This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Threads older than 2 month may be archived by MiszaBot I.
Source Vetting and the Challenges of Writing an Article on a Living Religion
Right now this article does its damnedest to portray Christianity as an exceptional religion that somehow appeared in a vacuum, exactly followed it scriptural narrative and had no influence from the world around it. It stands an example of how writing about Christianity in the west presents unique challenges: How many of these "scholarly sources" are in fact defenses of the religion—in this case Christianity—that the author holds? How many of these sources are from Christian institutions? How many of these sources are actually form people working in relevant fields, such as mythology and folklore, rather than theology and religious studies? This is a real issue with this article as well as Christ myth theory, another mindfield of an article. Right now this article is a total mess. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
You are bang on the money :bloodofox:! This article is a joke. Every single opening paragraph ends with a statement that "most historians disagree ..." or similar. The citations are rubbish; they state things like "surely everyone agrees ...", while others are just the opinion of a single person (e.g. Richard Carrier), who was obviously included purely on the grounds that he subscribes to the views presented in the article. The reasoning being that if Richard even agrees, then it must be true! Disaster.
Why do these editors insist on helping the critics of Wikipedia. If we cannot write (or let others write) objectively about things we don't necessarily agree with, then WP will never be taken seriously.
There should be one "Critics" section at the bottom of this article in which objections to the Jesus Myth theory could be placed, with their citations properly reviewed! Imagine if every WP article was like this one, and you were trying to read about the moon landing for example, and were constantly interrupted with advertising from critics. HappyGod (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was move per request. In a descriptive title like this one, we normally use the parent article's title, unless it would be confusing in context. Here, it is difficult to even imagine a scenario where a person would find Jesus to be ambiguous without Christ appended.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Jesus Christ in comparative mythology → Jesus in comparative mythology – I would've thought this would be sufficiently uncontroversial to do it myself, but a move to this title was reverted a few years ago, referring to talk page discussion. There hasn't been an RM, though some discussion in Archive 1 shows the rationale for "Christ" being that the article discusses Jesus as Messiah. But so do many Jesus articles. I don't think that's a good reason to deviate from the parent article, Jesus, or WP:CONCISE. --BDD (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Support this move. The main article is Jesus and it is the primary topic for than name. The disambiguation term "Jesus Christ" is unnecessary. What other Jesus is relevant to comparative mythology? Dimadick (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Support. Obvious, really. StAnselm (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Support per WP:CONPRIME. Subtopics follow the title format of their parent topics. bd2412T 15:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.