Once again, I have avoided posting anything here for quite a while, but it really seems like that dead horse you guys are beating is about to turn to dust. It seems that the biggest difficulty that this debate is undertaking is the consideration of a specific set of words in a specific sentence. Why not just write an entirely new sentence?

"However, citing the view that historical research has not yet uncovered contemporaneous sources that reference him, some scholars question the historicity of Jesus."

Notes on terminology:

• View - used as opposed to "fact" or other similar terms. By stating view, it neither promotes nor condemns the veracity of Josephus as has been debated here, nor do I use the term "opinion" which could make the reader think it was automatically untrue.
• Yet - used to designate the "lack" of sources but not discount the possibility that they may eventually be found.
• Sources - several historical figures are verified by, if not only by, pieces of information other than writings, such as statues, engravings, etc.
• Reference - again, no source plainly states, "Jesus, son of Mary, born X, died X, roman crucifixion style, etc. etc. etc." Some historical sources may say something to the effect of, "This statue given by Nero in honor of..." or whatever else, providing a reference to but not a direct record of a name which might be associated with a specific historical figure.

Feel free to revise or edit the above statement, but please remember: You have now spent over one month debating the use of about three words in one paragraph on a page that has sixty more paragraphs to consider. Maybe there are bigger fish to fry. --Avery W. Krouse 21:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad suggestion. Has a good beat...I can dance to it...I give it a 9. KHM03 21:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

A bad suggestion because it implies there MIGHT be documents - we have no eviodence of that. It is implying a POV and therefore should not be used. Verifiable and accurate not POV pushing. Robsteadman 21:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I can live with it. --CTSWyneken 21:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"Citing the view" is pretty weasely. These people point to the undisputed fact that no documents written during Jesus' lifetime mention him, and that all come "some decades" later. Some specificity might help. Try:

"However, noting that all known documents that mention Jesus were written at least one decade after his death, some scholars question the historicity of Jesus."--JimWae 21:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This is such bullshit. I studied New Testament for 7 years. I've read books on Jesus by fundamentalists, antheists, agnostics, queer theologians and feminists. I've read theories that have questioned the accuracy of everything in the gospels. I've encountered reconstructions of Jesus the revolutionary leader, Jesus the cynic philosopher, Jesus the loyal Jew, Jesus as gay, but never a serious scholar questioning his existence. Until I came to wikipedia - where it seems every mention of Jesus needs to state 'who may or may not have existed'. Now, no doubt among the millions (and I means millions) of books published on Jesus, someone has sugegsted he didn't exist (I read once a book suggesting he was an extra-terestrial). But this is simply not a theory any mainstream scholarship takes seriously, mainstream secular scholars don't even find the theory worthy of debate. Is there 'proof' Jesus exist? - Do we have his social security number? - no. Is Josephus' testimony egnuine? I think not. But we have diverse Jesus-movements, evidenced only two-three decades after his death, that are otherwise are inexplicable. --Doc ^ask? 22:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

So what you;re saying is there is no proof but because some believe he existed and acted on it decades after his death then he must exist? Hey, scholarship takes a new low. Robsteadman 22:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Warning User Robsteadman: you are engaging in personal attacks on recognized scholars. Please stop. --CTSWyneken 22:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

They might be recognised by YOU but they are largely POV scholars proving their "faith". Remember WP should be verifiable and factual. Robsteadman 07:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how do we remove the double copy of the talk page? -____- Homestarmy 22:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ask Doc glasgow. Deskana (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have screwed up the talkpage. Thanks to whoever fixed it. --Doc ^ask? 22:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, I think you fail to see just how lenient we as editors are being here. According to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, we are not even obligated to mention a fringe view such as the Jesus-myth, but do so because we feel the article benefits from it. That said, we have clearly explained that the vast majority of scholarly research and critical historical and Biblical academics conclude Jesus, as a historical figure, did in fact exist. Now what you're suggesting is that we put each scholar through a litmus test to determine if they are "neutral." What exactly you mean by this is not clear. Do you mean only atheist or non-Christian scholars? Do you mean only adherents to the Jesus-myth view? Basically, Rob, we are trying to accommodate a lot of views in this article when we technically don't have to, but this game of give-and-take is certainly not beneficial to our efforts. —Aiden 23:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we have a problem with what the votes have meant - are they about specific wordings or are they about what content to include?

It seeems clear that the recent vote was 2 pronged - to include the views on non-Xian scholars AND to include mention of those who question (not necessarily deny) Jesus' existence.

While personally I am less doubtful about Jesus' existence than previously (previously I just "presumed" because there did not seem much value in denying it), I agree it should be mentioned in the intro - IF ONLY to reduce edit warring. Whether I would include it in my own encyclopedia is immaterial.

It seems to me there is no point in continuing to debate whether or not to include it. Now, if it is included, it needs to be included fairly - and "what they consider" is an attempt to soften & even discredit the hard fact that nobody claims documents about Jesus were written during his lifetime. We need to plainly state this as fact - we can then state the disputed dates of authorship somewhere else.

If we have agreed to include this topic in the intro, we need to include as many words as it takes to introduce the viewpoint fairly - without discrediting it. That may mean actually altering text elsewhere in the article. Oh the horror! The votes should not be about etching text in concrete. --JimWae 22:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone besides me been having trouble trying to use the talk page because somebody double copied all the content? Either archive all of that or we need to remove it. Anyway, our votes have been the only way to pound out a consensus that we all feel is worth reverting ridiculous changes over I assume :/. Homestarmy 22:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back, Sophia! I can live with this version as well. --CTSWyneken 22:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, welcome back SOPHIA, we've had some interesting discussions re:Carl Sagan and C. S. Lewis! As for the votes, I'm starting to learn not to express an opinion when I don't really have one (which is why my votes lately have shifted to neutral). Arch O. La 23:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no question regarding the lack of extant contemporaneous documents making reference to Jesus. None. Nobody has even suggested otherwise. Therefore, the phrase "what they consider" is misleading and POV. Note that the NPOV requirement trumps all matters of majority and consensus, so any reference to these carries no weight. I am restoring the vandalized words right now. Alienus 22:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

So they don't consider that there are no historical documents? We could clarify the meaning of "consider" if you want, there has to be an acceptable synonym there or something. Unless of course, the definition of "consider" is "not up for ambiguity" as I believe you put it? Homestarmy 22:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

There are, as a matter of fact and not opinion, no such documents. It is not a consideration, just a recognition. To call it a consideration would be to suggest falsely that this is a matter of controversy, when it is not. Alienus 22:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

A suggested compromise:

However, a small minority of others consider the lack of extant contemporaneous documents making a reference to him significant and question the historicity of Jesus

SOPHIA 22:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I can live with that, although it might be slightly more clear if "therefore" were inserted before "question", to show that this is a line of reasoning, not merely a coincidence. But I'm being picky. Alienus 22:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes - good point - it would flow better with the addition of "therefore". SOPHIA 22:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this just exactly what we wrote before except it's worded differently? Homestarmy 22:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Not really. The distinction is that SOPHIA's suggested text does not make it seem as if there's any doubt about the absence of such documentation. That's the whole issue here, remember? Alienus 23:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well of course there's no doubt over whether we currently have the documentation, because we apparently don't, plain and simple. I don't think i've been able to represent my position clearly here, im not advocating that we have the documents, im saying that we can't prove the negative and say that because we've never found them and don't have any evidence they exist, that therefore, they don't exist. Trying to prove negatives is like a logical fallacy as far as I know. I can fully understand how somebody who is out to say Jesus didn't exist would want to focus on how we have not found any documents talking about Jesus which were written while He was alive. (Though I think it's sheer revisionism myself) But many people focused on a similar tactic against Christianity before, and the whole "There is no evidence the Assyrian empire existed, therefore it doesn't exist, and the Bible is a lie!" thing, only for us to find out in, what, the 1950's that not only did a civilization exist where the Assyrians should of been, but based on findings of their culture, they in fact almost certainly were the Assyrians? If extant here means "Documents we currently have", that is quite different than "documents which exist", as things MIGHT exist even when we don't know about them. Not absolutly DO exist, they MIGHT exist. Extant, as a word, bears remarkable similarity to "exist", not "in our possesion", I see absolutly no reason why we should always expect people who come to read this article to have enough vocabulary and understanding of "extant" and how "lost" only refers to whether humans see them or not to the point that they know the particular deceptive nature of this word belies its true meaning, which so clearly bears resemblance to "exist", rather than "Is in human possesion". I don't see how this is such a problematic thing to understand. Homestarmy 23:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course you can't prove a negative; that's why you don't have to. There is no need to disprove what isn't proven in the first place. So long as there are no documents presented, there is no way or need to show that there never will be. Instead, we are only obligated to respond to evidence that is evident, not promises of potential future evidence.

Let's not pretend our readers are stupid. We should use clear, correct language and let them use a dictionary if they don't happen to know the word. Alienus 23:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You cannot prove a negative - but that doesn't mean you can just assert a negative - it is the "he didn't exist" camp that bears the burden of proof as it makes outrageous claims against the sources and the consensus of historians. BTW, ever heard about the argument "e silentio" and its problems. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

But extant suggests "it exists" so much more than "we have it in our posession" that why won't the common reader assume it means "it exists" and wonder why a minority position is trying to prove a negative? And even if they do look it up, what's to stop someone from assuming that "lost" can mean "lost from existance" rather than "lost from human hands"? Homestarmy 23:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No, extant means we know it to exist because we have it. We've been over this. This is an epistemological issue; we can't make an unsupported positive claim of existence. We don't know if it ever existed, and if so, if all copies have been destroyed or some remain to be found. Therefore, it's not extant. Alienus 00:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt knowladge of "epistemology" is going to be inside the standard readers vocabularic understanding, I know we've been over what it "supposedly" means, (I still don't buy this new definition) but supposed meaning does not necessarily equal the universal meaning just because you feel strongly that the meaning you suggest the word has is actually the only possible meaning. Homestarmy 00:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing in your text that I can reply to in a positive manner, so I'm just going to let it speak for itself. Alienus 01:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hm, and it was pretty unclear too and had spelling errors, this should fix it. Homestarmy 01:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely in the spirit of verifiability, if there is any doubt as to the meaning of a word we should use the dictionary definition. The reader can check that themselves - they can't check the vague misconceptions of the "standard readers". SOPHIA 08:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You know, it seems to me that we've debated the meaning of "extant" already. I went to Wicktionary and agreed with Rob (and CTSWynekan, for that matter). We're just going in circles. Arch O. La 09:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem, quite frankly, is I trust my school's vocabulary lessons far more than dictionary.com. The new sentence isn't as bad at it though since "consider" is back in there, my main objection was just the "Ok, does anyone object"? at 00:41 or something and then "Ok, nobody protested, lets archive this and put it in" at 00:42 I think. Homestarmy 15:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I was given the same vocabulary lesson, but my proposed "known extant" revision was refuted as redundant. If we're looking for synonyms, why not "available evidence" instead of "extant evidence"? At the very least, it sounds less technical (average reader and all that).Arch O. La 17:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I can live with that, it clearly indicates that we do not have any documents by the Robsteadman standard, nor does it try to say "Not only do we not have any, but we can be assured they do not exist", but it seems we've already decided on a sentence down below :/. Homestarmy 17:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Though Rob repeats it as his mantra, it is wrong to state as a fact that there is a lack of contemporary sources (I bother only with the extant ones, the others we don't know about), if contemporary is interpreted in the reasonable way employed by historians - Rob's standard is his own and not a scholarly one. Whether it is a lack is subjective since it hinges on one's definition of what "too few" or "enough" means. (And, Rob, the list has been provided more than once.) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

True. The real issue is that some doubt the veracity of the documents, and some take that doubt far enough that they support the nonexistence hypothesis. Arch O. La 19:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The word being used is "contemporaneous" a very closely defined term. This cuts out the potential subjectiveness of "contemporary". SOPHIA 19:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back, Sophia!

Regardless of what you say, to define it that way or use a term defined that way (but closely resembling another, wider, and more reasonable term) is misleading - apart from the fact that it isn't used as a criterion in historiography. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate your point but as this is a short summary a lot has to be said in as few words as possible. The only way to do this without being vague or ambiguous is to use very well defined terms. The easy access of on line dictionaries should stop misunderstandings. The point I made before is that the reader can check the meaning of the word "contemporaneous" they cannot easily find out what is meant by "contemporary" as this is subject to judgement (POV). SOPHIA 20:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Please use this time to work on a consensus. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

And hopefully to fix this talk page as well, archive time anybody? my connection really is not that fast at responding to this humungous overload of text, somebody doubled the contents when they made a comment. -___- Homestarmy 22:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Working on a consensus is all well and good, if you forget the people here who simply ignore consensus if it suits them. Deskana (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

As I have said before, consensus is pointless and meaningless if it is not accurate. Even if the "christian" POV pushers call there quorum/cabl (as there is clear evidence of) and vote to have something THEIR way it must be changed if it is incorrect or POV.We must be encyclopdeic, verifiable and factual. Robsteadman 22:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for assuming bad faith. Alienus 23:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess you're right, I did assume bad faith. But I have to say, I was also realistic. Deskana (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be really useful if everyone restricted their comments here to how we can progress the article. Save "observations" for talk pages - or better yet don't bother and help get this article back on track. SOPHIA 22:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, is there a general agreement to go with SOPHIA's suggestion? If so, let's get the silly Protect out of the way so we can fight over some other irrelvant little point, eh? 23:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

We'll have to vote on it, there's so many people from the last vote who haven't even weighed in on this yet there would be mass panic if a totally new sentence just suddenly appeared, or so i'd assume. Homestarmy 23:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I've got a simpler suggestion: Does ANYONE oppose this change? If not, then what's the vote about? Consensus by unanmity beats any vote. Alienus 00:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Editors of good faith (if you will excuse the expression) have been editing the article during the protected time, and it is better for it. This is an article that is apt to attract anonymous vandals, so the protection may be necessary, sad to say. I second the motion to archive the talk page. Rick Norwood 00:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that the issue appears to be settled, I'm all for archiving this bloated talk page. Alienus 00:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Considering that this latest tempest has been fought, I insist on a vote. Would someone please post the suggested text here, please. --CTSWyneken 00:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This should be the text in question, proposed by SOPHIA:

However, a small minority of others consider the lack of extant contemporaneous documents making a reference to him significant and therefore question the historicity of Jesus

(I reinserted the word "therefore", which I had suggested and SOPHIA agreed to. It makes the text flow better. I doubt it would convince Homestarmy or CTSWyneken to be more positive, but I wanted to make it clear for the record that I fixed the text and why. Alienus 01:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC))

1. Alienus 01:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC) This is a reasonable compromise.
2. Paul B 01:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC) It's perfectly reasonable.
3. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC) Reasonable compromise.
4. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC) This resolves the "sneer quote effect" of the "what they consider" clause that Jpgordon mentioned above. Stylistically I would prefer "any reference" or just plain "reference" instead of "a reference".

   (Good point. Perhaps once we come to an official consensus on this, you could change "a" to "any" as a minor copyedit. Alienus 03:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC))

5. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC) looks good.
6. Accept pending removal of the sentence entirely. See "Doc's" comments here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus#A_different_suggestion^rossnixon 05:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Robsteadman 07:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC) but what's wrong with the v ersion from Feb 20th which even the "christian" POV warriors agreed to?
8. Haldrik 08:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC) Works for me.
9. Giovanni33 07:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Accept on the basis that its accurate but I think its not sufficient alone. It should state what extra-biblical reference there exists, and that even that is disputed. Also, it should mention something about what we'd expect to find, as we find with other hitorical actors, and yet we don't find with Jesus. And, THAT is what leads some to doubt the historicity of Jesus

   Maybe not in the intro - but certainly further down we should. Robsteadman 07:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Conditional Reject Homestarmy 01:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC) Not a clue what's going on, nowhere near enough time to get all the people who have participated in this debate back here, (It seems there was a 1 minute time period to gather consensus) unlike myself, some people have lives. We have to have a vote where it is assured that everyone gets to weigh in. If the vote stays active and open until 24 hours have passed since it started, i'll switch to neutral. Homestarmy 01:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   That's not a comment about the text, it's a rejection of the whole voting process. If you want to extend the close date for this vote, that's an independent issue. Alienus 01:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   On the contrary, its a rejection of a consensus-building process which seemed to begin and end with a 1 minute time period for anyone to lodge objections, and in which an admin would be inclined to unlock the article for anticipating this change. If the article stays protected and this vote allows to proceed for, say, 24 hours or something, that should do the trick, but i'd probably only change to neutral because I still don't have any idea what the proposed sentence is really trying to say. Homestarmy 01:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   For clarification the proposed sentence is trying to say that the lack of documentation is a fact but that considering that fact important is a POV. One is data (fact) the other is analysis (therefore subject ot POV). SOPHIA 08:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   I see the point, but I question whether lack of data can properly be considered data. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as they say. It was a good attempt to clarify the sentence, but there have been many such attempts and I wonder if we'll ever find the proper balance. Arch O. La 17:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

2. --Reject--I have a problem with the interpretation that Revisionist Jesus Mythers put on the term "contemporaneous documents": they reject the New Testament, which is a contemporary document or collection of documents: sufficient in the perspective of antiquity.drboisclair 09:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   So you disagree with, for instance, Raymond E. Brown and virtually every reputable scholar who date the gospels from 68-120 CE and Paul's letters (remember only "visions") from mid-1st century? or was the crucifixion not until then? CONTEMPORANEOUS - at the same time. You;re misinterpreting the words or simnply not understanding what they actually mean. Are you saying the NT was written between 8BCE and 36 CE? Because, if so, you are in a tiny, tiny moinority - it is YOU that is the fringe view. Robsteadman 09:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   I think this whole "extant contemporaneous documents" thing is a red herring. Oral tradition is enough to explain the lack of documents ("contemporaneous" or not) before the Romans swept in and destroyed Herod's Temple. Paul, of course, was writing to people he couldn't talk to FTF. Arch O. La 09:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   We could say that some justify the lack of extant contemporaneous documents by suggesting that the stories of "jesus" were passeed via oral tradition. However it is verifiable and factual to make it clear that this is mere;y opinion and that there are no extant contemporaneous documents. Nice try to get the POV back but really, could we try to achieve a NPOV position on this. Robsteadman 10:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   I agree that this can interpreted either way. And thus the debate continues...Arch O. La 10:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   Unless someone comes p with an extant contemporaneous document we must make it clear that that is why many reject the existence of "jesus" - we can mention that some "christian" scholars suggest stories were passed by oral tradition but, of course, tyhis is merely opinion -that way it is verifiable and factual. Why does the debate need to continue further? Robsteadman 10:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   A deeper point is that there are degrees of contemporaniety. The naturalistic view of Jesus is that he was just another charismatic Jew who ran afoul of the Romans. The documents we have are contemporaneous enough. Arch O. La 16:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   That's like claiming something is slightly unique. EIther it is contremporaneous or it is not - if it is contemportaneous then it occured during his supposed lifetime. So either list those documents or acceot that therhe are none. All but a tiuny minority of extreme fundametalists accept there are none. You cannot be Contemporaneous enough. Robsteadman 17:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   It's just a matter of accepting indirect evidence (which is part of historical methodology). I think the real issue is that some feel the available documents have at least some veracity, while others deny their veracity altogether. The debate over contemporaniety is part of the debate over veracity. NPOV is that we have documents and that there are different interpretations. Actual, verifiable, factual. Arch O. La 18:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   As KHM03 says - were are not here to argue the rights or wrongs - just present what other referenceable sources have said. The sentence is not agreeing or disagreeing with these "others" it is just reporting one of the main tenents of their thesis. SOPHIA 19:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   True. I was just attacking the assumption that the tenets necessarily lead to the thesis (an assumption that both sides have made, BTW). There are other interpretations that should be considered if we are to be NPOV. Since this is the introduction, I think it best to simply note that there is a debate over the veracity of the available documents (which is why I support CTSWynekan's version below).

   If we leave faith out of it, then I actually prefer the way the Socrates article deals with the issue: It admits both the documents and the uncertainty about the documents, calls this a "historical conundrum," then explains why most historians support the historicity of Socrates. Why can we not do the same for Jesus? Because he is a religious figure? Do we accept Jesus because we accept or reject "faith," or do we examine the evidence?

   Finally, I think it's wrong to think of historicity and myth in binary terms. There is a range of opinion. The nonexistence hypothesis argues that Jesus is 100% mythical and 0% historical. It is thus given less consideration than more moderate views. Arch O. La 20:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks for bringing this point up. Sure, some peope insist that there existed a person who is exactly as described in the gospels (down to the miracles), while others insist that there was no historical basis whatsoever for the Biblical character. However, there's a lot in between, from a historical (but mundane) Jesus, to a tradition of quotes later attributed to Jesus. Alienus 22:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

3. Reject, as it implies that there is a lack of sources (needlessly defined in a narrow way), which is POV. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Reject, because it overemphasizes the significance of what a tiny minority considers to be a lack of sources. Where are the extant contemporary sources for other historical figures of that period? AnnH ♫ 14:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   THIS article is about "jesus" not other historical figures. And it is not a tiny minority - only a tiny minority of Bible scholars who approach this subject with "faith" and a bias. Robsteadman 14:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   Eh, ordinal measurements are relative. Historical analogies are valid because there are degrees of contemporaniety. Arch O. La 16:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   not at all, contemporaneous means at the same time. Robsteadman 19:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   Rob, it is a tiny minority of historians (assuming that somewhere there is indeed a historian who agrees with you - you still have to name one), a tiny minority of bible scholars, and even a tiny (though not as tiny as with the others) minority among the uninformed with no authority to speak in this matter. But the latter have free rein on the internet. Ann's remark has no direct impact on this article but hightlights your selective application of you own hyper-sceptic principles- Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   No, it shows that she, as others have, are trying to blur the issue by raising other articles which are irrelevant. We shouydl be concentrating on making this veriufiable, accurate and NPOV. If only§! Robsteadman 19:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   And I submit that, whatever there meaning, "extant" and "contemporaneous" are being used as weasal words. Those that accept the nonexistence hypothesis do so because they doubt the veracity of the available documents, which are mostly paleochristian texts. Arch O. La 19:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   Exactly - "extant" (Rob is absolutely right in defining this) is meaningless, as he can only base our research on extant sources (and even those you take the trouble of editing Q are basing themselves on what we have.) - "contemporaneous" is constantly narrowed down to JC's lifetime in order to obtain the desired results (none), while historians don't do that. That we have no writing by Jesus is common knowledge since St. Jerome, but the difference between witnesses writing in Jesus' lifetime or thirty years later or others writing down what witnesses told them (and Paul probably falls into this category - the certainty which with his "ingorance" of the living Jesus is stated on this page is unwarranted), this difference is one of reliability (memory, reliability of the witnesses) and not one of outright acceptability. The "source situation" is overwhelming and hence the results of scholarship. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   A delay between the historical event and any record of it doesn't just degrade the quality and reliability of the records a bit, it puts the reality of event into question. Without independent contemporaneous evidence, there is no historical basis for claiming that an event was real at all. That's the point. I know you don't like it, but I don't really care. This is not about what makes you happy, but about the requirements for proper scholarship. To say Jesus existed based solely on the Bible is to follow a religious creed. Alienus 19:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   The inverse fallacy is to deny Jesus existed based soley on the Bible as relgious creed. As I said above, we need to stop thinking in binary terms. There is actually a range of opinion between "historical" and "mythological." Undistributed middle, remember? Arch O. La 20:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   Extant and contemporaneous were/are being used because they are the correct words - [1] [2] - nothing weasaly, nothing to dupe or confuse - the correct words to describe the situation. The "source situation" is not overwhelming - and the scholarship of thsoe with "faith" has to be doubted - why do they chose to suggest he did exist when there are no facts to support hie is anything more than a story or myth written ab out two generations later? Robsteadman 19:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   Only because you, Rob, have no clue of historical research or the whole issue, basing yourself on apologetics for your own faith, can you come to such conclusions and utter such a statement of bigotry regarding respectable scholars of their fields ... while you did hitherto provide exactly how many historians? Ah, yes, you din't provide any. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   Nope, yet again you;re wrong. You should try not to make such a habit of it. The accusation of bigotry should be taken back - but I will include it in my file of evidence against those of you pushing a POV and trying to manipulate this article. As for "respectable" scholars - not if they are stating things existed when there is no evidence - they are mere;y "faith" scholars or priests scholars as far as I can tell. The point is no historians bother with "jesus" because they don;t comment on what is not there - there vis no evdience so why would a neutral historian mention him. Now retract your accusation of bigotry otherwise I am going to repot you. Robsteadman 19:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   I know I was using harsh words, but your actions here merit them. You even repeat it and give testimony that you don't understand academical research. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

   Do we really have to go through the "There is no contemporaneous evidence for most events in ancient history or for most ancient people" speech again? Because you know, we've done this before, there is not a shred of logic in requiring contemporaneous evidence for anything to be able to say that something existed, this argument is as dead as a doornail. I don't care how many people say we "need" this evidence to say things existed, so far, we don't have a shred of evidence here yet that any historians have ever even set such a standard. I have yet to see anything out of Harvard or Oxford or someplace that sets such preposterously high standards for anything. Homestarmy 19:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   According to my dictionary (Oxford Advanced Learner's), "contemporaneous" is not as specific as it was made out to be. It merely means "in the same time", just as "contemporary" - hence the statement that there are no "extant contemporaneous sources" is wrong, while the statement that there is a "lack of extant contemporaneous sources" is POV. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Neutral Either of the two previous versions are fine by me. I would prefer, however, omit the reason why the minority comes to their conclusion, since we do not explain why the majority comes to its conclusion. This is an introduction, and should be short. The reasons for both points of view can be more fully explained below and/or in the historicity article. --CTSWyneken 11:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Arch O. La 01:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC) Nice try, but if we keep debating this one phrase, pretty soon we'll have a lack of extant contemporaneous editors! Arch O. La 09:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
3. That's one seriously awkward sentence. "Consider...significant" doesn't really impart any information. The historicity of Jesus is questioned by a small minority of scholars, who cite the lack of extant contemporaneous documents says exactly the same thing. It's clear that it is the scholars citing the lack of extant documents, just as the scholars could cite the existance of dragons -- we're documenting what the scholars are citing, without passing judgement on the veracity of their citation. The proposed sentence does say the right stuff, I guess, but it is clumsier than necessary. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 08:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   I much prefer your version to the one we're endorsing above. But either is superior to the version that includes the weasly-sounding "what they consider" clause. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 08:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   The new proposal is better and does say the same stuff in less words (gets rid of the "however" I was not too keen on myself). SOPHIA 09:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

   How about........ Jesus' existence as a real person(seehistoricity of Jesus) is questioned by a minority of scholars, who cite the lack of extant contemporaneous documents making any reference to him.

   Historicity might be the correct word but wil the average user understand it?

   It is a small minority of BIBLE scholars - is it really a small minority of ALL scholars? Have we proof?

   There are extant contemporaneous docuemtns - they just don;t refer to a "jesus" - so that needs to be made clear. Robsteadman 13:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

4. —Aiden 23:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC) Good intentions but the sentence is quite awkward. I prefer simply stating However, a small minority of scholars and others question the historicity of Jesus and avoiding this controversy altogether.
5. Neutral As per my conditional reject Homestarmy 02:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

To test the sense of editors on the shortest possible expression of the minority position, I'm curious. What do you all think of the below? This would assume both arugments would appear in the Historicity of Jesus article, to which we would refer. Alternatively, we could expand the paragraph to contain the hasis for which the majority rejects the minority opinion, that the New Testament and sources of the early second century are reliable enough to evidence the existence of Jesus. I'd prefer the text below, which is the least likely to grow into a section. --CTSWyneken 16:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Should we set a good time limit for this vote or something, say 24 or 48 hours, and what do we do if it actually succeeds and we're stuck with 2 consensus's? :/ Homestarmy 18:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a test to see where we're at. If both pass, we can pose a this or that vote to clarify. I'd then request the block be removed, post the prevailing version and invite discussion over whether we sould go back to a phrase like: "a samall minority of scholars from other displines and others..." or something like that. --CTSWyneken 18:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

A small minority of others question the historicity of Jesus.--CTSWyneken 16:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Agree based on my "red herring" argument above, and in recognition that the available naturalistic evidence can be interpreted either way. I submit that it is POV to imply that the available evidence only points in one direction. Arch O. La 17:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Agree, it's short and it lets the reader click on the wikilink to get the full picture if they want, rather than us fighting over contemporary documents and "extant". Homestarmy 17:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Disgree,if it's ALL others, as that suggests, I would suggest it's more than a small minority of others - thios is an attempt, yet again, to add confusion and achieve a POV by decit. Shameful. Extant contemporaneous doicuments explains why MANY say that "jesus" is merely a fiction. Robsteadman 17:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it really all that necessary to attack others? If you wish to demonstrate that "small" is inaccurate, help to document the minority position. --CTSWyneken 18:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Agree. Rob's misunderstanding of WP:NPOV notwithstanding, this is brief, accurate, and very NPOV. KHM03 17:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

But it is factually inaccurate - it is not just a small minority of others. And it is POV because it's imploying that there are very few who deny that "jesus" ever existed and it has the problem of "historicity" which, I maintain, could well be confusing to the lay reader - particuarly when the HISTORICITY article is even more biased and POV than this one. By the way -why are we having another vote? Just so the Qorum/cabal can prtend there's an agreement? Robsteadman 17:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, once again Rob insults others. --CTSWyneken 18:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is one of the smallest minorities in all of historical reaserch who claim He did not exist, if there's even anybody accredited as a historian who claims this, which so far, you have yet to provide up a name for if im not mistaken. Homestarmy 18:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

But that's not what the sentence says - it says a small minority of others - no explanation of who the others are. We must be precise and verifiable taht is why a minority o others cite the lack of extant contemporaneous docuemnts to question whether Jesus ever existed is verifiable and factual and, particularly as it was acceptable on Feb 20th, should be reinstated. The POV pushers are, yet again, trying to hijack reason and accuracy to dismiss things which they don;t agree with. This vote is a nonsense - the quorum/cabal will come out in numbersd and they will claim there is a consensus. A consensus such as that, based on falsehood and misrepresentation, is meaningless and does WP no good at all - though I guess it serves the purposes of those who wish to make this a promotional leaf;let for "christianity". SHameful behaviour by a few yet again. Robsteadman 18:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

And, of course, when you take all neutral but relevant scholars (including philoepshy etc. not just "faioth" scholars and preiest scholars) the minority is nowhere near as small. Schoalrs with clear bias should be dismissed or ignored in facvour of the verifijable and accurate.Robsteadman 18:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

And now he insults scholars. --CTSWyneken 18:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hm, actually, Rob might have a point this time, though I highly disagree with the conclusions he's drawing. How about, "a small minority of un-certified activists..."? and for removing scholars with clear bias, that's not a problem, we've already mentioned how none of them are actually scholars at all in the Jesus-myth section, that is still there, right? Homestarmy 18:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Agree. At least a version not containing inaccuracies. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Disgree. It's a little TOO brief, to the point of omiting a relevant fact that would allow neutrality. Alienus 18:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Any suggestion as to what language you would add to express the opion of the majority that the New Testament and other 1st-2nd Century sources prove the existence of Jesus? If we give the reason for one, we need to give the reason for the other.--CTSWyneken 18:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I suggest we recognize that this suggested text has stalled while SOPHIA's has a clear majority and likely consensus. What she wrote is short, yet fair. Alienus 19:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As did the versions before it, and now, this one. To me that indicates two things. One is that editors here do not like telling the minority to go away and will constantly struggle to find a way to make everyone happy and that many are uneasy about the interim solutions proposed. The final version should be one that will not require constant revisiting.

Here's why this particular issue is so contentious, IMHO:

Since a significant number of editors does not like the reason for the nonexistence hypothesis to be included because they believe it gives more weight to it than the majority view, removing it will satisfy them. Barring that, they look for a way to make clear that the extant documents statement is the opinion of the minority.

Other editors feel to include such words subtly biases readers against the position.

I disagree with both and can live with both the texts that have appeared on the page and Sophia's. However, we will never resolve this and move on. The short text elminates the source of contention completely and simply and accurately represents the state of scholarship on the matter.

If we retain the quote, then the only way to satisfy almost everyone is to lengthen the text to include the reasoning of the majority that sources like the New Testament, Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius and the Mishnah provide suffient, valid evidence for the existence of Jesus. Do you have a way to say that? --CTSWyneken 21:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I'd love to hear that too - why, given there is no extent contemporaneous documentation or other evdience for him, do supposed scholars claim he existed? Now that would be interesteing. Or is it all too obvious? Robsteadman 19:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Quite simply, Rob, they don't claim that like that, but themselves on research and scholarship and actually use the avaiable evidence, including the contemporaenous source that exist. It is "Jesus-Mythers" who chose to disregard the evidence to get the result they like best. Hardly scholarship, I must say! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Aren't what we really saying is that those who accept the Historical Jesus do so largely based on the New Testament and other paleochristian texts, while those who deny the historical Jesus do so because they question the veracity of said texts? A more detailed discussion may come later in the article, or in related articles such as Jesus-Myth and Historicity of Jesus. Arch O. La 18:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sort of. They either take it as an article of faith or unquestioningly accept the veracity of some stories written by unknown, clearly biased people many years after the supposed events. Those crazy skeptics are holding out for the historical standard, which is for independent contemporaneous evidence. Loons, I tell, you. Loons! Alienus 19:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Do we have to have the sarcasm? --CTSWyneken 21:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Alienus, Loons indeed! The are not holding out for the "historical standard" but want more, more than they can get. Btw, "independent" is nonsense. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

And do we have to take such sarcasm as an opportunity to insult people? --CTSWyneken 21:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we all please stop being so bloody binary? Remember the Fallacy of the undistributed middle as well as the fallacies that Jim lists below. Arch O. La 20:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• see False dilemma, Fallacy of the excluded middle--JimWae 21:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know. What about thesis-antithesis-synthesis vs. thesis-antithesis-anarchy? Arch O. La 22:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm and other forms of humor do a fine job gently utting through people's refusal to understand differing positions, and I insist on my freedom to use these literary techniques. As for "independent", this refers to having accounts that are not just rehashes of existing ones. For example, the synoptic gospels are not independent of each otehr. As it happens, they're also not contemporaneous, so it doesn't matter for this issue, anyhow. Alienus 22:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As long as such humor is taken in the spirit that it was intended, but some are likely to take offense. Arch O. La 22:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I did not say you could not use sarcasm. I suggested it was not necessary. In this case, it acted as an incitement to emotional reaction, not to rational conversation. --CTSWyneken 22:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Agree to the concept of a briefer statement, since as CTSWyneken mentions, we do not explain why the majority comes to its conclusion. It *is* the intro after all and the basis of the argument can be expanded in the historicity of Jesus article which should be linked. I would prefer something like, "A minority of scholars question whether Jesus existed at all". --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

By what is wrong with explaining why? It's rather fundamental to both the reaonss why they don;t accept and why "faith"" is needed in order to "believe". If the lack of extant contemporaneous docuemnts doesn't go here (where it really should) ten it needs to be somewhere else prominently in the intro. Robsteadman 19:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with explaining why, but it's not necessary in the intro, imo, and I'm therefore not opposed to a briefer version which still serves the purpose of informing the reader of extant :) views, majority and minority, with a link to another article giving the reader the opportunity to explore the historicity issue in more depth. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Agree to the concept of a briefer statement. An intro should be as short as possible. Even shorter might be 'A minority question the historicity of Jesus.'DanielDemaret 21:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• 'Agree Even better would be 'A few non-experts question the historicity of Jesus'. ^rossnixon 22:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Agree this really is going on for far too long. Quit feeding the troll. Rob has a position and refuses to listen to any other point of view. He should be ignored completely until he comes to an understanding that his position represents a significant minority, that his point has already been noted in the article, and he is not the sole author of the article. Ignore him. When you take away their food, trolls die and move on to better feeding grounds. Storm Rider 23:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Agree Anything that presents a view and avoids the argument altogether has my vote. —Aiden 03:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Agree. Simple and accurate. AnnH ♫ 21:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Agree very fair and NPOV. No reasonable editors would really think this is POV.Gator (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I attack the assumption that the tenets necessarily lead to the thesis. All interpretations should be considered if we are to be NPOV. Since this is the introduction, I think it best to simply note that there is a debate over the veracity of the available documents (which is why I support CTSWynekan's version).

If we leave faith out of it, then I actually prefer the way the Socrates article deals with the issue: It admits both the documents and the uncertainty about the documents, calls this a "historical conundrum," then explains why most historians support the historicity of Socrates. Why can we not do the same for Jesus? Because he is a religious figure? Do we accept or deny Jesus because we accept or reject "faith," or do we examine the evidence?

Finally, I think it's wrong to think of historicity and myth in binary terms. There is a range of opinion. The nonexistence hypothesis argues that Jesus is 100% mythical and 0% historical. It is thus given less consideration than more moderate views. Arch O. La 21:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

That's why I prefer the wording 'historicity' as opposed to 'existence'. While 'historicity' is used as code to mean 'Did he exist?', the word can also refer to other aspects of historiography such as: Did later Nonjewish influences distort the representation of the Jewish Jesus. Did concern about provoking the Roman Empire to attack Christians cause the writers to rewrite Pilate's executing Jesus to make Pilate look more innocent and the Romans less guilty? Did the authors intend for midrashic material such as the Virgin Birth to be taken literally, or is it more like a parable about the spiritual events? And so on. 'Historicity' is a catch-all word. Haldrik 00:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have attempted a synthesis below. Arch O. La 01:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

1010100010010 0010101010 10101010 0101010 0101010 000111010101 010110101001 0101010101 0101 10101010 10101011 101010100010110 10101010! :D Homestarmy 21:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Cute, but what I meant is that no one seemed willing to compromise or even recognize that the uncertainty in the data does not neccesitate any conclusions--as SOPHIA said, there is data and there is analysis. "Extant contemporaneous documents" bothered me because it was a "why", not a "what", and no similar "why" was given for the majority (faith and historical methodology have been debated endlessly on this page). Finally, when did thesis, anthithesis, synthesis turn into thesis, antithesis, anarchy? We've been at this for over a month--where's the bloody synthesis? IMHO binary thinking is just plain wrong.

Yes, I know that my frustration is showing. Arch O. La 22:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to get a word in there that only means exactly what everyone wants it to mean, that we do not have any documents currently in our possesion that we know of. But what are we gonna do with support for 2 sentences now? Homestarmy 22:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Please remove the POV flag from this article. This was voted on, and the majority voted to remove it. What immaturity on the part of the Historical Revisionist Jesus-Mythers! drboisclair 09:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

David, please do not attack the editors. We have enough trouble with insults than to add to them. --CTSWyneken 16:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I support its return - there is debate about the neutrality of thev article hence the return fo the POV flag. Robsteadman 10:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

That vote is done, the POV flag needs to go go go -____- Homestarmy 14:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

That vote was done and Alienus, and I agree with him, considers there to be more at dispute - the flag should stay whilst this article has points of contention. It currently does. Robsteadman 14:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I seems to me that the question of the historicity of Jesus should be established not by a vague reference to "some" people, but by a direct quote with a reference. Does anyone have such a quote in mind? Rick Norwood 15:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Rick: please look at the footnotes to the paragraph. We have begun to document both sides. You can help by looking up a few and adding them. As far as quotations, I'm against it. This is an intro and the paragraph should be short. the Historicity of Jesus article is the place where a full-blown discussion of the issue belongs. Here should be a summary and a short one at that.

Another way you can help is to find a historian or Bible scholar that advocates the nonexistence hypothesis. I've asked repeatedly for help, but all we get are references to philosophers, professors of German and journalists. (see talk:Jesus/Cited Authors Bios ) In the little I've been able to look myself, all I find are more people outside the field. I've even discovered a few philosphers outside the field that assert the existence of Jesus that suprise me: Voltaire and Bertrand Russell. It would help our discusssion greatly to have a historian who is an atheist on this matter. --CTSWyneken 16:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

For which side? We have plenty of examples above for the side saying Jesus existed, but not a single actually certified person in a historical field for the myth side. Homestarmy 15:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

But we only have their personal opinions - we do not have a single verifiable fact that says he did exist. Robsteadman 15:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

According to whom? pookster11 01:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Any vote taken over some previous POV flag has no bearing on the issues motivating my current reinsertion of the flag. Moreover, until we reach a consensus and get that Protect removed, there's no point debating this.

Once we do, perhaps we can revisit the issue of whether the article is NPOV yet. I'm not sure that it is, but I think the best way to fix it is through an iterative editing process, not voting. Alienus 16:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually recognize the POV flag, because we are disputing whether or not the article is sufficiently NPOV. Whether or not the dispute is valid is a separate issue. Having said that, I don't want to be caught in the middle of another battle over the flag. Arch O. La 17:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that see also section is too big. Someone should make a template. I would but I don't know how. A Clown in the Dark 22:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a bit odd we don't have such a template, do the people at Wikiproject:Christianity have one? Homestarmy 22:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

In his history Caesar and Christ historian Will Durant begins the chapter on Jesus as follows: "Did Chirst exist? Is the life story of the founder of Christianity the product of human sorrow, imagination, and hope, a myth comparable to the legends of Krishna, Osiris, Attis, Adonis, Dionysus, and Mithras? Early in the eighteenth century the circle of Bolingbroke, shocking even Voltaire, privately discussed the possibility that Jesus had never lived."

If so well known a historian as Durant begins his history of Jesus thus, then the possibility needs to at least be mentioned, if only to be dismissed.

Some of the authorities Durant quotes: "In 1840 Bruno Bauer began a series of passionately controversial works aiming to show that Jesus was a myth..." "In 1863 Ernest Renan's Life of Jesus, alarming millions with its rationalism and charming millions with its prose, gathered together the results of German criticism..." "...the Dutch school of Pierson, Naber, and Matthas carried the movement to its farthest point by laboriously denying the historical reality of Jesus." "In German, Arthur Drews gave this negative conclusion its definitive exposition (1906)."

This should provide plenty of names to work with.

Durant continues, "In summary, it is clear tht there are many contradictions between one gospel and another, many dubious statements of history, many suspicious resemblances to the legends told of pagan gods..."

However, he concludes by saying, "the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ remain reasonably clear..."

Rick Norwood 23:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You're quoting someone who believes Jesus was invented by the Romans to passify their subjects, what do you expect? —Aiden 23:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If you only allow quotes from people who believe that Jesus is God, then you will never find a quote that denies the historicity of Jesus. But note that Durant, who did not believe that Jesus was God, never-the-less does accept the historicity of Jesus. The challenge above was to find one historian who questioned the historicity of Jesus. Durant provides half a dozen. Rick Norwood 23:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Just noted the immediately above. Please look at the citations in the footnotes on the main article. The scholars listed include Jewish authors, atheists and self-described Christian scholars that deny the deity of Christ. --CTSWyneken 00:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll check out the book in the morning. If it truly accepts the nonexistence hypothesis, we will include it in the note. Reading what you're quoting, its hard to see where Durant comes down. The beginning of the quote, he seems to support it, and the end, reject it. Once the current matter is resolved, that should factor into how we expand the word "other." I agree with Rob and other editors that we should be more specific about who others are, but which to save that debate until the current is done. --CTSWyneken 23:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

On the other names, we know Bruno. Does anyone know anything about who the others are? Are they historians by trade, or, like Voltaire, philosophers? --CTSWyneken 23:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me, Rick. My point was that Durant's view is quite a fringe one, so it is not at all unexpected to see him alluding to Renan's "rationalism" and making what most consider outlandish claims (that the entire Christian world is a byproduct of a Roman conspiracy.) —Aiden 00:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you might of missed that even Durant seems to believe Jesus existed. If his credentials are bad, we do not need to quote him with the majority, however. --CTSWyneken 00:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Durant does not believe that Jesus was "invented by the Romans". Bauer and Drews are very well known. The early 20th C was the height of the Jesus-Myth theory, which has since faded rather into fringedom. It's not mainstream these days. Paul B 00:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Also Renan certainly believed he existed. "Rationalism" in this context is a philosophical term, not a value judgement. Paul B 00:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Paul, do you know what field these authors had expertise in? --CTSWyneken 00:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Renan was the most famous author of a biography of JC in the nineteenth century. He was essentially a linguist.Durant was a philosopher who became a historian, and wrote generalist histories of the world. Drews was also a philosopher and Germanist.These guys are hardly up to date scholars, but are historically important. Paul B 00:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, since Will Durant is one of the most respected and widely read historians of the 20th century, to dismiss his views as "fringe" seems strange, especially since the view you attribute to him as a "fringe" point of view is not a view he expresses anywhere in the book I referenced. The form of your aguement goes something like this: Durant once said something that is "fringe", therefore it is safe to dismiss everything he said in his long lifetime. I doubt that any of us could survive such an extreme test of our fringiness or lack thereof.

CTSWynekin -- Durant does not himself deny the historicity of Christ, only quotes other who do. It is typical of his method to give both sides of any disputed historical question. Rick Norwood 00:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I just want to note, the 'Jesus didn't exist' scholars are not taken seriously by other scholars, any more than the 'Creationist' scientists are taken seriously by other scientists. Their position is just too extreme and untenable to be reasonable. The attempt to explain exactly how a Jesus myth originated without a historical person is alway less demonstrable and less verifiable than the evidence the person did exist. Haldrik 01:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is it extreme to claim that "jesuys" didn;t exist? There is no extant contemporaneous evidence. There is virtuallty nothing for two generations after his death. Many of the things contained in the "gospels" are not recorded anywhere else (massavre of the innocents, etc.). The Jesus Seminar dismiss virtually all the saying attributed to "jesus". Why is it unreasonable and extreme to doubt his existnce? I think it is extreme, and unscholarly, to suggest that despite all of that he did exist - inj fact it is both unscientific, unscholarly and utter nonsense. We must only report the verifiable. Robsteadman 10:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Very astute; that's exactly how scholars look at the "Jesus myth" theory...in the same way that scientists look at creationism. Now, we can still mention the idea, but briefly (with an appropriate link to the historicity article), and noting its status in academia. KHM03 10:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

But its not how neutral scholars look upon it - those who aren't in scholarhsip to prove their "faith" - there is no extant contemporaneous evidence of any sort taht mentions him - it is reasonable (and scholarly) to doubt his existence. To claim he did exist, despite the lack of proof, is a nonsense. We should be reporting the verifiable and, if "scholars" have an opinion we should be reporting that - however, we cannot and should not state he existed as that is not veriufiable and accurate Robsteadman 10:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the existance of Jesus is fairly well established. I think the article as it now stands says this but, like the book quoted above, mentions the opposing view. Rick Norwood 01:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

What I'm looking for are historians that support the nonexistence hypothesis. It is important for the sake of documentation of the minority view that we cite one if we can find one. As it is, all we have are scholars from outside the discipline that support this thesis. So, if after we decide the basic structure of the paragraph (again), we which to find a way to expand "others", we would find a way to make it clear that the scholarly supporters of this group are generally philosophers and linguists. If we can find a historian among them, we can try something like: "a few historians, linguists and others. So, again my appeal: help us find them. --CTSWyneken 03:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There's quite a list above and, of course, historians won;t mention him iof they have no evidence - they will only report on what they find not what they hope might be there - unlike bible scholars. Robsteadman 08:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again, Robsteadman insults scholars. --CTSWyneken 11:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It may be difficult, even impossible to find a modern historian who doubts the existence of Jesus. There is much more supporting evidence (textual and archaeological) for the historicity of the New Testament now than there was in the late 19th century when the Jesus-myth was all the rage. So do we need to mention late 19th century views which have largely been discredited? ^rossnixon 19:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I would love to see your textual and archaelogical proof! Robsteadman 19:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Please forgive my hot German temper, but binary thinking really irks me.

Put aside for a moment whether the texts are "contemporaneous" or not. We have documents, mostly paleochristian, some Jewish texts and I'm not sure what else. We have uncertainty about how much is fact and how much is myth. We have interpretations based on both the texts and the uncertainty. Jesus either existed, or he didn't; but when we're talking about the historicity of Jesus, aren't we really talking about the character of Jesus that appears in the documents?

How much is fact, and how much is myth? This is a historical condundrum. Early Christians faced this conundrum and applied faith as a methodology, as Giovanni might say. Thus, for example, the Gospel of John is part of the New Testament cannon, and the Gospel of Thomas is not. For that matter, religious Jews have also applied faith as a methodology, and decided that Jesus was not the Messiah.

Historians apply a different methodology and have reconstructed a naturalistic image of Jesus out of the character of Jesus. Very few feel that the character of Jesus is entirely mythical. Those that do run the risk of throwing out the mundane with the religious.

I think that a synthesis can be found if we all think of the issue in these terms. Arch O. La 01:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: Just to clarify, I do accept the New Testament on faith, but find this irrelevant to historicity, on which I am agnostic. I will also be staying out of the vote above; my comments to the "reject" votes on the last vote still stand. Arch O. La 02:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, our task is not to arrive at a synthesis. In fact, this is prohibited by our NOR policy. Moreover, it does not matter what you think of this question, even your claim that it is a conundrum. And it doesn't matter what I think. What matters is what verifiable sources have claimed. Our NPOV policy requires us to put aside our own views, and accurately represent those of others. All major scholars of 1st century history of Palestine believe Jesus existed. It does not matter whether they are right or wrong. They claim it, so we must report it. It is also a fact that many non-specialists have questioned whether Jesus existed. This too must be represented in the article. When we represent different views we must provide some context so people know whefre these views are coming from. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not asking that the article itself draw any conclusions, and the rest of your remarks are exactly the kind of synthesis that I desire. My remarks are meant to move us past the conflict on the talk page. Our sources are, of course, the verifiable secondary sources, and we are not to do original research. As CTSWynekan has said, Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Frankly, it's enough for me that the various Christian views are presented fairly and accurately, the various Jewish views are presented fairly and accurately, the various historical views (whether by specialists or nonspecialists) are presented fairly and accurately, and all other views are presented fairly and accurately. All should be given the appropriate weight and context. That is enough of a synthesis for me.

But, we all have our subjective views, and many of our views have clashed, hence we have been bogged down in one paragraph for far too long. What bothers me is the binary thinking evidenced by some (many, not all), which has polarized the debate. We should also, of course, be sure not to confuse our various subjective viewpoints with the objective actual, verifiable and factual (as someone once said). So in the end, I essentially agree with you. My remarks on thesis-antithesis-synthesis and the rest have to do with the debate on this page, not with the article itself. I want us to move past conflict so we can examine the verifiable sources, and put aside our own views while still making sure that we (any "we") are accurately represented, as are the views of others. To paraphrase Ross Perot, everybody stop fighting and get to work! If you'll check you'll notice that I've done very little work on the article itself; most of my efforts have been focused on the talk page.

NPOV (when we reach it) will be a synthesis accurately reporting the views of all, and referenced to the appropriate verifiable sources.That said, I have been as frustrated as anyone else and needed to vent my spleen (which perhaps presented my POV more strongly than I have in the past. Does that make it trinary?). My spleen has been vented. My comments will remain on my user page at least until we formulate a second paragraph that does exactly as you say, and is accepted by all. It may go back if we run into further unresolved conflict.

My "claim that it is a conundrum" alludes to how the issue of historicity is handled at Socrates, where any debate has been much more peaceful and civilized. Arch O. La 17:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Campaigning, calling quorums, etc. is really not good form - asking various people along who you can guarantee will vote for a particular solution is poor. This vote is invalid. Yet again a quorum/cabal are misusing a vote to ensure the result they want and to claim consensus. SHameful behaviour. Robsteadman 13:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It is perfectly legitimate to ask people who have worked on this page in the past to come and vote. You are all welcome to do so. --CTSWyneken 14:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

it is not legitamate to insist on new binding rules when there was a consensus last wqeek (the version we currently have) whicj some who are voting for another option now voted for. This is pointless - just think - what is more verifiable, accuarte, encyclopedic and informative? Option 3 certainly isn;t. And if the lack of extant contemporaneous docuemtns doesn't go there it does need to go somewhere else - perhaps "Despite the lack of extant contemporaneous documents some scholars still believe that "jesus was real"? Robsteadman 14:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

But some who have been called to quporum/cabal haven't worked on the page for ages - and it is meaningless if the POV pushers get version 3 through because that is unencyclopdiec and trying to hide the verufibale, factual and informative. Robsteadman 14:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again Robsteadman insults editors. --CTSWyneken 14:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

No - I describe their behaviour exactly as it is. Maybe if you consider it an insult you should stop the behaviour? There have been several "QUorum call", "QUorum needed" postings to the "christian" users talk pages. And there is clear evidence of POV pushing - as in this vote. Robsteadman 14:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the vote is not going to settle this issue, though I would not put my opinion is language as strong as the languge Robsteadman uses. Wikipedia does not rely on votes. Wikipedia relies on evidence. Since a major historian such as Will Durant begins his chapter on Jesus with the question of his historicity, this article must follow that lead and mention the question. It is a question that any serious historian of the period must investigate. I am bothered by the insistance that the idea not even be mentioned, as if the idea had never occurred to anyone. Please note that the article on evolution mentions the opposition to evolution. Articles on controversial topics in Wikipedia mention both sides -- even when the other side is a lunitic fringe. For example, even though virtually all scientists and historians agree that the Shroud of Turin is a fake, that article is largely favorable to the view that the Shroud is genuine. This is how Wikipedia bends over backwards to be fair minded. Why should this article be an exception to that rule? Rick Norwood 13:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't. Historicty SHOULD be mentioned. How it's mentioned or how much emphasis is given to it is another problem, but I beleive the consensus agrees that it should be mentioned.Gator (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Rick Norwood, I am not sure what you are referring to. The introduction to the article does state that some scholars question Jesus' existence. Moreover, I know of no editor - none - who has argued that "the idea not even be mentioned" in the article. What do you mean when you claim that this article is an "exception" to the rule, when the introduction indeed mentions the idea that some believe Jesus did not exist? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

But if option 3 is accepted ((CTSWyneken Version)) will it still? How soon before we get the article just saying Jesus is God and loves us all? Stick to the verifiable and the factual. Robsteadman 14:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There has clearly been an attempt to stack the vote by bringing in people who are not involved in this debate. Therefore, I do not consider the vote to be genuine and will not accept its results.

I insist that we throw out all votes from outsiders that have been called in by certain partisans for the purpose of minimizing any mention of the lack of evidential support for the historicity of Jesus. In fact, we already came to a genuine consensus in favor of the SOPHIA version, and it was ignored. It also looks like the consensus behind that version would be willing to accept the text as it current stands.

Please understand that any attempt to get this page unprotected for the purpose of ramming this fake consensus down our throats will be blocked. Alienus 14:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Very well said. Robsteadman 14:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not shout. I'm inviting people who have voted in the past here. You are welcome to do so as well. We need the widest consensus possible. Also, are you suggesting that editors attracted by the NPOV flag are not entitled to enter this conversation or vote?

There also is nothing that says you have to abide by the proposed agreement, if you do not wish. Simply understand that others of us will. Pushed to the limit, we will likely be blocked periodically.

So, invite your friends, too. The more the better. CTSWyneken

.....oookay, that's downright unhelpful, however, Alienus does have somewhat of a point, that stan person isn't involved in this I think, unless he was on a break or something. But that's only one vote IF stan actually isn't involved, everyone else has participated on this talk page relatively actively. And wern't we supposed to vote for just one thing? Besides, the version we already have in there is only there because Alienus was the last person to participate in the edit war, the version sitting there right now in the article is not a result of consensus -___-. Homestarmy 14:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Untrue, the version we have now was the Feb 20th consensus. How many otyhers have been called to the quorum vote? It happens EVERY time - it is unreasonable and really contrary to basic principles. As for voting once - the 3 versiosna re a clear attempt to split the anti-version 3 vote. Robsteadman 14:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The "what they consider" is missing, that was put in as consensus, and then the edit war broke out. Homestarmy 15:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmmm... With all due respect, who on earth is Alienus? S/he seems quite adamant in restricting the vote to active participants, but as far as I can tell, s/he only came to this page a few days ago, and starting about 5 days ago has made only minor edits to the article. Certainly, Alienus has not been an active contributor of substance to this article, nor a major participant in the discussion. Yet s/he says that s/he won't accept the vote because "outsiders" have voted.

Outisders?

First, some people have not yet voted, and have not been active in this discussion, yet have made significan contributions of verified content to this article. Are they outsiders?

Second, the whole notion of "outsiders" is repugnant to the very idea of Wikipedia which is that all can edit. Moreover, one of our ways of resolving disputes is explicitly to appeal to people who have not been involved in the discussion (i.e. "outsiders"), it is called a "Request for Comment" and is an important part of Wikipedia's process.

It should be clear to everyone, including Alienus, that I have no objection to him or her voting, or editing the article, despite the fact that s/he is an outsider to this discussion and to the writing of the article. By the same standard, I cannot object to others involving themselves in this discussion. If someone has a concern that one of the voters is ill-informed, ask that person why s/he cast the vote s/he made. This too is a common aspect of our process, and I have even seen some people change their votes after additional discussion. Inclusion and dialogue are the way to go.

Beyond that, I have to say I find the whole protest against the vote bizarre. All of the alternatives make the identical claim, that a minority of scholars question Jesus's existence. Version one and two are no different in substance from version three. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Are we going to continue to vote three times a week per sentence? Are votes going to continue to be started before earlier ones are decided? Are votes going to continue to be started whenever anyone thinks a hat has been dropped? Other proposals (such as the one suggesting that decades had elapsed) have not even been conmmented on yet--JimWae 16:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah. This whole thing is ridiculous. Voting is not consensus. Holding up an entire article for three words is not consensus. A minimal representation of the facts sufficez for an introduction. The argument will be discussed in detail in historicity of Jesus; that the "mythic Jesus" position exists can be stated in eight words -- the reasoning for their position doesn't belong in the intro (we assume readers are quite capable of clicking on links to other articles). But that's not even important. This talk page has turned into pure thrash; I'd strongly recommend anyone with such a strong opinion that the absence or presence of three words ("what they consider") is a make or break deal should find another article to concentrate on for a while, because they've lost perspective. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

1. I agree votes of users not involved in the debate or regular editors of the article should not be counted.
2. I encourage those claiming the vote is illegitimate to question whether they'd have the same feelings if their position was winning. —Aiden 20:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

No I wouldn;t - but that would only be because I wouldn't have called a quorum/cabal to fix the vote in the way this has been fiddled. Also I would have ensured that the options were sufficiently different so as not to split one "camp" of thought. This voite is invalid and will be ignored by anyone with sense or respect for WP. Robsteadman 20:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I explained to our dear Archola when asked a very similar question:

The point that we have been missing all alone with these random votes is definition. We have said "Okay! Let's Vote! ... um ... okay ... now what ..." What I have done is given a definite system with a definite start and end date and a definite length of moratorium on editing that line. What some of you fail to realize is that it's just one sentence on a really large page, and there is easily a lot more work to be done. The editors that thrive on conflict will have more conflict, just give it time, but at least let us be in conflict about a new set of words that we haven't beaten to death.

That said, those of you who are protesting the vote can do so, but those who have voted have agreed to participate in the concensus, and that means that you will be reverted. And again, you've got an option to vote against the vote. I have placed that in there for a reason.

And once more, REMOVE DUPLICATE VOTES! The point is to see which text the editors themselves can live with for the sake of moving on. Not to stack the votes, otherwise we could all just vote twice and defeat the whole thing. Thank you. --Avery W. Krouse 16:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If by duplicate votes you mean one person voting several times for one option, that is indeed stacking the vote and wrong. But if by duplicate votes you mean one person voting for two options, that is by no means stacking the voted. I have voted twice, and I have explained why, and I will not change my vote. Avery, I know you are well-intentioned and trying to be constructive, but you can't be a "voting dictator." All editors have a right to express their views. If someone finds two different choices acceptable, they have a right to communicate that by voting for two choices. I explain why this is a good thing in greater detail above. But either way, it isn't up to you to enforce your own set of rules for voting. I say this with respect because while I do believe your rule (if I understand it accurately) is a very bad one, I honor your intentions. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I am asking that duplicate votes be removed because if one person votes for multiple options, how will that provide a clear majority success for any one line? If thirty people vote three times on three lines then no line wins and we end up back where we started. Once we have run offs, will you vote again for two different candidates? At some point, people just have to pick one and move on! --Avery W. Krouse 21:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering why some people had voted for two different versions. Deskana (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There are two encyclopedic options and one which is attempting to remove the lack of extant contemporaneous evidence from the intro - it is a way of manipulating the article and support a clear POV. I have voted for the two genuine WP-friendly options - the reaosn there are two is clearly an attempt to split the votes and allow the pro"chrsitian" vote to win. However as the vote is clearly invalid it doesn;t matter. Robsteadman 19:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Since you keep stating this Rob, would you please quote and link to wikipedia policy that says this? --CTSWyneken 19:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Did I mention policy? You;re putting words into my mouth - but operatoing a cabal to achieve a POV is contrary to the vasic principles on which WP is founded - as there has been clear evdience of this in the past 24 hours I would hope the activity will stop. I fear it won;t but, once again, thanks for the evdeince. Most useful. Robsteadman 19:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The point is that a claim that a vote of this nature is "clearly invalid" cannot be sustained. There is no definition in wiki rules I know of as to when a vote is valid or invalid. You should cease making charges and veiled threats unless you can cite the rules to back them up. --CTSWyneken 21:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

To reply to a question asked above, I made my comment before it was clear that the other options would get many more votes than the "remove the line entirely" option, and in response to a view that the historicity of Jesus was not a serious question. Given that the statement is going to stay in the article, there seems to be a lot of unnecessary fuss over the exact wording. Rick Norwood 20:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob please look up the definition of vote. If you can vote as many times as you want, what's the point? Give me a break. —Aiden 20:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you nee to understand that there are many types of votes not simply selecting one option. Both of the first two options are very similar - it would have been better to have had only one of them. Have a break whenever you want... particularly if it means the rest of us can get on with NPOV and verifiable facts only. Robsteadman 20:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see the note above the balloting, where the user who proposed this vote asked that this be done in two stages; this vote and then a run off. --CTSWyneken 21:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant if people don't want to abide by those rules, don't want a quorum/cabal fixing the result and don't want to be told what to do when there is a clear attempt to push a POV rather than be encyclopedic. Robsteadman 21:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Then Rob, stop spouting off and change your vote to "More discussion needed." If you can't abide by the simple rules of this procedure without a moan and groan session, don't participate in the vote. As it stands, you've voted TWICE. At this point, you don't have the credibility to complain about the voting process. If you don't want a "cabal" fixing the vote, get your own people in here to review the page and see what they think, and let them vote. --Avery W. Krouse 22:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it even worth the effort? Sigh... —Aiden 01:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to remind everyone that we will finish the first round of formalized voting tonight. As it stands right now, only the two largest categories meet the quota to move on. If that happens, we will archive this main discussion and start once more with a final run-off vote. The vote which takes majority in that will be placed in the page and held under a thirty-day moratorium.

That said, I want to reiterate, perhaps more appropriately now, the concept of one vote. With only two candidates on the field, voting twice will nullify your own vote. Even if you want to show that you'll accept either option as a possible candidate, by voting for both, you do not change the percentage either way and do not cause your vote to affect the final outcome. For those of you who expressed a preference in the above voting, tonight please vote for just your first preference. If you wish to express support for both options in case the one you didn't choose passes, you can easily do so in a comment below the vote table.

Again, if your current selection does not proceed, please choose the remaining option that you could live with for the sake of ending the war over this one line. In about 60 hours, we will have a finished product and be able to move on for the next thirty days.

That said, there will be some of you whose selection is either not added to the final ballot or does not pass the final vote. If this is the case, I beg of you, be civil! Engaging in a revert war is not the solution. This issue is being monitored by at least three administrators, so please be aware of your revert counts, though hopefully we won't have to worry about that at all. We will move any and all discussion of this matter to the appropriate archive and we invite editors that still wish to work on that line to set up shop in that archive and continue the discussion.

I truly believe that this will prove Wikipedia's ability to recover from grinding to a standstill under an edit war. It will also show the true colors of every editor as we make our choice whether to work for or against progress. I am confident that this process will succeed where previous voting has failed because we have agreed to abide by the concensus and have set boundaries and guidelines to ensure this progress.

Let us use the events of January and February 2006 as an example of what happens when we forsake civility and integrity for the sake of personal opinion or retaliation. I do not question the fact that much of what has happened on this page has occured because of editor vs. editor conflict, not because of the content of the debated text. We must pledge to work together and work past our differences. We must not attack one another. We must not bicker with one another. We must not refuse anyone who is genuinely trying to make a positive effort but we must stand together against anyone who is trying to impact Wikipedia for the worse.

Let us take the next two and a half days to reflect on our own contribution to Wikipedia. What have you accomplished? What could you have accomplished if this war had never started? What will you accomplish once it is over? --Avery W. Krouse 16:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

There is some glitch with the Wikipedia software that occasionally (actually more frequently than "occasionally") causes an edit to undo the previous edit, or even several previous edits. It has nothing to do with an edit conflict: the deleted edits in a slow-moving page might even have been made the day before. No "edit conflict" warning appears, and the editor often moves on to other articles, blissfully unaware of what happened when he/she pressed "save".

That happened earlier this evening. At 17:59, Str1977 voted for something, and simultaneously swallowed up the edits of the previous four editors. I tried to go back to Archola's version of 17:55. I intended, having reverted Str1977, to restore just his post. However, I got caught up in several edit conflicts, and eventually made my revert three edits later. I didn't think it was worth using the {{inuse}} template. In my edit summary, I asked other editors not to edit for the next few minutes, but the additional posts continued, causing more edit conflicts. In desperation, I locked the page until I had finished restoring all the posts, and had checked that they were all properly restored. I hope I didn't cause inconvenience to anyone.

If anyone knows the correct place to report this software bug – this has been happening on several pages for at least two months – please report it. In the meantime, it would be helpful if people, after editing, would check the diff for their edits, to make sure that nothing else changed. If they find they have inadvertently swallowed up the work of some previous editors, they can revert themselves, and then repost. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 22:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It was about that time that I found this talk page "locked," without any notice on the page that it had been locked. It happened when I first tried to add my comments on the voting; it was an hour before I was able to do so. Arch O. La 22:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I've used a simple Venn diagram to sort out the results of the election. There were four people who preferred option I, 2 who preferred option II, and 2 who preferred I & II equally. There were 10 who preferred option III, 3 who preferred I & III equally, and 1 who liked all three options equally. This leaves option III the clear winner. Since the differences in wording are minor, it makes all kinds of sense to go with option III and move on to more productive tasks.

Such as composing limericks.

There once was a fellow named Venn

Whose diagrams kept him from sin.

He set them aside

And then lustfully cried,

"I hardly know where to begin."

Rick Norwood 21:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

All well an good had the vote not been fixed by a quorum/cabal, had the options been fair and balanced and not chosen to split a vote and, of course, the 3rd option removes essential information and makes the intro less encyclopedic - taht info now nees to go elsewhere. The vote is invalid, it's simple - and continual votes that the quorum/cabal can fix means that further votes are pointless. There is clear protectyionism of the "christian" POv on this article. This is shameful and should be stopped. Robsteadman 22:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think you'll find the vote is actually 11 for option 1 and 15 for option 3 on first choices at the moment (hardly a masive majority) and if you take out the "rent a vote" members brought in to sway the decision and force a POV, it looks like option 1 is the winner.Robsteadman 22:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Assume good will. My impression is that III got the most votes simply because it is shorter. There is a link for those who want to explore the subject further. Time to move on. Rick Norwood 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

How can you asume goo will when a quorum/cabal was called in to fix the vote and some who have had nothing to do with the vote have been asked to come and vote? Undemocratic in the extreme and that is why ANY result is invalid. Robsteadman 22:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the insults in the post above, to Rick: the initial proposal was to wait till March 1st to call the election and then do a run off. I think we should wait until then for folks who've worked on this page to get their voice in, as well as those attracted by the POV flag to arrive and weigh in. Others may invite their friends from the registered user community, as far as I'm concerned. I can live with any of the options, although I do favor the shortest for the reasons stated above. --CTSWyneken 22:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)´

Please could we clearly state whether the vote is merely about picking one option, agreeing or disagreeing with the individual options or listing preferences. I'd favour voting with preferences, as Rick implied in his analysis above, but voted under the impression that only one vote is allowed - this needs to be decided, otherwise a preference analysis falls apart (because of missing second bests). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you'll read through the set of instructions above the table of votes, you'll find the groundrules for this vote. We will wait until the posted time because we've never ran according to a set schedule and this gives plenty of time for the Wikipedia community to get their voice in. If someone comes in and reviews the talk page and the notes and wants to vote, let them. On March 1, I will archive the existing discussion and redesign the table according to the tally results (providing a table of those results as well), giving 24 hours for a final run off. At that point, one of our lovely administrators can place the appropriate line in place, unlock the page, and we'll move on. Please, read the whole diatribe of instructions before declaring a winner. --Avery W. Krouse 22:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• This page is a pretty good example of why voting is considered evil. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

  And I used to think it was a silly idea to say that voting was evil when I first read the policy awhile ago :/. Homestarmy 00:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

  Me too, but notice I decided to abstain this last round. I'm still waiting to hear which circle of Hell we're in (nice try, CTSWynekan, but I don't think Groundhog's Day is a circle. Arch O. La 01:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If voting is evil, then which circle of Hell are we in? Arch O. La 04:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Katefan0 protected the wrong page.

There is such an incredible amount of arguing on this page considering everyone claims to be pushing the NPOV barrow. Countless votes and proposals and we still have no consensus on the most trivial and generally irrelevant issues.

I personally believe that a number of the active editors on this article have been sucked into a "did so, did not" vortex and can't break loose to get on with something more worthwhile.

And please, I don't need anyone to respond to this comment here either agreeing or disagreeing with my comments. I for one am removing this page from my watch list for the time being as flogging this dead horse won't bring it back to life, unlike the possibly mythical Jesus is purported to have done despite a minority who cite blah blah blah.

In the meantime some of you should consider jumping off this wheel going round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round, about face, and did I mention round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round.

(whew!) Garglebutt / (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

A circle is infinite...until you step outside. Arch O. La 01:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

And then you find out you were in a sphere the whole time, third dimensional doh! Homestarmy 01:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Step into hyperspace. It can't be an infinite-dimensional sphere, can it? I hear Georg Cantor calling. Transfinite sets...might be a while.Arch O. La 01:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine, i'll give you a hypercube. There's supposedly a door out of those, assuming causality doesn't collapse on top of you..... Homestarmy 02:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you hypercube the hypersphere? It's like squaring the circle, only more perpendicular. I'm still trying to count the number of dimensions that this hypersphere of Hell has. Aleph-null, Aleph-null, Aleph-null, Aleph-null, Aleph-null...this is supposed to be a countable infinity, so why am I not getting anywhere? Oh, wait...

I have found God! Arch O. La 03:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

We have nothing to sphere except sphere itself. Rick Norwood 13:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Four score and 27 1/2th years ago in base 13.....Homestarmy 13:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation. Our mothers were busy pursuing their own interests. Arch O. La 18:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

and thus ushered in the glorious revolution of the Jesus talk page, take that stale argumentation and annoying fake theories! LET FREEDOM JESUS RING! :D Homestarmy 20:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you starting the Crusades now? Arch O. La 20:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sort of, rather than equip the Crusader sword of much smashing +5/+6, i'd equip 2 |Evidence Bibles of much evangelistic spirit. +10/-3, the str stat is over-rated anyway. Homestarmy 20:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I prefer a milder approach. Don't worry; the Force runs strong in my family. These aren't the lack of extant contemporaneous documents you're looking for. (waves hand). These aren't the lack of extant contemporaneous documents you're looking for. Arch O. La 20:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This man [Archola] can go about his business. Move [the Jesus article] along! Deskana (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Back to the article? --Oscillate 20:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Once the tempest subsides. Right now I'm engaging in an aburdist protest to cut through the tension. Arch O. La 20:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What's more milder than Evidence Bibles of much evangelistic spirit +10/-3? I mean I could also equip the |Tracts of much hilarity +3/+3/+4, but im running out of ideas after that. Unless I go up a level. Homestarmy 22:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm just applying my Star Wars allegory. I have noticed that you are quite skilled with the Tracts of Much Hilarity. Arch O. La 23:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)PS:Also check out "Metaphysical Poker" right below that section. I have my own approach to hilarity ;) Arch O. La 23:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)