Talk:Massacre of the Innocents

Paul Maier apologetics
Please don't use Paul Maier apologetics. He is an inveterate Missouri-Synod Lutheran. We don't need biblical literalist commentary here. It's baloney par excellence. jps (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The above comment is unacceptable. We do not discriminate based on religious belief/non-belief. Because Maier was published in a reliable source and is a known scholar who mitigates against his own minority view. The content you removed has been discussed at length previously. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:YWAB. Literalist bullshit does not belong in Wikipedia. I'm glad he mitigates against his "minority view". We can include that mitigation. But the facts of the matter are that his belief is not worthy of inclusion on a page that is dedicated to high-quality scholarship. No one cares about what someone who thinks the Earth is literally 6000 years old thinks of anything historical. Great that he can summarize people who are better than him. Now let's leave his idiocy out of our encyclopedia. jps (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * More to the point WP:ONEWAY. If it is important to his biography, put it there. But it is not important to the subject of this page on Christian mythology. He has nothing to offer except literalism. jps (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Better start adding “Myth”arguments to the Koran; Torah etc… descriptions. Good luck with that. 184.98.30.91 (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Like it or not, the Holy Bible is a historical artifact. Because of that, the burden of proof lies upon the person stating that the Massacre of the Innocents is a myth.  Keep in mind, many scholars try to disprove the Bible, only to be proven wrong as more artifacts and writings are uncovered.  Keep in mind, the Hittites were once argued to not exist.  That was, of course, proven entirely innacurate. Unruhka (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your taking a stand. I am not a biblical scholar. However, the Holy Bible is probably not completely a historical artifact. I am aware that some archeological discoveries (evidences) correlate with some of the Bible. But this does not mean this book can be counted on for complete historical accuracy. And the purpose of this book goes beyond recounting historical events. For example, the Bible provides moral and/or spiritual lessons, and stories fulfill those purposes. The stories are not required to be historical, or have historical veracity, to transmit such lessons. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yup, Hittites have been showed to have been real. The Israelite conquest of Canaan has been showed to be unreal. I mean: not because of lack of evidence, but because of plenty of evidence that it could not have happened. Big chunks of the Bible have been showed to be unhistorical, based upon positive evidence, not lack of evidence. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "the Bible provides moral and/or spiritual lessons, and stories fulfill those purposes." To be honest, its various books provide insight on the values of their writers and their intended audience. Such as praising blindly obedient characters, and villifying powerful and ambitious figures. As with most myths, they reflects the customs, institutions, and taboos of the cultures which produced them. Dimadick (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I have mentioned this dispute at WP:FTN. If y'all came to a problematic WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that parroting the beliefs of someone who thinks the bible is literal is fine and dandy, then, yes, we have a problem. jps (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

People: Maier published in an invited chapter in a compendium of a second-tier university press. It was not peer-reviewed by competent historians since they don't peer review contributed chapters. We don't need to parrot it here. jps (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Not only that but the invited compendium is to honor Ray Summers!!!! A professor of New Testament and Greek at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Are you kidding me? This is a profound misread of genre. This is not history. This is apologetics. Full stop. jps (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is really pushing the absolute limit. If someone is a believer, are they disallowed from being reliable experts on statements related to their faith, regardless of the regard their scholarship is held in? ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, as long as it is considered reliable we can use it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course, nothing that is biblical literalist is reliable. We know that's just nonsense. jps (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Was he not a professor, That seems to be to establish his credientials. Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Credentials are irrelevant. The publication is basically apologetics entirely. Professors can be biblical literalists. You know that. jps (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC
 * Actually it's not, as RS have a "reputation for fact checking", not the right bias". 16:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Biblical literalists have got to be near the bottom of "reputation for fact checking". Lol. jps (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are giving a bias opinion. It is plain to see that your ideas are based on your bias against those who hold to the scriptures themselves. There is some truth to the notion of a lack of fact checking, but this does not mean that all "Literalists" do not check out the facts. This is a common misconception which is an "across the board" for all "Literalists." 162.71.241.14 (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Most evangelicals working for conservative Christian colleges have to sign formal oaths that the Bible is fully inerrant. If they dare to say there is a picayune mistake therein, they are fired ASAP.
 * And basically, if literalist scholars would only have to fight against atheist and agnostic scholars, they would be fighting against a lame duck. But it seems that the majority of Christian mainstream scholars made their mind that the even did not happen. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Slatersteven Being a professor is never enough to be a reliable source, did you mean that literally? I can point to professors who write nonsense, I can show you mainstream publishers that publish occasionally terrible fringe stuff. Doug Weller  talk 10:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, but the fact he is an academic and this is within his field his views need to be rejected on rather more than "I don't like it", it needs to be shown his views are unreliable. It needs to be shown its fringe. Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Name one respected biblical scholar who thinks biblical literalism is a legitimate way to make sense of the bible. jps (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, Maier is not WP:CITED for his own POV, but for candidly admitting that the WP:RS/AC is the opposite of his own POV. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Only in the lede. In the part I removed, he is parroting literalism. jps (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Maier is arguing that this is an argument from criterion of embarrassment. That because it doesn't help the Christian cause it must be true. ::rolleyes:: This isn't serious scholarship. This is apologetics. jps (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Accusing another editor of bullshit, statements attacking individuals for their religious beliefs, and the above comment are not going to facilitate a conversation that changes things in your favor. We can start this conversation over from the top, but this is not how we should deal with disagreements on the project. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Grow a thicker skin. Bullshit is a scholarly and technical term for what is going on right now. Religious beliefs do not belong promoted in the encyclopedia which is what is happening. It is extremely difficult for a biblical literalist to edit this encyclopedia. I know, I've drummed many of them out of here because they just couldn't abide by the truth that their beliefs were going to be described as manifestly incorrect in Wikipedia's voice. We know that there is no evidence for this event. That needs to be made very clear to the reader when the context is history. If that offends a believer, then they need to leave this project. jps (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But we can still say they believe its true. Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The content is accompanied by inline attribution and comes from a reliable source. As tgeorgescu also noted, Maier recognized his view was in the minority. However, Maier also supports his perspective using valid historical approaches (if still arriving at a position that hesitatingly supports the massacre as historical). ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It depends how it sits within WP:FRINGESUBJECTS. Brown's apologetics get mentioned in other sources. Do Maier's? (genuine question). Bon courage (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Only other Christian apologetics sources. Those who study the historicity of the Bible do not take him seriously. How can they? He has to contend with things like the Earth's rotation stopping in the Book of Joshua. He's a total freak! jps (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Outside of dissertations and theses, at least 10 peer reviewed works reference Maier's work . ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ha! What a joke! None of those are in the relevant field and I don't think any of them show any evidence of peer review. What makes you think they're peer reviewed? jps (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there any scholarly discussion of his views on this topic? Bon courage (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not that I can find. As you see above, there are weirdoes citing it (10 of them), but nothing that would rise to the level of "this has something to say about what was going on in Palestine during the reign of Herod the Great". And we have boatloads of excellent, reliable sources that discuss that subject. jps (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I checked the José D. Najar book from that list, and it offers the opposite conclusion, "In the Bible story, which scholars considered to be based on legend rather than historical fact, King Herod ordered the massacre (101-102)". I don't see that as supporting the reliability of the Paul Maier article. It's not uncommon for someone to publish reliable material in one field and unreliable material in another (like apologetics), Rjjiii  (talk) 06:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That absolutely does demonstrate his reliability. He's being cited for the objectively accurate statement he provides: most scholar disagree with him. This is an endorsement of him as a sound source, while not endorsing his conclusion. Since he is a scholar of note who is widely cited even by those who disagree with him, his opinion is relevant. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ??? If I publish an longform article about the origins of the Earth and I say that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old which is in direct contradiction to the position that Answers in Genesis holds, that is not a means to declare Answers in Genesis is reliable about the topic. jps (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * He absolutely does not. Maier is a charlatan. A hack. A biblical literalist who wants to play with the real scholars but can't because his faith requires him to believe absolute absurdities. Some researchers can get around that. They can compartmentalize. Maier was unable to do so and, moreover, no one cared to notice that this was his position. So why should we? jps (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Only if someone noticed. The standard has to be higher than "oh, someone said this thing". We need to decide whether it is important that they said it. From what I can see, no serious scholar takes Haier's argument from the criterion of embarrassment nor France's argument about how "no one probably thought this massacre was worth writing about" seriously. It's all just fodder for a Sunday School lesson. It's what you console the gal or guy who comes to your parsonage worried that they're losing their faith. It's apologetics and unless that apologetics has been commented on, it doesn't belong here since it is WP:FRINGE and not WP:MAINSTREAM scholarship. jps (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I feel those who have had more than their say need to stop wp:bludgeoning and let fresh blood be spilt. Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, it appears editing on this article has been happening for the last several days and several editors are involved. I posted the above statement too late. In other words, the horse has left the barn and is probably out in the hills somewhere. So I retract my above. Or the train has left the station, and so on... Steve Quinn (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit request
Can someone fix the weird punctuation at the end of the first paragraph of the history section. 109.158.223.241 (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks for pointing in out. Indyguy (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

"The Massacre of the Innocents is a myth."
"The Massacre of the Innocents is a myth," say the first words of this article. I believe it is indeed a myth, and the source cited in support of those opening words says that it almost certainly is a myth. But Wikipedia should not portray a near-certainty as, simply, a certainty. Even the great Carl Sagan, famous for his fussy scrupulousness in never, ever asserting as true what he did not know to be true, spoke of Velikovsky's cockamamy hypothesis about Venus not as wrong, but only as "probably wrong." Wikipedia should be just as scrupulous. 2603:6010:100:6E85:E901:7950:7913:2887 (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * See talk page archives Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Do we need a FAQ?
 * I think an invisible text (or perhaps even a visible) note in the article that emphasizes what we mean by myth is better than a talk page FAQ. Many new editors don't notice FAQs but they do help with experienced editors repeating mistakes. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Myth?
Trying to frame this subject in intentionally negative light is ultimately a waste of everyone's time. Reading the word myth lexically jumps out of the page, and frankly is highly inconducive to Wikipedia's role as educational aid. Why am I reading something brash and culturally sharp-edged when simply going through a mainstream topic on Wikipedia? I don't need to be questioning the purpose and oddness of the word 'myth', I need the most reasonable and scholarly appraisal of the subject. But instead, I find an impossibly jarring word, and a remarkably poor source used to field a remarkably incendiary lexical decision. The Monty-Python-esque desire to lash out at the old models of 'faith, conservatism, hierarchy' does not for one second justify shoddy scholarship. Who on earth took the marginal side-note on mythology in 'The Mythology of America's Seasonal Holidays' (hm?) to suddenly redefine how we culturally and lexically interact with Christian biblical narrative? Are you mad? I don't mean in terms of your 'ideological slant', I mean in terms of how embarrassing the attempt is. I don't know whether I'm here to query for a change, or to laugh. Affirming a confluence between the concept of mythology and the lack of historicity in biblical narrative does not even come close to Wikipedia editors hilariously shoehorning a tidbit onto the introduction to the 'Massacre of the Innocents'. What makes it so unfortunate is that most of you have spent countless hours reading countless tracts on these subjects, and end up with disastrous attempts at poorly traced nudge theory, like this.

Change 'myth' to 'biblical story', and if you won't hang your heads in shame, at least sharpen those vaunted Dawkins-lite skills. You have a culture war to win, don't you? Tancred.E.Augustine (talk) 04:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Nope, I'm a liberal, meaning a right-wing moderate. I not here for culture wars, but for the war against pseudohistory. Just because it's faith, it's not exempted from being pseudohistory. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Describing it as a myth is riotously off to the deep end. No context, no establishment of a historical context and historicity, nothing but a clear pejorative in the dialectic of 'faith and fable', relevant belief as opposed to non-relevant and antiquated belief.
 * And, actually, the Christian faith, alongside the other great faiths spread across the world, is quite clearly exempted from pseudohistory. It's actually preposterous that you would make that claim. But in the subsectional topic of historicity, you can go as far as you want with that line. Not in the lede. Tancred.E.Augustine (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Even allowing that Herod did kill some kids in Bethlehem, what it has to do with Jesus? I'm not a Bible scholar, so what do I know? But estimating Jesus's birth year based upon the NT gospels strikes me as a tad fanciful. I have no better estimate, btw, I'll just leave it at "unknown".
 * Theologians tend to think that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but historians tend to think he was born elsewhere (probably Nazareth; other places have also been suggested). tgeorgescu (talk) 05:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No its not, any more than the idea that Jesus was just a Prophet (Islam). Its not a fact, so its either myth or fiction. Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's ahistorical and unscholarly. No reputable historian or biblical scholar would surmise the subject in those terms. I suggest you find other subjects more adapted to your milieu, perhaps Richard Dawkins' page - you can inform us what a great and remarkable man he is.
 * Reframing the language we use to discuss religion according to one's own wont is directly against Wikipedia's rules, and strongly against the spirit of editing on this site. Either there's precedent and established practice, or you've plucked a cultural affectation from your own particular experiences and beliefs. Time to get back to the academic field, and outside your own head.
 * I expect the lede to be changed, in the absence of anyone being able to reasonably explain why Wikipedia editors are at the front and centre of a radical change in how we academically analyse and discuss some of the world's densest cultural topics.
 * Otherwise, I suppose we'll be seeing the biblical passages introduced any day now into the classical corpus, and enlightened souls like on here may begin to call themselves classicists and explorers of our now newly ancient hisory.Tancred.E.Augustine (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * myth 1. a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events. 2.a widely held but false belief or idea.
 * This story fits that rather well, what else do we call it? Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please don't break out the dictionary. There are the tools we use for the heavy-lifting of academic discourse, and the tools we use to win internet arguments.
 * Besides this being a strangely overt use of your own research and thinking...? Tancred.E.Augustine (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You mean the kind that says this is a myth, per our sources? Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Startling research. Where are you going to publish? Merriam-Webster? Tancred.E.Augustine (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

And with that I am out with a firm no,. Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you seek to introduce WP:RULES which are foreign to Wikipedia. Not every good argument matters, but only good arguments according to well-established WP:RULES. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact is that I won't press home the point any further, since unlike any potential insinuations, I'm not overwhelmingly committed to this single issue or case as regards the whole of Wikipedia (thus avoiding the I'm sure perennial method for negating the opinions of newbodies). But there are a few questions that sprout from even this particular issue, that fall, I think, within the remit of even this one example.
 * 1. The ideological interest in framing, in this article, and perhaps quite a few others, is gratuitous. There's no cause for taking the pains to involve something foreign in the creation of encyclopaediacal entries. Be aware and aloft of the silly trench wars below, and provide information disassociated from your ego and personal crusades. The entry here, even in a small way, and moreso by a sustained reluctance to address it, showcases something flagrant, and obviously alien as regards the usual content on Wikipedia. Failing to put your 'maturity cap' on when you edit on this website causes untold harm in its simple aesthetics.
 * 2. As a barely-there editor, I can't edit this protected article. The bar isn't so high to become able to do so, but it introduces something that jumps out across the rest of the talk page. Rather than ascertaining a particular point, there seems to be a parallel game at play when one side meets the ostensibly ideological reticence of the other. Instead of discussing, and the better argument rising like oil over water, I can't help but notice a mendacious, but finely played, game of patience and simple spare time. The energy required to wade through delicate games of wrangling that seem intended to be 'wrangling' and sophistic, IS a high bar to vault.
 * 3. Legalistic thinking clearly favours hierarchy. However, Wikipedia isn't a hierarchy, but a technocracy. You can't pull rank. You can only inhabit a position of higher technical proficiency. When legalistic modelling and lecturing takes a resounding lead over common sense (the latter concept of editing being the surest ladder with which new editors might make the mistake of joining this website) then it's pulling rank. Enforcing niceties and scolding perceived missteps in tone and conduct can easily be a form of hiding behind rank.
 * The above is less to do with particular interactions, and more to do with the general malaise I notice on just this one page.
 * If a prolonged discussion must be embarked on in order to change a lede which defies every standard I've ever read in historical and academic discussion, moreover backed by I must say horrendous sourcing, then the solution lies less in what happens through one discussion, and rather through a general chipping over a longer period of time.
 * I also want to state that I consider this to be entirely related to the subject matter, the article, and future editing. Just because it's longform does not mean it meanders from the subject. Tancred.E.Augustine (talk) 02:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also tgeorgescu, I appreciate your efforts, but you're dead wrong on this. Tancred.E.Augustine (talk) 02:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, there is a very important reason why this is mostly absent from scholarly literature:
 * "As a young student, I heard a series of lectures given by a famous liberal Old Testament theologian on Old Testament introduction. And there one day learned that the fifth book of Moses (Deuteronomy) had not been written by Moses—although throughout it it claims to have been spoken and written by Moses himself. Rather, I heard Deuteronomy had been composed centuries later for quite specific purposes. Since I came from an orthodox Lutheran family, was deeply moved by what I heard—in particular, because it convinced me. so the same day I sought out my teacher during his hours and, in connection With the origin of Deuteronomy, let slip the remark, 'So is the fifth book of Moses what might be called a forgery?' His answer was, 'For God's sake, it may well be, but you can't say anything like that.'I wanted to use that quotation in order to show that the results of historical scholarship can be made known to the public&mdash;especially to believers&mdash;only with difficulty. Many Christians feel threatened if they hear that most of what was written in the Bible is (in historical terms) untrue and that none of the four New Testament Gospels was written by the author listed at the top of the text."
 * Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ever since the Enlightenment there has been a vested interest in disproving and dismantling the Christian constellation of beliefs, practices, rituals, fundamental morals and so on.
 * Ever since Rome, and Constantine, there has been a vested interest in proving, shielding, adjudicating and enforcing those same beliefs that later came to be attacked.
 * After all the many conflicts that had religion as one of their chief motives, we've essentially come to rest by a sort of Westphalian tradition in academia.
 * Those who perceive their school of thought to be of origin in the ideals of the Enlightenment refrain from forcefully and vigorously stating that faith is false, and that in the interests of rationalism et al, faith and belief should be definitively characterised as incorrect, or contrary to reason. It all applies under the famous and tired refrain: One can't prove God, and neither can one DISPROVE God.
 * Faithful adherents to religion, under this concept of afforded freedoms, therefore must likewise refrain from stating their beliefs to be absolute fact, to be the undiminished truth of God, and therefore worthy of forceful legislation into law and order. (Absolute fact, in this sense, being a personal and individual interpretation disallowed from reaching any inevitable conclusions that impact another's freedom of conscience.)
 * Since neither side has the abundance of divine power to ascertain, and square down the truth, we rest in this altogether polite and peaceful place, where neither one nor the other manifests a total condescension to him who thinks differently.
 * Myth is a cultural term, not scientific, that connotes a belief in divinities or rituals that no longer have affinity in the modern world. It is to say; dead religions and cultures.
 * Factoring in the strong, and ever-present socio-political presences of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, among others, Wikipedia is in no place to be breaking, essentially, the terms of freedom of association, speech, and religion as they all pertain to academic practise. And they DO pertain. To think otherwise is folly. Tancred.E.Augustine (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sheila Greeve Davaney (2001)
 * From the same source, but a lifted quote. Thought it was useful?
 * Tancred.E.Augustine (talk) 04:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your argument misses one point: the vast majority of mainstream Bible scholars are Christians. Why would they seek to dismantle their own religion?
 * As for Wikipedia violating human rights: the argument is ludicrous. Kowtowing to mainstream history is not a conspiracy against human rights. It's simply what Wikipedia is: WP:MAINSTREAM. Meaning: some epistemic choices of Wikipedia are ready-made, we all have to comply with these choices.
 * And, to put it in simple terms, myth is "someone else's religion."
 * You might call it a naive approach, but some people are concerned with historical facts.
 * Ehrman's kids were asking him about events from the Bible: "Is it true?" "Yes." "Wait... did it really happen?" "No."
 * And, of course, there is nothing wrong with rendering theology as theology. But history is a different academic field. Theology is bound to a certain denomination, history isn't. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you're playing Go Fish with a new account here, but I don't mind. So far being strung along has been cheerfully instructive, no? It's remarkable what must be under the hood, bonnet, for egregious errors like this to carry on, as unflappable as a DOB.
 * The point here is that the article is flat-out wrong, misconceived in its entire subject basis, and sourced according to a prejudiced desire to implement a mythological framework from another field of study. I've requested a change, that has been denied according to me not eating dinner with the dinner fork, and soup with the soup spoon.
 * Wikipedia has violated my human rights by taking up my time on a peephole of a problem.
 * Change 'myth' to biblical story! The only reason I've been given by TWO editors, is that something is either myth or fiction if it isn't fact! So what's the 'Big Bang' theory gents? Because I'm feeling mythic, but maybe you have a good argument for a fine old piece of fiction. A bit like Star Wars. Or maybe it's simply the sound of me crashing out of here before the KB strain erodes my sense of what's myth as opposed to reality.
 * Can someone conclude this at some point, even if it's not in my favour.
 * tgeorgescu Since we disagree, doesn't this mean something external is necessary to regulate the conclusion? I appreciate your candour and willingness to discuss, but I feel a great cataclysm shall arrive to this talk post if we persist in going any further down the page. Tancred.E.Augustine (talk) 05:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You may certainly seek WP:DR. My point is simple: theology is bound to a certain denomination, history isn't. Theology defines true beliefs for a community of believers; history seeks to establish facts which do not depend upon one's religion. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a very good point. And I don't disagree. But determining that a biblical story is a myth, beyond the v. messy terminology, is deriving a fact and smear from an absence of corroborating evidence, something that a historian can't do given the context and sensitivity. You may offhandedly dismiss claims from ancient history, but if someone calls you up, and tells you that they actually believe Venus did come out of the sea from Uranus's balls, you're going to have to at least admit you don't know for a fact it didn't happen. If two million people then sign a petition stating the same, you'll have to call your publisher.
 * And if a billion people believe it, you'll be best calling it a story, and then in very careful print explaining why your Marine Biology Masters doesn't quite corroborate the lovely little STORY.
 * History has no God. Religion does. Objective standards can exist in the first, if they're at least some sort deist. And not in the latter, if they're the average Catholic priest.
 * Realistically, we were previously discussing the order of approach. Theology takes a 'thing' for granted: the gentleman Wikipedian academic notes this, and introduces the subject with cultural sensitivity. One needn't introduce Mozart's symphony as a collection of sounds, pops, and whizzes, even if it sounds that way to you. Some people call it music, and they hold dearly to that.
 * So you introduce the subject as a cultured gentleman does, and then, if you wish, enter into the historicity of it.
 * As for this particular article, I believe the historicity is likely not too studied. Compared to the historicity of the Virgin Birth, Lazarus, or the Resurrection, I imagine it's at the back of the queue. But by all means make the article that way. But introduce it the way civilised people talk about religion. I believe this is a civilised place.
 * That's all I can manage today, User:tgeorgescu. Again, I appreciate your responses. They've been helpful, though hard to adequately respond to. To answer more directly would require more brain energy than I can harness. Tancred.E.Augustine (talk) 06:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Christians make up about 32% of the world's population, so most people would not see this as a fact. Why should they be ignored? Slatersteven (talk) 07:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What you ignore is that liberal Christianity made peace for a long time with calling it a myth. Fundamentalist Christianity didn't. And it seems to me that the overwhelming majority of Christians would call themselves liberal Christians, provided they understand the difference.
 * If you need a source, see : being a Christian means believing in Jesus. "Being a Christian means believing that the Bible is true" is a fundamentalist POV (and historically stupid: for the first five centuries, Christians did not have something like our Bible). tgeorgescu (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * this is a woefully inaccurate and inappropriate statement. The inerrancy of scripture is a teaching held by the Christian denominations comprising the majority of Christians today. Calling a commonly held religious belief historically stupid is not exactly a productive way to phrase things. I encourage you to strike your above comment and rephrase. As of right now, I am ok using "myth", but there's no reason to needlessly start attacking particular religions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * are not my own words, but Ehrman's verbatim statement. You might as well report Bart Ehrman to WP:ANI. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you need a source, see : being a Christian means believing in Jesus. "Being a Christian means believing that the Bible is true" is a fundamentalist POV (and historically stupid: for the first five centuries, Christians did not have something like our Bible). tgeorgescu (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * this is a woefully inaccurate and inappropriate statement. The inerrancy of scripture is a teaching held by the Christian denominations comprising the majority of Christians today. Calling a commonly held religious belief historically stupid is not exactly a productive way to phrase things. I encourage you to strike your above comment and rephrase. As of right now, I am ok using "myth", but there's no reason to needlessly start attacking particular religions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * are not my own words, but Ehrman's verbatim statement. You might as well report Bart Ehrman to WP:ANI. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

You alone are responsible for the things you say. Introducing inflammatory language into a discussion—despite repeated warnings and prior blocks for uncivil behavior—will not be exempted because someone else said it. Consider striking. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not my view, it's Ehrman's view. I only explained what he stated in that video. You are angry at him, not at me.
 * So: I can specify very clearly that it's Ehrman view, but I cannot deny that it is the view of that source. Therefore, your request that I retract Ehrman's view is ludicrous. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I watched the video and didn't catch Ehrman saying historically stupid. I went through the YouTube transcript to ensure I didn't miss it, where the closest thing I could find was towards the end, at timestamp 29:35: "they've convinced everybody that if you don't believe in the Bible, you can't be Christian–that is just stupid." Please add the timestamp, but I'm not hearing him say that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * (twice) at 29:30-29:43, 29:47-29:51,  29:52-30:05.
 * That is, the idea that Christians believed in the Bible (meaning Old Testament + New Testament) before there was a Bible/New Testament is just stupid, according to Ehrman. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So why did you (mis)quote this to support the claim that belief in biblical inerrancy is fundamentalist, especially since it's definitely not? It's an inflammatory non-sequitur. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Doesn't answer the question, these aren't reliable sources, and still doesn't pertain to the subject at hand. This indicates further discussion is pointless. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That:
 * it's not civilized;
 * it violates human rights;
 * I would have to retract;
 * it's inflammatory;
 * biblical inerrancy is not fringe...
 * I simply don't understand where such claims come from. Maybe there is another Wikipedia, in a parallel world, wherein such WP:RULES do apply.
 * I'm not stupid. I get the point quickly. It is just that I never saw anything like that as the WP:RULES of Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "biblical inerrancy is not fringe..." Since when? I thought it was a laughable belief, held by a few weirdoes. Dimadick (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not stupid. I get the point quickly. It is just that I never saw anything like that as the WP:RULES of Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "biblical inerrancy is not fringe..." Since when? I thought it was a laughable belief, held by a few weirdoes. Dimadick (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I think at this stage we close this and have an RFC. Slatersteven (talk)

Redundant tagging
This page is still tagged for 'disputed factual accuracy.' However, the article states at the outset that this story is a myth. There is more content in the article that states this story is not historically accurate, or the article says that the story is not believed to be historically accurate. In any case, having a 'disputed factual accuracy' tag seems to be redundant and/or circular at this point. Especially after the editing that has occurred since the tag was placed on this article. So, I am boldly removing the tag. Leaving it in place seems to be pointy at this juncture. If problems arise in the future, then please feel free to restore the tag. The underline is mine. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "this story is not historically accurate" Nothing relating to the Nativity of Jesus is historically accurate. We have two contradictory accounts in canonical gospels, and neither one is factual. Dimadick (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * OK. So what is your point? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As we say its a myth, we do not need the tag. Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Dimadick, never mind, now I get what you are saying. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Estimates from CE
has repeatedly restored an unsourced claim appended to the passage on estimated fatalities sourced to the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for the subject. Additionally, they have removed sourced content on who made this controversial and dated claim. Their rationale has been that the unsourced content has only been tagged for a brief time, but this content was previously unsourced and present in the article for quite a while. Given that it unverifiably modifies a sourced controversial statement, it shouldn't be retained. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It was marked as CN a couple of days ago, that is not enough time for anyone to try and find a source. Why is this relevant? A, not everyone may have seen the CN tags, so might not have thought it did not need sourcing, because B the text flow implies that one or more of the sources (Evang. S. Matt, August Bisping or, Lorenz Kellner) is the source for the claim (so might have thought it was sourced). So we need to give the person who added the text and or sources to move or add a cite. Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * We say who made it the catholic encyclopedia, we do not need to know who wrote the section, as it is not an SPS by that person. Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We do actually Holweck as the author of that specific entry (the CE identifies authors of entries), and that is far more relevant than attributing the piece in-text to the CE. This article features numerous in-text attributions to identify the people behind opinions on this controversial subject. Per WP:V, unsourced content that has been challenged should generally be removed until consensus exists to reinsert it. Per BRD, the version with the tag that was repeatedly restored should have been discussed. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why is it relevant to say this, what does it add to our understanding, does this mean it is not the stance of the Catholic enclyopedia? Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As to the removed test, yes uncited text can be removed, you did not remove it, you tagged it as CN, such tags should be left until sufficient time has passed (and that is not a few days). Ironically, yes if you had just removed it it should not have been reinserted. It is now too late for that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, you have read the edit history: I did not tag the text. That was a different editor. There is no absolute obligation to retain unsourced content for a few days, especially when it has been unsourced for such a long time. And yes, you cite the individual who wrote something and not the work that contains it if it has multiple authors and the statement can be challenged. I don't think you understand what you were doing by reverting me (you were restoring a bold change without discussion) and have demonstrated a misunderstanding of the sources involved. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is Irreenvant who added it, it was there, and should have been given to me. Nor do you know it is unsourced, as I said it might be sourced to one of the preceding cites, not every line needs as cit. Haver you read those votes, can you conform they do not support the text? Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I read the sources cited. That's why I removed the unsupported content. That's how editing works. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Then that is what you should have said. Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I did. I told you it was unsourced in my edit summaries, in the replies on my talk page, and in my statements above. I told you the statement was unsourced and indicated that it was not verified by the source cited for the statement immediately preceding it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Unsourced does not mean unverified they are different things. You never said these sources do not support this even after my first reply here. Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Generally speaking, someone saying something is unsourced versus uncited indicates that the cited references present do not support the content. I said unsourced. Thanks for the self-revert. Your civility and communication has been appreciated. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * MAybe, but the CN tag means uncited, and that needs to be allowed to take time, it's a courtesy to give editors time to look for a source (if they wish). Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)