. You keep saying the style manual's principles aren't rules; are you arguing that people should be able to disregard the MoS for any reason? That whim and fancy should be the first principles of style, and the MoS is merely a suggestion for people who haven't come up with any whims? Are you saying that if enough contributors to an article express an unsupported preference, they can create their own little Switzerland where the principles of style don't apply--where the emotional needs of the writers come before the goal to serve the readers?

The difference between you wanting to overturn a settled principle, and me not being satisfied with the status quo, is that the principle I'm supporting is from the MoS, which applies to all articles. You're talking about the status quo in this one article, which just means that, among people on this discussion page, you and others of like mind have been able to fight the issue to a standstill. I've introduced a new principle into the discussion and I'm confident that it's a correct and governing principle. Yet you are unwilling to engage me, and keep insisting that all the discussion that took place before my arrival is binding, that I can't introduce anything new.

Andrew c at least came up with the argument that I have misinterpreted the MoS. I disagree with his interpretation, but I respect him for engaging me in good faith. In any case, this discussion isn't over, and I will ignore your (Slrubenstein's) appeals that I just butt out and leave everything the way it was. This discussion started before I showed up, and I just happen to weigh in on one side of it.

Also, I invite you to engage my previous comment, in which I explained why I think this is an important issue. There have been a number of appeals for people to just forget this issue and move on because, after all, the content of the article is all that really matters. I've said why I think the dating choice is, to me, more important than just this article. You're free to disagree, but keep in mind that I do have my reasons and I won't be worn down by simple repeated appeals of "Can't we all just get along?" -- Preston McConkie 05:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The MoS clearly says that AD and CE are acceptable, without giving a preference to either one. So I ask you, if you hate using both so much, would you accept the use of BCE/CE alone? If the answer is no, which of the following two options would you prefer? BCE/CE alone, or BC/BCE and AD/CE used consistently together? (I left out BC/AD alone because I assume that is your first preference). What I'm trying to do by asking you these questions is for you to understand that the compromise is that, simply a compromise, and it's better than letting the "other side" win. I'm sorry that other editors are impatient with you, but please note the length of this discussion that started in August, then note how many times AD vs. CE is mentioned in the talk archives. This is more than a dead horse to a number of regulars here, so hopefully you can sympathize a little bit with their reaction to a drop in editor bringing up the same tired arguments for the umpteenth time. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

John Smith's Misunderstanding

John Smith's repeatedly claims that I have called foir AD/BC to be removed from Wikipedia. that is a lie, and despite my explaining to him that I never said any such thing he continues to lie about me. I consider this persistent lying about m to be a personal attack. He ought to apologize to me. But he must stop his lying. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Slrub, your policy (as previously explained) would have removed BC/AD from pretty much every article on wikipedia - I'm not sure where "in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view" would have applied in many meaningful ways. You can try to spin things however you want, but what would have been the outcome of your policy is pretty clear to most people. John Smith's 21:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are now admitting that my proposal would NOT have removed AD/BC from Wikipedia, well, apology accepted. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Please realize that assuming good faith includes talk page, as well. I've changed this section title to reflect that it was a misunderstanding. Stay cool, everyone! =David^(talk)_(contribs) 13:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving On!

First, SlRub, that was a bit over the line, and highly uncalled for.

Second, as was the reply to my last comment, John Smith's has agreed to move on. So, I hereby unequivocally call for an end to discussion about the era notation for this article, effective this day, Anno Wikipaedius 2007. Move On! --Avery W. Krouse 21:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm certainly not agreeing with the current position, and I won't even say that I agree to the point of having consensus. But I'm not going to press the issue on the talk page (because that's not going anywhere), and I'm not going to start reverting because that's also not going to get us anywhere either. Maybe I'll look into another way to resolve this or continue the discussion elsewhere. But if people want to edit the article they should start without delay, whether talking about it here or just getting on with it.

I don't mean to be pernicity, but as "silence equals consensus" (or some such) according to Wikipedia rules I'm just trying to ensure there aren't cries of "but we had consensus on this issue when it was discussed in August 2007" if this comes up again. John Smith's 21:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

We can point to August 2007 as another example of no consensus for changing what we have now. How about that? ;)-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be a 100% correct assessment of the situation - how could anyone say anything else? It doesn't mean the matter is closed, simply that the status-quo has to stay until something else happens. John Smith's 22:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So I guess the progressives/secularists have won again. That's a shame they want to suppress Christian influence on history. I'll be looking forward to students having to learn whatever the new 'algebra' is called. I presume it's name change will occur in the near future in order to suppress the Muslim influence on mathematics. Oh wait, we only care about suppressing Christianity, nevermind. Glitch26 03:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please rethink your comment. As a Christian, I am far from offended with allowing both era systems to remain. I believe that it is an acceptable compromise; furthermore, there are many more important battles to fight than the one above. This consensus does not suppress Christianity, it preserves it. It is the most reasonable solution that will not result in edit warring and overall damage of the article. I approve of this compromise - remember, a compromise means that neither side gets exactly what they want, but both sides are satisfied. And I am satisfied. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 03:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As people who are against the Christian religion having any visiblity in society continue to stifle it these things will happen (in the name of diversity, inclusion, political correctness, whatever the excuse may be). As we as Christians give in to compromise we let them win little by little. By saying it is okay for their idea to be equal to (or supercede) the Christian idea (whatever that may be given the situation) you gradually let them take away what Christianity means or what it teaches or its impact (whatever the case may be). After a while you look back and realize you just gave away your religion without even realizing it. I'd wager a guess that there really was no intention of ever going back to the BC/AD notation no matter what arguments were presented. Of course, those who are proponents of the new notation (and maybe even some of those who are for compromise) will deny that. This is just another in a long line of compromises past, present, and future that will be the fall of the religion and with the country based on that religion (and all its denominations) the country will go down too similar to the Roman empire. Glitch26 02:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

First: an "us versus them" mentality is fallacy and counterproductive. We are all in this together; the fight is "not against flesh and blood." It is against evil in the form of sin.

Second: I have no intention of "giving away my religion." My religion runs far deeper than anything that can be taken away; a passion for God's glory runs my life AND my Wikipedia editing. I believe that being an effective member of the Wikipedia best shows the glory of God. "Giving it away" implies that it is something able to be given; it is not.

Third: the discussion was raised by a user for discussion amongst users. There is no larger governing body of Wikipedia, and thus no way for "no intention of ever going back" to be a possibility. Assumption of good faith means that you must assume all users to have an open mind and the best interests of the project at heart unless and until they prove otherwise, so we must assume that they were participating in the discussion with full intent to abide by consensus.

Fourth: - and possibly most importantly - compromise drives society. There is a difference between a policy of compromise and a policy of selling out; we are for the former, we are against the latter. A hardline stance sets you up to be knocked down; we are commanded to be "Everything, to all people, that by all means we might save some;" in this case, it means being the best Wikipedia editor you can be. And that does not include asserting that your faith must be the manual of style by which the encyclopedia is run. Being a Wikipedia editor and being a Christian are not two mutually exclusive goals.

Also, and somewhat less important, your Roman analogy is flawed. First, Wikipedia is not an American project; it is multinational. Second, the Roman empire fell partly because of Christians being persecuted, yes; but also because of purely logistical reasons such as transportation, communication, warfare, and defense. America has far more problems than that, and Wikipedia does not concern itself only with the United States of America.

Please realize, there are many, many bigger fish to fry. This is a battle that needs not be fought. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 02:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

And quite frankly, I look at all of this as a "Tell Billy to stay on his side of the car, Mom!" issue. It's just childish yelling about something that honestly causes no harm to anyone. I'm a devout evangelical Christian, one of those kinds that cries to a good Chris Tomlin song, and has even had quite a bit of fun at churches that speak in tongues and use, gasp, rock bands for worship! As I see it, any Christian that is focused on this issue as an area of debate really, really needs to take a step back and look at what he's fighting for, because I can guarantee you that no one is going to be "saved" by an argument over BC/BCE.

Further, we're not nearly as "suppressed" or "repressed" here in the Land of the Free as we would be living in, say, a good selection of countries in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. When was the last time you were arrested for having a copy of the Bible in your home? When was the last time you were told you could either renounce your faith in the Christian God or die? I think many pseudo-militant American Christians would be better off if they'd sit down and shut up about the so-called secular intrusion into our territory, because we're living in one of the few societies on Earth that couldn't care less that we're Christian, and to a lot of people, that would be a blessing. Now, if you disagree with me, I completely welcome you to do so, and I'd encourage you to take up the issue with me on my talk page, but claiming that secularists are somehow crowding out Christians on an encyclopedia article with at least a hundred times more information than most other encyclopedia resources, taking into account the sub-articles and referenced source material appears to me to be nothing more than a desperate attempt to get an argument started. --Avery W. Krouse 21:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 21:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, everyone. I'd just like to point out that I hope the article can be raised to FA-status soon and that if there is a review (and someone draws attention to it for me) I will not be raising the point about BCE/AD et al as an objection, indeed probably supporting it. I still hope the issue can be finally resolved sometime, but that won't be for a while. :) John Smith's 17:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Very good of you to say. Thank you. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 21:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It was certainly wrong of me to imply that the dispute should hold up FA-status. However, I do hope that no one will use FA-status as a reason not to resolve the dispute at a later date. John Smith's 22:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hell, this article doesn't half look stupid (and it reads badly) with the idiotic use of the two era notations side-by-side. It might go some way to satisfy the divergent views of the editors but it really detracts from what Wikipedia is about. I would almost go as far as saying it brings Wikipedia to ridicule. You editors - get it into your thick heads that Wikipedia is not there to enhance your egos and support your opinions (on usage). It's there to provide information to the world in a sensible way. Your AD/CE usage is laughable! 86.31.116.163 18:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Laughs are good for the soul. And Wikipedia is not scared of ridicule. ^ross ^nixon 02:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Several resurrected

"...raising several people, such as Lazarus, from the dead". IMHO of the given passage, solely Lazarus was resurrected. May be Martha's brother also makes sense? --Brand спойт 18:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the given passage only mentions Lazarus, but there are also Matt 9:25 (the ruler's daughter) and Luke 7:15 (the only son of a widow). The.helping.people.tick 06:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Give me a Break!

This article claims you can Reconstruct the historical Jesus by using a mythological source (i.e. the Bible)?? Give me a break! There are plenty of historical references that survive (e.g. Fragments of Celsus), of course Christians don't want the truth in here (e.g. that Jesus was born of of wedlock and that he learned magic in Egypt to fool the people in Palestine) because it might denigrate their so-called God. Last time I check, this was supposed to be an encyclopedia, not some religious site determined to spread their propaganda.

Why don't you Christians add articles on all the Greek and Roman gods and goddesses, as well as mythological figures such as Romulus and Remus, and then attempt to reconstruct the historical Romulus or Jupiter/Zeus by using mythological sources? lol

If I recall correctly, talk pages are not here to discuss the topic in general, but rather to discuss improving the article. Please cite your sources and avoid original research. The.helping.people.tick 06:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, please outline the propaganda and offer your version. --Brand спойт 20:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's nice when trolls don't sign their posts because it makes it easy to ignore them if a reader so desires. In this case I'll reply in order to fix some factual errors in the original post. The Bible is not a mythological source of information as there are many many references of peoples, places, and things in the Bible that really exist (or did exist in the past). In addition, Jesus may have been born out of wedlock but that is fine considering no sexual intercourse was required for him to be born. Glitch26 03:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Rabbi Hillel is not Hillel the Elder!

Please fix up this confusion. The article is locked and I can't. See Hillel, son of Gamaliel III. 122.148.184.76 09:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? The article says that Hillel the Elder founded the House of Hillel. What is the confusion? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

rabbi Hillel the Elder is wrong. Hillel the Elder was not known as rabbi. rabbi Hillel was someone difference altogether. I think this statement of the Rabbis should be meant to show their attitude to messiah-claimits. "Bar Koziba reigned two and a half years, and then said to the Rabbis, 'I am the Messiah.' They answered, 'Of Messiah it is written that he smells and judges: let us see whether he can do so.' When they saw that he was unable to judge by the scent, they [ Adin Steinsaltz amends this 'they' as 'the Romans'. - ed] slew him." 124.168.9.180 04:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I replaced rabbi with Tanna. Is that acceptable?-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not certain but I think he (Hillel the Elder) is not even considered a Tanna but a Zug, I think the Tannaim are post 70 CE. Rabban was not used as an official title until the post-70 Sanhedrin ... although Jews use "Rabbi" retroactively (as in Moshe Rabbenu, Moses our Rabbi) Slrubenstein | Talk 14:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A concern is the use of words recognizable to the the average readers. The term rabbi is common and understood. Zug and Tanna are more obscure; does this really matter? This confusion described above makes it even more unpalatable a change. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The first generation of tannaim is considered to begin c. 10 CE, not 70 CE.[13] Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, Hillel the Elder was not a Tanna. As for "does it matter," well, only if you care about accuracy. I understand that "Rabbi" is familiar to many non-Jews because it is such a pervasive office today. To be quite honest, I have no idea what the difference is between a priest, a monk, or a friar - but I am guessing that the difference is important to Catholics and would not be surprised if they insisted that individuals be identified appropriately. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hillel the Elder is more than just a rabbi. He is the founder of the school of the Tannaim. Jewish Encyclopedia: Hillel never uses the word rabbi, instead: "Doctor of the Law at Jerusalem in the time of King Herod; founder of the school called after him, and ancestor of the patriarchs who stood at the head of Palestinian Judaism till about the fifth century of the common era." 75.14.220.159 07:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Rabbi is Hebrew and Mori is Aramaic. Both mean the same thing. A Rabbi in those times was not a cleric and should not be confused as one. The term after Yochanan ben Zakai was used to describe a judge who was apointed to fulfill the commandment from the verse "Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, tribe by tribe; and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment." This came into place after the Romans wanted to take over the administration of the market places and a title was required. Usage of the word rabbi ceased after this roll ceased under the Romans. In the 1300s the word was recycled among the European Jews to refer to a cleric. 124.170.180.75 07:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The Aramaic is rabboni (רבוני) . In the first century it meant teacher. G4462 G4461 75.15.200.172 18:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Rabboni means my Rabbon (Ashkenazi) or Rabban (Israeli). Based on the Hebrew root RV. I think Thayer is incorrect. Did he know of the title Rabban? Which was used for a limited time before the simplified title rabbi. 124.170.76.169 02:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The 1st century Gospel of John 20:16 translates Rabboni to Koine Greek didaskale:

"Jesus said to her, ‘Mary!’ She turned and said to him in Hebrew,* ‘Rabbouni!’ (which means Teacher)." NRSV

"λεγει αυτη ιησους μαριαμ στραφεισα εκεινη λεγει αυτω εβραιστι ραββουνι ο λεγεται διδασκαλε" Westcott-Hort

It could be wrong, but it's a pretty strong reference, the writer of John is well known to be anti-Jewish yet relatively knowledgeable of things Jewish. 75.14.215.47 05:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Rabbouni could just be the same as Rabbenu from the context. I don't know Greek so well. So I will not comment any further. 124.170.201.109 06:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Some more refs: Catholic Encyclopedia: Rabbi and Rabbinism: "The word, derived from the Hebrew Rab, "great", originally seems to have been equivalent to "my lord"; when it became the distinctive title of the scribes the specific force of its pronoun was lost, and "Rabbi" was used very much like our "Doctor". That this title was far from unpleasant in the ears of thescribes we know from Matt., xxiii, 7. In point of fact a pupil never would omit it when speaking to or of his teacher (Berach., xxvii, 1), and it became a universal usage never to mention the name of adoctor of the Law without prefixing "Rabbi". Nay more, in order to show the person greater honour, this title was intensified into "Rabban", "Rabboni", so that in the course of time custom established a kind of hierarchy among these various forms: "Rabbi", the doctors said, "is more than Rab, Rabban more than Rabbi, and the proper name more than Rabban." The latter part of this traditional regulation has particularly in view the two greatDoctors Hillel and Shammai, always designated by their unqualified proper names; the successors of Hillel, as Gamaliel were titled Rabban, and so also was by exception Johanan ben Zakkai; Palestinian doctors are commonly known as Rabbi So-and-so, yet Rabbi Judas the Saint, who composed the Mishna, is not infrequently called merely Rabbi (par excellence); in the same manner, Rab, without the proper name, designates Abba Arika (died A. D. 247), the founder of the School of Sora, while Rab is the title prefixed to the names of the Amoras of Babylon."

Jewish Encyclopedia: Rabbi: "The more ancient generations, however, which were far superior, had no such titles as 'Rabban,' 'Rabbi,' or 'Rab,' for either the Babylonian or Palestinian sages. This is evident from the fact that Hillel I., who came from Babylon, had not the title 'Rabban' prefixed to his name. Of the Prophets, also, who were very eminent, it is simply said, 'Haggai the prophet,' etc., 'Ezra did not come up from Babylon,' etc., the title 'Rabban' not being used. Indeed, this title is not met with earlier than the time of the patriarchate. It was first used of Rabban Gamaliel the elder, Rabban Simeon his son, and Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai, all of whom were patriarchs or presidents of the Sanhedrin. The title 'Rabbi,' too, came into vogue among those who received the laying on of hands at this period, as, for instance, Rabbi Zadok, Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, and others, and dates from the time of the disciples of Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai downward. Now the order of these titles is as follows: 'Rabbi' is greater than 'Rab'; 'Rabban,' again, is greater than 'Rabbi'; while the simple name is greater than 'Rabban.' Besides the presidents of the Sanhedrin no one is called 'Rabban.'""

75.14.215.47 05:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

H.H. Ben-Sasson's History of the Jewish People calls Hillel a Hakhamim: "The greatest of the hakhamim in the last generations before the destruction of the Temple was Hillel the Elder" (page 284) 75.0.11.167 07:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That just means wiseman or sage. See its usage by Maimonides. 124.170.201.109 06:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Change it to Nasi

Or leader. He wasn't a Tanna. He was the Nasi of the Great Sanhedrin. Just call him leader with a wikilink to nasi. 124.170.201.109 06:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Nasi is good. Jewish Encyclopedia: Nasi: "The president of the Sanhedrin. According to the rabbinical tradition (Ḥag. ii. 2; Peah ii. 6), the Sanhedrin was presided over by a duumvirate ("zug" = "zeugos" [couple]), of which the first was the nasi, the second the ab bet din. Jose ben Joezer and Jose ben Johanan in the time of the Maccabees are mentioned in the Mishnah as the first couple; Hillel and Shammai, as the last; while the two titles were conferred upon the two chief men of the Sanhedrin during the following generations, the house of Hillel down to Judah II. in 225 retaining the title of nasi, while as ab bet din, R. Joshua under the presidency of Gamaliel II. (B. Ḳ. 74b) is occasionally mentioned, and R. Nathan under Simon ben Gamaliel (Hor. 13b). The historic character of this duumvirate, and in particular that of the ab bet din alongside of the nasi as head of the Sanhedrin, has been questioned and even denied by modern writers ..." 75.0.9.114 07:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

One more comment, if you call Hillel leader, you should specify Pharisee leader. 75.0.9.114 07:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both anonymous editors. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No. He was not a sectarian leader. Jewish groups that had different theological beliefs still respected him as they in their view it was a commandment to do so. I totally object calling him a Pharisee leader. 124.170.85.23 07:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What is your evidence that other groups, like Saducees and Essenes, considered him their leader? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

At first, I would ask what proof do you have, that they did not fulfill a literal commandment (this is part of the reason why they fought for control of the Sanhedrin). But then I remembered the saying of Rabbi Hillel "Use no unintelligible expressions assuming that ultimately they will be understood." If you ever walk through the mishnah you would understand me. For example, the last mishnah in Sotah, has the Pharisees banning certain rites mostly practiced by the high class and aristocrats (i.e. both tzedukim and Pharisees). If you look at the Gemera, of the Talmud Bavli by the time of Rabban Shimon when Jerusalem came under siege, there was no one except him (and other representatives to the Roman government) who knew of the banned rite and the city was still populated by Tzedukim at that time. Do not bother learning this from the Soncino translation as it is extremely inaccurate for this section. Make sure you look at Maimonides' commentary on this Mishnah as Rashi is too brief. There are many more example... I need to go to sleep. 124.170.77.14 22:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You are engaging in what at Wikipedia is called original research. This is forbidden for article contributions (see WP:OR). Slrubenstein | Talk 23:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I know of the Original Research policy very well. I thought I said something about it this not being the location for an explanation but I guess I forgot to type it as I was too tired. Anyway, I think the Rashba (Might of been Rashbam) commentary says this was a ban the tzedukim accepted. I read what I wrote and I see it isn't very clear... I was just too tired. So lets keep this simple. Do you read Aramaic and Hebrew? 124.171.2.198 14:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Additions by Qwazywabbit

I've partly reverted some recent additions by User:Qwazywabbit. I edited a historiographical comparison between Jesus and Alexander the Great, to remove the unsourced and incorrect statement that no legendary material about Alexander existed by the time of Arrian. The comparison itself may be relevant, but unless it's been made by a reliable source, it's original research.

As for the additions concerning numbers of manuscripts, this topic isn't directly relevant to the historical reliability of the texts, but the placement of this section where it was in the article was likely to leave the casual reader confused between textual and historical reliability. Also, if we are going to discuss numbers of manuscripts, we need to (a) acknowledge that most "New Testament manuscipts" cover only parts of the New Testament, and (b) provide some explanation of how the number of manuscripts actually bears on textual criticism. Note that in criticism of many classical texts, most manuscripts can be eliminated from consideration as deriving from other extant manuscripts, and those that are considered can have very unequal value; in other words, having 200 manuscripts rather than 50 does not mean establishing the text is four times as easy, or even necessarily any easier. There were also sourcing problems; I doubt that Lee Strobel is a reliable source for textual criticism. EALacey 18:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So what does Alexander the Great have to do with Jesus? I seem to remember a while back that someone wanted to do a historiographical comparison with Julius Ceasar. Such comparisons strike me as superflous, if not outright specious. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the number of manuscripts, as well as the dating of those manuscripts from the event to the written is very relevant to the paragraph. It shows specifically that the New Testament can be corroborated from many sources, not all of which are copies of the New Testament. Without this, the casual reader may infer that the one-sided view of the supposed lack of historical and archaeological evidence is factual, when in fact it is not. Why would the use of Lee Strobel not be considered a credible source? He did exhaustive investigation on numerous criticisms on the topic of Jesus. Incidentally, my comp crapped out on my before I could place the revised article after removing the paragraph--thank you for replacing it. Qwazywabbit 19:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The "Questions of reliability" section is about "the accuracy of early texts describing the details of Jesus' life". The relatively large number of New Testament manuscripts may help in establishing what was actually written by the author of a particular document, but does nothing to "corroborate" the accuracy of what he wrote. Textual accuracy and historical accuracy are simply different things (remember that the text of most modern novels is known with a very high level of confidence). And Lee Strobel is, as far as I'm aware, not regarded as an authority on the manuscripts of Josephus. Would any Josephan scholar cite him as a source? It shouldn't be hard to find an alternative source, such as an editor of Josephus' works, or a commentator on them. EALacey 19:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"It shows specifically that the New Testament can be corroborated from many sources, not all of which are copies of the New Testament." the sording suggests that Qwazywabbit wants to make an argument. Wikipedia articles are not the place for editors to make or try to prove arguments, period. We should of course provide accurate accounts of other people's arguments. Obviously some people think the Gospels are whoelly reliable historical sources, some thing they are partially reliable, and others think they are unreliable. We should mention the most sophisticated proponents of each view and provide an account of their views. I suspect this should be done in a linked article and here we should simply explain why there are multiple views i.e. why there is some disagreement/debate. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Lee Strobel is a terrible reference and should not be used. I've read The Case for Christ and it is tub thumping for the faithful - not scholarship. Sophia 21:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't making a specific case for Strobel. Obviously editors need to determine who are the most representative and influential proponents of the three views. However, I do not think we should hold all proponents of diverse views to the same standards (e.g. that they all have PhD.s from major universities) - diffeent views are held by differentgroups of people and those groups of people may have diverging criteria for what makes someone an importantt representative of their view. Obviously, whenever we present anyone's views, we need to contextualize it (wat is the person's backgrounds/credentials; who views him or her as an authority and why?) Slrubenstein | Talk 21:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect reference

I've just removed the following reference which is not a true reference for the text:

"The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds… Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted."—Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.

Peter zhou 05:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a little vague. How is the reference incorrect?--C.Logan 05:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Basically here the reference has nothing to do with the text. Peter zhou 04:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability is always a pain. I'll check the source myself, tomorrow.--C.Logan 04:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Also the statement "Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted" is simply INCORRECT since there must be at least one biblical scholar who believes nonhistoricity of Jesus, not? -- Peter zhou 04:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course, but it's just hyperbole. He means to say that it's almost universally a non-issue at this point. So, taken literally, its technically incorrect, but it is a quote, and it's only really as wrong as me saying "nobody wants their family to die in a fire"- surely, there are some people who do want such a thing, but they are an utterly insignificant minority. That's what the quote is saying, and so if there's a reference for it, there's nothing wrong with including it. That's why I'm going to check the reference tomorrow. The text is unfortunately unavailable online (Google Books previews every page but the ones I need... it's a trend).--C.Logan 05:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please check that out. Also even if that's what he wrote, we also need to rewrite the statement, otherwise, it will be misleading. We may write something like, "Robert E. Van Voors suggested that biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." --- Peter zhou 03:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The Real Face of Jesus

This is my first time writing in Wikipedia's Talk section. So, I apologize if I made mistakes about rules, which I try not to do.

There is a research made by English scientists and Israeli archeologists about what Jesus could have looked like in Popular Mechanics magazine. I was wondering why you don't include this to some extent scientific, unlike the great masters' paintings, approach and illustriation to this article. when i make a google search with keywords "real jesus face" i run into this picture in first search results. Don't you think this article should contain this highly widespread illustration either?

Here is the link of the illustration and regarding research:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282186.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Comptrol (talk • contribs).

No worries. The only mistake you made was that you forgot to sign your contribution. Use four tildes (~~~~), the system will automatically expand this to a signature like mine below. We cannot use the image, because it is under copyright, and I think it unlikely that we can find a suitable fair-use rationale for it here. We could possibly discuss and link to the article, though. --Stephan Schulz 07:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:RFJesus.jpg

Well, for one thing, it's not supposed to be Jesus. It's just an example of what a 1st century Palestinian looked like, constructed from a random skull dating to around the same time period. Honestly, considering the diversity of faces amongst people of every nationality, I don't see how the Pantokrator image is any less plausible as a realistic portrait of Jesus than the one you speak of. Therefore, it's a nice touch, but there's no obligation to include this image, any more than including a reconstructed face from the skull of a Frankish peasant should be included as a "what he might have looked like" in the Charlemagne article. And in contrast to what Stephan Shulz has said above, the image you propose appears to be in use on Criticism of Christianity and Race of Jesus, from the location I've thumbed to the right. The image page seems to say that the usage is acceptable, but it also goes on to note something in bold, which we should keep in mind: "The image depicts a hypothetical construction of what someone from Jesus' time and location might have looked like. It is not supposed to be an image of Jesus himself."--C.Logan 07:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. Unfortunately, the image is currently used in violation of Wikipedia policy, which requires a separate fair-use rationale for every use of the image (on the image page). --Stephan Schulz 08:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the image qualifies for use in the English Wikipedia- I'm aware that foreign language versions of the site and Wikimedia Commons have far stricter image requirements, but that the English Wikipedia allows certain copyrighted images to be used under certain circumstances (I recently uploaded an image on Commons to replace a badly-edited version of the picture, and I made a copyvio- so I'd read over the requirements recently). Are you certain that this image is in violation?--C.Logan 08:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not per-se. But we need to justify for each individual use of the image why it qualifies as fair use under US/Florida law. This is not currently done. Alternatively, we need to ask the BBC to provide it under a free-enough license (fat chance :-(). --Stephan Schulz 08:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. These copyright issues severely limit the pool of images available, and that's very unfortunate. Hopefully, there are no major qualms in this particular case, even though I'm clearly not supporting inclusion on this page: the image is rather over-rated and often mis-attributed/incorrectly described, and I feel that it's really only useful in certain situations and articles, as it is in Race of Jesus.--C.Logan 09:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that not only is this image currently not being used in conformance with relevant policy, but it probably never can be. One of the criteria is that the image be irreplaceable by a free equivalent. It's perfectly possible to draw an image showing what a typical 1st-century resident of Palestine might have looked like -- admittedly not based on forensic anthropology, but certainly close enough to be just as informative. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not so. In the context of a discussion of this particular study, the image is irreplacable, and it can be reasonably used under fair-use criteria. --Stephan Schulz 08:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but I didn't get the impression that this was the use under discussion. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not a Christian and so I may be off-base here and I apologize if what I say offends any Christians, but it is my sense that Christians have deeply personal - or impersonal, culturally or socially mediated - relations to Jesus and that no graphic representation of Jesus has ever really been "What Jesus (in the flesh) really looked like" but rather an expression of people's relation to Jesus. In today's secular (speucdo)sicentific age it does not surprise me that many people will be impressed by "scientific" attempts to reconstruct (it is a device in the TV shoe "Bones" but has always been at least as much art as science) faces - but I see this as just a sign of the changing times. We will never know what Jesus really looked like, or if any of us are certain they know for sure, they will never convince everyone. I have said this before: I think a gallery of images of Jesus says a lot more about art history and the history of Christianity and the feelings of Christians, than it will ever say about what Jesus looked like. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

the white man image of jesus

how can jesus look like this when the bible said he has feet the color of brass (the closes to the color of brass is brown,the original earth tone of man from the dust of the middle east, neutual color of black & white). man have not migrate towards northern climate for their skin to turn white yet. the middle east is a hot region mostly desert. & the hair of wool, the only race who have actual hair of wool is africans or of african decent. white man have never in thier history have hair of wool and the picture does not show that what so ever. if you gonna tell the story of jesus please get it right including the image. why do white man continue to lie about a image of a man who saved us all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.224.237.184 (talk) 02:05, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

You're referring to the metaphoric description of Jesus from the Book of Revelation, an extremely symbolic book, which has few, if any, literal passages. I'm not sure where you get your information, but there were most certainly blonde, white-skinned people during the time of Jesus, if that's what you're saying in that second sentence. If you have any issues, or would like to see what Wikipedia has on the topic, please see Race of Jesus, or this section, specifically.--C.Logan 03:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Rabbi Ishmael says: The House of Israel is not white or black but like an olive." - Mishnah Tohorot. If Jesus was genetically a pure Israeli then he should of been like an olive. 124.170.193.25 14:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

NO DISREPECT. In The Middle east there were no white man in there region back then ( Go to a middle East historian in the middle east not america ), GOD (ALLAH)created one man, & one woman near eygpt (North Africa) ethiopia is near eygpt.(Scientist all over the world has prove that fact)(get the DVD the journey of man) man was force to migrate out of africa into the middle east because of the african drought, through the middle east towards a place that is now called india (Indians). a migration split, some went north and some went east on south asia continent. indians that travel north settled what was called central asia and then towards whats now called russia. another migration split one indian tribe went west across russia into europe in which it took longer to travel because of the cold climate (you're talking about well below zero climate). thats where the color of skin turn lighter and lighter through generations. the other indian tribe cross into now called alaska went south bound to america and towards south america. by the time man has explore europe, jesus has lived, died & been resurected century's ago. meanwhile africans (eygptians) that didnt travel north,travel west in africa where the climate was hotter , the skin turn more darker and darker through generations. americans always have trouble grapping that fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.237.184 (talk) 02:35, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but while you gain a very loose semblance of human migration, I think the DVD you've been checking out has warped your perspective. As far as we "Americans" have determined from our "science", mankind emerged from the Rift Valley in Central/Western Africa. Concerning the rest of your post, I'm not sure what you're arguing. There were certainly "white people" in the Middle East at that time. Did you forget the occupation of the Roman Empire, or the Hellenic Empire which occupied most of the known world and "Hellenized" various peoples several centuries prior? Remember again that the average Jew at that time was comparable in complexion to your average Greek, if slightly darker; considering that Greeks are considered "white", this doesn't really help the case much for Jesus' "blackness", or whatever is being argued. Like I've said, I don't know how the images of Christ Pantokrator are insufficiently realistic, concerning skin tone at the very least.--C.Logan 04:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you're wrong C. Logan. i know about romans and the greek, both come from europe nations. in which the last of the migration chain. they came after the fact. the man created the DVD is born in america before moving to england and he is white. i can defintely tell that you haven't seen the move yet. just like a typical american always putting something down without watching first. it is supported by nations in which he travel to create the DVD movie. go to your local library (if your pride lets you go to one) and rent it. Europeans later learn to build object that can float on water, then sailed over to parts of middle east region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.237.184 (talk) 04:59, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

The funny thing is how out-of-bounds this discussion has gone. What is the point you're trying to make? I pointed out that you're interpretation of Revelation as implying African or Middle Eastern descent is erroneous, given the metaphorical content in Revelation, and the fact that the "descriptions" contradict each other concerning race in any case. I also happened to respond to your comment, and this is the point we still seem to be arguing about, because your initial post seemed to claim that "in Jesus' time, man had not yet migrated into Europe and developed white skin". This is ridiculous, and if that's not what you were saying, then I'm sorry I misunderstood you. That, again, was why I'd brought up the Greeks and Romans, because their existence alone in the region at the time of Jesus' birth is an elementary-level disqualification of your assertion. Now, it seems, you like to blame difficulties on nationality. Thank you for exhibiting your prejudices, and your incompetence concerning a nation of over 300 million people. In all honesty, I could care less what you think, but speaking like that in a discussion makes you look like a bigot. Please, for the sake of this discussion, explain how human migration is relevant to the subject of this article, and of Jesus' race.--C.Logan 08:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

the only person is out of bounds is you, this is not about the subject anymore. highlight the statement that makes me look like a bigot? (haven't you forgot that your kind not only invented that word, you made it popular and were proud of it) for treatment of blacks & other minorities in america. you people have a very long worst crimmial track record date all the way back to the romans, and still holds the record for the worst crime in the history of planet earth, and you talking smack. after what you done to the indians & blacks, they have every right to be prejudice, and the rest of the world will understand but some of white americans. but indians & blacks found ways to forgive (sometime you make it hard) you are always good at opening old wounds especially when its almost heal. white americans settled with the indians, when are white americans finaly gonna settled with blacks for 400 years of free labor and cold killings you gotten away with. whites in other countries are good and fair. is thats why many countries love to see america fall? you love war, greed & power too much. explain why america is hated now throughout parts of the world. i don't pretend to be anything except speak my mind. now i learn that you are a hypocrite and you're no different than a street thugg(since you are the first person to call names) white americans see things only one way WHITE. the truth inside of you came out, you think you know every thing but i'm not fooled.

Okay:

just like a typical american always putting something down without watching first.
go to your local library (if your pride lets you go to one)
americans always have trouble grapping that fact.
why do white man continue to lie about a image of a man who saved us all.

A few things concerning the above quotations, before I respond to your comment directly. First, you need to understand that bigotry comes in many forms. Take the first three quotations above, and insert the 'N' word in place of "American", with an appropriate predicate, and you have an ignorant, racially charged statement which would send many up to arms. Do you not understand that stereotyping and blanket assumptions are always harmful, both to the target and to the one who's making such assumptions? How many Americans do you even know? I know very many, and while all stereotypes have some grounding in truth (like it or not), it is hurtful and unfair to the individuals who don't fit that mold when you characterize them in such a manner. I can assume you'll find it easy to understand what if feels like to be characterized, or to be put down in such a manner, given your defensive attitude.

Concerning the fourth quotation, I think you're a little misled. No one is "lying" about the image of Christ. You're surely aware that black individuals in the United States and Ethiopia have depicted Christ as a black man for decades (in Ethiopia's case, centuries). Because of these depictions, are the black men "continuing to lie about the image of a man who saved us all"? No, they are simply creating an image of Jesus which they most identify with. In fact, American blacks are more guilty of formulating an aesthetically preferable Jesus in contrast to the evidence: most white depictions (of other ethnicities) and Middle-Eastern and African depictions prior to recent times (in iconography) have been made as such due to assumptions of what he may have looked like based on the cultures and people which were known to each individual group of people at that time. The Franks assumed that Christ was of their own culture and appearance, as did the English, the Italians, the Bulgarians, the Russians, the Spanish, and so on. These assumptions were due to the fact that they didn't know any better at that time, and most importantly... it didn't, and still doesn't matter. Christ is Christ, not a black Christ, or a white Christ, or a tan Christ. What is important is how we relate to Christ, rather than how Christ "looks" to us. The depiction of Christ is important, but color is a trivial thing. You can have a black Christ, or an Arab Christ, and I'll have my Greek Christ, or my "white" Christ, as you may term it. As long as we have a focus for our worship, it doesn't matter any more than whether you're using a Latin Crucifix, a Greek Crucifix, or a Protestant Cross.

Now, to respond to your comment directly, I need to remind you of a few things. First of all, though the modern form of the word "bigot" was invented by "my kind" (if by that you mean the Northern Europeans), but the concept was not (and I would certainly hope we'd recognized such an idea before the 16th century). Concerning "making it popular", if you mean that we used a normal English word often, then yes. The Founding Fathers often spoke against the concept and praised the United States as a nation with an outlook opposed to the concept (which unfortunately is not historically true). Concerning being "proud of it", I've never met anyone to make such a claim, nor have I ever heard of such a thing. Most people who are proud of "being bigots" are likely unaware of the concept of "bigotry" in the first place, and they view their perspective as the only positive one without understanding the fault in it. Recognizing oneself as a bigot, for the most part, cancels this possibility, as it is an acknowledgment of fault.

Again with the "you people". Do you understand how offensive that sounds? Do you happen to enjoy when someone says "you people"? I don't think so. You're grouping me in with your caricature, and it's not appreciated. I'd be very intrigued to find a group of people who don't have a "criminal track record". You seem to magnify this "track record" by assuming that the Romans and the English and the Russians are all the same people, when they are not, just as Ethiopians are not Moroccans. It is racist to conflate national and racial concepts like that. Please understand that blaming everything on white people is not a healthy solution to whatever problem you might have.

Now let's discuss "what you done". What I've done, eh? Do you know when my ancestors arrived in this country? No? Oh, well then don't tell me what "I've done". You might be intrigued to note that half of my family has had to endure discrimination since they'd arrived in this country in the 1930's. I guess, ironically, that you assume that because "I'm white, I'm a bigot by nature". Never mind the fact that holding those alive today for the actions of their ancestors is extremely immature and uncivilized. Do you honestly think that the descendant of a plantation owner really shares the same values as his great-great-grandfather, even through over a century and a half of political and societal changes? Please, take a reality check.

Concerning "whites in other countries are good and fair". I'm not sure if you're simply mistaken here, but this is not true. Every country has people who are bigoted and cruel to those of other races and nationalities, whether that country is located in Europe, the Americas, Africa or Asia. On the whole, the vast majority of people in the United States are "good and fair" to those who you claim are discriminated against. Just like the bigots you speak against, you are letting the minority of individuals (in this case, the bigots themselves) speak for the majority of the nation.

Concerning "is thats why many countries love to see america fall? you love war, greed & power too much. explain why america is hated now throughout parts of the world". No, these countries either have a great problem with our foreign policy, with our culture, or it may be that they are simply bigots themselves, judging nations based on caricatures, as you appear to be doing, based upon your comment. I don't know if you follow the news, but almost nobody here "loves" war. Do you understand this, or are you simply fooling yourself? The only reason people here agree to participate in war is when they feel that there is a threat which should be combated. In this case, it appears that we've been fooled, but I can assure you that no one goes to war because they "love it". Concerning "greed and power", I challenge you to find a nation or group of people where these desires aren't a problem in society.

Concerning "i don't pretend to be anything except speak my mind. now i learn that you are a hypocrite and you're no different than a street thugg(since you are the first person to call names) white americans see things only one way WHITE. the truth inside of you came out, you think you know every thing but i'm not fooled". There is a great irony when an individual who has shown great hypocritical behavior jumps upon calling another individual a hypocrite. I think that any observer without vested interest would agree with me on my analysis of the conversation. The only individual who is consistently working to divide and caricature groups of people in this discussion is you, friend. It is ironic that those who cry out against bigotry are often shown to be bigots themselves, as you appear to be against "Americans" and "white people" in general (and as I've pointed out, conflating different cultures into a single monolithic terminology for the purposes of casting blame is plain and simple bigotry and ignorance). Please realize that "black" and "white" are just inaccurately vague descriptions for the skin color of groups of individuals. When one ascribes such dramatic feelings and caricature to these terms, and blames people simply because they fall under such a description, it is they who have shown their prejudice.--C.Logan 17:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a troll. Jinxmchue 17:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The comment is so absurd and irrelevant that I thought of reverting it but I always hesitate to do that on talk pages. But if you or someone else wants to delete his comments and those that follow I won't object! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

And I appear to be feeding it.--C.Logan 08:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No, first of all, please do NOT delete editor's comments on Talk Pages unless they constitute invasions of privacy or violate WP:BLP. It may be appropriate to archive comments which are inappropriate to Talk Pages, however.

Secondly, the editor's comments may be poorly expressed but they do make a valid point. Traditional European depictions of Jesus portray him as a European. Despite the natural tendency for people to depict Jesus as being like themselves, Jesus was not likely to have looked like a blonde and white-skinned European. More likely, he looked like a Palestinian. There are even arguments that he may have been black.

I agree he look more close to a palestinian perhaps. [k.davis]

Moreover, descriptions of Jesus in the Bible may very well have been written for symbolic meaning rather than literal accuracy.

See Race of Jesus for more details.

A summary of these points should be included in this article.

--Richard 17:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Your point has been made and noted many times. The anonymous contributor is making up a fake quote from from te Mishnah, and then making an absured genetic argument. The quote has nothing to do with his argument, and his point is Jewus should be an olive? Give me a break. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the correct (original) pronunciation of Jesus?

How do you pronounce JESUS?

Je (as in Germany) Soos (as in Susie)
Gee (as in Gina) Sirs (Dear Sir)
Ye (Yeah) Soo (Sue)

Can someone please provide the .ogg file, thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.95.209.146 (talk • contribs).

Sorry, but the question is unclear. If you read the introduction, you will see that "Jesus" is the westernized version of the graecified version of an original Aramic name. This was probably not pronounced like anything on your list. Are you interested in the pronunciation of "Jesus" in the first western language that used the westernized term or in how the man would have pronounced his own name? To give you an idea: The same name when used in the old testament is now usually written "Joshua" in English Bibles. --Stephan Schulz 06:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me also note that according to historical and sociolinguists, the original name is not the correct name. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a rather vague assertion.--C.Logan 09:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

What makes a word (which are composed of morphemes which are composed of phonemes - i.e. which involve both sound and meaning) correct depends on how people use it. The pronunciation and meaning of words changes all the time. Historical linguistics studies the changes in pronunciation of words (e.g. from pater to father) and sociolinguistics studies the meaning of words for given speech-communities (so, in a church or monestary "father" means one thing, and in a family gathering it means another thing). There is no absolute basis for saying any one pronounciation or meaning of a word is correct or incorrect. These are basic principles of linguistics. Now, to apply it to Jesus: if when you say Jesus, whether you pronounce the word the way native english wpeakers do, or native Spanish speakers, you believe you are referring either to a real historical person or to your God (or both), and if your theology holds that He will hear and perhaps even answer you, then however you pronounce it is the correct pronunciation. Just so you know I am not totally BSing you, let me give another example that maybe many can relate to: when I go to S. America people sometimes call me Stevie (i.e. the final e in my name is not silent) or Esteban. I answer to both, and do not consider either one incorrect. As long as I answer to both, a linguist (i.e. objective scientist) would consider both pronunciations correct - just limited to specific speech-communities. I hope this is clearer. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd taken your original statement (which was somewhat ambiguous, in my opinion) incorrectly. While it seems apparent that you're merely saying that "it doesn't matter which name was the original name, because it is no more correct than any other". If that's your case in a nutshell, then I would agree- though it is also helpful to understand how Jesus may have been referred to in the language of the time.

From your original statement, I'd assumed you were asserting that the name we've assumed was Jesus' in wrong, for whatever reasons. I'm not sure if that explanation was clear, but I was essentially expecting you to rant about how Jesus' name could not have been "Jesus" (nor it's equivalent) for whatever reason, and that the name is a fabrication... I don't know, I'm getting used to revisionists and minds of the minority pushing their POV in "new findings", so I was on the defensive.--C.Logan 10:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought your request for clarification was very reasonable - you are quite right that I was unclear. For what it is worth, there has been considerable debate on these pages about whether to provide the Hebrew or Aramaic of Jesus' name and I agree with those editors who say that we simply do not know, and to reconstruct back from Greek texts at best requires some speculation (and if so, we would have to rely on actual historians, and not propose our own reconstructions). be that as it may, I think that whatever Jesus' name may have been in Aramaic may be of some interest to historians and only in that case does original = correct. If one is not a historian (to rephrase my point more succinctly), the original pronunciation is no more correct than any other proununciation that people find meaningful. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

YHWH is salvation

I have never seen such a translation. I have only really seen "God is salvation" or "the Lord is salvation." Yehoshua does not contain the letters YHWH to mean YHWH is salvation. Nor does Moses' changing of Hoshua's name to Yehoshua mean such a thing. I feel like someone did this specifically to cause offence as I don't think it was someone's arrogance. 124.170.193.25 14:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)