Talk:Jesus/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Name of page

I'm new, but as I understand it, NPOV would say the page be called "Jesus" rather than "Jesus Christ".

It would then include material that Christians believe he was/is the Christ etc. That section would offer support for that view.

It would also then say that Jews do not generally accept that he was the Christ, and so on ...

Please do not mis-understand what I'm asking here: Should not the title be more neutral, and the text then make the various claims. His name was "Jesus", but "Christ" is a title claimed by some. For Christians, a truely important claim, so that should be supported. For others, its most untrue: that too should be supported. Yes?

Welcome to the Wikipedia then.  :) Strictly speaking, you are probably correct. However for uniqueness the page should probably left as is. There are many people named Jesus (pronounced hay-soos, stress the last sylable) of Hispanic descent. There are probably several other famous people named Jesus throughout history as well. I believe that there is a disclaimer in the article stating that Christ is a Latin translation of the Hebrew title messiah, meaning "annointed one".

Also, please sign your posts. Put 3 tildes (~) after your post to sign with your Wikipedia user ID, and 4 tildes to put both your user ID and a timestamp. You can visit my user page to see the welcome post I got from UtherSRG with links to s bunch of usefull pages. Once again, welcome. DavidR 19:36, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The policy is to use the most common form of the name, and by this principle I think the name of the article is appropriate. Also, you'll see that we generally refer to monarchs by title. Jesus wasn't a monarch, but since Jesus' followers refer to him using the title "Christ," it seems appropriate to do the same in the article. Slrubenstein

Jesus Christ is POV - move to Jesus of Nazareth

This should be moved to Jesus of Nazareth which is a neutral term acceptable to all; the word "Christ" implies that he was the Christ, something that I as an atheist would dispute, let alone all the Muslims and Jews, and worshippers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn Duncharris 17:23, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Or better yet, move it to Jesus which is more commonly used. Fredrik 17:30, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. We can make it clear that Jesus Christ refers to the conceptual Christ, if such a figure existed. (Maybe we can split up bits to a 'factual' Jesus under Jesus of Nazareth. Then again, evidence for such a factual Jesus is also foggy.) I don't think we have any problems with the entry of God as omnipotent, omniscient et al, whether we believe in Him or not.

Ah hell, scratch that. I'm happy with a Jesus heading, with a 'Jesus Christ', or 'Jesus as the Christ' heading in a reasonably prominent position. --Fangz 17:47, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to move to Jesus, as this has been batted around for several days, with no objections. john 20:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

There are other Jesus' around (It's just a variant of Joshua amongst others). Jesus of Nazareth would be a much more appropriate place. DJ Clayworth 22:33, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but do they have encyclopedia articles written about them? Until another man, real or legend, known by the single name "Jesus" gets so noteworthy that he is worthy of an article, "of Nazareth" is not needed to distinguish between them.ChessPlayer 23:21, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I think that both "Jesus Christ" (which implies that Jesus is the Son of God) and "Jesus of Nazareth" (which implies that he is not) are POV. And all this pre-emptive disambiguating is ridiculous. What other Jesus's are known as just "Jesus" to require disambiguation? Jesus ben Sirach doesn't even have an article, and if he did, there's no reason it should be at just "Jesus", or that he is well known enough for that to be necessary. john 00:41, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Jesus Gonzales, Esteban De Jesus

I think you seem to be getting into a fuss about nothing here. Christ means The Anointed One. It is synonymous with the Hebrew Messiah, which means Savior. Neither of these terms infer that JC was the son of God. Is this anymore POV than Alexander the Great or Mahatma Gandhi? Mintguy (T)

Jews, for example, do not believe that Jesus was the Christ. So calling the page "Jesus Christ" is saying their point of view will not be on the page. ChessPlayer 16:55, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I believe most Christians would have no problem with the article being titled "Jesus of Nazareth". I certainly don't. It's the name he was probably known by during his life. As I said above, Jesus and Joshua are the same name originally, and someone may want to write an article about the name and the various people who go by it, so 'Jesus' is not specific enough. DJ Clayworth 17:03, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

SIMPLE: Jesus Christ is more appropriate for the title. I have had it beaten into my head that in Wikipedia, article names are based on popular usage while not being offensive. Popularity and common usage: "Jesus Christ" (Google hits > 5,000,000) is better than "Jesus of Nazareth" (Google hits < 200,000). As for Jesus and Jesus Christ, I believe most people would be fine with "Jesus Christ" and it is more specific and grounded in the personality than a 'Jesus'.

24 million hits on simply "Jesus". Ronabop 07:24, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Offensiveness / POV - Many names have ideas and beliefs attached to them that represent something inherently POV. For instance, Peter means "rock." I will not change Peter's name in a reference because i do not believe he is a figurative 'rock.' Same with Mahatma Gandhi. Some people hate him, or do not believe he was a great soul. But the appelation has stuck. Jesus Christ is a title that has become his name, in a strange way. People understand that when they call him Jesus Christ, it doesn't dictate belief in his anointed nature. Same with the Buddha, the erstwhile Siddharta Gautama. Hey, but I don't think he's enlightened! Not cool. ----- Wrong. That's his name. --LordSuryaofShropshire 20:38, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

ply rich

Jesus Christ is not his name, and Jesus is completely unambiguous. john 20:45, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

It is a Christian claim that Jesus was from "Nazareth," so, that phrase is POV. ChessPlayer 20:58, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Jesus is unambiguous, but Jesus Christ has de-facto become his name; it is not scripturally or even nominally correct, in that Christ is a title, but the majority of people who know of Christ don't know that. --LordSuryaofShropshire 22:10, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

"Jesus" seems to be an acceptable title in the same way that London is an acceptable title. Any other people named Jesus would need a disambiguator. Rmhermen 22:37, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Stripping "Christ" from the page seems intended to advance the atheist POV that he was not annointed. This should be moved back to Jesus Christ, since that is how he is most widely known. John wrote above:

I'm going to move to Jesus, as this has been batted around for several days, with no objections. john 20:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this was batted around for only a few hours on May 4 before it was moved, not "several days". Since then a number of objections have been raised. Wesley 15:49, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I have to say, although I am Jewish, do not accept Christian teachings, do not believe Jesus is or was a messiah, and never refer to Jesus as Jesus Christ myself, I have no objection to "Jesus Christ" as the title of the article. I object to the monarchy and have no objection to an article on "Queen Elizabeth." I would like to think that had I lived in America in 1775 I would have rejected George III as my sovereign, but I am sure I wouldn't have objected to an encyclopedia article on King George. And had I lived a couple of thousand years ago, I am sure I would have considered Hadrien a son of a bitch bastard, but would have accepted an encyclopedia article on "Emperor Hadrien." (no offence to my Christian or British friends or fans of the Romans). Slrubenstein

A very sensible contribution to the debate. I am an Athiest, and personally doubt that a single individual called Jesus existed, but I have as much or as little objection to this page being at Jesus Christ, as I do to a page being at King Arthur for similar reasons. Mintguy (T) 17:34, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

With a nod to both of you, for your reassuring fair-mindedness, I don't think that this move considered by itself is objectionable. If/when the "Jesus Christ is POV" fanaticism starts to work systematically, however, and attempts to remove the title "Jesus Christ" from the text of encyclopedia articles, then I think that this would seriously undermine the credibility of the work, and should be opposed. In other words, I object strongly to the motive; I do not strongly object to the action. Mkmcconn — \

On the other hand, if there are more direct links to [[Jesus Christ]], than to [[Jesus]], THAT should be the deciding factor in where the article ought to be located (and it appears that they are roughly equal). Mkmcconn — 17:42, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

How many pages do we want on Wikipedia that say in the title that Jesus is the Christ? There used to be two, right now there is one, "Jesus Christ as the Messiah." Why not simply rename that page as Jesus Christ, and drop off the repetitive "as the Messiah" part? It is a rather stupid article title, as it perpetuates the misconception that "Christ" is Jesus's last name, not everyone reads it as saying "Jesus the Messiah as the Messiah." Even if they do, that's a pretty clumsy article title, in my opinion. ChessPlayer 19:02, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

That doesn't make a lot of English-sense. Better, "Jesus as the Messiah", since that reflects the substance of the article. "Jesus Christ" is what this person is called - "King George" (a general article about the person) is not the same as "George as King" (a specialist article about the office of king, under George). Mkmcconn — 19:10, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Jesus Christ is not POV, but ...

I have looked in the Encyclopedia Britannica and they seem to feel there is nothing wrong with Jesus Christ as the title of an article. I say if it's NPOV for a commercial encyclopedia, who are we to argue? If no one objects I will change this back one week from today. Respectfully - DavidR 23:21, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I do not think that the title of this or any other of the related pages is something that ought to be argued over. What is worth it, in my opinion, is the specious claim that using "Christ" and "Jesus Christ" synonymously with "Jesus" is POV, incorrect, or unscholarly. This argument, that "Christ is POV", and the purging campaign that follows from it, brings unnatural and undue attention to special issues of belief which are not consonant with ordinary use of the name. So, I am not in favor of changing the title of this article back to "Jesus Christ"; but I am definitely opposed to the thinking by which it was changed in the first place, which is fallacious and biased, prone to make a mess of articles and to discredit the postured "neutrality" of this community. Mkmcconn — 23:51, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Although Encyclopedia articles (including Britannica) often include "Christ" in the title, they certainly do not include "Jesus Christ" anywhere in the text itself as a description for the man, but rather use "Jesus". As for "Christ" not being POV, all this shows is that (because of the history of English and English speaking countries) the POV has insinuated itself so deeply into the minds of many English speaking individuals that they can no longer recognize the POV it promotes. Scholarly and academic articles do not refer to Jesus as "Jesus Christ", and certainly never as "Christ". Jayjg 03:04, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The most important difference between this and the print encyclopedias that you cite, is that this is a collaborative effort. Your perspective is narrow, tyrannical and self-serving, and makes trouble unnecessarily. Mkmcconn — 03:31, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Um, I didn't bring up other encyclopedias, I just continued the point that was raised. Anyway, how does this being a "collaborative effort" make a difference? As for the rest, I don't respond to name calling. Jayjg 05:01, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It makes a difference if your perspective allowed for accomodation and give-and-take to work out differences, which it does not. Compromise and concessions are possible here, but your perspective does not permit it: it is above such things. This is not name calling. It's a description of what happens when you make a religion out of neutrality. Mkmcconn — 05:24, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's very odd that you would presume to speak for me, when you don't know me. Mind you, you (and others) obviously think you do. The person who started this particular section (in reaction to my edits in another article) described me as an atheistic religion hater. You, on the other hand, see me as making a religion of neutrality (this religion is apparently a narrow, tyrannical, self-serving, trouble-making one). Everybody is very free with their opinions of me today. Anyway, what kind of compromise do you propose? Jayjg 06:04, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've tried not to direct anything at you; although I admit that it's a fine line between your perspective, and you personally. I don't believe that it's possible to negotiate anything with the perspective expressed by "Christ is POV", consistently held - and you seemed determined to be as consistent as possible. ("Wikipedia is all about neutrality": on the contrary, it is all about information; and neutrality is a policy restricting the presentation of information.).

In some contexts, "Christ" is precisely what is intended, in order to be descriptive. "Church of Jesus Christ" means something significantly different than "church of Jesus", and it should be decided in each context whether this difference is informative or rather argumentative and self-promoting. Similarly, sometimes "heresy" is a description, and sometimes it is an argument; and likewise removing the label, "heresy", is sometimes in the interest of improving the article, and other times it is to further an argument. Etc.. Thus, to imagine that it is possible to describe religious issues from the position of pure neutrality, is itself a religiously potent point of view that stirs up arguments and promotes itself over other religious points of view. Am I being clear enough about this difference? Mkmcconn — 17:05, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

When you presume to know (and tell me) my (unstated) perspective, then it's directed at me. My argument against the use of "Christ" is only partly that it is POV; the other elements have been academic standards and pragmatism (i.e. what does its inclusion add). When "Christ" is part of the name of something (e.g. Church of Jesus Christ, Christian), then by all means it should be used. However, "Christ" is not part of Jesus' name. Regarding "heresy", that is also POV, and in particular is writing history from the point of view of the victor. Early Christianity had many beliefs; some were retained and made dogma, others were repressed and called "heresy". Describing early Christian beliefs as "heresy" denies the heterodox nature of early Christianity. The belief that these are neutral NPOV terms can (as with "Christ") only be assumed by someone who is so culturally immersed in the POV of the victors that one's whole worldview and even language is coloured. One would not presume in, say, an article on Judaism, to describe the beliefs of Sadducees, Essenes, Christians, Karaites, etc. as "heresies". Jayjg 18:26, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "unstated" perspective, when you state a perspective with each thing you write. Mkmcconn — 18:49, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree that "Christ" is a title, but I still think it should be part of the title of this article. Here is why: no one will ever have the title of "christ" except when it means "christ for some people." When R. Akiva believed Bar Kochba wa sthe messiah, he surely meant the messiah for the Jews, and not for the Romans (who, alas, had their own "messiah," or emperor). I refer to Queen Elizabeth as Queen Elizabeth although I do not at all believe she is my queen. Conversely, there are many Jesuses besides this one. I think Jesus was the name of the bowler played by John Turturro. Slrubenstein

I can understand an argument for having it in the title of an article, but I don't see what it adds in the body of the text (aside from POV). Jayjg 19:33, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Any reasoning that cannot be perceived as Christian proselytizing may succeed in reverting the title without an edit war. To me, it's all the same, because in my ears, "Jesus Christ" does not sound clearly like a claim much more than the name itself ("savior"). "Christ" also, in the context of describing Christian discourse, sounds similar to me in that context (in which cases [[Christ]] should be piped to this article, or revise the link as appropriate). It is his name because of cultural saturation, as Jayjg says, of the "Christian POV". From my perspective in contrast, an unambiguous claim, that still has its claimishness, would be "King Jesus", "Lord Jesus", "Son of Man" or "Son of God": do you see why an article with such a title would not redirect to this one? Such an article would be written on the claim itself, as Christ and Messiah are now. Regardless, I am not motivated to revert the title, because I think that my doing so would inevitably be perceived as POV; and perceptions count for quite a bit, here. Mkmcconn — 19:57, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perceptions do count for quite a bit here. For example, I don't find your perspective on this at all troublesome, whereas I do object to the changes proposed by the initiator of this thread (DavidR), because his motivation is to counteract the "atheist religion haters" who are trying to deny the Messiahship of his Lord. Jayjg 20:09, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well my first comment is to appologise for my harsh remarks last week. My second is to thank you for doing what you accused Mkmcconn of. I am quite capable of stating my own position without assistance, thank you. In fact, let me give you my perspective now. Yes, I'm a Christian. But since God will let you deny the Messiaship of Jesus who am I to attempt to change your mind. This is about Wikipedia, NPOV, and common usage.

In other words, my perspective was entirely correct. Jayjg 21:11, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Are your reading and analisys skills truely so weak that you actually believe that what I said and what you said are equivalent? Or are you just setting up a straw man? Or do you actually believe the propaganda that anyone who believes in a relegion is stupid? DavidR 03:18, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perspective validated. Ad hominems ignored. Jayjg 15:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No ad hominems, just tired of you twisting what I have to say. I tried to leave room for an honest misunderstanding, but you have ruled that out. I'm done with this part of the discussion. DavidR 17:57, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, guess I have my answer here then. DavidR 12:44, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Having said all that, you stated above that Jesus Christ is common usage. Shouldn't that alone be enough to revert the title of this article?

You said "Scholarly and academic articles do not refer to Jesus as 'Jesus Christ'..."

Point one; that's argument from authority.

No, that's pointing out standard usage (particularly for something like an encyclopedia article), not argument from authority. Jayjg 21:11, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Then you accept that the Encyclopedia Britannica as NPOV? Or you don't?

Britannica is also an example of usage. You won't find any examples of the use of "Jesus Christ" to describe Jesus in the Britannica article itself. Jayjg 03:58, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that we should change the title of the article back "Jesus Christ" and just not apply the title of "Christ" anywhere within the article outside a quote? DavidR 12:44, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that that is a common usage. I think it's still POV, but it's not nearly as objectionable as the uses you were defending. Jayjg 15:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Point two; I am so glad we have the self appointed intelligentsia to help us poor unwashed masses get things right. I hope you'll pardon me but I'll read all the information I can on a subject and make up my own mind. I feel that most of the people you accuse of being brainwashed feel the same way. Common usage is common usage, regardless of what excuse you use to attempt to force your opinion down someone elses throat.

Um, was there an argument there? Jayjg 21:11, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious. As an addendum to my comments on your argument from authority I am also commenting on the elitist mindset that makes you think you know better than anyone else. Please note, in addition to prior comments, that this article was selected as a Featured Article under the old title, therefore it was considered NPOV then, so why not now? DavidR 03:18, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"elitist mindset that makes you think you know better than anyone else"? More ad hominem stuff. Sorry, not biting. Jayjg 03:58, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your words and actions so far have seemed elitest to me. My appologies if you truely don't think you're better than everyone else. But that leaves me with the question of why the unilatteral changes... DavidR 12:44, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As opposed to your unilateral changes? Anyway, my changes weren't unilateral; as I explained a number of times, I was following the precedent set by this article. Jayjg 15:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Point Three; Your authority group is weasle worded. I happen to personally know five people with their doctorate degrees who use "Jesus Christ" when refering to Jesus, and can cite many more with very little research.

Is it possible they are devout Christians with doctorates in theology? Jayjg 21:11, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Question not answered, I see. Jayjg 03:58, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So someone with a doctorate in theology isn't a scholar? Sorry I didn't deal with this last night. It truely seemed too obvious to bother with. DavidR 12:44, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In other words, yes, devout Christians. Devout Christians have a particular usage which reflects their POV theology. Jayjg 15:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and devout materialistic secular-humanists have a POV which is reflected by their usage. Neither of which invalidates the fact they are scholars. Further more, it's still an argument from authority. DavidR 18:21, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Point Four;And the vast majority of your "scholars" (assuming you mean instructors in secondary education) is hardly NPOV. Most of them are so far of the left end of the political spectrum that they have no clue what "middle America" thinks.

I'm not interested in an ad hominem left/right debate, thanks. Jayjg 21:11, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nor am I. My comment about them being politically Left was not intended as an insult, merely to point out they have a point of view. DavidR 03:18, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Everyone has a point of view, David. Jayjg 03:58, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Then why are you citing this group as evidence that your change to the title of this article is NPOV? And do you not see the hypocracy of questioning the POV only of the part of the group I refer to and not of the part of the group you refer to? DavidR 12:44, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Everyone does indeed have a POV. Critical scholars think of Jesus as Jesus of Nazareth, cult-leader, mystic, etc. Christians think of Jesus as Jesus Christ, messiah and god. NPOV takes no position, and merely refers to him as Jesus. Jayjg 15:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Are you also going to change the title of the article on Alexander the Great? I mean he wasn't so great, he left no dynasty, his empire was split 4 ways by his generals in less than a decade (no loyalty) and the list goes on. Titling him "the Great" can certainly be disputed. I also notice that the article on Buddha hasn't been redirected to Siddhartha yet........
Respectfully - DavidR 03:29, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There were lots of Alexanders in history, but only one Jesus is so well known that he needs no modifier. Jayjg 21:11, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So he could be called Alexander of Macedon. What about Buddha? This is the one that reveals your true agenda. DavidR 03:18, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, what was that agenda again? Jayjg 03:58, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Last I heard your agenda was that all religeous titles were POV. DavidR 12:44, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, what do you mean by "religious titles"? Jayjg 15:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

From an earlier conversation
"Have you moved the article on Buddha to Sidhartha? After all Buddha is a title, too. DavidR 20:43, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good point. Something on the "to do" list; Buddha should be a re-direct. Jayjg 21:18, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) "

Since you were the one objecting to Christ on the grounds it is a religious title" and I have left your page move alone I would have expected this to be done by now. Respectfully - DavidR 18:09, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Added Neutrality Disputed header. DavidR 12:09, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Regarding this addition of the NPOV header, see my comments below under the "Jesus sans Christ heading. COGDEN 21:01, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Non-Christian perspectives on Jesus

The title of this section is POV since adherents of several of the belief systems listed identify themselves as Christian (e.g., Latter Day Saints). I know this has gone back and forth in the past... but what if we renamed it to 'Minority perspectives on Jesus'? The benefit I see is that it provides a neutral and accurate label for these perspectives (for they are all minority beliefs regarding Jesus), and helps to distinguish them from the "mainstream" perspectives of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, without necessarily excluding the believers from these religions entirely. Does anyone have a problem with this approach? Alanyst 17:05, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the title is POV. Several gnostic traditions see their roots as Christian as well. In addition, the Islamic and Judaic perspectives are given their own sections, for good reason, but not placed under non-Christian perspectives. With the grouping as it is, therefore, the current Non-Christian perspectives section would probably be more aptly named non-Abrahamic. (This may still pose problems for Latter-Day Saints, though i don't personally know their theology) --LordSuryaofShropshire 17:26, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

It would indeed pose a problem for Latter Day Saints, and others included in that section I'm sure. Do you see a specific problem with 'Minority perspectives on Jesus'? Alanyst 17:34, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That seems a perfectly reasonable title at first, though minority then seems an odd appellation. I.E. Hindus and Buddhists together form about 1.5 billion people, and their combined perspectives on Jesus are anything but minority. Is there another title that might better suit our purposes? Or perhaps we could include the Jewish and Muslim perspective within the non-Christian perspectives but give them "Abrahamic" status? --LordSuryaofShropshire 19:50, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

Further thought on the issue: by using the word "mainstream" it implies that somehow the foregoing mainstream views are more important or viable than non-mainstream views. In this case, one wonders why they are more mainstream. It is evident that this status is conferred as a result of their being a part of the Abrahamic traditions. Thus, it would seem appropriate to then redo the entire "perspectives" section and stratify it according to Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic categories, thus altogether doing away with inadequate names like "non-Christian" and "Minority" describing views that are 1) held by some groups that believe themselves to be Christian and 2) are held by so many people as to redoubt 'minority' as a fitting title. --LordSuryaofShropshire 20:02, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

'Unorthodox', perhaps? Granted, 'Orthodox' has a particular meaning for Christianity, but 'Unorthodox perspectives' appearing after 'Christian perspectives', 'Jewish perspectives', and 'Islamic perspectives' might be clear enough to avoid confusion. Or is 'unorthodox' considered pejorative to some? Alanyst 21:36, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I guess I see what you're saying... that somehow, established doctrines about these figures (i.e. Muslims have clear, doctrinal views, etc.) as opposed to heterodox views like those of Hindus and Buddhists (that are not scripturally supported but are sort of ad hoc ideas)... but then "orthodox" and "heterodox"/un-orthodox present problems due to their usage, sort of implying that non-Abrahamic religious traditions are heterodox, not mainstream, and that's biased. I propose having a broad Abrahamic section and a non-Abrahamic section. Hopefully we can get more views on this. --LordSuryaofShropshire 21:44, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

I think we're getting closer to understanding each other here, and I appreciate your patience and your consideration for my ideas. I'd like to clarify that by "unorthodox" or "heterodox," I mean not only the non-Abrahamic religious traditions but also the beliefs within the Abrahamic traditions that are not established doctrines within those traditions. So while Latter Day Saints, for example, consider themselves part of the Abrahamic tradition, they would agree that some of their beliefs are not part of Christian orthodoxy. Likewise, I would expect that insofar as Hindus or Buddhists hold beliefs about Jesus that are not part of established Hindu or Buddhist doctrine, those beliefs could also without bias or POV-ness be classified as heterodox. I am reluctant to classify Abrahamic versus non-Abrahamic for reasons stated above, so we might just have to respectfully disagree with each other there. With you, I hope that others will chime in with their thoughts on this matter. Alanyst 22:08, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Er, I thought I had stated my Abrahamic vs. non-Abrahamic objections, but that was in an edit that didn't make it past the preview. Basically, I think it will lead to the same classification problems as Christian vs. non-Christian; some will consider themselves part of the Abrahamic tradition while others in that tradition will refuse to consider them as such. By the whole orthodox vs. heterodox classification I hope to avoid such issues. Alanyst 22:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've changed the title to "Other religious perspectives..." for now. Members of the LDS church consider themselves to be Christian, and perhaps other Christians do as well, but the majority of Christians do not. Nevertheless, it feels like Wikipedia is coming down on one side of the debate by using the phrase "non-Christian", so I've tried to use more neutral language. Jayjg 17:56, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jesus sans Christ and the NPOV header added by User:DLR (usurped)

I don't think the NPOV heading is properly applied to this article. Calling Jesus "Jesus" is certainly not un-NPOV; it is entirely neutral as to whether Jesus is or is not the Christ. (It would be a different story if somebody tried to rename the article "Jesus the un-Christ".) The real issue here is whether Jesus sans "Christ" it is too NPOV, to the point that it conflicts with common usage. In other words, is it more important to call Jesus by his most common appellation, or is more important to omit the POV that he is the Christ.

Such a compromise to the NPOV policy is often very acceptable and even desirable. For example, Alexander the Great is in such common usage that nobody would know who you were talking about if you simply called him "Alexander". Therefore, even though lots of people don't think Alexander was very great, we need his commonly-used name so that people know who you're talking about. In the case of Jesus, I think the situation is different. There is only one person in history that you can call simply "Jesus" and everybody would know who you are talking about. Anyone else named Jesus has a last name (e.g. Jesus Gonzales, Jesus Jones, etc.) COGDEN 21:01, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree. An article titled "Jesus the false Messiah" is POV, but an article titled Jesus is certainly not. And if you want to get more descriptive (although when you say "Jesus" alone, everyone knows who you mean), other neutral alternatives like "Jesus of Nazareth" are also well known. Jayjg 22:16, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And you'll conviently ignore the rest of my comments? DavidR 22:19, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually I responded to them earlier, above, where you made them. Jayjg 22:44, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I dislike the neutrality notice. I would like to see it removed. Mkmcconn — 19:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Apparently unless the article refers to Jesus as "Jesus Christ", DavidR is going to insist that the neutrality of the article is disputed. Jayjg 20:10, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Do what you think is right. But let me give you a clue, putting words in my mouth isn't it. It's arrogance like this that prompted my earlier elitist comment. You don't like the the NPOV header, then pull it. I don't much like it either but I think it's appropriate until we get this resolved. But don't put all the blame on me, this is at least as much your doing as mine. Oh and let me give you another clue. This will get resolved a lot quicker if you focus on the issues. DavidR 21:43, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that it would be helpful if you went down through the article to find specific places where "Jesus Christ" is really what is meant, and "Jesus" removes some of the intended meaning.

It seems to me that it's debateable whether anyone actually believes in or follows the semi-fantastic product of critical scholarship and ecclectic religionism, that goes by the name of Jesus. I find only occasional similarities between this woolly guru, Jesus, and Jesus Christ in whom the church invests all of her hope. I recognize that to those who want equal time for their non-Christian and semi-Christian POV, my POV is narrow; and I won't impose it here. But, where Christians are described as believing in or following "Jesus Christ", it may whack off a significant layer of meaning to blandly reduce this to "Jesus". Find an instance like that, and make your case.

As for the title, privately I think that it is much less ambiguous to say "Jesus Christ". But I really see too little at stake, either way, to make much out of it. I'm still content to leave it as "Jesus" as being the title least likely to unnecessarily cause edit wars. Mkmcconn — 22:10, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jesus IS less descriptive and ambiguous that Jesus Christ, but it's not more NPOV. The policy behind using common names of people, even in some instances when that would result in compromise on the article's neutrality, is to ensure that people will find the article in a search. Unlike a lot of other articles, nobody doing a search for Jesus Christ is going to miss the Jesus article here. What we have to ask is: is the name "Jesus" so unusual or foreign and non-standard to justify compromising neutrality by including the POV that Jesus is "Christ". I don't think it is.

Keep in mind, too, that it isn't just academic atheist elitists that call Jesus Jesus. Go to any tent revival in middle-America or the South, and you're probably much more likely to hear people say "Praise Jesus!" than "Praise Jesus Christ!"COGDEN 23:44, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Amen! :-) Jayjg 22:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Less ambiguity is good, if information is the first goal. But if neutrality is the first goal, then in my opinion it becomes hostile to the untidiness of reality, tyrannical in the sense that it seeks to overturn how people think and speak. It starts to have a definite religious character at that point, and I feel my hackles go up. "Jesus Christ" is not a POV, if the-way-things-are is our measure. But if the-way-things-would-be-in-utopia is the measure, then Jesus is Not Necessarily Jesus Christ, and it's only the POV of narrow proselytizing people that would insist that he is. Mkmcconn — 00:08, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're arguing for any more; Jesus as the title and throughout the article, Jesus Christ as the title and Jesus throughout the article, or Jesus Christ as the title and throughout the article? Jayjg 22:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm arguing that

1. the title, "Jesus" or "Jesus Christ", is not worth arguing over because everyone knows that either way, it is the same person being written about. But,
2. I am bothered by the logic by which the title was changed to "Jesus" in the first place - the reasoning that you began with in another article, which said that "Jesus Christ is a point of view". Because,
3. Jesus is Jesus Christ in the real world. Also, when an article refers to "Christ" it is almost always Jesus that is meant. These are all the same person; and it is not "incorrect", "POV" or "biased" to appeal to these conventions.
4. In sum, I am opposed to going through articles and changing "Christ" to "the Christ", or to "Jesus" in the name of a "neutral point of view". I am opposed to the plan to fix articles by depicting "Jesus Christ" as, in itself, a biased perspective in need of repair.
5. And, I am opposed to this kind of deterministic "neutrality", because it strikes me as religiously motivated - "utopian" as I say above.

Mkmcconn — 22:29, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Since (as you admit) everyone knows who Jesus is, and since he is regularly referred to that way by believer, non-believer, academic and illiterate alike, Jesus is the cleanest, shortest, and as a bonus, NPOV usage. If I saw an article referring to "Da Vinci", I'm sure everyone would know who that is, but I'd still change it to "Leonardo". Jayjg 04:45, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I looked into changing Gautama Buddha into a redirect to Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha is actually an article on the title itself) but there are so many redirects already in place it would be a HUGE hassle to change without some help. I've started a thread on Talk:Gautama Buddha to address this point, and to potentially bring in some fresh voices into the Jesus vs. Jesus Christ debate here. I tend to think agree that Jesus should be the preferred article title, but since this would affect other religious (and probably non-religious) title-holders, it warrants more discussion. Singling out Jesus for removal of the title would be unfair, unless this is decided upon as standard policy. --Wclark 22:12, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)

I looked at it too, and did find it daunting. However, I do notice that the article begins by calling him Guatama, and switches once he becomes "enlightened" to calling him Buddha. This at least is surely something which could be addressed. Jayjg 22:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Have a look at some of the examples on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). The reasoning is basically sound, except that the way redirects work make many of those points moot (the title of the page is still that of the redirect, rather than the page you're redirected to, so it really doesn't matter for search engines which is the "real" page and which is the redirect).

Some other pages that will need to change if this becomes established policy are Gautama Buddha, Mahatma Gandhi, Alexander the Great, etc. Since this implies a lot of work in order to consistently (and fairly) implement what amounts to a policy change (as existing policy explicitly says to use Jesus Christ as the article) I'm having second thoughts about endorsing the switch to Jesus. Perhaps this needs to be raised on the Village pump or somewhere more visible? --Wclark 22:53, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)

Actually, when you reach an article via a redirect, the article title and not the redirect name appears as the title of the page. I mistakenly thought that because the URL didn't change, the title didn't change either. --Wclark 23:09, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)