Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:34, 14 December 2015

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

Template:Vital article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: What should this article be named? A1: To balance all religious denominations this was discussed on this talk page and it was accepted as early as 2004 that "Jesus", rather than "Jesus Christ", is acceptable as the article title. The title Christ for Jesus is used by Christians, but not by Jews and Muslims. Hence it should not be used in this general, overview article. Similarly in English usage the Arabic Isa and Hebrew Yeshua are less general than Jesus, and cannot be used as titles for this article per WP:Commonname. Q2: Why does this article use the BC/AD format for dates? A2: The use of AD, CE or AD/CE was discussed on the article talk page for a few years. The article started out with BC/AD but the combined format AD/CE was then used for some time as a compromise, but was the subject of ongoing discussion, e.g. see the 2008 discussion, the 2011 discussion and the 2012 discussion, among others. In April 2013 a formal request for comment was issued and a number of users commented. In May 2013 the discussion ended and the consensus of the request for comment was to use the BC/AD format. Q3: Did Jesus exist? A3: Based on a preponderance of sources, this article is generally written as if he did. A more thorough discussion of the evidence establishing Jesus' historicity can be found at Historicity of Jesus and detailed criticism of the non-historicity position can be found at Christ myth theory. See the policy on the issue for more information. Q3a: Is "virtually all scholars" a phrase that can be used in Misplaced Pages? The issue was discussed on the talk page: Based on this Misplaced Pages search the phrase is widely used in Misplaced Pages. The definition of the term virtually is shown by the Merriam-Webster dictionary in clear terms. The term is directly used by the source in the article, and is used per the WP:RS/AC guideline to reflect the academic consensus. Q3b: What about asking on the reliability noticeboard? Yes, people involved in the page can discuss matters, but an independent opinion from the reliable source noticeboard can further clarify and confirm the sources. An outside opinion was requested on the noticeboard. The outside opinion there (by user:DGG) stated that the issue has been discussed there many times and that the statement in the article (that virtually all scholars of antiquity hold that Jesus existed) represents the academic consensus. Q3c: What about the books that claim Jesus never existed? The internet includes some such lists, and they have been discussed at length on the talk page, e.g. a list of over 20 such books was addressed in this talk page discussion. The list came from a non-WP:RS website and once it was analyzed it became clear that: Most of the authors on the list were not scholars in the field, and included an attorney, an accountant, a land surveyor, a film-maker, as well as a number of amateurs whose actual profession was less than clear, whose books were self-published and failed the WP:RS requirements. Some of the non-self-published authors on the list were found to just write popular books, have no academic position and not scholars, e.g. Christopher Hitchens. Some of the books on the list did not even deny the existence of Jesus, e.g. Burton Mack (who is a scholar) holds that Jesus existed but his death was not due to his challenge to Jewish authority, etc. Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman's work is about the Old Testament and not really related to Jesus. Tom Harpur holds that Jesus existed but mythical stories were later added to the gospel narratives about him. The analysis of the list thus indirectly shed light on the scarcity of scholars who deny the existence of Jesus. Q3d: Do we have to survey the scholars ourselves? The formal Misplaced Pages guidelines require us not to do our own survey. The Misplaced Pages guideline WP:RS/AC specifically states: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." Given that the guideline then states: "statement in Misplaced Pages that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." we should not rely on our own surveys but quote a scholar who states the "academic consensus". Q3e: Why even mention the existence of Jesus in the article lead? A: This was discussed on the talk page. Although scholars at large see existence as a given, there are some self-published, non-scholarly books which question it, and hence non-scholars who read this article need to to have that issue clarified. And note that the statements regarding existence and other attributes need to be kept separate and stating that "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus was from Galilee" would not be accurate, because scholarly agreement on existence is much stronger than on other items. Q4: Are the scholars who study Jesus all Christian? A4: No. According to Bart D. Ehrman in How Jesus Became God (2014, ISBN 978-0-06-177818-6, p. 187), "most New Testament scholars are themselves Christian". However, scholars of many faiths have studied Jesus. There are three aspects to this question: Some of the most respected late-20th-century scholars involved in the study of the historical Jesus (e.g. Amy-Jill Levine, Geza Vermes, Paula Fredriksen) are Jewish. This trend is discussed in the 2012 book Soundings in the Religion of Jesus, by Bruce Chilton, Anthony Le Donne, and Jacob Neusner (ISBN 978-0-8006-9801-0, p. 132). While much of the older research in the 1950–1970 time frame may have involved Christian scholars (mostly in Europe) the 1980s saw an international effect and since then Jewish scholars have brought their knowledge of the field and made significant contributions. And one should note that the book is coauthored by the likes of Chilton and Neusner with quite different backgrounds. Similarly one of the main books in the field, The Historical Jesus in Context, by Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison Jr., and John Dominic Crossan (2006, ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6), is jointly edited by scholars with quite different backgrounds. In the late 20th and the 21st century Jewish, Christian and secular agnostic scholars have widely cooperated in research. The Muslim Reza Aslan wrote the number-one bestseller Zealot (2013). Regarding the existence of a historical Jesus, the article lead quotes Ehrman who is an agnostic and Price who is an atheist. Moreover, G. A. Wells who was widely accepted as the leader of the non-existence movement in the 20th century, abandoned that position and now accepts that the Q source refers to "a preacher" on whom parts of the gospels were based – although he believes that the supernatural claims were just stories that were then attributed to that preacher. That is reflected in his 2004 book Can We Trust the New Testament (pp. 49–50). While scholars continue to debate the historicity of specific gospel narratives, the agreement on the existence of Jesus is quite global. It is misleading to assume that Christian scholars will be biblical literalists who cannot engage in critical scholarship. Catholic and non-Evangelical Protestant scholars have long favoured the historical-critical method, which accepts that not all of the Bible can be taken literally. For example, the Christian clerics and scholars Michael Ramsey, C. F. D. Moule and James Dunn all argued in their scholarship that Jesus did not claim to be divine, Conrad Hyers, a Presbyterian minister, criticizes biblical literalism: "Literal clarity and simplicity, to be sure, offer a kind of security in a world (or Bible) where otherwise issues seem incorrigibly complex, ambiguous and muddy. But it is a false security, a temporary bastion, maintained by dogmatism and misguided loyalty." Finally, Misplaced Pages policies do not prohibit Buddhist scholars as sources on the history of Buddhism, Jewish scholars on Judaism, or Muslim scholars as sources on the history of Islam provided they are respected scholars whose works meet the general WP:RS requirements in terms of publisher reputation, etc. Q5: Why are some historical facts stated to be less certain than others? A5: The difference is "historically certain" versus "historically probable" and "historically plausible". There are a number of subtle issues and this is a somewhat complicated topic, although it may seem simple at first: Hardly any scholars dispute the existence of Jesus or his crucifixion. A large majority of scholars agree that he debated the authorities and had "followers" – some scholars say there was a hierarchy among the followers, a few think it was a flat organization. More scholars think he performed some healings (given that Rabbinic sources criticize him for that etc., among other reasons) than those who say he never did, but less agreement on than the debates with authorities, etc. As the article states, Amy-Jill Levine summarized the situation by stating: "Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God's will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate." In that statement Levine chose her words very carefully. If she had said "disciples" instead of followers there would have been serious objections from other scholars, if she had said "called" instead of "gathered", there would have also been objections in that some scholars hold that Jesus preached equally to all, never imposed a hierarchy among his followers, etc. Scholars have very specific positions and the strength of the consensus among them can vary by changing just one word, e.g. follower to disciple or apostle, etc. Q6: Why is the infobox so brief? A6: The infobox is intended to give a summary of the essential pieces of information, and not be a place to discuss issues in any detail. So it has been kept brief, and to the point, based on the issues discussed below. Q6a: Was Jesus Jewish? Yes, as mentioned in the article, but not in the infobox. An RfC at the Village Pump says to include religion in the infobox only if it's directly related to the subject's notability and there's consensus. Some editors want to include his religion in the infobox and others do not. With no consensus, the default is to leave the religion out of the box. Q6b: Why is the birthplace not mentioned in the infobox? The question came up in this discussion and there is no solid scholarly agreement on Bethlehem, so the infobox does not address that. Q7: Why is there no discussion of the legacy/impact of Jesus? A7: That issue is inherently controversial, and has been discussed on the talk page for many years (see, e.g., the 2006 discussion, the June 2010 discussion, the November 2010 discussion). One user commented that it would turn out to be a discussion of the "impact of Christianity" in the end; because all impact was through the spread of Christianity in any case. So it has been left out due to those discussions. Q8: Why is there no discussion of Christian denominational differences? A8: Christianity includes a large number of denominations, and their differences can be diverse. Some denominations do not have a central teaching office and it is quite hard to characterize and categorize these issues without a long discussion that will exceed the length limits imposed by WP:Length on articles. The discussion of the theological variations among the multitude of Christian denominations is beyond the scope of this article, as in this talk page discussion. Hence the majority and common views are briefly sketched and links are provided to other articles that deal with the theological differences among Christians. Q9: What is the correct possessive of Jesus? A9: This article uses the apostrophe-only possessive: Jesus', not Jesus's. Do not change usage within quotes. That was decided in this discussion. Q10: Why does the article state "ost Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah ...?" Don't all Christians believe this? A10: Misplaced Pages requires a neutral point of view written utilizing reliable scholarly sources. It does not take a position on religious tenets. In this case, the sources cited clearly state "most", not "all", Christians hold the stated beliefs, as some sects and persons who describe themselves as "Christian", such as Unitarians, nevertheless do not hold these beliefs. This was agreed upon multiple times, including in this discussion. References R.Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, Westminster John Knox Press (2001), p. 49 Hick, John (2006). The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Age. Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-664-23037-1. Retrieved 5 January 2024. Hyers, Conrad (Spring 2000). "Comparing biblical and scientific maps of origins". Directions: A Mennonite Brethren Forum. 29 (1): 16–26. Hyers, Conrad (August 4–11, 1982). "Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance". Christian Century. p. 823. Archived from the original on June 4, 2011. Retrieved 9 November 2012.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Jesus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 25, 2013.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 17, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 2, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 3, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted November 2, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 3, 2005 Articles for deletion Kept October 6, 2005 Peer review Reviewed December 15, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 14, 2006 Peer review Reviewed November 27, 2006 Peer review Reviewed April 21, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 21, 2007 WikiProject A-class review Approved July 12, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted May 5, 2013 Good article nominee Listed May 28, 2013 Guild of Copy Editors Copyedited August 15, 2013 Featured article candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Jesus / Theology / Saints / Catholicism / Eastern O. / Oriental O. / Jewish / Anglicanism / Latter Day Saints Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive. This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Saints (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This article is supported by WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Jewish Christianity (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Core This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bahá'í Faith High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahá'í Faith, a coordinated attempt to increase the quality and quantity of information about the Baháʼí Faith on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.Bahá'í FaithWikipedia:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithTemplate:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithBahá'í Faith High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ancient Near East Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bible Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: "Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. 18 July 2013. Retrieved 18 July 2013. Caitlin Dewey (6 November 2015). "Demon cats, helicopter escapes and crayon colours: The most fascinating Misplaced Pages articles you haven't read". National Post. Retrieved 10 November 2015.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137

Obsolete subpages Cited Authors Bios Christian views in intro Scribes Pharisees and Saducees Dates of Birth and Death Historicity Reference Comments Sockpuppets Languages Spoken by Jesus Historical Jesus Topical archives 2nd Paragraph Debate

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

why Caiaphas had Jesus killed

BRD means that now my material has been deleted we discuss it. My question is, under what circumstances would I be allowed to restore this material or something like it?

Editors who oppose a historical treatment of Jesus have deleted my latest contribution to the historical treatment of Jesus. The Gospels say Jesus was killed for blasphemy, but historians disagree. If we're going to report the Gospel version, then we are honor-bound to give the reader the historical version, too. Otherwise we're committing a POV error. Of course, the entire Gospels section is already a POV error, so the need to balance its account with historical scholarship is especially strong. I cited the world's top scholar on the topic. When Britannica needs someone to write their article about Jesus, they turn to Sanders. Theissen lists him, along with Crossan and Vermes, as top scholars on the topic.

According to E. P. Sanders, Caiaphas, the high priest, probably had Jesus arrested and turned over for execution to prevent him from inciting riots, which Roman troops would have put down with much bloodshed.{{sfn|Sanders|1993|pp=269-273}} The disturbance that Jesus caused in the Temple was likely the deciding factor, although other factors, such as his entry into Jerusalem, would have contributed to Caiaphas's decision.{{sfn|Sanders|1993|pp=269-273}}

Historically speaking, if this isn't why Caiaphas had Jesus killed, what is? The editors who don't like treating Jesus historically would be happy for us not to mention any historical opinion on this point. They want the reader to know less of what historians say because they don't approve of it. But that's not the WP way. Sanders is the most mainstream scholar out there. So I ask the editors who want to leave this material off the page, under what circumstances would I be allowed to restore it? If it truly is undue weight, what other opinion should be included for balance? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The only way I could see that material being restored is by seeing that an existing academic overview on the topic of Jesus, which is to basically say something like an encyclopedia article,or in this case by averaging some of the remarkably numerous encyclopedia articles of great length on this topic, which give that material sufficient weight in their own articles for it to receive roughly proportional weight in this article. That would mean that I am basically requesting that it be demonstrated, as per WP:BURDEN that this content receives roughly enough "percentage" coverage in those articles for the proposed addition here to be of basically the same broad "percentage{ weight. Otherwise, I very much believe that I may be seeing a possibly tendentious refusal to get to the point regarding this matter, and I would regret having to raise concerns about such issues. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, JC. When you yourself look up what historians say about why Caiaphas had Jesus executed, what do you find, and what are your sources? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the Anchor Bible Dictionary, which I have in front of me. The outline of that article, of which this matter is only a rather smallish part in the section "The Why and the How of Jesus' Death," can be seen at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity/Jesus work group/Prospectus.

The summary of the first paragraph of that section, which is the only part relevant to your question, can be said to be Jesus never reserved a place for the scribes, elders, and priests in his scheme of the new world, that there wasn't room enough for this aristrocracy and this individual possible messianic contender, and that the Sanhedrin (Caiphas is not mentioned by name) took the initiative and brought Jesus down. John Carter (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

3 Encyclopedia of Christianity(2003) 27 "Finally he invaded the temple precincts in a public act. He banished commercial dealings from the sanctuary and thus achieved proleptically the eschatological purity of the place of worship (Other interpreters hand understood the act as his symbolically destroying the temple to make way for a new eschatological temple made by God)" The person of the High Priest might be referenced in this source in preceding sentences. Scholars like C. Fletcher-Louis discuss the High Priest as representative of God in the Temple worship of the times. Church of the Rain (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, JC. The Anchor Bible project looks like a religious work. I'm not sure why we would be citing it in the historical section. If you look up Jesus' death in secular, historical sources, what do they say about the Sadducees' motive for having Jesus killed? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the Anchor Bible itself is more or less religious, but the ABD is a very long very highly regarded work which deals with issues of archaeology, biblical history, and other topics broadly related to the Bible from a primarily academic viewpoint, including peripherally related topics like descriptions of other cultures and religions from a primarily academic viewpoint. It is regarded in the field of reference as being one of the outstanding sources in the field of Biblical studies. John Carter (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

No one but me looks at what the secular sources say about Caiaphas's motives. If you don't have any evidence on your side, please stop reverting my work. I don't mean to be cross, but there seems to be a pattern of editors reverting my work and not providing anything better in its place. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Why are you privileging "secular" sources? What's wrong with quoting the Anchor Bible in the historical section? StAnselm (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

In fact, you yourself have seen me repeatedly cite Christian scholars and Christian sources. Here I'm thinking of the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Gerd Theissen, J D Crossan (a founding member of the Jesus Seminar), and Marcus Borg (also on the Jesus Seminar). I'm not a Christian, but I'm happy to cite Christian sources that promote mainstream views. Wouldn't it be nice if Christian editors on this page were equally happy to cite secular sources? Especially in the "Historical Jesus" section? In this case in particular, what do secular sources say about Caiaphas's motives for having Jesus executed? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, as per WP:BURDEN, you could produce such sources yourself? John Carter (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

StAnselm challenged me about using Christian sources, and they bring up a good point. We should all be willing to use a variety of sources because we're all here to improve the page and none of us are here to defend a particular POV. Myself, I work on both the historical and gospel sections, and I've worked on neutral sections like the one on depictions of Jesus. Certain editors come across as opponents of the historical view, which is actually the predominant view among the RSs. I'm sure this is just a misunderstanding. Luckily we have a great source that could really benefit our page, a source that has impeccable credentials, that is free online, and that covers both the historical and the Christian viewpoints. I've used it, and any editor reading this could benefit the page by using it. It's the Jesus Christ entry in Encyclopedia Britannica. Here's the link (Jesus Christ). I'd sure love some help tapping this fine resource to improve our page, and it would be a great show of good faith if we could use the same source even though some of us might have sharp disagreements over whether the Gospels are the Word of God. John Carter, Mangoe, StAnselm, LittleJerry, any interest in helping out? I'm sure none of you have objections to using a secular RS when editing this page. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do, and here's why: Misplaced Pages is based primary on reliable secondary sources. Encyclopedia Britannica is a tertiary source. In regards to neutrality, the whole article should be neutral: The gospels section should not have a Christian POV, nor should the historical section have a secular POV. StAnselm (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for referring to policies. That's a great way to reach a compromise with editors whose religious beliefs differ from one's own. According toe WP policy, "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." I'm familiar with that line because I helped write it. When I cited Sanders in a secondary source, I was reverted because (I was told) I hadn't proved due weight. Now when I suggest citing Sanders as the author of an article in the world's most prestigious encyclopedia, and I'm told that that's bad because it's a tertiary source. I'm starting to wonder if people just don't like what Sanders has to say, no matter what text he's saying it in. As for this statement of yours, "The gospels section should not have a Christian POV, nor should the historical section have a secular POV," I'm going to remember that as we talk about the Gospels section and how it has a distinct Christian POV. Maybe we should just merge the gospels and historical sections, as Sanders does in his EB article. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

historical account first

I put the historical account of Jesus before the Gospel accounts. Chronologically, Jesus' ministry took place first, and then the Gospels were written a generation or two later. Now the material is in chronological order. Also, Britannica follows this same pattern. First, E. P. Sanders gives the historical account of Jesus' life and ministry. Then a second author addresses early Christian views about Jesus, such as the virgin birth. That's evidence that we should put history first and Gospels second. I'm sure that many editors will be happy to share their opinions about why we should put the Gospels first, and opinions are great, but let's decide what to do based on evidence. No editor has offered any evidence that we should have the Gospels section at all, let alone evidence that it should go before the historical account. If you want the Gospels to be first, please offer evidence for your position. Opinions differ, but if we stick to the evidence we can agree on how to treat this important topic. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I see that over the last weeks, no opponents of the historical account have offered any evidence in support of relegating it to second place. Instead, an editor who doesn't like the historical account reverted my edit and didn't explain themselves here on Talk. WP:BRD means i boldly edit, a detractor reverts it, and then that detractor provides evidence for their reversion. Does anyone have any evidence that the Gospels section should come first? Editors without evidence love long arguments, but how about we agree to stick to the evidence? Britannica leads with an historical account, followed by Christian beliefs, such as the virgin birth. Harris's textbook Understanding the Bible gives a chapter to each Gospel, but not until after an account of the historical Jesus. If there's no evidence for putting the Gospels first, let's put history first. Seems simple. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

How do other encyclopedias treat the Gospels when describing Jesus? Here are Jesus entries from several online encyclopedias. How many of them, do you think, summarize the Gospels before establishing the historical account? Take a look. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't reply here. Obviously, though, this is a massive change, and for a FA you should expect a reversion on something like this. I hadn't actually seen this thread before - this was before the initial reversion. In any case, rather than look at other encyclopedias, I'd be much more inclined to look at comparable articles here - David, Moses, Abraham all start with the biblical narrative. There is no reason why Jesus should be treated differently. StAnselm (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying here, and thanks for actually supplying evidence. Your evidence is other WP articles. My evidence is other encyclopedias. Now we weigh the relative weight of your evidence and mine. Is that fair? As long as we're comparing evidence and making decisions on that basis, I'm happy, and if the evidence says to put the Gospels first, OK! So that's what we editors are considering, how to weigh the evidence of outside encyclopedias versus the weight of other WP articles? If that's the issue, let's discuss it. Before we begin, is there any other evidence in favor of putting the Gospel accounts first? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree StAnselm, however the most important thing (in my interpretation of Misplaced Pages policies) is that both sides are given adequate publicity, regardless of which order. I too would prefer the Biblical versions first and then the so-called "secular historical versions" due to the fact that the gospel versions are first hand accounts and the existence of the author's (of the gospels) belief that Christ was God, whether true, or not does not invalidate their first hand, eyewitness testimonies on other non-supernatural details surrounding the life of Christ. We wouldn't discount Roman historians view on Roman leaders simply due to the fact those Roman historians believed in Pagan gods, so why should we treat the gospel writers any differently that Tacitus for example. In fact their testimony should carry more weight than non-Hebrew sources as they were contemporaries of Christ, lived in close proximity to Christ and actually met Christ. And if it is possible that they were lying, it is also possible other ancient authors were lying too. You at least have to give them equal weight and present their views as the truth, unless there are secular historical sources that can PROVE their inaccuracy. Innocent until proven guilty, but it there are differences of opinion and neither can DISPROVE the other, then list all of them, at least with the biblical versions last, although I think they should be first due to reasons listed above--41.146.191.17 (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion, Anonymous. We're also interested in actual evidence for how the topic should be treated, if you have any to share. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, St Anselm and I are at an impasse. SA says we should follow other WP pages as our examples, and I say we should follow the examples set by RSs, especially other encyclopedias. Anyone want to break the tie? Meanwhile, I have evidence that we should follow RSs.: that's what WP policy says. StAnselm, would you please share your evidence that we should model this page after other WP pages? Thank you. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

StAnselm, are you still saying that we should follow the examples set by other WP pages? Do you still maintain that WP:CIRC doesn't apply? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Correct. StAnselm (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm Leadwind

Today i returned to the page and saw that last week I had logged in under my old handle, Leadwind. It seems that I switched back to using Safari, which had my old login credentials stored, and I logged in as Leadwind without realizing it. So the editor who appeared briefly a week ago was me. I'm sure that you editors judged my edit based on its merits rather than by who wrote it, so it didn't make any difference. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I don't have any problem with judging your edits by their merits, but I think in the interest of complete transparency and avoiding any suggestion of sockpuppetry to tilt the weight of arguments on this page, you should change your signature on all of the Leadwind posts, and you should make it clear on both user pages that you are the owner of both accounts. Sundayclose (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for being upfront it. I see absolutely no problem whatsoever. Jeppiz (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Sundayclose, thank you, those are good suggestions. This topic is a touchy one, and we should all be on our best editing behavior so we can all work together despite our differing opinions on who Jesus really was. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

More detail needed on crucifixion of Christ

There seems to be a severe lack of detail on precisely who crucified Christ. The second paragraph of the first section of the article states:

"Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean, Jewish rabbi who preached his message orally, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate."

The role of the chief priests has not been included in this section. Since it was the chief priests that crucified Christ after Pontius Pilate gave the permission, it seems logical to also include this important fact in the narrative.

The gospels give clear indication of this fact related by numerous authors and not just one. For example:

"And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! 15 "But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. 16 ¶ "Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away. 17 "And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha: 18 "Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst." - - - John 19:14-18

Paul, in his letter to the Thessalonians, confirms this:

"For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: "15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:" - 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15

- - - To give more context, I therefore request permission from an admin for these verses to inserted, or quoted indirectly with citations to the specific verses above. I would like to also request the option to add this to other sections of the article where appropriate with regard to the parts detailing the crucifixion.--197.229.0.187 (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

We go by what academic sources say, not what Paul or the Gospel authors say. Jeppiz (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

How does this quote then fit in? "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically, and historians consider the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) to be the best sources for investigating the historical Jesus."--MarlinespikeMate (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Not true Jeppiz. I agree with MarlinespikeMate above. You can't have it either way depending on what suits you at the time on particular issues. As per NPOV both historical and biblical sources have to be given (if both are available and each to the extent of the amount of relevant info they supply).

This article already contains references to how the Koran (Quaran) views the life of Christ.

You don't seem to have a problem with that.

Then in the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/Crucifixion_of_Jesus#Gospel_harmony

In the fourth paragraph of the section called Gospel harmony:

"According to Mark's Gospel, he endured the torment of crucifixion for some six hours from ::the third hour, at approximately 9 am, until his death at the ninth hour, corresponding ::to about 3 pm." These citations are directly from the gospels. Go and have a look.--UPDATED: --41.151.117.104 (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is another example: https://en.wikipedia.org/Pharisees#Pharisees_and_Christianity

Should we remove half of Misplaced Pages due to your concerns?

What about if a historian actually disagrees with the gospel and quotes the parts he disagree with? Do we not allow ourselves to include those quotes, if we are quoting his quotes? Ridiculous!--197.229.0.187 (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I am assuming we have a majority in favor of my proposed edit?--Dayofrest12 (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

We do not WP:VOTE at Misplaced Pages. Jeppiz (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

We also don't try to sway the weight of an argument by editing from multiple accounts or IP addresses. That may not be what's happening here but it needs clarification. Dayofrest12, are you the same editor as anon 197.229.0.187 and anon 41.151.117.104? For the record also let me say that I oppose Dayofrest12/197.229.0.187/41.151.117.104's proposed edit, so thus far there is no consensus for it. Sundayclose (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes that's true, you do not vote at Misplaced Pages, but you do require consensus, which is almost the same thing. By consensus I assumed it was meant a consensus of the majority of editors who leave a comment here - as you will never have 100% consensus on most topics I am sure.

For the record, by "majority" in favor of my proposed edit, I only meant MarlinespikeMate and myself, which was already a majority as nobody else responded yet.

I did NOT try to appear to give myself extra support under different names for the following reasons: My ISP only issues dynamic IP addresses, so my IP address always changed automatically every X hours since it is a dynamic IP. Secondly, I did then register an account on Misplaced Pages as "Dayofrest12" and made no attempt to pretend I was a different person BY ADMITTING IT WAS "MY PROPOSED EDIT" in question. "Dayofrest12" had no proposed edit under that name, only above that comment under the IP addresses I mentioned.

Why do you oppose my proposed edit? Do you not ever give reasons for disapproving of proposed edits?--Dayofrest12 (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see your reasons below this, you made things a little confusing by starting a whole new section below. Please see my response below your section below:--Dayofrest12 (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is not "almost the same thing" as a voting majority. If it was every content dispute would have a poll in which the majority decided the content of the article. Please read WP:CON and WP:VOTE. And I oppose your proposed change generally for the same reason given by Jeppiz: it lacks reputable, verifiable scholarship from sufficient sources to indicate that it is the prevailing and mainstream opinion of Biblical scholars. And BTW, please read another policy, WP:AGF, before suggesting to another editor that he/she does "not ever give reasons for disapproving proposed edits?" Sundayclose (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The Gospels and historians agree that it was the Sadducean leaders of the Temple who decided to have Jesus killed. John the Baptist had a ministry that implicitly challenged the authority of the Temple, and so did Jesus. For those reasons, we should mention the involvement of the Temple leadership. On the other hand, there's something of a gentlemen's agreement in place that we downplay any anti-Semitism found in the Gospels. With that in mind, this change isn't one that I'm keen to fight for. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jonathan Tweet: I understand your point that many of us (by "us" I mean people in general, not just Wikipedians) try to avoid even hinting at any anti-Semitism, has this been an issue regarding the crucifixion in previous discussions for this article? I would agree that it can be a sensitive issue, but I'm not sure that it has been much of an issue here. I want to be sure we don't confuse the issue of scholarly sources with the issue of anti-Semitism. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for prompting me to clarify my point, Sundayclose. TNo. the anti-Semitism issue first came to my attention in another area, maybe Jesus' ministry. It doesn't come up often, but when it does there's a clear preference on the Talk page to avoid the topic. There's a whole current in the Gospels about Jesus hiding his message from the Jews so they don't repent, and then God turns his back on them and designates the Christian Church as his new chosen people. When I read a secular account of the Gospels (e.g. Harris's textbook, Understanding the Bible), anti-Semitism gets treated, but it's probably best to leave it off this page. Any anti-Semitism is more about the Gospels than about Jesus himself, so it's a point I'm happy to let slide. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Basic policies

I see we have several new users, so let me explain some basic policies. First, WP:NPOV does not mean all views should be heard. If you read the policy, it says a lot about which views we don't include: we do not include views with no academic support. So appealing to NPOV to use the Gospel's as a source is a non-starter. As for the quote that MarlinespikeMate uses, I suggest reading it again. It says that scholars (not Misplaced Pages users) use the Gospels to investigate the life of Jesus. That is perfectly correct, and we then report what the scholars say. But we do not use Gospels to make our own investigation, that is what WP:OR is all about. Jeppiz (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Quoting the Bible outside the context of scholarly interpretation is fine for a sermon, but not for an encyclopedia. I also think newcomers should know that administrators on Misplaced Pages do not dictate or control content any more than any other user, so appealing to an administrator for anything except clear vandalism or policy violation is pointless. There are other ways to resolve disputes on Misplaced Pages, which includes this discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"Quoting the Bible outside the context of scholarly interpretation is fine for a sermon, but not for an encyclopedia" Then why is this already accepted in numerous places already on Misplaced Pages as per the examples I already gave above? How did those edits pass consensus?--Dayofrest12 (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I have updated my comment directly above this section and am commenting here as well to acknowledge that this section has been somewhat of a response as well, although I still do not agree. Here is a scenario, what if I were to quote a verse from the gospel and then write straight after that, that secular historical scholars have not found any evidence to support that, or historians have found not other records outside of the gospel to corroborate this which makes it unlikely to be true. What if I more, or less say that in the article? Is THAT allowed by Misplaced Pages policies?--Dayofrest12 (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The articles in which you state that Bible quotes alone are "already accepted on numerous places" as sufficient (Crucifixion of Jesus and Pharisees) have considerable scholarship referenced in them and do not rely simply on Bible quotations. So far you have produced very little scholarship for your arguments. The wording of your question about the "scenario" is very confusing. I think it would be best if you would provide citations to the sources here along with the Bible verses. Sundayclose (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, this is ridiculous. As said, "appealing to NPOV to use the Gospel's as a source is a non-starter" makes zero sense. We can't use original scholarly sources? This is not original research, as it is plainly written.--MarlinespikeMate (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If by "original scholarly sources" you mean your own ideas, the answer is no unless you are a recognized Biblical scholar and you use one of your own publications as a source. If you mean sources by authors who are recognized as Biblical scholars and published in reputable journals or books, such sources might be used to provide interpretation of Biblical passages. But the Biblical passages alone are insufficient. That's not ridiculous. It's Misplaced Pages policy. Sundayclose (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Sundayclose is perfectly right. No offence MarlinspikeMate, but if you cannot tell the difference between the Gospels and "scholarly sources", then I'm afraid Misplaced Pages might not be for you. What contemporary peer-reviewed scholars say about the Gospels, Quran, Tanakh, Edda or Epic of Gilgamesh is relevant and we can cite what those contemporary peer-reviewed scholars say. Whatever the Gospels, Quran, Tanakh, Edda or Epic of Gilgamesh say is not reliable in itself. Jeppiz (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I've done a bad job of explaining my stance, I'll clarify. Jeppiz, I should have said 'primary source'. Here is my argument as plainly as I can say it. According to the scholars, we know the biblical texts to be the best sources for investigating the historical Jesus. This text is a primary source. We are by no means offering up our own research on behalf of the primary sources, but how is it in any sense fair to the article "crucifixion of Christ" to not include this stance, knowing what I just said?MarlinespikeMate (talk) 06:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

So just to clarify, I'm not saying we couldn't include it (though no case for its inclusion has yet been made), I'm just explaining how we use sources at Misplaced Pages. If you provide good academic sources in support of your version, then of course those sources will be considered. I'm merely pointing out that the Bible is not what Misplaced Pages considers a reliable source, and we won't make changes based on "The Bible says so". Jeppiz (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Just speaking in general without reference to the crucifixion issue specifically, even with scholarly references, a general conclusion about the role of biblical texts in understanding the historical Jesus doesn't necessarily support conclusions about specific events in the life of Jesus (e.g., nature miracles) because scholarly interpretation of the biblical text may differ from the literal interpretation of the biblical text. If scholars view biblical texts as the best source in general, we can't jump to the conclusion that everything in the biblical text must be accepted at face value. See WP:SYN for details. Scholarly interpretation of specific events is necessary. To make this even more complex (which is unavoidable with an article on Jesus), every scholarly point of view isn't given equal weight on Misplaced Pages (or any unbiased encyclopedia). If there is a preponderance of scholarly opinion, that perspective is given more weight. Sometimes the scholarly opinions are diverse enough that several explanations of an event are discussed. If Wikipedians disagree on how much emphasis a particular scholarly perspective should be given, then there needs to be a decision by consensus, and if that is not successful an editor has the option to pursue other legitimate means of dispute resolution. Sundayclose (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Tweet, you said above: "On the other hand, there's something of a gentlemen's agreement in place that we downplay any anti-Semitism found in the Gospels. With that in mind, this change isn't one that I'm keen to fight for." --- Sounds like the ultimate in political correctness to me. Who says that?!!! Who says, if a source sounds anti-Semitic, then downplay that part of it and pretend it doesn't exist?!!! Are you hearing yourself? I am not assuming bad faith here, I am observing it in front of my eyes!!! If the Gospels are anti-Semitic, how is it right to pretend they are not!!! - - - I will reply to the historical scholars perspective, which right now is more important - below:--Dayofrest12 (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Dayofrest12, I think you misinterpreted Jonathan Tweet's comments, and there's no need to shout at us by using bold print. Read JT's comment again. My strong impression is that he is commenting about society in general which can be reflected on Misplaced Pages talk pages. Many people are sensitive to the extremist minority who consider Jews "Christ killers". If you want an example, look at the furor over the film The Passion of the Christ; read about it at The Passion of the Christ#Controversies. I'm not espousing any point of view here, just pointing out how controversial some issues can be. Wikipedians are no different than most people in that respect; we don't like getting embroiled in a controversy. I don't think Jonathan Tweet was arguing that we should be "politically correct"; he was simply pointing out the sensitivity of an issue. And when I asked him for clarification, he made that even clearer. If you don't mind getting into controversial areas, that's fine. But until you see someone in an article (not a talk page) add incorrect information because of political correctness, don't be so harsh about talk page comments. Talk pages are for discussing, and that's all Jonathan Tweet was doing. Sundayclose (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Dayofrest12, I'm hearing myself. I don't like deviating from WP policy either, but it's not worth my while to buck the consensus and get reverted over and over by editors who are protecting the page as it is. I pick my battles. If you think you can get anti-Semitism into the Gospels section, go for it. Your best bet is to find a secular religious dictionary or encyclopedia. Stephen L Harris's Understanding the Bible might work for you, and I would recommend both those books just in general. Find what you're looking for, add it to the page, and then (this is important) cite both the chapter and verse and the Reliable Source. I'm curious to see what reaction you get. Good luck, and once again welcome to the Jesus page. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

single scholars OK?

When I cited E. P. Sanders on the crucifixion of Jesus, Farsight and St Anselm reverted me. Farsight said: "A scholar is not the same thing as scholarly CONSENSUS, thus undue weight." Above on this page, John Carter confirmed that it would be wrong to add what I added without evidence that it represents proportionate treatment, as seen in overview sources, and that the burden of evidence is on the person who wants to cite a single author. How do editors take that criticism? I thought that citing individual scholars would be OK, but three other editors say it's undue weight unless one can show that there's a consensus on the point. I'm happy to live with this rigorous standard, if that's what we decide. Should we as editors agree to follow this standard in the Historical Accounts section? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Without reference to the particular Sanders issue, I think the idea in WP:NPOV#Due_and_undue_weight is that we have to be careful not to give a minority perspective among scholars equal weight with a more prevailing opinion of scholars. That idea can be slippery to define. I think it would be unwieldy to cite 20 scholars simply to demonstrate that something is a widely held opinion. If one scholar summarizes the consensus of other scholars that would seem appropriate to me. But then what if there is disagreement on Misplaced Pages that the one scholar's summary accurately captures the consensus of scholars? Then consensus here would be necessary. On many Misplaced Pages articles that never is a problem. On controversial articles such as this one it occurs more often. Sundayclose (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

To chip in on this - In interpreting this policy (directly above) it would make sense to allow an editor to quote a particular scholar alone, if it is not obviously a point rejected by the majority of other scholars already. Not all scholars openly declare consensus with other scholars on every point they write and it would be unfair to expect an editor here to find PROOF of that for everything they quote from scholars. Thus, it should be "innocent until proven guilty" of offending on this point. Just my opinion on the interpretation of the policy.--Dayofrest12 (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

But getting back to my complaints above. Let me ask this, if we cannot quote scriptures alone, without scholars views on those exact same scriptures, where in the article should the scholars views be inserted? Must they be inserted directly after the scripture you inserted/quoted/refered to? In the same sentence? Same paragraph? Same article?

I ask this because there seem to be cases where this is NOT happening already (at least not in the same paragraph - and nobody has objected).--Dayofrest12 (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

My second question is as follows: (Please treat this totally separately as I am not using it to support my first point in any way). - - - What if there is an event mentioned in scripture, but not a single scholar throughout history has commented, or interpreted the verse in their own writings (or not to the knowledge of a particular Misplaced Pages editor). Should we not even quote that verse with "quotation marks" and no interpretation of our own attached? Should we automatically treat the verse as unreliable and unverifiable because it is not already uninterpreted by anyone? I am not saying we should be allowed to interpret the verse ourselves on Misplaced Pages and present our interpretation as truth. I am talking about merely quoting the verse in view of lack of analysis of the verse by scholars, with no analysis of our own either. If another editor THEREAFTER finds proof of adequate expert analysis of the said verse, instead of reverting the edit, the editor can insert analysis in addition to existing quote of the verse in order to improve the article rather that make it worse by just reverting the edit. I am sure it is not the intention of Misplaced Pages policies to restrict expansion of knowledge using such restrictive and unreasonable measures. - - - Regarding my proposals of certain scripture further above these paragraphs, to quote the scriptures I mentioned (without analysis in my own words, lets agree) - can anyone here find a single scholars interpretation which disproves the view presented in the quoted scriptures I mentioned, using secular historical sources, or archaeology, etc to disprove them. If not, then I don't see why they can't be quoted directly - as long as their is no analysis of my own present and scholarly analysis in included by anyone who can find any - if it even exists. Quoting scripture, does not mean the same as using it as proof that something occurred. It is simply using what you have got, opening it up to others analysis, when nothing else can be found.

Please can the editors commenting above answer both of my questions above.--Dayofrest12 (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

In answer to your second question, never state your own opinion on anything in any article on Misplaced Pages unless you are a recognized scholar and you are using your own publication as a source. And I can't think of any circumstance in which you would quote scripture if it was not in the context of scholarly interpretation. At best that would be a very odd non sequitur that adds nothing to the article; more likely it would suggest that the scripture supports some point but without scholarly support. As for not being able to find a scholar who "disproves" your personal point of view, it would then be unacceptable to conclude that your perspective can be included in a Misplaced Pages article since no one has provided sourced information that refutes your opinion. That would be a logical fallacy. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. We can never prove a negative because there is always the possibility that the negative exists but has not been found. If I say the moon is made of cheese and no one can find a sourced statement to the contrary, I cannot state in a Misplaced Pages article that the moon is made of cheese. I cannot state that scripture X has a meaning of Y simply because no one provides sourced evidence that refutes it. I have to find a source stating that scripture X means Y. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Sundayclose (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

"where in the article should the scholars views be inserted?": Read WP:CITE.There are different ways to do it. The most important thing is, wherever you put the citation, make sure it is clear which part of your edits the citation supports. If you think you need a citation after every sentence you edit, that is far better than providing no citation at all. There may be stylistic problems, but those are easily fixed. If in doubt, give the example on this talk page and I'm sure someone can help you out.

"I ask this because there seem to be cases where this is NOT happening already": If you mean that there are places where citations are not provided but should be, Misplaced Pages is always a work in progress, and there will always be bad edits (sometimes horrible edits) that go either undetected or unchallenged. We are all volunteers here, and none of us has the time to pore over every detail of every article trying to find problems, challenging them, or fixing them. But as the old saying goes, "Two wrongs don't make a right." Pointing out bad editing as an excuse for adding to the problems is the weakest excuse anyone can find for making bad edits. Feel free to point out where the problems are; if you feel strongly about a bad edit, try to fix it yourself; place a "citation needed" tag on anything that you think is inadequately sourced. But don't make poorly sourced edits simply because someone else did. Sundayclose (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I hear you Sundayclose. But then let me ask this: If these examples are allowed, as long as you include the disclaimer "citation needed" after each one, does that mean I can do the same and can also include quotations of scripture alone like others have done, but also include "citation needed" after the quote?--Dayofrest12 (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you intended what part of your question suggests, so first let me clarify something. The examples you mention are not offically "allowed". They just haven't been addressed (for the reasons I gave above about Wikipedians being volunteers). The answer to your question about adding a "citation needed" tag to your own edit is no, the "citation needed" tag is used when you find an unsourced edit by another editor and you are asking for someone to produce a citation or risk getting the edit reverted. It is simply a courtesy to give someone a little time to find a source before you remove the edit. The tag is not intended to allow an editor to add unsourced information at will merely by adding the tag, in effect trying to shift the responsibility for sourcing to another editor. As far as I know, adding a CN tag to your own edit isn't a policy violation, but it is very poor editing and in many cases pointless because the edit will be reverted. I don't mean this to be directed at you personally because you asked a legitimate question, but an editor who makes an unsourced edit with a CN tag is very likely a lazy editor who doesn't want to bother to find a source, or that editor may be hoping the edit will linger in the article for a period of time unsourced (in low traffic articles that could very well happen). Occasionally I have seen sincere editors put a CN tag after their own edit stating in the edit summary that the citation is pending. But "pending" does not mean indefinite. If I see an editor add a CN tag to his own edit, I usually will send a courtesy message explaining the above. If the source isn't added in a day or two, I revert the edit. So to summarize, don't quote scripture with no sourced scholarly context and then add a CN tag. As much traffic as this article gets and as controversial as it is, your edit probably won't stay in the article more than a few hours. Once again, feel free to add CN tags if you see unsourced edits made by others; that can be very useful in alerting others to find a citation, or to revert the edit if a source is not provided in a reasonable time. Thanks for asking for clarification. Sundayclose (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Sunayclose - for taking so much time in addressing my concerns and for the clarity used in your responses as well!!! I will make an effort to add CN tags to these sections when I find them quoting Bible scripture without following with scholars interpretation of that scripture. I will likewise remove those verses if the scriptural citations are not followed up by scholarly citations covering those same scriptural verses within a "reasonable amount of time". One a different side note: What is considered as a more reliable source, a gospel account of an event by first century Christian(s), or a Pagan/Roman historian(s) account of the same event. Assuming consensus among either group. I would like to know if either of them ALONE count as enough evidence to use ALONE as consensus in the same way as modern historian's consensus is enough to cite ALONE as evidence. Of course I ask this in light of yours and other editor's interpretation of existing Misplaced Pages policies on these matters.--Dayofrest12 (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I hesitate to give an answer about which source is considered more reliable. I'm not a theologian or religion scholar, although I have developed some knowledge in those areas over the years. I believe, however, that modern scholars are much better equipped to provide the best interpretations of the scripture as well as the ancient sources simply because of all the advances in methodology over the last 2000 years. But I'll let others who feel more comfortable with that expertise address your question. If I personally doubted the reliability of a source in this article, I would discuss it on this talk page before challenging it. For more general information on reliability of sources, see WP:RS. Sundayclose (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dayofrest12. I'm not sure what to tell you. The whole Gospels section is the result of a unique compromise on this page, and it doesn't reflect Misplaced Pages policies or standards. so it's hard for me to answer questions about citing Scripture. It sounds like there's material you would like to add to the page, although I'm not sure what it is. Your best bet is to find a Reliable Source and read up on what it says on the topic you want to address. Dictionaries of religion and textbooks are especially good, at least if they're reasonably secular. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Everyone else. I'm happy to start applying Foresight's strict citation policy. I can live with it. Farsight and St Anselm are usually on the opposite side of an issue from me, so I'm happy to conform to their preferences in this case. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I just made my first two edits using this strict citation policy. I think it will improve the page. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jonathan and everyone. There are scholars besides De Sanctis who saw the Nazareth Inscription as evidence of the empty tomb of Jesus, such as Leopold Wenger(the preeminent Roman legal expert of the first half of the 20th century).Bruce Metzger also said, in New Testament Tools and Studies Volume 10,that Lagrange, Stauffer, L.Herrmann. S.Losch, Guarducci, Sordi, and Blaiklock held this view. E.Grzybek, C.Billington and M.Green hold this view too. According to Metzger, F. Cumont and even Zulueta said there was a possibility that the Nazareth Inscription was evidence of Christ's empty tomb. I hope I've shown to your and everyone's satisfaction that the position that the Nazareth Inscription is evidence of the empty tomb is not just a single scholar one, and so I would like to restore to the Historicity of Events:Resurrection section what you deleted.Buckrogers24 (talk) 09:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for presenting evidence for your case. Please feel free to restore the reference I deleted. I wrote most of that reference anyway. The Nazareth inscription doesn't appear in any of the sources I've read on the topic of Jesus, so I doubt that it's really a notable viewpoint, but I won't object if you restore it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a sentance:

"In Islam, Jesus (commonly transliterated as Isa) is considered one of God's important prophets and the Messiah." Prepositional phrase at the end of this sentence should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.96.66 (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

follow encyclopedias or WP pages?

In a section above (link), St Anselm and I are at an impasse. SA says we should follow other WP pages as our examples, and I say we should follow the examples set by RSs, especially other encyclopedias. Anyone want to break the tie? Meanwhile, I have evidence that we should follow RSs.: that's what WP policy says. I've invited St Anselm to share his evidence that we should follow other WP pages, and if you disagree with me, I would appreciate hearing your evidence as well. Thank you.

This topic is serious. Currently we favor the New Testament account. We put it first, we follow Christianity's canon, and we detail the Gospel accounts at great length, all while excluding scholarly opinion from the description. If this sort of favoring is against best practices, then the page is POV.. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you start an RfC on this subject. StAnselm (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Would you please first offer some evidence that we should follow the examples of other WP articles over those of other encyclopedias? If you don't have any evidence on your side, then an RfC is hardly necessary. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello JT, could you please clarify which is the WP policy you are referring to? Is it WP:RS only or others? could you explain what relevant passages or content of the policy/ies would force, or invite, WP editors to follow the same article layout used in some external RSs? Sorry to ask but, at a first glance, it isn't that evident to me... Bardoligneo (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. In addition to reliable sources, there's article structure and due and undue weight. I would love for editors who like the current format to read these policies, but here are some excerpts for editors who don't have that kind of time.

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. We should follow RSs, which is what I propose.

Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other. In other words. the way we handle the Gospel stories is against policy.

Thanks for helping me clarify my point. Now I'd like to know what policies support St Anselm's view. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

See also WP:CIRC, cited below. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm with StAnselm, here. It is better for us to maintain our internal cohesion. Articles of a similar type or on similar subjects should, wherever possible, keep the same structure, for the sake of our readers. When it comes to matters of style and presentation, if it isn't in the MOS then consensus of the editors decide what the structure should take. As this article has already achieved FA status the community has already decided on the issue. tl:dr The structure is fine. --Adam in MO Talk 16:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Opinions are wonderful. Do you have any evidence that we should follow your opinion? I'm asking specifically for evidence, for reasons that I hope are self-evident. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The policy on circularity has something to say in this particular instance: Do not use articles from Misplaced Pages as sources. That prohibition is clear to me. I'd love to see your evidence that we should make an exception here. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

When editors resist a change to a page but don't have WP policy on their side, they often appeal to consensus. Please read "consensus can change," especially this line: Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor (or, if you do use such terse explanations, it is helpful to also include a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed). A consensus is only as good as the reasoning that led to the consensus. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Since the way we're treating this topic is in direct violation of WP policy, I'm inclined to put the historical section back before the Gospels section. If that edit gets reverted, then I'll put a POV tag on the Gospels section. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it's certainly not a direct violation. You're being very snarky ("opinions are wonderful"), and to make that sort of edit again when the consensus is against you would constitute tendentious editing. The fact that you don't want to start an RfC suggests to me that you're not really interested in gaining a policy-based consensus after all. StAnselm (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome to have any opinion you like of me and my motives, but can you please at last offer some evidence to support your view that we should follow WP articles to guide us in editing this page? And if you think an RfC is a great idea, by all means please start one. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, if the editors of this page really did reach a consensus that the Gospels section should go first and not the historical section, kindly point me to the discussion where that consensus was reached. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Consensus does not have to come through discussion - see WP:EDITCONSENSUS. I see the issue was raised way back in 2007, but there was no consensus to change it: Talk:Jesus/Archive 80#Ordering. There might have been other discussions, too. StAnselm (talk)

Thanks St Anselm. In 2007, as you say, there was no consensus. The issue was raised, editors exchanged differing opinions, and there was no consensus to keep the page the same or to change it. Opinions are terrible for forging consensus, which is why I keep asking to see your evidence. In 2007 the editor who proposed the change based his argument on reason and got nowhere. Today, I'm basing the same suggestion on WP policy. Policy trumps opinion. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, there is no policy on WP to follow the layout of paper encyclopedias. So the only policy you can really appeal to is NPOV, but it is hard to see how the current layout is non-neutral. StAnselm (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not a layout issue, it's a due weight issue. I have shown evidence that we are putting too much weight on the Gospels section. What's your evidence that our page follows previously published sources, per WP:V. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

POV tag on Gospels section

I've put a lot of work into both the Historical section and the Gospel section. This issue is about what order the sections come in. The Canonical Gospels section has a POV tag because it should appear after the historical section. RSs treat Jesus primarily as a historical figure. They do not summarize Christianity's four Gospels first. When we put this section first gives undue weight to the Christian perspective. Some say that there's a consensus to put the Gospels first, but no one has provided evidence for such a consensus. The section has other issues, but I'll be happy to take the tag off when the historical section is first. In fact, I've only had a problem with one editor, and this seems like it should be a simple issue. We should match the RSs better.

For comparison.

Here is Encyclopedia Britannica Online.

Here are Jesus entries from several online encyclopedias.

The issue has been covered in these two discussions on this talk page.

historical account first

follow encyclopedias or WP pages

If you're new to this controversy, also consider how the entire Gospels section meets our neutrality standards, or doesn't meet them.

Christian canon: Why is it based on the four canonical Gospels? Historians don't have much use for John, so including it gives the Gospel a value that it has only within the boundaries of faith. A popular explanation is that the section header references the canonical Gospels, so naturally that's what that section has to be about, but that's begging the question. Maybe it's inevitable that we favor the Christian canon, but the section shouldn't be first.

Structure: Why is no scholarly commentary allowed in the Gospels summary? When I started editing WP 9 years ago, there was no scholarly commentary anywhere in this section. I worked against resistance to get it added to the introduction, and the introduction is in reasonably good shape. Even so, prohibiting scholarly commentary is a violation of WP:STRUCTURE. As someone who was in on the original compromise that got the section into this shape, I don't like it but I'm OK with it.

Purpose: The big question is, why do we have this section at all? RSs don't, why should we? In any event, it certainly shouldn't be first.

I hope to hear more voices on this topic. I have provided RSs and policy references as my evidence for you to judge. If you disagree with me, please share your opinion and then back it up with actual evidence. If we stick to the evidence, we should be able to clear this up. Thank you for your help. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I just want to provide an answer to your question :" Why is it based on the four canonical Gospels? Historians don't have much use for John, so including it gives the Gospel a value that it has only within the boundaries of faith."

You should take into account (and this article is sometimes quite outdated) recent paradigm shifts in New Testament Studies.

Richard Bauckham's seminal book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses published in 2006 has to included in the article. Based on historical arguments, Richard Bauckham argues, against the current consensus, that the synoptic Gospels are based "quite closely" on the testimony of eyewitnesses, while the Gospel of John is written by an eyewitness.Thucyd (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what paradigm shift? Bauckham's book was published almost ten years ago, it has not had any influence on mainstream scholarship, so even though Bauckham's book is WP:RS it is also very much WP:FRINGE. Jeppiz (talk) 11:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

If you really think Bauckham's book "has not had any influence on mainstream scholarship", you should at least read the special issue of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus (vol. 6, 2, 2008). Thucyd (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Thucyd. Looks like we can agree to leave this section treating the four canonical Gospels, as it does now. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

On the NPOV Noticeboard, an editor said we should put the historical section first. Unless someone objects, we evidently have a new consensus to put the historical section first. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Well another one is against it, so there's no new consensus. I think user:Mangoe on NPOV Noticeboard summarizes it well: it's not a POV issue, only a matter of rethoric; one should present the various claims and then discuss them. On the contrary, starting directly with the historical section would be like jumping to the discussion part without adequately presenting the claims: this way an ideally "ignorant" reader (say different cultures/religions) might not have a clear picture or even be totally clueless about the accounts the historians discuss. Other online encyclopediae do a great job interweaving historical perspectives and Gospels accounts but here they're quite separated, so it would need a complete rewrite to follow that way. Simply swapping the sections wouldn't achieve the same result. It seems, though, that the Gospels section is too bloated and redundant for the scope: a much shorter summary would suffice. I propose that. Bardoligneo (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I would love to do away with the Gospels section and instead interweave the Gospel and historical information as the RSs do, but there's fierce resistance on this page to changing the Gospels section. Do you think that result is even possible? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Jesus is primarily known for his portrayals in the gospels. The article even introduces him as "the central figure of Christianity" and them discusses historical issues later. LittleJerry (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the conversation, LittleJerry. And thanks for sharing your opinion. Other encyclopedias lead with history.. Do you have any evidence that we should do it differently? Opinions are great, but do you have evidence? Thanks. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's why it's a POV issue. The Gospels section presents the Christian answer to the question of who Jesus was. Putting it first gives that view a preponderance that it doesn't get in the RSs. Maybe the RSs are wrong to give short shrift to the Word of God, but they do. NPOV doesn't mean describing all viewpoints as comparable. It means describing all viewpoints the way RSs describe them. How do RSs describe Jesus? RSs strongly favor the historical approach to understanding who Jesus was, and we should favor it to. By putting it first. If we don't strongly favor the historical view like the RSs do, we're being biased. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

And this is where we disagree - categorizing the gospels as the "Christian answer" to the question. The thing is, virtually everything we know about Jesus is from the gospels - either directly or indirectly. The handful of other independent primary sources (such as Josephus could also be placed there as well. But all the historical analyses are using the gospels as their source materials. StAnselm (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion, St Anselm. Do you have any evidence that we should treat the Gospels the way you want to treat them? The evidence I offer shows that RSs don't summarize the Gospels like we do. Maybe they're wrong, but our job as editors is to follow their lead. We can disagree about how we'd each prefer to see the material treated, but can we really disagree about how the RSs treat the topic? Or that we should follow the lead of the RSs? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we can disagree - we are under no obligation to follow the layout of other tertiary sources. StAnselm (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Evidence? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Present evidence that we have to follow what other encyclopedias do. LittleJerry (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, LittleJerry, for discussing instead of just reverting. The POV tag says it should stay there as long as the issue is under discussion. And thanks for asking about evidence. Lots of editors seem interested only in opinions, probably because they don't have any evidence of their own. Here's my top piece of evidence: WP:DUE says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The Due Weight issue is part of the Neutral Point of View policy. A violation of the policy is a violation of NPOV. Our article gives the canonical Gospels far more weight than RSs give them, so that's a violation of the Due Weight policy. RSs strongly favor the historical viewpoint, so we should, too. Let's put the historical section first to make our page more in line with the RSs. Now, can you offer any evidence (not just opinion) that says our article should put the canonical Gospels section first? Two editors have pointed to other WP articles, but WP pages are not RSs, and that's a violation of WP:CIRC. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

We are not giving them any undue weight. Jesus is known primarily through the gospels and so it is perfectly reasonable to relate their narrative about him and present it first. We are not stating these accounts are fact, just that this is what they say about them. There is nothing POV about it. LittleJerry (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion. Now do you have any evidence to back it up? According to WP:V, we should be able to verify our edits. Can you verify that we should put a large Gospels section in front of the historical views section? If you don't have evidence, then please humbly accept the direction we are all provided by WP policy. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree to stop trying to get the POV tag to stick. It looks like a POV issue to me, but there's enough resistance that I'm dropping it. That closes this thread. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Due Weight dispute? Reliable Sources dispute?

What is the proper tag that we should use to name this dispute? I put a POV tag on the Gospels section, but that was repeatedly reverted. If it's not a POV issue, what is it? How about a Due Weight issue? The Gospels section gives more weight to the Gospel view than RSs do. Or is it a Reliable Sources issue, since we don't follow the RSs? It sure looks like a POV issue to me, but I'm happy to compromise and call the dispute just about anything. Any preferences? Due Weight seems the clearest. Anyone mind if I put a Due Weight tag on the Gospels section. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Since no one has offered an objection over the last 3 days, I'll go ahead and add the Due Weight tag to the section. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

LittleJerry says that the dispute over the Gospels section is not about facts. I think facts are wonderful. Here are some facts that I think no editor will disagree with, all related to the Due Weight issue.

• WP:V says that WP should be based on published sources, not on the experiences and beliefs of editors.

Yes.

Hey LittleJerry, thanks for discussing this with me instead of just reverting me. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• WP:DUE says that we should give viewpoints the same sort of prominence that they get in RSs

We do. And RS give extensive attention to gospel portrayals of Jesus.

• RSs, particularly other encyclopedias, favor the historical account over the Gospel accounts.

As stated below, there are no "historical accounts", only reconstructions based on examining the gospels. The encyclopedias you cite give extensive attention to gospel portrayals.

There are no historical accounts? Citation needed. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

*sign* Read the sentence again. LittleJerry (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• Our Gospels section is longer than our historical section, and it comes first. RSs don't do this.

There is very little we can establish about the historical Jesus, hence why the section it is so small.

That's a Yes, I take it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• We give the Gospel accounts, especially John, more prominence than they get in other encyclopedias.

No, we give them the same prominence. Even if John is considered not as useful for history, its portrayal of Jesus is extensively studied and discussed. LittleJerry (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I like that you are now comparing our article to RSs. That's evidence. Could you please choose any of the encyclopedias that I linked to, and let's compare how our article and theirs cover the canonical Gospels, OK? Let's look at the evidence together and see how closely our page lines up. If you're right and I'm wrong, we'll see that our page is fine and nothing needs to change. Which encyclopedia article would you like us to look at together? How about Sanders in Britannica? The world's leading expert in the world's leading encyclopedia. How could we go wrong? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

We are not obligated to follow the format of other encyclopedias. You keep bringing these tertiary sources but what about secondary scholarly sources? Take a look at the gospel section and look at the cites. They are all to RS's. The fact that scholars talk extensively about the gospel portrayals, regardless of their historicity, is evidence that they are not "undue weight". LittleJerry (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for referring to RSs. It's true that scholars talk about the Gospels a lot. All this material would be great on a page about the Gospels. It looks like most of those scholarly citations are about the New Testament, not about Jesus. When experts describe Jesus, they don't summarize the Gospels first. Sanders' Historical Figure of Jesus doesn't. Neither does Vermes' Authentic Gospel of Jesus. Can you name a great secondary source about Jesus that starts with summaries of the Gospels? But maybe this discussion is moot. You like how the Gospels are treated in Sanders' Britannica article, so let's agree to follow that example, OK? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is not the Historical Jesus. Is is about the figure of Jesus in general, who is as much of a figure of theology and literature as he is of history. You'll find plenty of scholar who discuss these different aspects. Citing two books on the historical aspects doesn't prove your point. And I never said I "liked" Sander's article. Don't put words in my mouth. LittleJerry (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

How to improve the page? Some editors say we should shorten the Gospels section a lot. Some say it should be blended into the history section because that's what the RSs do. I'd be happy to just put the historical section first, since there was a historical Jesus before there were Gospels, the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, etc. Those are all different interpretations, of the facts, but we should be able to agree on the above facts if nothing else. No evidence has been offered that we should keep the article the way it is Can we start by agreeing to the facts? Are the other important facts that I missed? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Since no one objected, I added a Due Weight tag. LittleJerry says that the dispute isn't about Due Weight, so he reverted the tag. What tag should be there? There is a dispute over the Gospels section. It's a dispute of some type. I'm not the only one who said we should put history first, and other editors have said we should shorten the section or merge it with the historical section. I'm happy to compromise and make one or more of those other changes rather than moving history first. This issue has come up repeatedly over the years,. Maybe it's a Reliable Sources dispute? I don't know, what do people think? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Here is a the tag I would like to put at the start of the Canonical Gospel Accounts section.

This section may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. Please help improve it by rewriting it in a balanced fashion that contextualizes different points of view. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

LittleJerry didn't object when I suggested adding the tag but reverted me once I added it. Now, per WP:BRD, LilttleJerry should explain why they reverted me. LittleJerry, do you disagree with the assertions I make above as facts? Why isn't this a Due Weight dispute? What sort of dispute do you think it is? The tag says that the dispute should be resolved before the tag is removed. What does that mean to you? If you could cite any WP policy or guideline,s that would be helpful. Thanks. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

LittleJerry, it's bad practice to revert my tag and then refuse to discuss it on the Talk page. If no one has any objections, I'll restore the Undue Weight tag. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Expanding our options

How can we edit this page to make it and the canonical Gospels section better match the way RSs describe Jesus? RSs describe Jesus as primarily a historical figure, and we deviate from that standard by describing him as primarily a Bible character. How can we fix it? The Gospels section also violates WP:STRUCTURE because mainstream scholarly opinion is excluded from the body of the section. For comparison, here's how Encyclopedia Britannica describes Jesus.

Put historical section first: That's my suggestion. It's simple, and it goes a long way to putting the proper emphasis on historical views. An editor on the NPOV noticeboard agreed, so I'm not the only one to favor this solution.

Reduce the Gospels section: This option came up a year ago from another editor, and Bardoligneo suggested it above.

Combine Gospels and historical section: An editor on the NPOV noticeboard suggested this one. The RSs do this. They don't have a separate Gospels section like we do. They refer to gospel accounts as part of the historical narrative. In so doing, they leave out the Gospel of John most of the other material considered legendary. Obviously this is the best answer because it best matches the RSs. But if there's a huge fight over moving the Gospels section, can realistically think about eliminating it?

Leave it as is: No one has offered any evidence that we should leave the section as it is. Certain editors are firm in their opinions but reticent when asked for evidence.

I framed this issue as whether to put the Gospels section second, but obviously there are more options. The dispute isn't resolved, and there's no consensus. I'd love to hear thoughts on how we can match the RSs better. Or if someone has evidence that we should leave the page as it is, I'd love to hear it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

You keep mentioning "evidence". We are not debating facts, we are debating how an article should be structured. Hence we have to use reasoned arguments and it has been explained to you why the current structure is preferred. LittleJerry (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do keep mentioning evidence, and I don't put it in scare quotes. It sounds like you're admitting you have no evidence to back up your claims. Please see WP:VERIFIABILITY, where we learn that WP's content "is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." Thanks for sharing your opinion, but do you have any evidence that our Gospels section reflects previously published information? Or any evidence that we are giving due weight to the Gospels section and the history section? If you disparage evidence, well, that says a lot. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, content not structure or layout. LittleJerry (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Where does WP policy instruct us to make that distinction? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

New image

Hello everyone. I think it's about time we replace the old image used to depict Jesus. It's a 2011 picture of a random stained glass in a Sydney Church with little to no historical significance. Besides, the picture is HDR-filled and very poorly lit. The main reason it was used is because it was one of the first images of Jesus available on Commons at the time, alas nobody has taken the time to replace it. Besides, He is portrayed as The Good Shepherd in the stained glass, which is a very specific depiction of Jesus that a lot of scholars would disagree with. I suggest to replace it with the iconic depiction of Jesus in "Christ And The Rich Young Ruler" that I recently made available in higher quality.

Hoffmann is one of the most iconic Jesus painters in history, and this painting was bought by Rockefeller and placed in the Riverside Church in New York City in the 20th century. It's also a fairly neutral portrayal of Jesus that doesn't directly depict him as a shepherd and one of the most recognizable portrayals of Jesus. HalloweenNight (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC).

This is all a matter of personal preference, of course. I prefer the Hoffman image over "stained glass" Jesus. The arguments "it worked so well for so long" and "it's a longstanding version" don't have any more merit than "almost all the other language wikis use it". Misplaced Pages is always a work in progress and, unlike print encyclopedias, can be improved on a frequent basis. Sundayclose (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, that is a nice image. Why does it look so different when it was in the summary box ? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• I think a picture showing some more symbolic attributes, pose, situation, or whatever would be more appropriate than a dry portrait, especially since it is based on nothing. Also, and older painting (renaissance or older) would probably also be more appropriate. Nothing about the current picture says "Jesus" to me. FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• The "new image" seems, at first glance, historically inaccurate as it depicts a Caucasian man. It can get a bit dodgy trying to chose an image of Jesus; many would argue that he was likely dark skinned, for one thing. Misplaced Pages shouldn't be arguing otherwise without a reliable source, and with this depiction, that is exactly what we are doing. I've reverted until consensus for change emerges here. petrarchan47คุก 22:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

No offense, Petrarchan47, but that's a weak argument. Most people would consider people native to the Middle East to be Caucasian, just not as light skinned as some other Caucasians. Both images depict a Caucasian. If the current image is darker skinned than the proposed image, it's certainly not by much. And there's more to ethnicity than skin tone. The proposed image looks as Middle Eastern as the current one. If we require a reliable source for how Jesus looked, where's the source for the image currently in the article? Sundayclose (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The stained glass image is already also depicting a seemingly-Caucasian person, so I don't see how this argument is relevant. Also, there are obviously no "pictures" of Jesus, so all we have are depictions of him made by various cultures that follow the Christian religion. The primary race adhering to Christianity has long been Caucasian, and some of the foremost Western art of the last millennia depicts Jesus in this way, so I see Caucasian depictions as completely fine. Crumpled Fire (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• AgreeTentatively agree to use the new image for reasons outlined above. Crumpled Fire (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: Unless we can find a better alternative regarding symbolic attributes, pose, etc., per FunkMonk. But I do think we need a refreshed image, and prefer a painting to a stained glass. Crumpled Fire (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why there is a need to refresh the Lede image, but I looked through the archives and indeed the current one has been in use a long time. Previously, it was a mosaic. I would prefer this mosaic for the same reason I prefer the stained glass over the portrait: since we don't know exactly how he appeared, these less realistic depictions are more encyclopedic. The image above looks as if he is from Ireland, while the stained glass and mosaic aren't as clear with regard to features and skin color, yet the essential message ("this is Jesus") is retained. I agree with CrumpledFire, however, that "some of the foremost Western art of the last millennia depicts Jesus in this way". If it could be shown that in fact most notable art depicts him with very light skin, and that this portrait represents the norm, I would support its use. petrarchan47คุก 04:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, once again, neither image is a "less realistic" or "historically inaccurate" image except in the eye of the beholder. The fact is, no one has a clue what Jesus looked like, although there are some assumptions based on his ethnicity. You have used these invalid descriptors of "realistic" and "accurate" several times with no basis. I think most people agree that Jesus was not the silky-blond-haired, blue-eyed Jesus that a few artists have imagined him, but beyond that we simply don't know what he looked like. Both images have a Middle Eastern look, although I think if you compared either of them to a typical Middle Eastern man both would fall short. It's all very subjective. You think the proposed image looks Irish. You say potato I say potahto. I don't think either image looks Irish. Others may think they both look Lebanese, or American, or Egyptian. If you have a source that the current image is "more realistic" or "historically accurate" please provide it. Otherwise this consensus discussion will be determined by the general weight of opinion about personal preference, not historical accuracy, realism, or how "long-standing" the current image is. Sundayclose (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just adding my two cents. I'm well aware that consensus will determine the image chosen. Likely it will need an RfC. There was probably some basis for having chosen non-portrait versions in the past. I don't think a portrait has ever been used before. It would be interesting to look through past discussions about this. Anyway, thanks for letting me say my piece. petrarchan47คุก 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I don't think an RfC will be necessary, although anyone has a right to seek one. I realize consensus is not the same as voting, but right now yours is the only opinion that is solidly against the new image (if I understand your point of view correctly; don't want to put words in your mouth). So far several opinions have been expressed either strongly or tentatively in favor of the proposed image. If we include presumed opinions from editors who have not contributed to this discussion, I know one of other editor who has reverted the change and one other editor who expressed agreement with the change on HalloweenNight's talk page. It's prudent to give this some time. But this is a high traffic article; my personal opinion is that an RfC likely is not necessary and could simply delay the inevitable. But as I said, let's give it some time. Sundayclose (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• I agree the stained glass has had long enough as the lede image, but I find the Hoffman especially yukky, and would certainly not want that. The oldest high quality survival of the conventional depiction is this one, which would work very nicely imo. Johnbod (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Now that we have four competing images, does anyone have a suggestion as how to organize a "straw poll", designating each image with a descriptor such as "Hoffman", "Pantocrator" etc., with all of the images made approximately equal in size, labeled, and arranged together? If any more images are suggested we may very well need the RfC just to narrow down the options. Sundayclose (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Make a gallery where one can sign underneath, perhaps. Like the one here, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Poll

• Stained-glass
• Hoffmann
• Mosaic
• Pantocrator
• Cefalù Pantocrator
• Divine Mercy
• Cefalù Pantocrator cropped
• Cefalù Pantocrator cropped B
• Cefalù Pantocrator retouched

• Here's an attempt at a poll, feel free to add more pictures. I vote for the cropped Cefalù Pantocrator. Recognisable as Jesus due to posture and symbols, as well as having an appropriate "Mediterranean" appearance.I vote for Christ Pantocrator, very much against Hoffman, for reasons outlined above. Mosaic is my second choice. FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• Cefalù Pantocrator retouched, since it is historical and doesn't pretend to be accurate.Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• Hoffmann. Sundayclose (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I am compelled to add a comment based on some of the other comments. Descriptions of Hoffmann by editors here range from Irish to Japanese and sub-Saharan African. This definitively illustrates my point that perception of ethnicity and even skin color is utterly subjective. This isn't surprising, but what is astounding is that editors espouse these opinions as facts as if anyone has a clue what Jesus looked like. Sundayclose (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

My problem is that it does not display any features that would identify it as Jesus, such as posture, symbolism, or situation. It also seems this image is mainly identifiable as Jesus to Americans, who know this exact image beforehand (probably unknown to the rest of the world, which is more used to Renaissance or Orthodox depictions). The ethnicity is really irrelevant if it isn't identifiable as Jesus to most people from other features; it just looks like a naturalistic portrait of a random dude with long hair to me. FunkMonk (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Sundayclose, I assume good faith, but rou claim that "perception of ethnicity is utterly subjective" and claim that "Descriptions of Hoffmann by editors here range from Irish to Japanese and sub-Saharan African. This definitively illustrates my point" is not correct. Nobody has said that the silly Hoffman picture looks anything other than Northern European, but I said it would be "equivalent of an image of Jesus as Japanese or (sub-Saharan) African". In other words, my comment about "Japanese or (sub-Saharan) African" undermines your point, it does not illustrate it at all and I'm really at a loss trying to understand how you could come to any other conclusion. The Hoffman picture is of a Northern European, and ethnicity is not "utterly subjective". Keeping with AGF, I'll take it you just read my comment badly, but in no way does it support your point. Jeppiz (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification. Sundayclose (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Pantocrator, Mosaic 2nd. Anything but Hoffman. Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• Hoffmann, Pantocrator 2nd. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• Hoffmann. HalloweenNight (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• In general, any mosaic or icon would be fine with me. I would not support the use of a portrait or any realism. petrarchan47คุก 23:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Strong support Cefalù Pantocrator

Weak support: Mosaic

Weak oppose: Pantocrator (agree with FunkMink on the asymmetry problem)

Weak oppose: Stained glass (agree it is time for a change)

Strong oppose: Hoffman (for reasons stated earlier) petrarchan47คุก 16:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Hoffman. Crumpled Fire (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Mosaic! Gareth E Kegg (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Cefalù Pantocrator, Mosaic 2nd, Pantocrator 3d. Thucyd (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Definitely Pantocrator, the only image that at least may bear some resemblance. Very strong oppose to Hoffman, which would come close to revisionism. Yes, everybody understands the image is not real, but there are limits. Hoffman is the equivalent of an image of Jesus as Japanese or (sub-Saharan) African, it's purely political and utterly misrepresentative. Jeppiz (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• MosaicCefalù Pantocrator cropped: Agree with Jeppiz about Hoffman being revisionistic; agree that Pantocrator has a symmetry problem; Cefalù Pantocrator is too small a picture compared to the whole image - essentially having a huge border. StAnselm (talk) 11:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC) Changed vote based on new image; Moasic is now my second choice. StAnselm (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment - There is a large version of Cefalù Pantocrator that possibly could be cropped to removed some of the border. Sundayclose (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment - The supposed "symmetry problem" of Pantocrator is greatly reduced at a larger size. But a crop of the Cefalù Pantocrator is certainly a possibility, and I would accept that. Done - there are of course any number of similar EO depictions that could be used if we go that way. Johnbod (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I like the cropped Cefalù Pantocrator, but perhaps someing could be done to the contrast and colour balance? Seems it is tinted due to bad lighting. FunkMonk (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I should have checked the Commons category; "Cefalù Pantocrator cropped B" added above - quality is ok I think, and much lighter, perhaps too much so, Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Cefalù Pantocrator cropped - we don't know what he looked like exactly, but we can make a guess, and a Western European man would not be my first choice. Jesus was a Jew prior to the Diaspora, so he was certainly dark haired and swarthy of skin - otherwise we'd have some comment in the gospels on his remarkable appearance. I'd prefer our primary representation to be somewhat abstracted to show that it is not representational imagery. People might otherwise think we had some sort of Time-o-scope. I detest the idealised images, such as Hoffman. Pure propaganda and misleading. --Pete (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Cefalù Pantocrator retouched, but anything but Hoffman. I think all of the proposed images except the stained glass and the Hoffman are a step forward. These images convey a large amount of information through symbolism. The stained glass says Sunday school. The Hoffman says nothing, is not recognizable, and attempts to be realistic which is misleading. --JFH (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Cefalù Pantocrator cropped - Cefalù and Hoffman are the most artistically appealing of the listed images. I prefer infobox images to focus on the face, which is why I didn't choose the stained glass one. The Mosaic and Pantocrator images are unappealing. Jesus looks somewhat unfriendly and disturbing in those pictures. I don't like the Divine Mercy one due to its lack of colors. The Hoffman one is looks good, but I agree with the above contributors that it's misleading. In the Cefalù pictures, Jesus looks less White and more Middle Eastern. While I think the Hoffman picture is the most appealing image, I it's better to go with Cefalù.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: "Cefalù Pantocrator cropped B" added above after all these comments. Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - We seem to have narrowed things down to some version of Pantocrator (including various versions of Cefalù Pantocrator). Any ideas about how to select a specific one? Sundayclose (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The B version seems to be less grainy, so that one might be best, but I think it may be a bit too light. Perhaps fiddle with contrast? It also seems to have been taken at a lower angle, so might need some perspective correction... Compare with this higher res close up: FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's my Photoshop attempt, based on , higher res, less intrusive crop, fixed perspective, intermediate contrast and lighting. FunkMonk (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

That's nice. Support that. Johnbod (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Excellent! StAnselm (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Consensus? - I suggest placing "Cefalù Pantocrator retouched" in the infobox, and if no one objects in the next few days we have reached consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. There was clearly a consensus to replace the current image with something, and a consensus against Hoffman; it has been pleasing to see a solution emerge with the latest image. StAnselm (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I previewed what the Cefalù and Mosaic look like and the latter seems like it would be a better size. I wouldn;t make a big deal though. LittleJerry (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The size can be adjusted (add | image_size = or some such). Now it is just default, small size. FunkMonk (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I recommend a 300px size. LittleJerry (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'd been thinking of the Cefalu Pantocrator myself, so I would support either "cropped B" or the retouched version. Mangoe (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• I decided to be bold and put Cefalù Pantocrator retouched in the infobox. Feel free to resize or rewrite caption. Sundayclose (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Made it 300px per LittleJerry, it is horizontal, so not as "intrusive" as the old, vertical image. Plenty of white space to fill. Oh, and I just noticed that the full Hoffman image is already used in the article, so another reason not to use it in the infobox. FunkMonk (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• I didn't know this dialogue was going on until I saw the old stained-glass picture come down, but I'm very partial to the old one. I don't really understand why the passage of time necessitates changing the image, especially since we obviously haven't learned anything new about Jesus's appearance and these are all traditional depictions anyways. If we were going to use the Christ Pantocrator we should use the historically significant one from St. Catherine's, in my opinion. But not sure why the old one needed changing. Aperiarcam (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

To me, it seemed inappropriate because it is not a very well known image, and it is of little historical significance. Also, all the black lines across the image makes it a bit unfit for the infobox. FunkMonk (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a vote

In the poll above, it seems as if several users fail to understand how Misplaced Pages works. We do not WP:VOTE, we discuss. Just saying one word (the preferred option) and signing counts for absolutely nothing, and we won't add a new picture just because it gathers the most "votes". Jeppiz (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

You are quite correct that consensus is not a vote. Thanks for raising a good point for those who may not be familiar with straw polls on Misplaced Pages, but with all due respect, in a consensus discussion about personal preference for an image, one word designating preference is not inappropriate. If we were discussing a very nuanced issue, such as interpretation of a scriptural passage, a more detailed explanation of opinion might be necessary. But which image of the five best fits one editor's opinion of how Jesus should be represented can be expressed in one word. Someone can say Pantocrator, or Mosaic, or whichever is the choice without having to elaborate that "Choice X captures the essence of my understanding of the perception of Jesus as portrayed historically in art". You are correct that we will not count the votes. But we will consider everyone's personal preference whether expressed as one word or as a paragraph. WP:NOTVOTE states "Votes without rationales sometimes are ignored" (italics added), not "always ignored". It's not always the case that "one word and signing counts for absolutely nothing". And if there's any doubt about consensus and the usual WP:DR methods are used to decide, I have no doubt that one-word preferences will be considered. A straw poll is only one step used in eventually reaching consensus. If the weight of opinion is overwhelming for one point of view (so far not the case in this straw poll), whether expressed as one word each or one paragraph each, consensus is more easily achieved. If consensus is less clear-cut, then editors who have stated one-word preferences have a choice to expand their comments. But at this point in the process no opinion is being ignored. Sundayclose (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

You're right, of course, and I didn't intend to say opinions would be ignored. Just wanted to point out that it is still a discussion, and a well-reasoned argument for whichever option carries more weight than just mentioning an option without any argument. Jeppiz (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Jesus was the only semiracial person

According to the Bible Jesus was the only semiracial person, for he was at the same time God and genetically completely human, but only the 50% autosomal DNA and his (100%) mRNA were of human race. The other 50% autosomal DNA wasn't derived from any race but God himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.172.102 (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

"According to the Bible" If there are any respected scholars that have studied this and concluded he was indeed semiracial, come back with that. HalloweenNight (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

New References

I think the article forgets important new trends in the field of New Testament Studies

• Richard Bauckham's book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses has to be included. Cf. the discussion above ("POV Tag on Gospels section").
• Richard Burridge's book What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography needs also to be included in the article. It played a key part both in establishing that the Gospels were read as biographies in the first centuries after Christ and that they belonged to a recognized literary genre of biographies rather than being unprecedented writings which reflected the faith and life of the post-Easter church.
• The importance for contemporary scholars of the Pre-Pauline creed (1 Corinthians 15, 3-7) must be emphasized. Thucyd (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, some of those are indeed important new trends, but not all. The fact that it is a new trend does not make it important. Jeppiz (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Which should go first: the historical account or the canonical Gospel account?

Which section should go first, the historical account of who Jesus was or the canonical Gospel account? RSs do not include the Gospel account, but other WP pages about Bible characters start with Bible summaries. The topic is under discussion above. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Gospel account would come first logically, as the primary source of information - any historical conclusions come from that, whether directly or indirectly. The fact that other tertiary sources don't have a separate section for gospel accounts means we can't really compare them on this particular issue - they might suggest blending the two sections together, but that's a separate discussion. In any case, while we follow reliable sources on content, we don't have to do so on layout or style. StAnselm (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Evidence that WP policy supports you? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Historical account first, as we can then establish the historicity of the man without needing to rely on necessarily partisan Christian accounts. Otherwise, it's like using canon sources to discuss the life and deaths of Sherlock Holmes before turning to historical accounts and dropping the punchline. --Pete (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• A completely nonsensical comparison. There are no historical reconstructions of Sherlock Holmes. LittleJerry (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• I think you may have missed the punchline there. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• Gospel accounts first. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia for the general populace which knows Jesus primarily through the gospels. It makes sense to present them first before introducing them to historical reconstructions. LittleJerry (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Evidence? Professional editors of encyclopedias disagree with you, and you're an amateur. Do you have any evidence that we should credit your opinion? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop rudely badgering comments with the same talking points. LittleJerry (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

You know, I'm just an amateur myself, so I didn't mean that as a jab. We're all amateurs, which is why WP policy expects us to back our opinions up with evidence. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

LittleJerry, when you asked me for evidence, I offered it readily. You won't return the courtesy? If we don't use evidence to resolve this dispute, then how do you expect us to resolve it? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

LittleJerry, maybe you missed this question. If we don't use evidence to resolve this dispute, how do you expect us to resolve it? If we don't use policies, guidelines, and RSs to reach consensus, how do propose that we reach consensus? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Gospel accounts first, per both of the same view above. The historical section has been written to follow the gospel account (in sequence I mean) and assumes knowledge of it. Without that coming first it would need very major rewriting. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

If there's a policy that says, "It's OK to give undue weight to a viewpoint provided it would take very major rewriting to fix," please point us to it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

But it isn't undue weight. All historical accounts start from the gospel accounts, in the absence of any other detailed evidence. Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that it's not undue weight? The RSs provide evidence that it is. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Historical account: Never mind my personal opinion. Let's stick to the evidence. RSs treat Jesus as primarily a historical figure, so we are obligated to humbly do the same, per WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:DUE. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Nope. None of these apply. It would be undue weight if we gave too much room to scholars who have an extremely traditionalist or liberal view when reconstructing the historical Jesus. It is not a violation of WP:DUE to recount the narratives of the very sources that scholars look to find information on Jesus. Same with WP:NPOV. LittleJerry (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a violation of WP:DUE to give the Gospel accounts more prominence than they get in published sources. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

They are very prominent in published sources. Your argument is that we shouldn't give then their own section and first because critical scholars don't recite the entire accounts before getting into their analyses? That's just silly. LittleJerry (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Gospel accounts - Difficult question, but I think that the standard WP approach to exposition is to convey the most commonly known info on a topic and then move on to more specialized treatment. The historical accounts simply wouldn't exist were it not for the endurance of the Gospel accounts, so I think they should follow. SteveStrummer (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

If this is the standard WP approach, then that would be evidence in your favor. Can you show that it's actually the WP approach? I think the WP approach is to follow the lead of RSs Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• start with gospel accounts There really isn't any historical "account" per se; there is historical analysis based upon setting the gospel accounts in a historical context, but that analysis is predicated on the gospels to the point where it boils down to picking which parts of the gospel accounts to disbelieve— well, and just guessing. What Christianity and in particular the gospels say about Jesus is therefore the necessary predicate to talking historically about Jesus. Besides, not everyone comes to the article to see what a bunch of non-believers (or the marginally orthodox) hypothesize about Jesus in reaction to orthodox Christian teaching. It just makes sense to state Christianity's claims before picking them apart. Mangoe (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure it makes sense to you, but do you have any evidence to back that up? Editing Misplaced Pages is about published sources, not the experiences and beliefs of the editors. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Gospel accounts first per above views, particularly StAnselm and Mangoe. It makes much more sense to me to start off with what Christianity says about Jesus, then compare that with what historians and other scholars say in reaction. Starting off with the scholarly reaction and then coming back to the Gospels seems to me a bit backwards. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You wouldn't happen to have any evidence that you'd like to share, would you? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Gospel accounts first What "historical account"? As above, extant textual tradition would always come first logically, as the primary source of information - any historical conclusions and opinions come from that. This is what we do in other subject areas. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The statement in the initial spiel that "RSs do not include the Gospel account" does not reflect the content at links to EB etc in a higher section. Their starts are similar to ours, but with much less detail. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, no one has offered any evidence in support of this position. Would you like to be the first? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

No thanks - editing in 2 sections on this age is more than enough. You provided the link yourself. And please stop heckling every comment here which disagrees with your position (ie almost all of them). Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Jonathan Tweet, this is getting very tiresome. With this issue, at least, you obviously have not been able to gain consensus for your desired change, and this is becoming tedious and tendentious. StAnselm (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Gospel accounts first as most are familiar with the Jesus of canon. Partisan or not, the canonical account is the primary account.Kerdooskis (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Would you happen to have a reference to policy or to an RS that backs up your opinion? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You keep repeating "evidence". What evidence do you want? Here's a fact, the gospels are the primary sources for historians on Jesus. Hence it is nor undue weight to devote a section to them. We have explained this point over and over again but you still keep ignoring and repeating "evidence". What evidence do you have that the gospels are undue weight? LittleJerry (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

What sort of evidence do you think we should be looking at as WP editors? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

LittleJerry, what sort of evidence do you think we should look at, if not RSs, policies, and guidelines? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I should point out that Jonathan Tweet's RS doesn't help his case. E P Sander's Britannica article talks quite a bit about the Gospel narratives and how they portray Jesus. He does interject with scholarly commentary but that's just a difference in layout. Jon has no evidence that the Gosepl section is undue weight. LittleJerry (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly - it's the same with the other example he links to above. Johnbod (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I didn't read the other encyclopedia entries, so maybe they work against me. I don't care, and I'm still glad I linked them. Why? Because this isn't about my opinion. It's about published sources. Please make our page more like those pages. And if I don't like the result, it isn't about me, is it? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I think our point is that the page is already rather like those pages, if you can be bothered to read them. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Really? OK. Which encyclopedia article is most like our page? Which one treats Jesus as primarily a Bible character and only secondarily a historical figure? Which summarizes the canonical Gospels before explaining who Jesus was, historically speaking? I'd like to read that one. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you missed my question. Johnbod and LittleJerry, which encyclopedia article would you like me to read to show me that we are treating the Gospels correctly? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No, but you've obviously failed to convince anyone much, & I don't like to hang around here. Try any of the ones you cited as "evidence" without reading. They don't have the detailed account of the gospels, but they start with them, and look very little like our "historical" section. No further correspondence please. Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Anyone mind if I take the RfC down? It does't look like we are getting much new action on it. We got some new opinions but no new evidence. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Clearly the consensus is against you. Time to move on. LittleJerry (talk) 01:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Opinions point mostly in one direction. Evidence points in the other direction. How should we weigh the relative value of opinions versus evidence? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

None of your "evidence" actually support your claim. E P Sanders extensively discusses the gospel portrayals, including John's. Your claims are just as much of an opinion as anyone else's. LittleJerry (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, let's look at the RSs like you're doing here. Let's change our page so it looks like Sanders' article. You will be happy because "Sanders extensively discusses the gospel portrayals." I will be happy because our article will look like those of RSs. Do we have a deal? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Start another discussion and get consensus. LittleJerry (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

While your at it, find a policy that states that Wiki has to follow the format and layout of other encyclopedia articles. LittleJerry (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:DUE says to give viewpoints comparable weight to what they get in RSs. WP:STRUCTURE says don't segregate different viewpoints into different sections. If you like Sanders' article, let's just match it and we'll all be happy. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC).

Perfect image

This is the image we should be using for Jesus.

The Divine Mercy image has been approved by the Pope, has over 100 million followers, and garnered its own holiday Divine Mercy Sunday. Jesus told the person who envisioned Him in this painting "I desire that this image be venerated, first in your chapel, and then throughout the world. I promise that the soul that will venerate this image will not perish."

It even includes a Halo, a red ray representing the Blood of Christ and a pale ray representing Holy water. It's the perfect representation. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HalloweenNight (talk • contribs) 17:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

No offense HalloweenNight, but please wait for the first image discussion you started to reach consensus before proposing different images. That's just not good practice and it's very confusing. I really would prefer that you remove this section until the other discussion is finished. If you do remove it, you can remove my comment as well. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but that discussion kinda went down the gutter. Misplaced Pages doesn't work through a voting system, and somebody started that in there with good intent. The problem is, as somebody did point out, it's not a good way to reach a consensus, and most people just gave a one-word answer, which isn't helpful either. Besides, this picture is the one Jesus asks us to use, so why would't we use this one. HalloweenNight (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Much like the rest of us, Jesus has a number of favourite images of himself, several of which have received strong church backing over the centuries - see Acheiropoieta. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but this is pretty much the only one that's already in the public domain. It's only been in it for a couple of years too. HalloweenNight (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

HalloweenNight, all of the images are freely available for Misplaced Pages to use. All except one is in the public domain, and that one has a free license. Sundayclose (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Please add the image to the previous discussion. No reason to add a new section, it was still ongoing, and "mosaic" seems to have the strongest backing. As for only one that is PD, see the many older examples at Acheiropoieta. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

No image currently has the most backing, not even with the (inappropriate) vote count. I think an RfC may be needed. Sundayclose (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

If you count second choices, it seems to be Mosaic. FunkMonk (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know, we aren't counting votes. There is no consensus at this point. Sundayclose (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

HalloweenNight, I don't think you understand the consensus process. It didn't "go down the gutter". You're too impatient. Starting multiple discussions on the same topic interferes with the consensus process. Consensus takes time. Read WP:CON. If the discussion at first doesn't produce a consensus follow the procedures at WP:DR and there's a very good likelihood that eventually one image will emerge. If you want anyone to take you seriously here, let me also suggest that you avoid making such bold assertions that Jesus wants us to use a particular image, or that an image has been approved by the Pope. Decisions about Misplaced Pages are not determined by what one or two editors think Jesus is telling them or what the Pope says. It also hurts your credibility to declare that an image "won" when there is no consensus, or adding a different image with no discussion. I'll ask you again to remove this section to make the consensus process more manageable. But you have to make that decision. Sundayclose (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Aww, everybody here hates me :( But at least thank you for being so clear and concise with me. HalloweenNight (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

HalloweenNight, editors are resistant to changes on this page, and they don't like being told what to do, so the first impression you made put them on the defensive. If you want to improve the page, please hang out here and join in. Maybe we can revisit the image issue after you've shown that you edit in good faith and other editors have come to appreciate your contributions. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

"Life of Christ"

The usage and topic of Life of Christ is under discussion, see talk:Life of Christ -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

miracles in the historical section

StAnselm reverted my addition to the page, and reverted MarlinespikeMate when they restored it (diff). Once again, an editor removes historical information cited to a reliable source and provides no better information in its place. It's almost as if certain editors have a problem with the historical perspective on Jesus. What should we say about Jesus' miracles in the historical section? We should say what the RSs say, naturally. StAnselm, how about you find a historical RS you like and cite what it says about Jesus' miracles? If you won't do that work, please don't stop me from doing it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a talk page discussion. There were multiple problems with the edit - perhaps the most important was that its presence in the "historical views" section means that it is classified as part of the "limited consensus on the basics of Jesus' life". But it is not clear that all/most/any other scholars would accept the exorcisms as historical. StAnselm (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

What would you like the miracles section to say? How about you take a crack at writing it? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point: the "historicity of events" section focuses on those (few) areas where there is scholarly consensus. Is there any reason to think that the miracles constitute one of those areas? StAnselm (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I bet you're tired of hearing this question, but what's your evidence that we should diverge from the RSs in this way? My evidence to include the material is that it appears in great RSs. What's your contrary evidence? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

This should be treated according to what the sources say about the reports of miracles. I doubt we can have a clear consensus on either accepting them as true or rejecting them. Dimadick (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It should go without saying that we should treat the topic the way our sources do. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Miracles don't belong in the historical section at all, not reliable, no more than any other fabulous claim in history can be treated as historically reliable. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that we should diverge from how the RSs treat the topic? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest removing the historical section material on the resurrection. This is quite biased and I don't think it is derived from any reliable source. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

As long as we are fairly representing what the RSs say, it's not biased. What RSs would you like us to refer to in deciding how to treat the resurrection? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

breakthrough? merge history and gospels

LittleJerry likes how Sanders treats the Gospels in his Britannica article. I just want us to match RSs better. It looks like we can both be happy if we just match Sanders' format for how to treat this controversial topic. It's hard to agree on how to handle the Gospels section because it's a compromise between editor preferences on one hand and Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines on the other. Since we're not following WP guidelines all the way, there's no clear idea of how far to follow them and how far to ignore them. We can solve the deadlock by agreeing to follow guidelines all the way. Let's just match how Sanders and Britannica approach the topic.

Let's leave aside the POV issue and the Due Weight issue. The structure of our page is a violation of WP:STRUCTURE. I was OK with just putting the history section first, which would have been easy. But it looks like the only stable solution is to stop trying to forge a compromise between policies and preferences and just match our best example of a great Jesus article. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said I "liked" Sander's article. LittleJerry (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

And I oppose the motion. Wiki:STRUCTURE states that "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents". This does not apply to the gospel accounts, as they are not merely a "POV" but are primary sources which of themselves are subject to scholarly discussion regardless of their historicity. The policy is clearly referring to the viewpoints of experts and scholars. Furthermore, this article is not the Historical Jesus article. It is about the figure of Jesus in general who is treated as a person not just of history but of biblical literature and theology. All aspects discussed in scholarly circles. LittleJerry (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• FA-Class Christianity articles
• Top-importance Christianity articles
• FA-Class Christian theology articles
• Top-importance Christian theology articles
• Christian theology work group articles
• FA-Class Saints articles
• Top-importance Saints articles
• WikiProject Saints articles
• FA-Class Catholicism articles
• Top-importance Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Catholicism articles
• FA-Class Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• Unknown-importance Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• FA-Class Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• Top-importance Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• FA-Class Jewish Christianity articles
• Top-importance Jewish Christianity articles
• WikiProject Jewish Christianity articles
• FA-Class Anglicanism articles
• Top-importance Anglicanism articles
• WikiProject Anglicanism articles
• FA-Class Latter Day Saint movement articles
• Top-importance Latter Day Saint movement articles
• WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• FA-Class Islam-related articles
• Mid-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• FA-Class biography articles
• FA-Class biography (core) articles
• Core biography articles
• Top-importance biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• FA-Class Bahá'í Faith articles
• High-importance Bahá'í Faith articles
• WikiProject Bahá'í Faith articles
• FA-Class Ancient Near East articles
• Mid-importance Ancient Near East articles
• Ancient Near East articles by assessment
• FA-Class Bible articles
• Top-importance Bible articles
• WikiProject Bible articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press