Talk:Jesus/Archive 60

Will someone please state that this is fiction? Or link to fiction in "topics related to Jesus".

Also, something that should be added is the theories in which Jesus was Iulius Caesar / John the Nazarene.

skribb 17:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Since most of this article is not fiction, the first line would be inappropriate. There is some fiction (such as The DaVinci Code) listed in the "Cultural Impact" section, but that is a rather small part of the article.

As for your second point, please cite sources. Also, who is John the Nazarene? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Might as well provide an historical source. A good place to start is VanVoorst, Robert E. Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Studying the Historical Jesus), William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000. ISBN 0802843689. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well for references you have The Fable of Christ by Luigii Cascioli and Jesus was Caesar by Francesco Carotta. John the Nazarene was a man that lived during Jesus' time, a man that actually could be the real Jesus. skribb 16:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There's the thing: to say that Christ is a fable is not the same as saying Jesus as a fable, as any number of nonChristian historians have pointed out. Even if everyone got John's name wrong, there still would have been a nonfictional John for everyone to get his name wrong. Julius Ceasar was dead by the first century (are you saying Julius ressurected?), during this time we have his successors Augustus through Tiberias. Of course, there's always the Jesus-Myth article for the minority who believe that Jesus is all myth, but there are other perspectives. ;) Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I meant John the Baptist. And what do you mean Christ isn't the same as Jesus? By "Jesus" do you mean the physical person, and by Christ, his divinity? Because if you don't, it's the same person, right? skribb 19:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

More or less. "Christ" is a title, originally a Greek translation of "Messiah," which came to mean "what Christians believe about Jesus." Obviously, to a Christian like myself, "Jesus" is "Christ" and the only Christ: they are one and the same. There are other people who believe that there was a historical Jesus, but don't believe in Christ. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, Jesus is also a title, correct? From the greek "iessous" meaning anointed? Also, I find it quite saddening to see so many christians in "charge" of this article. We need more atheists and freethinkers, ones who aren't biased and subjective. I'm not saying you are, but there are others who are. skribb 23:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

First point: many are of the opinion that the Greek ησοῦς (Iēsoûs) is a transliteration of a common Jewish name, either יהושוע {Yehoshua) or ישוע (Yeshua). "Joshua" is also a transliteration of "Yehoshua," but this name didn't take a trip through Greek. See Yeshua for more.

Second point: There are have been all kinds of people come through here, both Christian and not. At the moment it seems that most of the Christians are at Talk:Christianity, where we are debating the definition of "monotheism." Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 04:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As an evil, "closed-minded," fundimentalist, Christian, I'm very biased (see my user page). But I follow the neutral point of view policy, so I don't know why my biases should be of any concern (or why someone else with a different worldview and set of biases would be better to edit the article). Anyhow, there is no ownership of articles on Wikipedia — anyone is welcome to edit the article in any way they see fit. Of course, they should also respect other editors and work toward consensus, but there is no Christian cabal keeping the "freethinkers" at bay with a stick or anything. » MonkeeSage « 04:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that this applies to anyone here, but sometimes it seems that people use the phrase "closed-minded" to mean "doesn't agree with me." If Quizfarm is any guide, I'm only 31% fundamentalist, so maybe I'm only 31% closed-minded? It doesn't matter, we all have various viewpoints and should all learn to work together. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 05:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

MonkeeSage: It has happened to me.

On another note, I think I'll remove this article from my watchlist. It makes me weep. skribb 16:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I would think Jesus would weep that this article isn't currently from the perspective of sharing the Gospel message to readers, but you can't always get what you want can you? :) Homestarmy 16:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

John 11:35. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Skribb writes, "As far as I know, Jesus is also a title, correct? From the greek "iessous" meaning anointed? Also, I find it quite saddening to see so many christians in "charge" of this article. We need more atheists and freethinkers, ones who aren't biased and subjective. I'm not saying you are, but there are others who are." Personally, I would weep if the people who were in charge of this were people who thought that Jesus is a title, no matter what their religious beliefs. All of us have biases, that is why we have an NPOV policy. What is more important is that contributors to articles be well-informed and willing to do research, and not use the talk page to make claims that are false and clearly reflect an unwillingness to do research. All you need to do is look up "annointed" in a Greek dictionary, Skribb - is that too much to ask you to do before you assert a point here? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Skribb writes, "it happened to me." What happened? do you think you have come up against some Christian cabal? You have not. You have come up against editors who respect serious research (whether it coincides with their own views or not) and not fringe, crank theories. There are many serious historians who have written about Jesus. Cascioli and Carotta are not among them. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is everyone fannying around with the truth. Anyone who disputes the historicity of Julius Ceaser doesn't get a mention on his page, so why, when there is more evidence for a historical Jesus than Henry VIII or Julius Ceaser, does this get a mention on Jesus' page. Also, why is his divinity questioned, when he rose from the dead? Why is existence of a creator God (which Jesus was) questioned when we live in a created world? What unbelieving times we live in —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Erf28 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 26 May 2006.

Wikipedia is not about truth. Please read our NPOV policy carefully. Your above statement suggests you do not understand it. If you make many edits in ignorance of our NPOV policy, you will eventually be reverted several times. If you want to contribute to this project, please learn why truth is not the issue here. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sad to see that Wikipedia has fallen for the trap of Policitcal Censorship -- can't offend anyone with the Truth now !! Michael.Pohoreski 01:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Beyond the obvious nonsense from Erf28, how on earth is there more evidence for Jesus than for Henry VIII (!!!) or even Julius Caesar? That's completely absurd. There's tons and tons and tons of contemporary material from the time of Henry VIII. Less true of Caesar, but we actually have surviving examples of Caesar's own writings, as well as other contemporary writings which mention Caesar, like those of Sallust and Cicero. Can't we just ignore people who demonstrate their complete ignorance of the topic at hand? (And this obviously applies to idiot atheists like Skribb, too - Jesus a Greek title, indeed). john k 19:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I added this article to Category:Criminals. This is not an attempt to start a flamewar or to troll; by all contemporary accounts (and even The Bible), Jesus broke Roman laws through His religious teachings. Adding this article to this category is not a justification of his execution, but rather an objective categorization of the page. Just wanted to clear this up so that my action wasn't dismissed as derogatory. Jeff Silvers 04:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Which laws? A.J.A. 04:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Blasphemy, at least as defined by those who persecuted Him. Once again, I'd like to point out that this isn't an attempt to justify His treatment; I'm merely stating that he did, indeed, break established law. Jeff Silvers 04:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I thought about it... would "Disputed convictions" perhaps be a better category? The question that needs to be answered is this: Did Jesus' actions constitute a crime under Roman law? If so, he belongs in the criminal category; if not, then perhaps disputed convictions is more fitting. Jeff Silvers 05:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Blasphemy wasn't a crime under Roman law. That's why Pilate "washed his hands". A.J.A. 05:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked into it further and discovered that He was actually accused of what amounts to disturbing the peace, ordering His follows to not pay taxes to Ceasar, and proclaiming Himself to be the Messiah. The Bible claims He was entirely innocent of the first two. I'm an atheist, so for me, The Bible isn't enough to convince me He was innocent (nor do I know if He was guilty), but it's certainly enough to make His conviction "disputed." I've removed the criminals category and replaced it with disputed criminals. Jeff Silvers 05:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Disputed convictions is much better. A.J.A. 05:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahem...where did you look further, ie. where did you find that he ordered his followers not to pay taxes? Or that he was even accused of that? Are you making up your own "facts?" Pollinator 05:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

For those who believe Jesus lived, there is virtually no doubt that he was crucified. This means that he was found guilty of a crime. Most critical historians believe this crime was sedition. Now, Wikipedia is not about "truth," the question is not whether he "really" was a criminal. It is not the place of Wikipedia to declare whether Mumia Abu-Jamal, for example, was "really" guilty. But Abu-Jamal was convicted of a crime. Similarly, many people, including historians, do believe Jesus was convicted of a crime. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"Disputed criminals" seems fair to me :/. Homestarmy 15:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I have problems with the implication that there are undisputed criminals or that being a criminal is bad. What King a criminal when in the Birmingham jail? If so, I applaud his breaking of the law. Ditto Ghandi. Sometimes the world needs a criminal. To me, to call Jesus a "disputed criminal" is to day "disputed good guy." Well, maybe that is what you mean. Maybe some people think Jesus should not have broken any laws. I guess to keep NPOV ... on the other hand, don't we take it for granted that "criminal" is always necessarily from one point of view? In other words, to call someone a criminal is not the same thing as to call them an animal or a vegetable. "Criminal" is always from a particular POV. Criminal is always disputed (most people in prison say they are innocent). So isn't "disputed criminal" redundent? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It would seem to me the dispute is over whether Jesus literally broke any laws of the Roman empire or whether it was just a set up of sorts. I mean Pilate seemed really reluctant to execute Him. "Criminal" is a somewhat loaded term, and while I agree that in many contexts the word "Criminal" can have quite positive connotations, im not so certain that the positive connotation is nearly universal or anything. Homestarmy 15:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

We do not know how Pilate really felt as we have divergent accounts of Pilate. All who agree Jesus exist, however, agree that he was executed by crucifiction. Just or unjust, this is punishment for violation of some law. I think that what is important - in terms of classifying/providing a link - is that Jesus was not murdered by an individual or group of individuals, or even assassinated, but was executed by the state. Now, we can argue as to whether wikipedia should have links for people who are classified according to how they died. But if we are to have such categories, I think it makes sense to have classes like, died of illness, died of accident, was murdered (apolitical), was assassinated (political), was exscuted (by the state). Jesus clearly falls under the final category, whatever the reasons for the execution or their merits may have been. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• For comparison, the article List of convicted or indicted religious leaders says:

In the cases of early religious leaders there are also issues of documentation, the lack of religious freedom, and the definition of crime that would make their inclusion problematic. Hence it seems wise to limit it to founders or leaders convicted or indicted after 1880.

Paul of Tarsus, Saint Peter, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Michael Servetus, Patrick Hamilton (martyr), Jan Hus, Hugh Latimer etc. are not included in the criminals category. Neither is John Bunyan, who was never executed but spent a lot of time in jail for preaching without a licence and preached out the window from his cell. Neither is Martin Luther King, Jr., BTW. A.J.A. 15:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I never meant to insinuate that being a criminal is a bad thing. Criminal is defined by The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language as One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime. The categorization boils down to whether Jesus' actions actually constituted a crime under Roman law or whether he was executed by the state because they viewed him as a threat. Since there seems to be varying opinions on that subject, "disputed convictions" is probably a better category for this article than criminals. Jeff Silvers 19:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The tag was placed several days ago here, but the editor never came to discuss. No drive-by tagging. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

sorry about that, archived to archive 57 Spicynugget 18:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That was what, 17 minutes? Ah well. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In principle, we should not archive until the page reaches around 30 kb. This makes it easier for people to catch up on recent discussions, and also makes it possible for someone to add to a recent discussion. No one can say definitively when any discussion is concluded, because Wikipedia is an ongoing project and any editor has the right to raise a valid point on the talk pages - even if one other editor feels the discussion is closed. Thus, we should rely on mechanics (how long a page can a typical browser handle) decide when to archive. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's always been larger than 30K when I've archived. I've archived discussion as recent as 5 days (during the recent arrest, trial or execution discussion) or even 3 days (some time ago) when the page has crept above 100K. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

you are right, and I agree with you, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There are a few points we can all agree on.

• One's interpretation of the events in the gospels does not negate POV.
• The uniqueness of Jesus prevents an intelligent person from drawing unrealistic parallels to other historical figures.
• By definition, the Gospels simply aren't mythology.

Spicynugget 17:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand the first two points (when should anyone ever draw an "unrealistic" parallel?) and do not agree with the third point which I would say is flat out wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There will always be a few of people who attempt to find a reason to disagree with There will always be a few of people who attempt to find a reason to disagree with these sine quo non points. A list of those people is being formed on my talk page. these sine quo non points. A list of those people is being formed on my talk page.Spicynugget 18:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Spicynugget 18:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

First, Nugget, do not dare to delete my comment on the talk page. Do not delete anyone's comments on the talk page. That is vandalism. I have as much a right to express my views as you do. Second, just because I do not agree with you does not mean I do not agree with the article. Do not misrepresent what I write. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Nugget: do not delete. If you do you are committing vandalism and an administrator may block you.Slrubenstein | Talk 11:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

An administrator just has! AnnH ♫ 16:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your statement is two-fold: First, you assume that everybody agrees that Christianity is correct. This obviously isn't true; there are lots of people who either adhere to a non-Christian religion or aren't religious at all. (Yes, we atheists really exist.) The second problem is that you're making an assumption about the word "myth." The word does not necessarily suggest that an ideology is accurate or inaccurate. It is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language as:

A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society.

So, by definition, the Gospels are mythology. Jeff Silvers 17:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The only "supernatural beings" I can detect in the Gospels are a) God, who however is mostly communicating throught b) angels, and c) Satan (who makes a very brief appearance and could also be counted among b). All the rest are human beings. Now, compare this to Greek mythology or the Enuma Elish and you will see why it's not mythology.

Ah, and judging from your definition, Roman history (see Livy) and Alexander the Great and the Marxist movement (these supernatural laws of history) are all mythology too. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Am I to understand that because Greek mythology features more "supernatural beings" than Christianity, Christianity can't be mythology? Christianity features all the components of mythology: supernatural beings (God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Satan, demons, and the various angels), it explains aspects of the natural world, and explains and defines societal customs and culture. The fact that a different system of mythology features more supernatural beings than Christianity is totally irrelevent. Jeff Silvers 21:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Small suggestion, maybe it belongs in the pending tasks box but I didn't want to seem foward. Could the various inline links to Biblical verses use inline citation rather than inline links? It's better style, generally preferred in FACs, and keeps the text looking prettier (just a small ^[42] or whatever rather than a larger link in the article text). Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

We've done both, but we should standardize... Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, that's one of the things that made me think the suggestion is worthwhile. It seems to me like you gain very little from inline links (an eensy weensy bit faster to get to the ref'ing info, but you can be more thorough in inline citation), but they disrupt the text quite a bit. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see: [1]

1) Its important, to point out at the beginning of the lemma that Since the First Council of Nicaea most Christians are Trinitarian

Why?: Most people think falsly, our contemporary belief in Trinitary is normal case. But it's important to know, the vast majority of christs in the ancient world shared the perspectiv of Arius. Our today-believ is the exotic POV, not the original.

2) This is a quite interesting case:

*Luigi Cascoli sues for Proof of Jesus

None the less it was done away too. (My fault, did function up to yesterday, now the clip isn't available any more Foreigner)

Thanks for attention Foreigner 08:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Foreigner, you are displaying a common misconception. The Council of Nicaea did not invent Trinitarianism, it just clarified a certain aspect of it. In his way, Arius was Trinitarian too. However, there is not evidence for "the vast majority of Christ(ian)s" agreeing with him. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Believe me or not: almost all germanic tribes who were christians were arian. And Arius, for shure, was no Trinitarian. And I didn't say with a single word, Nicaea invented Trinitarianism. Of course not. But Nicea was the crossroad for an official dogma that Athanasius had to bee considerd the right position. Even after this dogma the germanic tribes refused for hundreds of years to change their nontrinitarian belief. Foreigner 12:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is primarily an article on Jesus, not Christians. Certainly it should include the major Christian POVs concerning jesus - but for obvious reasons I think it should privilige contmeporary views. The article on Christology on the other hand should I think go into great detail about changing views of Jesus, and divergent views of Jesus, within Christianity. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Readers should have the chance to realise at first glance if there's contemporary POV or not. But I shall not wage an edit war for that. Foreigner 13:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand you. I agree readers should know that it is a contemporary POV, e.g. "Currently, most Christians" or something like that. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The seven ecumenical councils (which includes Nicaea) are mentioned in the Christian Views section, as is Arianism. The introduction is in the present tense ("Most Christians believe," not "Most Christians have believed") and thus describes contemporary Christian POVs. BTW, at one point the Nicene Creed was mentioned in the intro; it was removed when it was pointed out that some Christians do not accept creeds ("No creed but Christ") yet still accept the doctrine of the Trinity put forth in the Nicene Creed. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The second paragraph used to end with a sentence stating that a minority of schoalrs reject the existence of Jesus. I thought that was accepted as part of the compromise - I certainly see no problem with the setnence (though I think it should be concise and non-argumentative). what's up? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Is somebody trying to change it, I can't tell through all the anon vandalism -___- Homestarmy 14:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I must just be confused. As of this moment, the paragraph reads as I remember it, and as I think it should read. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A current subtitle includes "execution" instead of "crucifiction". The known method of execution was crucifiction, which is simply a more specific term. Also, it is a better known term for the event described. Any objections to changing? 69.136.243.29 23:17, May 31, 2006

I've moved this comment to the bottom of the page. Sometimes comments get missed when they're added to the top of the page instead of to the bottom. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Do we need a separate section for this? It's such a small group of people; I think we should either make a sub-section under the Jewish view or place the paragraph under the 'Other Christians views' section. —Aiden 15:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not think so. As far as I can tell, people who identify themselves as messianic Jews are trying to communicate something about their beliefs and about their Jewish identity. As for Jesus - I do not believe they hold any views not held by opther Christians. So if our concern is for listing different views of Jesus, I see no need to add those of messianic Jews. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This small group of people is growing and increasing in significance. One of my close friends is a mesianic jew, and I have learned a lot about life and tradition from him. He would contribute uniquely to the discussion of Jesus. I think it needs its own section, or at least put it under the Other Christians views to maintain organizational integrity.64.81.228.110 15:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I placed it in its own subsection under Christian views. —Aiden 15:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking all Christians are Messianic Jews. . . . standonbible 18:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Not according to Jews. Also, not according to St. Paul. In Galatians he explains that one of the main points about Christianity is that in Christ one is neither gentile nor Jew. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A "Messianic Jew" is just an evangelical Christian who converted from Judaism, and still celebrates Jewish holidays. Their views about Jesus aren't any different from those of other Christians. john k 10:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

John is right, Messianic Jews are Jews who converted to Christianity (not necessarily evangelical) but still proactively retain their Jewish identity. I said "proactively" since I'm not sure whether I would call her a Messianic Jew, though strictly speaking she is, just as he was. Of course, some MJs differ from some gentile Christians, but then again: GCs differ among themselves as do MJs. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not question that there exist a group of people who identify themselves as Messianic Jews. This is a point of view that (in principle) should be acknowledged as such. I do however question any claim that presents itself as an objective or universal fact rather than a point of view, which is how I read Standonbible's comment. I also question applying this concept anachronistically (Peter did not call himself a messianic jew. he just called himself a Jew, and perhaps a Christian too, at a time when the two were not mutually exclusive). And of course i share john's view which is, however Messianic Jews view themselves, their views of Jesus are no different from those of other Christians and as such do not constitute a distinct POV that needs to be rpresented in this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This is tangential, but I've never heard Jews who convert to Catholicism described as "Messianic Jews". The term seems to me to very strongly connote a very particular type - Jewish converts to Evangelical Christianity - "Jews for Jesus" and so forth. The article on Messianic Judaism supports this view. A Jew who converted to Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy or a mainline Protestant Church would not normally be seen as a "Messianic Jew," as far as I'm aware. john k 17:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with John K. David L Rattigan 17:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, most Jewish converts to Christianity are simply known as Jewish Christians or as Hebrew Christians. As the article says, "There are important similarities and differences between "Jewish Christians" (or "Hebrew Christians") and "Messianic Jews"." The latter have always confused me. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that Christology should be added to the topics related to Jesus box that accompanies the Jesus tag. Does anyone object? If not, could someone add it? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Aiden 13:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This article has just been removed from the Article Improvement Drive. I'd like to thank everyone who has helped out over the last few weeks; of course, they are still some pending tasks /to do. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)