Talk:Jesus

Frequently asked questions

Q1: What should this article be named?

A1: To balance all religious denominations this was discussed on this talk page and it was accepted as early as 2004 that "Jesus", rather than "Jesus Christ", is acceptable as the article title. The title Christ for Jesus is used by Christians, but not by Jews and Muslims. Hence it should not be used in this general, overview article. Similarly in English usage the Arabic Isa and Hebrew Yeshua are less general than Jesus, and cannot be used as titles for this article per WP:Commonname.

Q2: Why does this article use the BC/AD format for dates?

A2: The use of AD, CE or AD/CE was discussed on the article talk page for a few years. The article started out with BC/AD but the combined format AD/CE was then used for some time as a compromise, but was the subject of ongoing discussion, e.g. see the 2008 discussion, the 2011 discussion and the 2012 discussion, among others. In April 2013 a formal request for comment was issued and a number of users commented. In May 2013 the discussion ended and the consensus of the request for comment was to use the BC/AD format.

Q3: Did Jesus exist?

A3: Based on a preponderance of sources, this article is generally written as if he did. A more thorough discussion of the evidence establishing Jesus' historicity can be found at Historicity of Jesus and detailed criticism of the non-historicity position can be found at Christ myth theory. See the policy on the issue for more information.

Q3a: Is "virtually all scholars" a phrase that can be used in Wikipedia?

The issue was discussed on the talk page:

• Based on this Wikipedia search the phrase is widely used in Wikipedia.
• The definition of the term virtually is shown by the Merriam-Webster dictionary in clear terms.
• The term is directly used by the source in the article, and is used per the WP:RS/AC guideline to reflect the academic consensus.

Q3b: What about asking on the reliability noticeboard?

Yes, people involved in the page can discuss matters, but an independent opinion from the reliable source noticeboard can further clarify and confirm the sources. An outside opinion was requested on the noticeboard. The outside opinion there (by user:DGG) stated that the issue has been discussed there many times and that the statement in the article (that virtually all scholars of antiquity hold that Jesus existed) represents the academic consensus.

Q3c: What about the books that claim Jesus never existed?

The internet includes some such lists, and they have been discussed at length on the talk page, e.g. a list of over 20 such books was addressed in this talk page discussion. The list came from a non-WP:RS website and once it was analyzed it became clear that:

• Most of the authors on the list were not scholars in the field, and included an attorney, an accountant, a land surveyor, a film-maker, as well as a number of amateurs whose actual profession was less than clear, whose books were self-published and failed the WP:RS requirements. Some of the non-self-published authors on the list were found to just write popular books, have no academic position and not scholars, e.g. Christopher Hitchens.
• Some of the books on the list did not even deny the existence of Jesus, e.g. Burton Mack (who is a scholar) holds that Jesus existed but his death was not due to his challenge to Jewish authority, etc. Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman's work is about the Old Testament and not really related to Jesus. Tom Harpur holds that Jesus existed but mythical stories were later added to the gospel narratives about him.

The analysis of the list thus indirectly shed light on the scarcity of scholars who deny the existence of Jesus.

Q3d: Do we have to survey the scholars ourselves?

The formal Wikipedia guidelines require us not to do our own survey. The Wikipedia guideline WP:RS/AC specifically states: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." Given that the guideline then states: "statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." we should not rely on our own surveys but quote a scholar who states the "academic consensus".

Q3e: Why even mention the existence of Jesus in the article lead?

A: This was discussed on the talk page. Although scholars at large see existence as a given, there are some self-published, non-scholarly books which question it, and hence non-scholars who read this article need to to have that issue clarified. And note that the statements regarding existence and other attributes need to be kept separate and stating that "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus was from Galilee" would not be accurate, because scholarly agreement on existence is much stronger than on other items.

Q4: Are the scholars who study Jesus all Christian?

A4: No. According to Bart D. Ehrman in How Jesus Became God (2014, ISBN 978-0-06-177818-6, p. 187), "most New Testament scholars are themselves Christian". However, scholars of many faiths have studied Jesus. There are three aspects to this question:

• Some of the most respected late-20th-century scholars involved in the study of the historical Jesus (e.g. Amy-Jill Levine, Geza Vermes, Paula Fredriksen) are Jewish. This trend is discussed in the 2012 book Soundings in the Religion of Jesus, by Bruce Chilton, Anthony Le Donne, and Jacob Neusner (ISBN 978-0-8006-9801-0, p. 132). While much of the older research in the 1950–1970 time frame may have involved Christian scholars (mostly in Europe) the 1980s saw an international effect and since then Jewish scholars have brought their knowledge of the field and made significant contributions. And one should note that the book is coauthored by the likes of Chilton and Neusner with quite different backgrounds. Similarly one of the main books in the field, The Historical Jesus in Context, by Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison Jr., and John Dominic Crossan (2006, ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6), is jointly edited by scholars with quite different backgrounds. In the late 20th and the 21st century Jewish, Christian and secular agnostic scholars have widely cooperated in research. The Muslim Reza Aslan wrote the number-one bestseller Zealot (2013).
• Regarding the existence of a historical Jesus, the article lead quotes Ehrman who is an agnostic and Price who is an atheist. Moreover, G. A. Wells who was widely accepted as the leader of the non-existence movement in the 20th century, abandoned that position and now accepts that the Q source refers to "a preacher" on whom parts of the gospels were based – although he believes that the supernatural claims were just stories that were then attributed to that preacher. That is reflected in his 2004 book Can We Trust the New Testament (pp. 49–50). While scholars continue to debate the historicity of specific gospel narratives, the agreement on the existence of Jesus is quite global.
• It is misleading to assume that Christian scholars will be biblical literalists who cannot engage in critical scholarship. Catholic and non-Evangelical Protestant scholars have long favoured the historical-critical method, which accepts that not all of the Bible can be taken literally. For example, the Christian clerics and scholars Michael Ramsey, C. F. D. Moule and James Dunn all argued in their scholarship that Jesus did not claim to be divine, Conrad Hyers, a Presbyterian minister, criticizes biblical literalism: "Literal clarity and simplicity, to be sure, offer a kind of security in a world (or Bible) where otherwise issues seem incorrigibly complex, ambiguous and muddy. But it is a false security, a temporary bastion, maintained by dogmatism and misguided loyalty."
• Finally, Wikipedia policies do not prohibit Buddhist scholars as sources on the history of Buddhism, Jewish scholars on Judaism, or Muslim scholars as sources on the history of Islam provided they are respected scholars whose works meet the general WP:RS requirements in terms of publisher reputation, etc.

Q5: Why are some historical facts stated to be less certain than others?

A5: The difference is "historically certain" versus "historically probable" and "historically plausible". There are a number of subtle issues and this is a somewhat complicated topic, although it may seem simple at first:

• Hardly any scholars dispute the existence of Jesus or his crucifixion.
• A large majority of scholars agree that he debated the authorities and had "followers" – some scholars say there was a hierarchy among the followers, a few think it was a flat organization.
• More scholars think he performed some healings (given that Rabbinic sources criticize him for that etc., among other reasons) than those who say he never did, but less agreement on than the debates with authorities, etc.

As the article states, Amy-Jill Levine summarized the situation by stating: "Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God's will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate." In that statement Levine chose her words very carefully. If she had said "disciples" instead of followers there would have been serious objections from other scholars, if she had said "called" instead of "gathered", there would have also been objections in that some scholars hold that Jesus preached equally to all, never imposed a hierarchy among his followers, etc. Scholars have very specific positions and the strength of the consensus among them can vary by changing just one word, e.g. follower to disciple or apostle, etc.

Q6: Why is the infobox so brief?

A6: The infobox is intended to give a summary of the essential pieces of information, and not be a place to discuss issues in any detail. So it has been kept brief, and to the point, based on the issues discussed below.

Q6a: Was Jesus Jewish?

Yes, as mentioned in the article, but not in the infobox. An RfC at the Village Pump says to include religion in the infobox only if it's directly related to the subject's notability and there's consensus. Some editors want to include his religion in the infobox and others do not. With no consensus, the default is to leave the religion out of the box.

Q6b: Why is the birthplace not mentioned in the infobox?

The question came up in this discussion and there is no solid scholarly agreement on Bethlehem, so the infobox does not address that.

Q7: Why is there no discussion of the legacy/impact of Jesus?

A7: That issue is inherently controversial, and has been discussed on the talk page for many years (see, e.g., the 2006 discussion, the June 2010 discussion, the November 2010 discussion). One user commented that it would turn out to be a discussion of the "impact of Christianity" in the end; because all impact was through the spread of Christianity in any case. So it has been left out due to those discussions.

Q8: Why is there no discussion of Christian denominational differences?

A8: Christianity includes a large number of denominations, and their differences can be diverse. Some denominations do not have a central teaching office and it is quite hard to characterize and categorize these issues without a long discussion that will exceed the length limits imposed by WP:Length on articles. The discussion of the theological variations among the multitude of Christian denominations is beyond the scope of this article, as in this talk page discussion. Hence the majority and common views are briefly sketched and links are provided to other articles that deal with the theological differences among Christians.

Q9: What is the correct possessive of Jesus?

A9: This article uses the apostrophe-only possessive: Jesus', not Jesus's. Do not change usage within quotes. That was decided in this discussion.

Q10: Why does the article state "[m]ost Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah ...?" Don't all Christians believe this?

A10: Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view written utilizing reliable scholarly sources. It does not take a position on religious tenets. In this case, the sources cited clearly state "most", not "all", Christians hold the stated beliefs, as some sects and persons who describe themselves as "Christian", such as Unitarians, nevertheless do not hold these beliefs. This was agreed upon multiple times, including in this discussion.

References

Added at the bottom

Jesus is a religious, cultural, worldwide icon, and is among the most influential people in human history. (Reference here) - User:Sleetimetraveller — Preceding undated comment added 12:53, 21 July 2021

Adding a comment so the archiver will get it at some point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

In the introduction it should say carpenter as well.

Not just preacher and prophet but was a carpenter for nearly all of his life but the last 3-4 roughly. 47.5.27.207 (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Carpenter is mentioned in the article, but IMO not so much it should be in the WP:LEAD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2022

Jesus wasn't born in 4BC he was born in 0. BC literally stands for Before Christ. How can there be 3 years Before Christ if he was born in 4BC. There is no logical sense in this. 81.108.218.116 (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See Date of birth of Jesus. (Nothing is as absolute as you would like it be, and dating systems, and understanding of historical events, have changed over more than 2000 years.) General Ization ^Talk 21:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Jesus name

Isnt jesus real name Emmanuel 50.72.185.22 (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

See Jesus#Titles_and_other_names_for_Jesus. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Any reason why these abridged, basic, simple, important affirmations of Judaism's Perspective of Jesus should not also be in this article (Judaism's Perspective section), including this with reliable sources cited: Judaism considers the worship of any person a form of idolatry, and also forbids the worship of any person as a form of idolatry, since the central belief of Judaism is the absolute unity and singularity of God. Monotheism, a belief in the absolute unity and singularity of God, is central to Judaism, which is why it regards the worship of a person as a form of idolatry. 108.30.240.77 (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

References

"Eashoa" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Eashoa and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 18 § Eashoa until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

"Jesus Christ, our savior and lord. Amen." listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Jesus Christ, our savior and lord. Amen. and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 18 § Jesus Christ, our savior and lord. Amen. until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

"Merciful Jesus" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Merciful Jesus and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 18 § Merciful Jesus until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Baha'i and Mandaen views

I have mentioned the views of Baha'i faith and Mandaeism regarding Jesus in the lead paragraph in addition to the already eloborated Islamic and Jewish views.Riopex (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've reverted these changes. Your edits removed a couple of in-use references, leaving the article with referencing errors; as well as some referenced material that went with them. Maybe an addition or elaboration about Baha'i would be a good idea, without changing existing material. -- Mikeblas (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

All that applies to Christ, not to Jesus (the Christ of faith vs. historical Jesus). tgeorgescu (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I will make sure that no in-use references are removed in my for changes to prevent any disruption. Riopex (talk) 11:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Riopex's changes

Hello all and Happy Holidays to those who celebrate--Riopex recently made some changes and contributions to the Jesus in other religions section, which was reverted, then Riopex reverted, and I in turn reverted once more. Somewhat unusually, I think I actually support the changes! But given the nature of this article, I thought it best that we do some canvassing here before going live, so to speak. I would, therefore, invite Riopex to make his case, and anyone else to give their thoughts. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Dumuzid: for your support. I thought the last paragraph of lead put too much emphasis on Islamic beliefs while ignoring views of other world religions such as Baha'i faith, Mandaeism, etc., which also consider Jesus to be prophet and the Messiah. I collected the citations to support my edits. Then @SonoCat: added Druze too which made it more accurate and comprehensive. Therefore, I request other editors to support these changes. Riopex (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Like @Dumuzid:, I also reverted yet I also support the changes. However, @Riopex:, the edit warring must stop. If there's a clear consensus of many users speaking out here in favour of the change, we could add it in two-three days. If no users speak out against the change, we could add it in about a week. Jeppiz (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't support the changes, at least in the form that Riopex introduced. While I agree the other religions should be listed, it's WP:UNDUE to include Islam as just one of the list in that way. Jesus is an important prophet in Islam, a major world religion. It's entirely disproprtionate to put that on a par with the likes of Mandaeism. However, I think there is scope for shortening the text on Islam. Something like:

Jesus is also revered in other religions. In Islam, Jesus (often referred to by his Quranic name ʿĪsā) is considered the penultimate prophet of God and the messiah, who will return before the Day of Judgement, but was neither God nor a son of God. Most Muslims do not believe that he was killed or crucified, but that God raised him into Heaven while he was still alive. He is also considered a prophet and the messiah in the Baha'i faith, Druze faith, and Mandaeism. In contrast, Judaism...

DeCausa (talk) 09:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Baha'i faith is a world religion too, while Mandaeism is older than Islam, and both of these religions consider Jesus to be a prophet and the Messiah. Yet a whole lengthy (often repetitive) paragraph is dedicated to Islam in the lead while conveniently ignoring these two faiths. How's this encyclopedic in any way?Riopex (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

While Riopex continued edit warring is problematic behavior, I rather agree on the subject matter. If the Baháʼí Faith, Druze faith, and Mandaeism all hold Jesus to be a prophet and the Messiah, that seems equally relevant to the Muslim view. Jeppiz (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jeppiz:, in the Druze tradition, Jesus is known under three titles: the True Messiah (al-Masih al-Haq), the Messiah of all Nations (Masih al-Umam), and the Messiah of Sinners. Jesus is considered in the Druze faith the Messiah and one of God's important prophets. (see here [1], [2], [3]).SonoCat (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: The question of prominence in the lead can't be about the relative significance to the religion of Jesus. (Should a non-Christian religion with 10 adherents but considers Jesus a prophet be mentioned?) Per WP:DUE, it should reflect coverage in WP:RS. I very much doubt an obscure religion such as Mandaeism will attract the same coverage on its views on Jesus compared those of Islam. Although not as obscure, the same point follows in relation to the 8m Bahai's. It would clearly be a failure of WP:DUE to give Islam, a religion of 2bn adherents and an extensive body of WP:RS on the role of Jesus in that religion, the same prominence as the other religions. @Riopex:, don't add the text back until there is consensus in this thread otherwise you will be blocked. Read WP:EW. DeCausa (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I have no idea why Mandaeism is there. Jesus is barely mentioned on that page, except to explicitly say he is not regarded as a prophet. I haven't checked out the reference, but the contradiction suggests his role is not important enough to be in the lead in this article. StAnselm (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@StAnselm: as per the reputable Los Angeles Times "Mandaeans, named for the language of their writings and rituals, also are sometimes known as Sabaeans, a name they adopted in the 7th Century. Mandaean is a dialect of Aramaic, the tongue spoken in the time of Christ.

They revere Jesus as a messiah and a prophet, but not a god. He is regarded as an angel who will return to Earth, said Anis Zahrun, a physician who serves on the central council.

“Christ will remain 500 years,” he said. “Then comes the end of the world.”

John the Baptist, who baptized Christ, is the Mandaeans’ primary prophet." Riopex (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I have my doubts about the LA Times at the best of times - I'm certainly not going to accept them as a reliable source when they blatantly contradict a subject-specific source. StAnselm (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Why birth date is 4BC and not BCE

The date of birth is listed as 4BC which is confusing as BC denotes Before Christ. How was Christ born 4 years Before Christ?

It seems the appropriate term to use would be the more modern, and scientifically accepted term, BCE, or Before Common Era.

I understand this is a religious topic and as such, the term BC would be more apropos. But there still remains the question of how Christ was born 4 years Before Christ. 2607:FEA8:99C0:61C0:8853:6A04:333:B1FE (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree, actually, but as you mention, this is a religious article, so there is that, and also, our understanding of dating has changed since the advent of the AD/BC system (the latter of which I usually think of as an innovation of Bede?). Couple that with our manual of style, which essentially says BC or BCE is acceptable, but go with the sources and the way the article is presently written, and you wind up in our current situation of Jesus born four years before himself. I would personally support a change in this article from BC to BCE, but would want to see a strong consensus for that change, and would not be hopeful that it is likely. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Minor change to the lede

Sorry, I only saw after editing that we are supposed to discuss changes to the lede. In the previous version of the lede, the mention of oral transmission looked a little out of place, slotted between various details of Jesus in his lifetime. Since the oral transmission largely took place after Jesus' lifetime, I have moved it down to after his death, and mentioned how the oral transmission is connected to the written scriptures. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know. Anywikiuser (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, good edit. Jeppiz (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Dates require updating

Dates require updating from AD 2022 to AD 2023. 2001:8003:30AA:DE01:15D6:BF5B:E9BC:BA73 (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 12:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I updated again - the template was not being referenced correctly. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2023

24.222.216.121 (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2023

Information about the history of Jesus Christ can be obtained from a number of sources, many of which are Biblical and which also serve as a basis for followers of Christianity to build their faith. Religious scholars have the task of interpreting Biblical teachings for followers to apply to their everyday lives. However, historians are also interested in more objective sources that give information about the existence and life of Jesus Christ in a non-Biblical context.

When looking for facts about the history of the life of Jesus Christ, the idea of multiple attestation is important. Multiple attestation means that a Biblical passage or a bit of historical information about Jesus that appears in two or more sources which are independent from one another is likely to be authentic. So, if, for example, a Biblical passage claims that Jesus enabled a blind man to see, and the same incident is documented elsewhere by a non-Biblical figure in Roman history, then the incident is more likely to be true. 50.205.154.101 (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This is true facts 50.205.154.101 (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

 Invalid. Please re-read the edit request template; this is for specific, concrete requests in the format of "change X to Y." As it stands, this is not an edit request. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2023

23.226.166.177 (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)this page is devil propaganda and this is not real for his name was given to him not earned so once again this is devil propaganda

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Louise B. Perrotta

User Mattdaviesfsic reverted my deletion of a sentence from Louise B. Perrotta's book Saint Joseph: His Life and His Role in the Church Today, with the question that he could not see how she was not a reliable source. My understanding of sourcing for articles like this is that we should use recognised scholars, and Perrotta is not a scholar - she seems to be the author of numerous devotional books. The question of whether she's right or wrong doesn't arise, but you'll certainly find many scholarly sources saying the same thing. It's those that should be used as sources.Achar Sva (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't have much opinion on it either way, but I wasn't certain to what extent that she might be an unreliable source, although I do understand the reasoning of it being removed. If any other editors have an opinion, please do say. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that rather than deletion of the edit, use of {{Better source needed|date=January 2023}} would make more sense. The information is not contentious. The source is verifying the statement: Although Joseph appears in descriptions of Jesus' childhood, no mention is made of him thereafter. which is certainly true, as regards the gospel narratives. I would suggest it might not need a citation at all, but someone will probably disagree. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I would only disagree on the basis that it's an FA (and WP holds high standards on referencing for FAs!). Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn’t this page be protected?

This page is one of the most viewed in the world, why isn’t it protected? MayoForSam2023 (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

It is already semi-protected. If you think it should be Extended-confirmed protected, you can bring it up at WP:RPP. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I see for the prophet Muhammad that the page is fully protected so I do not understand why this page isn’t aswell. MayoForSam2023 (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Protection level is need-based only, based on editing history of the article. Full protection can be applied if needed, but until it is needed, WP generally recommends against it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

So why does the prophet Muhammad article need more protection then? Is it because the article is subject of more vandalism? MayoForSam2023 (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I have never spent much time at that article, but my sense would be that if it is protected, that is why. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not so much vandalism as there are a number of hot topic issues - such as images of Muhammad, a section on criticism and the opening sentence saying he is the founder of Islam - which some Muslims find controversial. It's been prone to perrenial edit-warring and disruptive editing as a result. Also, it's not "fully protected", just Extended Confirmed Protection. (By the way, MayoForSam2023, could you indent your posts per WP:INDENT) DeCausa (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Generally speaking, Wikipedia does not like to protect articles. When done, it is the minimal protection for the shortest period that is felt needed to deal with a particular situation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Should this edit be left in?

An interesting situation - I made an edit, approved and thanked for by another user - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattdaviesfsic#Jesus:_Resurrection_and_Ascension , which was then reverted by a third user https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&oldid=1132626586 with an interesting commentary: "oooh, this is a tough one for me. While I don't doubt the good faith (and interesting nature!) of this material, I am not sure it is WP:DUE. Best to gain consensus on the talk page first." I'm not very experienced with the discussions on Wikipedia, thus I'll leave this to the judgment of more experienced users. Strecosaurus (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

So, basically as I said, my concern is whether this material is due (and sorry, Strecosaurus, for repeating myself from my talk page). You provided us with one undoubtedly good source, but a fairly old one. If that's all we have, that doesn't strike me as enough notice in the reliable sources to warrant mention in the article. If you have more, I would love to see them! Likewise, if others think I am being overly stick-in-the-muddish here, that's fine as well. I look forward to hearing others' opinions. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem is the language barrier, I think, that's why there were almost no English-language references of this work - until an English version was finally released (just a couple of weeks ago). It is a very well-known work in Russophone areas, however.

About the best I can add pertaining to its prominence besides the "Nature" link is that it regularly appeared in the lists of most interesting works not yet available in English, e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/3rrvdi/comment/cwqusrf/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 Strecosaurus (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm. This is also tough! Sources not being in English is not, strictly speaking, a bar to inclusion, but as you describe it, it does sound to me like a bit of a niche view. Again, if this were a lower-profile article, or one with a smaller body of scholarship and sources, it would be an easier sell for me. Still would describe myself as "hesitant." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll be much more categorical. That content is entirely unsuitable. It's a novel by a writer, and a fairly unknown as well. It's the exact same thing as starting to add contents from the Da Vinci Code, or indeed from any novel by any writer. Jeppiz (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The novel, however, is only the illustration of the (heavily referenced) scholarly essay's points, which is most of the work (80+ pages out of 140)? (See also the review in "Nature" and my comment above.) Strecosaurus (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It was praised in Nature not as a novel but as a scholarly polemic. Strecosaurus (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Even so, the work is self-published and the writer is a non-specialist (he does not hold a PhD in a relevant field), and fails WP:RS - even though WP:DUE is the bigger obstacle. Jeppiz (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It was only self-published at first (and only due to political problems, as mentioned in the review), its publication history afterwards can be seen in the corresponding article. I'm not sure what to say pertaining to a PhD in New Testament studies besides quoting the review in "Nature": "After that Es'kov demonstrates what a specialist accustomed to analysing fragmentary and not very reliable data can do even in an area outside his normal domain. He does it brilliantly" Strecosaurus (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Strecosaurus, just so you may understand why other editors here vote against the inclusion of this content here, let me explain a little.

What information we include in our articles and not is determined by how prominent that information is in reliable sources, i.e., in how many sources that information is repeated, how reputable these sources are (wp:scholarship always carries more weight), how much text they devote to it, etc. Now you can imagine that on the topic of Jesus, there is an enormous amount of information out there. If we were to include everything that get mentioned once or twice in reliable sources out there (especially non-scholarly sources), the article would quickly obtain the length of a multiple-volume book! That's why we practice Wikipedia:Summary style, which in huge topics like this means being ultra-selective.

Points of view which are not prominent enough for inclusion are regarded as 'wp:undue' (i.e., mentioning them would put undue weight upon them). That's why Dumuzid asked for more sources. If you can show that this novel actually gets discussed in multiple sources, especially by scholars specializing in Jesus (this is more of a condition sine qua non), you may yet convince editors to include a sentence or two about it in the article. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a DUE problem. I don't think Nontrinitarianism is niche and an article like this should contain some mention that large numbers of Christians do not believe in the resurrection or other magic tricks. But, I'm not sure this is the right vehicle. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC).

As I've said, only ~60 pages out of ~140 are a novel, serving merely as an illustration, the rest is a reference-rich scholarly essay, and it was praised in "Nature" as such, as a scholarly polemic/rebuttal, not as a novel. There are no prominent Russophone New Testament scholars etc in the first place, there is no such tradition thanks to the Soviet past, so this is a tough one. Other than that, it is certainly well-known and referenced in Russian-speaking culture. (And, to repeat myself, it has regularly appeared in the lists of most interesting works not yet available in English, e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/3rrvdi/comment/cwqusrf/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 ) I'd say it would be genuinely unwise not to include it at all, but I'll leave deciding this to more experienced Wikipedians. Strecosaurus (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

There's three problems with it: (1) it's written by a "specialist in the palaeontology and zoogeography of spiders" (2) it's a speculation on what may have happened (3) WP:DUE: it's an isolated opinion. Per DUE "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." This viewpoint seems to have virtually no prominence in the study of Jesus's life. DeCausa (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

(2) is not quite correct - the essay (not the novel) concludes that the nutshell explanation mentioned in the edit is implied by the evidence to the exclusion of alternatives (according to this work). (1) and (3) are correct, though. (But, evidently, the language barrier is to blame, I should add. It is more correct to say "This viewpoint seems to have virtually no prominence in the study of Jesus's life in the Anglosphere.") Strecosaurus (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there a list, resource or other evidence we could review verifying that this work (or at least the ideas posited by this work) are referenced frequently by reliable scholars/sources in the field, even if it's mostly those in the Russian sphere? I believe that would be necessary to address concerns (1) and (3). If so, this likely does merit a brief inclusion, with expounding in Resurrection and/or Resurrection of Jesus. Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Jtrevor99. No. Just no. Are we really spending time seriously discussing whether the novel of an expert on spiders should be included in the article on Jesus. For the record, far more than 99% of all academic specialist works on Jesus are not included here. A rather unknown novel by a layman certainly doesn't make the cut. Jeppiz (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Jeppiz If those who ARE notable, reliable experts in this field lend the idea serious weight, then it deserves our consideration, regardless of the idea's origin. I am highly skeptical, given this author's unrelated field, that he has garnered much attention from actual experts. That is why I requested verification. (Assuming it cannot be provided, that is also an easy way to end this discussion.) However, if a sufficient number of noteworthy field experts provide sufficient weight to it in the Russian-speaking world as appears to be claimed, then it may belong here. Even so, to be clear: I am suggesting the IDEA might deserve a brief mention - not this specific author. The author is not sufficiently notable in this field under any circumstance. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

This is all very reasonable, but there is one problem - there are simply no such Russophone experts to begin with, and thus these recommendations are the best that can be. There is no Russian Bart Ehrman or Russian William Lane Craig, at all. In fact, if somebody needs the corresponding reference, it is precisely Yeskov who is usually referenced (the language barrier works both ways) - here is a random example: https://en.top[]war.ru/192084-zenitnaja-raketa-stala-prichinoj-izrailskogo-udara-nanesennogo-po-sredstvam-pvo-sirii.html?ysclid=l6ci0ebs8h357957898 (it's a machine-translated Russian-language thread, ctrl+f "Kirill" to find the corresponding comment - but remove [] in the link name first). Strecosaurus (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Jtrevor99, a quick search at Google Scholar shows that the author is not well cited - and the few citations he has are for his research into spiders. Can we drop this now? This is by far the strongest discussion I've seen in a decade at Wikipedia, somehow discussing whether an obscure novel by a layman should be given much more weight than the research of most trained scholars in the field.Jeppiz (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Jeppiz I too have been unable to find anything in the past couple hours, Russian-originated or otherwise, that would convince me to include. It certainly has been a strange (and strong) discussion, but I'm satisfied there's been due diligence here. And, perhaps, an overreaction on my part in response to frequent and recent allegations on WP that I have a pro-Christian bias (despite trying my best to prove and nurture the opposite). Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, as I've explained, precisely those positive recommendations that are *possible*, exist. About the best I can offer at this point is user Jeppiz himself lavishly praising Yeskov as a genius, see below :) [That, and you can read this work yourself and see if it has merit, don't take anyone's word for it.]

Nevertheless, user Jeppiz is reverting my mention of this work [very natural, as it recently came out in English] in *every* article, not just this one, featured and all. That seems a little unfair, as if it's completely marginal trash and all the articles on related topics would benefit from the removal of its mention. Would you say that's justified? Strecosaurus (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a reference-rich scholarly work praised in "Nature", not an obscure novel, plus, again, the obscurity is solely due to the language barrier. In Russia it is by no means obscure. Strecosaurus (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

FWIW I have also asked a professional apologist at "Reasonable Faith" to give his opinion, and, quote, he called this "advanced atheistic arguments" and called Yeskov a "decent atheist apologist". Strecosaurus (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How can (2) be "not quite correct"? No one knows what happened at that time. There is no material evidence only, at best, the hearsay evidence of the gospels. It has to be, by definition, speculation. I think this is where the "specialism" in the "palaeontology of spiders" comes into play. Of all the people whose speculation on this should be given due weight, should we really be giving pride of place to an expert in prehistoric arachnids. Sorry, no. DeCausa (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Probably as valid as the sources for resurrection. Which is why we need more balance. Again, not sure this is the right vehicle. Might find more in the extensive article on nontrinitarianism. 22:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)O3000, Ret. (talk)

The only sources to the alleged resurrection are in the New Testament. Everything else is analysis or interpretation of those sources - including spidey-man's theories. It's not necessary to put forward spidey-man's speculation to disbelieve in the resurrection. DeCausa (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

20 years ago I would have written a devil's advocate screed about Josephus here, but I am old and don't have the energy anymore. Probably better this way! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

A little problem is that user Jeppiz is reverting my mention of this work in *every* article, not just this one, featured and all. That seems a little unfair, as if it's completely marginal trash and all the articles on related topics would benefit from the removal of its mention. Strecosaurus (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

So, I will be happy to take a look at any other articles you like, but fair warning that I suspect I'll lean toward Jeppiz's view: and this is not at all because what we're talking about is marginal trash. There is a lot of good and valuable material that is nevertheless not appropriate for a Wikipedia article, where we aim in many ways to be kind of boring and obvious. Is there one in particular you would point me to, or should I just peruse your edits? Let me know. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Then... shouldn't we delete the original article on this work? Surely if it's not a notable scholarly polemic to even be a single reference anywhere, then the more so it is not notable enough as such (and that's what it was praised for etc, anything else like its literary quality is even more marginal) to be a whole article? As you said, "There is a lot of good and valuable material that is nevertheless not appropriate for a Wikipedia article"? I mean, I would not oppose its deletion - the deletion of the article on it itself - as that would be actually meaningful and consistent, and to be honest I'm struggling to make sense of this otherwise (but again, I'm far less experienced as a Wikipedian). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strecosaurus (talk • contribs) 04:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a big difference between having an article on a book and having something inserted about that book in every article dealing with a subject that is also present in the book. When it comes to the threshold for having an article, Wikipedia is incredibly –some would say, notoriously– inclusive. We have articles on just about anything. But by the same token, the fact that we have an article on a subject does not ipso facto make that subject more notable.

For core encyclopedic subjects like Jesus, the threshold is very high, and we tend to be very exclusive: it needs to be much, much more notable to be included here on this page which gets 13,228 views each day than merely to have its own entry which is visited by 27 people per day.

Nor is it only about page views: like I explained above, if we would include everything that is just as notable as The Gospel of Afranius, the article would become unreadably long. It's a matter of practical necessity. Perhaps one needs to be a more experienced Wikipedian to fully grasp that, but just take it from us then. Coming to an article with one pet peeve, while understandable from a human point of view, is almost always the wrong approach. Instead, one should read multiple sources (in this case, prominent scholarly books and papers) about a subject, and then report the core message repeatedly found in a significant proportion of these sources. If there are very few sources, it may often be due to include something only found in one or two sources. When there are hundreds upon hundreds of sources, the case for proportion is very different. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Apaugasma said it better than I could have, but I wanted to apologize for my inartful "not appropriate for a Wikipedia article" phrasing, Strecosaurus, because I can see why you took it the way you did. But as mentioned above, I certainly think the article is appropriate, it just may not be as used in other places. Being notable does not automatically make something a significant viewpoint, as said above. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanations, it's starting to make sense! I'm still not clear whether this edit should be left in or deleted, however? - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1132690820 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strecosaurus (talk • contribs) 16:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I didn't see Apaugasma's explanation in the next edit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strecosaurus (talk • contribs) 17:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Question about apparent conflict of interest

Strecosaurus, it seems like a very curious and unlikely coincidence that the user campaigning hard to include a novel about Jesus by a palaeontologist happens to have a user name straight out of palaeontology. As per WP:COI, if you are Kirill Eskov, or if you're closely linked to him, you should disclose that and, ideally, not edit material related to Eskov. (PS if you are Eskov or if you know him, please pass on my deep admiration for his work. While not WP:RS, some of his writings are genius)Jeppiz (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Apparently Yeskov doesn't speak English (otherwise he wouldn't wait 27 years to see the English version of his most important work), so no, I'm not Yeskov :) Which writings do you mean, "The Last Ringbearer", his other major work? Strecosaurus (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes indeed, great work :-) Jeppiz (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Judaism’s Constructive, Informative Perspective of Jesus

Any reason why these abridged, basic, simple, important affirmations of Judaism's Perspective of Jesus should not also be in this article (Judaism's Perspective section) on Jesus, including this with reliable sources cited: Judaism considers the worship of any person a form of idolatry, and also forbids the worship of any person as a form of idolatry, since the central belief of Judaism is the absolute unity and singularity of God. Therefore, considering Jesus a deity would be forbidden according to Judaism. 108.30.240.77 (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The "Jewish Perspective" section already appears to cover this, by stating, among other things, "Judaism rejects the idea of Jesus (or any future messiah) being God, or a mediator to God, or part of a Trinity", with citations and links that expound more on the very points you describe. How would you propose changing this, keeping in mind that it needs to be kept relatively short and on-topic? Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe this either the 3rd or 4th time this IP has made near-identical (word-for-word) posts in recent months. They've received that same response as above previously. I think this is now disruptive. DeCausa (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response. This is not at all disruptive whatsoever, and I will explain it as clear as I can. What you quoted from the Judaism Perspective section does NOT at all cover the fact that, "Judaism considers the worship of any person (including Jesus, the topic of this article) a form of idolatry, and also forbids the worship of any person as a form of idolatry, since the central belief of Judaism is the absolute unity and singularity of God." This is very short and on-topic. To put it far more clearly, indeed crystal clear, the fact that "Judaism rejects (forbids is far more accurate) the idea of Jesus (or any future messiah) being God, or a mediator to God, or part of a Trinity", does not at all clearly affirm that "Judaism considers the worship of any person (including Jesus) a form of idolatry, and also forbids the worship of any person as a form of idolatry, since the central belief of Judaism is the absolute unity and singularity of God." These are two totally different points. In other words, to put it as crystal clear as possible, Judaism "rejects", "forbids" (and "considers") many ideas, beliefs, actions, violations of commandments, capital crimes, sins, etc., in various ways, but most are not considered (and forbidden) as a form of idolatry. In this case on-topic, Judaism considers (and forbids) the worship of Jesus (the topic of this article) a form of idolatry. The additional, "considering Jesus a deity would be forbidden according to Judaism" is perhaps redundant and repetitive. I hope you and other editors understand clearly the differences and points, and that this is not at all disruptive. Thank you and all other editors.108.30.240.77 (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)