Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 195.40.200.141 (talk) at 21:17, 21 June 2005 (→Jesus article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jesus article

I have to disagree with the statement that the primary article on Jesus is (or ever should be) of him as a religious figure. There are numerous articles like Christian views of Jesus Life of Jesus according to New Testament which ARE from a religious view. I seriously doubt non-qualified articles in wikipedia should EVER be from a religious viewpoint. It is on this issue that the proposed compromise will likely hang. Bte, there has been peace on this issue in the Jesus article for some time.--JimWae 20:38, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

Although I agree that the article on Jesus should not be written from a Christian point of view (since I'm an agnostic myself), I do think the article is (and should be) primarily about his role as a religious figure in Christianity, since that is the main reason for his notability (though certainly not the only reason). Kaldari 20:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It should be about Jesus, his role in Christianity being a major topic, but not exclusively. To do otherwise would violate NPOV --JimWae 21:01, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

It's only really the articles on Buddhism and some on Judaism that use BCE/CE notation. It's irrelevant for religions younger than 2,000 years old (such as Islam), and from what I've seen, most of the articles on other faiths quite happily sit with BC in them. The proposal should be amended to replace "non-Christian religions" with "Buddhism" and allow it on some Judaism-oriented articles. It would be perverse to force BCE/CE notation on Hinduism-related articles, for example, as BCE/CE notation is virtually unknown in India. The other problem with the proposal is that "consensus" is not defined.