User talk:JimWae/Articles dealing with religion

Bar abba

Thanks for your contributions to Bar abba. I've proposed that the article should be merged into the main Barabbas article. This would help add a little depth to the latter. Bar abba is just a 'clever' way of writing the name Barabbas, which is better known in English. What do you think? --Gareth Hughes 12:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I cannot see any reason not to merge the articles, & every reason to do so. --JimWae 19:04, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

List of deists

Hi. I saw your comments on the Talk page of the list. You're wrong about Antony Flew. He has had a quite recent change of mind and may now properly be classified as a deist. http://www.existence-of-god.com/flew-abandons-atheism.html --Christofurio 01:35, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm.. could be so. I did remember he had said some of his remarks were totally misinterpreted. He has even since then rejected some of what he thought might be good arguments for first cause - but I guess he is kind of a Deist after all, now. I stand corrected. See: http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369 for a less biased source.--JimWae 02:04, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

Jim, I do indeed know what a Deist is, and have started my organization into the logical applications of it. Flew is indeed a Deist. You will find my name listed on www.deistnet.com, and also as one of the original signers of the Universist Mission Statement.

• Yeh, turns out people were using his 2001 article to rebut a 2004 claim. He has since 2004 already backtracked on the validity of his reasons for the change. See http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369.
• You get points for even knowing what the Vienna Circle was at your age, but you lose lots of points for adding your own name to the article - and lose more still for the others.
• I'd suggest instead of saying "Still, the majority of modern philosophical scholars believe that despite Hume's devastating critique of the design argument, he remained a Deist, and not an atheist", the more interesting phrasing would be to state that debate over whether he was an atheist or a deist remains unresolved. I think many do not believe one way or the other --JimWae 05:10, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

AD vs. CE

You keep reverting ALL changes I make to the Jesus article. Maybe some of these are reverted accidently in your attempts to replace AD with CE. Maybe you just want everything your way all the time - which is it?

Regarding the use of AD as against CE, if you can show me anywhere in the Wikipedia style guidelines that state AD notation is POV then I'll stop using it right now! If you can't, then please stop trying to push your agenda (whatever that might be) into the Jesus article. AD is not POV. To use non-christian dating systems in articles about christianity is nothing short of an insult to the followers of that religion. Have a look at Britannica. They have no problem with AD/BC in their article about Jesus, so why do you? Arcturus 23:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

• see: Talk:Jesus#Common Era v. Anno Domini--JimWae 03:01, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

I don't care about AD vs. CE, but I really wish you'd stop reverting my parentheses. The paragraph reads better with them. --Chowbok 03:21, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I respectfully disagree with your arguments. The point of the paragraph is to establish the birth and death dates of Jesus. The bit about 6th-century monks making an accounting mistake is not directly related to that main point, but is there only to clear up confusion about the dates. Therefore, it should go in parentheses; it is a classic example of a parenthetical aside.

I don't see anything in The Chicago Manual of Style that says parentheses are to be avoided. It's a little unclear about how to put a complete sentence within parentheses, but it does say "A parenthetical enclosure of more than one sentence should not be included within another sentence" (emphasis mine), which implies that it's okay if it's only one sentence, as is the case here. Of course, Chicago Manual of Style doesn't necessarily equal Wikipedia house style, so if you can point me to a Wikipedia source that contradicts this I will defer to your version.

As far as "more important issues" in a revert war, well, more important to whom? I find the entire issue you guys are fighting over rather dull. B.C., B.C.E., who cares? Now grammatical and stylistic fights, on the other hand... that's something I can argue over for days. --Chowbok 04:27, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Jesus

Care to check out the brewing revert war on Jesus concerning BC/AD -- and the stubborn comments by Arcturus and Rangerdude on Talk:Jesus? I think your input would be valuable. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Jesus, again

Please comment on Jguk's most recent actions [1], [2]. It seems to me that he is destroying what I thought was a carefully constructec (though not, of course perfect) NPOV article. I trust your committment to NPOV and would like to know what you think. Frankly, I think we may have reached the point where arbitration or at least mediation is required. I honestly do not believe Jguk understands or cares about NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Please check out Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Einstein's religious beliefs: Pantheist, Deist, and more?

Einstein believed in as he put it "Spinoza's god who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists." Spinoza is the founder of Pantheism. Deism is the polar opposite of pantheism, because Deism is a form of dualism - not monism - and believes in a transcendant clockmaker god... not in a pantheistic immanent God - <please sign your article here>

Just because he comments favorably on Spinoza a few times, does not mean he is not a Deist. The quote in article uses much of the terminology of Deism & is uses a lot of language that suggests a god that is a separately identifiable entity. Deism has often been criticized for its pantheism, as pantheism has often been for its near atheism -- also see pandeism & panentheism & panendeism--JimWae 17:29, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

Deism

Thanks for your edits in deism. The section I edited indeed looks better farther down, where you moved it. However, I still detect advocacy, suggested by the use of the capitalized term — Deism rather than deism. Then look at the revert wars and the harsh, sectarian exchanges on the Talk page between members of various Deist "churches" (which strikes me as ironic, given the purported rationality of self-proclaimed deists). It should be possible to make an article for deism and get away from all this bickering. Wikipedia is no place for advocacy, especially the sneaky kind, using weasel words. You're moving it in the right direction, but I still think it needs work, don't you?   — J M Rice 18:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Jesus

Jim. Catholicism does not preach a ‘works’ salvation. They hold that it is necessary to accept grace, merited by the Passion of Christ, to be justified. See catechism. The link you provided showed that this justification is available to all. I ask you to withdraw your revert. The Lutheran-Catholic joint declaration [3] [4] shows that there is little or no difference between these churches on this issue. --ClemMcGann 21:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• And so I have changed it to "just life" as in the link, instead of good works. Can you show where the RCs teach ONLY those who accept grace, merited by the Passion of Christ, will be saved? The RCs teach that non-Christians can also be saved. Non-Christians, especially those who heard little or none at all of Jesus, could not be expected to consciously accept Christian grace! The works part remains as the qualification that faith is not sufficient. --JimWae 21:31, 2005 July 18 (UTC)

Jim. Yes, as you say, “The RCs teach that non-Christians can also be saved.” ,by grace. However your edit “Roman Catholics believe that good works are also necessary for salvation” is factually incorrect. Please re-read the catechism link--ClemMcGann 22:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's confine rest of discussion to Talk:Jesus, where others can follow it --JimWae 22:28, 2005 July 18 (UTC)

Jesus

The Gospels do say that the crowd was whipped up by the Pharisees. Should this be noted in the lead section? I don't want to add anything that might cause Jew hating, because I think an emphasis on this bit is entirely missing the point of Jesus death on the cross. Plus it's Not Very Nice to Jews. However... the Bible does say what I just mentioned. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Once again, facts are facts. If some Jews whipped up a crowd against Jesus, what difference does it make if it is "Not Very Nice to Jews"

CE/BCE Edits on Jesus Christ page

How is it that BCE and CE are to be inserted on this page when CE and BCE terminology is anti-Christian and racist. The original and actual terms are AD and BC and those are the terms that shall stay. Why aren't you debating the use of Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, etc. for days of the week on Wikipedia? They are based on theology and named after gods!

• Those terms are not anti- anything. They are intended to be neutral & acceptable to all (even if some do not prefer them). There was a long debate on this on the Jesus page - do you really think you have the right to just come in here for the first time & overturn a painful compromise? Btw, nobody worhips Thor anymore --JimWae 05:05, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

With your logic, you're saying that if all Christians in the world decided tomorrow to leave the faith, that the terms AD and BC would be acceptable?? Just because nobody would believe in these terms doesn't make them secular in nature. I believe the terms BCE and CE were made for secular/politically correct (selectively, and therefore anti-Christian) reasoning, and the days of the week are left alone because there is no general 'hate' against Roman theology in Western society.

• The days of the week are a separate issue. People in other cultures are free to use whatever names for those days (& months) they wish. Years (and dates) do not need names, they need numbers - and they do not need those numbers to be culturally marked up. I do not have a problem with the names of the planets - they are "quaint". Would you prefer people also consider Xty "quaint"? --JimWae 05:19, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

Isn't it disrespectful in nature and simply lazy to use BCE and CE in referrance to the Gregorian calendar, when the beginning of the calendar (AD 1 & 1 CE) is referring obviously to the birth of Christian messiah (or philosopher as you wish)? Perhaps those against this Christian view could create their own calendar, perhaps based on a secular event that occured, say, 10,000 years ago, and then this year would be 10000 CE? Again, I don't see how writing "AD" or "BC" can disturb an atheist/non-Christian, I see the new terms simply as a way to stir up controversy and rebel against the majority.

• They are not so new terms, they respect everyone (you can even think "Christian Era" to yourself) - and, on wikipedia, personal views do not prevail --JimWae 05:28, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
  • I know this is way late to the party, and also covered at length on other pages devoted to this issue. But I just have to respond, as directly as possible, to Jordain's comment immediately above that I don't see how writing "AD" or "BC" can disturb an atheist/non-Christian, because that comment so nicely and concisely illustrates the (sometimes inadvertent) blindness of the complacent majority. Jordain, "AD" disturbs me because he is not my Dominus. "BC" disturbs me because he is not my Christos. Do you see? -EDM 05:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, on Wikipedia, the terms AD and BC are used everywhere else in referrance to the Gregorian calendar, therefore Wikipedia enforces their usage.

• Wikipedia officially uses both, depending on the article. The Jesus article uses both in the same article --JimWae 05:32, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

Organization of Jesus article

We need to get the Jesus article into some sort of logical organized form, and certainly not one that has a random collection of "religious views" before it even desribes who he was or his life according to the primary sources. Any thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous Editor has reverted again. I am unaware of any guideline on this, but parallels would be having Mohammed & Buddha articles explain views of every other religion first - same for Joseph Smith & Brigham Young. Or having Catholic, Jewish, etc. views of Martin Luther precede info on him.--JimWae 20:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The difference here is that there is already an entire article on Jesus called Christian views of Jesus for all of the christian views, and the life and teachings section implies that the Gospels are 100% true and primary source on his teachings which is POV. I could be allright if that section could show more diversity and was shortened. This article should outline how many religions see him and have a link to the main article for the subject. Like christianity could have a main article link to Christian views of Jesus, Islam to Jesus in Islam, etc. So I agree with JimWae when he says that some of the views are not relevant. Only religions which actually give him a position should be stated. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Religious perspectives

I agree that some views are probably not that important, but I think that we should let people know what every religion considers him before we get into his teachings based on the Bible.

To say that the Bible is the only source of teachings and his "stories" (as you put it) is POV so we need more diversity in that section especially since most of it is based on the gospel right now. All of that section is based on what is said in the gospel and could be discussed on Christian views of Jesus instead. This article should mention briefly every view of Jesus. So either we show greater views in the life and teachings section or we have it after we have all the views of Jesus which are outlined in the religious perspectives section, including the Christian one. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Can I request that you revert for now so that we discuss the organization of the article further? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• "Primary" does not mean (as you put it) "only". I think article already mention Jesus is in Qu'ran - but surely if there are Qs about veracity of stories written 100 years later, those written 500-600 years later will not be generally regarded as "primary".
• I think the life & teaching section already contains some variety, but entirely welcome more, and also welcome editing of detail there - to be put in branch articles. The article would be much more interesting if views were not so compartmentalized.
• Surely we can discuss it in its present state also? --JimWae 20:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• "Compartmentalized", what do you mean?
• I still do not think that the "Life and Teachings" section are as diverse as you say. Most of the material there should be covered in the Christian views of Jesus article as is most of the Islam material covered in it's relevant article. We should not try to assume that the Gospels contain 100% fact and that is what the section currently implies.
• Can you please revert temporarily so we can discuss this? I am saying that because the article was like that for 3 - 4 weeks before it was reorganized. *Also do you think the article should be shortened? I think it is quite long and most of it can be made very short with links to main articles. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

"redundancy" in agnosticism

Sorry about the erronous "redundancy removal" I did: I was a bit tense at that time... However, you do agree that the version I put back[5] is better, don't you? Jules LT 07:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• I did not exactly compare, but ... no problemo --JimWae 00:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Barabbas

Hello, Jim. I want to get Barabbas through peer review in preparation to submit this fascinating artcile for Featrured Article status. As you started the article, I though of letting you know. More on Talk:Barabbas. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Gospels in Jesus article

Hey, JimWae,

I am disappointed by your removal of my capitalization for Gospels in the Jesus article. I see your reasoning but it does not apply in the case of the Gospels. It is standard capitalization that the 4 Gospels are capped, even when saying "Gospels" in general, and when the word is lowercase it means "the Christian message." This is not just a Christian quirk. It is the standard academic capitalization of the word. Please revert asap. And in the future, please do not be so quick to apply the revert button before investigating. 03:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Jesus revert

Jim, did you revert me intentionally? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Not at all - that was a good edit - server is hiccupping a lot currently--JimWae 04:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Barabbas

Why did you revert my edits to Jesus claiming that Barabbas is not in the New Testament? He most certainly is, and that page lays it all out. I can see why it may be considered minor in that article, but somehow the flow of that section is not working, and I attempted to correct it. You are welcome to do so instead of just reverting a troubled section. Thank you. JG of Borg 06:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Which of us is supposed to have claimed Barabbas is not in the NT? What is there says there is no mention OUTSIDE of the NT of any custom of letting the crowd choose a prisoner to free. This story in the NT cannot be left at face value - some comment is needed for there is no historical basis (when there could have been), it is quite contradictory, and is the basis for centuries of anti-Semitism. There ARE historical records indicating Pilate was the opposite of merciful - and he would have been in trouble with Rome for freeing EITHER man. Letting crowds proclaim you to be the king is not something even peaceful men could get away with - and Jesus had just created a bit of a riot in the Temple & some of his men had used swords to attack arresting soldiers.
• I reverted because you said there was an EXCHANGE - which the bible does not have but is an interesting idea. Perhaps Pilate did offer to free Jesus IF they would turn in Barabbas. After I changed it after several server hiccups, I did note that you had taken out "exchange", but I still left my version because I also think, though it still needs work, mine was far less convoluted syntax & easier to read, plus you omitted there being no record of such a custom.--JimWae 08:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• I see you just reverted back. That syntax is far more tortured than mine - AND you say Pilate "attempted to avoid this obligation" - which is YOUR interpretation & is not in the Bible NOR ANY source --JimWae 08:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Btw, if you look at the edit history of Barabbas you just might see a name like mine there --JimWae 08:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, a lot of rewriting. I like your current revision, though it's still a bit wordy. The obligation you speak of wasn't in the Bible nor any other source I'd ever seen. Why does a sentence that has nothing else do to with anything else there (than to attack the source) in that paragraph in the first place? Again, good revision now... but before you had absolutely no transition and obvious POV-ing, which, as you know, is very bad writing. JG of Borg 17:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad such an expert is working on the paragraph. I hope it gets better. JG of Borg 17:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, quick question - there're two sentences in there that seem to not work:

According to the gospels, the Roman governor Pontius Pilate judged Jesus was not guilty of any civil charge.

and

Though there is no record outside the gospels of any such custom, and, as the representative of Rome, Pilate had a duty to punish all crimes against Caesar

which begs the question - if he didn't think Jesus was guilty, why was he obligated to punish a him for a crime he didn't think he committed? Since you are the expert (and introduced this concept), I'll let you clarify it. JG of Borg 17:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You might be interested in this

Talk:Jesus#VOTE: BC/AD vs BCE/CE Jayjg ^(talk) 22:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Deism & the presidents

Can you please verify that Washington abandoned his prayer book?

- unsigned by JJStroker

Please get back to me on my talk page. Thanks.

Resurrection Reference.

Hey Jim,

I left you a reference on the Jesus talk page.

-Drew

"includes, as atheists,"

Before we get into a real revert war over that appositive in atheism, I'll go ahead and explain why it's so important to me that it be left out: readability. I think that because it says "all nontheists", it's clear that the sentence defines atheists and not atheism. Thus, "as atheists" is unnecessary. Additionally, I feel that "includes, as atheists," is clumsy phrasing that not only reads as awkward, unnatural prose but has the potential to confuse some readers. Since I think it has cons with no pros, I think it ought to go.

And I realize that those two words are a trivial issue compared to the whole of the article; however, I think they're emblematic of one of the article's two big problems. The first problem is that it covers too many topics in too much detail and needs forking desperately. Once that's completed, the second problem (which this is an example of) needs to be dealt with: convoluted, baroque, and excessively wordy prose. The Literate Engineer 06:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• While nobody would be confused, it is not accurately stated. I think you are exaggerating when you say the wording is awkward - it is more words, yes, but precise use of language is the opposite of awkwardness. Are we defining atheism or atheists? So, it does have cons. --JimWae 07:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for the precise use of language, but I'm also for avoiding redundancy (which is something I consider awkward). Are we defining atheism or atheists? I don't think it matters (because I don't think it's a meaningful distinction), but the rest of the sentence talks about people, which means the sentence only works if it's talking about atheists - therefore "as atheists" is redundant, and I do believe that following up the word "identifies" with a comma-separated appositive is awkward to begin with. And I don't understand what you mean by "it is not accurately stated". What is inaccurate about it? The Literate Engineer 07:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• It is inaccurate because no transition is explicitly made from defining ATHEISm to defining ATHEISTS - while "this definition covers all nontheists" makes it hard to be mistaken that a switch has been made, the "this definition" part refers to atheism, not atheists. Furthermore, "nontheists" introduces another (fairly new) term & is jargonese as far as Joe Public is concerned - which I thought you objected to --JimWae 07:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Names and titles of Jesus

Hey, would you be willing to look at some recent insertions and edits by an anonymous editor at Names and titles of Jesus? I tried removing the worst of it, but have been swiftly reverted. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate it if you could take a look. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Talk Vote (again)

Jim: I think we're coming to a resolution of this matter. Please come and vote. --CTSWyneken 15:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Jim, I respect the effort you have put into the Jesus article. I guess you are sick of the bickering, but please feel free to vote. A search on (CTSWyneken Version) should get you to the middle of the current vote, which has about 4 options in bold. And no, I'm not expecting you to vote the same way as me. ^rossnixon 10:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Talk Runoff Vote

Hopefully the last on this paragraph. --CTSWyneken 11:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have stated clearly that I would like extraneous comments off of the main vote table for the sake of clarity, conciseness, and civility. Please move your comment to the "comments" section. Thank you. --Avery W. Krouse 04:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Third time

Yes it is the third time. And it looks like again we are not going to have any winner. sigh, ems 09:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Nicene Creed, Gospel of John and Catholic Doctrine

I have proposed a revision to the Jesus article, paragraph 3, that I believe reads better while still respecting the current compromise. However, I do not know whether it addresses the issues you raised about Catholic doctrine. Please stop by and comment. Arch O. La 20:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Jim, I would agree with your representation of Catholic doctrine regarding salvation and a baby or child (though I have read conflicting information); however, wouldn't you agree that doctrine would also say that it was because of the atonement of Christ that a just man or a baby can still "go to heaven"? This gets to saying the same thing but using different terminology. I appreciate your thoughts. Storm Rider 21:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no doubt Xians believe people can go to heaven because of Jesus. That is not the same as saying one must "accept" him (or do anything for that matter -- except perhaps not lead an "unjust" life) to be saved --JimWae 21:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Atheism subpage

I noticed your atheism subpage. I'm not sure if there's any etiquette about these things, but as I don't know how satisfied you are with what is there currently, I thought it might be better to comment on it here rather than at Talk:Atheism.

I like the opening sentence that you suggested: "Atheism, in its broadest sense, is any world-view that does not include the presence of gods." A version of this could be swapped in as the first sentence of the Atheism intro I've proposed, and would require only minimal edits to the rest of the text to work. Your approach is actually close to the way I think about the topic myself – I have been assuming that such a characterization might stray too close to calling atheism itself a belief system to be acceptable to some. It also avoids the hair-splitting use of the same wording both as the general characterization and as a definition, which I'm happy to do away with.

I also think the point about epistemological vs. ontological positions is important. I'd been meaning to include something like that, but haven't remembered to so far – plus, your characterization is better than anything I would have been likely to come up with. I think the two sentences that follow are technical in a slightly different way that may not be appropriate for the intro, but I don't have a strong opinion on this though.
--plover 08:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Atheism

hello, I noticed you have a nice editing background and wanted to ask if you could look over my page on atheism. Im trying to make my own page and put it up for adoption on the atheism talk page. Could you perhaps give me some insite on how I might collaborate something like this. feel free to give me a message on my talk page, heres my version of athiesm. Its not complete yet, but im getting close. Feel free to comment on things and edit anything you want. Somerset219 02:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

From Spotswood Dudley

Hello, Sir. It has come to my attention that soon after I posted my (attempt at a) passionate request for a vote on the which of the two accepted time connotations to use in the Jesus article, a vote actually commenced within the blink of an eye. I have to say that I am extremely moved by the willingness of so many people in the editing community to listen and actually accept a suggestion from such a junior editor like me. However, I also remember that in my first days, I was very innapropriate, and quite a vandal. Indeed, while this was a matter of months ago, I still feel profoundly embarrassed that my first edits on Wikipedia were of such derision. As far as I have been informed, you are one of the most senior and respected editors in all of Wikipedia, and being as such, you were quick to uncover my early acts of vandalism. Regarding this, I feel that an apology is long overdue to both you and the community. While it may not have been a major act of vandalism, I understand that even a single small edit on an important page like Jesus' is far more severe than an entire rewrite of something like the Shugenja article. And so, knowing that my acts were infantile in nature and very innapropriate, I grant you and anyone else who may be upset with me my dearest apologies. Thank you for your time, Spotswood Dudley 20:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully Unintentional Derogatory Comment(s)

I hope you did not intend to portray/scold me for being a student. I have earned more than that.

On another note: I do not believe in sacrificing historical accuracy for the winds of political correctness. As a result I despise everyone and everything that is overly seeped in overt PC'ness. Neutrality is one thing but it can, and has, been carried too far too many times. I had tried for several hours to locate wikipedias policy on the AD/CE BC/BCE issue to no avail. Jcforge 19:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• There's nothing inaccurate about using CE. If you wish to talk of inaccuracies, there is the issue of Jesus being born 4 to 8 years before he was born. --JimWae 04:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• The present guidelines about era notations are at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Eras The policy was not always exactly the same. Btw, the very first edition of Zoroastrianism used BCE, not BC. --JimWae 04:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• The current chronology that makes this the year 2006 is in wide-spread use throughout the world by people willing to use it to have a common way of talking about the date. It is unfair (& impolite & bullyish) to insist that these people also add abbreviations to this notation which literally mean that Jesus is Lord & Messiah, when a more neutral alternative (which still uses the once-supposed birthyear of Jesus) is available. Still Xns are gathering to prevent this alternative from gaining any greater currency - insisting (in a decidedly uncharitable & faithless manner) on imposing their religious viewpoints on unwilling people. --JimWae 04:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• My comment "Your preferences are fine for your term papers at school" was meant to emphasize that all I saw in what you wrote were your personal preferences. Everyone is free to continue to use what they prefer for any papers for which they are the sole author (unless perhaps a prof or editor has expressed his preference). This, however, is a joint project & one's personal preferences are neither enforceable, nor a good enough reason to change policy. Btw, I believe that even post-graduate students occasionally write term papers, and while my comment may not have been as applicable as I perhaps thought, I still do not consider it derogatory --JimWae 04:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• • It seemed like it was. Yes, the very first iteration of the entry was in BCE, but then it was changed for the vast majority of the entries at BC/AD.

• • You're not seriously going to bring up the fact that a middle ages monk messed up on the "exact" date of Jesus Christ's birth are you?
    • that's the only point involving what you called accuracy
      • sorry, I should have used the term precision instead, accurate down to less than a decade difference is still pretty good for something that is singularly undocumented and due to the numerous calender changes that had occurred since

• • CE is a modern construct (coined in the 1800's). It was created to make overly hyperactive folks (such as yourself it seems) feel better about dates.
    • at one time AD was a mmodern construct too
      • now that's splitting that hair a few too many times... the AD term is the better part of 1500 years old, hardly 'modern' by any stretch

• • You do know that the calender that the world uses is based off the Gregorian Calender which was created by members of the Catholic Church.
    • I think I mentioned something like that

• • Just b/c you are not "Xns" (which I find offensive since this whole thing seems to be spiraling off I might as well get my gripe in) does not mean that you should force everyone else to change the dating system just b/c you feel slighted.
    • as I said - YOU will always be free to continue to use AD in your personal writings, nobody is forcing you - rather Xns are forcing their view by trying to stop people from using CE
    • 
      • well some of them may go a bit overboard with it. my view is that CE usage exists just to spite the AD nomenclature

• • "Others criticize it as an unnecessary euphemism or an attempt at political correctness, pointing out that the pivotal year 1 still centers on the supposed date of Jesus' birth." Consider me a staunch "other".
    • Those people want to find some other event to be the calendar pivot. I think any event is open to NPOV objections, and am content to stick with the one that will not result in every date needing to be recalcualted & reprinted --JimWae 02:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• • History should not be re-written just to satisfy the gripes over "political correctness" or "neutrality"
    • ??? (see above) --JimWae 02:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Just that there is no real purpose to the whole AD/BC vs CE/BCE thing other than to assuage someones 'hurt' feelings about it not being 'neutral'.... It is tantamount to insisting that every article should be written in Esperanto instead of whichever language the author prefers, or other English spelling variant arguments where color = colour. You wouldn't want to homogenize that would you?

Muhammad

Hi, Written down because it implies that this was not done before, this is wrong because it was in the majority already written down, compiled is more accurage because it was brought together and arranged after his death into a consolidated unified script, from all the disparate writings and fragments that existed prior to it as well as the merging of the 4 major manuscripts that contained substantial written versions of the Quran, the contents of which is are a seperate debate in themselves. While his dictations were memorized, they were also commited to writing on parchments, skins etc, it's mentioned a bit further down in the article as well.--Tigeroo 07:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

So why not say they were written down during his lifetime instead of the vague "compiled"? Your most recent edits contain many redundancies again: last prophet is in there 2 or 3 times again, so is "restored" true religion --JimWae 07:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Compiled is accurate not vague because it means to gather into a single book, or put things together from several sources, so it was compiled from other written and oral "scraps", and "collections". I agree restored true religion, and possible the other redundancies were from previous edits, and could be fixed, but the point is moot with a new tighter version up.--Tigeroo 19:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Tigeroo your recent edit summary says 'Please see WP:NPOV#Religion as a guide to edits' but I just checked and there is no section of NPOV called this! Religion SHOULD'T be a guide to anyones edits! Would you agree?Opiner 07:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't wikilink was just using short on that edit, I linked and quoted the relevant link. Religion is a valid guide for a POV in enyclopediac material which actually the quoted sections tells better than me on why IT SHOULD be there, but yes if you were instead referring rather to religion in terms of a not accomodating other POV approach to editing the wiki, I agree.--Tigeroo 19:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:MuhammadSeal.jpg

Hi JimWae what do you think of this picture? Its in the Muhammad article and it looks pretty fake to me so I nominated for deletion. There is discussion on talk page and IMD. Plus, pictures of inanimate objects unaccompanied by prophets insults my religion:)Opiner 01:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I am staying out of the picture issue. I think there are too many pictures of white guys in the Jesus article. Maybe we need to discuss pictures of Gabriel & M's horse ;) Are silhouettes "acceptable" Did M have a beard? Was his hair black? Do we know what kind of clothing he wore? Was his skin dark or light? Does it seem we know more about his appearance than that of Jesus? --JimWae 02:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

M had a beard and is reported as advocating beards as a badge of identity. Actually we know quite a bit more about him, personality wise, looks, preferences, dislikes etc. Quite a lot of reports, he is probably the only major religious figure most historians believe to have lived in the "full light of history" to quote one, so we could have some soso artists impressions. Ofcourse there are no actual portraits because of his ban. Anyway thats no contribution to this dialog, and while I don't have a problem with incorporating artists impressions its a dogmatic affair I am steering clear off myself.--Tigeroo 19:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey one the galleries Itaqallah linked to has pic of Muhammad's hair and clothes! It looks like a museum of forgeries.[6]

I gave up on deletion, though it still shouldnt be in the article for simple reason, its probably a fake. Please take a look at my new introduction proposal for Muhammad. The X believe Y believe compromise psychologically invites X and Y to take sides, argue about the order which in this form can never be stable, is not about Muhammad but about US and what WE think today, and is just not a normal way to write an article.Opiner 06:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It's quite possible it is not a fake, there are some "relic" kind of items in circulation reputed to be his. Then there are in turkish musuems weapons and armors etc. reported to have been used as his.--Tigeroo 19:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Mono

An worthy change you've made to Muhammad. I wonder if you might not also find something of interest in Muhammad as a diplomat. I've filed a Request for Comment, but only one editor has responded.Proabivouac

Agnostic theism and the Certainty series?

What do u think of Agnostic theism and User:Tsinoyboi/Agnostic theism?

And do u know what the Certainty series box(Talk) is about?

And how about Infallibility (notice: math and logic as in philosophy section and bank transactions on in psychology and sociology section) and Certainty (notice: the Logic section)?

--Tsinoyboi 07:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I will try to look at it sometime. Agnosticism is an epistemological position. Atheism is an ontological (what nouns do I think refer to entities) position.--JimWae 07:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, I meant what do u think of the pages? I'll be patient for you to get the chance to read them sometime, and it'll be on my watchlist. --Tsinoyboi 07:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Common Era

Please read the talk page for Common Era. Just as I was discussing a problem with the first paragraph, you changed it in a way that removes my issue, but introduces a new one: the AD/BC system was in use for centuries, so it is not correct to say that AD, BC, CE, or BCE necessarily indicate the Gregorian calendar is being used. --Gerry Ashton 20:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The Quran and science

Do you think this should be included or maybe deleted?[7]Opiner 07:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Laicité

I just saw your the vote to merge the two articles together and your consequent vote.. I am pasting a reply that I had put on that page.. Such a move would be gravely incorrect from an academic POV, please feel free to contact me with any additional questions that you might have..

• "Strong disagree.. As a lawyer I have to disagree, they might seem similar to the unfamiliar eye, but they are fundamentally different.. The fact that it is a french word doesn't mean anything, there is a different word because they are different concepts.. anglo-saxon secularism and french laicité are not the same, one of them is a system where the state gives the freedom to religion and religious institutions to do whatever they want, the other is one where the state actively monitors and controls the activities of religious institutions to make sure that the religions don't have the same authority and functions as the state (schools etc).. In laicité, religions are always considered inferior to the republic, the laws of the republic can limit and force religious institutions to abandon their practices; spiritual movements considered to be cults are clearly defined by law, banned and actively prosecuted.. A Jehovah's witness in France or Turkey cannot refuse blood transfusion, if they do, they will be forced to accept the transfusion and later prosecuted.. There is a reason why that article was named as such, it is not only France that practices laicité, it is a universal principle born from the French revolution. From an academics point of view, removal of that article would constitute a grave deficiency for Wiki.. I know that the article in its current state is not very comprehensive and can lead the reader to think that they are the same, but a concept as such truly deserves to have its own article. I have joined wiki only a few weeks ago and completely rewrote the article Turkish Constitution, I gave a specific link to laicité and not to secularism for this reason.. When I have the time, I am willing to work on the laicité article to make it more comprehensive and demonstrate its fundamental philosophical differences it has with secularism. And definitely dont move it to sep of church and state!! Turkey is a secular country, that would be highly eurocentric to label what it practices like this, it is a predominantly muslim country.. Please reconsider, over the last two centuries there have been many works written to point out and define the conceptual differences between anglo-saxon secularism and french laicité.. We would be doing all of them a great injustice if that article was not to have its own listing.. regards "Baristarim 02:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Btw, it is not only France that practices laicité, that is not the reason it was named in french. Turkey, a predominantly Muslim country, has been intentionally practising laicité and not secularism.. I know that in English secularism is used as a blanket word, but most European academicians would know the conceptual difference between these two.. Another very important point: Laicité is not the seperation of church and state as equals, it is the subordination of church to the state in a hierarchy, religion only being able to do what the laws of the republic allow them: religions are considered as inferior to the moral superiority of the republic which is defined as the soul of the nation.. I have lived in TR, US and FR, and believe me, there is a fundamental difference in nature.. By definition such a merge would be illogical, since it would assume that laicité is the French method of seperating the church and the state.. I hope that u were able to follow me, this is one of the more delicate philosophical matters in political sciences and law, so it might be extremely hard to grasp the concept if one is not familiar with the subject (history of secularism in Europe) beforehand.."Baristarim 02:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

But I did not vote for a merge, nor argue for one --JimWae 02:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I misunderstood.. You said that there needed to be a different article like sep of church and state in FR with a French title.. Therefore I assumed that you wanted to change the title of the article in that manner and just focus on its practice in FR w/o talking about the conceptual differences of laicité and secularism in general.. Maybe I was wrong.. Come to think of it, the merge vote in that talk page is extremely confusing, I haven' exactly figured out what people were agreeing with and what they wanted.. cheers! Baristarim 02:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Prophet Muhammad in other religions/religious traditions

Please check the article talk page, Thank you ColdFire 05:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)