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

Birth date

Most people believe Wikipedia Talk is just for angry people wanting to change something, but it's also just general discussion on the topic.

Did you know that no one actually knows the day Jesus was born? December 25th was decided in the year 336 because of the winter solstice, and pagans having a holiday the same day, to help them with conversion. IEditPolitics (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. Actually talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, and not for general discussion of the topic. While the above info is interesting im not sure it's especially relevant to improving our article on Jesus. Do you have in mind an edit that you'd like made to the article text? -- Euryalus (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Specificslly where it says december 25th and january 7th and how his birthday is celebrated then. I cant write it, but maybe put :December 25th was a date decided in the year 336 by (not sure who) to coincide with the winter solstice and the pagans having a holiday on the same day." IEditPolitics (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Over-detailed for the lead. In the Chronology section we state that the year of his birth is not precisely known, but don't explicitly clarify that the time of year is also unknown. Probably room for improvement there. VQuakr (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Israeli and Palestinian by subcategories

I noticed that since Jesus is listed under the category People from Bethlehem, he's technically listed under People from the State of Palestine, Palestinian people, and under Arab people. This is factually incorrect, as Jesus was not an Arab- nor was he from the State of Palestine. He is also apparently listed as an Israeli due to being a part of category People from Nazareth- which he was not.

I suggest that the two categories (and maybe a fair bit of other towns in the region) be given the splits Category:Palestinians from Bethlehem and Category:Israelis from Nazareth, and the parent categories that refer to Israel and Palestine be removed from the broader "People from Bethlehem/Nazareth" categories. Is there any objections to me doing this? HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 06:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@HadesTTW There may very well be, the topic being what it is. Have you considered starting a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Cannot comment on the technical category stuff here, but OP is definitely right that the two subcats are just factually incorrect and unsupported in the article body.--SinoDevonian (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

He is a Palestinian Jew. How come this has been changed? To Jewish Preacher? 2607:FEA8:C0:3B00:E056:593:F1EA:4DF4 (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

People from the State of Palestine/Arab people would be the disputable parts.--SinoDevonian (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Because he was not Palestinian in any sense. He wasn't Arab. The official name of the holy land in his times was not Palestine. He himself as a Jew definitely did not call this land Palestine (this was the Greek foreign name of the land) and didn't refer to himself as Palestinian. The word Palestinian doesn't appear at all in the Bible. No ancient source describes Jesus as Palestinian. In fact I doubt very much if there was even one person who described Jesus as Palestinian before the 20th century. Prove me wrong. Vegan416 (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The official name of the holy land in his times was not Palestine." Both the Greeks and the Romans called it Palestine long before Jesus was born. See Timeline of the name Palestine. Dimadick (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dimadick

1. Nevertheless it wasn't the official name of this land in Jesus's times. The official name the Roman rulers gave to this land in Jesus' time was "Judea". See here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaea_(Roman_province)

2. In fact "Palestine" was never the official name of this land before Hadrian gave it that name in following the Bar Kokhba revolt circa 135 AD. While some Greek historians called the land Palestine, the official name the Greek rulers gave it was Coele-Syria until the Hasmonean dynasty replaced them in the second century BC.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/coele-syria Vegan416 (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

J Christ

J Christ redirects here. I've added a hatnote to J Christ (song), which is recommended for an ambiguous redirect; see WP:SIMILAR, WP:HATREDIR. Reverted because of "the song is controversial and disrespectful towards Christianity", which is not part of any Wikipedia policy or guideline. @Jtrevor99: @RileyXeon: Can you please explain the justification for us to disregard a widely-accepted guideline in this case? 162 etc. (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

There may not be official policies, but there are WP guidelines - see for example the WP:HATESPEECH essay which may be applicable here. Saying a mere redirect or disambig may be “hate speech” is pretty extreme - and I would generally argue against it. But I was personally involved in a similar question on another article a few years ago, where the point that “if a group finds this redirect offensive, we need to be very careful before overruling that group” persuaded a number of experienced editors. Unfortunately, I cannot find that discussion now - it is probably buried in an archive.

All that said, my point was not that the prior reverter’s reason was sufficient for exclusion per se, but that the reason stated PLUS the fact at least 4 editors have gotten involved to date, and clearly do not agree, are together sufficient to warrant discussion first. The discussion is to prevent the emerging edit war. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

My opinion: now that you’ve explained why you restored the redirect, it makes sense and I am fine with retaining. But your lack of an edit summary made your justification unclear. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't care about the song possibly being offensive to some. I just don't understand why we would provide an advertisement for a song that came out a few days ago on an article about someone from 2,000 years ago. Google directly links "J. Christ" to page about the song. How many people wanting to see this article type "J Christ"? We could just remove the redirect. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

[EC] I think it absolutely belongs as a hatnote, or the redirect should be deleted and the song should be moved to J Christ. --Onorem (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe that the song should be moved to J Christ, per Onorem's comment above, which would probably solve both problems here as there would be no need for a hatnote. Willing to open this move discussion if others agree... – GnocchiFan (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

yep. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as the redirect J Christ barely saw any usage at all prior to the release of the song [1], and it's not really a common term to refer to Jesus, I would probably be in favour. 162 etc. (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:J Christ (song)#Requested move 14 January 2024. 162 etc. (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, agreed that simply redirecting “J Christ” to the song is a better move. Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:J Christ (song) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Should we include a picture of JESUS in the article?

There is no record of any picture of Jesus, by which we may know how he looked. This is true for many historical figures. I know it is essential for a topic to have a main profile picture if you will, but it should be more abstract, maybe a symbol or something. Ai777 (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Why would that be an improvement? Jeppiz (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

more than improving anything, it's a suggestion. Ai777 (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The many depictions of Jesus is a subject area in its own right so having a a picture of an important depiction of Jesus seems entirely appropriate. Note this also holds true for many articles about other people (e.g., saints, Classical philosophers) Erp (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

yes, indeed, that is very true, as I made known in my original comment, but I created this topic. The mention of this is due to Wikipedia's commitment to verifiability and so, deals strictly with facts Ai777 (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

So what is not verifiable about this being a picture of Jesus done several hundred years after his death? There is no claim of it being an accurate depiction of the original Jesus. However this picture is instantly recognizable as being of Jesus (the iconography alone does that); it is very much a symbol of Jesus even if not a photograph of him. Erp (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

It is NOT essential for a topic to have a main profile picture. HiLo48 (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

that is true, I've seen many articles without a picture. Ai777 (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The weirder thing is some people really wrote that non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus is now "firmly established" as if it's a clear fact with Jesus' DNA as the evidence. Natsuikomin (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Proof of Jesus Crucifixion

I can't believe that some people really wrote comments on the infobox saying that no further comments required regarding the cause of Jesus' death. I'm sure no one can provide trusted evidence that it was really Jesus, Son of Mary, that was crucified on the cross that day, but can I add a note in parentheses as follows: (believed by Christians) after the word 'Crucifixion'? Thanks. Natsuikomin (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

both Tacitus and Josephus mention Jesus and his crucifixion under Pontius Pilate Ai777 (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say the crucifixion didn't happen. I said there's no direct evidence that it was Jesus that was crucified on the cross that day. Natsuikomin (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It's bad. History has deliberately been changed at the time after the man that was thought of as Jesus was crucified because irresponsible people wanted to gain something from changing it. And now sadly, the change of history has been considered encyclopedic information at the present time. Natsuikomin (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I understand, but both historical and empirical evidence suggest that Jesus was crucified that day, that it was Jesus son of Mary, who was crucified Ai777 (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

If you really had read my reply, you wouldn't have said that. Natsuikomin (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

And Herodotus has a fool-proof way of getting gold away from the ants (which are the size of foxes) that hoard it. Dumuzid (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't give away my secrets. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

founder, not central figure

I've been closely examining the portrayal of Jesus within our article on Him. While it is widely recognized that Jesus is the central figure of Christianity, I propose that we also emphasize his role as the founder of Christianity. This perspective is supported by a wealth of scholarly discussion and historical documentation, which suggests a more direct involvement of Jesus in establishing Christianity's foundational principles and practices.

The argument for considering Jesus not only as a central figure but explicitly as the founder of Christianity is grounded in:

- **Historical Evidence**: Accounts from the period directly following Jesus' life show his teachings and actions laid the groundwork for the development of Christian beliefs and community practices. - **Scholarly Consensus**: A significant body of scholarly work focuses on how Jesus’ message and leadership catalyzed the formation of Christianity. - **Theological Analysis**: Theological discussions often highlight how Jesus’ directives to his followers and his teachings serve as the cornerstone of Christian doctrine, signifying his role in founding Christianity.

Given the depth of evidence supporting Jesus as the founder of Christianity, I believe it is crucial for our article to reflect this dimension of his role. This would not only enrich our content but also align our representation with historical and scholarly insights.

I propose we discuss potential revisions to the article that incorporate this perspective, ensuring our narrative is comprehensive and grounded in verifiable sources. I am open to collaboration and dialogue to refine this approach and welcome any additional sources or viewpoints you may offer.

Thank you for considering this proposal. I look forward to a productive exchange of ideas and hope we can work together to enhance the accuracy and depth of our article. Ai777 (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

My reply is: dubious, see emic and etic. Founders of Christianity might well have been Mary Magdalene or Apostle Paul. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Sources

yes, Mary Madeline and Polly apostle were instrumental, but they built their teachings on the life, teachings, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ Ai777 (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

In case of Mary: she was the first person to think that Jesus was resurrected, i.e. the core Christian belief. In case of Paul: he reshaped a tiny Jewish sect into a religion for Gentiles. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

correct, they helped in the spread of Christianity Ai777 (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mosesheron: What difference do you see to Smith and Mormonism? A man claims he has had revelations from God, presents a new scripture he says comes from God, starts a new religion that claims to be a restoration, not new. It sure seems very similar. The more serious problem in your arguments above is that you continously imply we should find some middle road between faith and scholarship. We should not, as that would be the opposite of WP:NPOV. I know many people misunderstand NPOV and think it's about meeting halfway. It is not; it's about representing the most reliable sources as accurately as possible. Jeppiz (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mosesheron: As for the comparison with Jesus, we are actually treating both in the same way, by giving the academic view rather than faith. Christians believe Jesus founded Christianity; we don't say that because many scholars argue that Jesus never saw himself as God or intended to break away from Judaism. Scholarship holds that a claim can be made that it was Paul who founded Christianity after Jesus's death. There is no such scholarly debate over Muhammad; no scholar AFAIK argues that Islam what founded after Muhammad's death by someone else. Jeppiz (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

as for Mohammed and Joseph Smith, the descriptions of the articles them as founders of Islam and the latter day saints respectively Ai777 (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The point being: for Muhammad and Smith, scholars are unanimous they founded their own religions. About Jesus there is no such unanimity. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

while it's true that there's no scholarly consensus on that, many historians, and theologians point out that Jesus, life, teachings, death, and resurrection, were the impetus of the Christian faith Ai777 (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

This back and forth is not productive: I don't convince you, and you don't convince me. I will let others chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• Central figure is obvious. Founder not so much. Without general agreement among scholars, I don't see the addition useful. (Personally, I think the religion obscures the teachings.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
• "Founder" is like Bill Gates, Col. Sanders, John D. Rockefeller, et al. What RS calls Jesus the "founder"? Using it as proposed here would misrepresent and contradict the central content of this article. SPECIFICO talk 16:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)