Talk:Historical Jesus/Archive 11

WP:UNDUE
As discussed above, it would appear that the current article violates WP:UNDUE. Given that there is almost complete academic consensus that Jesus existed, the current section on Criticism distorts the article by making it seem as if this is something disputed in academia. It would seem that the section has been cherry-picked to gather every person who disputes the academic consensus, even when these persons have no academic competence in the field and are not WP:RS. An article that is WP:NPOV should give the reader a correct picture. Contrary to what some users think, NPOV does not mean that every viewpoint should be given equal coverage. There is no large creationist section at evolution, no large revisionist section at Holocaust, no larger birther section at Barack Obama etc. On the topic of the historical Jesus, as in most other field, there is a lot of debate on many issues but not on whether the person existed. Currently, the article provides very little space for the actual topics where there is academic disagreement, but provides a heavily disproportionate space for the a fringe view. I suggest per WP:UNDUE that the section criticism be shortened to 2-3 sentences that summarize the view of the couple of academics in the field who actually disagree.Jeppiz (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the criticism section is overly long, though it would be nice to restructure it as Prasangika has suggested, because now it is just an unordered collection of criticisms. The comparison with evolution or the holocaust isn't apt, because unlike those subjects HJ research isn't just another respected academic field, in this case a subfield of history, it is an insulated field with a dubious academic reputation. I suspect you disagree with that statement, and we would certainly need to discuss it thoroughly, but *that* is the heart of the disagreement. It is precisely for this reason that we need to involve outside scholars, because it is the field as a whole that is being criticised.
 * I would like to suggest taking small steps in our discussion. I'd like to begin by asking whether we agree we should have a section criticising the field as a whole at all. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, the criticism section doesn't give the impression Jesus didn't exist, does it? We dealt with that concern on the Historicity of Jesus article by adding a clarifying sentence. I didn't think it was necessary myself, but it didn't hurt either, so I was happy to add it. It should be even less necessary here, since the article isn't about historicity, but if necessary we can also add it here. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Martijn Meijering, thanks for your input. I agree on discussing but could we please make a clear distinction between personal opinions and facts, and then leave personal opinions out of the subject? You're entirely free to think that this is a "field with a dubious academic reputation" but that is your opinion. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not very relevant (nor is mine).
 * If we look at Wikipedia's policies, they are very clear on this matter "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." This is exactly the case here. Every academic in the field, even those rare academics who disagree with the consensus, at least agree that this is the view of an extremely small minority. We still give that little fringe an entire article (Christ myth theory), but this article should be about the historical Jesus, and as long as Wikipedia states that the viewpoint of a vastly limited minority doesn't belong in Wikipedia, it seems to be a quite clear case. Perhaps it would be good for the discussion if you could explain what your claim is, whether it's (A) that this is not vastly limited minority, or (B) that Wikipedia's rules about WP:UNDUE should not apply here, and if so why.Jeppiz (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks as if you're looking at this through the lens of the historicity debate, but that's not how I'm looking at it. Also, if you look at the criticism section, you'll see that very little of it comes from CMT proponents. This incidentally is where a restructuring could come in handy. But the point of the section is criticism of the field of HJ research, not of the consensus on historicity. And as you can see there has been quite a bit of it, coming from respected HJ scholars, wider biblical scholarship, several historians and yes a handful of CMT proponents. It's not your or my opinion, it's the opinion of several respected scholars coming from relevant fields. As a thought experiment, consider whether you'd approve of removing a section with criticism of the CMT from the CMT article on the grounds that those involved in the criticism aren't CMT researchers, from an article on homeopathy on the grounds that the critics aren't experts in homeopathy, from a cold fusion article on the grounds that the critics aren't experts in cold fusion rather than hot fusion etc. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course not, and that's exactly the point of WP:UNDUE. No matter which article you read on a subject, you should know what the majority view if. In homeopathy, we not only need but must point out that there is a wide medical consensus against it, while in normal medicine article we do not need, and should not, even bring in homeopathy. Same thing here. In the CMT article, we must make clear that there's a wide academic consensus against it, while in other articles we need not, and should not, even bring in CMT. Again, that is precisely the whole idea of WP:UNDUE.
 * PS Could I please ask you to read your posts carefully and then post them once instead of posting 7-8 times to write the same post? It makes it harder to follow the discussion and it creates lots of edit conflicts.Jeppiz (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You keep bringing up the CMT, but it really has nothing to do with it. This is about the academic credibility of HJ research, not about the CMT. None of the criticism mentions the CMT or even argues against historicity. Your contention appears to be that no, the CMT isn't a respected academic theory, and therefore that needs to be made clear in the article. I'm not disputing the logic, but by that same logic, if it were the case that HJ research were considered a dubious academic field, wouldn't criticism of it have to be included as well? And if so, how do we tell which situation we are in? What specifically are the verifiable grounds we use for concluding the CMT isn't a respectable academic theory and what similar grounds do we have for concluding HJ research is a respectable field? These aren't intended as rhetorical questions by the way, I'm really interested in your answers. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again, please please be more careful when editing. You had inserted your comment in the middle of mine. And if I may remind you, you brough in CMT only half an hour ago, so it's weird when you tell me You keep bringing up the CMT, but it really has nothing to do with it.. I don't like to go personal, but it's things like these that makes discussions more challenging than they should be. You have many good and relevant point and I'm sure you're here for the right reasons, but please be more careful.
 * I inserted my comment directly after the text I was commenting on. I believe this is standard procedure. I generally try to proofread my comments, but sometimes things slip through and when that happens I try to correct them. Generally it doesn't take as many steps as it did today. As for the CMT, or at least discussion of historicity, check out your second sentence in this section, which brings it up directly! Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As for academic credibility, that part is quite easy. Anyone who is an expert in the field and explicitly says that it has low credibility could be notable. That certainly doesn't apply to people from other fields or to people whose comments someone interprets as implying low credibility. But any established historian of antiquity who says that this research field has low academic credibility could be interesting. The section should then be carefully written both to make it clear just what it is that they criticise and to avoid slander by people who may not know enough.Jeppiz (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * But by that same logic you could shield cold fusion research from criticism from other physicists on the grounds that no scholars inside the field of cold fusion have offered such criticism. And just to be clear, note that I'm using cold fusion as an exaggerated example here to make my point clearer. I'm not suggesting HJ research is as disreputable as cold fusion, but that's a difference of degree, not one of principle. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Could we get back to the matter at hand? My proposition consists of three steps
 * Keeping the section short to avoid WP:UNDUE but to provide space for criticism from experts in the field.
 * Remove anyone who is not an expert in the field.
 * Make sure the section makes clear exactly what point of criticism the sources make.Jeppiz (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * With respect, the matter at hand is whether criticism of the field from outside the field should be included. You appeared close to agreeing it should be, provided it is still some relevant field, but didn't quite say that. Now you appear to be moving back to your original position. Another issue is whether a modern historian is a reliable source on the soundness of historical methodology in general and whether if he has published a book on the historical Jesus his views on the soundness of historical methodology in HJ research are notable.
 * I can't escape the feeling your dislike of the CMT is influencing your desire to exclude Ellegard and your sympathy for HJ research is influencing you towards trying to disqualify Akenson. Another thought experiment: would you be equally opposed to citing Akenson in support of the fact that historians affirm historicity? And is WP:DUE really the issue? By how much would your proposed rewrite reduce the length of the section? Is that really such an important thing? Are we really spending this much effort on discussing this because we feel the criticism section is overly long, or are there other, as yet unstated and possibly valid concerns in play?
 * As for your specific points, I disagree with removing anyone who is not an expert in the field, partially depending on how widely you interpret field. Excluding criticism of an academic field from other fields seems illogical to me. Your other two points seem fine to me. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your assumptions about me are wrong. I'm opposed to Ellegard and Akenson on academic grounds alone. They are not experts on the field and they have been cherry-picked for their views, not for their relevance.Jeppiz (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is not about arguing existence, its about reconstructing history based on the facts (such as they are). It seems clear that the Criticism section is listing criticisms of the methodologies employed, rather than supporting the CMT. This is important to achieve balance. If any particular paragraph appears to be unduly supporting the CMT, please point out that paragraph and we will correct that paragraph. Wdford (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As I've stated, neither Akenson nor Ellegard belongs in this article. Whatever their academic merits in their own fields, they have no formal competence in this field and their views are not relevant regardless of what those views are. This has nothing to do with CMT or with any individual vies. This is an article about a research field, the historical Jesus. I would oppose including any non-expert source as well. We can easily find hundreds of theologians who would argue that the historical Jesus is the same as the "Gospel Jesus". But we do not include those, precisely because they are not views from experts in the field. In short, we should focus on what academics of the field says regardless of their opinions, not pick opinions regardless of who promotes them.Jeppiz (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not when it comes to criticism of the field itself. Shielding a field from criticism coming from outside that field is non-neutral. And as for Akenson, a real historian (modern or otherwise) who has published on the HJ is no less an expert than a biblical scholar who is not a historian and who nevertheless writes on a historical subject. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Re-reading the linked document with discussion between Ellegard and some of his critics, I was struck by three things: firstly, there are some highly laudatory words about his work, secondly there is much less discussion of methodology than I thought I had remembered, and thirdly there is a reaction by two historians (Matti Klinge and Rolf Torstendahl)! It looks as if we can add two more names to our handful of historians who have opined on the matter. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you serious or are you trolling? I hate go to against WP:CIVIL but it has become impossible to keep good faith in Martijn Meijering. I point out we should avoid cherry picking people with the "right" opinions regardless who they are. Meijering's reply is to ignore the argument and to propose adding even more non-experts cherry-picked just because they share Meijering's POV. What is more, after complaining loudly that I edited the contested section before we had a consensus, even threatening me with "escalations", Meijering gladly edits it himself, several times, , . Threatening other users with sanctions for editing an article without consensus while repeatedly editing it oneself is a flagrant violation of WP:OWN. I've tried to accommodate Meijering and discuss, hoping to reach a consensus, and trying to explain why we should not WP:CHERRY-pick sources or include the opinions of non-experts (WP:RS). As Meijering now has proven he thinks its his prerogative to edit the article as he sees fit, I'm afraid further discussion is pointless. I now remove, as per WP:RS, WP:CHERRY and WP:UNDUE the claims by non-experts who have been selected just because they say the WP:TRUTH. Further violations of these policies will be taken to ANI. Jeppiz (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Do us all a favour and read WP:BRD. Your edit was reverted (by me), and you're not allowed to add it back until we've discussed it and achieved a new consensus. Until that time the old consensus prevails. I made several bold edits to describe Ellegard's view, and now you or anyone else are free to revert them if you object, and then I can't add them back until we achieve a consensus on them. My edit doesn't give you the right to reinsert your contested edit, only to revert mine. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, just voicing a POV re: the criticism section. This article is on the historical study of Jesus. An aspect of the historical study is the criticism of the historical study, which there is extensive evidence. Its not saying "Jesus doesn't exist" or something along those lines, but is just critical of the methodology itself. One solution that might feel MORE comfortable for people, would be to include the criticism throughout the article itself, as in "so and so says this. Another expert, critical of some of the research of Jesus, mentions this...". Prasangika37 (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I wouldn't include it throughout the article, mythicism is currently too irrelevant for that. Readers of the article should just be aware that the case for non-historicity can be made. It should be clearly stated that it's very fringe and only include historians of the time period as sources. 78.53.84.182 (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The current wording (imho) misrepresents serious mythicists. Mythicists merely "believe" in a non-historic Jesus. [At least?] some "concede the possibility" of a historic Jesus. Makes it sound as though all mythicists are just stubborn laymen with no valid arguments whatsoever. "Others believe in a spiritual Christ" may even sound like they "believe" in the religious sense. 78.53.84.182 (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Richard Carrier's position (Edit: Bias and misrepresentation)
I made two edits under Jesus as myth updating Richard Carrier position on the topic. The former sentence was not sourced and I never heard or read him arguing that "Jesus was neither a human nor a deity". Even if he did, in his most recent book he states that "any previous claims or arguments of mine now contradicted should be regarded as revised or abandoned". (Carrier, R. (2014). On the Historicity of Jesus Sheffield Phoenix Press, isbn=978-1-909697-49-2, page=17)


 * I see the whole criticism section was removed in favor of the "very little scholarly support" argument. Great, that surely will add value to the article. Someone seems to have restored it to some extend, but now mythicists merely "believe" in a non-historic Jesus, really? If you think the case is too fringe, just remove the whole section altogether. But that borders on misrepresentation.


 * And why exactly are Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens kept as sources, while a PhD historian of the time period who just released a peer reviewed book on the topic didn't make the cut? Especially since the book makes the argument for both cases and criticizes methodology and such, instead of just arguing for the myth theory? 78.53.84.182 (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh? The criticism section is still there, it hasn't been removed at all. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I meant the myth section. 78.53.84.182 (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Zooming out a bit
I'd like to make some remarks relating to the discussion we've been having about the criticism section that don't fit into any of the existing sections, so I thought I'd start a new one.

From the intensity of the debate, people may have got the impression I'm hell-bent on criticising HJ scholarship. That would be understandable, but it's not in fact true, so I thought I'd try to clear that up. The thing is, I do feel that our article in its current form is too deferential to a slightly insular and unusual field of research, which likes to present itself as just another branch of history. I'm not suggesting that we need to go the other way, and turn the article into a highly critical one that says HJ research as a whole is a useless pseudo-science. All I'm trying to say is that it is currently a bit too deferential. Hence the criticism section.

And as it turns out, there isn't in fact a consensus among historians that HJ research is flawed methodologically. If there was, we'd see lots of ancient historians criticising the field, and that we emphatically do not see. All we have is a handful of scholars, none of them your typical professor of ancient history, making some criticism. If that is the state of the criticism, I don't see how we mislead our readers by including it. If we have only or mainly unusual critics (I hate the word fringe applied to an eminent scholar like Ellegard, especially given the scholarly reception of his work, and it certainly doesn't apply to Akenson, who appears to be a very eminent historian indeed, with several honorary doctorates and visiting professorships), then that in itself tells us (and the reader) something. Exactly what is a different question, because the deafening silence from ancient historians is baffling, and needs some attention and explanation, to the degree we can find it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Once again, the scholarly reception of Ellegård's work was a complete trashing. While dressed in polite academic words, the very people you refer to (in Scandia) made it abundantly clear that they thought Ellegård was way out of his depth. For the record, I don't think you're hell-bent on any particular view, I don't think you're here for the wrong reasons (quite the contrary) and I'm sure you're a good contributor. However, there may be just a little hint of WP:OWN. Long ago you found Ellegård and Akenson and added them, and now you seem unable to accept that they should not be here. Just like you say, it's not about the criticism itself. Nothing in the criticism would change if we removed Ellegård and Akenson. So if you're hell-bent on anything, it's rather keeping your contributions. It's humanly understandable, but not very helpful. What would the reader miss if Ellegård and Akenson wasn't here (except reading about Ellegård and Akenson, but I take it you're not related to any of them and that that's not your motive. And "fringe" applies to anyone taking a position not shared by anyone else. Galileo was fringe at first. There's nothing negative as such in fringe. But Wikipedia is not the place for it, as the rules make perfectly clear.Jeppiz (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * None of them accepted his theories, but they did not necessarily reject his criticism, which is what we quote him for. His own theory isn't even mentioned in the criticism section. As for WP:OWN, I'll happily accept a consensus that goes against my opinion. I do find it highly suspicious that you are expending so much energy on removing one measly line of criticism of HJ research by someone who clearly has an unusual background, as is immediately evident to the reader. I am worried about bias in the article, bias among HJ scholars who are not self-evidently accepted as historians by the historical community (and we have concerns about bias even from within biblical scholarship), and about bias among our fellow editors. I cringe when editors find it necessary to throw the word fringe around, especially if that's all they do. So when so much energy is expended on removing one fairly innocuous sentence of criticism, I do get worried about bias. I'm not suggesting you're deliberately trying to skew the article, I'm expressing concern you may be responding to subconscious bias. Of course, no one can see their own subconscious biases, so if others have concerns about any potential subconscious biases of mine, then they're most welcome to point them out.
 * Let me state that I object much more strongly to the removal of Akenson than of Ellegard, unless a stronger source making the same criticism is substituted. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see the section above, this is getting very tedious. I suggest arbitration.Jeppiz (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need arbitration, in fact arbitration strikes me as unnecessarily tedious. Let others speak up, and if there's a clear consensus among the other editors I won't be the one to block it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure.Jeppiz (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For what its worth, I think we should remove our Swedish linguist scholar friend. Lets just find better sources, as should be expected for an article like this. Prasangika37 (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The points made by Akenson and Ellegard are important, but they are not the only scholars who are making these criticisms. Let's find cases of the same criticisms being made by "better" sources, and move on. It's not worth going to arbitration over this - we have more important things to fix. Wdford (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Easy now, I said I'd give up on Ellegard, but not on Akenson. Akenson is a historian, Ellegard is a linguist, and not a historian, most of the HJ scholars are biblical scholars, and not historians. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're a good contributor and overall a decent one as well, as far as I can tell, but I already mentioned this small tendency to WP:OWN. You cannot decide to give up or not on Akenson if there is a consensus to exclude him. But I suggest we remove Ellegård now then, and continue Akenson. Let's forget for a minute who he is or isn't. Could you tell us what view you think Akenson offers that nobody else offers better. If he's the only one who offers it, it's probably fringe but as long as there are others who take the same view, it's not a problem. Perhaps we can even keep Akenson if he offers the same views as others and he offers it better than they do. But once again, If Wdford, Prasangika37 and I think Akenson may be removed, you cannot veto it. I'd like to point out again that it's not about removing any criticism, it's about making sure we have WP:RS criticism that does not violate WP:FRINGE.Jeppiz (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I didn't mean to say I could decide whether to keep Akenson unilaterally, I was referring to my earlier announcement I wouldn't unilaterally fight to keep Ellegard and wouldn't seek arbitration for it. All I'm doing is to remind people I haven't made a similar commitment about Akenson. And judging by earlier comments as well as several thank you messages I'm not sure we have a consensus on Ellegard yet. I've already answered Wdford's query what unique insight Akenson has to offer. But to remove a well-sourced quotation from an eminent scholar who has published on the issue you need an extraordinary reason, which to my mind you haven't given. This is what strengthens my suspicion of bias. You have said he wasn't an expert on the issue of methodological soundness, which struck me like a strange claim about a historian, and haven't answered my question who you think the right kind of expert is. Note that I don't necessarily object to replacing Akenson by a more appropriate source if we can find any. Martijn Meijering (talk)
 * Your proposal to drop Ellegard and continue to discuss Akenson doesn't appeal to me, but I'd be happy to decide to drop Ellegard if we also decide to keep Akenson, provided there's a consensus among the other editors for such a compromise. I can't promise that such a compromise will never be revisited or that I'd stay uninvolved in future discussions, but I'd discourage it for the near future. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really think there's a compromise as there is no connection. I'm sure you agree that whether Ellegård is relevant for the article or not is completely independent of Akenson, and vice versa. And for the record, I wouldn't want you stay out of any future discussion. Quite the opposite, I'd hope you'd take an active part. I think serious discussions between users with different opinions are the best way forward and I think this article is already much better thanks to both you and the other participating users than it would have been if I had been alone and done edits unopposed. We disagree on several aspects but I find your overall contribution hugely beneficial.Jeppiz (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I currently have no problem with Akenson. My only issue is with Ellegard. Prasangika37 (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification and sorry if I misunderstood, no intention to misrepresent your view. But then I take it that Prasangika37, Wdford, Hijiri 88 and myself all agree that Ellegård is not suitable for the article.Jeppiz (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what it looks like to me too. I'd also like to hear from User:Dominus_Vobisdu and some of our other editors on Historicity of Jesus as I'm sure it is of interest to them too, since we moved the discussion from there to over here. I'm currently reluctant to post there to draw their attention, because I don't want to invite the recently arrived bunch of SPA editors. Maybe we should do an RfC? Which reminds me, I think we already had an RfC about a similar topic on Historicity of Jesus a month or so ago. I distinctly recall comments that advocated keeping more than just biblical scholars. I'll see if I can find it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Any user who is interesting in discussing the topic is of course welcome. Unfortunately User:Dominus_Vobisdu has this far only focused on personal attacks and not offered any argument on the topic, but perhaps they are willing to engage in the topic. If you want to do an RfC, that may be a good idea. I would like to suggest, though, that you show good faith and revert your edit that reinserted Ellegård. You're the only one who wants to keep him, everybody else agrees he should go as per WP:FRINGE/WP:UNDUE/WP:RS. I happily agree to not removing Akenson during the discussion while continuing to discuss about his relevency. I'm asking you to show the same good faith. Keep arguing for Ellegård in the discussion if you want to, but please respect the current consensus and revert your edit for the time being. By the way, I'm more willing, even supportive, of criticism from people who are not Biblical scholars. There are archaeologists (Finkelstein comes to mind) that have challenged the Bible based on their expertise. Historians of antiquity would be relevant. But a linguist who takes a fringe position and whose ideas are rejected by all commentators following his publication is not suitable, as the consensus here also agrees. So do file an RfC, but please revert yourself on Elegård. I in turn guarantee I won't remove Akenson unless there is a consensus to do so (and even then I'd prefer someone else to do it).Jeppiz (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no great need to rush this and I feel as if I'm being badgered. I'm sure that's not your intention, but let's take some time. How about this then: we wait a few more days until coming Sunday (12 October) to see if anyone wants to make comments. If not, I won't revert a new removal. If anyone else objects afterwards, or wants to reopen the discussion that remains a possibility. A new RfC should perhaps be broader, such as asking for appropriate sources on the methodological soundness of HJ research on the history & geography board, if any. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to badger you or anyone else, but I do think you should self-revert and not veto a change four other users prefer. As you know, it was you who added Ellegård, everybody else who has commented on Ellegård has opposed including him. That does not mean he could not eventually be reinstated if that's what the consensus after an RfC decides, but I'm not sure why you think we should keep him when the consensus is to exclude him, and several Wikipedia policies tell us to exclude him.Jeppiz (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I do dispute that it violates our policies. But more importantly for now, many more editors than just the five of us here have weighed in in the past, and I just received another thank you for my latest post on this page from a poster who hasn't commented yet. Are you saying you can't even wait until Sunday? Remember we're talking about just one measly line from a serious scholar, with his qualifications or lack thereof clearly described, whose work on the subject was considered good enough for publication by the peer review process of two academic journals, and who we mention in a bleeping criticism section. I don't think there's anything wrong with an encyclopedic overview of criticism in an encyclopedia. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with you about an encyclopaedic overview, that's the very reason for my want to remove Ellegård, a fringe theory from an amateur. In this same article, you have several times asked me to self-revert immediately.Jeppiz (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed I have, in accordance with WP:BRD. You made a bold edit, which I reverted and which we've started to discuss. Once we have a consensus, you can reinsert it. Let's see if we have a real consensus for the change among our regulars, and not just a consensus of the handful of editors who have commented so far. Some of our discussions have taken months, even years, so I don't think a couple of days is asking for too much. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I have to stand by what I said about WP:OWN and I would encourage you to consider it. It's not meant as a personal attack in any way, it's intended to help you become a better editor. When you suggest a "compromise" between two unrelated things (keeping Akenson and dropping Ellegård) it violates WP:OWN as none has the right to make such a compromise. When you impose a deadline (Sunday 12 October), you violate WP:OWN. An admin may do it, but you have no right to say you will veto an edit you don't agree with for a week. Both of those cases are blatant violations of WP:OWN. Then I also think it violates WP:OWN when you as the sole defender of Ellegård says all others have to wait. Even more so as you already indicated you could drop him, but only if you got your way on Akenson. That shows you agree Ellegård could be dropped, but you'll still oppose it unless you get your way in another discussion. Again, WP:OWN. I won't revert for now (but nor do I promise to abide by any date you impose on others) but I honestly and sincerely asks you to reconsider these actions and to give WP:OWN a good hard think.Jeppiz (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No WP:OWN here, just WP:CON and WP:BRD. As someone who has been active on this and related pages for a very long time, I know we have very many regulars, who tend to fall into two camps, one mostly deferential to HJ scholarship, the other more critical of it. In the past, we've had many lengthy discussion about historians vs biblical scholars, with many editors taking part. In the past days however we've seen mostly comments from people from the deferential camp. That might mean the others aren't interested in taking part in the discussion, but it could also mean they haven't found the time to do so. Some people do have lives after all. And I know of one editor in particular who hasn't jumped in yet but who has sent me thank yous for several of my recent messages on the subject. Hence my suggestion to wait a while.
 * The only compromise I suggested was over my own free decision not to use rights I have (to seek arbitration over Ellegard). I never said I could veto anything, in fact I think I even explicitly denied this. Also, I didn't impose a deadline, you were the one who basically tried to order me to revert, and I merely suggested a waiting period. I feel you're being very unconstructive. At the least provocation you threaten appeals or seek administrative action, and you are constantly wikilawyering. This is suggestive of bias and POV-pushing and I ask you to reflect long and hard on this. You are trying to overturn text that has been on the page for years, and it seems to me you're in an unseemly haste to do so. If you don't even have the patience to wait a couple of days to remove one measly line of text that has been in the article for years, then I submit there are other issues in play. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nobody disagrees with you (I presume) regarding historians vs biblical scholars, and I'm unsure why you insist on that point. But can I remind you that Ellegård is neither, he was a fringe amateur. That he was a decent scholar in another field doesn't change that. And when you say nobody can edit against you for one week, and invoke WP:CON when you're the only one in favour of Ellegård, well sorry but it's very WP:OWN to me.Jeppiz (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks as if we're not communicating effectively. What I meant was that even though there aren't hard and fast rules for when a consensus has been established, I'm willing to accept there is one if we don't get contrary indications by Sunday, provided you also agree to wait until Sunday. I thought that would be a good thing to do, since it would give both of us clarity. I could instead have announced an intention to seek arbitration, or I could insist on an RfC first, but I've done none of these things. I was voluntarily offering not to avail myself of my right to do these things if you also voluntarily agree to wait until Saturday. If you don't take up my offer, fine, but then I'll also feel free to object, seek arbitration etc. I was trying to be helpful. Let's remember that this is supposed to be a collaborative effort, and that we're supposed to seek true consensus, which is not the same as winning a vote, especially not a vote among the small subset of editors who happen to be present. Ideally, we'd work towards finding a solution that everybody is actively happy with or at least finds acceptable, not one that merely a majority finds preferable. Such things often take time, a lot of time. I'll take my share of the responsibility for the miscommunication, but no more than that. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Mmeijeri, I take it we can now remove Ellegård. It's been almost ten days, you initially said we could remove Ellegård by 12th October. I even gave it a few more days, but as it's now 15th and there a general consensus for removing Ellegård, I guess it's fine to do it.Jeppiz (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yay! Thanks for staying with it and removing him. Prasangika37 (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

In at least my own somewhat potentially biased opinion, the main problem here is deciding which article, Historicity of Jesus or Historical Jesus, is to be considered the main article for the topic. This is a reasonable question because I note Template:Jesus contains as its primary subsection "Jesus in history," which is a redirect to Historicity of Jesus. My own personal choice would be to make Historicity of Jesus the more clearly lead article on the topic, given its slightly broader scope, and make Historical Jesus on of the main spinout articles of that article. Maybe this could be resolved with an RfC or similar broad-based request for input from other editors in the broad field of Christianity and/or Religion. But if we could establish rather clearly for at least the near future which article is the primary article on this subtopic, I think that might make choosing what content goes where easier in a number of those articles. John Carter (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it would be wise to deem one as the main and one as the sub. Are you proposing that the historicity topic being the main because Historical Jesus could be considered a subset of historicity? If so I could see how that would work. The main benefit would be that we can eliminate massive overlap and the redundancy of the articles and also re-direct editors time to the main article as opposed to equally divided amongst the two. Prasangika37 (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

lead should summarize the topic, who Jesus was (historically speaking)
Scholars generally agree on a broad outline of Jesus as a historical figure, and the lead should describe that figure.

Historically speaking, Jesus was a charismatic Jewish preacher, exorcist and faith healer from Galilee. He told striking parables about the Kingdom of God, and he preached radical forgiveness. He was a follower of John the Baptist, but he had a much more relaxed style to his ministry, feasting with women and tax collectors. He started a restoration movement within Judaism, but he was crucified after causing a disturbance at the Temple in Jerusalem. It was near Passover, and the city was thronged with religious pilgrims who chafed under Roman rule, and the leaders of Jerusalem couldn't risk a troublemaker sparking an uprising. After Jesus' death, his followers claimed to have visions of him, women perhaps first of all. His followers developed a rich oral history about Jesus, which later became the basis for the synoptic gospels. His movement lived on and would later produce Christianity, as well as influencing Gnosticism.

Think of our readers. They deserve to learn what historians think about Jesus. I know that this topic is a sore one. Christians don't like having God treated as a faith healer. And when editors don't like a topic, they frequently try to drown the good information in alternative viewpoints. They emphasize how much sources disagree about but don't paint a picture of what they agree about. Our lead in this article really looks like someone is trying to cloud the issue and prevent the reader from getting a clear picture of the historical Jesus. I don't think there's a wikipedia policy about failing to state the consensus view in the lead. If you think I overstate the consensus, then suggest an alternative view that summarizes what most top sources say. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you may have in fact overstated a bit exactly what historians agree to regarding the life and activities of the historical Jesus, but in general I would support your proposal. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, maybe we could start the first paragraph with what the "minimum agreed upon Jesus" information, and then expand a bit in the second with what the majority of those scholars agree to, the third paragraph with maybe some questions as to how and why other scholars disagree with some of the material in the second paragraph, and the fourth with the questions of methodology or other factors which cause the disagreement? John Carter (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not what historians in general think, they don't seem to care very much for the topic, but it is more or less what some prominent HJ scholars believe. It's fine for us to state that, but not fine to ascribe these views to historians. It's also not fine to obscure the fact that there is very little that HJ scholars agree on, aprt from the baptism & crucifixion and perhaps the belief of the disciples in the resurrection. Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * John, I may indeed have overstated the case. It was more or less a proof of concept. I like your breakdown. It looks as though there's already lots of material in the body of the article. We can summarize that, and it's already cited. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 05:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, Martijn, that's right, it's important that we are perfectly clear to the reader that the consensus is limited. We don't want to give the idea that everybody agrees with any particular outlook. My sources say that there are still big divisions among scholars. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 05:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And when I was talking about the "consensus view," that was a mistake. I was trying to describe the "mainstream view" or "most common view," but that's far short of a consensus. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I added a "third quest" paragraph. I don't know whether next I'm going to rationalize the page or just go straight to adding a summary in the lead. The sections on which elements of Jesus' life are historical are disorganized and need to be restructured. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I found a summary from the lead in a version of the article from years ago, and I put it in. There used to me more information on this page about who Jesus was (according to historians), but a lot of it has been removed. It's almost as if some editors are trying to cloud the issue or downplay historical conclusions. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Opinion
As long as this article starts with proclamations of faith rather than presentation of real facts, it will continue to be dogma and miss information. The scholarship presented up until now shows NO evidence of a Jesus ever. There is not a single primary record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.4.224.20 (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

the life of Jesus
Here's what the page looked like years ago. What we see is an overview of Jesus' life, with commentary along the way.

2010 page

If you look back at this page over the last several years, you can see times when there was plenty of well-organized information on the topic, most of which is now missing. Somehow, over the years, all this information got dropped. It's almost as if editors have been working to obscure the historical view of who Jesus was. Let's restore historical information about Jesus' life. We've lost so much that it makes sense to port in whole sections from previous pages, or maybe revert the page to a version that obtained years ago and start working again from that point.

Are there any editors here who know why all this information was removed in the first place? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I added a section on the life of Jesus from 2010. It provides the reader with a nice summary. There's more from years ago that might also deserve a place here. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Should be expected, probably mostly Jesuslanders. I've ordered Jay Haleys Power Tactics of Jesus Christ and Other Essays which is apparently back in print after many years. In view of what you've related doubt I'll want to wade in here with anything from it. The German wiki appears to be model here where the article corresponding to this one is Jesus of Nazareth, but it's probably futile to fight this battle in English in this venue. Lycurgus (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually just reviewed de article and same deal as here, probably can't do this anywhere in wikipedia, scholarpedia maybe. Lycurgus (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Duplication yet again
I see a huge amount of material has been copied in from other existing articles, bloating this article to almost double-size overnight. Why do people have this driving need to duplicate Jesus articles? Do we really need to rehash so much of the Quest article in this article again as well? Strictly speaking we should try to split this bloated article, but the logical split would duplicate the existing Ministry of Jesus and Quest articles. Can somebody please suggest a cure for Duplication Disease? Wdford (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Just revert. :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The material I added is not duplicated on the Jesus page. If there's a better page for this material, I should probably be editing that one. Could you point me there? I agree that we could stand to reduce the bloat on this page. The material I added has a nice logical format that lets the reader learn who Jesus probably was. The other material on this page is scattered and hard to skim or comprehend. Let's cut back on the poorly organized stuff and leave the better organized material. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I commented out the duplicate information on the page and I trimmed the long section on disciples. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Why? They are saving their faith babies. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 07:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Jesus Family Tomb
I tweaked the article with... There is both physical and archaeological evidence for Jesus in the Jesus Family Tomb. The other sources we have are - 69.180.104.60 (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The "Jesus Family Tomb" does not constitute academically recognized evidence. I have removed it. Vyselink (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * OP is a sock of User:Brad Watson, Miami, who thinks he's the second coming of Jesus and Einstein (and yet somehow this means that Einstein isn't the second coming, and Brad the third) -- WP:RBI. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Scholars consensus
I have edited the statement that "virtually all scholars" agree that Jesus existed. The references do not support this statement, which seems very broad and clearly biased.

I have edited the statement that "Virtually all" statement to confine the claim to the parameters supported by the references. Please do not undo the edit without providing new appropriate supporting references.

I am no historian, but there are many instances in this article of overly broad generalizations, all geared toward convincing the reader that there is "consensus" among experts that Jesus existed. There appears to be a need of an thorough edit to eliminate bias. Jrwsaranac (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrwsaranac (talk • contribs) 02:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrwsaranac (talk • contribs) 02:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No, you're no historian. Worse, you don't seem to know Wikipedia either. First of all, do not mark a potentially controversial edit as "minor". If you're reverting someone back to your own version, it is never a minor edit. Second, start respecting WP:BRD! If you make an edit and the edit is reverted, you are not allowed to redo it. That is edit warring. Editing once is fine, if your edit then is reverted you need to discuss it and gain a consensus. Third, we do not engage in original research, I already told you once to read WP:OR. We have an excellent source stating "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian" We have shorted that to "virtually all scolar", which is a much truer representation of what the source says than your awkward "Regarding those historical scholars who write on the subject, there is some consensus that most believe that Jesus existed". This is exactly what original research is about, you change the sentence to make it more "neutral". That is against WP:NPOV. A "Neutral point of view" on Wikipedia means representing what sources say, not making up a more neutral interpretation of sources.
 * In short, you violate WP:BRD, you violate WP:OR, you violate WP:NPOV and you present an edit you know to be controversial as "minor". If you continue disrupting Wikipedia in this way, you'll soon be reported. Kindly revert your edit until a consensus has been reached for it.Jeppiz (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jeppiz completely on your violations of BRD, OR, and NPOV. As someone who is currently pursuing a PhD in American Religious History, I can tell you that you are definitely no historian.

As for the wording. You have four respected sources that state, unequivocally, that "virtually every competent scholar" (Ehrman-New Testament Scholar), one (who doesn't even believe that Christ existed) says he realizes that it is not the majority view that Christ didn't exist (Price-Theologian), "no serious scholar...or very few" (Grant-Classical historian), and "I do not know any respectable scholar who says that anymore" (Burridge-Professor of Biblical Intepretation). If you want to dispute the fact of just how many (i.e. more than most, but not virtually all), fine, do so and give sources, which to be honest you won't really find. But the wording is correct as it stands. Vyselink (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Clearly you have a huge emotional stake in this, and I am not here to fight. But any clear-eyed reader of this article can detect the whitewashing of the very real disagreements within the scholarly community about"historical Jesus" as well as the "historicity of Jesus." The marginalization of these real and continuing disputes is simply not right. The wording is NOT "correct as it stands," it is unsupported.

So I will edit and provide references that support a more neutral POV. And you will find the references unpalatable and revert the edits anyway, right? Jrwsaranac (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Jrwsaranac, what do you mean by "scholar" and "scholarly community"? And what disagreements do you think exist about the historical Jesus? --Akhilleus (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In this case, scholars would be professional historians, archaeologists, and so on, whose work is focused on or specialized in the classical era, Roman Judea, early Christianity, or second temple Judaism -- and whose work is either peer-reviewed or published by a university press or an academic publisher. That means that the grand total of scholars who advocate the Christ myth theory are Richard Carrier and Robert M. Price, and they'd admit that the "virtually all" is accurate.  Stating that 99.9% of scholars believe something when 99.9% of them do believe it is simply stating a fact (whether or not those scholars are right or wrong).  Trying to say that more than 0.1% of scholars believe something in that case is just a really bad Argumentum ad populum.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a good definition of scholar, but it's worth noting that Price teaches at an unaccredited theological seminary, and Carrier holds no academic position whatsoever, so they do not have the typical profile of a scholar. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Jrwsaranac, thanks for confirming you're here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. As for a "more neutral POV", our aim is never to be neutral, it is to be factual. We attempt no "neutrality" at all for creationism, birthers, 9/11-conspiracies, aliens or anything similar. NPOV is to provide a neutral view of the academic consensus, not inventing a neutral middle ground between academics and conspiracy theorists.Jeppiz (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Or rather, we are neutral in that we do not create artificial balance for WP:FRINGE positions that are derided by mainstream academia. We definitely do spit on the concept of neutrality as giving opposing positions equal validity if one is almost completely rejected by mainstream academia.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Jrwsaranac, your lack of understanding of what a historian does is showing again. Listen carefully. The sources given, which are by four respected scholars in the field of Biblical Studies/Classical History, DO, in FACT, state that virtually all modern scholars believe in a historical Christ. If you think they are wrong, then find sources, respected ones, that counter them, and discuss adding them in. However, like I said, the sources, as they stand now, SUPPORT the wording "virtually all". (Also, please be sure to read what Jeppiz and Ian.thomson wrote above me. It'll help with your lack of understanding of what it is that WP reports). Vyselink (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I now see what is going on here. This article, and several other related articles, use strikingly similar language, that perpetuates serious and obvious violations of NPOV.

I understand that some are so emotionally invested in this topic, which is understandable. But this is a poor article.

Rather than make corrections, which you will then undo, please "report" me now (as was previously suggested). I'd be fine with that, and will work to call attention to the article from some higher up in the food chain than me. I'm good with that.

It's interesting that climate change was mentioned above. That's a salient example. It's often claimed that there is a "consensus" that anthropogenic climate change is "real," and that virtually all climates scientists agree. That's a similar assertion to the assertion here. The difference is, the assertion of consensus on climate change is backed up by surveys showing the assertion to be true. It is NOT based only on climates scientists holding the majority view claiming that they represent a consensus --- independent survey data supports them.

So, report me, then we can both hope that civility will ensue. And a better entry.

Jrwsaranac (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps another parallel with the climate change articles is that the matter is controversial on Wikipedia, but is not at all among academic experts in the field. On most topics, if a scholar writes that the communis opinio is such-and-such, that's sufficient. For instance, we can simply refer to Cooper's collection of the complete works of Plato for the information that the [Second Alcibiades] is generally considered inauthentic--no Wikipedia editor, I hope, would dream of requiring a poll or survey of scholars to establish that this is the consensus opinion. As far as Wikipedia policy, WP:RS/AC only says that a source that directly addresses the question of scholarly consensus is required--not a poll, not a survey, but a source that states what the consensus is (instead of a Wikipedia editor asserting that everyone knows something to be the consensus). Ehrman does exactly that. And he's obviously right--mythicists complain all the time that mythicism isn't even discussed in academia! It's only because "some are so emotionally invested in this topic" that there are arguments about whether Ehrman (or any other scholar who states the obvious scholarly consensus) is sufficient to support language such as "virtually all". But the emotional investment is not coming from the editors who want to represent the scholarship fairly... --Akhilleus (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * So here we go again, another user (Jrwsaranac) who is convinced they have discovered "what is going on", in other words that there's some kind of great conspiracy "to violate NPOV". If there is academic consensus, we say that there is academic consensus. That's not a conspiracy of any kind, it's keeping with Wikipedia's rules. If Jrwsaranac think that the scholars in the field are wrong, that's his right. But to demand we ignore scholarly expertise because a Wikipedia user has decided there is a conspiracy, well, that is quite frankly tin foil hat territory.Jeppiz (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * , I'm an outspoken atheist, but it's a plain fact that there's a consensus among secular scholars, and the consensus is that Jewish Christianity was founded by a historical Jesus. It's important to challenge the traditional views with modern scholarship, so I support you in that. I learned a lot when I started editing this page years ago. You might learn a lot, too, if you put some time into it. Welcome aboard and happy editing! Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * , thank you for your reply. I think perhaps you mischaracterize my objection. In reading through this subject, I am personally persuaded by the contention that there is some "consensus" among scholars that there is an historical Jesus. But that is irrelevant to the issue I raise.


 * My issue is with the way it is stated and supported here. Please take a moment to look at my edit of the statement "Virtually all scholars who write on the subject accept that Jesus existed." The supporting references to that statement are all by meritorious authors, who are essentially saying "everyone agrees with me." The statements themselves are not further supported by research. I am only arguing for a more conservative claim by this document, reining in its scope to what is actually supported by the references. Specifically, what is supported is that most scholars writing about historical Jesus hold the view that most of their fellow scholars maintain that historical Jesus existed.


 * This Argumentum ad populumis is carried through the article. "'almost universal assent' are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate." Again, I only suggest that these claims of near-universality be supported by something more than the currently unsubstantiated view of members of this majority, and quite possibly correct, view.


 * Overstating what is supported does not serve any good purpose. Jrwsaranac (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think, Jrwsaranac, that you should consider some of what you have said quite carefully. 'The supporting references to that statement are all by meritorious authors, who are essentially saying "everyone agrees with me." The statements themselves are not further supported by research.' You are not in a position to judge whether or not the standard of their research is adequate. Other sources may come to challenge it, in time, but until or unless they do so the simple fact is that these are RS according to Wikipedia rules and the current statement summarizes what they say - that among scholars, the present overwhelming consensus is for historicity.
 * '"'almost universal assent' are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate." Again, I only suggest that these claims of near-universality be supported by something more than the currently unsubstantiated view of members of this majority, and quite possibly correct, view.'...'Overstating what is supported does not serve any good purpose.' But the statements are in themselves support for that contention. They are therefore fit for inclusion in wikipedia. What you have proposed, unfortunately, does not match what is in the sources and therefore it looks like agenda pushing, whether or not that is what it was intended to be.
 * 'I am only arguing for a more conservative claim by this document,' You can only do that if you can find one in a reliable source that would be able to match these others. Even so, it should be added as an alternative because otherwise it might give the entirely false impression, much beloved by New Atheist internet fanatics of great energy but not great judgement, that the majority of intelligent people out there who endorse their paranoid conspiracy theories.
 * On a more general point, we cannot, ourselves, conduct a straw poll of academics to confirm it, because that would be OR. They have not done so for the simple reason they don't consider it necessary - that's how overwhelming the consensus is. What would be needed to challenge it is a statement showing that there are scholars out there who think that Jesus may have been a myth. However, if we did conduct our straw poll (to contradict my own argument slightly) it's not difficult to see what the result would be. Of all tenured lecturers in the world, off the top of my head I can think of one - Hector Avalos - who is 'agnostic', with two now outside academia - Robert Price and Thomas Brodie - as mythicists, plus another former academic in a slightly different field, Thomas Thompson, an amateur classical historian trained to professional standards - Richard Carrier, plus one PhD student whose work is criticised by his own tutors - Raphael Lataster. To that we might add Philip R. Davies, who has described the evidence as fragile. Set that against the rest, and count. Every single other mythicist is a bona fide amateur, usually unqualified - Atwill, Doherty, Murdoch, Salm, Fitzgerald, to name only the loudest and most inept.
 * You might find the FAQ on the Talk:Historicity of Jesus page of interest - there is a long discussion of these points and it would save going over them again. There's also a list of books by mythicists and an explanation of how only one of the authors is an actual scholar.
 * Hope you find that useful.86.148.181.169 (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Jrwsaranac, thanks for clarifying. I didn't mean to misrepresent you. But I'm afraid I still don't follow your argument, and it looks to me as though we are representing the experts accurately. Is there a WP policy that says we need to treat claims such as these with the high degree of skepticism that you recommend? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Ehram is not a competent scholar. He is a graduate of 3 Evangelical institutions and has no secular education whatsover. His very education is bias and his belief system would make it impossible for him to create an unbiased opinion. Rather than stating the facts of the case, this article is pronouncing dogma — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.3.30 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for that incredibly inane and completely unhelpful statement. Vyselink (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Page protection
Is it possible to have a page protection placed on this article? Am I the only one who finds it annoying when vandalism occurs and one has to repeatedly undo and redo? -HafizHanif (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you try WP:RPP?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks! - HafizHanif (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Misleading statements
The article currently states: "Some "mythicists" say that Jesus may have been a real person, but that the biblical accounts of him are almost entirely fictional.[210][211][212] Most scholars believe that the Christ myth theory has been refuted, and that Jesus did exist as a historical figure."

The juxtaposition of these statements suggests that it is only "mythicists" (made worse by the 'scare quotes') who believe that "biblical accounts" are largely fictitious, with the false implication that "most scholars" accept the "biblical accounts". In actuality, only a very few details in the "biblical accounts" are broadly accepted by "most scholars".-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I see your point and would agree when the sentence is taken out of context as here. However, in the context where it comes in the article (explaining mythicist views), I think it's rather clear. Jeppiz (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm with Jeppiz here. Mainstream historians see lots of valuable material in the Synoptics. Also, it looks like three sources back up the sentence. Maybe the second sentence should be stronger, something about being able to discern useful historical information in the Synoptics. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't taken anything out of context at all. The problem is with the way the information is presented in the article. The fact that historians see value in the biblical accounts ignores the problem with the way the statements above are juxtaposed. It is not the case that mainstream historians consider any supernatural claims about Jesus to be reliable. This should be more clearly indicated, rather than vaguely implying that historians support whatever is denied by the 'mythicists'.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Either I am not paying attention or my scroller is drunk but the current text seems to harbour literal repetition. True, none of it is threefold. But it doesn't help much. Can someone read the whole thing again and prune it a bit? It is, after all, on a fairly prominent issue, for which reason I don't fancy sticking my neck out and doing it myself81.158.101.97 (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I question the use of the conclusive phrase "Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed," as well. Does this phrase summarize an actual number obtained by valid, reliable methods? Has there been a count, survey, or other scientific method of quantifying the relative numbers of contemporary scholars who take a position on this topic? Maybe yes, maybe no. Until we can reliably say "Most scholars" or "some scholars", I would remove the phrase "most contemporary scholars" because it has a questionable basis in verifiable fact, and gives the impression of promoting a point of view. I strongly suspect its use here is subjective and biased rather than encyclopedic. The phrase could probably read "many contemporary scholars" without challenge. giggle (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Only two events are universally assented?
According to the intro paragraph: "the only two events subject to `almost universal assent` are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate." This seems patently untrue. Here are some other things that I can name off the top of my head, which are uncontroversial: Jesus was born and raised a Jew, he hailed from Nazareth, he gathered disciples (including Simon Peter) and taught them, he conducted a public ministry in the region of Galilee, towards the end of his life he traveled to Jerusalem at the time of the Passover, during this visit to Jerusalem he caused a disturbance in the temple, he then earned the ire of the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem, and he was betrayed by his own disciple Judas Iscariot. I don't have time to track down all these references, but it shouldn't be too hard for someone more familiar with the subject than myself.24.14.118.228 (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

James Ossuary
Any reason not to mention the James Ossuary? The jury's still out on its authenticity, and even if it would be proven a forgery, the disproven claim that it would be archeological evidence of Jesus would still be relevant for the article (kind of like, "In 2001, the James Ossuary was found, but..."). --79.242.222.168 (talk) 12:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe the jury is in, and it is indeed a forgery. See here:  http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_eng.aspx?module_id=&sec_id=17&subj_id=175&id=266  24.14.118.228 (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Credibility for a historical Jesus appears to be hugely overstated in the article
It is stated multiple times that arguments doubting Jesus's existence are almost universally considered as "refuted" by scholars. That appears to be an overstatement. It may be true that most scholars think Jesus probably existed. But that is a very different statement than the overly strong claim that all arguments by skeptics have been "refuted." What arguments were refuted exactly? That early writings about Jesus are supernatural and hence not plausibly historical? That the Gospels are full of obviously mythological material (e.g., magical events)? That there were no non-Christian accounts of Jesus anywhere near his alleged lifetime? Those are simply facts. Moreover, prominent scholars who are at least skeptical about Jesus's existence (e.g., Richard Carrier, Raphael Lataster, George Wells, Dan Barker) are not even mentioned, let alone refuted. Earl Doherty is cited--but only for his definition of mythicism.

If any arguments have been "refuted" they are anti-mythicist arguments such as the laughable "criterion of embarrassment," which says Christians wouldn't make up the crucifixion story because it would somehow embarrass them to depict their savior as humiliated. Not only is that an empirically unsubstantiated and obvious rationalization, it is nonsensical--the whole point of the crucifixion myth (and arguably of Christianity itself) is that Jesus was unjustly subjected to pain and humiliation in order to redeem others. Even if early Christians might not have outright fetishized the crucifixion to quite the extent that most modern Christians do, there's certainly no evidence that they were ever embarrassed by it--quite the opposite! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.207.48 (talk) 05:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that long personal point of view, but you fail to understand how Wikipedia functions. We report what reliable sources say, we do not insist our own personal views. While you're entirely entitled to believe that the cited scholars are wrong, you are not allowed to remove their views just because you don't agree with them or don't understand them. And yes, the sources say pretty much exactly what the article says they do. Your repeated removal of this sourced content is pretty close to vandalism, and certainly disruptive. Likewise, you should read WP:BRD. You've made that edit removing sourced content before, and it was reverted. You're not supposed to keep removing it. That makes a second disruptive point. In short, you should change both your argumentation and your behavior. I'm restoring the consensus version prior to your deletion of sourced content, and leave a warning on your page for the disruptions. Any further violations will be reported. The proper way forward is to build a consensus for your view, and then start from sources not from what you personally happen to believe. Jeppiz (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Jeppiz, thank you for that ad-hominem laced exercise in condescension, childish grandstanding, and anti-collegial hypocrisy. I did not remove content based merely on my "point of view." On the contrary, I posted reasons that a single statement, made twice in the article, was overstated, unjustified, and unnecessary. I pointed out that the article uncritically touts extremely weak evidence like the "criterion of embarrassment," while omitting counterevidence from important skeptics. I also questioned--and got no response--what specific claims from skeptics have been "refuted." After getting no response, I went ahead and made an edit--EXACTLY as wikipedia policy dictates. I essentially softened the article's stance from the extreme "almost all scholars think Jesus existed and that all arguments for his nonexistence have been refuted" to simply "most scholars agree Jesus existed." To say that constitutes vandalism is patently absurd. I suggest that in the future you address the issue at hand instead of relying on personal attacks, threats, and accusations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.207.48 (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The exact word "refuted" is used by a reliable source, as stated in a reference - " Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted". So it is within WP policy to use that word in the article. Classical historian Michael Grant, used as a source in the article, wrote in 1977 that the Christ myth theory has been "annihilated by the best scholars because the mythicists have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".Grant, Michael (1977). Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scribner's. p. 200. ISBN 978-0-684-14889-2. You ask what specific claims from skeptics have been refuted, but I think that is quite clear - it is the idea that there was never such a person as Jesus at all. "the article uncritically touts extremely weak evidence like the "criterion of embarrassment," it is not for us as WP editors to decide that leading scholars in their fields use "extremely weak"(or "laughable, nonsensical and unsubstantiated") arguments, we just report what reliable sources say- " while omitting counterevidence from important skeptics". These "important skeptics"and their "counterevidence" are discussed in the article Christ myth theory, which is the place for them, in line with WP policy WP:NPOV especially the section on that policy page WP:DUE which states "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)." So really the idea that Jesus never existed, discussed briefly and linked to with Christ myth theory shouldn't actually be mentioned in this article at all, as it has the same academic credibilty as "space aliens built the pyramids".Smeat75 (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I hardly think the fact that a single author used the word "refuted" can be taken as representing the consensus of modern scholarship on the point. And a quote from 1977 certainly does not seem relevant in that regard. I'm tickled by the claim that NOT believing wholeheartedly in an event for which there are no eyewitness accounts is akin to thinking space aliens built the pyramids.23.242.207.48 (talk) 07:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I thank the IP for its comments about ad hominem attacks, and for graciously avoiding ad hominem attacks by using factual arguments such as "condescension, childish grandstanding, and anti-collegial hypocrisy". However, the fact of the matter remains that the IP has been disruptive. Repeated removal of sourced content, well that is disruptive. And as Smeat75 correctly points out, the wording in the article is accurate. The articles says scholars believe CMT to be refuted because our sources says, well, that scholars believe CMT to be refuted. So I stand by the claim that the IP's repeated deletion of this sourced material, contrary to consensus is disruptive. Furthermore, the IP's claim that the views of "prominent scholars" are ignored in the article is verifiably false. As "prominent scholars" the IP lists Richard Carrier, Raphael Lataster, George Wells, and Dan Barker. This is rather revealing for how discredited the CMT is. While Richard Carrier is a scholar, no doubt about that. Neither Raphael Lataster, George Wells, nor Dan Barker are scholars, not to mention "prominent" scholars. They are self-published authors with no higher academic degree (Lataster is at least pursuing doctoral studies, so he may one become a scholar). But this shows what kind of tin foil hat theories we're dealing with, as it's not possible for the IP to compile even a short list of actual scholars in support. Jeppiz (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I think a doctoral student is pretty much the quintessential example of a "scholar," actually. But you could also consult "Is This Not the Carpenter? The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus" (2012), a volume of essays from multiple authors on both sides (nearly all with advanced degrees), edited by Thomas Thompson--yes, a scholar (who yes, has an advanced degree). Claims that skepticism about Jesus' historicity are equivalent to "tin foil hat" conspiracy theories or "believing that aliens built the pyramids" are unfair, misleading, and outdated. The uncontroversial statement that most scholars believe the Jesus of the bible was inspired by a real person who was crucified should be sufficient.23.242.207.48 (talk) 07:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A doctoral student is not a "quintessential example of a scholar" because a doctoral student is someone who -by definition- hasn't yet proven their ability to engage in productive scholarship. That being said, I agree that the comparison between mythicists and ancient-alien-ists is wrong. There are a handful of reputable scholars who have stood in the mythicist corner. I have only ever heard of one academic who ever gave credence to the notion that aliens built the pyramids, and he's been too busy fighting off those aliens to do much publishing.
 * I think it would be more apt to compare them to academic climate change deniers, in that they serve as living reminders that for some people, no amount of education and intelligence can overcome the strong desire to confirm one's personally held beliefs. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

This article should be deleted too
Powerless, I hereby register my opinion for the public record as well that this article almost entirely consists of folly and delusions. Knowing that modern religious movements nearly exclusively reimagine, rebrand, copy-paste and reshape previously held myths I see no reason why christianity shouldn't follow this pattern. After careful reading of several sceptic works on this issue I am now convinced it is far more likely than not (by a factor of about 1 against 100) that the jesus character is entirely made up. The "most scholars agree" phrase rings hollow since it turns out basically all these scholars are christian and thereby prejudiced. That is, they literally were already convinced of jesus' historicity before they went to do research because they were brought up to believe so. Consequently I think this article should be deleted since we do not have an article on the historicity of Zeus. Now believing masses, go ahead. Archive this section, you cannot expunge it from the public record. ScienceDawns (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * See WP:NOR and WP:DEL. Basically, Wikipedia listens to established scholars, not to its own editors and there are procedures to be followed in order to delete articles (per WP:SNOW this article won't be deleted). Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The FAKE wikpedia site
Christians have set up a FAKE wikipedia site to push their lies. An example of the fake version of this article is:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

You will note the "m" between the words en and the wikipedia. The FAKE pages do not resemble genuine wikipedia pages.(5.8.185.115 (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC))
 * That is the mobile version of wikipedia, and not a clone or knockoff (see Domain name for more information on how that sort of address spoofing doesn't work). The issue you seem to take with it is that the information contained therein confirms that the scholarly consensus is that a man by the name of Jesus lived and preached in that area at that time. The reason the page says that is because the scholarly consensus is that a man by the name of Jesus lived and preached in that area at that time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It appears as though portions of this article are solely resting on one person(Bart D. Ehrman)'s word alone. This does not overturn the claim of a near-complete consensus on a Historical Jesus. However, it is quite dubious that in Ministry and Teachings -> Asceticism, the wording of "However, Ehrman notes the conjectural nature of these claims as 'not a single one of our ancient sources indicates that Jesus was married, let alone married to Mary Magdalene'" makes it appear as though his word alone (source [141]) is being treated as the final say in the celibacy of a Historical Jesus. There are no other sources cited for this rebuttal. In Ministry and Teachings -> Eschatology, Ehrman is listed as the only source ([128]) yet his claim is referred to as "A great many - if not a majority - of critical Biblical scholars." This seems dubious at the very least, if not completely discardable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.226.106.138 (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Issues linking to related articles
I added this to the intro:
 * The Christ myth theory is the minority view that Jesus was not a historical person.

FutureTrillionaire reverted with the edit summary:
 * "topic already covered in 1st sentence of 2nd paragraph"

and that sentence says:
 * The vast majority of scholars who write on the subject agree that Jesus existed, although scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

That sentence doesn't actually say put a name to the idea that Jesus was not a historical person, and so can't link to it. That was mostly the point of my edit; I found it odd that this article wasn't well-linked to its opposite. Taking a second look, I see it's actually well-linked from the desktop version but not the mobile version. Users of Template:Sidebar like Template:Jesus don't actually appear on the mobile site, and the latter has a link a number of articles providing more context. And the mobile site only shows top-level section headings like "Criticism" and not second-level headings like "Christ myth theory". I see four possible solutions: Any thoughts? -- Beland (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Put a link back into the intro paragraph (possibly rephrase the specified sentence? I'm agnostic, so to speak)
 * Fix the sidebar issue on mobile devices
 * Get more comprehensive TOCs on mobile devices
 * Decide that I should have looked in the "Criticism" section if I wanted to know more about the opposite topic.

"Most 'scholars' today" vs. New Atheists
It is unfair, to put it mildly, to create an article on "historical Jesus" and claim how most of today's scholars agree Jesus existed and lived in accordance to gospel. It's more likely that majority of "most scholars" are theologians, which makes them hardly objective. Those who based their counter-argument on "New Atheists" and their writings and speeches are facing the same problem.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  17:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

"TWood I have no doubt that it is. So is it true that you know of zero mythicists who have a teaching job at a major university (in a relevant department like a religious or history dept.)? Follow up. Do you ever worry that your agreeing to debate a mythicist validates their views too much? Bart 1. I don’t know of any in the fields of NT/Early Christianity/Classics/Ancient History/Early Judaism. 2. Yup."

- Bart Ehrman


 * An atheist quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Historical Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130517200711/http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/AuthorBiosPhotos/marshbio.htm to http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/AuthorBiosPhotos/marshbio.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110124140721/http://www.queensu.ca/history/people/facultyinstructorsalpha/akenson.html to http://www.queensu.ca/history/people/facultyinstructorsalpha/akenson.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Archaeology
See: Pilate stone Miistermagico (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That has absolutely nothing to do with the Historical Jesus. Nobody doubts that Pilate, Herod, and some other members of the ruling elite mentioned in the Gospels were actual people.Smeat75 (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear Smeat75, How can you be so sure "Nobody doubts?" Have you questioned every one? The Pilate stone presents physical evidence that at least one main character in the Jesus story did exist. This does not prove Pilate had Jesus crucified but it does suggest this incident may be fact. Miistermagico (talk) 08:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Where do we go from here?
So. Now that it has been pointed out that this article presents the opinion of a number of writers as fact "ie: that the existence of an historical JC is generally accepted" what does one do about it? Should disclaimers be added? Should the article be rewritten from a more neurtral viewpoint?

Thus far. On the talk page these problems have been pointed out, and yet the article remains in it's original biased form.

I am not one to do article editing myself, but do wish to see this article fixed.

So where do we go from here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.231.234.108 (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * See WP:NOTNEUTRAL, WP:RS/AC, WP:GEVAL, WP:ABIAS, WP:FRINGE and WP:ACTIVIST. These all say that the article won't be "fixed" as you intend. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Philosophy of Historical Criticism and the “historical Jesus”
I think that it should be pointed out in the article that most critical historical reconstructions of Jesus have a purely hypothetical value, since they are based on a priori philosophical bases. The encyclical Pascendi provides a insightful critique of “historical-critical” methods:

“The first is a sort of transfiguration of the phenomenon, by its elevation above its own true conditions, by which it becomes more adapted to that form of the divine which faith will infuse into it. The second is a kind of disfigurement, which springs from the fact that faith, which has made the phenomenon independent of the circumstances of place and time, attributes to it qualities which it has not; and this is true particularly of the phenomena of the past, and the older they are, the truer it is. From these two principles the Modernists deduce two laws, which, when united with a third which they have already got from agnosticism, constitute the foundation of historical criticism.

We will take an illustration from the Person of Christ. In the person of Christ, they say, science and history encounter nothing that is not human. Therefore, in virtue of the first canon, deduced from agnosticism, whatever there is in His history suggestive of the divine, must be rejected. Then, according to the second canon, the historical Person of Christ was transfigured by faith; therefore everything that raises it above historical conditions must be removed. Lately, the third canon, which lays down that the person of Christ has been disfigured by faith, requires that everything should be excluded, deeds and words and all else that is not in keeping with His character, circumstances and education, and with the place and time in which He lived. A strange style of reasoning, truly; but it is the Modernists' critique.” Josebarbosa (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is original research and cannot be included per our policy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  23:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a complicated way of saying that historical scholarship follows the empiric-analytic model and does not pander to piety/Church dogmas. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Describing John P. Meier
User:Smeat75 reverted an edit of mine with the dismissive edit summary that "we do not label reliable sources as to beliefs or affiliations" I had added that John P. Meier was an American biblical scholar and Roman Catholic priest, by no stretch of the imagination could this be called labelling "beliefs or affiliations" it is a neutral description of what he is, from his own Wikipedia page and is helpful, please assume good faith. Theroadislong (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Post-Enlightenment historians
I have stated most Post-Enlightenment historians, but I think it means all present-day historians, except truly believing Bible scholars. As Bart Ehrman stated at (55:25-58:00, longer story: 53:00-1:04:00) the history professors from US research universities never posit miracles or divine causation as historical explanations for historical events. Otherwise we would have peer-reviewed articles like "Have leprechauns dictated the Book of Isaiah? An alternative theory for the claim that angels have dictated the Book of Isaiah", "Historical proof that Attila the Hun was possessed by evil spirits", "Vespasian's godly status confirmed through archaeological finds" and "The role of elves and fairies in World War II combats". Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)