Talk:Christ myth theory: Difference between revisions
→Request for Comment: Consensus has been reached. |
rv premature declaration of consensus |
||
Line 393: | Line 393: | ||
== Request for Comment == |
== Request for Comment == |
||
{{rfc|reli|rfcid=64934AA}} |
|||
I am asking for comment regarding recent edits made by [[Special:Contributions/Gonzales John|Gonzales John]] ([[User talk:Gonzales John|talk]]). My main concern is that the edits appear to violate the neutrality of the article. The use of phrases such as "Christ myth theories are, in the modern age, not taken seriously by virtually all competent scholars" and "a person who believes the Christ myth theory is generally taken lowly by experts", coupled with the elimination of more than 20,000 bytes of referenced material as "excess info" and "undue weight" (quoting directly from edit summaries) and earlier revisions describing this as a "conspiracy theory" lead me to believe that this editor has a non-neutral agenda they wish to impose. |
I am asking for comment regarding recent edits made by [[Special:Contributions/Gonzales John|Gonzales John]] ([[User talk:Gonzales John|talk]]). My main concern is that the edits appear to violate the neutrality of the article. The use of phrases such as "Christ myth theories are, in the modern age, not taken seriously by virtually all competent scholars" and "a person who believes the Christ myth theory is generally taken lowly by experts", coupled with the elimination of more than 20,000 bytes of referenced material as "excess info" and "undue weight" (quoting directly from edit summaries) and earlier revisions describing this as a "conspiracy theory" lead me to believe that this editor has a non-neutral agenda they wish to impose. |
||
Revision as of 16:08, 18 August 2016
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christ myth theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32Auto-archiving period: 15 days ![]() |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, apologetics, or polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, apologetics, or polemics at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | Christ myth theory was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
Definition, FAQ discussions, POV tag, Pseudohistory, Sources |
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Citations Demonstrating Scholarly Support for the CMT
section is for references only |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
(1) FROM BOOKS AND JOURNALS:
(2) SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT FOR THE CHRIST MYTH THEORY:
Frank R. Zindler, “Where Jesus Never Walked.” American Atheist journal, Winter 1996–97.
(3) FROM NON-PRINT SOURCES (WEBLOGS, ETC.):
|
Restored stable version
I've restored the stable version of the article, before the POV pushing IP completely changed it to propagate a fringe view. We have certain policies here, such as WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:SYNTH, all of which have been systematically violated. Of course we can discuss whichever changes we want, but that's how it should work - a discussion between users reaching a consensus. What we've had here is instead one single cherry-picking WP:SPA who has been pushing its pet conspiracy theory, including phasing out academic experts in the field and instead cherry-picking obscure sources. Jeppiz (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think this was the right move. The IP editor should thoroughly discuss any changes before making more, because the changes s/he made before were not an improvement. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Jeppiz, Please cite the multiple examples of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:SYNTH, all of which you claim are violated and extant in the edits you RVed. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- I see no reason to repeat what several users have pointed out to you already. As for the article, several users already thanked me for restoring it. As Akhilleus said, you really need to start discussing changes, as opposed to just doing as you want regardless of discussions. Jeppiz (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Table comparing RVed edits and current edits | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
|
Jeppiz please explain your RV of WP:RS citations. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC) & Template:hab title correction 04:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC) & fix typo 04:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think that Jeppiz has more than sufficiently explained his reasons for reverting these edits. However, here's another point that I'm not sure has been considered (I'm not going to read all of the discussion to check)--the text about the "three-fold argument" is based very closely on a passage from Van Voorst 2000, which is properly cited after the last item on the list. The IP's edits, which jam a bunch of additional citations throughout the text, change the passage so that it's no longer clear that it's all based on Van Voorst. For that reason alone I think the IP's edits are misguided; the fact that the IP is trying to present the views of fringe theorists as if they are authoritative and mainstream is of course an additional reason to oppose these edits. But let's say we were going to cite Lataster; if so, we should not add a citation to his work in the middle of a passage that's based on Van Voorst; rather, Lataster's view should be explained and cited in a new passage. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- IP, as Akhilleus said, this has been explained to you in long detail. The only two possibilities are that you intentionally refuse to WP:HEAR or that you really do not get it regardless of how often it's repeated. In either, we're far past the point where it's becoming disruptive. I have tried to explain to you, over and over again, and so have many other users. Time to move on. Jeppiz (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- --Akhilleus, Jeppiz has given only unsubstantiated reasons for reverting these edits and in fact has ignored his own previous "Strong WP:NPOV violation" section on [Talk:Christ myth theory] to once again push his own version of WP:Truth, and actually no longer just himself as he notes his support by a cabal. The three-fold argument is not a Van Voorst quote, it is a summary of Bauer's arguments and the citations are correct for each of Bauer's arguments as they demonstrate how his view is supported by modern scholarship. Once again the WP:Fringe card is played to suppress valid edits based on WP:RS sources and citations within an actual WP:Fringe article such is this one. The RVed WP:RS citations are valid. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- This last comment makes me think further discussion will be useless. Again, the text in the article about the "three-fold argument" is based very closely on a passage on p. 9 of Van Voorst's Jesus Outside the New Testament; anyone who bothers to read the cited source will easily see that this article draws upon Van Voorst. Inserting additional citations into the passage will make its attribution unclear. You basically say you're adding citations to illustrate how each point is supported by current writers—that's WP:SYNTH, as you're using these citations to make a point that isn't directly made in the cited sources. Again, if we're going to cite these sources, much better to do so in a passage that actually explains their own views. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- So three new sections should be added to this article for the modern scholarship on:
- The absence of any reliable Jesus historicity support in the New Testament.
- The absence of any reliable non-christian references to Jesus historicity from the first century.
- The origination of Jesus from pagan or mythical roots. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Or rather, what mainstream academia thinks of those claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- No, I mean WP:Fringe WP:RS experts noting the absence of any reliable Jesus historicity support in the New Testament. Given that this is a WP:Fringe article pertaining to that topic and as we do not push WP:Truth, please feel free to ref dissenting non WP:Fringe viewpoints of equal WP:Weight and additionally note its mainstream consensus. WP:Fringe is not a derogatory or prejudicial term that allows for the suppression of WP:RS in an actual WP:Fringe article for topics directly related to it. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- No, given that this is (even by your admission) a fringe topic, we base the article on sources that provide mainstream academia's assessment of said topic, only possibly using the fringe sources to provide examples or more fully describe claims already discussed by mainstream sources. We do not present the Shakespeare authorship question from the perspective of the anti-Stratfordians, but from mainstream academia's perspective. We do not present John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories from the perspective of any of their advocates (even any of the ones who reject tinfoil hat nuttery and are genuinely skeptical about minor details), but from the perspective of mainstream academia. Pushing for WP:THETRUTH would be insisting that we ignore or downplay mainstream academia's perspective on the matter. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- No, I mean WP:Fringe WP:RS experts noting the absence of any reliable Jesus historicity support in the New Testament. Given that this is a WP:Fringe article pertaining to that topic and as we do not push WP:Truth, please feel free to ref dissenting non WP:Fringe viewpoints of equal WP:Weight and additionally note its mainstream consensus. WP:Fringe is not a derogatory or prejudicial term that allows for the suppression of WP:RS in an actual WP:Fringe article for topics directly related to it. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Or rather, what mainstream academia thinks of those claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- So three new sections should be added to this article for the modern scholarship on:
- Point.1 Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Independent sources: Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse. Whereas you state, "sources that provide mainstream academia's assessment of said topic" which is misleading and not correct. Per independent sources that discuss the three topics noted in my claim, there is no shortage.
- Point.2 Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Quotations: This point is not germane. It is not a blanket prohibition, but rather calls for a case by case evaluation.
- Point.3 Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Evaluating and describing claims: Fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced research should be described clearly within their own articles. This supports my claim.
- Point.4 Insisting that we ignore or downplay mainstream academia's perspective on the matter: This point is moot. I did not make that claim. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Independent sources would be the mainstream ones. The ones advocating the CMT are not independent. If mainstream sources did advocate the CMT or at least considered it a non-fringe alternative, then reputable CMT sources could be considered independent. The quotations section's relevance is in listing one of the few areas where citing a fringe source would be appropriate, in providing examples. The evaluating and describing claims section clearly says "In general, Wikipedia should always give prominence to established lines of research found in reliable sources and present neutral descriptions of other claims with respect to their historical, scientific, and cultural prominence." I have to ask if you bothered to read it at all or if you just made up what you thought the title meant to support your desire to present this article as WP:THETRUTH. "Established lines of research" quite obviously means mainstream academia. "Neutral descriptions of other claims" does not mean that we give fringe theories artificial equality, it means that we simply summarize the mainstream academic perception of those ideas without commentary or emotion. And by suggesting that we start from the fringe perspective and are merely welcome to add the mainstream perspective as a counterpoint, you are indeed pushing for the article to downplay mainstream academia. Going from "Mainstream academia first with fringe sources as examples" to "fringe sources first with mainstream academia as counter-examples" is downplaying mainstream academia. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
The following new sections should be added to the article per Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Evaluating and describing claims
- Ahistoricity of Jesus
- The absence of Jesus historicity support in the New Testament.
- The absence of non-christian references to Jesus historicity from the first century.
- Mythological Jesus 96.29.176.92 (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- No, Wikipedia just summarizes sources. We don't write the article and then throw on sources after, we summarize the sources and that forms the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Independent sources this article is deficient in its coverage of many topics discussed in independent sources in regards CMT. Therefore it also fails to be compliant per Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Evaluating and describing claims and thus should reduced to a stub and rewritten. Surely you are joking when you claim that articles do not have thrown on sources after starting life as a stub. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sources which advocate the theory are not independent. Having written, nominated for deletion, and even deleted more articles than you've probably even edited, I can tell you that yes, the goal is to merely summarize sources -- not to write what we want and look for sources later. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- You appear to be claiming that there are no 'X' number of independent sources discussing CMT in regards to: The absence of Jesus historicity support in the New Testament, The absence of non-christian references to Jesus historicity from the first century and Mythological Jesus. What value do you assign to 'X' ? 96.29.176.92 (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- You misread me. We summarize mainstream academic sources. If they discuss those ideas, then we discuss them, and can further cite some fringe sources for examples. We don't say "this is what the article should say" and then look for sources for that. We go over the mainstream academic sources, summarize them, and expand from there based on further sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- I am asserting that this article should summarize WP:Fringe expert academic sources that do discuss these topics. In this WP:Fringe article that also should (but not currently) include these topics since they are discussed in many independent sources. WP:Fringe policy clearly permits WP:Fringe expert academic sources in a WP:Fringe article, since WP does not push truth. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- You misread me. We summarize mainstream academic sources. If they discuss those ideas, then we discuss them, and can further cite some fringe sources for examples. We don't say "this is what the article should say" and then look for sources for that. We go over the mainstream academic sources, summarize them, and expand from there based on further sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- You appear to be claiming that there are no 'X' number of independent sources discussing CMT in regards to: The absence of Jesus historicity support in the New Testament, The absence of non-christian references to Jesus historicity from the first century and Mythological Jesus. What value do you assign to 'X' ? 96.29.176.92 (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sources which advocate the theory are not independent. Having written, nominated for deletion, and even deleted more articles than you've probably even edited, I can tell you that yes, the goal is to merely summarize sources -- not to write what we want and look for sources later. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Independent sources this article is deficient in its coverage of many topics discussed in independent sources in regards CMT. Therefore it also fails to be compliant per Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Evaluating and describing claims and thus should reduced to a stub and rewritten. Surely you are joking when you claim that articles do not have thrown on sources after starting life as a stub. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- No, Wikipedia just summarizes sources. We don't write the article and then throw on sources after, we summarize the sources and that forms the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Ian.thomson are you knowledgeable enough on this subject to evaluate if this article should be reduced to a stub and then written using expert academic sources, per WP:Fringe policy. If not, can you find someone who is ?
- Here are some brief summaries:
- Lataster, Raphael (2015). "Questioning the Plausibility of Jesus Ahistoricity Theories — A Brief Pseudo-Bayesian Metacritique of the Sources". The Intermountain West Journal of Religious Studies. 6:1: 63.
- Lataster, Raphael (29 March 2016). "IT'S OFFICIAL: WE CAN NOW DOUBT JESUS' HISTORICAL EXISTENCE". Think. 15 (43): 65–79. doi:10.1017/s1477175616000117.
Think, Volume 15, Issue 43, Summer 2016, Published online by Cambridge University Press
96.29.176.92 (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- The article already cites expert academic sources—Van Voorst and Ehrman, to name two. There's no need to reduce this article to a stub, or indeed to make any radical changes. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Independent sources, this article is deficient in its coverage of many topics discussed in independent sources in regards CMT. Therefore it also fails to be compliant per Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Evaluating and describing claims and thus should reduced to a stub and rewritten. The topics discussed in many independent sources are the absence of Jesus historicity support in the New Testament, The absence of non-christian references to Jesus historicity from the first century and Mythological Jesus. Ian.thomson noted that articles should summarize expert academic sources. Whereas this article does not summarize any expert academic sources that write on the previously noted topics. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- As has been repeatedly explained for you, sources that advocate the CMT are not independent. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Independent sources or Wikipedia:Independent sources, please cite the section which notes that expert academic scholars writing on the previously noted topics in relation to CMT are not independent or why popular media such as magazines, blogs and other popular media discussing the scholarship, e.g. youtube videos featuring community gatherings to discuss the scholarship of said topics. Why are they not independent. Please note I said "discuss" as normal people usually do not, "advocate". 96.29.176.92 (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- You cannot honestly pretend that a source titled "It's official: (insert any position here)," or that a community that is gathered specifically to discuss and look for material supporting a particular position is independently describing a position instead of non-neutrally advocating it. Tertiary sources in the field independently establish what the mainstream academic consensus is, secondary sources that argue in favor of that academic consensus are used to further elaborate on what the mainstream academic consensus is, and then secondary sources that argue for the fringe position are used to provide examples. That's how we've handled things in articles relating to fringe claims.
- Also, blogs and Youtube videos generally fail the WP:USERG portion of WP:RS. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with everything Ian.thomson writes above, but it should also be noted that the two pieces by Lataster listed above did not appear in peer-reviewed journals, and do not qualify as "expert academic sources." --Akhilleus (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Independent sources or Wikipedia:Independent sources, please cite the section which notes that expert academic scholars writing on the previously noted topics in relation to CMT are not independent or why popular media such as magazines, blogs and other popular media discussing the scholarship, e.g. youtube videos featuring community gatherings to discuss the scholarship of said topics. Why are they not independent. Please note I said "discuss" as normal people usually do not, "advocate". 96.29.176.92 (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- As has been repeatedly explained for you, sources that advocate the CMT are not independent. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Independent sources, this article is deficient in its coverage of many topics discussed in independent sources in regards CMT. Therefore it also fails to be compliant per Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Evaluating and describing claims and thus should reduced to a stub and rewritten. The topics discussed in many independent sources are the absence of Jesus historicity support in the New Testament, The absence of non-christian references to Jesus historicity from the first century and Mythological Jesus. Ian.thomson noted that articles should summarize expert academic sources. Whereas this article does not summarize any expert academic sources that write on the previously noted topics. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
That is not true. "The Intermountain West Journal of Religious Studies is made available electronically through the Program in Religious Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. In most other respects, however, it functions as a traditional scholarly journal. Submitted research articles, as well as discussions and critical notes, are subject to blind peer review. -- The Intermountain West Journal of Religious Studies University of Utah
Think is not a blunt though it is hosted via Cambridge University Press' Cambridge Journals Online site which at least puts it in the reliable category even if it isn't formally peer reviewed.--2606:A000:EA86:BD00:C84E:4552:1575:2EB1 (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
This article needs a lot of work
This article and the Historicity of Jesus articles are both a mess and do a lot of "scholar says X", while doing a pretty poor job of properly portraying the arguments for and against the historicity of Jesus. We repeatedly get citations of Jesus scholars who claim that the matter is settled/no one in the mainstream believes Christ was a myth, but both this article and the Historicity of Jesus article fail to delineate what, exactly, evidence that is based on.
Likewise, the arguments of the Jesus Myth proponents are mixed up into huge paragraphs, and the whole thing is organized in a very confused way; there's 21st century stuff in the 20th century section, and I'm not sure that organizing it by year makes sense. The whole thing feels rambley and unencyclopedic. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've noticed issues too, looking at the article. How do you propose we go about resolving the issue? Two important question in this regard:
- * Do we have a clear distinction between authoritative and non-authoritative scholarly sources?
- * Do we want to represent strictly the view of authoritative sources, or also those sources that are less authoritative?
BabyJonas (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- I lost interest in the article at the 21st Century part, it's almost like beating a dead horse partly because no new source material appeared. Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
The modern debate:
- The Silence of Paul.
- The Silence of Jesus.
- The Suspicious Lacunae.
- The Gospel Genre.
- Predictions of expected extant evidence from theories: ahistoricity v. historicity.
- etc.
96.29.176.92 (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Request for Comment
![]() |
|
I am asking for comment regarding recent edits made by Gonzales John (talk). My main concern is that the edits appear to violate the neutrality of the article. The use of phrases such as "Christ myth theories are, in the modern age, not taken seriously by virtually all competent scholars" and "a person who believes the Christ myth theory is generally taken lowly by experts", coupled with the elimination of more than 20,000 bytes of referenced material as "excess info" and "undue weight" (quoting directly from edit summaries) and earlier revisions describing this as a "conspiracy theory" lead me to believe that this editor has a non-neutral agenda they wish to impose.
I have asked Gonzales John to please refrain from making such edits and instead bring their concerns to this Talk page. Rather than let this devolve into an edit war, I would value input from other interested editors as to what direction this article should take. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- To make the entire picture clear to your insistence: my edits were done not based on what I believe (unlike as you claim), but on what the scholarly consensus says. Simply per WP:Fringe and WP:Undue Weight; we should make it clear that the vast majority of scholars have a consensus that a historical Jesus did exist. This article's amount of coverage on the arguments and criticisms should be based on how many scholars take each seriously. The reason why I removed large amounts of data was in order to make the sizes of the sections of the proponent's arguments and the criticisms equal in size, in order to make the consensus of majority of the scholars clear.
- Besides, the Christ myth theory is rarely taken seriously by present-day scholars. To quote:
- In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman wrote, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees". (Ehrman, Bart (2011). Forged: writing in the name of God – Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. HarperCollins. p. 285. ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6.)
- Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more". (Burridge, Richard A.; Gould, Graham (2004). Jesus Now and Then. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-8028-0977-3.)
- James D.G. Dunn calls the theories of Jesus' non-existence "a thoroughly dead thesis". (Sykes, Stephen W. (2007). "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus". Sacrifice and Redemption. Cambridge University Press. pp. 35–36. ISBN 978-0-521-04460-8.)
- Michael Grant (a classicist) wrote in 1977, "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary". (Grant, Michael (1977). Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scribner's. p. 200. ISBN 978-0-684-14889-2.)
- Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.
- The issue is that this article is about the theory itself, not whether the theory is widely held or accepted. The edits you want to make give the impression of saying, "This is a bunch of hogwash," a perception backed up by your earlier edits describing it as a "conspiracy theory." Whether or not you believe it is entirely irrelevant: we, as editors, must not allow our personal opinions to influence our neutrality. This article should be limited to "Here is the theory, here is the history of the theory, here are the people who have championed it and why, here are the people who have objected to it and why," without letting personal bias get in the way of that information. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 23:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Gonzales John, I have asked you to respect the RfC and hold off on your changes until others have had a chance to weigh in. I find it unfortunate that you declined to honor that request. I will wait on reverting your edits until I am clear of the Three Revert Rule, but mind you that other editors are free to bring the article back to the state it was in before you began editing. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 23:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Even if this article is not about whether the theory is widely accepted, it should still reflect the scholarly consensus, per WP:Undue Weight. Also, as I have said countless times now, my edits were not based on my feelings, but rather on the scholarly conesensus.Gonzales John (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Gonzales John, I have asked you to respect the RfC and hold off on your changes until others have had a chance to weigh in. I find it unfortunate that you declined to honor that request. I will wait on reverting your edits until I am clear of the Three Revert Rule, but mind you that other editors are free to bring the article back to the state it was in before you began editing. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 23:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- John's edit does not violate the neutrality of the article. The edit concisely informs the reader of the current state of the CMT among virtually all scholars. It's a fringe theory, plain and simple, as the quotes amply demonstrate. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- There is not only one single "Christ myth theory" but each proponent writes a somewhat similar narrative constructed from the available information. These ideas about myth are closely coupled with ideas about historicity of Jesus and the premise that Jesus is the origin of Christianity. These three sets of ideas are emotional issues for Christians and conflated quite a bit. This article has a history of edits that push points of views instead of describing what the various constructions of myth theories and various criticisms are. For example, I think that Robert Price's quote in the article describes the subtlety of at least Price's construction: "I am not trying to say that there was a single origin of the Christian savior Jesus Christ, and that origin is pure myth; rather, I am saying that there may indeed have been such a myth, and that if so, it eventually flowed together with other Jesus images, some one of which may have been based on a historical Jesus the Nazorean." I think large scale removing and replacing harms the article and that those kinds of edits are emotional but well intentioned. The article should describe what the various narratives constructed by proponents are and criticism of specific narratives. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- There being different versions of the Christ myth theory does not mean that we should include ALL view points, and the Christ Myth theory itself has little importance in the first place. Besides my edit pemrits the article to include all the notable proponents' viewpoints. Per WP:PlotGonzales John (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Gonzales John: no, of course not all but the differences should be described even if they are fringe because the article is WP:SUBPOV. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- There being different versions of the Christ myth theory does not mean that we should include ALL view points, and the Christ Myth theory itself has little importance in the first place. Besides my edit pemrits the article to include all the notable proponents' viewpoints. Per WP:PlotGonzales John (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I must point out that what TechBear is saying violates some of the most basic principles of Wikipedia, especially WP:NPOV. Let me be clear: we do not say "here is the theory", not in this article nor elsewhere. NPOV explicitly states that both fringe theories and minority viewpoints should clearly be indicated as such. We do not try to create any false balance between proponents and opponents where no such balance exists. Virtually every competent academic agree that the moonlandings happened, that the earth isn't flat, that Caesar was a real person, that Jesus was a real person, that the earth wasn't created in seven days, that the moon has never been split etc. We can present all of these conspiracy theories, but not pretend they have some academic credibility. Once again, this is not my opinion, it's a main rule at Wikipedia. Jeppiz (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Reply The NPOV guideline says that if the article is about A, and there is a related fringe theory B, then B should not be given undue weight. That does not apply here, as the article is about B, not A. If the article is about the fringe theory, then the non-neutral approach is to use the article as a platform for ridiculing it. TechBear | Talk |
Contributions 03:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not using it as a platform to ridicule it, I was just putting in the scholars' opinions and consensus. I never seriously put in something that says "this theory is utter nonsense" ("conspiracy theory" does not necessarily mean a nonsensical theory); since that is the case, one might conclude that you're just defensive of the Christ myth theory since you feel that I'm ridiculing it even though I'm clearly not.Gonzales John (talk) 07:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV does not mean that this article should present the case that there was no such person as Jesus. It " means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The idea that Jesus never existed (the "Christ myth theory") has zero support among ancient historians in reliable sources and the article must make that clear. However I haven't looked at this article for two years, I got so sick of arguing about this and related articles and having to go to AN/I and WP:DRN and participate in RF/C's over and over and over that I took a two year wikibreak. Looking at the article again it seems pretty good to me. I think it is right to discuss the historical proponents of the idea and to include the crucial quotes from the two most authoritative sources who have bothered to refute this fringe theory, Ehrman and Michael Grant, which it does. Smeat75 (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- There is still too much unnecessary info here, and the section of the proponents remains over five times the size of the criticisms sections;the criticisms of many of the proponents aren't even mentioned. And the consensus definitely isn't made clear yet; the opposite probably is, even.Gonzales John (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV does not mean that this article should present the case that there was no such person as Jesus. It " means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The idea that Jesus never existed (the "Christ myth theory") has zero support among ancient historians in reliable sources and the article must make that clear. However I haven't looked at this article for two years, I got so sick of arguing about this and related articles and having to go to AN/I and WP:DRN and participate in RF/C's over and over and over that I took a two year wikibreak. Looking at the article again it seems pretty good to me. I think it is right to discuss the historical proponents of the idea and to include the crucial quotes from the two most authoritative sources who have bothered to refute this fringe theory, Ehrman and Michael Grant, which it does. Smeat75 (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
This article should be split between two articles;
- Christ myth theory
- The History of Christ myth theory
There is an overwhelming amount of history in this article, which has no relevance to the modern debate and would make a substantial history article on its own. Then after moving the historical content, this article should be reduced to a stub and rewritten per WP:consensus. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- B-Class Religion articles
- Unknown-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- B-Class Christianity articles
- Mid-importance Christianity articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- B-Class Mythology articles
- Mid-importance Mythology articles
- Delisted good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Former good article nominees
- Wikipedia requests for comment