Talk:Race and appearance of Jesus/Archive 3

Just a few... maybe some slaves
Is that how we handle historical articles on Wikipedia involving black people in areas outside of Africa, or in cosmopolitan societies? Just a few... only slaves? Really? That's the scholarship quality here after what, six years? Still back to that old trap? Just a few... just slaves? --Panehesy (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it in any article? No. Anyway, in relation to the Middle East, is it backed up by history and genetics? Yes. So what's the problem? Did you even read any of this? http://yajaffar.tripod.com/african.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A6645-2004Jan10&notFound=true FunkMonk (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You mention genetics right? Despite the fact I pointed out that genetic markers unrelated to physical appearance are therefore not irrefutable indicators of physical appearance (which is what the racial issue centers around). Now watch. You mention genetics. I bring to you the Lemba people of Mozambique. Their history says that they were Jewish priests that migrated south about 2000 years ago, via Sena in Yemen. The genetic markers very well established to be the Cohen modaltype are found in greater proportions among these Lemba. So yes, I've read "any of this". Please, feel free to marginalize this genetic history of the Lemba. Otherwise, accept it that the Middle East is a place where, 2000-3500 years ago people were darker on average than now, and were more heterogeneous than the modern era. --Panehesy (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The genetic markers you look at do not give you an indication of how they look. What difference does it make when these genetic markers are found in ancient darkerskinned black looking people, who over time mixed or changed through the generations in appearance. How do you explain that? Seriously! --Panehesy (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As I expected, you refuse to read the articles that clearly refute your view. How are we supposed to work anything out then? And how do the Lemba prove anything at all? Yes, they had Jewish ancestors. Does that prove the ancient Jews were black? No, it means that ancient Jews procreated with black African women. Anyhow, there is no "maybe" some slaves, it is a well known fact that thousands of African slaves were taken to the Middle East, ignoring this is very disingenuous. You would expect the amount of African ancestry to be even higher based on this. But the amount there is is so small that you hardly need an ancient, mysterious population of blacks to explain it, keeping the extent of the Arab slave trade in mind. FunkMonk (talk) 08:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Funk - We are refuting the notion that all of the indications of black presence in the middle east were the result of slavery. The key word isn't "maybe", the key word is "some" vs "all". Secondly, we are speaking of events that preceeded Arab and African slavery. Why would you even bring that up? Jesus lived centuries before Arabs started the slave trade. For what do you put the tag? That section has six statements that have been added since this thread began. One contained a main idea which is backed up with five statements. Two being quoted from a well published verifiable source, a third coming from another wiki page. But you know what? to remove the tag, I added a citation from "Science EXPRESS" a well reputable source. So we can take the tag off. --68.41.101.63 (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Funk, it is apparent that you didn't read it. Here I will quote from it. Again the key word is some, not all.
 * 1) Palestine lies at the crossroads of Africa, Asia and Europe. For thousands of years spices have passed along trade routes through Palestine. Ambergris and frankincense were brought from Somalia and Ethiopia. As well as trade, war, colonisation and pilgrimage all ensured that the peoples and cultures of north-eastern Africa and Arabia mingled.
 * 2) Some older people I spoke to Jerusalem had been born in Africa, while others in the Nagab and Gaza told me what they knew of how their ancestors came to Palestine. For many other people the link with Africa had been lost and all but forgotten.
 * 3) In the seventh century there were Africans living in Arabia, and Mohammed's trusted companion, Bilal was an Ethiopian freed slave. Many, but not all, the Africans in Arabia were slaves.

--68.41.101.63 (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason why you pick and choose from what I said as it suits you? Did I not say slaves and pilgrims? And did I put any tag anywhere? Nope. And yes, this article is about events that happened before the Arab slave trade, but you yourself bring up black Palestinians, as if they were proof of anything. They are not. The fact is, African slaves were brought to Palestine, some black Africans migrated there as pilgrims. 10% of Palestinians have any black ancestry. Thus the null hypothesis must be that these slaves and pilgrims account for this ancestry. On the other hand, if the ancient Jews and Canaanites had really been black, Palestinians would have much more than 10% African ancestry, and a lot more would look black. They don't, end of story. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason. It is because you focus on some of the things said in order to refute other things. Yes you said "pilgrims" but you are focusing on slaves. I bring up black palestinians because Jesus was a Palestinian Jew, so the question is raised "did black people live in Palestine during Jesus time or prior". I show blacks living there now whose ancestry predates the Arab conquest to demonstrate the possibility is there. Now, again with Genetics, you are mishandling it. Yes, you will find many of the current black population genetically to be from times after Jesus birth (although you yourself are assuming they all are). But you are not examining the other Palestinians (who are descendants of Arabs, Greeks, Turks, and others who also came after that. What percentage of them are in the Palestinian population? You don't know. The fact is, you assume or accept that all lightskinned Palestinians are by default, native aboriginal. That doesn't work. There remains much more research in regards to the genetic makeup and history of that region that simply hasn't been explored here. You spoke earlier of assuming by default the white ones are native, but now you assume by default that the black ones are not. In essence you are skipping the part where you show genetic links to ancient Palestinian people as they relate to other ancient people. And again, the use of Genetic markers, where they do not line up with genetic markers indicating a person's skin color or physical appearance DO NOT TELL US MUCH. That is WHY I gave you the Lemba. If you only used the Genetics of Lemba and you never saw them or knew where they were, you would assume they are lightskinned non-whites! You totally missed that. You keep using the words null hypothesis but you are not following a scientific method. --68.41.101.63 (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Where exactly did youy show that the blacks currently living in Palestine descend from people that came before the Arab conquest? Anyhow, if we assume, as you probably do, that the ancient Egyptians were black, then why did they differentiate themselves so much from their neighbours, if these were blacks too? The Asiatics in the image on the right would be Levantines from that period. Likewise with this image: The man in the Middle is how ancient Egyptians depicted Levantines. In fact, the AE consistently showed Middle Easterners to look exactly like modern Middle Easterners. Are you saying you know how these looked better than the ancient Egyptians did? So if we assume the ancient Egyptians were black, the ancient Levantines weren't by any account, you can't have it both ways. FunkMonk (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I can have it both ways, because being black is not a narrowly defined "purist" desgination like white. Blackness is defined as having a substantial amount of african heritage, not having an exclusively high amount. They both mixed. I am not trying to, and never implied that i was trying to push the notion that the Canaanites, Levantines, or other groups were as dark as the Nubians. --68.41.101.63 (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you ready? Firstly, throughout Egyptian imperial history, Nubian soldiers lived throughout Palestine. "Ancient Egypt" by David Silverman, page 49-51. IN one account a king of a Palestinian city surrendered when he discovered Nubian soldiers were approaching. Nubians were uprooted by Egyptians and forced to live in Canaan during the 18th dynasty. You raise the difference between the blackER Nubians and the still black although not as dark Egyptians. I don't know where anywhere else in Africa dark skin is used to mean something other than a black person. Maybe South Africa where they invented "colored" in order to segregate and weaken any unity between the Khoi and the Zulu against the white regime. The differentiation between Egyptians and Nubians is not about Egyptians jumping from their shared heritage. Egyptian society regarded their heritage as from further south, up the Nile. Furthermore, the Philistines settled in the region and as you can see here, they also looked black to some degree. Now lets remember what we are doing here. I am showing WHY the Jesus is black point of view exists. I've demonstrated it all over the place, along with the comments from Panehesi and I imagine a few others. There is no reason to continue and continue this discussion. As you can see, the Philistine (from which the Palestinians name and origins descend) looked like this: . Here are some pics of modern Palestinians who show mixture of black and not black components. and a biracial black/white person --68.41.101.63 (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 68.41.101.63 please don't pretend you are someone different from Panehesy, it's as laughable as your endlessly evasive arguments. Paul B (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter. Considering you guys take any view point and go in circles, forgetting the premises, it really doesn't matter what you think or who you think is who. That whole sockpuppet game is baloney. You guys do it all the time. In addition to that, since there is no way to have a voice based discussion, we have to go back and forth from more than one user becuase you act like these are all isolated points. You want to have a conversation about this topic and meet multiple individuals contributing? Let me know and we can arrange a video/voice chat. You can see the four of us, and we can discuss this topic in such a way as to keep your memory fresh so you don't keep forgetting premises that you seem to isolate as if you can't keep up. Till then, this discussion is actually fruitless. Unless you want to remove the Oxford quote, I really am not going to be too concerned. We came in here a while back on the black people article and we succeeded. We're working in tandem on other articles from time to time. What, you think a half dozen or so black people contribute to this article? There are probably hundreds and thousands that communicate among each other working together to get the record straight. We know our own history, we don't need you to dictate it to us. --68.41.101.63 (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We could just as well stop the discussion, as you propose, since it's fruitless. You dodge every point I make and drag out some other ambiguous, slight hint that just might support your position. Read a bit about the Philistines, then come back, in the mean time, please reconsider all my points that you haven't responded to. FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all, many of your points are clearly invalid. Moses having two wives, Cush not meaning black person. Canaanites not having black people in them. Nehesi being a name without a purpose and so on... Then you bring up issues that have no bearing on the article. Your genetics does not address how they appeared. You then cite ancient sources as irrelevant, but then post images of ancient paintings that you feel help your argument. And what are you arguing? That Jesus being black is impossible becauase he did not look like a dark skinned Nubian or Zulu? I've reconsidered all of your posts. You have not considered mine. Then you try to tag the section which is weak, considering the links that were brought. Now you want to go to calling me someone else because you have nothing to say. I really don't care who you think I am or not. Panehesi and three others are participating here. He rants too much, so we're handling it. Now that you are dealing with someone who actually can uphold their position, you want to go into this? Nope. We're done here. Panehesi sought assistance and he got it. Oh and yes, I noticed the "malfunctions" on the website over the past 15 minutes. The lagging, the access to the site being down, the unusual network activity... Whatever. There realy are multiple individuals contributing so do whatever you want. --68.41.101.63 (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"Oh and yes, I noticed the "malfunctions" on the website over the past 15 minutes." Are you really suggesting that there were deliberately created malfunctions on the website for 15 minutes to suppress your edits! If you believe it's not surprising that you will believe pretty much anything. Paul B (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
It doesn't do anything anymore. Nor does accusing people of doing it. I've already contacted about a dozen people to contribute. Whether or not they type on my computer, I type on theirs, or we collaborate on the phone while one of us does the typing, or we just send emails to compile, post, and edit before putting on the pages. You're not going to stop the process of black people putting their verifiable claims to wikipedia pages anymore. Oh by the way... Osirica says hello. --68.41.101.63 (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't be absurd. You don't impress anyone. Paul B (talk) 08:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Paul, you're just mad because you can't shake that Oxford quote, so you instead, tried to invalidate the whole section. It is relevant. It's the basis of the black jesus belief. Whether or not you agree with it, THAT is irrelevant. --Panehesy (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Oxford quote has nothing whatever to do with the race of Jesus! At most it says that the name of someone who lived around 1500 years before him may have originated to mean "Nubian". On the other hand it may not have. Even if Phinehas had Nubian ancestry or relatively dark skin, you wouldn't be called "the Nubian" if everyone else was similar would you? You don't call someone "Dutch" if you are living in the Netherlands! You only call someone by an ethnic label if that's different from the ethnicity around you. In America someone of Dutch ancestry might be called "Dutch" - exactly because most people are not Dutch! The sheer patheticness of this argument is evidence of utter deperation on your part. Paul B (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Then get off it. I've contributed numerous times while you guys go on and on with this sock crap. What is impressive is the contributions, the articles. That's why he asked us to help. You are still stuck in the 80s where you think words like "fair", "ruddy" mean White. And then you spend all day trying to find sock puppets, for what? Let's assume you are right. Assume if I am Panehesy, and who ever else. That means, your attempts over the past, what, two years, have failed entirely, because until now, no still now, my screen name has not been cited for any violation. I thought this IP would have been blocked by now, but obviously the upper level admins can see that your accusation is false. The real issue here is that you and so many others have a very entrenched view of skin color, language, and history that is simply incorrect. And that you want to protect that view, against all the odds of fact. Come on... ruddy? Adam? White people? You want to go into the Adam, Ruddy and associated articles and argue your point that the Bible was talking about a light skinned man that blushed?  It's ridiculous that you would bring that up, because you, and whoever tried to use it, didn't even check the information on the adam and ruddy articles themselves. That's impressive! --68.41.101.63 (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Question
Why is the black section tagged? --68.61.20.46 (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Because, Panehesy, it is OR and nonsense almost wholly irrelevant to the topic of this article, as is the picture of a Roman tomb carving that you also added. This has nothing to do with suppressing evidence of blackness. There is no evidence provided, and if you bother to check an earlier discussion you will that a section entitled "descriptions of David and Solomon, Jesus' ancestors" was removed by the same editors for the broadly the same reasons, but in that case the descriptions were designed to show that he was white. At least David, unlike Phinehas, was actually supposed to be one of his ancestors! Paul B (talk) 09:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Paul, you're saying that any information that indicates why he is regarded as black is irrelevant. Can you give examples? Phinehas is a Jewish ancestor, not of Jesus, but a Jewish ancestor none the less, as Moses wife and descendants. It's not two shots in the dark. So when he is viewed as black it is in part due to the fact that in general you have Jewish ancestors are black. What I see in the white article is the quote European portrayals of Jesus may be based on the appearance of European (Ashkenazi) Jews, who often have "white" skin tones or facial features, and sometimes blond hair and blue eyes.  but where is the evidence of this? It seems the Solomon/David contributions were removed because they don't describe a white person. Ruddy means "red complexioned", not white, and the removal was due to the fact that the lack of verifiable evidence that their appearance contributed to his. Besides White people are not "ruddy". If every statement has to be cited, then so be it. The Ruddy article is going to be getting some updates from a few, disputing the notion that it refers to a white person blushing. You're too obsessed with Panehesy. In fact, you're too preoccupied with who is contributing, vs what the contributions are. --68.41.101.63 (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm saying there is no "information that indicates why he is regarded as black" at all. It's all OR selective reading and deliberate distortion of evidence. Paul B (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

From the Adam article. Etymologically it is the masculine form of the word adamah meaning ground or earth and related to the words adom (red), admoni (ruddy) and dam (blood). Gen. ii. 7 explains that the man was called Adam because he was formed from the ground (adamah). Not because he was a white (caucasian) person whose cheeks would blush red everytime he got embarrassed. That adam = ruddy = rosy cheeks = White person is part of the old Eurocentrism interpretation, which goes with calling Europeans "Caucasian" because that's where Noah's Ark was said to have landed. --68.41.101.63 (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ruddy doesn't mean white. That's the bottom line. So it shouldn't have been in there in the first place. Did anyone read the adam article? It doesn't even say that the word means "white with blushing cheeks"! Sincerely yours, --Panehesy

(talk) 20:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Boy, some of you guys are deliberately misunderstanding the "white like wool thing". Whichever side of the argument you're on, it's obviously a reference to colour and not to texture. It is race neutral and proves nothing. If I said someone's eyes were "black like coal" or their teeth were "yellow like butter" it wouldn't mean that either of those body parts were the consistency of those things. The passage does not say His hair was the texture of wool, or that his skin was white, so both sides of the argument need to leave this line alone, because it adds nothing to your respective cases and makes you both seem like deliberately obtuse polemicists hell bent on making a case in defiance of logic.

Regarding Meatpuppets being recruited to edit this page:
From the relevant policy page regarding meatpuppetry:

Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus. While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, the recruitment of new editors for this purpose is a violation of this policy.

Consider yourselves informed now. If the editors here recruit meatpuppets, I will report it to the administrators noticeboard. Auntie E. 19:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well then what? Anybody that is told about Wikipedia all they have to do is read the articles for themselves. This isn't a fake consensus. He put in citations all over the article! So anytime someone is introduced to Wikipedia, they can't contribute because another Wiki user told them about the website? That's garbage... pure and simple! So what, what do we do to actually correct mistakes in the articles, when some users are making mistakes relating to race. Look at the nonsense about "ruddy". --Panehesy (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Glorified Body explanation
Why has my explanation on the Revelations verses as referring to Glorified Body deleted? Since the Revelations verses have been quoted in the article, it is relevant to explain what Christians think it means.

A little common sense and a whole lot less ideologically-driven idiocies would do the world a great service, don't you think, you-whoever-deleted-the-section?

I am restoring the section, thanks.

--Archestrategos (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably because it needs a source. Auntie E. (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed it and given you some links on your talk page for the same reason. As it stands, it appears to be your own interpretation, and Wikipedia isn't a place for our own interpretations, ideas, etc. Dougweller (talk) 06:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It isn't my own idea or my own interpretation. It's what we Christians think Revelation 1:13-16 means. How am I supposed to provide a reference for the mainstream Christian interpretation?

I'm a Chinese. So if I edit a Wikipedia page on the meaning of colour red in Chinese culture and write "Red is considered an auspicious colour in Chinese culture", how am I supposed to provide a reference for this? Who do you want me to quote to give "red is considered an auspicious colour in Chinese culture" the weight of authority?

And how is the Christian interpretation of Revelation 1:13-16 as talking about Jesus' Glorified Body controversial? This mainstream interpretation doesn't even have any racial element in it, so how can it be controversial?

The only thing I can do is to quote the Biblical sources (example Matthew 17:2) which is the basis for Christians interpreting Revelation 1:13-16 as talking about Jesus' Glorified Body.

Satisfied? It's not my own idea, or my own interpretation, or my own original research. It's just what Christians believe Revelation 1:13-16 means. I am a Christian, I should know.

--Archestrategos (talk) 07:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry for the uncivil tone of my replies. I thought it was PC-in-action. I understand your justified concern regarding the proper method of contributing for Wikipedia articles, and you're doing your job as a Wikipedia staff as best and as cautiously as you can, in order to ensure quality. I should thank you for a job faithfully done.

It's difficult to refer the interpretation to any source, because it's just mainstream Christian thought on the verses. It's like asking me to verify by reference the assertion that "Christians believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God". I can't quote anyone on that, except the Bible itself, and that's what I did with the Matthew 17:2 quotation.

But surely you are familiar with the proper presentation of the Glorified Body interpretation in this article, and would know better how to word it appropriately to ensure that the article's quality is upheld.

What I am trying to say in the "Race of Jesus" article is that Christians understand Revelation 1:13-16 to talk about Jesus' Glorified Body, based on Matthew 17:2, and also the writings of Paul saying that "we shall all be changed... be changed incorruptible...  there is an earthly body and a heavenly body..."

If it is required to quote theologians, I'll look them up for you. I remember that Wesley taught Revelation 1:13-16 to be talking about Jesus' Glorified Body.

--Archestrategos (talk) 07:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is a fact, then there should be references to it somewhere. It is these references you should find and add as sources. FunkMonk (talk) 07:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. I shall first list some of the sources I can find in this talk page for you to examine:

http://wes.biblecommenter.com/revelation/1.htm (According to John Wesley).

http://jfb.biblecommenter.com/revelation/1.htm (According to Jamieson-Fausset-Brown).

http://mhcw.biblecommenter.com/revelation/1.htm (According to Matthew Henry).

In each link, find the part commenting on verses 13 - 16.

I will try to dig in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican archives, and the Church Fathers. But I can't guarantee that there will surely be references found, since this interpretation of Revelation 1:13-16 is not a matter of debate in the Christian Church, and is generally agreed to be such.

--Archestrategos (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The hypothetical 3D Jesus
Yeah, how exactly do they come to the skin color, hair color, and hair length from some random skeleton they found in the Middle East which probably doesn't even represent all the people of the Levant in Jesus' time? Also in this Egyptian painting http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Egyptian_races.jpg the third group are what the Egyptians viewed the "Jews" who escaped as. 97.118.63.76 (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Not that phony reproduction again. That pic is totally false. It was NOT made by the Egyptians. The real one does not show white people. This whole article provides nothing but discussion and not proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.61.172 (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Quoting from the Bible
Quoting from the Bible is no more Original Research than is quoting from the New York Times. Sincerely, an atheist, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, it is. I've raised this at WP:NORN. Who chose these quotes? Who says " There are quite a lot of Bible references to the Israelites being white. For example :"? Without a reliable source, it's classic original research. Dougweller (talk) 07:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's WP:SYN. But to be fair, there is already WP:SYN here introduced cby Afrocentrists. I withdrew from this article for a long time, since it was making me depressed, but I think it's time to try to clean it up. I'm sure you can find published comments on arguments about the race of Israelites - especially from the period when people were obsessed by such things (circa 1880-1940), but the general race of Israelites is not the sames as the race of Jesus. After all, the Norwegians are 'white' overall, but that does not mean it's impossible to find black Norwegians. In any case, since Jesus was supposedly born by supernatural means ordinary genetics does not apply! Paul B (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Verify
There was a post about 'hair like wool' - It's in the bible, it does not need verification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.189.213(talk) 07:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Um, have you read the Bible? Mine says "white as snow-white wool". The quote in the article under 'Jesus in the Bible' says "white like wool". Sure, if you make sure you leave out the key word white you can make any interpretation you want, but then you are misrepresenting the source. Dougweller (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Weaving facts out of thin air
This article is so fanciful, unsubstantiated and often illogical that it makes Wikipedia look bad. Most readers who think will see this as slipshod writing and a total embarrassment for Wikipedia.

At the very least the focus of the article needs to be clarified upfront. Is the article about artistic depictions or is it about the scientific/historical analysis of race? The fact is that Renaissance depictions do not impact the historical/scientific analysis - and most readers are probably smart enough to realize that. So why mix the two? Yes, the Chinese do depict Jesus as Chinese, but does that determine his race from a historical perspective? If there are hints at the Shingō, Aomori type fabrication they need to be stated as such, else avoided.

The list of non-artistic problems is also long. Is this supposed to be a "collection of unsubstantiated rumors" from the Middle Ages presented as encyclopedic? Does logic play any role in this article? E.g., there is a large slab quote from Archko Volume (which is called spurious upfront) stating that Jesus had blue eyes. Why quote spurious items at all, specially when the Wikipedia article on the Archko Volume already calls it unsubstantiated. The article also includes a huge quote from Publius Lentulus' Letter (saying that Jesus had blonde hair) and then at the end states that the letter is a medieval forgery! Why have large quotes from forgeries? This just looks bad. And it is bad.

Then comes the modern pseudo-scientific analysis presented with a colorful 3-D animation - again, an exercise in illogic, now coupled with a few references to CNN, the BBC and of course the ever venerable Popular Mechanics! When I first saw this I just chuckled and said: "how could they ever know if his nose was straight and not like that of Josephus?" Most thinking users who have seen other portraits of that era would ask that. The article provides nothing to substantiate that the 2001 animation is in any way realistic. It turns out to be the work of "one single" retired medical artist, yet given prominence in the article, surrounded by puffed up TV channel references. Has this ever been the subject of scholarly analysis? I see no reference to that (and could not find them) and it all traces to a single analysis by some retired medical artist. Yet as a pseudo-scientific item commands the most attention on the page.

And of course, the thinking reader may ask: "what does 'he had short hair' mean here"? Could he have had long hair some of his life, then had a haircut later? Could he have had a beard at one point, then shaved it? A smart 14 year old might have asked that - and quite correctly so.

Overall, a terrible article in my view, mostly devoid of logic, and in need of more than a haircut in terms of removing unsubstantiated items. History2007 (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the article would be more properly called The Race of Jesus in Popular Culture and Academic Publications. This way the article would be organized in two big sections: Popular Culture and Academic Publications. Or probably keep the actual title, but make headings The Race of Jesus in Popular Culture and The Race of Jesus in Academic Publications or The Race of Jesus in the Academic Debate.


 * Otherwise, the 3D image did not claim to be Jesus' face, it just claimed to be a reconstruction of a typical Ancient Hebrew face. Nobody knows if Jesus was thin or fat. Isaiah said that Jesus was so ugly that you turned your face away from him, but the Psalms say he was the most handsome man. But this is only if we admit that the Hebrew Bible prophesied about Jesus, as the New Testament authors have maintained by interpreting the Hebrew Bible according to their own agenda. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but that goes back to the question of logic. The scientific/historical analysis can not in any way rely on Old Testament accounts with future references. What Isaiah wrote before the birth of Jesus does not matter from a historical perspective - whether it was about Jesus or someone else. Historically, the writings of a person about someone born afterwards do not matter. What you said about "no one knows" is however correct, and that must be the basis of the statements here.


 * Your statement that the 3D image does not claim to be Jesus is correct, but needs to be clarified. It seems at first reading that it claims to be a representation. However, what does it have to do with the "race of Jesus"? The attempt to determine the race of Jesus by historical analysis does not depend on what a typical man from any race looks like. Does it? That has to do with depiction of Jesus - the other confusion in the article content.History2007 (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We could allow for a third section, The Race of Jesus in Art. E.g. the Western Esoteric course I followed was also followed by art historians, not because they thought that occultism was true, but because understanding esoteric claims enabled them to understand artistic symbols. So, the first two sections are ultimately meaningful in the light of the third: artists who painted Jesus had to make choices for their character or they simply had inherited church directives telling them how to paint him. So, this way the aim of the article would be not giving credence to unsubstantiated Middle Age views, but making sense of Christian art.


 * That 3D view would have the role of judging artistic realism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I made a reservation that Isaiah talks about Jesus only if we assume that the Old Testament prophesied about him. So I was not suggesting that the information would be historical. It is a contradiction for those who believe that the Old Testamnet prophesied about Jesus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree on your Isaih qualification. And it is a good idea to have race of Jesus in art as a clearly labeled section - separate from historical analysis. But if the 3D view is to be used for "judging artistic realism" we will need WP:RS that discuss that, else it will be WP:OR if we imply it ourselves. This article is already in need of help anyway, so WP:OR need not to be added to the problems it has. History2007 (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi there History2007. I was actually the editor who added the section about the 3D animation, so I'm sorry that you feel it is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. I wouldn't necessarily say that the section was given particularly much prominence – going by character count, it makes up less than a tenth of what is a reasonably brief article. The animation itself comes from the a 2000 BBC series called Son of God, which never claimed that the animation literally showed the true face of Jesus Christ. I had hoped that the article put this point across, although maybe you're right and further qualification needs to be made earlier on. The prose that I added is all cited from sources featuring fact-checking and editorial oversight, so I took that to mean that they were sufficiently reliable for Wikipedia. I would have liked to have added some scholarly sources, but, as you say, there don't seem to be any. I don't believe that this necessarily means that the animation should be removed from the article though – it displays the closest that modern science can give us of what a first-century Galilean Semite might have looked like, and therefore what race Jesus might have had. Therefore, I believe that it is highly relevant to this article. With regards your hair comment, I think the point is that fashions would have changed very slowly in Jesus's time, so perhaps it is unlikely that his hair length would have changed much during his life. Finally, I think it's giving undue weight to include that quotation from The Guardian in the animation's caption, which should really just briefly describe what it is and why it's relevant to the article. Besides, I think that particular quote has been somewhat taken out of context – to me, it doesn't read like The Guardian themselves are actually calling the film contentious. What they say is that the film is likely to prove contentious, which isn't really the same thing. Thanks a lot for your comments. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 19:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Well, I think whether Jesus had long hair or short hair makes zero difference to what he taught and who he was. And whether he had a straight nose or a nose like Josephus also makes no difference to what the gospels say. But as an overall trend I am very unhappy with the way single source information finds its way into Wikipedia and gets presented regardless of general scholarly support. The BBC program is just one instance, and I would say an instance which adds very little value, for it teaches nothing, but makes the encyclopedia look sloppy by quoting a single, highly controversial source as the mainstay of information on a topic. Once I looked into the issues about that program it was clear that it included a number of highly controversial statements - the Guardian was correct. The program also said that Judas was just arranging "an innocent meeting" (with guards and all) in exchange for the 30 pieces of silver. That is not the general consensus among scholars by any measure. And I see (and could not find) any other scholarly support for the program or the work of the retired artist. The program did get coverage beyond television, alas it was only in Popular Mechanics - and that may well be a pithy statement on the academic standing of the ideas presented in the program. TV stations make programs once in a while and unless they have material that can be published in refereed journals, the scholarly world just shrugs their shoulders and ignores them. For Wikipedia to be taken seriously it needs to use WP:RS sources based on general scholarly consensus, not a one shot TV program. The material has not been published in a respected scholarly journal, has it?

With apologies, I also find some of the statements in the post above questionable and not a basis for decision making for the inclusion of content in Wikipedia. E.g. how do we know that "fashions would have changed very slowly in Jesus's time"? I am sorry, but per WP:OR you and I can not be the Anna Wintour of Roman Judaea. I see no scholarly evidence here as to how fashions may have changed at that time and I see no usable support for that statement. That form of reasoning is purely based on "personal conjecture" and not a basis for decisions regarding the inclusion of content. Similarly the statement "perhaps it is unlikely that his hair length would have changed much during his life" is a classic application of WP:OR. We have no scholarly basis for asserting if he shaved his beard every 6 months, or not or how often he went to the hairdresser. We just do not know - and should absolutely train ourselves to avoid guessing, in order to respect WP:OR.

I must also absolutely question the statement that the image, or that TV program "displays the closest that modern science can give us of what a first-century Galilean Semite might have looked like". That TV program was not by any measure a representation of "modern science" and the image was based on the work of a single retired animator. It was one man's concept, not that of the scientific community at large. To be a representation of modern science the material would need to be presented in a few academic conferences, be published in refereed journals, and receive support from scholars at large.

What I do agree with is your statement that: "I would have liked to have added some scholarly sources, but, as you say, there don't seem to be any." That is the death sentence for inclusion in Wikipedia: No scholarly sources, not reliable. History2007 (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The face was reconstructed from one skull, so it cannot be claimed to be typical. It is like picking a skull at random from a cemetery, reconstructing its face and claiming it would be the typical face for that country. Or like picking a random photo of a Dutch Internet user and claim it is typical for all Dutch men. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, and would even go further. The fact that it was just done by one artist makes it "non-science". The way science works is that claims, models and assertions are presented at conferences, published in refereed journals and are subjected to criticism until "all angles are covered". That is not the case with one shot TV programs where something is presented, but there is no chance for rebuttal within the same medium. And in general, when scholars do not even bother to comment on something that means they do not see it as impacting the field. And again, a smart 14 year old would have said: "skulls just have bones, so how did they guess the flesh part, and the shape of the nose and so one". Well, that is TV for you. History2007 (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for telling me all about science. I believe (although I may be wrong) that it is possible to discern shape and size of a person's nose from their skull, and that, if anyone would be able to do it, it'd be a leading forensic anthropologist. Personally, I'm not sure what to make of all this... Perhaps I'm not explaining the nature of the programme particularly eloquently. The segment about the creation of the animation is available on YouTube (here) and I think it's worth a look. It clearly states the credentials and expertise of the people who were hired to construct the face and animation, and I believe is that it has a relevance and a place within this particular article. It's no less peer-reviewed or relevant to the article than, say, William Holman Hunt's depiction of Jesus – now he really was creating a face out of thin air! If you would rather that the animation be discussed more as an artistic piece than a scientific one, then I guess I'd be okay with that, although I do feel that that would be doing it something of a disservice. Finally, with regards the sourcing, both Popular Mechanics and The Guardian contain the fact-checking and editorial oversight that we require from reliable sources, and I don't think they're particularly out of place in an article that references, amongst others, some website called "Juice", Hitler's Table Talk, a magazine tailored towards African Americans, a book about building designing movie creatures, a Christian separatist website, and IMDb. Thanks again, A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 22:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, let us do it one by one:


 * The statement" I believe (although I may be wrong) that it is possible to discern shape and size of a person's nose from their skull" is classic WP:OR. It is not what any editor believes that matters, but what WP:RS sources say. That is really no qualification per WP:OR. May I suggest a reading of WP:OR again?


 * Regarding "It's no less peer-reviewed or relevant to the article than, say, William Holman Hunt's depiction of Jesus" yes, it has exactly, exactly the same value as Hunt's depiction, namely zero. They are both fantasies. Except that Hunt had no claims, and called it art pulled out of thin air.


 * Regarding the statement "both Popular Mechanics and The Guardian contain the fact-checking and editorial oversight that we require from reliable sources" please just forget Popular Mechanics. If you want to figure out an issue about an exhaust pipe, refer to Popular Mechanics, but it is absolutely, absolutely not relevant to this topic. I am actually speechless about this Popular Mechanics issue - it is so far off. Guardian does fact checking, and it reported totally correctly that the "program aired" and that the program contained specific claims. The Guardian was not mistaken on that. But the Guardian staff report on what aired - that is all. They say the program aired, but do not vouch for the contents - and indeed said that it was likely to be contentious! So that claim is out. I think we have an issue of logic here about what "fact checking" means regarding WP:RS. I do suggest a more careful reading of WP:RS.


 * Regarding "a book about building designing movie creatures, a Christian separatist website" etc. those references are pure garbage. But that does not exonerate any other references. The article is rock bottom quality overall, as I started by saying and the 3D animation was not my only complaint. I pointed out many other problems too. There are many, many low quality articles around, e.g. see: this comment.

I will try to rewrite these as time allows, but tags are there for a purpose: to warn readers and invite other editors to remedy the problems. I will probably find time to look at this in detail to see how to fix it in 2 months, but in the meantime one can not just pretend that problems do not exist. History2007 (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * About facial reconstruction: there are people who do it well, e.g. for the police, see this. So, if done properly, facial reconstruction is not OR but the work of experts. I have no problem with saying "this is the face of a Hebrew man of that time", however saying that it would be a typical face goes too far and nobody claimed to have reconstructed Jesus' face (since we don't have his skull). Certain things like skin color could be more or less taken for granted, otherwise there is much variation inside an ethnic group for saying that a face would be typical for that group. E.g., all the Chinese faces look similar as seen by Europeans, but the Chinese themselves see much variation among their ethnic group. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well the police may construct that from descriptions, etc. But each case has to be judged on its own merit. Some police artist may get it right, some may get it wrong. We have no WP:RS source says the police artists in Holland or elsewhere have a 100% success record, or a 20% success record. The police do it, but do you have WP:RS sources about this TV reconstruction? By the way WP:OR does not apply to the artist, but only applies to Wikipedia editors. However, using the art to make "suggestions" or hints would be WP:OR.


 * Now, as well as the lack of WP:RS sources for the hints about the CGI, there is clearly, clearly a very serious logical problem in this discussion. Who said that Jesus was just a semite and not half-Chinese, or half-Indian? Are there a few solid WP:RS sources that say that Jesus was for sure, for sure a semite? If so, please present them. Else why not also show the typical face of a half-Chinese man and a half-Indian man as well? History2007 (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The weakest section
I have now cleaned up the unsourced items and added many WP:RS sources to the article. So all sections, except the Television section fully pass WP:RS standards. I do not see why we neeed a "triple tagged" section which does not have a single WP:RS scholarly source cluttering this page that has now been brought up to standard.

In the above the editor who added that section and the questionable CGI directly admitted that no "scholarly sources can be found" to support it. Hence by that admission it does NOT pass WP:V and can not stay as such. And I have pointed out the associated problems in logic in its use above. The only way I see for salvaging any reference to the BBC program is just use a brief reference with the Guardian as a source - and for Heaven's sake let us get rid of Popular Mechanics, it is an absolute embarrassment for Wikipedia to use in this context.

Another issue is that tolerating this type of laughable Popular Mechanics item and a discussion that clearly fails WP:V and must be triple tagged makes Wikipedia look bad and will indeed reduce donations to the foundation - I would hesitate to donate to support junk and others may feel the same way. I think that section must be axed to an absolute minimum, sans image. There seems no other way to maintain quality, given that scholarly references can not be found, as admitted by the editor who added it. History2007 (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It would appear that you are not going to be happy until that section is removed from the article, so I have cut it and moved it into the Depiction of Jesus article instead, where it will hopefully be more relevant – I now consider this matter to be resolved. As an aside History2007, I have found your manner concerning this issue to be incredibly uncivil and disrespectful. I have offered a number of ways that we could have compromised on this problem, all of which you seemed to completely ignore. I certainly did not appreciate the patronising lecture on what science is, and your use of phrases such as "slipshod writing", "an exercise in illogic", "a terrible article", "laughable" and "an absolute embarrassment for Wikipedia" were not been helpful – instead, they suggest that you have not been assuming good faith at any point in the slightest. Despite what you may think about the additions that I made, I am (like you and everyone else) just trying to build decent encyclopaedia here, and there was really no need to pointedly direct me to various Wikipedia policies as if I were a child. Nevertheless, the article is looking pretty good now, so well done on that front. All the very best for your future Wikipedia editing, A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 16:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article is now based on WP:RS sources - as it should be to achieve quality in Wikipedia. But a small mention of that BBC program is still needed, for it did air and the Guardian reported it. I will add a sentence, with that. Now, regarding your statement about my being too critical, please do remember that I was criticizing "the article" as having slipshod writing and being a total embarrassment for Wikipedia. And I totally stand by that. The article was slipshod, and per WP:Duck was due to be called as such. There really is too much junk floating around Wikipedia and it needs to be brought up to quality with WP:RS sources. And as you observed, what I did was add such sources. I do not get paid for accepting illogic, and I see no need for praising it.


 * Regarding the move of the material to the other page, I saw that you moved it sans flags. There are other editors editing that page, so let us see what they say. History2007 (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"No general agreement"
Can it possibly be true that there is "no general agreement" as to Jesus' race as is purported by the second paragraph of the lead? Last I checked, every reasonable person agreed that he was a Jew, and that's exactly what our Jesus article says. I haven't read the book cited for the "no general agreement" statement, but since the statement appears to be false, I doubt the reliability or not of the source is an issue. I will be changing the article to reflect the scientific and historical "He-was-a-Jew" consensus unless anyone has a good reason for objecting. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 08:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What is your WP:RS source for the assertion? There is a very high level of agreement among scholars that Jesus was a "Jew by religion", that he lived in Galilee and a high, but lower level of agreement that he spoke Aramaic, but how did said scholars determine his race? DNA evidence? Where is the sample? Do you have WP:RS sources for your assertion? History2007 (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is generally accepted by modern historians that Galiean Jews are ethnic Jews, no? As far as I know, the Aryan and, to a lesser extent, African theories of Jesus' descent would be considered WP:FRINGE since they have little to know support from serious scholars. The Jesus article has had his ethnicity listed as "Jewish" for at least three years unsourced and, to my knowledge, uncontested. If that article, which is one of the most-viewed and -edited ones we have, has persisted in that statement this long I would imagine that it's one of those things. We have no source for the earth being round either. I'll find a source for his Jewish-ness if you like, though I don't think the current statement should be allowed to stand. Just because it's sourced doesn't mean it's true. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 09:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Wikipedia is not about my or your concept of "truth", it is about a summary of WP:RS sources. Hence we can not debate it ourselves. Please find a few WP:RS sources, then we will talk. The search may actually change your mind. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Look, the middle east at the time was at the mixing point of Roman, Greek and Persian cultural influence. People were migrating and mixing all the time - from Europe, Africa, Asia. If by "race" we mean the physical appearance of a person in terms of skin colour, nose shpae etc, it's impossible to be clear what one individal would look like, since we have no infomation about his immediate ancestors (other than contradictory lists of names). Of course we have sources for the earth being round. What an odd thing to say. His being Jewish in no way contradicts his being white or black or anything else (there are black Jews, for example - see Beta Israel and Cochin Jews). It's a pity that the theological arguments material has been cut down, (and I've no idea why the Celsus material has been removed), but of course the Christian view that he was literally born as a result of a divine miracle makes any discussion race/appearence (from within that POV) a matter of divine will rather than any biological mechanism for inheriting appearance. Paul B (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, one would need DNA and even the far fetched blood stains on the Shroud of Turin were tested at SUNY and no conclusive result emerged. In any case, they would have proven nothing. Regarding Celsus etc. I may have trimmed too much, but whatever did not have a solid source went out. Celsus was not there himself, he was only quoted by Origen I think. And Celsus was a somewhat angry observer anyway, but if you have WP:RS on that which also mentions his item being polemic it can certainly be added - these trimmings work in pendulum fashion anyway. History2007 (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify -- when I said we had no sources for the earth being round, I meant that we have no citation next to the statement that it is a planet (ipso facto, round) in the Earth article. I'll have more in the morning. G'night. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 10:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Something smells fishy here. To begin with, you're trying to use a book published in 1846 to provide an accurate picture of what "modern" scholars think about Christ's ethnicity. My math skills aren't so great, but unless I'm a complete moron, 1846 was 165 years ago. Not exactly "modern", since all fields of historical study have advanced light years since then. And I haven't even mentioned what the book actually says! I won't bore anyone with the details, but the pages you cited don't say anything about Jesus' ethnicity. It appears to be a semi-rambling discourse on obscure Jewish marriage rituals, and an attempt to reconcile the contradictory accounts of the Nazarene's lineage. It's possible that the copy I read was different than the copy you sourced, and the page numbers may be different. But in any case, you can't use a nineteenth-century work to cite anything "modern". I am removing the statement now. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 08:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I'm removing the statements. Why was it in the article twice anyway? Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 08:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Make that thrice. Is this some kind of joke? Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 08:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If there is a joke here it is about the earth being round. But I had to revert you per WP:BRD given that you removed referenced text at will, without any consensus, thus violating Wikipedia policies. History2007 (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you be kind enough to point me to the exact source (chapter/section numbers would help) for the "no general agreement" clause of that particular (those three) sentence(s)? As I said, it is entirely possible that you and I are looking at two different editions of the book, and if that's the case I'll be glad to take a second look at the book. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 08:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Per the instructions at Template:Failed verification, I have added failed verification tags to the two Strauss-sourced "no general agreement" statements. Please do not remove them until we've resolved this. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 09:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. That was a summary of the pages 114-116. I can even add more references. There is no doubt that no single WP:RS source can be found that describes a scholarly agreement on teh race of Jesus. You had offered to find those. Did you? History2007 (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm currently in the process of weeding out the RS from the non-RS right now for sources that I believe reflect a scholarly consensus as to Jesus' ethnic Jewish-ness. I should have them in a few days. In the meantime, here is the complete text of pages 114-116 of my edition (again, yours could be different -- tell me if it is) of the Life of Jesus Critically Examined. I've read it twice and see nothing about any kind of lack of consensus, certainly not a modern one. Help me out? Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 09:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I did help you out, I reworded it and added another reference. Now it says these have been subject to debate for centuries, which is a summary of all the debates listed. Look for a clear scholarly consensus, then come back. You will probably change your mind in the process. History2007 (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay. I see now. I hadn't noticed those changes. That was most of what I was trying to get changed about the article, so thanks for clarifying. I'll be back. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 09:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * He is no longer the governator... History2007 (talk) 09:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh. :) Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 09:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Section on Galilee and background
Paul, I think it would be nice if we could add what you wrote as a section to answer "future questions", i.e.


 * At the time of Jesus, the middle east at the time was at the mixing point of Roman, Greek and Persian cultural influence. People were migrating and mixing all the time - from Europe, Africa, Asia. If by "race" we mean the physical appearance of a person in terms of skin colour, nose shape, etc, it's impossible to be clear what one individual would look like, since we have no information about his immediate ancestors (other than contradictory lists of names). There are black Jews, for example - see Beta Israel and Cochin Jews. His being Jewish in no way contradicts his being white or black or another race.

It will need to have sources, but it would do well as a subsection that uses Cultural and historical background of Jesus as a Main. If you have WP:RS sources for that paragraph and can add those, it is informative in its own right and will avoid similar questions later. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There is quite a bit that could be added or readded. The idea that the Galilee was "Aryan" was not a fringe theory in the late 19th century, so should be included. The distinguished Sanskritist Émile-Louis Burnouf thought that, though his ideas seem rather 'barmy' now. It was not uncommon at the time. Hitler's belief that the area was populated by Celts was derived from earlier speculation that derived the names 'Galilee' and 'Gaulonitis' from "Gaul". There were also other similar theories circulating. Paul B (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, so if there are RS sources, fine. But the parag above will probably help anyway. The Aryan Galilee is mentioned, but can probably be expanded along with the rest. But there is a RS-proof page there, so we can just add one RS after another now. History2007 (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Wiki-TV?
I trimmed back the glorification of that 2001 BBC program which included totally (I mean totally) unnecessary name dropping about people whose claim to fame is seriously in question. And calling them Dr this or that just adds insult to injury and sounds like glorification again.

Overall, what is this Wiki-TV road that we are starting to go down so fast? This encyclopedia needs WP:RS, "scholarly" sources, not TV programs as its backbone. Some people in Manchester may love that program but let them love it on their own - Wikipedia can not become a TV-encyclopedia that gives more space to a TV-program than it does to books such as those by Colin Kidd and Shawn Kelley whose conclusions totally contradict the TV program. I think that BBC item even needs a further trim, for the fact that it received a TV award (I mean, really!) is yet irrelevant to all scholars who laugh at the shallowness of TV scholarship. Let Wikipedia not be laughed at more than is necessary. History2007 (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello again History 2007. I'm afraid that I don't see how mentioning Mark Goodacre's name is anymore "unnecessary name dropping" than mentioning Colin Kidd's or Shawn Kelley's. Goodacre is a New Testament scholar who has published books on the subject, so surely his theories on the race of Jesus are more valid than those of, say, Martin Luther King?
 * I've just skimmed over the pages of Racializing Jesus and The Blackwell Companion that are referenced in this article, and neither of them seem to draw much of a conclusion regarding Jesus's race – the preface of Racializing Jesus mentions neither him nor his race, and pages 70 and 71 appear to be explaining how nineteenth-century German theologians such as Ferdinand Christian Baur are now considered to be unreliable for trying to "take Jesus out of his Jewish". Kelley even states on page 71 that "the more research was done on first-century Judaism, the clearer it became that Jesus could be seen as an essentially Jewish figure", which, from what I can tell, would actually agree with Goodacre's conclusion that Jesus would have been a Galilean Semite. Pages 72 and 73 discuss how Christianity as a religion became "Westernized", and say nothing of the race nor appearance of Jesus himself.
 * The Blackwell Companion explores the "diverse ways in which Jesus has been imagined or portrayed from the beginnings of Christianity to the present day", so would perhaps really be better suited as a reference in the Depiction of Jesus article. Rather than actually suggesting that Jesus was black, the essay explains why Jesus has been seen as such a significant cultural figure of the black community for so long. I don't think Kelly Douglas Brown is literally claiming that Jesus was on African origin – she even says on page 412 "this blackness had to do with Jesus' identification with the oppressed black slaves, not with the color of Jesus' skin".
 * In all, my reading of those two particular sources is that they are more about how the race of Jesus has been perceived over the years, rather than a scientific look at what it actually would have been. While that is obviously still very relevant to this article, I feel that they are currently being presented as definitive fact (e.g. that Jesus may truly have been a black man), which goes against what the sources are actually claiming. I welcome further discussion on the matter. Thanks very much, A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 18:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The long and short of it is that no scholarly source we have seen pins down the race of Jesus. Do you have one? Did Goodacre write an article in a scholarly journal that says "race of Jesus = X"? Do you have a source for that? The problem is thus claim by inuendo i.e. the program says they talked to Goodacre, but we have no WP:RS source that the conclusions in the program were the summary of a paper by Goodacre published in a scholarly journal, or a book by Goodacre publised by a well known publisher. Again TV is being used as a "source" and TV is no source for and encyclopedia, unless it discusses general entertainment topics, or unless we have a source that says "the TV program was a direct and accurate summary of scholarly source X with no additional embelishments by the producers". Do you have such a statement? If you do, let us see it, else the TV program is a TV program and not an encyclopedic source. Let TV deal with Three's Company, let scholarly sources be used for encyclopedic content Does Encyclopædia Britannica use BBC programs as a basis for is content? Heavens no. Heavens no. So why should Wikipedia? TV is not an encyclopedic source. It just degrades the quality of Wikipedia content. What is the basis of this unending fascination with this TV program. You did not produce it, did you? I assume not. So there is no basis for degrading the quality of Wikipedia by TV-cholarlship, unless the article is about Three's Company. History2007 (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not looking for an argument here, and I wouldn't say that I am unendingly fascinated by the series. My point, as it has always been, is that the results of the study (that Jesus was an olive-coloured Galilean Semite) gained significant media attention when first revealed, and, as a result, deserve at least a brief mention in this highly relevant article. This wasn't just any old television programme. It was a £1.5 million documentary series jointly produced by the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Discovery Channel that featured input from various historians and biblical scholars. Besides, I'm not proposing that we necessarily source content about Jesus's race from the programme, I'm proposing that we source content about the study from BBC News, CNN, The Guardian, etc., all of whom have been cited many times in featured articles on history. Obviously you disagree, so I would like to seek a compromise on the matter. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 20:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * So just to be clear, are you affirming for the record that you had nothing to do with the program's production or distribution? You know so much about it. So please clarify this issue first.


 * Now, I am amazed by the statement that it cost $1.5 million. Whether it costs $1.5 million or $1.5 Billion makes no difference to its "scholarly value". A scholar like Milton Freedman could write something on 2 cent napkin and it would get mentioned in serious scholarly publications worldwide. But the cost of a TV program and the media attention it received is no indication of its scholarly value.


 * And the links you added such as Death of Ian Tomlinson are "news events", not scholarly issues. Does the Wikipedia article on Quantum mechanics refer to a BBC program on that topic, or scholarly sources? I am just amazed by those arguments. They do not have "any basis" in Wikipedia policy. Do you have a "policy based" argument here?


 * The program did have a small mention here, until it received a glorifying expansion against WP:UNDUE. And there is a link to it already. So what is the big deal. There is a whole page on it anyway so the readers will not be deprived of the content.... History2007 (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I had absolutely nothing to do with the production, distribution, promotion, funding or anything else regarding the BBC series Son of God. I watched the programme, found it interesting, thought that this particular article might benefit from an expansion using some of the issues the show raised, and found some reliable sources to back up the information that was presented about the study. Now, I'm actually reasonably happy with the paragraph as it is – it briefly mentions the programme and the study that was undertaken, and the edits you made seemed reasonably fair. The only real issues I have are that I would prefer it if Mark Goodacre were mentioned by name and "Royal Television Society North Award" were spelled out in full, rather than simply as "2001 TV Award". Have we been debating over nothing for the past seven hours? A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 22:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No it has not been an empty debate. I do see the "trivialization of the scholarly world" via Twitter as a serious issue, and this as an instance of it. I do think Wikipedia should draw the line on these things if it is to be taken seriously. It should not rely on TV or Twitter. Else the day will arrive that tweets from Kim K will be proposed as WP:RS sources based on the argument that there are millions of people following them, and they should be included in Wikipedia on that basis. And Kim gets $100,000 a tweet I think, so 10 of her tweets are worth a million dollars, and that makes it a WP:RS source on various topics from economics to psychology. This is really as much a matter of "principle" about scholarly integrity than anything else. History2007 (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Jew or Greek
Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek"

Greeks are mentioned many times in the Bible, mostly the New Testament. Passages like the above indicate a population heavily dominated by Greeks and Jews. Perhaps Jesus was a Greek? If not, was he a Greek-speaker (the international language of the day)? --Nikoz78 (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * James Barr (Which language did Jesus speak, Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester, 1970; 53(1) pages 9-29) says that he may have spoken Greek. But language does not determine appearance, or race. There are many English speakers in India and many French speakers in Algeria, etc. As to his being Greek, your guess is as good as anyone else. No clue to that as teh article says. I think he came from Copenhagen.. kidding. History2007 (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Cain Hope Felder
Is there any reason why this page does not reference the writings of Dr Cain Hope Felder? He has written a couple of books on the subject of race within the Bible, which would of course be well within the scope of this article. I was very surprised by their absence. 138.38.60.69 (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, a good reason: we did not know about him. I checked and Felder has a page and is published by Fortress which means that he is a WP:RS source for sure. So added something by him. By the way, what is a good item to add by him if you know his work? History2007 (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Billy Graham
Billy Graham gave a sermon back in the 70's stating that Jesus was neither white nor black, but that he was brown. He was referring to Jesus's skin color, not his race. Skin color does not define a person's race. There are varying skin complexions within all the human races. Anthropologists and the U.S. Census Bureau classify Middle Eastern people as white/caucasian despite their skin complexion. Jesus was an olive-skinned caucasian. He did not look Northern European, neither did he look sub-saharan African. He was Mediterraneanen in appearance. He looked like what a modern day Palestinian looks like. This should not even be a debate. There is no controversy here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.20.224 (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

We know the "Ethnicity" of Jesus
According to the genealogy, Jesus was a Jew/Judean of Davidic royal descent (at least through Mary), David is described as dark-haired but fair-"ruddy" in skin tone in the Old Testament inarguably -- this is PC madness!

The article states "beyond Jewish", we know nothing. How utterly idiotic.

Jewish tells us tons of data anthropologically!

Ancient and modern Hebrews, anthropologically, belong to the present Cro-Magnon descended -- hominization is an interrelated theological concept...) human race; the Hebraic Judahites ethnologically are a composite of different WEST ASIAN CAUCASOID sub-races (whatever the labels, Armenoid, whatever! etc.), and Hebrew genetic background is all of WEST ASIAN, CAUCASOID stock (West Asian Caucasoid is how Jesus was portrayed from the beginning -- not "Aryan" or "African" -- but as a Semitic Middle Easterner with Davidic/"fairish" features...!), and suppressing this simple basic reality is more than hysterically politically correct, but simply sickening... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

What happened to the historical reconstruction of Jesus at the top?
Why has it been replaced by a european depiction of Jesus? Seems fairly POV to push a european/white Jesus over a historical reconstruction. ScienceApe (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what the "historical reconstruction" of Jesus is. Is there one? The article goes to great length to clarify that there is absolutely no scholarly agreement on what Jesus looked like, etc. and that all depictions ranging from European to Chinese to Ethiopian have been influenced by cultural issues. The European depiction happens to have occurred in more paintings because of cultural settings, as the article states, not due to any scholarly or historical basis. There is no historical basis for an agreement among scholars of what Jesus looked like. The article makes that plenty clear. History2007 (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I did a quick search on google images, and this is the image I remember, http://zoecarnate.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/historical-jesus1.jpg


 * I don't know if it was removed for copyright issues or not, but if there are no legal issues, it should be placed at the top. I don't think prevalence of a particular depiction is a valid rationale for what should be placed at the top. It's just pushing what most people want to see, that's POV pushing. ScienceApe (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, that image from the TV program. That was discussed on talk at length. That was not created based on any scholarly agreement, but was part of this TV series which has its own page. The TV series is mentioned in the article, and is qualified with various statements. That program was labelled as highly controversial by mainstream newspapers, etc. And please do stop this POV pushing claims etc. right off the bat. The article goes to great length to clarify that there is no agreed upon scientific/historical depiction of Jesus at all - and hence the article pushes no point of view on what he looked like, clarifying that all depictions have cultural elements built into them that are far removed from scientific validation. History2007 (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Which is what the article should do. There is no agreed historical reconstruction and we shouldn't have an image of one. Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. The only thing scholars agree on is: "we do not know what he looked like". History2007 (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a POV issue with having a European depiction at the top. I'm not contesting any of the written content in the article so it would be nice if you would stop bringing that up, it's an issue of what image is displayed at the top. Like I said before, if the image I linked to is not appropriate here, then we can leave the article with no image displayed at the top, and move the european depiction to the bottom. ScienceApe (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So, you have now abandoned the TV image issue. That is progress. Now you are suggesting that an article on race and appearance should have no leading image... That is a new one. The leading image is one of the oldest images that typifies the most frequent depiction, and is explained as such in the caption, and it specifically also mentions that there are also Chinese depictions etc. I think you already know that the handwriting is on the wall that the line of reasoning you started here will not complete. History2007 (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You know what I think? I think you want a white depiction of jesus at the top. I already said that it's a POV issue, and your rationale for keeping the white jesus has absolutely nothing to do with that. ScienceApe (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, your mind reading attempt failed. If there is any other depiction, similar accusations could have been produced. And by the way, the TV image you were proposing would have been similar in that regard. So your mind reading did not work. Now if you look at the article on Impressionism, it has a Monet at the top. But why should there be a Monet and not a Cezanne? Or why not a Sisley? That could have been discussed and would the outcome be not to have any paintings in that article? No. A Monet is just one representation, and a well known one. Leave it at that. History2007 (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The article on Impressionism shouldn't have a Cezanne because he was a Post-Impressionist. Articles should have a lead image. In this case it would be impossible to have one that is 'accurate' (short of the invention of a time machine), so an image representing the most familiar 'Jesus look' is probably best. Paul B (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with your comments about this article. As an aside, in the early 1870's he did wear an impressionist hat, but you are right that he is mostly known as a post. But that is not important here. Now, about the time machine... History2007 (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No because it's a point of view issue. Articles should have a lead image, but not at the cost of neutrality. Bringing up other articles is not valid rationale, there could in fact be a POV issue on other wikipedia articles, but we're only here to discuss the POV issues in regards to this article. ScienceApe (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As above, I do not agree with you. And comparison with other articles is not forbidden. Your argument does not seem logical to me. I agree with Paul B. History2007 (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a suitable compromise here would be for the lead image to be a montage of, say, four different racial depictions of Christ, as in, for example, the Shakespeare authorship question article. This would better reflect the article's stance that there is no uniformly accepted theory. Examples of images that could feature in the composite would be, for instance, the current image, this one, this one and this one. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 11:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * When I was growing up, I had always had the dream of spending my life doing that type of thing and partaking in this type of discussion... In the end, all of this will make less than 0.0000001% difference to the encyclopedia. I don't know why ScinceApe is pushing this for this long. Now, why does the Shakespeare page have a single image? History2007 (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There are copyright issues, but let's face it, the chances that Jesus looked Chinese or like a sub-Saharan African are pretty remote. I don't think it's reasonable to have a montage in which very very marginal representations are given promenence. We have to give weight to the dominant tradition, one that emeges from the Roman empire into which Jesus was in fact born. Paul B (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reasonable and logical, again. Now, it seems that there is no consensus to follow Science Ape's suggestion. So that may be the conclusion in fact. History2007 (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But that's not what the article argues, and this is sort of my point. It may well be the case that the chances of Jesus having appeared Asian or black are pretty remote, but the "Emergence of racial theories" section cites several scholars who, between them, state that he could have been Aryan, black or Indian. So it's incongruous to the rest of the article that the lead image shows simply a depiction of a white Jesus. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 14:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The article clearly states that there is no scholarly agreement on what Jesus looked like. And the caption states (as in the Shakespeare page) that it is showing a common depiction, not the only one. So Paul B was arguing the issue of commonality (hence WP:Due), not certainty. History2007 (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He could conceivably have been anything. Maybe a Comanche warrior made it over to Galilee. Indeed from an orthodox Christian POV, he was born as a result of a miracle, his father being God. So should one assume he would partake of the "race and appearance" of God? Alternatively, maybe God chose to be incarnated looking like Confucius, Paul Robeson or Arnold Schwarznegger, and who would be able to stop him? All these things are possible, but they are utterly marginal within the existing visual and cultural traditions, whether we take the most commonly argued theological views or the secular position that Jesus was an ordinary human. Paul B (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we all agree on the lack of scholarly agreement. And again, the caption makes it clear (as in the Shakespeare page) that this is a common (in this case ancient) artistic depiction and not a specific hands-on portrait of any type. That is all. History2007 (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But if the views that Jesus was Aryan, black or Indian are marginal, as you say Paul, then the article could do with a restructure to reflect this. The paragraph in the racial theories section that cites proponents of a black Jesus is the largest one and is accompanied by a painting by Henry Tanner; the paragraph arguing for an Aryan race is the second-largest. Anyway, this is off the point of which image, if any, should be featured in the lead. I think I've changed my mind anyway. Thanks for the discussion, Paul. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 16:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It so happens that I was in at the beginning of this article. It started with the whole 'black jesus' concept, which is, needless to say, a product of US race-politics and has nothing to do with actual scholarship, secular or Christian. There was a lot of stuff about him having 'hair like wool' (a reference to a passage in the book of revelation), which seems to be an internet meme. Actually, I wouldn't say he's 'black' in the Tanner, pic (his face is in shadow). It's more a typical attempt to portray him as Semitic-looking, according to the assumptions of the time about that. But it would be useful to look at sources on Tanner. The black and Aryan section are probably longest because they are the ones that get most attention. BTW, "Aryan" is strictly an ethno-linguistic concept, not a racial one as such. I think there should be more on the descriptions - the fake ancient descriptions were at least influential. And why has Celsus' physical description beeen deleted, and largely irrelevant stuff about Pantera been added? Paul B (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The 'hair like wool' item is not a lifetime description, and is explained as such in the Biblical references section. It is a heavenly glorified image described by John who had presumably also seen Jesus alive on earth, and is a purely theological item. I think the Pantera item can go away. History2007 (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, I do know that. In fact it's not even stated to be "Jesus" as such, but rather the "Son of Man". However, the fact is that it was used to make these claims. Whether the author of Revelation was john the apostle or not is of course debated. The Celsus description, brief though it is, is of the physical Jesus, who, of course, he did not believe to be divine. And Origen does not challenge it. Paul B (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually neither Celsus, nor Origen had seen Jesus. And divinity probably nothing to do with his earthly height/weight/etc. In any case, all of these would need to be WP:Secondary based, not based on discussion between us. History2007 (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course they hadn't. That's not the point. I'd better clarify - he does not challenge the 'ugly' bit, but he does say there's no evidence for the 'short' bit. The arguments he uses appears to be purely theological, from Isaiah, not based on claims about some recorded information or oral tradition of Jesus' appearance. He also seems to assume that Celsus is also basing his claims on Isaiah. But of course we don't know that. The point is that he makes a claim about what Jesus looked like. This is sufficiently close in time to Jesus that there may have been a continuing oral tradition. Alternately, he may simply be reporting on Christian debates about whether Isaiah or Psalms should be used as a guide to his appearance. We can use primary sources to report their content, but in any case I've already souerced the passage to Van Voorst. Paul B (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not remember all of the details now. But I think you should add that did not challenge short, etc. And mention Isaiah clarifying that these were theological arguments, not based on old photographs. I have not seen a source about the oral tradition, however. History2007 (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I want to comment on what Paul B said, "the chances that Jesus looked Chinese or like a sub-Saharan African are pretty remote.", that's the biased POV I was talking about. Where's the evidence that Jesus was white European like the lead image implies? He wasn't from Europe. The lead image gives unfair weight to that particular depiction. I'm in favor for either no image or a composite image of several different depictions. ScienceApe (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me break the news to you gently here now: the POV mantra wears thin after you keep applying it to everything that does not fit WP:JDLI. This discussion started because you wanted something else. When that did not fly, your position changed and the POV mantra became the substitute. Please do give us a break here. We are actually discussing incidental items such as scholarly sources now. History2007 (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a "biased point of view"; it's common sense. Why would someone from Galilee look like someone from somewhere else completely? Also, why do you assume that the image is of a "European"? What exactly do you think people of the middle east look like? This is by far the most common form of image of Jesus, with a very very long provenance. Paul B (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:JDLI is at times abbreviated as POV. That has happened a few times in other articles by other editors... You may even remember a few of them... I think you know who I mean. History2007 (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it does say right there in the caption that the image is a "typical European depiction of Jesus". A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 21:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * History, what you're doing here is basically trying to attack me, these are nothing more than ad hominem attacks. I do believe that you are biased in favor for a white Jesus despite what you claim, and all of your arguments are biased in favor for the current image because of that. The fact that none of your arguments have anything to do with neutrality indicates that. Paul B, I think your common sense argument works against you. Why would someone from Galilee look like they are from Europe? And yes, the image is a European depiction of Jesus as A Thousand Doors has said. I'm not necessarily saying a composite image is desirable, I'm just saying it's neutral. I want something that is both neutral, and appropriate at the top. If we can not find an image that satisfies both of those criteria then there should not be a lead image. ScienceApe (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, please- you start by calling other people biased, then say you are getting criticized. That is a new one. And all of this discussion on and one without a single encyclopedic item getting discussed. Way to go... Way to go... This POV image mantra business is not helping develop encyclopedic content. That is for sure. One can repeat that mantra on every page, say Modernism and say it is biased towards Hofmann. Or Expressionism and say it is biased towards Munch, etc. etc. etc. Go and delete all of those images first, then resume. As as aside, the Munch image on the Expressionism page may be an apt way of representing this discussion... In the time I have spent here, I could have written a whole new article and done something useful... History2007 (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Jewish culture did not typically support portrait painting, so we don't have many portraits from the period of people from Judea and Galilee. However we have ancient Egyptian images of people from the area, who are typically portrayed as pale-skinned with dark hair, pretty much normal for Mediterranean people (see Book of Gates). We also have a large number of Fayum mummy portraits from northern Egypt at this time, which are generally considered to be as naturalistic as ancient art gets. There are some surviving statues and coins which are consistent with this, and which fit the general 'look' of the populations in the area today. The problem is that you have constructed a one-size-fits-all idea that there is a "European" look and a "non-European" look. It would be truer to say that there is a "Mediterranean" look which is common around the coast, with local variations. Northern Europeans look distinctively different and so do people to the East, increasingly as Iran gives way to Pakistan and India. So do people to the south, as the Sudan extends to sub-Saharan Africa. Whichever way you go - North, East or South, the phenotype starts to change. The distinction between 'Europe' and 'non-Europe' is totally artificial. The Greeks were a lot nearer to Galilee than to Norway, culturally as well as geographically. The painting is from what we call "Europe", but the look of the face is typically Mediterranean, a type which is not restricted to Europe at all. The same type of image is used in Syria, Egypt and other areas, so are they "European"? Paul B (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * A logical set of statements in fact... Now, amid all his Munch-themed discussion, however, there is a one item to smile about: namely that Greeks may not really fit the term European: I think we could get Tsipras to agree to that these days... Even Merkel may agree to that soon... kidding. History2007 (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But what about, say, the Dura-Europos synagogue? The wall paintings there date from around the 3rd century, and generally depict individuals with darker skin tones. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs)
 * If you think the Dura-Europas figures are dark skinned, all I can say is that you appear to have different eyesight from mine. Darker than what? Paul B (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A real exception for a synagogue to have images. Most Jewish teachings interpret the Second Commandment as against the use of "graven images" as visual art. History2007 (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Paul everything you're saying is original research. You're trying to rationalize the image to fit what you think Jesus probably looked like. Whether you think that image looks Mediterranean and thus kinda like how Jesus may have looked like is completely irrelevant here. We know the origin of that painting is Europe, and that's the only objective thing we can say about it. That is the issue at hand here, and it's a neutrality violation since there is no consensus on how Jesus looked, or what his race was. The picture is perfectly fine to include in the article, it just shouldn't be at the top. ScienceApe (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no rule against original research on the talk page, and in any case it was not original research. NOTHING I said is remotely original research at all. It is standard stuff in the history of art for this period. The can be no "neutality" violation because this is the standard image type. I'm not defending this particular image but I do believe we should lead with this type. To have a monatage - especially with the proposed caption - would imply that there is genuinely some "scholarly" debate that Jesus may have looked Chinese or Sub-Saharan. There is no such debate. There are fringe theories. There is US Afrocentrist ideology and there is debate about aesthetic coinventions. But there is no live scholarly debate about what "race" Jesus was: not that I know of. Show me some evidence that there is. Paul B (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see the trend now: You are now ok with the img, but not at the top. And how did you determine that "we know the origin of that painting is Europe" now? Does we include yous truly? That would have been news to your truly. That is a pre-iconoclast depiction, and of great artistic value, but as to where it came from, please do educate us here now... And I said this before, now let me say it again: one can repeat that POV mantra on 10,000 pages, say Modernism and say it is biased towards Hofmann. Or Expressionism and say it is biased towards Munch, etc. etc. ... etc. I suggest you delete all of those leading images first, then resume. History2007 (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually it doesn't really matter where it's from. It's inappropriate to be at the top for the same reason why it's inappropriate for a black or asian depiction of jesus to be at the top. It's pushing one perception of his appearance over another. Can you please drop your snarky attitude? I always said the image should be moved to the bottom, I never said it should be removed entirely. History, those are not valid arguments. This article is supposed to be about the factual information regarding what jesus looked like, and putting that image at the top, implicitly pushes that appearance. If we were to compare this article to say, Depiction of Jesus, I actually have no problem with that very same depiction being at the top because then rationale such as "it's the most common, and earliest depiction of jesus" are completely valid in regards to that article. They are not valid here though because this article is not about depictions, it's about what jesus looked like, and we can't push one view over another. ScienceApe (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, as I said that argument is not valid, because it could have applied to 10,000 pages e.g. Modernism, Expressionism, etc. You have not addressed that issue. Anyway, it seems that you now realize that the selection of that image was not haphazard: it is a well known ancient depiction as evidenced by its use at the start of the Depictions of Jesus page. By the way, does the uppercase key work on your keyboard? In particular uppercase "J" seems not to appear in what you type... History2007 (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Other stuff exists" is a pretty invalid argument as well, of course. Every article is unique, and what might be appropriate in one Wikipedia article (or even 10,000), may not necessarily be appropriate in another. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 16:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE is an essay and not a guideline to be used for anything. In general, however, there are norms in Wikipedia, e.g. most pages having a leading image, etc. Comparisons are not forbidden by any measure. History2007 (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Things that most definitely are guidelines however are WP:Consensus (in particular how consensus can change), and WP:Civility. Personally, I would be interested in having a respectful, considerate discussion on whether having a lead image in the Race and appearance of Jesus article is appropriate, and, if so, which one should be used. Is that something that in which you would be interested in partaking, History2007? Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 16:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I must say I am beginning to question my own sanity for spending time on this. There is no consensus here, of course. By the way WP:CON is a policy, above guidelines. Now, in the interest of sanity why not try another artistic image? I can go along with that if it is a high quality item by one of the masters. Suggestions? And let us see what Paul says. History2007 (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In fact, one could try one that is so small that does not show anything, so there is no future debate, say the one here that does not show skin color or anything, but can act as an image at the top anyway. And the caption would be "Bearded Jesus at the center, Catacombs of, Rome, second half of 4th century." That's all. History2007 (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My thinking is that both the lead and its image needs to summarise and reflect the rest of the article. This article could be greatest piece of literature of all time, but, unfortunately, the average Wikipedia user is probably still going to read nothing more than the lead and the image captions. In fact, my concern is that a significant proportion of readers will open this page, look at the opening picture, and then view nothing more. The article repeatedly mentions that there is no agreement among scholars on what the race of Jesus would have been, so I feel that a composite image of the most popular scholarly theories would best serve our readers. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 17:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The composite image will be "our own rendering" and WP:OR. And I assure you that I am no Picasso anyway. But if we attempt to build our own composite that is the WP:OR of WP:OR. So I could not agree to that. But if the image is small enough not to suggest anything, the page does not look empty, but no specific impression is given. That was why I suggested the small image, which I have now posted here as an example. I say let us just use a vague image and get on with our lives. The composite will be self-created WP:OR. History2007 (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)




 * Composite images and montages are generally not forbidden on Wikipedia, and many articles (maybe even as many as 10,000!) make use of them. See, for example, the lead image in Art. Similarly, original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. The montage that I have crudely thrown together does not introduce any ideas or arguments that are not already presented in the text of the article itself – the caption is basically copy-pasted from the lead. I believe that a montage showing various depictions of the race of Jesus would better illustrate the article than a single image. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 20:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I could give you 50 ways to leave that montage, but I will not bother. You are going to spend the rest of this decade defending that against IPs anyway, and other users (myself included) who think it has this, that and the other wrong with it. The determination that it is "representative" is yours alone, not mine. So no agreement on that. I think the best way is to have an image that is vague/small enough not to suggest anything. History2007 (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No image at all would be preferable to one that is vague and small. Shall we just compromise on that? Incidentally, I was in no way suggesting that the montage that I quickly threw together was the finished product and should be immediately added to the article. I just wanted to give an impression of the sort of image that I was describing. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 21:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No image is not a compromise. I want the image there is now, you montage or none. The compromise is a small image. History2007 (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I want no image as much as you want the small image. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 21:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A composite image should not create the spurious impression that there is some sort of debater that Jesus may have looked like one or other of these various pictures. I'm in favour of an image of the standard model with a caption. Otyherwise, I'd prefer a composite that does not make the spurious claim that there is some equivalence between a Mediterranean Jesus and a Chinese Jesus. It's interestin that the Nordic Jesus is wholly absent from the composite - implictily associating the Med look with a generic "European" identity. Paul B (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough. Which images would you hypothetically prefer to be used? A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 10:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What Paul said is interesting. The fact is that when doing these composites the subconscious kicks in ever so gently and directs things before one knows what happened. Now, "in the name of sanity" the way out of this may be to combine "small" and "composite" and achieve the result through dilution and diversification, e.g. as in Armenians but only 12 of them, and smaller than those so none is suggestive of any specifics. But they should all be high quality items, by well known people, and/or of historical value. History2007 (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That sounds pretty reasonable to me. Twelve might be a few too many though – how about eight? A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 13:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What do you expect? Reasonable is my middle name. But I was being even conservative with 12. Anything below that is really not diluted enough. History2007 (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Which images would you want to use? A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 13:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I will think about it in a day or so. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I added a gallery of 12. Some of them (e.g. the Tanner) need to have the face cropped, but they are pretty diverse now. History2007 (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, nice going. Agree that the faces could do with being cropped in places. What would the caption say? A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 21:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Caption could be: "Over the centuries, Jesus has been depicted in a multitude of ways, yet there is no scholarly agreement even on his approximate appearance". Do you have a program that can crop the faces? Your help there will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really, I'm afraid. The image above I basically threw together pretty quickly in MS Paint – the Graphic Lab would probably be able to offer more professional-looking edits. I like the caption, although I wonder whether it might be worth reversing its structure, e.g. to something like, say, "There is no scholarly agreement on the race and appearance of Jesus; over the centuries, they have been depicted in various ways." Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 01:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem with your rewording of the caption. Let us go with that. Give me a day or two and I will crop the images. History2007 (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I managed to crop them just with MS-paintbrush. One of them was too recent, so I just used an older one. History2007 (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I like it! Looks good, nice job! The only thing I would say is that I think that, grammatically-speaking, that "yet" could be omitted. Other that, I reckon that that would be a useful addition to the article. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 17:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will delete the yet and use it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you want History, what matters is what is appropriate for this article. To take your own link, it seems your argument is I just don't like it. I think A Thousand Doors brought up an excellent point. There is no agreement on what jesus looked like, so why are we trying to show a lead image that shows what he looks like? ScienceApe (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I know, I know. But anyway, by the token, the composite shows something, unless it is pretty small, as discussed above. Anyway, we are discussing above here now. History2007 (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This has been asked before, but what exactly is the source for the Tanner image showing a "black" Jesus? If there is none, the caption should be changed. A much less ambiguous image would be The Shadow of Death by William Holman Hunt, which was painted in the Holy Land, inspired by locals and their dress. FunkMonk (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)