Talk:Jesus

Due Weight dispute? Reliable Sources dispute?

What is the proper tag that we should use to name this dispute? I put a POV tag on the Gospels section, but that was repeatedly reverted. If it's not a POV issue, what is it? How about a Due Weight issue? The Gospels section gives more weight to the Gospel view than RSs do. Or is it a Reliable Sources issue, since we don't follow the RSs? It sure looks like a POV issue to me, but I'm happy to compromise and call the dispute just about anything. Any preferences? Due Weight seems the clearest. Anyone mind if I put a Due Weight tag on the Gospels section. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Since no one has offered an objection over the last 3 days, I'll go ahead and add the Due Weight tag to the section. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

LittleJerry says that the dispute over the Gospels section is not about facts. I think facts are wonderful. Here are some facts that I think no editor will disagree with, all related to the Due Weight issue.

• WP:V says that WP should be based on published sources, not on the experiences and beliefs of editors.

Yes.

Hey LittleJerry, thanks for discussing this with me instead of just reverting me. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• WP:DUE says that we should give viewpoints the same sort of prominence that they get in RSs

We do. And RS give extensive attention to gospel portrayals of Jesus.

• RSs, particularly other encyclopedias, favor the historical account over the Gospel accounts.

As stated below, there are no "historical accounts", only reconstructions based on examining the gospels. The encyclopedias you cite give extensive attention to gospel portrayals.

There are no historical accounts? Citation needed. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

*sign* Read the sentence again. LittleJerry (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• Our Gospels section is longer than our historical section, and it comes first. RSs don't do this.

There is very little we can establish about the historical Jesus, hence why the section it is so small.

That's a Yes, I take it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• We give the Gospel accounts, especially John, more prominence than they get in other encyclopedias.

No, we give them the same prominence. Even if John is considered not as useful for history, its portrayal of Jesus is extensively studied and discussed. LittleJerry (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I like that you are now comparing our article to RSs. That's evidence. Could you please choose any of the encyclopedias that I linked to, and let's compare how our article and theirs cover the canonical Gospels, OK? Let's look at the evidence together and see how closely our page lines up. If you're right and I'm wrong, we'll see that our page is fine and nothing needs to change. Which encyclopedia article would you like us to look at together? How about Sanders in Britannica? The world's leading expert in the world's leading encyclopedia. How could we go wrong? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

We are not obligated to follow the format of other encyclopedias. You keep bringing these tertiary sources but what about secondary scholarly sources? Take a look at the gospel section and look at the cites. They are all to RS's. The fact that scholars talk extensively about the gospel portrayals, regardless of their historicity, is evidence that they are not "undue weight". LittleJerry (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for referring to RSs. It's true that scholars talk about the Gospels a lot. All this material would be great on a page about the Gospels. It looks like most of those scholarly citations are about the New Testament, not about Jesus. When experts describe Jesus, they don't summarize the Gospels first. Sanders' Historical Figure of Jesus doesn't. Neither does Vermes' Authentic Gospel of Jesus. Can you name a great secondary source about Jesus that starts with summaries of the Gospels? But maybe this discussion is moot. You like how the Gospels are treated in Sanders' Britannica article, so let's agree to follow that example, OK? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is not the Historical Jesus. Is is about the figure of Jesus in general, who is as much of a figure of theology and literature as he is of history. You'll find plenty of scholar who discuss these different aspects. Citing two books on the historical aspects doesn't prove your point. And I never said I "liked" Sander's article. Don't put words in my mouth. LittleJerry (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

My bad. Sorry that I misunderstood you. Please clarify. Please show us an RS that treats the Christian Gospel stories the way you would like us to treat them. In a word, evidence. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You say that "we give them the same prominence," but you offer no evidence to back up that assertion. Sanders in Britannica doesn't give the Gospels this amount of attention, especially not John. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

LittleJerry, if you don't offer any evidence that we give the Gospel accounts "the same prominence," it's like admitting you're wrong. Would you mind if I restore the dispute tag now? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep up this nonsense. I already explained why the gospel section is not UNDUE and I'm not going to explain it a billion more times. I'm also not going to spoon-feed you evidence that scholars discuss the gospels and their portrayals of Jesus. You know where to look. Conversation over. LittleJerry (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

How to improve the page? Some editors say we should shorten the Gospels section a lot. Some say it should be blended into the history section because that's what the RSs do. I'd be happy to just put the historical section first, since there was a historical Jesus before there were Gospels, the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, etc. Those are all different interpretations, of the facts, but we should be able to agree on the above facts if nothing else. No evidence has been offered that we should keep the article the way it is Can we start by agreeing to the facts? Are the other important facts that I missed? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Since no one objected, I added a Due Weight tag. LittleJerry says that the dispute isn't about Due Weight, so he reverted the tag. What tag should be there? There is a dispute over the Gospels section. It's a dispute of some type. I'm not the only one who said we should put history first, and other editors have said we should shorten the section or merge it with the historical section. I'm happy to compromise and make one or more of those other changes rather than moving history first. This issue has come up repeatedly over the years,. Maybe it's a Reliable Sources dispute? I don't know, what do people think? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Here is a the tag I would like to put at the start of the Canonical Gospel Accounts section.

LittleJerry didn't object when I suggested adding the tag but reverted me once I added it. Now, per WP:BRD, LilttleJerry should explain why they reverted me. LittleJerry, do you disagree with the assertions I make above as facts? Why isn't this a Due Weight dispute? What sort of dispute do you think it is? The tag says that the dispute should be resolved before the tag is removed. What does that mean to you? If you could cite any WP policy or guideline,s that would be helpful. Thanks. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

LittleJerry, it's bad practice to revert my tag and then refuse to discuss it on the Talk page. If no one has any objections, I'll restore the Undue Weight tag. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

LittleJerry, let me ask you this. If I can convince you that the Gospels get undue weight, then would you allow me to put a Due Weight tag on the section. I know it's a longshot, but hypothetically is that would it would take? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm done going in circles with you. LittleJerry (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

If you revert my tag, WP:BRD says you should be willing to discuss your reversion on the Talk page. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Farsight001, you deleted the dispute tag I placed on the Gospels section. Can you please explain why? Are you saying that there's no dispute? Or what? Is there a WP policy that you were following when you deleted the tag? Maybe you don't want there to be a dispute, but it looks to me like there is one. So far there are suggestions to shorten the section, move it second, or merge it with the history section. If you're going to revert, you need to be willing to discuss your evidence that it was the right thing to do. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You have at least 4 threads going on about essentially the same thing and every time you fail to get consensus in one of them, you just start another one. Now you're switching back to an older one. This is a pointless waste of everyone's time. It has all been explained to you before. Jumping to a different thread doesn't make the explanations in the other threads magically invalid. This is probably the largest case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I've ever seen. You have your answers, Jonathan. You don't like it, but you have it. Deal with it and quit wasting everyone's time.Farsight001 (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

If you revert an edit, you should be prepared to explain why on the Talk page. I'm not the only editor who thinks that we should change the way we treat the Gospels so that our page is more in line with RSs and WP policies. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

An editor doesn't need consensus to add a dispute tag to a section. If there's no consensus, then there's a dispute. The tag is designed to generate more discussion so editors can resolve the dispute and reach consensus. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Which should go first: the historical account or the canonical Gospel account?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

It appears the proposer wanted to withdraw the RFC. It is closed as a WP:SNOW support for the Gospel account. AlbinoFerret 03:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Which section should go first, the historical account of who Jesus was or the canonical Gospel account? RSs do not include the Gospel account, but other WP pages about Bible characters start with Bible summaries. The topic is under discussion above. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Gospel account would come first logically, as the primary source of information - any historical conclusions come from that, whether directly or indirectly. The fact that other tertiary sources don't have a separate section for gospel accounts means we can't really compare them on this particular issue - they might suggest blending the two sections together, but that's a separate discussion. In any case, while we follow reliable sources on content, we don't have to do so on layout or style. StAnselm (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Evidence that WP policy supports you? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Historical account first, as we can then establish the historicity of the man without needing to rely on necessarily partisan Christian accounts. Otherwise, it's like using canon sources to discuss the life and deaths of Sherlock Holmes before turning to historical accounts and dropping the punchline. --Pete (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• A completely nonsensical comparison. There are no historical reconstructions of Sherlock Holmes. LittleJerry (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• I think you may have missed the punchline there. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• Gospel accounts first. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the general populace which knows Jesus primarily through the gospels. It makes sense to present them first before introducing them to historical reconstructions. LittleJerry (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Evidence? Professional editors of encyclopedias disagree with you, and you're an amateur. Do you have any evidence that we should credit your opinion? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop rudely badgering comments with the same talking points. LittleJerry (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

You know, I'm just an amateur myself, so I didn't mean that as a jab. We're all amateurs, which is why WP policy expects us to back our opinions up with evidence. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

LittleJerry, when you asked me for evidence, I offered it readily. You won't return the courtesy? If we don't use evidence to resolve this dispute, then how do you expect us to resolve it? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

LittleJerry, maybe you missed this question. If we don't use evidence to resolve this dispute, how do you expect us to resolve it? If we don't use policies, guidelines, and RSs to reach consensus, how do propose that we reach consensus? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Gospel accounts first, per both of the same view above. The historical section has been written to follow the gospel account (in sequence I mean) and assumes knowledge of it. Without that coming first it would need very major rewriting. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

If there's a policy that says, "It's OK to give undue weight to a viewpoint provided it would take very major rewriting to fix," please point us to it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

But it isn't undue weight. All historical accounts start from the gospel accounts, in the absence of any other detailed evidence. Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that it's not undue weight? The RSs provide evidence that it is. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Historical account: Never mind my personal opinion. Let's stick to the evidence. RSs treat Jesus as primarily a historical figure, so we are obligated to humbly do the same, per WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:DUE. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Nope. None of these apply. It would be undue weight if we gave too much room to scholars who have an extremely traditionalist or liberal view when reconstructing the historical Jesus. It is not a violation of WP:DUE to recount the narratives of the very sources that scholars look to find information on Jesus. Same with WP:NPOV. LittleJerry (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a violation of WP:DUE to give the Gospel accounts more prominence than they get in published sources. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

They are very prominent in published sources. Your argument is that we shouldn't give then their own section and first because critical scholars don't recite the entire accounts before getting into their analyses? That's just silly. LittleJerry (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Gospel accounts - Difficult question, but I think that the standard WP approach to exposition is to convey the most commonly known info on a topic and then move on to more specialized treatment. The historical accounts simply wouldn't exist were it not for the endurance of the Gospel accounts, so I think they should follow. SteveStrummer (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

If this is the standard WP approach, then that would be evidence in your favor. Can you show that it's actually the WP approach? I think the WP approach is to follow the lead of RSs Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• start with gospel accounts There really isn't any historical "account" per se; there is historical analysis based upon setting the gospel accounts in a historical context, but that analysis is predicated on the gospels to the point where it boils down to picking which parts of the gospel accounts to disbelieve— well, and just guessing. What Christianity and in particular the gospels say about Jesus is therefore the necessary predicate to talking historically about Jesus. Besides, not everyone comes to the article to see what a bunch of non-believers (or the marginally orthodox) hypothesize about Jesus in reaction to orthodox Christian teaching. It just makes sense to state Christianity's claims before picking them apart. Mangoe (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure it makes sense to you, but do you have any evidence to back that up? Editing Wikipedia is about published sources, not the experiences and beliefs of the editors. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Gospel accounts first per above views, particularly StAnselm and Mangoe. It makes much more sense to me to start off with what Christianity says about Jesus, then compare that with what historians and other scholars say in reaction. Starting off with the scholarly reaction and then coming back to the Gospels seems to me a bit backwards. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You wouldn't happen to have any evidence that you'd like to share, would you? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Gospel accounts first What "historical account"? As above, extant textual tradition would always come first logically, as the primary source of information - any historical conclusions and opinions come from that. This is what we do in other subject areas. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The statement in the initial spiel that "RSs do not include the Gospel account" does not reflect the content at links to EB etc in a higher section. Their starts are similar to ours, but with much less detail. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, no one has offered any evidence in support of this position. Would you like to be the first? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

No thanks - editing in 2 sections on this age is more than enough. You provided the link yourself. And please stop heckling every comment here which disagrees with your position (ie almost all of them). Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Jonathan Tweet, this is getting very tiresome. With this issue, at least, you obviously have not been able to gain consensus for your desired change, and this is becoming tedious and tendentious. StAnselm (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Gospel accounts first as most are familiar with the Jesus of canon. Partisan or not, the canonical account is the primary account.Kerdooskis (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Would you happen to have a reference to policy or to an RS that backs up your opinion? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You keep repeating "evidence". What evidence do you want? Here's a fact, the gospels are the primary sources for historians on Jesus. Hence it is nor undue weight to devote a section to them. We have explained this point over and over again but you still keep ignoring and repeating "evidence". What evidence do you have that the gospels are undue weight? LittleJerry (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

What sort of evidence do you think we should be looking at as WP editors? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

LittleJerry, what sort of evidence do you think we should look at, if not RSs, policies, and guidelines? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I should point out that Jonathan Tweet's RS doesn't help his case. E P Sander's Britannica article talks quite a bit about the Gospel narratives and how they portray Jesus. He does interject with scholarly commentary but that's just a difference in layout. Jon has no evidence that the Gosepl section is undue weight. LittleJerry (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly - it's the same with the other example he links to above. Johnbod (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I didn't read the other encyclopedia entries, so maybe they work against me. I don't care, and I'm still glad I linked them. Why? Because this isn't about my opinion. It's about published sources. Please make our page more like those pages. And if I don't like the result, it isn't about me, is it? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I think our point is that the page is already rather like those pages, if you can be bothered to read them. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Really? OK. Which encyclopedia article is most like our page? Which one treats Jesus as primarily a Bible character and only secondarily a historical figure? Which summarizes the canonical Gospels before explaining who Jesus was, historically speaking? I'd like to read that one. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you missed my question. Johnbod and LittleJerry, which encyclopedia article would you like me to read to show me that we are treating the Gospels correctly? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No, but you've obviously failed to convince anyone much, & I don't like to hang around here. Try any of the ones you cited as "evidence" without reading. They don't have the detailed account of the gospels, but they start with them, and look very little like our "historical" section. No further correspondence please. Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I won't ask you for evidence any more. You put the word evidence in scare quotes as if you don't believe it's real. I can respect your request not to be questioned. Honestly I hardly know how to have a productive conversation with someone who doesn't consider evidence. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Anyone mind if I take the RfC down? It does't look like we are getting much new action on it. We got some new opinions but no new evidence. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Clearly the consensus is against you. Time to move on. LittleJerry (talk) 01:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Opinions point mostly in one direction. Evidence points in the other direction. How should we weigh the relative value of opinions versus evidence? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

None of your "evidence" actually support your claim. E P Sanders extensively discusses the gospel portrayals, including John's. Your claims are just as much of an opinion as anyone else's. LittleJerry (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, let's look at the RSs like you're doing here. Let's change our page so it looks like Sanders' article. You will be happy because "Sanders extensively discusses the gospel portrayals." I will be happy because our article will look like those of RSs. Do we have a deal? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Start another discussion and get consensus. LittleJerry (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

While your at it, find a policy that states that Wiki has to follow the format and layout of other encyclopedia articles. LittleJerry (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:DUE says to give viewpoints comparable weight to what they get in RSs. WP:STRUCTURE says don't segregate different viewpoints into different sections. If you like Sanders' article, let's just match it and we'll all be happy. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

miracles in the historical section

StAnselm reverted my addition to the page, and reverted MarlinespikeMate when they restored it (diff). Once again, an editor removes historical information cited to a reliable source and provides no better information in its place. It's almost as if certain editors have a problem with the historical perspective on Jesus. What should we say about Jesus' miracles in the historical section? We should say what the RSs say, naturally. StAnselm, how about you find a historical RS you like and cite what it says about Jesus' miracles? If you won't do that work, please don't stop me from doing it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a talk page discussion. There were multiple problems with the edit - perhaps the most important was that its presence in the "historical views" section means that it is classified as part of the "limited consensus on the basics of Jesus' life". But it is not clear that all/most/any other scholars would accept the exorcisms as historical. StAnselm (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

What would you like the miracles section to say? How about you take a crack at writing it? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point: the "historicity of events" section focuses on those (few) areas where there is scholarly consensus. Is there any reason to think that the miracles constitute one of those areas? StAnselm (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I bet you're tired of hearing this question, but what's your evidence that we should diverge from the RSs in this way? My evidence to include the material is that it appears in great RSs. What's your contrary evidence? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I added material cited to a top RS. You reverted it and now offer no evidence to support your reversion. Is that good editing? It seems contentious. I don't revert another editor's work unless I have evidence that it's a problem. You revert my work on your own discretion. If you don't have any evidence that the material I added is a problem, will you revert it again if I re-add it? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

StAnselm, if you don't have any evidence that this material should be excluded, I trust you won't mind if I restore it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

This should be treated according to what the sources say about the reports of miracles. I doubt we can have a clear consensus on either accepting them as true or rejecting them. Dimadick (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It should go without saying that we should treat the topic the way our sources do. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Miracles don't belong in the historical section at all, not reliable, no more than any other fabulous claim in history can be treated as historically reliable. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that we should diverge from how the RSs treat the topic? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest removing the historical section material on the resurrection. This is quite biased and I don't think it is derived from any reliable source. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

As long as we are fairly representing what the RSs say, it's not biased. What RSs would you like us to refer to in deciding how to treat the resurrection? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not biased. There is near scholarly consensus that Jesus's early followers believed that he rose from the dead and did not deliberately make it up. That is different then saying that it actually happened. LittleJerry (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

LittleJerry and I agree on something! Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

breakthrough? merge history and gospels

LittleJerry likes how Sanders treats the Gospels in his Britannica article. I just want us to match RSs better. It looks like we can both be happy if we just match Sanders' format for how to treat this controversial topic. It's hard to agree on how to handle the Gospels section because it's a compromise between editor preferences on one hand and Wikipedia policies and guidelines on the other. Since we're not following WP guidelines all the way, there's no clear idea of how far to follow them and how far to ignore them. We can solve the deadlock by agreeing to follow guidelines all the way. Let's just match how Sanders and Britannica approach the topic.

Let's leave aside the POV issue and the Due Weight issue. The structure of our page is a violation of WP:STRUCTURE. I was OK with just putting the history section first, which would have been easy. But it looks like the only stable solution is to stop trying to forge a compromise between policies and preferences and just match our best example of a great Jesus article. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said I "liked" Sander's article. LittleJerry (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

And I oppose the motion. Wiki:STRUCTURE states that "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents". This does not apply to the gospel accounts, as they are not merely a "POV" but are primary sources which of themselves are subject to scholarly discussion regardless of their historicity. The policy is clearly referring to the viewpoints of experts and scholars. Furthermore, this article is not the Historical Jesus article. It is about the figure of Jesus in general who is treated as a person not just of history but of biblical literature and theology. All aspects discussed in scholarly circles. LittleJerry (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have put words in your mouth. You said positive things about Sanders/Britannica, and I over-interpreted those positive things. If you feel that Sanders/Britannica doesn't promote the Christian view strongly enough for you, please name for us a better RS than Sanders/Britannica, and we'll look at that RS as a potential model for us. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Your making assumptions about what I think again. LittleJerry (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You're right and I'm wrong. You said positive things about Sanders' article in Britannica, and I concluded that you liked the article. i'm sorry for jumping to conclusions. Maybe I should have known that you would dislike Sanders and Brittanica because they promote the mainstream view. You oppose the mainstream view, which is why you and I keep running afoul of each other. Please name an RS that treats the topic of Jesus in a manner suitable to you. Then let's look at that RS together. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Its getting infuriating dealing with your heckling. I never said I disliked them either. Just because I think the section is fine the way it is doesn't mean I'm a biblical literalist or that I'm trying to promoting the "Christian viewpoint". I explained to you two billion times why the gospel portrayal section is not UNDUE or STRUCTURE. Wikipedia is not obligated to follow the layout of books or other encyclopedias so no, I'm not going to waste my time finding a source for the article to copy off of. Goodbye. LittleJerry (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Tweet, you must stop this now. Groundless assertions about what other editors believe is a serious breach of wikiquette to the point of being a personal attack. StAnselm (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You're right that I shouldn't have made any inferences about another editor's beliefs. You and LittleJerry want our article to be more about the Gospels than about history, but I shouldn't presume that I know why. LittleJerry liked how much Sanders referenced the Gospels, which is the heart of our disagreement, so I thought he liked Sanders' article. I'm going to restart this thread without referencing LittleJerry. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Tweet, I suggest you drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. StAnselm (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

St Anselm, you could make my life a lot easier by offering some evidence that shows that I'm wrong. Then I could apologize for my error and move on. Would you happen to have any evidence to support your opinions? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

no deliberate fraud

Were the early Christians lying when they said that Jesus had risen? That's a fair historical question. This is what an RS says:

The Gospel reports contradict each other, which suggests competition among those claiming to have seen him first rather than deliberate fraud.{{sfn|Sanders|1993|pp=276-281}}

If an RS says it, we need a good reason to exclude it. Otherwise it's POV editing to cherry pick our RSs and include only the stuff we like. FutureTrilliionaire, can you justify deleting this information? Can you cite a WP policy or guideline when doing so? Something more than the beliefs and experiences of the editors? If all you have is editors' opinions, that's not enough. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan, I don't believe that the gospels are considered to be a reliable historical source, and, so, inferences drawn from the gospels (even if published in a book by Sanders) are not reliable either. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Sanders may be a reliable source as far as facts go, but his opinions and theories need to be attributed. In any case, "contradict each other", should not be in WP voice. StAnselm (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

You know what I'm going to ask you two. Does either of you have any evidence to back up your opinions? According to your beliefs and experiences, we shouldn't include this material, but WP is based on published sources. See WP:V. Do you have a WP guideline or an RS to back up your opinions? If not, how about we just report what the RSs say and leave our personal opinions out of it? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the relevant policy is WP:RSOPINION. StAnselm (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning a policy. Sticking to policy is the only way for people with different opinions to reach consensus about how to edit this page. I just read the policy. Can you quote the part of this policy that supports your opinion? I don't see it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says..." StAnselm (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Super. Now what's your evidence that Sanders' statement is such a source? He seems to be the top scholar in historical Jesus research. Are all statements such statements? If not, how do we know that this is one? The very next sentence is "A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers." Are you saying that Sanders' opinion is equivalent to an opinion piece in a newspaper? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The rule of thumb in determining which statements are opinions is that we look to see whether any other scholar disagrees with him. If it is not a universally accepted "truth", then we treat it as an opinion. See also WP:V: "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." StAnselm (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense. How about we restore the information as "E. P. Sanders says..."? Then can you find an RS that disagrees with Sanders? If you don't like that Sanders says the open-tomb accounts contradict each other, let's find more information from more RSs. What RSs do you use when you want to look up something about historical Jesus? And if you can't find alternative viewpoints, then eventually we can take the "E P Sanders says" clause away. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm very happy with the attributed quote. There has been lots written about possible resolutions of the apparent contradictions - the main authority would be Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, p. 152. StAnselm (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

As it turns out, Blomberg is from my home town. He also graduated from the Lutheran college where my father taught English. It's a small college, and he probably had my dad for a class or two. Small world! I'm happy to use more RSs. In fact, if you can point me to an RS that you like and that is reputable, I might buy a copy to use on this page. Is The Historical Reliability of the Gospels reputable? Can you provide any evidence that Blomberg is an expert on Jesus, or that this book is an important scholarly work? He comes across as an apologist for conservative views on the Bible. So far I've tried to stick to authors who are noted (Sanders, Vermes, Crossan, Theissen). Is Blomberg of their caliber? In this particular case, what information would you like to add to the page from Blomberg? "According to Craig Blomberg, all apparent contradictions among the synoptic accounts are reconcilable"? Finally, how much time would you like to find a contrary view to what Sanders says? If there's no contrary view, then we can put his statement in WP voice. How about 4 weeks? Is that enough time? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Does "reputable" mean the same as reliable? In any case, Historical Reliability is an important scholarly work - for example, both Blomberg and Sanders feature in Grant R. Osborne's helpful summary of the debate concerning the historic trustworthiness of Matthew's Gospel. StAnselm (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for offering evidence that Blomberg is significant, but who is Osborne? He hardly seems notable himself, and he's writing for a Christian publisher. I'd be happy to summarize Blomberg's view in the Christian Views section. Or do you have evidence that he's significant in academics in general? Is there any tertiary source about Jesus that recommends his book as a source? Also, what would you like to say to counter Sanders. "According to Craig Blomberg, however, there are no substantial contradictions among the Synoptics, leaving open the possibility of deliberate fraud"? Is that the contrary view your are proposing, or what? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

historical commentary in the Gospels section

FutureTrillionaire removed this information from the "miracles" section:

Other miracle workers were also well known, but not common.<ref name = SandersBritannica> Sanders, E. P. [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/303091/Jesus-Christ/ "Jesus Christ."] Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Retrieved 12 December 2015.</ref>

What's the evidence that this line should be removed? Is there an RS about Jesus that treats the Gospels the way we do? Is there a WP policy about letting primary sources speak for themselves? Or a policy about how to treat the same topics in two different sections of a page (baptism, miracles, crucifixion)? I understand that the beliefs and experiences of certain editors lead them to expect this material to be removed, but WP is about published sources, not editors' opinions. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

We already have a section dedicated to historical reconstructions of Jesus. LittleJerry (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm asking for evidence, like maybe a WP guideline or policy? I'm already familiar with your opinion. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

There's no policy that says we should or shouldn't merge the sections. The consensus now is to keep them separate. LittleJerry (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the opinions of editors. I'm asking about evidence. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan, WP is about reliable sources, not published sources. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

That's right, Isambard Kingdom, reliable sources. We should definitely pay more attention to RSs. I picked up the "published" wording from WP:V, which says that WP content "is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." If you'd like me to stick with the phrase "reliable sources" to avoid confusion, I can do that. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The distinction is important, and I've perceived that you might have mixed the two up. For example, you seem to accept Sanders as a RS even when parts of Sanders's own arguments are based only on religious texts. In this respect, you seem to be going in circles. Just saying. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You think Sanders isn't an RS, but do you have evidence to that effect? Is there a WP policy or guideline that supports your opinion? I'm sure it makes sense to you that he's not an RS, but do you have evidence? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that Sanders isn't a reliable source per se, but any conclusions that Sanders draws from only the gospels (like his inference based on inconsistencies of the gospels) are not considered to be "historical" and, so those parts can't be considered RS. Again, you are going around in circles. I encourage us to think about it. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I can think about it, but who cares what I think? What matters is WP policy. Can you show me the WP policy that would get me to agree with you about Sanders? If you don't have policy backing you up, then your opinion of Sanders is worth as much as mine: precious little. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

LittleJerry keeps removing scholarly commentary from the Gospels section. Is there a consensus somewhere that we shouldn't have historical commentary in this section? Or a WP policy? Or even an RS that does it this way? If there's no evidence for keeping this information out, then it should go in. The beliefs and experiences of the editors don't determine WP content and structure. Policies and RSs do. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Um, maybe because we already have a historical section and you haven't gotten a consensus to merge them? BTW, I have no problem with scholarly commentary that focuses on the texts themselves (Eg. Matthew's use of the Old Testament). LittleJerry (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure this seems obvious to you, but do you have any evidence to back up your opinion? Is there a policy that says we should treat the topic this way? Or good RSs that treat the topic this way? It seems like you're inventing a special rule for us to follow about limiting commentary to that which focuses on the text itself. Is there any evidence that we should follow your criteria? It sounds like you're making it up. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

who wants to be part of an Administrator Incident Notice?

If I were to decide to file a notice on the Admin Incident Noticeboard, who would want to be part of that discussion? I would list StAnselm, LittleJerry, FutureTrillionaire, Farsight001, and Jeppiz. Sundayclose, would you want to be in on it? Johnbod, you said you're done talking about this, I think. Anyone else? It's a big topic, and I don't want to leave anyone out. The topic is whether it's OK for us to describe Jesus in our own way instead of the way the RSs do. I tried settling this with conflict resolution, but the case was closed when moderators recused themselves and none volunteered to moderate. The editor who closed the case said that the AIN would be my other recourse. Alternatively, someone could give me evidence that shows me I'm wrong, and then I wouldn't bother with the AIN. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

You've already been shown to have been wrong. Your claim of the gospel section violating NOV and STRUCTURE as been debunked. Its time to move on. LittleJerry (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite sure it wouldn't be well received at ANI. Once again, WP:DROPTHESTICK. StAnselm (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems that you have a habit of WP:NOTGETTINGIT.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been following this dispute because I have to pick my battles due to limited editing time, and that's no reflection on any of the involved editors. But I will raise a procedural point. ANI typically is not the place for content disputes. ANI generally is for inappropriate editing behavior, such as policy violations. If this is a content dispute, I feel certain ANI would suggest WP:DR. Is this more than a content dispute? Is there concern about a policy violation? Is there concern about blatant tendentious editing? I'm not an authority on the role of admins, but in my experience admins don't want to get involved unless one of those issues is involved, especially on such a controversial article. I suspect the most an admin would do is fully protect the article for a while and recommend that other means of dispute resolution be tried. A WP:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy would get more eyes on this issue. Best of luck to everyone. Sundayclose (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Sundayclose. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Sundayclose I think you should write the request. Jonathan Tweet will present it in a biased way. LittleJerry (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

No offense Little Jerry, but please don't use my name to disparage another editor. I've also stated that I have not followed this dispute so it makes no sense for me to write an RFC. If the editors here can't agree to how the RFC should be worded, ask an uninvolved editor at WP:Christianity to help. Sundayclose (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

LittleJerry, I don't want to be biased. Maybe you can help me write the request. Can you help me understand your viewpoint? I don't know how to complete this sentence: "LittleJerry thinks that if Jonathan Tweet had his way, the article would be worse because...." Honestly, I don't know how you would finish that sentence. Maybe "...because the Gospels wouldn't get special treatment"? "...because it would be structured differently from the Moses, David, and Abraham pages"? You and StAnselm usually criticize me for not going along with what other editors say, but I don't have a clear idea of why you don't want the page to resemble Britannica's article on Jesus. As for me, my criticism of your editing is the same as always: you want the page to describe Jesus in a special way rather than the way RSs describe him. Anyway, can you tell me what would be wrong with the page if it were structured like Britannica's article on Jesus? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

LittleJerry, this is an honest question. What disservice would we do to the reader if we made our article look like Britannica's? Is the problem that the Gospels wouldn't get favored treatment any more, or what? You say that we don't have to emulate Britannica, but why don't you want to? How is our page better than Britannica's article? What's wrong with Britannica's article on Jesus? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution has a number of steps and noticeboards that you can use, and they will be more productive than AN or ANI. I suggest you use that process, as instruction to do so will nearly certainly be the outcome of any post on ANI.

For what it is worth, I'm in favor of "facts first" and having the historical section first. The gospel accounts seem to be given undue weight. That said, I'm supremely disinterested in contributing to this discussion. Prodego ^talk 22:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't blame you for not wanting to mess with this dispute. The editors who want to defend the Gospel POV tend to be ardent and tireless, while those who want to promote the historical view tend to be less worked up about it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Having some experience of editing highly contentious pages, I would say you are in some danger of a boomerang if you push this further, if only for never taking no for an answer, and always being convinced you are right. Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly warning, Johnbod. Mostly I think it's the RSs that are right, and my own opinion means very little. No one here can show me evidence that this page is OK. Maybe an administrator can, and then I'll be able to see that I've been wrong all along. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Not our job to prove the page is ok. Its your job to prove that there's something that needs fixing, something you have, in every conceivable way, failed utterly to do. When you said that "editors who want to defend the Gospel POVe tend to be ardent and tireless", frankly, you were expressing blatant psychological projection. You are the tireless one. How many different discussions have you tried to start on this exact issue? How many dozens of editors have explained in detail and with policy references why your suggestion isn't good? Maybe you should try listening to other people.Farsight001 (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

You expect me to prefer the opinions of amateur WP editors to those of the experts? No one has shown me a policy that says I should do so. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

religious texts as primary sources

There is so much wrong with the Gospels section that it's hard to know where to start. Here's a tag I added to the section. I'm putting it here because it's likely to be deleted by one or another defender of the Gospel accounts.

Scholarly commentary that critically examines the Gospels has been excluded from this section. We should put that commentary in. For example, Matthew's proof texts from the Old Testament are taken out of context, as was common practice among 1st century Jewish religious writers. That commentary has been deleted from this section. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

We don't do this anywhere else, nor should we. In an article on a novel/play/whatever, the narrative summary is presented without constant kibitzing from bystanding scholars. It's the only way to present a coherent text. For the gospels we do need a preface dealing with the issue of gospel harmony, but by golly, it's already there, though I think it goes on a bit too much so that the key point in the last paragraph is buried.

My objection, as usual, is that you are trying to bias the article against Christianity. The only "value" I can see in the way you want to present it is that the naive reader has some secularist "authority" whispering in their ear, "but don't take any of this seriously," while they try to read the narrative. Mangoe (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)