Talk:Historicity of Jesus#This article should use CE format

Can anyone point me to the consensus to adopt the slate of page FAQ? It appears to be error riddled and POV warring so what is the history here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:Didn't even know it existed until you pointed it out. Looks like many editors here have such lack of confidence in their claims that they went and created another place where they can place their authoritative nonsense and quote their weak sources. BTW, Horse Eye's Back, I agree that at the end of the above discussion you are being bullied and insulted. It is never appropriate to tell an editor that they should "get educated." StarHOG (Talk) 23:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::See WP:DONTGETIT. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::What in the world does that have to do with anything? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Joshua Jonathan Ever considered whether your standard "ad infinitum" reply could mean that the consensus of editors may be the other way around, and that you and very few others are the ones who wp:don'tgetit? Joortje1 (talk) 07:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::You indeed tend to bully and insult people who just don't buy the article's promotion of the theological stance on a question about History and the censorship of other views. I've cited plenty sources with much more academic weight than the blogs, trade books and religious publications that a few editors have used to make it look as if a belief in a historical Jesus is the only sensible option.

:::WP:COISOURCE : Any publication put out by an organization is clearly not independent of any topic that organization has an interest in promoting.

:::Theology “is the study of religious belief from a religious perspective, with a focus on the nature of divinity.” Joortje1 (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Regarding: {{tq|plenty sources with much more academic weight than the blogs, trade books and religious publications that a few editors have used to make it look as if a belief in a historical Jesus is the only sensible option [...] Any publication put out by an organization is clearly not independent of any topic that organization has an interest in promoting.}} - a misrepresentation of the sources being used here (which include BRILL and OUP), which is itself WP:TENDENTIOUS and, indeed, a token of WP:DONTGETIT. But, yes, I've considered your suggestion for a split-second, and concluded again that you are consistently using the talkpages as a WP:FORUM, refusing to understand what an avalance of sources say. That's WP:DISRUPTIVE. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::When you just gratuitously attack everyone who disagrees you but fail to point to the conclusive consensus you claim everyone else is editing against its you who has a problem... Even if you're right that isn't an excuse for this behavior. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Sourced in the article, extensively additional support in the long list of quotes I provided. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Thats not a consensus... If you're explicitly claiming that people are editing agaisnt consnesus you actually need to be able to point to that consensus... Which you have so far failed to do. You can't even tell us where the consensus is to adopt the FAQs. None of this should be hard, its just absurd that we're this far into the discussion and you simply have not produced the consensuses you say exist. Instead you've veered into straight up attacking anyone who points that out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Too many threads here.... I missed that you're now wondering over the FAQ'S. I'll see what I can find. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus/Archive_31#FAQ, added 12 may 2013 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHistoricity_of_Jesus&diff=554722432&oldid=552324416 diff]. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::So there was never a consenus to adopt this FAQ? Becuase from the addition diff what we have here appears to be an essay, not a FAQ. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I have too much time on my hands and went through all the talk page archives from that point on, didn't see much actually talking about creating/adding to the FAQ rather than just referencing it. Sock-the-guy (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::The FAQ seems to have endured because it does answer many repetative questions or concerns that keep on recurring throughout the years - including the ones above. Otherwise, it would be very tiring to have to repeat numerous points to every editor for context. For example questions about policy, scholarship, what the difference between articles is, and quotes are quite good. I deal with Holocaust stuff and it gets really tiring to have to repeat basic info to random editors who think they know more than experts in these fields. Certainly has reduced the number of edit wars. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Well it just stopped enduring... No explicit consensus means no FAQ. Nobody would have removed it because the assumption is that if a FAQ exists it was created through a community process and adopted by the community... Neither appears to have happened here and it has obvious errors. It seems to have been used as a cudgel to push a certain POV, it certainly was not neutrally written. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::{{tq|No explicit consensus means no FAQ}} - on the contrary, consensus to add this, never objected against, an accurate reflection of the state of affairs, and indeed meant as a shortcut for random editors who bring up the same misperceptions again and again. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Implied consensus ends the moment it is challenged no matter how long its been in place. It also appears to have been objected to multiple times, particularly over the direct term use that appears to not exist. Again it never read as an FAQ, it always read as a POV rant which just makes we question the competence of the editors who continually referred to it. How did you go all those years without noticing such a massive and basic error? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::{{tq|Implied consensus ends the moment it is challenged no matter how long its been in place}} Says you. I believe FAQ content should be handled just as article space content is... implied consensus builds the longer it has been present, and does not simply evaporate the moment someone challenges it. Marcus Markup (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::That is not how it works with article space content. See WP:IMPLIEDCONSENSUS and Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::The comment that Joshua labeled “misrepresentation” was clearly not about the academic sources, but about the cited blogs (for instance Hurtado 2017, Ehrman’s “Fuller reply”), trade books (Casey, Ehrman, et cetera), and religious publications (Van Voorst, Marina, etc). Such sources are relatively often brought up here in attempts to silence many other editors’ arguments that are supported by plenty of reliable academic sources (including the few peer-reviewed volumes on this fringe subject). Joortje1 (talk) 08:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::For all of Joortje1 complaints about biblical studies, his favorite fringe source published under Shefield Pheonix Press a biblical studies only publisher and has not gained acceptance. Ramos1990 (talk) 12:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::And what does that have to do with the FAQ or is it just a gratuitous personal attack against Joortje1? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Joortje1 has been warned before on his repetative POV [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus/Archive_42#A_problem_of_WP:HEAR] by other editors. Using this page as a forum is indeed WP:TENDENTIOUS. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::That isn't an answer, its two more personal attacks. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::To frame reminders of disruptive editing as personal attacks is a misrepresentation, and itself a personal attack. So far, it is, again and still, a long push to present fringe views as mainstream views, with baseless rejections of rdvular scholarship as non-reliable, religiously motivated publications. No further substantation than mere statements, no comprehension of the field of study, just personal opinions and endless repetition. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Most of my comments here are in response to two dominant editors’ recurring actions that frustrate other editors’ attempts to address the hyperbolical tone and the bias of our article. I try to add new academic citations and different arguments, but that’s hard to keep up if they hardly change their game. I also find it hard to keep discussions focussed on the addressed problems if they keep bringing up wild theories that nobody else here seems to care about. Joortje1 (talk) 08:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Reminders of disruptive editing are not supposed to be made on the article talk page... Especially in unrelated discussions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::My personal preferences have very little to do with my concerns about the academic quality of many of the sources cited on the article, talk page and faq. I have already clarified that I’m not fond of Carrier’s work (for Sheffield Phoenix Press) and I am sceptical of "cmt" in general. After I originally proposed to ignore Carrier, I have deemed it necessary to take his book into account since Ramos1990 pointed out that it was 1 of only 2 mainstream peer-reviewed volumes on the subject. Lataster’s 2019 survey of the discourse seems more useful to me (even if I’ve personally found it too exhaustive to check it in detail), while Dykstra and Meggitt’s articles have more neutral voices that imho might better suit our article. Joortje1 (talk) 08:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:The FAQ looks more biased than the article; even the holocaust denial comparison seems to get embraced as authoritative fact rather than a very poor argument that would never do in normal academic discourse (Godwin's law, without any consideration of the huge qualitative and quantitative differences in available evidence). Joortje1 (talk) 07:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm not certain that "mainstream" and "fringe" are being used here properly. There is no indication, from internet searches on the topic that the idea that jesus was real or not, is in anyway shape or form, mainstream. Or that the idea he didn't exist is fringe. There are too many conflicting and opposite sources out there on both subjects. You cannot base "mainstream" or "fringe" on a single group of sources, like "biblical scholars", listing quotes from them as if it is the end all be all. That is done time and again on this talk page and in the article. "You see, this has all been decided long ago because these people, who like the bible, wrote books, and they said 'jesus was real', and then they said they were right, and then they said everyone agreed with them, and then they said everyone else is wrong, so you see, they wrote it in books so it must be true, and we're going to base "mainstream" and "fringe" off of that, and we're going to construct this article as if everything is decided." Not trying to offend, just trying to sum up the rationale here. StarHOG (Talk) 15:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::You're not certain. Not when you rely on unspecified "internet searches," and ignore the WP:RS used in the article. See also WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE: we don't give equal weight to, indeed, fringe theories not supported in mainstream scholarship. Wikipedia summarizes what mainstream scholarship says; this is what mainstream scholarship says. If you think that that mainstream is biased, unqualifid, et cetera, because a subset of those scholars is Christian, then please take it to the reliable sources noticeboard and explain there how BRILL, OUP, et cetera, are unreliable and unrepresentative for the state of the field. And disclose the sources you've found with your internet searches, so others can actually judge them. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Historicity is a broader concept than whether or not the figure existed... And if you disagree then why is CMT a seperate article? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::Again, Joshua Jonathan, is basing all of these statements on biblical scholars somehow being elevated to be the authoratative source for this article. They are not. In fact, their being used as sources is questionable at all, since their work is not based on any type of reasonable investigative process. Additionally, the label "fringe" has been assigned to alternate theories by only these references, so it isn't a valid label, either. These sources need to be vetted for their legitamacy as a wikipedia source. As I said, the article needs a complete overhaul, beginning with the lead that this should be a pro vs con presentation of arguments. Then we can re-build the separate sections and examine all the sources that get quoted.StarHOG (Talk) 12:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|their work is not based on any type of reasonable investigative process}} - obviously Oxford University Press, BRILL, and other reputable publishers beg to disagree with you. See WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Interesting. Last time I checked, [https://brill.com/display/title/54738 Brill's 2019 peer-reviewed volume on the subject], supports precisely what @StarHOG and many others have argued.

::::Your arguments seem to correspond more with blogs by theologians like those of Hurtado and Ehrman that you want to keep on our page, or that Croatian review for a religious journal by an Ehrman employee, or those sources by theologians from before there were any peer-reviewed publications on this subject. Joortje1 (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The lonely voice of Lataster.... Regarding {{tq|theologians like those of Hurtado and Ehrman}}, you shoudl have understood by now that Ehrman is not a theologia, and even if he was, it does not automatically imply his writings are unthrustworthy. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::A Master of Divinity/PhD form Princeton Theological Seminary makes one a theologian, even if you specialise in biblical studies and [https://www.facebook.com/reel/1551872998715347 are no longer enthousiastic about that education].

::::::If we consider trade books on mythicism, Ehrman and Casey are lonely voices who believe in a historical Jesus. Ehrman's is better than Casey's, but very clearly went without any form of academic editorial control.

::::::Lataster and Carrier are indeed relatively lonely experts who rigorously investigated this subject, and more importantly: there seem to be no other monographs on this subject from academic publishers, let alone peer-reviewed ones. Joortje1 (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Thanks for the explanation, I think I understand your line of reasoning here: 'because the few peer-reviewed publications on the topic question the existence of an historical Jesus, peer-reviewed publications establish the non-historicity of Jesus'. There's logic in it. Problem is, though, there are only a few books on the (a)historicity because it's a non-issue in the academics. And there are tons of academic publications on Jesus and the origins of Christianity which take his historicity for granted, and/or reject the ahistoricity or CmT. "Lonely experts" is only a quarter corret; they are "lonely" with regard to their adherence to the CmT, they are not lonely with regard to Biblical research - except that they are not considered "experts" in the field; they have zero impact in the field. And with regard to Lataster being published by BRILL, SUNY published in the 2010s [https://sunypress.edu/Series/S/SUNY-series-in-Integral-Theory SUNY series in Integral Theory], also a fringe topic (:Integral Theory); academic publishers too can publish weird stuff.... For another comparison: BRILL also publishes [https://brill.com/view/journals/jshj/jshj-overview.xml Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus], further illustrating the disparity between ahistoricity and historicity. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Isn't that actually illustrating the disparity between history and theology/religious studies? Historical in that sense doesn't distinguish it from ahistorical it distinguishes it from religious/spiritual/philosophical. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::What do you mean by "theology/religious studies"? They are not the same thing. KnowDeath (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@Joshua Jonathan Very good to learn that you appreciate this and now understand the logic.

::::::::"a non-issue in the academics" is what I've been saying for a while: the topic is on the "fringes" of scholarship and most professional historians find this question [https://www.abc.net.au/religion/miles-pattenden-historians-and-the-historicity-of-jesus/13720952 not only unanswerable but also uninteresting].

::::::::“take his historicity for granted” as I’ve often pointed out, may be fine as an axiom for further theorisation, but it’s a pointless assumption that makes one’s opinion about the topic irrelevant.

::::::::We'll have to make do with the few academic sources that do discuss the topic. Meggitt seems to give [https://www-cambridge-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/more-ingenious-than-learned-examining-the-quest-for-the-nonhistorical-jesus/B1A4799BE91AB5300671D4013194DD4C#fn19 a useful overview of the discourse] from a relatively neutral pov. Joortje1 (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{tq|We'll have to make do with the few academic sources that do discuss the topic}} - eh, no; we actually have a lot of sources, as quoted in the article. What you're referring to is the CmT, for which we have a separate article. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@StarHOG I agree with you. This is an encyclopedia, not a missionary platform. I have repeated this many times. The article should be balanced, and opposing views should not be suppressed—let alone removed. 2409:40C1:1036:C557:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:This seems to be written by the same user as wrote this FAQ Talk:Quest for the historical Jesus/FAQ (Also without consensus) Sock-the-guy (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::Actually given the name of "VanishedUser" I'm unsure on that now Sock-the-guy (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::VanishedUserABC edited as History2007 so unless I'm missing something its the same editor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Honestly I'm kinda new and thought maybe that was a wiki-vanished thing, and didn't want to automatically assume otherwise. Thanks for clarifying! Sock-the-guy (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::As far as I remember, they were a pretty good editor; the 'vanished' indeed, unfortunately. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::They were a Christian POV warrior, very openly so. I would not in hindsight call them a good editor I would call it good riddance but then again hindsight is the only option I have here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::Is having the community craft an FAQ and agreeing upon it prior towards its being linked to an article a thing on Wikipedia? I'm unaware of an example. Otherwise, I'm not sure why mentioning "{{tq|(Also without consensus)}}" is relevant. Marcus Markup (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes that is how FAQ generally work, they evolve organically they aren't created by one editor and certainly not by a POV warrior. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

There now seems to be about the same amount of editors interested in both sides of this topic, all presenting worthy arguments and discussing sources, as editors should, that we should attempt to restructure the article with a neutral point of view. One that presents both theories so that readers can get what they expect from an encyclopedia. I'm going to post my original, neutral lead. It is not perfect, and I encourage editors to make it better. Additionally, the sections on the different theories will each need a tremendous amount of work. I hope that editors here who are passionate about one side or the other will focus their energies on improving these sections. Please remember that all language should reflect the neutral point of view wikipedia requires; let your source quotes "argue" for you. StarHOG (Talk) 02:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:That violates WP:FALSEBALANCE. There is no consensus to equate mainstream consensus views with fringe as if they are equally valid. It will be reverted if you do. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:I reverted since no cosensus on changing the lead like that. It removes the historical context of scholarship. If you want to chnage something be specific to discuss here. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:StarHOG, the pro and con you seem to want already exists in CMT article here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#Mainstream_and_mythicist_views_on_the_arguments Mainstream and mythicist views on the arguments]. A point by point mainstream vs mythicist section is there with numerous sources. It was already developed through the years. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:Your "neutral lead" is inadequate; the WP:LEAD summarizes the article, which you don't do do by removing most of that summary, and giving unequal weight to a fringe theory. Also, {{tq|worthy arguments and discussing sources}} is not the case here; what we've been reading here again and again is that some people want to give undue weight to a fringe theory, rejecting almost all scholarship as being 'religiously motivated' without giving any shred of evaluation of any specific source. In contrast, one of the few peer revieewed sources on the CmT, which itself has a separate page, appears to be almost, if not completely, irrelevant in Jesus-research. So, a "balanced" presentation is what the page is now: an overview of scholarship, a modest subsection on the CmT, and a categorical rejection of the CmT as being irrelevant to that scholarship. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::You are both incorrect. "Christ Myth" is labeled fringe ONLY by the questionable biblical scholar references. It doesn't bother you, as an editor, that source material, cherry picked from a vast amount of material out there, not only declares itself as being correct and everyone else is wrong, but it also authoritatively labels other theories as "fringe"? Additionally, there is a consensus that this article is worded in a non-NPOV format. Numerous editors have placed that in our discussion topics above. Editor Joshua Jonathan flat out refused/dodged the question if they thought this was NPOV or not in an above discussion: because it isn't neutral. Reworking the article as an NPOV project should be our #1 priority as editors. To Ramos1990 above points about the clearing of information when I replaced the lead...please re-add it under the appropriate argument section! Please! Put it in there, where it belongs. StarHOG (Talk) 13:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia considers CMT as fringe same as it considers Adam and Eve as myth. WP:RS/AC cuts both ways. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::StarHOG you never discussed this massive change to the lead. You just did it while all of these coversations were ongoing. Please do not edit war. And instead provide a specific suggestion or wording here. Ramos1990 (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::What is the point of StarHOG suggesting anything when you outright reject his/her reasoning and threaten with reversions at the opening of your statements? At this point, you seem openly hostile in tone, Ramos1990. Dimadick (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::They have not suggested specific changes aside from generlaizations on the topic. If the lead was the issue and lack of awareness of the pro vs con section in the other article, it should have been specified a long time ago. That can be resolved. I would not mind compromising with specifics. Ramos1990 (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::They have suggested specific changes, unless I'm missing something you have rejected all of them. You're in a bit of a pickle here... You can't say that "They have not suggested specific changes aside from generlaizations on the topic." because you've reverted specific changes from them[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historicity_of_Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=1288503817], but yet you are saying it. The talk page history also suggests that you do in fact mind compromising, your approach to this article is in general extremely uncompromising. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The WP:LEAD summarizes the article; your 'proposal' removed most of the summary, and put an undue weight on a fringe-view. It is considered fringe by almost any scholar; the questionability of those scholars is nowhere being established, and won't be, 'cause your only argument is that they're biased because some of them are Christian. That's your personal opinion, not an adequate picture of the state of current schoalrship, nor in line with WP:RS. Let's quote Hurtadohere again:

:::{{talkquote|:Larry Hurtado (December 2, 2017), [https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017/12/02/why-the-mythical-jesus-claim-has-no-traction-with-scholars/ Why the "Mythical Jesus" Claim Has No Traction with Scholars]: "The "mythical Jesus" view doesn't have any traction among the overwhelming number of scholars working in these fields, whether they be declared Christians, Jewish, atheists, or undeclared as to their personal stance. Advocates of the "mythical Jesus" may dismiss this statement, but it ought to count for something if, after some 250 years of critical investigation of the historical figure of Jesus and of Christian Origins, and the due consideration of "mythical Jesus" claims over the last century or more, this spectrum of scholars have judged them unpersuasive (to put it mildly)."}}

:::And Van Voorst:

:::{{talkquote|Van Voorst (2003), p.658, 660: "debate on the existence of Jesus has been in the fringes of scholarship [...] for more than two centuries [...] Among New Testament scholars and historians, the theory of Jesus' nonexistence remains effectively dead as a scholarly question."}}

:::Regarding people like Hurtado as 'biased scholars' is a painfull display of ignorance and disregard of the depth of scholarship and accomplishments of these people... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:@StarHOG, parachuting in here. I have to make doubly clear that if you genuinely survey the reliable sources produced by qualified scholars in the relevant fields, there is near-universal consensus that Jesus of Nazareth was very likely a historical figure. Framing the issue instead as one of lively debate between scholars, who have themselves amassed bodies of research of comparable quantity or quality to one another on either side—is as stated above, clearly presenting a WP:FALSEBALANCE, and frankly a deeply immoderate one at that. You need to do a lot better interrogating why you are struggling to construct an "exalted mythicist" position with compelling sourcing—instead of trying to ascribe mysterious, ineffable bias to nearly every editor around you, or making blanket characterizations of basically every scholar with relevant credentials that just aren't the case, which I'm afraid seem likely to hinge on biases stemming directly from you, not from us or them. Remsense ‥ 论 00:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::"reliable sources produced by qualified scholars in the relevant fields"

::That would be academic publications by scholars who used proper historical methodologies, not blogs by theologians or books from religious publishers as quoted above and in our article. Joortje1 (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

{{U|StarHOG}}, despite User:Dimadick's comment about Ramos's tone, you clearly do not have consensus here for your edits. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:Seconding, two wrongs don't make a right. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:Certainly has more people supporting his view. And mind you, it isn’t StarHOG who launched Operation Cry for Help and pinged his ideologically aligned admins in frustration. 2409:40C1:2E:ECD9:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Remsense ‥ 论, nice to have another editor weigh in. I have to agree with Joortje1, the "majority of biblical scholars" statement, so often reduced to just "a majority of scholars", is so misleading. For one thing, throwing around the word "scholar" to casual readers makes them think "scientist" which they are not. Examining their work. Examining those publications and their methods makes one realize immediately the poor reasoning used compared to a scientific-style publication. Now, I'm not saying these publications can't be used; it's well documented that we have scant evidence other than studying the bible to base jesus' reality on. The second problem is that these same publication authors (biblical scholars) - and only these publications - refer to the christ myth theory as "fringe". This is then used as a basis to label any dissenting editorial efforts as unwarranted on this page. The protective editors here consistently and deliberately muddy the waters between what is said in a biblical scholar quote and what the wikipedia rules are. For instance, they will remove an editor's addition that doubts jesus' existence and use the rationale that the biblical scholars say it is fringe, and then jump to wikipedia not allowing undue weight for fringe theories. These are two different things, because you aren't proving the biblical scholar is correct in their assessment; in fact it is a personal statement of bias contained in their publication, but you then you revert it because of a wikipedia rule based on not using material that has proven to be fringe. When this is pointed out, they use circular reasoning and go back to, "well, see, this biblical scholar said it was fringe" and round and round we go. Now, IMO and quite a few others, this creates an article that in not NPOV, and what we are trying to do, with no success, is correct that. So, if you edit this article, or come looking at it, what we ask of you, before arguing sources, is to set whatever belief you have aside and look at the article; then make two decisions 1) as an encyclopediac article, what is the mission of this article? To present jesus as a real person, or to present theories one way or the other for the rewader to explore? and 2) once you have that mission in your mind, does the article present itself in a neutral point of view (NPOV) as required by wikipedia. I have to say, again IMO, that even if you decide this article's mission is to present jesus as a real man, it is still horribly NPOV as it has entire sections dedicated to dismantling other theories in a thoroughly NPOV manner. So, can't we all work to create an NPOV article? StarHOG (Talk) 13:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{tq|Examining those publications and their methods makes one realize immediately the poor reasoning used compared to a scientific-style publication}} - so, which publications did you examine, and what exactly do you think is "poor reasoning"? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::All sources are flawed and have limits to their reliability depending on context, but let's assume these are reliable, which hasn't been disputed as such. The point of deferring to reliable sources is that we do not ourselves decide we know better than they do as pertains methodology or conclusions. We can compare sources to one another and note the reputation ascribed by later scholars, but we do not simply decide all sources for a topic are faulty merely due to them being for said topic. We are not qualified to do that. We do verifiability, not truth, in effect.

:::::::::It makes no sense at all for you to go on and on insisting there's an NPOV issue when you have not cited any sources of your own that would suggest the views in the article are skewed toward a particular POV, compared to the body of RS as a whole.

:::::::::Here's the bottom line: you need to start citing published, peer reviewed scholarship attesting to the POVs you think are neglected in these articles, or you need to find other articles to contribute to, because if you remain unhappy with the disciplines of biblical criticism and biblical archaeology altogether, then there's nothing you can do on Wikipedia about it.

:::::::::So far, the sources cited have, in aggregate, seemed to affirm the article's present understanding of which views are mainstream and fringe, and its portioning out representation to those views in kind. {{xt|I'm not certain that "mainstream" and "fringe" are being used here properly.}}—they are. A fringe view is not malignant, detestable, irrational, or wrong, but merely "on the fringes". Remsense ‥ 论 13:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::It seems like you haven't yet read related discussions, so I'll repeat myself a bit here.

::::::::::The main (or sole?) peer-reviewed volumes on this subject are Carrier 2014, and [https://brill.com/display/title/54738 Lataster 2019] (available via Wikipedia Library). Like every publication, they have their bias (which they acknowledge, unlike Ehrman and Casey's trade books on the subject), but if we follow wp:scholarship and wp:biased, there’s no reason to ignore them here, or ban them to the “cmt” povfork.

::::::::::The most neutral academic address of the topic is probably [https://www-cambridge-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/more-ingenious-than-learned-examining-the-quest-for-the-nonhistorical-jesus/B1A4799BE91AB5300671D4013194DD4C#fn71 Meggitt 2019], who indicates some problems with both sides, but recognises a “new wave of scholarship” questioning HoJ, and insists that it is “[https://www-cambridge-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/more-ingenious-than-learned-examining-the-quest-for-the-nonhistorical-jesus/B1A4799BE91AB5300671D4013194DD4C#fn71 no longer tenable for most scholars to ignore it]”. He also questions what the value is of an “alleged consensus” from biblical scholars on a historical question.

::::::::::The problems are best summed up by Davies: “(...) [https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/opeds/dav368029 a recognition that his existence is not entirely certain would nudge Jesus scholarship towards academic respectability]”

::::::::::Many of the sources cited on our page are outdated (from when there indeed was relatively little academic questioning of HoJ), from theological and thus explicitly religious sources (without indication of this bias). There are also blogs, and trade books that explicitly set out to convince lay audiences that Jesus was real. Joortje1 (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::No, I did read all this. If this is "minority–majority" instead of "fringe–mainstream" to you then that's the totality of our disagreement on it, but I fail to see how Starhog's attempted restructuring of the article was in any way reflective of the nuances expressed in the recent interdisciplinary scholarship. If a shift need occur, it's a quantitative one, not a qualitative one as far as I can tell at present. Remsense ‥ 论 14:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Good news everyone—over the past several days I became enraptured and read Carrier (2014) from cover to cover. What did I think of it? Dictionary definition of "mixed bag". Just wanted to allow everyone to update their priors as regards our discussion going forward. File:Face-wink.svg. Remsense ‥ 论 08:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Good job. I personally never managed to get through more than about a third of it, but the parts that I checked indeed seemed a "mixed bag". Much of it can be considered new research in an attempt to use Bayesian theory, where it's complicated and perhaps unwarranted (as several reviewers indicated, but usually conceding that they didn't understand much of it). Joortje1 (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::On the other hand, many of Carrier's arguments don't seemed that new or "fringe" to me, and to reflect well-sourced and widely accepted notions. Much seems to revolve around the general Christian belief that Jesus was a divine entity (archangel, Son of God, Logos) who came from heaven (i.e. “space”) and temporarily took the form of a man (Son of Man, born of woman).

::::::::::::Many scholars, [https://ia804602.us.archive.org/15/items/apocryphal-gospels-bart-ehrman/How%20Jesus%20Became%20God%20%28Bart%20D%20Ehrman%29.pdf including Ehrman] (p. 276), have also argued that this belief actually pre-dated the whole New Testament.

::::::::::::Does Carrier's general thesis get much wilder than that? Joortje1 (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::As Carrier discussed in the earlier parts of the book, the elements you just listed are, indeed, the requisite components that form the crux {{small|(sorry!!)}} of the so-called {{xt|minimal mythicist}} position. I can't disagree with that, it's obvious to me that no mythicist theory can omit any of those elements and still make any sense whatsoever. The structure of Carrier's argument in the broadest strokes is again rather compelling to me: he sets up what he sees as minimal (and therefore most permissive) mythicism and minimal historicity, establishes what he understands (and I don't disagree) as the key elements of historical context, which we accept for our priors. What other theorycrafting there is is done in media res, going through the NT and extrabiblical evidence—dismissing much of it, holding e.g. that the FT is a complete fabrication by later christian scribes, that Tacitus wrote too late so nothing he's heard about Jesus can be trusted as independent from the cult worshipping him, that Mark is a total literary fabrication cover to cover, that Acts is actually far less sensible assuming historicity than mythicism.

:::::::::::::He's pretty diligent, though with more than enough polemic so that I can't forget his New Atheist credentials. Nothing too wacky, if the above doesn't seem wacky to you.

:::::::::::::Through the looking glass, as it were, that actually seems to be the most essential problem for historicist scholars. While I am quite enticed by the prospect of Bayesian epistemology being practiced by historians, a systematic approach to laying out and quantifying what you see as your biases doesn't remedy what are seen as fundamentally discredited positions. I'm not sure every single historicist scholar really has a right to feel so dang self-assured about it, but I think it's possible at least some of them may indeed actually have such a right. That's where I'm at presently. Remsense ‥ 论 10:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Jesus mythicism is a fringe view per researchers and experts of all stripes and to give it equal weight in the lead and article would be inappropriate (as that is WP:FALSEBALANCE). Personal views on the scholars or scholarship bear no weight on the fact that the consensus exists and is acknowledged by experts in different fields. desmay (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think at least two of the works cited by Joortje are worth reconsidering the precise weighing of views (I'm really interested to crack open Lataster 2019, and actually am about to! but I wonder if it's really the type of scholarship we can use in this way) Remsense ‥ 论 15:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::There already is a subsection on the CmT; quite a lot, for a fringe-theory. And to state that there are only two peer-reviewed publications on the topic is entirely incorrect; there are two peer-reviewed publicatiins on the CmT. I found three reviews of Lataster (2019), and read two of them; they were quite dismissive of it. It has 14 cites since publication; with other words, no impact in the field. Both Joortje1 and HOGStar prefer to ignore the entire field of scholarship, on the basis of a presumed bias of that field. That's not going to work; if they want tk change this article, they'll have to come with concrete suggestions, instead of deleting sourced info. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::(I'm ignorant how these things vary by field—are 14 citations really "no impact"?) Remsense ‥ 论 15:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Three of the fourteen are from Hansen, who has specialized on the CmT, and is quite dismissive of Lataster (2019). Compare Ehrman (2012), Did Jesus Exist, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=nl&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=ehrman+christ&btnG= 203 citations]. The book is not part of any meaningfull discourse. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::[https://mcmasterdivinity.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21.MJTM_.R15-Hansen_on_Lataster.pdf Hansen’s review] of Lataster’s book at least acknowledges that questioning HoJ is “a valid academic enterprise”, and agrees with Lataster about Ehrman’s “questionable use of hypothetical sources”. Concerns about lack of interaction with specific major (theological?) works may very well be valid. The problem that it adds little to previous literature could be a bonus for wikipedia, because it can all the more be considered a survey of the discourse rather than original research. Joortje1 (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Ehrman is a polemicist when he wants to be, which is usually. I get what you're saying about that, but I suppose I never needed him to disclose his biases to me because I was pretty instantly aware of them the first sentence I read or came out of his mouth (forget which medium). Dunno. Remsense ‥ 论 17:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Actually, Carrier and Lataster explicitly discuss HoJ within academia, while Ehrman and Casey explicitly addressed "mythicism" to convince lay audiences that Jesus existed when relatively little of what they opposed was published academically. Their respective roles in the povfork thus aren't very clear. Joortje1 (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The whole "cmt fringe" and theological "mainstream" is mostly an all too subjective and polemical false dichotomy anyway. Plenty of scholars consider the question [https://www.abc.net.au/religion/miles-pattenden-historians-and-the-historicity-of-jesus/13720952 unanswerable and uninteresting] (and we'll thus hear very little from this potentially very large group). Joortje1 (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Of course there's no quantitative definition distinguishing one or the other. It's the general framework that's put forth by site policy though. It genuinely does not seem like there is that wide a gap between the two sides of this discussion. Remsense ‥ 论 17:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Remsense, I see you noted WP:FALSEBALANCE too. Cool. It says {{font color | purple | "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship."}} All the sources Joortje1 uses even on validity has none of them actually accepting CMT. In general, scholars are not closed to possible situations (e.g. Holocaust did not happen, climate change is not man made, etc). But in our case CMT has not been accepted (e.g. [https://hrcak.srce.hr/clanak/408268], [https://brill.com/view/journals/jshj/15/2-3/article-p310_310.xml?language=en&srsltid=AfmBOopdI6z7mN4VjYdG-oI33fT5e4WZPqYQEq3sCX_XtlvY6UVcaAT9] (even after a few centuries of trying)). As even Hansen, Pattenden, Meggitt, etc make clear too as they to do not accept it either. Also WP:FRINGELEVEL: says {{font color | purple |"Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance by the scientific community."}} Fringe ideas get through peer-review all the time (e.g. climate change denial [https://skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php]), but that is not really enough to get acceptance, it seems. Ramos1990 (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Discussing article content and sources is really irrelevant if we don't know what the article is about. 1) as an encyclopediac article, what is the mission of this article? To present jesus as a real person, or to present theories one way or the other for the reader to explore? and 2) once you have that mission in your mind, does the article present itself in a neutral point of view (NPOV) as required by wikipedia. Is it really so much to ask that editors answer these questions as a way to move forward?StarHOG (Talk) 12:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Lead sections on Wikipedia are not intended to serve as opportunities to "present theories one way or another for the reader to explore". Consider the Climate Change article. Denialism and fringe theories are not mentioned at all in the lead, and only appear in a subsection much deeper in the article. Marcus Markup (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I guess it serves as an appendix to the :Historical Jesus page, which starts with the section :Historical Jesus#Historical existence. This page, HoJ, goes deeper into the scholarly arguments for the broadly shared conclusion that there was an historical Jesus. Who or what he exactly was, and what he did, that's still open to a lot of debate, but that he existed is very broadly accepted.

:::::::It's not a matter of 'presenting theories one way or the other', it's a matter of giving due weight to the relevant literature. The CmT really doesn't play a role in this scholarly debate; it is, indeed, fringe, on the margins of scholarship, and the section on it in this article is actually disproportionally large, compared to the amount of studies on the topic. But people who want to know more about it can read the CmT page, where it is treated in an extensive way. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::There is an article on consensus view of the Holocaust and one for Holocaust Denial, one for consensus views on Moon landing and one for Moon landing conspiracy theories. In both the Holocuast and Moon Landing articles, historical negationism is not really mentioned at all or even mixed and definitly not "to present theories one way or the other for the reader to explore". Similar to our situation, this article is for the consensus view and the the CMT article is for the historical negation. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::The analogy is very poor. We have written first-hand accounts of the Holocaust by the Axis forces, by surviving victims, and by various opponents of the Axis. We have video transmissions of the Moon landings and biographical information on every one of the astronauts involved in them. We don't have first-hand accounts by Jesus himself or by people who personally met him. Dimadick (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Its not an analogy, but about WP:FALSEBALANCE policy in historical realted articles where historical negationism exists. Certainly interesting, though, that despite what you mentioned, negationism on those are also quite common to even have their own articles. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::But this is not the page for CMT, thats Christ myth theory and it isn't the page for the general consenus view either... Thats Historical Jesus. We also don't seem to have sources which call opposition to the historicity of the biblical and cultural depictions of Jesus to be historical negationism. So provide your source and explain what this page is actually for because it doesn't fit what you jst said. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

This exhausting argument would have been solved many years ago, if the article was allowed to state more clearly that the "Jesus was a historical figure" viewpoint did NOT mean that Jesus the resurrected divinity was historical, but rather that Jesus was just an ordinary human who took a stance and got executed for sedition. Unfortunately editors with a strong POV have for decades framed this as a two-side argument - historical Jesus view vs fringe mythology view. It is actually a three-way argument - historical Jesus the divinity view vs historical Jesus the ordinary human view vs the fringe mythology view. Huge amounts of time and ink have been expended over many years to mask that three-way argument, and to portray it as a two-way argument - so as to make it seem that the "mainstream scholarship" consensus agrees overwhelmingly that the supernatural Jesus was historically factual. As stated by Ehrman and Albert Schweitzer: "The Jesus proclaimed by preachers and theologians today had no existence. That particular Jesus is (or those particular Jesuses are) a myth. But there was a historical Jesus, who was very much a man of his time." The distinction between 'the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith' is buried deep. To put this distinction high up in the lead would solve a lot of dispute - perhaps with some indication about how many "mainstream scholars" believe in miracles, and how many support the "Jesus was a mere human" view. I think that would be more honest, and much more encyclopedic. Wdford (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

: "who was very much a man of his time" I agree with that statement, but the various attempts to determine the historical role and the political, social, and religious beliefs of Jesus are themselves contradictory. Per the main article on the Quest for the historical Jesus, Jesus has been variously portrayed as an apocalyptic prophet, a charismatic healer, a cynic philosopher, a Jewish Messiah or a man both predicting social change and trying to engineer it. He can't be all of them at once. And I am not certain whether any of the primary sources can identify early Christian beliefs with cynicism's outright rejection of "wealth, power, glory, social recognition, conformity, and worldly possessions". Cynicism's ideas that a barefoot beggar is more free than a king, and that a proper Cynic has a "duty to hound people about the error of their ways" sound more like John the Baptist's typical depictions than Jesus in the New Testament. Dimadick (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::I remember something about a rich man, a camel, and the eye of a needle which was pretty properly cynical. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I fully agree with you both - there has clearly been a lot more added to the gospel stories than just the diary of Jesus of Nazareth. However my point for this article is that the "mainstream scholarship" consensus on the historicity of Jesus refers to Jesus the ordinary human, and the view that Jesus was a supernatural divinity is not the mainstream consensus. The view that "Jesus was purely a myth" is correctly a fringe view, but I suspect that a lot of the support for the CMT is actually based on the fact that some "mythicists" accept the position that Jesus existed as a normal (though outspoken) human, rather than having been the miracle-worker of the gospel stories. Wdford (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Is the intent of this page to exclude the Islamic tradition of Jesus? It appears to only evaluate the historicity of the Christian tradition of Jesus but any page on the "Historicity of Jesus" would need to address all the faith traditions so I'm assuming that there is some reason we're excluding the Islamic tradition, I would like to know that reason from the regulars. For example the historicity of the Crucifixion was a pretty big deal in Islamic theological circles, but we don't even touch on that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:'When did you stop beating your wife'? But is there any publication on this specific issue? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:Oh... Messiah#Islam. This is complicated. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::Not particularly "complicated". It's the kind of problem that arises when people base an article on biased sources -- bias towards certain points of view to the exclusion of others is inevitable. Certainly, one would be hard put to find a Muslim historian that treated the crucifixion as historical fact -- but this article pointedly does not include any Islamic or Buddhist sources on the issue. I'm not saying that the Islamic perspective that he was magically whisked off the cross by a deceptive creator deserves to be treated as factual, but an Islamic historian is just as valid as a Christian one.—Kww(talk) 04:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::"a Muslim historian that treated the crucifixion as historical fact" Let me guess, Muslim historians believe in the historicity of the Quran, which in turn claims that Jesus was "bodily raised up to heaven by God". Dimadick (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Dimadick, I'm not able to parse how this engages with what Kww actually said here. Remsense ‥ 论 11:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::See the article on the Islamic views on Jesus's death which clarifies why they do not believe in the crucifixion. Dimadick (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I am aware (only embarrassingly recently so, but nonetheless) what the Quran says about the matter, but Kww specifically didn't say this needed additional representation in the article, only that Islamic scholars represent some nonzero portion of the RS on this subject, and should be represented in some manner. Remsense ‥ 论 11:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Right — the belief that he was whisked off the cross in some kind of supernatural sleight-of-hand is no more or less disqualifying than the belief that he woke up three days later. I do, however, think that both are disqualifying — any scholar that believes Christ was a divine figure has a bias that makes them unreliable for determining whether he was a historical figure. —Kww(talk) 14:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Some sources should be removed completely from the text.

For example the book:

Forged: Writing in the Name of God – Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are by Bart D. Ehrman.

Although written by a scholar it was published by Harper Collins and is not written as a scientific or historical academic work. It should be deleted and replaced with better sources, academic ones and preferably peer reviewed. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 06:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Being a reputed scholar, Ehrman is WP:RS. Period. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::Certainly that the question is not about Ehrman, but then academic work from him should be referenced and not this work. If you look at reliable sourcing guidelines, that would be of great help. Harper Collins is not an academic publisher. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 07:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::This is what Wikipedia says:

:::"When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." 58.99.101.165 (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{xt|Usually}}, yes. WP:BLOGS elaborates that {{xt|Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.}} Remsense ‥ 论 11:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::In this case, it seems that polemical opinions found in blogs and trade books from people trained at theological institutions are used uncritically, in our page and on our talk page, to discredit any doubt about HoJ, even if such notions are published in peer reviewed academic monographs by an ancient historian and a religion studies expert. That sounds a lot like what Hoffmann meant by [https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/opeds/hoffman1044 theological interests ruling the question out of court], and indeed seems somewhat inadequate. Joortje1 (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Nonetheless, given the fact that the debate is "in the fringes of scholarship" (that means both sides), it seems reaonable to include some of the better unacademic sources for notable arguments. Even then, I don't see why blogs, trade books and religious publications are used when there are better sources. It seems to me that the more invested editors just prefer hyberbolical and polemical statements from such works instead of the relatively nuanced voices found in proper academic publications. Joortje1 (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::This falls within usually. That is not an exception to it. There is no reason to use a blog when we have books and academic articles from the same author... That is especially true if we are also using those books and academic articles... Which we are... The only real kosher use of self published sources in this context is when there isn't a better source available which doesn't appear to be the case. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:The citations to Forged could be replaced with citations to the companion academic version, Forgery and Counterforgery, if someone has the time/inclination. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)