Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be blocked without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by User:Robert McClenon

Historicity of Jesus has been excessively contentious in August and September 2014

It is only sufficient to look at the length of the talk page archives.

See Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 36 at 179kb

See Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 35 at 248kb

See Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 34 at 246kb

Fearofreprisal has been disruptive

FearofReprisal files a frivolous RFM: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Blanking_of_the_Historicity_of_Jesus_page&oldid=628052108

FearofReprisal files a frivolous AIV https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=627919879

Addendum

FearofReprisal's most recent posting, in which he accuses nearly every other involved editor of "serious misconduct", appears to serve no purpose other than to continue to create hostility. There are times at which the policy to assume good faith must be set aside. FearofReprisal is acting in bad faith to maximize hostility and should be considered to be a troll. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Iseeewe has been disruptive

Iseeewe posts a rant and gets blocked https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=620051235

Iseeewe remains combative https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIseeEwe&diff=620585120&oldid=620584778

Evidence presented by John Carter

Dubious conduct of Kww

I believe that the evidence of Kww’s conduct on the article talk page archives. Beginning on 2 September 2014 in the section now at Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 34#Please review Wikipedia policy Kww indicates what seems to me to be a less-than-well founded attempt to impugn others with no basis other than the individuals involved being self-declared Christians or others who would support the existence of Jesus, and also I believe demonstrates a rather remarkable lack of basic competence when dealing with matters of history indicating that sources from Buddhist or other non-related historical sources are missing. First. I guess I should declare that I have checked not only Biblical encyclopedias and Christian encyclopedias, but the most comprehensive and recent encyclopedias on Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, religion in general, and biblical studies and found only three which refer to this topic in any significant way, one being the ‘’Anchor Bible Dictionary’’ and the two versions, original and new, of the ‘’Encyclopedia of Unbelief’’.

It should also be noted that Kww goes on for some time indicating that such sources from other faiths should be included. I believe that the lack of even basic competence in the field of history in general that these comments indicate, given their apparent lack of understanding that history is based on historical methodologies, as has been indicated several times in recent archived talk pages and historically, raises serious questions about whether Kww may insert himself in discussions where he is not qualified to take part given a lack of even the most basic understanding of the topic. I also believe that the comment made by Kww here displays what may reasonably be called lack of judgment considering he made here a statement about how “pseudoscience” is not poorly defined, despite the fact that later in that page I indicate that the OED lists 2 definitions of pseudoscience, each of which is based on 17 definitions of science, leading to 34 definitions of the term pseudoscience itself. I believe even the most basic attempt at the research he seems to demand of others in the first link is something he demonstrably refused to do himself in the comment in the second link. John Carter (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Ideological battleground

I believe that recent history of the talk page indicates that for certain editors this topic is ultimately one in which they find that their own dearly held beliefs are being challenged, including in that number both atheists and those who religiously belief in Jesus, and that on that basis this article is more or less an inherent battleground, in much the same way as the Climate change article where so far as I can remember both the proponents and opponents of "global warming" have been described by the other side as presenting pseudoscience in their arguments. There also seem to be to "camps" of academics on this issue, although they are of dissimilar size, which further aggravates the problem. John Carter (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Wdford

It appears that, with the topic-banning of a single problem editor, the conflict has been resolved. The article is now stable, and has been stable since the banning. The warriors that flocked in to support the banned editor have faded back into the mist from whence they came, the heat has dissipated completely and it has been business as usual ever since. The Historicity of Jesus article is now once again a collection of bloated summaries of other articles, containing IMO more duplication than is necessary, but it is at least stable. Part of the underlying problem could be that there appears to be no guideline on how much detail should be included in a WP:General overview article, or on how concise a section ought to be when it summarizes a main article, but those are technical issues rather than burning concerns. The long-running dispute about whether to use the phrase “most scholars” or “virtually all scholars” or “biblical scholars” is tedious, but it’s hardly problematic. The long-running dispute about which sources are biased and which are reliably objective is also tedious, but it’s hardly problematic either. This article – and related articles – are visited from time to time by POV pushers, but this is readily managed through the usual processes. Provided the problem editor remains topic-banned I don’t see any potential for a future flare-up, and so I am not entirely sure if anything remains to be arbitrated here. Wdford (talk) 10:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I am surprised that Ignocrates now feels that my original edit was disruptive – at the time Ignocrates openly supported my edit [1] and later stated that “As I mentioned at ANI, that was an excellent job creating the disambiguation article in short order, and it diffused the dispute. Well done.” [2]

Second, it seems that Fearofreprisal is now attacking me (yet again, and at the very last minute) with the usual array of lies, half-truths and insinuations, so seemingly I need to defend myself after all:

• Vandalism, by removing content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia - Not only is that a blatant lie, it’s also a clear breach of wikipolicy. My edit was made specifically to improve the quality of the encyclopedia, by removing material that excessively duplicated related articles, and by focusing the Historicity of Jesus article on the core point of “yes Jesus did exist”, so as to eliminate also the contentious issue of redefining the topic of the article, which was being championed by Fearofreprisal against a strong consensus. [3] My edit was then described as “useful” by the facilitating admin [4] [5], [6], was supported by the facilitating admin [7] and was then supported by almost all of the editors who had been working on the article with me – including Ignocrates [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18].

• Peremptory removal of sourced material - The material I removed did not disappear from the encyclopedia – it was all already described in detail in related (and better) articles, and my summarizing of this article retained clear summaries of those main articles together with references and wikilinks. No relevant information was lost, and the encyclopedia was not compromised one iota. [19]

• Ignoring global consensus – the consensus of scholars is that Jesus did exist, and the consensus of wiki-editors at that time was that this scholarly consensus should appear in the article. I was editing in line with the consensus in both cases. I therefore fail to understand the logic – if there is any – of this accusation.

• Gaming the system – I followed policies through-out, and my contributions were largely well received – see evidence above. It wasn’t me who repeatedly ran to ANI and DRN and elsewhere, and it wasn’t me who called in a host of meat-puppets to support my POV. This is yet another baseless personal attack against me by Fearofreprisal.

• Personal attacks through casting aspersions without providing evidence, and Personal attacks through assuming bad faith –Fearofreprisal offers no actual evidence to support these aspersions, and flatly states that my “disruptive edit was intentional, and compromised the integrity of Wikipedia” thus mocking WP:AGF. For detailed discussions of Fearofreprisal’s behavior, see [20], which resulted in Fearofreprisal being topic-banned.

Wdford (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Evensteven

I would echo John Carter's comments about problems with Kww's arguments; in imo there's not much to add.

It would also appear that it is now permissible once again for all substantiated points of view, including Christian, to be covered in the article material, as it should be. Proof of historicity is not a criterion for article inclusion, and sources have always been allowed to be biased themselves, both being fallacious arguments leveled against Christian apologist sources there. As Wdford says, getting the proper balance in article text and neutrality of statement are the tedious but relevant issues, and that appears to be the nature of the editing now going on.

I have little doubt that editor POV will continue to be a problem from time to time, as it is on many articles, but I agree that there is little to arbitrate at the present time. There is no reasonable way to prevent future disruption by other editors, and there are sure to be future disagreements, as there is no scientific proof from the scholarly world, and the article's subject is thus based on interpretation of evidence that not everyone will accept as valid. It's the nature of the article - inherently subjective. To some, that means bias, when they disagree. Evensteven (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Some of Fearofreprisal's problematic positions are written directly into his presented evidence here (see "polarizing subject"). It is not the subject that is polarizing, but the theorizing about it that polarizes.

1. Granted, historicity is not a religious term. But it is used legitimately in a religious context when it concerns the historicity of Jesus. How a term is applied in the world is not limited by the predispositions of a WP editor. It can and does include application to Christian belief. Fearofreprisal insists it's about whether or not Jesus "existed", whereas Christian belief maintains he still exists, but not in the body he assumed to come here 2000 years ago. Both do concern the facts about whether he was a man like other humans who walked, talked, ate food, and breathed air on earth as other humans. Fearofreprisal insists the article topic must be limited to what science can prove about those facts, whereas numerous sources do not find themselves restricted by the same limitations. Fearofreprisal argues that those who do not accept his limitations are therefore suspect. He argues points that need to be left to the article sources to argue.
2. As a Christian proponent, I do say "Jesus existed" (that is, Jesus exists, and came to earth as a human). I do not say "of course". Fearofreprisal insists on putting words into others' mouths and framing opinions in a manner not used by them. This is a small, less significant example, but it is exemplary of his tendency to paraphrase inaccurately and inappropriately, both in relation to sources and also to editors. He often insists on restrictions of the source viewpoint simultaneously, and argues against sources themselves when they contain a view other than his own (see here, and the following interchange). The essence of the argument is that the sources in question do not support his view, and that therefore they are suspect sources. By implication, it includes the proprosition that Christian claims are "exceptional". Well, they are (considered in a real-world sense), but they are not (considered in a WP policy sense). The claims of Christianity are not so difficult to verify and the numbers of reliable sources are too numerous to argue about to make arguments to the contrary.
3. In his point #4 he applies the same suspicions to Christian editors. In points #5 and #6, he seems to describe editor misbehavior that has taken place over the history of the article. I cannot speak to the points directly, but I think the acceptance of this arbitration is a good indication there has been some, at least possibly. With regards to editors who tend to drive others away, I ask what Fearofreprisal's purpose was in this comment. Evensteven (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC) Or perhaps in adding and modifying a section title (with edit summary comments) to describe a talk page comment. Evensteven (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Ignocrates

Repeated filings at ANI were disruptive

Five incident reports were filed at ANI for conduct issues on the Historicity of Jesus article.

(1) Personal attacks by Fearofreprisal: Hijiri 88 00:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC). A community topic ban of Fearofreprisal was enacted by Tom Paris 19:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC); Robert McClenon was the proposer.

(2) Talk page disruption by SPAs: Jeppiz (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC). Closed as already resolved by Tom Paris 20:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC).

(3) Proposal for an indefinite block of Fearofreprisal: Hijiri 88 00:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC). Withdrawn by Hijiri 88, 03:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC) upon review of terms of the topic ban.

(4) Proposal for a one-way interaction ban of Hijiri 88: Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC). Withdrawn by Fearofreprisal 22:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC) to seek a resolution in arbitration.

(5) Proposal for an indefinite site ban of Fearofreprisal: Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC). No action taken by 17 October 2014 (UTC) with enough votes for acceptance of the request for arbitration.

The series of five filings taken as a whole prolonged and escalated the dispute on the Historicity of Jesus article. Ignocrates (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Creation of a disambiguation article was disruptive

(1) While done in good faith, a disambiguation article was created without discussion 11:20, 1 October 2014 by Wdford citing WP:BOLD.

(2) This was reverted 17:39, 1 October 2014 by Fearofreprisal citing discuss on the article talk page.

(3) The reversion was undone 18:45, 1 October 2014 by Robert McClenon citing revert not explained.

(4) An RfC was initiated on the talk page 02:44, 2 October 2014 by Robert McClenon. (Also, see the Full RfC.)

(5) This led shortly afterward to filing an incident report for vandalism 06:23, 2 October 2014 by Fearofreprisal citing violation of WP:Deletion policy and requesting intervention. Declined as not vandalism 06:26, 2 October 2014.

(6) A request for formal mediation was subsequently filed 07:21, 3 October 2014 by Fearofreprisal claiming the article was blanked and linking to a talk page discussion on Evading WP article deletion policy.

(7) A direct result of this exchange was a proposal at ANI for a topic ban of Fearofreprisal 12:53, 3 October 2014 by Robert McClenon, citing the creation of the disambiguation article, the incident report of vandalism, and the filing for formal mediation.

While intended to resolve the dispute over article content, the bold creation of a disambiguation article disrupted ongoing discussion on the article talk page and escalated a dispute over editor conduct at ANI, which resulted in a topic ban. Ignocrates (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Response to statements by Wdford

Wdford is correct when he states that I supported the decision to create a disambiguation article. It had the positive effects of (1) removing content that is mostly duplicated in other articles, and (2) resolving the content dispute. That was my opinion at the time he created it, and, as I said, it was done in good faith. The problem is that decision led to two unintended consequences that were disruptive.

(1) There is no clear policy for how to do this (thus the need to be WP:BOLD), and what one person sees as a good faith attempt to remove duplication another may interpret as railroading the original article by redirect. Although Wikipedia runs by WP:CONSENSUS, it's also the case that policy trumps consensus. A decision to implement this drastic a change should have been based more firmly on policy. I don't know what that policy is, and none was cited, which leads next to a process question.

(2) If you are convinced an article was wrongly blanked and replaced by someone's personal version which is drastically different in content, where do you go for a remedy? An incident report for vandalism is clearly not the answer, but what is the answer, ANI? An incident report was already underway at ANI alleging that Fearofreprisal is a troll (i.e. motivated by malice). On the content side, an RfC was filed after the original article was blanked and replaced, and was initially (mostly) supported by the same editors who were aligned on the original article. (My advice on the talk page to seek a wider consensus was ignored.) So, where do you go? Given the perceived local consensus on the talk page, what was a better choice than filing a request for formal mediation? I don't know the answer, but we should find some answers before this case is concluded. Ignocrates (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Fearofreprisal

The Historicity of Jesus is a polarizing subject, dominated by those who hold the majority viewpoint.

1. The term “historicity” means, essentially, the quality of a person or event being part of history, versus being mythology or legend. The term is used consistently in a number of WP articles. [21] [22] [23] , and its meaning in the context of Historicity of Jesus is also consistent. Historicity is a term of art in social history. It is not a religious term.
2. The term “historicity of Jesus” is distinct from the similar sounding historical Jesus. These are two very different topics. [24]
3. To simplify, almost all relevant scholars hold one of two overarching viewpoints regarding the historicity of Jesus: The majority view is “of course Jesus existed.” The minority view is “we can't be certain Jesus existed.” Those who hold the majority viewpoint tend to be strong advocates for their position, and also tend to ridicule and attack, ad hominem, those who hold the minority viewpoint. [25]
4. WP editors who regularly work on articles on early Christianity tend to have a stake in the question of Jesus' historicity. The vast majority of the persistent editors of the Historicity of Jesus article hold the “of course Jesus existed” viewpoint.
5. Any editor who might have sympathy for the “we can't be certain Jesus existed” viewpoint is usually driven away by the editors who hold the majority viewpoint. This has been the pattern for many years, and the comings and goings of different editors seem not to make any difference.
6. Editors who hold the majority viewpoint seem to be less interested in the quality of the article than they are in making certain that they marginalize the minority viewpoint. Some of these majority viewpoint editors would rather see the article deleted, and readers redirected to other articles.

Bill the Cat 7 has engaged in serious misconduct

• Prejudicial editing focusing on atheists.
• Engaging in advocacy

Diffs:

• User space page of POV resources [26]
• Posted list of canned POV citations [27]
• Advocacy against Christ Myth Theory [28][29]
• Attacking atheists [30] [31]
• Advocating for a single viewpoint [32][33]
• Proposed deleting the Historicity of Jesus article [34] [35] [36]

Wdford has engaged in serious misconduct

• Vandalism, by removing content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia
• Peremptory removal of sourced material
• Ignoring global consensus
• Gaming the system
• Personal attacks through casting aspersions without providing evidence
• Personal attacks through assuming bad faith

Diffs:

• Wdford investigated deleting the Historicity of Jesus article. When this was not possible, he suggested, as an alternative, converting it to a disambiguation or redirect page. [37]
• Instead, he made a disruptive edit, turning the article into something he called a “disambiguation article.” [38]

• The article, after his edit, no longer included the POV template, navigation template (sidebar), table of contents, “See also” section, “Notes” section, any images, any footers, or any categories.
• The only content retained were the two last sentences of the lead, which made no mention of the topic, and the references to those paragraphs (only one of which even mentioned the article's topic.)
• He also added a list of other articles, with each including detailed descriptions.

• The result of his disruptive edit was not a disambiguation page, a redirect page, a summary article, or even an encyclopedic article.
• Wdford is an experienced editor [39]
• He stood by his edit, despite it having blanked most of the article content. He suggested that having the content spread out among other articles was an acceptable alternative. [40]
• His disruptive edit was intentional, and compromised the integrity of Wikipedia.

Robert McClenon has engaged in serious misconduct

• Vandalism, by removing content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia
• Peremptory removal of sourced material
• Inappropriate canvassing, by contacting only one side of a dispute
• Double standards in user conduct
• Ignoring global consensus
• Gaming the system
• Personal attacks through casting aspersions without providing evidence
• Personal attacks through using dispute resolution as a weapon. Disproportionate escalation
• Personal attacks through assuming bad faith
• Battleground conduct, attempting to drive off editor who disagrees through hostile conduct

Diffs:

• Reinstated Wdford's disruptive edit of Historicity of Jesus. [41]
• Started RfC poll: “Should the article on Historicity of Jesus be a full article or a shortened disambiguation article? Sent RfC only to religion list – did not include the history list or attempt to get input from broader WP community (contacted only one side of the dispute.) [42]
• Claimed that RfC was complying with the spirit of the WP:Deletion policy, and was an appropriate case of WP:IAR He also said “The article wasn't surviving in its previous state.” [43]
• Refused to engage in a RfM, accusing me of bad faith in making the request. [44]
• Diff showing that I made the RfM in good faith [45]
• Called me “tendentious and difficult” at ANI, but provided no diffs or evidence. [46]
• Requested that I be topic-banned, based upon my having filed the RfM, and “stiring up controversey.” Provided no diffs or evidence that I had done anything improper. [47]
• I was thereafter topic banned for disruptive editing. [48]
• Proposed site-banning me, based upon me being a “vexatious litigant”, my being a sockpuppet, Engaging in “shit stirring”, disruptive and confrontational editing, posting a frivolous and confrontational RfM, and requesting an IBAN with another editor. He summarized his justification saying that this was to stop my “distruptive use of dispute resolution.” He was aware at the time that I had a RfAR pending. *He provided no diffs or evidence. [49]
• Robert McClenon is a very experienced WP editor, who has taken on a role of making constructive criticism of other users.
• Robert McClenon stood by Wdford's disruptive edit, despite knowing that it was an end-run on the Deletion Policy.

Hijiri88 has engaged in serious misconduct

• Personal attacks through casting aspersions without providing evidence, using dispute resolution as a weapon with disproportionate escalation, and assuming bad faith/
• Battleground conduct, attempting to drive off editor who disagrees through hostile conduct

Diffs:

• Started ANI requesting "reprisals" against me, leading to my being topic-banned: [50]

• Charges made: Personal attacks, trolling, promoting fringe theory, battleground, point, disruptive editing.
• Evidence provided:

• [51] (A post where I had spent hours verifying article citations, and had tagged those which couldn't be verified.)
• [52] (My response when he deleted one of my talk page comments. His message in this diff, about JoshuSatori, is apparently related to this message he posted on my user talk page: [53] I had (nor have) no idea who JoshuSatori is.

• Started ANI requesting indefinite block against me, based on my filing this arbitration case, and creating an evidence page to support it.[54]

• Charges made: violating TBAN, personal attacks, attack page
• Evidence provided: [55] [56]
• He started the ANI with the belief that I would not be able to respond to it without violating the TBAN. ("his TBAN technically forbids him from responding here.") This is baiting a banned editor.
• Withdrew the block request when told by admin that I had the right to seek arbitration, but reiterated accusations of personal attacks and attack page, and added charges of sockpuppetry, trolling, fringe pushing, and suggested that I still merited a site ban. Did not provide any evidence to support these charges. Also implied that he was waiting to see how this arbitration works out before again proposing that I be site banned.[57]

• Posted Miscellany for Deletion request for page in my user space which I had created in support of this arbitration [58]

• Did not sign the request
• Did not notify me about the request [59]
• Was speedily deleted, then speedily undeleted, when admin saw what had happened.

• Followed me to another editor's user talk page, and accused me of violating TBAN, personal attacks, trolling, promoting fringe theories, and sockpuppetry. Provided no diffs or evidence. Implied he would continue harassing me if I didn't cease these purported activities. [60]
• Responded to my ANI request for a mutual interaction ban against him by charging me with disruptive editing, canvassing, violating TBAN, sockpuppetry, personal attacks, attack page, bad faith. Provided no diffs or evidence. [61]
• Joined in Robert McClenon's ANI request that I be site banned, accusing me of NOTHERE, IDHT, TROLL, FRINGE, BATTLEGROUND, and sockpuppetry. Provided no evidence or diffs. [62]
• Hijiri88 is an experienced editor. In the past, he has edited as user:Elvenscout742, and under at least 19 other user names. [63]
• Hijiri88 has started at least 17 ANI incidents in the last two years. He has made 197 edits on the ANI page in the same time. [64]

Pursuit of ANI based on personal grudges

Users Ian.Thomson, Hijiri88, and Jeppiz agressively pursued me, throughout an 8 day long ANI, based upon personal grudges. See [65]

Evidence in response to Ignocrates "Creation of a disambiguation article..."

• Wdford's original rationale for his disruptive edit:[66]

• Some editors had been using the article as a "disambiguation page of sorts."

• I did "Discuss" my revert of the Wdford disruptive edit, but it took a few hours, as I was busy working on a 500 word summary of how the article could be improved, as requested by Robert McClenon. [67] [68]
• Here is my post with the 500 word summary, and also my explanation of my concerns with the Wdford disruptive edit: [69]
• Here is Wdford's response, where he indicates that his edit was leading up to merging the Historicity of Jesus article into the Historical Jesus article: [70]. ("no need to keep two separate articles")

• His edit was not a good faith attempt to improve the Historicity of Jesus article. It was a step towards deleting it.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.