Talk:Killing Jesus

Guardian review
The Guardian review claims that "As a member of the populist right, he is not, of course, in favour of redistribution: Bill O'Reilly's Jesus does not tell the rich to give away their money to the poor."

In fact, O'Reilly's Jesus (and everyone else's) does urge the rich to voluntarily make charitable contributions to the poor. However, neither O'Reilly's Jesus (nor anyone else's) urged the local government of King Herod, or the Imperial government in Rome, to confiscate wealth from the rich and redistribute it to the poor.

I've deleted the Guardian paragraph, as Wikipedia is not a place to quote nonsensical reviews. 72.16.98.48 (talk) 05:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Your analysis is what we call 'original research', see WP:NOR. The Guardian meets our criteria for sources at WP:RS. I've replaced it. If you think it fails our critiera, please debate this at WP:RSN. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I went looking for some additional reviews, and though I expected it to be typically divided along political lines, what I found was near-universal panning of the book. The scholarship, writing and concept are all criticized, as is the politicization of Jesus in almost all sources I found, including Christian sources. I would have added a favorable review had I found one, however the closest I could get was this review from the Washington Times which tentatively praises the work, while never going into any detail about what makes it good. If so inclined, one could pull a few one-sentence quotes from that to counterbalance the bad reviews, but in the interest of WP:UNDUE, we'd have to add another bad review or two, to accurately reflect the balance of views. If anyone still wants to proceed, here are the more notable reviews I found:
 * USA Today
 * The Biblical World
 * The Daily Beast
 * Creation.com
 * Salon.com
 * MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  15:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for listing those additional reviews. Even most atheists are aware that according to Matthew, Jesus asked a rich man to sell his possessions and give the proceeds to the poor.  The Guardian review would have us believe that O'Reilly denies the existence of Matthew 19:21.  None of the other reviews back up that assertion -- and Prof. Byron's review actively contradicts it, saying "I don’t think that Bill has created Jesus in the image of the Tea Party" (although this statement has its own problems, belying a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Tea Party is all about; non-original research shows that the conservative persons who comprise the Tea Party tend to be more charitable to the poor than those on the other end of the political spectrum).  If my research was "original" on 18 December, it is no longer original after reviewing those other five reviews.
 * The Guardian is generally a reliable source, but even reliable sources occasionally contain turkeys, and Wikipedia is not obligated to cite a turkey of a review just because it was published by what is generally a reliable source. Panning the book is fine, but misrepresenting it is not. -- The IP formerly known as 72.16.98.48, 75.163.133.218 (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a review. Your argument against including it comprises synthesis and your own personal opinion. Neither of those makes a good reason not to include it. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for your political views. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem with removing the Guardian review
The truth or falsehood of a review is immaterial to the question of whether we should include it in Wikipedia. What matters is notability. Since the review comes from a publication whose website is the third most widely read news site in the world, its notability is well established. It's really that simple. It doesn't matter if the review misinterprets the author, misquotes the book, or tells outright lies about the subject (although that information itself might be included, should it be verifiable through a reliable source). What matters is that this review is notable. If you want support in removing it, the only way to do so is to convince people that the review is not notable enough. Convincing people that it mis-characterizes the arguments used in the books doesn't do your case any good. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  14:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)