Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:08, 17 February 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jesus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137Auto-archiving period: 3 days

view · edit 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 Misplaced Pages? The issue was discussed on the talk page: Based on this Misplaced Pages search the phrase is widely used in Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages guidelines require us not to do our own survey. The Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 "ost Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah ...?" Don't all Christians believe this? A10: Misplaced Pages 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 R.Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, Westminster John Knox Press (2001), p. 49 Hick, John (2006). The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Age. Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-664-23037-1. Retrieved 5 January 2024. Hyers, Conrad (Spring 2000). "Comparing biblical and scientific maps of origins". Directions: A Mennonite Brethren Forum. 29 (1): 16–26. Hyers, Conrad (August 4–11, 1982). "Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance". Christian Century. p. 823. Archived from the original on June 4, 2011. Retrieved 9 November 2012.

Jesus 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.

Article milestones Date Process Result January 17, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 2, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 3, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted November 2, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 3, 2005 Articles for deletion Kept October 6, 2005 Peer review Reviewed December 12, 2005 Good article nominee Listed December 15, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 14, 2006 Peer review Reviewed November 27, 2006 Peer review Reviewed April 21, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 21, 2007 WikiProject A-class review Approved July 12, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It 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. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Jesus / Theology / Saints / Catholicism / Eastern O. / Oriental O. / Jewish / Anglicanism / Latter Day Saints Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive. This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Saints (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This article is supported by WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Jewish Christianity (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Core This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bahá'í Faith High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahá'í Faith, a coordinated attempt to increase the quality and quantity of information about the Baháʼí Faith on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.Bahá'í FaithWikipedia:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithTemplate:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithBahá'í Faith High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bible Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Template:Controversial (history) Template:Pbneutral

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Jesus. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Jesus at the Reference desk.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jesus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137Auto-archiving period: 3 days

Talk:Jesus/archivebox

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Myth theory view and UNDUE

I respect the desire of longtime editors of this page to prevent future drama, but having a hugely long section on the history of the myth theory view (it may well be the longest section of the article) seems unjustified, especially since this article is overlong in the first place. Neutrality concerns (which clearly direct us to downplay minority or even fringe beliefs) should always trump convenience of editors who don't want to argue with lazy/ignorant people. --JFH (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I know that section is somewhat long - but that is exactly why it is not getting debated. If you look through the archives you will see that there are IPs that show out of nowhere and argue about it. If everyone else agrees to trim it a little, ok, but I felt your initial trim was way too short and would just invite debate from IPs. This can be a contentious page, and the only way to keep it stable may be to give that topic a good chunk of text. History2007 (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with JFH. The myth "theory" is little more than a conspiracy theory; support for it in academic circles is virtually zero. Just as the theory about the earth being flat would be undue on Earth, so the myth theory is undue here, if we speak from a strictly academical point of view. Then again, History2007 is also right. What the believers in the myth theory lack in academic credentials, they certainly make up for in persistence and vocalness. However, I'm not really prepared to buying the argument that we should placate them just because they are boisterous. At Muhammad, there is a neverending stream of editors who insist on deleting the pictures, so much so that a special talk page exists just for that purpose . But the consensus was not to be intimidated by the persistence of certain editors, and I think that is particularly true when dealing with a fringe theory that certainly qualifies for WP:UNDUE. In my opinion, one sentence would be enough, stating that although some non-experts have suggested Jesus never existed, the academic expertise is unanimous that he did. I don't really see a reason to waste more space than that, but I am of course very open to all factual arguments for a longer section - but the mere fact that this page is contentious is not an argument in itself. Jeppiz (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

So will you two guys hereby sign an affidavit (preferably signed in blood) that you will forever argue against all IPs who have a large amount of persistence and a small amount of logic? If you look on the talk pages such as Historicity of Jesus, Christ myth theory, etc. and the archives you will see them and see me arguing against them. I agree that myth theory has "close to zero" support in academic circles, and I have stated that again and again against many IPs, but to achieve balance this page does need to give the topic some space. History2007 (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't commit to that but I trust the community, or at least I have no alternative and I think the evil of having this amount of UNDUE on such a highly visible page outweighs the concerns you have. Anyway, UNDUE is policy, and if it has close to zero support, it should probably get zero space, since it's an encyclopedic article, not a compendium of what everyone in the world thinks. Anyway, it doesn't get the article's longest section. --JFH (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with all the reasons that Jeppiz proposes with the addition that there is ALREADY three redirects to other very extensive and well-developed pages that explore a Christ Mythology. In my mind, we keep the redirects and then have a short summation (2-3 sentences) of the high points of this Mythology. Throw in a note to the effect of "This section is not meant to be all inclusive" and/or "any further Christ Myth information should be taken to one of these other forums" and call it good. Then we revert ANY additions to the section. Maybe that's too simplistic, but it sounded good to me. Although I agree with History that there will always be crackpots coming along, that doesn't mean we have to cater to them. "You'll never reach your destination if you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks." - Winston Chruchill Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

What has "close to zero" support is the non-existence theory (in fact if you look on the historicity talk page will see link to a tweet of an offer to eat a page if a professor is found). The other mythical parts, e.g. that a preacher existed, but that X% of the gospel stories are fake does have support with X ranging from 20% to 80% depending which academics one asks. In fact David Straus himself did not deny existence anyway; and neither does G. A. Wells. So that part needs to be there, for it is not fringe and many mainstream scholars are in the 30% of the stories are untrue camp. And the fact that the topic is fringe needs to be mentioned anyway. History2007 (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not competent here enough to comment on the relevance of those people's views to the article subject. Suffice it to say the section is too long, and could probably be rolled into Existence. --JFH (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

If the section has not made the distinction clear at first reading, then it should be touched up to do so. But that is a key issue, in that existence is a very different discussion from a mythical life story - and that is why there are separate articles on historicity of Jesus and historical Jesus. So it could not possibly be merged into existence, because some of the myth theorists (starting with Straus himself) accept existence upfront. I will try to touch it up to clarify that issue, and in the process reduce some of the myth history etc. Probably half way between what you trimmed to and what there was/is. Then we see. But existence is just one part of the myth theory discussions, as reflected in the later books by Wells after he softened up his position and accepted existence - while still claiming a mythical life story. I think if you read the myth theory page in detail and look through a couple of the books on the subject you will see what I mean. History2007 (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I may be repeating myself, but I still want to state that we should not be intimated by the possible disagreement of IPs or by POV-pushing. If a "theory" is undue, it is just as undue no matter if nobody defends it or if its defenders are very vocal. And when I say undue, I'm talking about the "theory" that the person Jesus never existed. As History2007 quite rightly points out, there are then of course a wide range of theories about who this person was, and many of those theories are notable and proposed by experts in the field. We should of course not censor out any relevant theory, but the conspiracy theory that Jesus never existed at all is undue and should, in my opinion, be removed. If that causes IPs to complain, then so be it. We should not provide room for something that is clearly undue just to please disruptive editors.Jeppiz (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that is a logical analysis. But the fact that "non-existence has been widely rejected" should be noted, in any case just because it is somewhat in recent memory - flat earth died long, long ago. And as stated above, G.A. Wells, the generally acknowledged standard bearer for the non-existence movement gave up on that several years ago; and no longer denies existence. So let us wait a day or two for possible comments from other users and see what transpires. However, the very record of this discussion can go into the FAQ and IPs can be pointed to it, reducing future debate. History2007 (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Something to spur discussion to the group: Looking at the section as a whole, it appears (to me) that there is a clear cut point following the sentence "Among the variants of the Jesus myth theory...believe that his existence can be established using documentary and other evidence." After this point, the rest of the section delves into fleshing out the narrative of the competing theories and general timelines and roots for these discussions. As I and others have said previously, these topics are all clearly (and much more completely) covered in the Christ myth theory page and the two other "see also" pages. So my suggestion would be to delete everything after this point including the attached file photo. Ckruschke (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

That may in fact work, but I would add perspective there that it was all a flash in the pan idea that never existed in antiquity, appeared somewhat recently, gathered attention in the early/mid parts of the 20th century and died out as the 21st century arrived. History2007 (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Funny, that's exactly where I cut. I do think a brief statement to get across what History 2007 mentions above could be be appended. --JFH (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but now it has been discussed, consensus is likely, and it can go in the FAQ once it has been archived and IPs can be pointed to the reasoning for the brevity of that section. History2007 (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sort of ironic, I think, that just a few hours after this discussion including that the myth theory "died out as the the 21st century arrived" the "no evidence for Jesus' existence" starts up again immediately below. It is a very popular "conspiracy" type theory on many websites, and the article cannot make it too clear that it has minimal standing among serious historians.Smeat75 (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion would be that we simply delete section "4.7 Myth theory view", and incorporate the relevant parts in other sections. For what it's worth, I'd be highly surprised if some of the scholars currently cited under the "myth" would agree with that classification. Scholars like Geza Vermes have done much to shed light on how the historical Jesus likely was very different from the "Christian Jesus" and we should of course not delete any of that - but I'd say it belongs under sections 4.1-4.6 which already deal precisely with this issue. Concerning Jesus's existence, that's already dealt with in 4.1, but a sentence could of course be added to the first paragraph, underlining that there is wide academic consensus that Jesus existed. In other words, I don't see an argument for keeping 4.7 at all, but certainly a strong argument for keeping part of the text there, moved to the relevant sections.Jeppiz (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That may work in 5-7 years when myth theory has been all forgotten. But now, it is kind of alive in people's memory, somewhat like Larry King and G. A. Wells. It is anyone's guess which of the three will take the last breath first, but for now, they are still kind of there... So I think the section is needed for now, just because it is in recent memory - but not for long. History2007 (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I would have to respectfully disagree. By giving a whole section to a "theory" (and "theory" is not the word) that has absolutely zero credibility among experts in the field, we are certainly giving it WP:UNDUE attention. Once again, I am not suggesting we should not mention it at all, but I find it almost preposterous to give it a section of its own. If we compare with another common and contemporary conspiracy theory, there is certainly not a whole section devoted to the 9/11 conspiracy theories at September 11 attacks. I hardly need to point out that there are many theories concerning the historical Jesus with lots of academic support that still do not have a heading of their own at this page. Given that, I see no reason whatsoever to devote a section to a "theory" with no academic support at all. It seems to be a prime case of WP:UNDUE, in fact.Jeppiz (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily arguing for a separate section, but note that Thomas L. Brodie, a bona fide biblical scholar, has recently published a book in which he describes how he came to believe Jesus was a mythical, or literary character. As I understand it from second-hand descriptions he still believes this literary character was the product of divine inspiration, but nevertheless he counts as a serious supporter of mythicism, albeit a particular kind of mythicism. Also note that Richard Dawkins takes the point of view seriously (though he doesn't share it), and Richard Dawkins and the field of evolutionary biology have a lot more scientific credibility than biblical scholarship. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

But look, I do not support the myth theory myself. And non-existence is just one part of it. But we have said all that before. Let us wait and see what the consensus may be and we will do that. My guess is that if there is no section for that, it will surprise some readers. So if we know it is going to rain, we dig something where the rain can flow. But let us wait and see what consensus may emerge, given that our positions are clear now. History2007 (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I will just add that Martijn Meijering's point (made after mine) echoes the situation that myth theory is not 100% dead yet - it is kind of 2% alive, as Brodie's book suggests. In fact Brodie had been building on the Book of Kings analogy for a while but has now gone somewhat further than before. But as Martijn Meijering stated Brodie has very different reasoning from the other scholar out there, namely Price. So there are 2-3 scholars out there yet, and again the theory is alive, somewhat like Mr King and Mr Wells. And who knows, Larry may marry yet again... History2007 (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Richard Carrier is another serious scholar who supports mythicism, though like Dawkins he is also an atheist activist, something that should not be withheld from the reader. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but we have been through that before. People view Carrier as a PhD type historian who does not have an academic position so we could debate his being a scholar as such, but makes no difference. But unlike Price, Dawkins can not read the ancient documents for he is no historian (no at all clear that he reads Greek, Latin, Hebrew, etc. and knows the historical method), so he echoes mostly what G. A. Wells wrote second hand if you read Dawkins. Most of what Dawkins says, comes right from what Wells says. And in any case Dawkins does not flat out deny existence anyway, he just thinks the gospels are 90% invention, but that a preacher probably existed and walked the streets of Jerusalem. In any case, the number of scholars supporters can be counted on one hand, with two or three fingers left over which ever way you count them. The theory has very, very few supporters in academia, and most of the supporters are self-published accountant/attorney/land surveyor types as has been discussed on this page many times before. All I can say is: Déjà vu. History2007 (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Parts of that section are not very well written in my opinion, for instance "The communist state not only supported the Christ myth theory but embellished it with scientific colloquialisms, and school textbooks began to teach that Jesus never existed, making Russia a bastion of Jesus denial. These ideas were rebuffed in Russia by Sergei Bulgakov and Alexander Men, copies of whose book began to circulate underground via typewriters in the 1970s to reintroduce Christianity to Russia." What's a "scientific colloquialism"? How does anything circulate via typewriters? I guess it means via type written copies. Christianity did not need to be "reintroduced" to Russia as there were still functioning churches under the Soviets.]Smeat75 (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and that part of the section is going to go away anyway. History2007 (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Time to move on

Right, time to move on. The argument made by JFH is still perfectly valid. The whole "myth section" should be trimmed down considerably, or deleted as a section but with the relevant parts going into other sections. Right now, a fringe theory that the whole academic field rejects is the longest section in the whole article. In the discussions since JFH made his intial comment, no source has been brought forward that would contest it. This imbalance and gives the whole article a decidedly POV-slant. Even though this article is about a religious person, it should be based on academic sources, not give WP:UNDUE weight to what some individuals chose to believe. We can respect their belief, but the article should not give a personal belief that isn't backed up by a single source the same weight as the whole body of academic research in the field. I'm placing a POV-tag at the article until this problem has been solved, for it's a serious problem that makes the whole article seem rather POV.Jeppiz (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I have come to agree with JFH and you now. And now that the discussion seems to be converging that there are no opposing sources, and given that the Christ myth theory page itself positions it as a theory with minimal academic support, I would move to just add some of that material to other sections tomorrow, be done with it and move on. History2007 (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Evidence for existence

There is no physical evidence that Jesus existed. Nothing physical from the time of his alleged existence. No reference to this Messiah from the age in which he lived. There is no academic consensus that Jesus existed. The so-called "consnsus" exists because the "scholars" who bother to address the question are overwhelmiongly Christian theologians. The "experts" have degrees in theology from Bible colleges. They are rarely historians, rarely secular. There is not a single peer-reviewed reference for the existence of Jesus in this article, which is rather odd for something that is supposedly a fact. There is more support for the existence of Solomon. Humanpublic (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any physical evidence that anyone from that time period existed? What constitutes physical evidence? What would constitute references to this Messiah from the age in which he lived? ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was what I meant by persistence. Humanpublic has been repeating that mantra for a long time, but never provided any supporting sources despite multiple requests... Still has no sources in this post. But I will leave it to you guys to answer now, in view of the above. History2007 (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Humanpublic, a quick review of earlier discussions makes it appear that you may not be LISTENing, which is disruptive. If you have sources from historians contradicting what is in the article, or if you'd like to present reasoning for why one of the article's sources in particular is not a WP:RELIABLESOURCE that might be helpful. --JFH (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Humanpublic is completely correct. The protectors of this article shut THEIR eyes and ears very often too. Very open to evidence that supports their religion. Not accepting of those who point out problems with that evidence, such as the fact that most of the scholars who support their views are fellow Christians. It's a biased sample. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

If the evidence for your position is so radically abundant, it shouldn't be hard for you to provide some. ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not say that the evidence for my position is radically abundant. Quite the contrary, in fact. Do read what people post a little more carefully please. It's very difficult to have a sensible conversation when people ignore what I actually say. And it definitely lowers my regard for your ability to think clearly. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused then at what position you're trying to forward. You are saying that the evidence is not abundant... so why would we include it in the article? ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I have made my point. That question is so far off beam I don't know how to respond. Your inability to comprehend my point is your problem. I'll say little more. I'll just stick around to make sure everyone's aware that there is no consensus for the establishment view here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

"I did not say that the evidence for my position is radically abundant. Quite the contrary, in fact." The contrary of the evidence being abundant would be that it is lacking. Why would we put information into an article when the evidence is lacking? Start making sense. ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, FFS. Just read my FIRST post again (at 22:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC), very carefully, and try a little harder. You're way off beam here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Humanpublic and HiLo48, you do not seem to understand (although I imagine it has been pointed out to you before) that editors on wikipedia are not supposed to state their own conclusions or opinions such as "There is no physical evidence that Jesus existed" or "most of the scholars who support their views are fellow Christians" but neutrally to summarise what reliable sources say. Classical historian Michael Grant, a secular scholar, wrote ""if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned." Now if you can find equally reliable sources that say the opposite, they can be included, but not your own assertions.Smeat75 (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48... your first post implies that there is evidence that we are closing our eyes to. Could you please point us at some of this evidence? ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I have made my point. It's a simple one. No amount of words, denial, and obfuscation negates it. HiLo48 (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, no one seems to get your simple point, so you must not have made it that clearly. ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone here wants to get my point. It would challenge their beliefs, and that's not why they're here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You haven't presented any evidence with which to make that challenge... ReformedArsenal (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

And you have again proven that you don't understand it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Understand what? That you're trying to make an argument with no evidence? ReformedArsenal (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's summarise the issue here. It's simple logic that the vast majority of scholars who study the "history" of Jesus will be Christians. To say that almost all of them agree that Jesus existed is pretty much a stating of the bleeding obvious. Agreed, sources saying he didn't exist are very hard to find, because those who don't believe in his existence tend not to care enough to write academic papers on the matter. That leaves Misplaced Pages with a little problem. Yes, the sources support the views of those who want to say he existed, but that sample of sources is a very biased one, by self selection. A strict interpretation of Misplaced Pages's rules says you can say that "most scholars believe...", but a more ethical position demands that some qualification is written about who those scholars logically are. The biggest problem with what I've just written is that it's all been said before. Some want to ignore it. Some want to say I have no evidence. Of course I bloody well don't! That's the point. Some just don't understand. HiLo48 (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, thank you HiLo48 for being upfront that you do not have any evidence. Hopefully that may conclude this round of the festivities. History2007 (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you're clearly in the "want to ignore it" group. thanks for making that clear. Although I suspect from the tone of your post that you're a little bit in the "just don't understand" group as well. HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I am more in the "I am getting tired of this" group more than any other group. History2007 (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we need a "Don't want to think about it" group. You must agree with my logic about the sources. HiLo48 (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I cannot agree, given that some of the most respected scholars of early Christianity and Hellenistic civilization are non-Chrstian. These include the likes of Amy-Jill Levine, Geza Vermes, Louis Feldman, Paula Fredriksen, Zvi Baras, Shlomo Pines, etc., etc. etc. To explain the point intuitively, please think of it this way: the Hebrew University of Jerusalem usually comes among the top ranked universities in the world, in many fields. And not one historian from that university denies existence; and they are right in Jerusalem and have access to whatever they need. And there are scholars such as Wataru Mizugaki in Kyoto University etc. who are highly respected in the field and none of them denies existence. History2007 (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, can you provide a single academic resource who is an expert in the field of Historical Studies in the 1st century or Classical Studies, or any related field... that claims that Jesus did not exist? ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually just one or two "semi-academic scholars" (i.e. without a professor position) in the related fields may be found (and funnily enough both are semi-Christians say Price and Brodie), but none will be a professor, so no full fledged academic in that sense. In fact according to ABC news if "a full professor of Classics, Ancient History or New Testament in any accredited university in the world who thinks Jesus never lived" can be found then based on this tweet challenge John Dickson will eat a page of his Bible (he say he will eat Matthew 1:1). And so far no professor has been found. But in any case, there are hardly, hardly any mainstream academics that deny existence any more. That seems clear now. And I think HiLo may agree with that headcount. History2007 (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Not a Forum

Can I remind all users, but particularly HiLo48 who appears highly disruptive, that Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTAFORUM. HiLo48 is perfectly free to believe whatever s/he wants, but it is not relevant and not even something that should be posted here. We concern ourselves with sources, not with individual opinions.Jeppiz (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I would remind you, and the others, that repeatedly responding with "But you don't have any sources" when I have actually said precisely that, and the bias in the sources is the point, is a particularly unintelligent form of discussion. My posts are not forum style posts, and for you, Jeppiz, to say that they are simply highlights the problem. I feel that my point is going way over the heads of most here, shall leave my words for people who can think at a more complex level, and move on. Thank you for your (attempt at?) understanding. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so you think all academics in the field are biased. That's a personal opinion to which you're entirely entitled, but as for Misplaced Pages, we don't consider our opinions WP:RS but we do consider academic publications by professors in the relevant field WP:RS; particularly when those professors all agree with each other. As for your suggestion that all those professors are Christians and unreliable, it fails both since being Christian does not automatically disqualify anyone and since it is plainly wrong; there are non-Christian professors who say exactly the same thing. There is not a single professor in any relevant field who says that Jesus never existed.Jeppiz (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, I quoted Michael Grant in this discussion, the lead of the article references Michael Grant, who was a secular classical historian and a very eminent academic who however met with such success as a freelance author that he resigned his academic posts and devoted himself full time to writing books on classical history for general audiences. He did not have any post at a theological school or suchlike to lose when he wrote his book "Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels". I do not know if he had personal religious beliefs but that is irrelevant, the whole point of that book was to bring the same sort of scrutiny to the gospels as to other texts from the Graeco-Roman world. That book came out in 1977 but no other classicist has attempted to rebut his dismissal of the idea that Jesus never existed. Your insistence that all the sources for this article are contaminated by Christian bias is incorrect.Smeat75 (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Michael Grant wrote popular books, and his area of expertise was coins. Humanpublic (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I think HiLo's last messages indicated that he was fully aware of the scarcity of sources but was simply trying to express his views regarding that situation. I think the views on both sides have been expressed now, and unless there are new publications to refer to, we may end up going in circles soon. History2007 (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• There is zero evidence of the existence of Jesus that dates from the time of Jesus. No reference to him in contemporaneous writing, no artifact he is said to have made or used. The source for that is the sources used in this and other articles.
• THe refutation of "All scholars agree..." is not merely "Many scholars disagree...." It is also that many scholars have no opinion. In fact, the most reliable scholars have no opinion, as we can see because the majority of reliable scholars are secular historians, yet the majority of scholars expressing an opinion are Christian theologians. Regardless of whether you agree with my assessment of which scholars are most reliable, it is a fact the many, many scholars simply express no opinion. The subject is of interest primarily to Christian theologians. You probably can't find many historians arguing about whether the Queen of Sheba really existed--that doesn't mean it's a fact she existed. The phrase "Virtually all scholars agree...." misleads the reader. Most historians express no opinion. Humanpublic (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

We have been through this N times now Humanpublic (N being very large), and all that remains constant is: "Humanpublic has zero sources". You were once asked to provide sources and came up with a blog of some type. And I can not recall how many times you have been directed to read WP:V. So let me play that tape again: Please read WP:V, and realize that Misplaced Pages is about sources, not about evidence. You are again reasoning from first principles here, a no-no in Misplaced Pages. That type of reasoning is for forums. and per WP:Forum is not to be between Misplaced Pages editors. And your reasoning again reflects a lack of research into the published literature, where the key example of your line of reasoning would have been a discussion of arguments from silence with special reference to specific 1st century sources. But all of that has been discussed in the scholarly literature, and once you have studied those you will see the larger picture and the reasoning that during his life Jesus had very few followers and was no celebrity, etc. and that many of the mid first century sources do not even refer to Christians at all; showing the perils of arguments from silence. But that is again a WP:Forum issue, and I will hence not pursue it here. But if your case is not WP:HEAR, then I do not know what is. History2007 (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources for what? The non-existence of contemporaneous evidence? The source is Ehrman. Sources that many scholars express no opinion? I'm not saying we put that in the article, so no source is required. I am saying it appears to be true of our sources, and as editors, we are obligated not to mislead the reader. The fact is, most sources used in these articles are Christian theologians. Name some other figures who are not referred to by anybody of their time, and who left no surviving artifacts associated them, whose existence is regarded as a fact. Non-religious, preferrably. Humanpublic (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You got it: sources that discuss the lack of contemporary evidence for Jesus. But again, that is not (repeat not) a discussion for this talk page for you are clearly, clearly running over WP:Forum by repeating arguments of the early proponents of Christ myth theory, as directly stated in the section Christ_myth_theory#Arguments_from_silence. The argument from siilence you are presenting here (and this talk page is not for arguments based on facts) was presented by John Remsburg over a century ago, and has been widely discussed in the literature, as discussed in that section. Frankly, it appears that you have not only not researched teh topic, but not even read the Misplaced Pages articles on the subject, for that issue is already addressed in that article - where it belongs. What is happening here is that this talk page is degenerating into "an internet forum for debate on a fringe side issue". If there is an issue it belongs to that page, not here, for the sources are there. And yes, I did say "sources" for that drives Misplaced Pages. In view of this, would it be even better that there is no myth theory discussion here, as several users suggested, given that it is a fringe topic and there is already a page on myth theory that handles the subject? I am now in agreement with all the other users who recommended that the section be removed and some content merged elsewhere so there is less confusion on it. History2007 (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

"You got it: sources that discuss the lack of contemporary evidence for Jesus." The source is Ehrman:

the fact that there’s no physical evidence or archaeological evidence that Jesus existed—which is absolutely true. There are no writings from Jesus—absolutely true. There are no Roman sources from Jesus’ day that mention Jesus—again, true.]

Now deal with it. Humanpublic (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, I see nothing new in that link. I am fully aware of the link and what Ehrman says is a summary of the myth theory arguments from silence that you were referred to at Christ_myth_theory#Arguments_from_silence. And note that Ehrman rejects the lack of contemporary references as a reason for non-existence if you care to read his book. So the link you have provided does not support your position. You need a source that states:

• "the lack of references to Jesus in contemporary sources is used by most scholars to conclude that he never lived".

If you have such a source I would love to see it. I think once you research the issues it will become clear that you will need "a list" of such 1st century silent sources and the most relevant surviving text would have been Embassy to Gaius. However, Embassy to Gaius never discusses Christians at all, so the argument from silence would have implied that Christians did not exist. And again, if you research it, you will see sources state that only towards the end of the 1st century did Christians become large enough as a group to be noted and recorded. But again, this is really a discussion for the Christ myth theory page which discusses the topic. History2007 (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You asked for a source that discusses the lack of evidence for Jesus. I gave it to you. Your new request for a source is not something I've ever claimed, so I don't need a source for it. As I have pointed out to you repeatedly and for months, the claim "All scholars agree" is refuted by "Many scholars express no opinion." It doesn't require "Many scholars disagree". When your sources are predominantly one-sided, and it seems impossible to produce many secular historians who share that side, it is misleading to say "All scholars agree." Particularly when that one-sidedness involves the biases of faith. Humanpublic (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

So let us get this straight now:

• The title you started this thread with was "Evidence for existence" and your starting statement for the thread was "There is no physical evidence that Jesus existed. Nothing physical from the time of his alleged existence" and that is now being abandoned by you as of not having relevance on the general scholarly opinion about existence. Right? That was the title of this section. And you still have zero sources (yes, zero sources) that state: "the lack of references to Jesus in contemporary sources is used by most scholars to conclude that he never lived". Is that right? Are you dropping that line of reasoning or do you want to spend another year discussing it?

• Having abandoned the starting statement of the thread about contemporary sources, you are now desiring to discuss the issue that: "In the opinion of user:Humanpublic there must be silent scholars in the field who disagree with the mainstream views but say nothing on the subject and hence the sources used are no good". Is that your desired subject of discussion now? Do you have a source for the assertion that you are basing your comment on, or is that view just your personal assessment. And of course, in Misplaced Pages the keyword is: source. So do you have sources? Or are these personal conjectures? And please do count the number of times you have been asked "do you have a source?". I feel it is getting to be a mantra here.

Let us get this stated in clear terms. History2007 (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts.

• I didn't start this thread. I put my comment in the previous thread, and someone else moved it to a new section.
• I have told you repeatedly and for months that "All scholars agree" is refuted by "Many scholars express no opinion" I have never said Jesus didn't exist, nor have I said many scholars say Jesus didn't exist. You seem unable to comprehend the logical distinction between being "agnostic" on the existence of Jesus and "atheistic" on it.
• I have not abandoned the statement that begins the thread. That would be silly, since it supported by reliable sources. Humanpublic (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The only point you may have is that looking at the thread it is not clear how it stared, but in any case, your opening statement was what maters. But let us do things one at a time. One at a time. Do you have sources that state: "the lack of references to Jesus in contemporary sources is used by most scholars to conclude that he never lived". Do you have sources? Keep the issues separate so they can be discussed with sources. Just provide sources, nothing else. Again: sources that say: "the lack of references to Jesus in contemporary sources is used by most scholars to conclude that he never lived". Mantra: do you have sources that say that? History2007 (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there actually anything related to the article under discussion here? NE Ent 17:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You got me, given that no sources are being offered. I am under the impression that WP:Forum is just being thrown to the wind here despite multiple requests to honor it and provide WP:RS sources. The basic rule in Misplaced Pages is: "no source, no go". Hence the mantra: do you have sources? All we have seen has been a link to an interview about a book. It is a good book, but it is by the very same author that rejects the propositions offered by Humanpublic, and the book specifically rejects all that he is presenting - I guess he has not seen the book at all. Go figure. So the mantra is: do you have sources? History2007 (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The article currently says that all scholars agree Jesus really existed. The validity of that is under discussion. History2007 has continually presented the strawman argument that it is hard to find sources who say Jesus did not exist. I point out that "All scholars agree" is refuted by "Many scholars express no opinion," and also by the bias of faith found in the majority of scholars who "agree" (they are dominated by theologians, whose degrees are from seminaries and Bible colleges). He then repeates the strawman arguemnt that I am not producing sources for his quote. I point out that his quote is not anything I am wanting to put in the article, and he ignores that and repeats demands that I support his quote. Yes, something related to the article is under discussion: Does it mislead the reader to say "All scholars agree" that Jesus existed? Humanpublic (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You are switching subjects now. One at a time. Let us get over your initial statement about first century items. Then we will discuss multi-valued logic. I have my arguments ready there too. But one at a time. One at a time. Again: do you have sources that say: "the lack of references to Jesus in contemporary sources is used by most scholars to conclude that he never lived". Once that has been settled we move to the next item. Mantra: do you have sources that say that? History2007 (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Humanpublic, what change do you propose to the article, and how do you support that change. Anything beyond those two questions is completely irrelevant. ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

To cut to the chase, assuming that he will give up on the 1st century sources soon, he seems to hope to dispute the statement in the article "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed" by a two pronged approach:

• The use of simple many-valued logic based quantification based on his personal survey of silent scholars in the field.

• Dismissing the lack of opposing sources as unimportant (a dismissal a will on his part, of course) and questioning existing sources.

And the way he has supported it so far has been by having zero sources. He just says things, and when asked for sources, just says more things. Hence the mantra: do you have sources. History2007 (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with ReformedArsenal, and I would kindly recommend History2007 to stop feeding Humanpublic. I know History2007 has good intentions, but even participating in this discussion is a waste of time. If Humanpublic has changes he wants to make, it's up to him to outline those changes and present the sources for them. Anything else is utterly irrelevant and need not even be answered.Jeppiz (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, will stop feeding him. He has zero sources anyway, so what he says amounts to zero. History2007 (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Article length

There was a suggestion to consider article length and it had been discussed some time ago, so I took a quick look again and compared to the general WP:LENGTH numbers which suggest a definite split at over 100k and a consideration of it between 60 and 100 based on the topic. The size now has grown to 79k, which is just below 19th/20th well known figures such as Abraham Lincoln and JFK which are over 80k each; or larger articles like Russia at 95k. Other articles such as Britney Spears run about 55k. My feeling is that there is more to say on this topic than about Britney, but still some trimming can be done. There is basic consensus now two sections above to trim some of the history of myth items and add some of it to other sections. I think some general trimming on background items can also take place, to bring the size down to somewhere in the 60 range. We can just do the two steps together to get a good idea of the size anyway. History2007 (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I trimmed some and moved some material to Main etc. and now at 67k is within the WP:LENGTH guidelines for a topic like this, below the 80k type pages mentioned above and well below the 100k upper limit. History2007 (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Great!

A big thanks to History2007 for his constructive edit, in line with both the Misplaced Pages guideline and the discussions here at the talkpage. The article is much better now, and you were fully justified to remove the POV-tag I placed here based on the earlier version. Great job! Jeppiz (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Please do send a generous wire transfer on Monday as soon as the banks open. History2007 (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit by NE Ent while discussions are ongoing

NE Ent would you like to explain your bold edit here while discussions are ongoing? You know that it is being discussed right now. You know it has been on WP:RSN. You know there is no talk page consensus for the change, and existing consensus has been discussed about that wording; following a request for assessment on WP:RSN. This did not happen by chance, it was discussed, independent RSN assessment was requested, etc. And yet you just do it? You edit means there may be a 51%-49% consensus, but the sources indicate a far, far more widespread agreement among scholars. I did not boldly revert you, for your action would then in effect start a useless edit war. Bold may be a pillar, but WP:V is not to be forgotten. I see no source for your edit. In any case, someone else reverted it, and so we can hopefully avoid revert ping-pongs, and build consensus in general. History2007 (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

After coming here from the ANI thread, I saw no evidence serious discussions about the article where taking place; comments about other editors are not content discussions.

Content is reliably sourced. Phrasing is not. If fact, taking phrasing directly from sources is copyright violation and prohibited by policy. As to the edit at hand, Virtually all is an absolute (all) preceded by a weasel word (virtually). What encyclopedic purpose does it serve when the simpler, more direct Consensus is will serve just as well? NE Ent 21:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

So you are not disputing the source. Good. But the difference is between a luke-warm consensus and a landslide consensus. And please see FAQ Q 3a regarding the use f virtually, and the search therein. So you really need to be frank about the other issue: is your objection on possible copyright grounds, or deeper grounds about the very widespread vs luke-warm nature of the scholarly consensus? You can of course be very frank/upfront about that and just say it out loud. History2007 (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Lukewarm consensus? Landslide consensus? What is wrong with plain ol' unadjectived consensus? NE Ent 22:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The difference is between 99% of scholars vs 51% of them - a huge difference. Take dietary cholesterol. Is there a 99% consensus among physicians about its impact? No way. No way. They would be lucky to get a 52% agreement and hence they debate it in conferences for ever. A very different situation with going faster than the speed of light among physicists where 99% oppose it. Does the article on speed of light say that there is a consensus about it? As far as I know there are probably 2 physicists that dispute it. History2007 (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Guys, this is hardly a matter to get upset over :-) I can understand NE Ent's edit, though I think History2007 is also right. As the case is a bit stronger than just "consensus", I'd opt for virtually all, but let's not get drawn into a discussion of such a detail at this stage.Jeppiz (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Done deal, will just move on. History2007 (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive edit to introduction

Despite having no consensus for his claims, Humanpublic went ahead and inserted his claim into the introduction. What is more, his edit was intellectually dishonest in the extreme, as he took a source that states categorically that Jesus existed and used it to claim that there is no evidence for Jesus's existence. Given that Humanpublic has been informed about Misplaced Pages's policies time and time again, his edit appears to be clearly disruptive. Controversial changes are to be discussed on the talk page, and using sources to claim the opposite of the main message of the source is just dishonest. Should it be repeated, it looks like a clear case for ANI. If Humanpublic wishes to argue for the change to the introduction, he is of course welcome to do it. Preferably with sources that support his argument.Jeppiz (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I just saw that and after the long discussion above regarding arguments from silence Embassy to Gaius etc. in this edit Humanpublic modified what the sources say, and added WP:Synthesis using a source by Ehrman which effectively rejects the assertions made in the very edit. I did not revert that not to start an edit war with a WP:SPA, but that was a disruptive in my view in that it misrepresents the source and the user has been informed of that in a very long discussion above. History2007 (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

What I wrote didn't "categorically" state that there is "no evidence for the existence of Jesus." I said exactly what the source says.

The source says: "there’s no physical evidence or archaeological evidence that Jesus existed—which is absolutely true. There are no writings from Jesus—absolutely true. There are no Roman sources from Jesus’ day that mention Jesus—again, true."

I added to the article: "There’s no physical or archaeological evidence that Jesus existed, nor are there any writings from Jesus. There are no sources from the time Jesus is alleged to have lived that mention him."

If you'll explain how I "modified what the source says...and added synthesis" (what exactlly is "synthesis"), we might be able to work together.

OK, I omitted "Roman". If I add that back, will that be acceptable? Humanpublic (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTHESIS. And also note that a source may say Jerusalem is south of Galilee but that does not by itself qualify it for inclusion in the lede. What you knowingly did was change scholars of antiquity to NT scholars, and precede that with a sentence comment from Ehrman, an author who a few paragraphs later rejects the applicability of the lines you picked. Your edit was a clear reflection of your own views which were being discussed 2 sections above, and you were told about the scholarly views just above and how scholars see your view of having very little relevance, if any at all. So you should have discussed those, not use sources that contradict your own views. History2007 (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

He calls them "absolutely true". That's a weird way to "reject the assertions". The fact that there is no archaeological evidence and no contemporaneous evidence of any kind for the existence of Jesus is relevant and likely to be of interest to people. It is highly relevant to the readers making up their own minds. It belongs in the article and, if historical existince is going to be in the led, it belongs in the lede. Nothing I wrote is synthesis as the page you linked to defines it. I nearly quoted the source exactly, except for dropping the word "Roman." You are censoring. Humanpublic (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

No, as I said, a source may say that "it is absolutely true that Jerusalem is south of Galilee" and you say why should it not be added, given that I quoted the source. Please read WP:LEDE. The lede must reflect what the body of the article states. A detailed discussion of the first century sources has not been presented in the body and can hence not be present in the lede. If there is a detailed discussion of 1st century sources in the body, then its conclusions can get "summarized" in the lede. If you think a lengthy discussion of first century sources is needed in this article, it can of course be discussed. But unless present in the body can not go in the lede per WP:LEDE. But that is just one problem, and whatever goes in the lede must be a clear reflection of the scholarly consensus on the subject, again per WP:LEDE. Else another user will add something else Ehrman said next to yours, and the lede will be the size of 3 sections. There are policies and guidelines, you seem unaware of them, and are walking all over them. And please avoid multiple reverts, for an edit war will buy nothing except headaches and wasted time. Please discuss before reverting. History2007 (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The basic idea is already there: "Supporters of the Christ myth theory point to the lack of any known written references to Jesus during his lifetime and the relative scarcity of non-Christian references to him in the 1st century, and dispute the veracity of the existing accounts of him.". If I add info about archaelogical evidence (none) and writings of Jesus (none), will you accept that? Humanpublic (talk) 02:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, if there is scholarly dispute about the nonexistence of any evidence from his alleged time, please provide sources. Humanpublic (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is WP:Due as well as WP:LEDE and of course WP:Fringe now. Although the "supporters of the Christ myth theory point to the lack of any known written references to Jesus" that section makes it clear that the myth theory is a WP:Fringe item. And fringe items can not get prime time in the lede. The long and short of it is that your edit is giving prime time importance to a WP:Fringe item, and is hence running over multiple policies. A few sections above there was a long discussion and a clear consensus that Christ myth theory items are WP:Fringe items and should be minimized in this article. You certainly saw that discussion. Hence please avoid the addition of WP:Fringe items to the lede, for even their inclusion in the body was rejected by consensus a few sections above here. Hence the path you are following is going to lead to nowhere for it is both clearly against the consensus established a few sections above and clearly against policy per WP:Fringe and WP:LEDE both. History2007 (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw that you added a sentence on that, and I added proper overview sources. As you see, the lack of 1st century sources is not accepted by scholars as an indication of non-existence. Hence you can not give it prime time in the lede, per WP:Synthesis, WP:LEDE and WP:Fringe. Is that clear now? History2007 (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

What you added was, ironically, an enormous amount of "synthesis" as defined in the link you gave me. And, NONE of it it is verifiable since it is all from books. Please cite below all of the actual source text you are using in what you jus added. Your comment about the lede doesn't make sense to me. The lede should contain what is highly relevant. The absolute lack of physical evidence is relevant to historicity, so if historicity belongs in the lede, so does the lack of evidence. Please quote the texts you cite below, so we can assess them.... Humanpublic (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

What nonsense. It is verifiable; if you want to verify it, get the books. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Seb is right of course. I did get a chuckle out of "NONE of it it is verifiable since it is all from books." You need to read WP:V as well. Books by well known publishers are the best WP:RS sources. Trust me that after writing 600 articles I know how to source. Trust me on that one per WP:AGF. I do not need to quote my source so you can assess it. Trust me on that, and read WP:RS about books being the best sources. As for lack of sources being relevant, so is the inapplicability of arguments from silence. Look, there is an entire article on Christ myth theory and you are effectively attempting to do a WP:Merge on these two articles. If you wan to do that, suggest it here, and there. All your edits are pointing to the presentation of Christ myth theory in the lede. If that is to happen, there needs to be a WP:Merge. To make it easy for you, I will suggest it in both places. And we will let the process begin. Now, remember WP:3RR, stop reverting for a day or two and let us see what people say about the merge idea. Ok? History2007 (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not "applying" any arguments. I'm informing readers of facts that are true, relevant, interesting, and sourced. Everything you added is just an attempt to belittle those facts. And a lot of it is synthesis and irrelevant. According to the definition you gave, the argument from silence applies mainly to writings. The facts I added are about physical and archaeological evidence. Please quote the texts you are citing. You made your edit less than 20 minutes after mine, and added seven sources. I find it hard to believe you carefully examined seven scholarly books in less than 20 minutes. Humanpublic (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Now, read WP:AGF and stop this. Understand? I do not need to examine 7 books in 20 minutes. I have researched this topic for years. I know exactly where to get the sources for I have spent years on that. The 7 sources I added came from... you guess. I had even given you the link in the section above, you did not even read it. History2007 (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You complained I was merging Christ myth theory with this article, then you took whole chunks of text and references from Christ myth theory and added them to this article. Have you actually read the sources you cited?? Humanpublic (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

and have you read his explanation. Not everyone here started reading books yesterday. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I will have to stop for a while, but will be back later. History2007 (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this discussion is an instance, of a more general WP:Fringe issue, as below. I will just briefly mention that in the historical method arguments from silence may go beyond text, have been discussed since the Rankian method, are part of folk knowledge, and are a somewhat weak method of analysis in many cases from a historical analysis perspective. Nothing new to write home about. History2007 (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't present an argument. I added true relevant and sourced facts. You then added a bunch of synthesis about the argument from silence, apparently with sources you haven't read. Again, please tell us: 1) which of the sources you added have you actually read, if any, 2) what they actually say. Thanks. Humanpublic (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the argument you made, we both could and should mention in the relevant section of the article that there is no physical evidence for Jesus. However, when so doing, we should stay true to the sources and reflect what they say. Surely you agree that the main message of the article you cite is that there is no doubt about Jesus's existence. Now, if you want to make an argument about this historical person being very different from the "Christian Jesus", you have both my support and, more to the point, the support of good academic sources.Jeppiz (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is now taking place on Chris myth theory, where he is even asking if the term exists. Good Heavens. This is eating time like anything, but here is the term The Argument from Silence John Lange, History and Theory, Vol. 5, No. 3 (1966), pp. 288-301. Quite obvious actually. But this is bordering on comedy now, asking if the term exists, asking for a "basic tutorial" on the historical method, etc. Anyone can type into Misplaced Pages of course, logical or not, but this is pushing to the limit of absurdity. History2007 (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This user is now running wild, cutting items all over the place based on Misplaced Pages:I just don't like it. In this edit he deleted a ref to the Oxford Dictionaty and added a website. I have not looked at the website yet (which may eventually get WP:LINKROT), but the Oxford Dictionary is a good source. In the next edit just deleted a source statement that goes against his arguments elsewhere. This needs to stop. History2007 (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the sources you added here, or not? I see the material I removed from Argument from silence was added by you. You used a 2007 translation of a text from the year 1103 as a source. You misquoted another book that was not reliable anyway--a book on trade in ancient Greece not a source on the general validity of a type of argument, and it didn't say what you said anyway. You don't seem to bother to actually research the sources you use.Humanpublic (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:Fringe myth theory items in this article

Given the discussion above about first century items, I thought that the length and the nature of that discussion is just a classic case of arguments to include WP:Fringe items in Misplaced Pages. I think the new user advocating them is probably not even aware of the WP:Fringe policies in Misplaced Pages, the general patterns involved and that policy is clearly against these items. So please do realize that:

• Your desired outcome is a WP:Fringe view rejected in this consensus discussion. Note that almost all users in that discussion wanted less/no fringe in this article.

• WP:Fringe debates are nothing new in Misplaced Pages. Do read the 3 threads here on Plasma, rejuvenation, etc. (just because I happen to recall them) and click through the debates about WP:SPA fringe promotion, etc. This happens all the time, and the end result is the same.

There are specific policies and guidelines that prohibit the use of WP:Fringe within mainstream articles such as this one. Fringe theories may, on occasion, appear within specific ancillary articles about them (if they meet WP:NOTE), but not (really not) within mainstream articles such as this one. Please read WP:Due and what Jimmy Wales said about it:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

So the WP:Fringe "non-existence debate" items that you are championing have no place in this article, except for a small mention somewhere in a section, with a link to the Christ myth theory page; per policy. This is not a question of your deciding that "it is interesting". It is not (really not) based on your determination of it being interesting or relevant. If a viewpoint has very few academic supporters (and yours is directly in that category based on this discussion) it has no place in this article, let alone the lede, regardless of your personal feelings about its interestingness or relevance. That is Misplaced Pages policy.

Users show up on Misplaced Pages and argue for the inclusion of Fringe theories on topics ranging from Plasma dust to rejuvenation to Christ myth theory as the link above shows. In the end, they get nowhere, because there are policies against fringe. All it does is reverse rejuvenation for all who participate in the discussions. Nothing else.

The line of reasoning that advocates the inclusion of Christ myth theory items in this mainstream article runs directly against "very clear policies" against their inclusion, as stated by Jimmy Wales long ago: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article". I think he said it very well. History2007 (talk) 12:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge this article with Christ myth theory?

I am just typing this to get it out in the open. But the edits by user:Humanpublic seem to want to effectively merge in all the discussion of non-existence of Jesus, 1st century sources, Remsburg-type ideas, myth theory etc. here; and that type of text has to appear here now to deal with that. I do not think it makes sense. But let us have a general discussion on that please and see what the consensus may be. I will also mention it on that page as a formality. History2007 (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

182,261+177,197=359,458. Nope. That'd be the longest article on wikipedia and call for a split again. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Actually the official numbers used for WP:LENGTH are 68868 + 74878 = 143746 and they run over the guideline by over 50%. That article is even longer than this one it seems. But my main reason for it not making sense is that Christ myth theory is a clear WP:Fringe item. So the Remsburg-type ideas that Humanpublic keeps advocating as highly relevant here, are not and should be there, not here. That was the consensus 4 sections above, but he is still saying that, so we shall keep dancing... History2007 (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

No indeed. that and Historicity of Jesus might be the better merge, but that is 122k, which I suppose is why we have the splits we do. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me John, do you ever sleep? But you are of course right. And that merger will also not make sense. History2007 (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Delisted good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• Top-importance Christianity articles
• B-Class Christian theology articles
• Top-importance Christian theology articles
• Christian theology work group articles
• B-Class Saints articles
• Top-importance Saints articles
• WikiProject Saints articles
• B-Class Catholicism articles
• Top-importance Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Catholicism articles
• B-Class Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• Unknown-importance Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• B-Class Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• Top-importance Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• B-Class Jewish Christianity articles
• Top-importance Jewish Christianity articles
• WikiProject Jewish Christianity articles
• B-Class Anglicanism articles
• Top-importance Anglicanism articles
• WikiProject Anglicanism articles
• B-Class Latter Day Saint movement articles
• Top-importance Latter Day Saint movement articles
• WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• B-Class Islam-related articles
• Mid-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (core) articles
• Core biography articles
• Top-importance biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Bahá'í Faith articles
• High-importance Bahá'í Faith articles
• WikiProject Bahá'í Faith articles
• B-Class Bible articles
• Top-importance Bible articles
• WikiProject Bible articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English