Talk:Suetonius on Jesus

Does this merit its own article? It's much shorter and stubbier than Josephus on Jesus and even Tacitus on Jesus, and could easily be merged into Historicity of Jesus, just as we don't have an article called "Pliny on Jesus".

Moreover, the article title is misleading - unlike in the case of the two aforementioned pages, in the case of the Suetonius quotation it's disputed whether Jesus or Christians are even being referred to; one could even say that this entire article is based on conjecture at best, wishful thinking at worst. This is not, of course, to argue against the information being included on Wikipedia, merely to argue against its having an article of its own when there's plenty of room on Historicity of Jesus and/or Jesus and textual evidence (which may soon be merged together) to include the additional information. I can do it myself easily if people agree... -Silence 00:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Bit there isn't much to merge, as the chapter in Historicity of Jesus tells roughly the same. --Pjacobi 16:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)