Talk:Jesus#rfc 3BAA7D6

{{Pin message|}}{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1985873230}}

{{Talk:Jesus/FAQ}}

I propose to change the image in the infobox to: thumb JacktheBrown (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:Support, I agree that the eye of the current one looks weird --FMSky (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:That image has been proposed and discussed here before. The reasons we went with the Sinai image were:

:# It is far older and far more historically significant (being among the oldest and most well-known images of Jesus in existence, as opposed to the Cefalú image which is 500 years younger and a minor point of interest in a cathedral that is no particular special importance).

:# The background architectural elements in the Cefalú image are at least as distracting as the asymmetry in the Sinai image.

:# The Christ_Pantocrator_(Sinai)#Interpretation_and_meaning symbolism of the image (including the asymmetry that causes the eye weirdness) is an important part its historical significance and helps capture the aspects that have made Jesus so important to so many people.

:In light of those reasons, I would advocate for keeping the Sinai image in the article. -- LWG ^talk 18:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose the change and support the current image of the Sinai Pantocrator. It may be helpful to review the discussion which was held just a few months ago, where a few alternatives including this one were proposed, and consensus was to stay with the Sinai image. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose any change that doesn't address the arguments put forward in previous discussions of the topic. VQuakr (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:I would support a new image. What about Head of Christ (:File:The Head of Christ by Warner Sallman 1941.jpg)? According to that article, the portrait painting {{tq|had been reproduced over half a billion times worldwide by the end of the 20th century. ... The painting is said to have "become the basis for [the] visualization of Jesus" for "hundreds of millions" of people.}} Granted, it's a non-free image, but someone could fill out a NFU rationale for use on this specific article. Some1 (talk) 03:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::That image was also considered in previous discussions, but dispreferred due to being far younger, non-free, and a worse case of the "white Jesus" phenomenon. I will defer to consensus of course, but I personally strongly oppose replacing the current image with the 1941 Sallman one. -- LWG ^talk 04:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::That one is a no-starter since there is an abundance of "free" work to pick from. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Leonardo da Vinci, Salvator Mundi, c.1500, oil on walnut, 45.4 × 65.6 cm.jpg

:I support switching back to the other pancreator for awhile, based pretty much on personal taste. However, if we're going to have a proper go at this at this time, we should probably start with a "What pics should we include in a WP:LEADIMAGE-rfc" rfc, and then move on to the "Should we change the leadimage to any of these pics?" rfc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::I'd be open to that as well. I've been watching this article for over a decade and I've seen a number of image discussions come and go but they've pretty much all been between the same half dozen options. It would be interesting to see if any fresh free images are available that might be superior to all the present options. -- LWG ^talk 19:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Reiterating from the last discussion the qualities that I think make the Sinai image such a strong candidate:

• It is of great historical significance (being one of the oldest detailed depictions of Jesus still extant).
• It is more ethnically ambiguous and stylized than some other options, helping mitigate the "white Jesus" phenomenon.
• Notwithstanding the above, it is sufficiently aligned with the iconography of Jesus many readers will be familiar with to avoid unnecessary confusion.
• It is artistically excellent (though not aesthetically pleasing in the typical way).
• Related to the above, it includes symbolism that is of significance to both historical and modern theological understandings of Jesus, which regardless of our various personal perspectives is undeniably a central aspect of this article's notability.
• Not mentioned before but relevant: as an ancient artwork it is of course totally free of copyright concerns.

For any replacement image I would want to see an argument for why it is superior to the Sinai image in these areas. -- LWG ^talk 04:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment One aspect I don't think has been mentioned before (it came up in this discussion): when previewing/hovering the cursor on the Jesus WP-link the rather "tall" leadimage is noticeably cropped. Not as much as this one, but still. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{Strikethrough|That's a good point, and a point in favor of a more square image.}} Article hover previews don't work properly at all on my browser so I will take your word for it. -- LWG ^talk 19:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I just tried it on a browser that can display the previews and it actually seems totally fine: it's cropped, but it's cropped right above the face and below the hands, which is pretty much ideal for this image. -- LWG ^talk 21:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:I doubt this is a consideration but I also think current Sinai image works well with images of the Apostles from the same site, creates a consistency across the multiple articles which is aesthetically pleasing. That being said, oldest extant depiction sounds like by far the most sensible suggestion. 2A01:4B00:D12F:1500:CEED:EFB2:9A78:62F7 (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected|Jesus|answered=yes}}

In the "Name" section I'd like to add reference to how his name was written in the scripts of the languages of his time.

Greek: [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%B8%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%BF%E1%BF%A6%CF%82 Ἰησοῦς],

Hebrew: [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%A2 ישוע], and

Biblical Hebrew: [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%F0%90%A4%89%F0%90%A4%94%F0%90%A4%8F 𐤉𐤔𐤏] MattQuarneri (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi Matt, the note on the name at the beginning of the article already includes the Greek and Hebrew names, but I added them to the name section as well. I'm curious what your source is for the 𐤉𐤔𐤏 name. -- LWG ^talk 20:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{partly done}}: Per above. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, the early Christianity and historical views sections of the body appear to be missing from the lead. I added those and deleted a sentence about oral transmission that’s not verified in the body. These were recently reverted.

Wanted to check in and see if there are any objections to me restoring my edits? I think they adequately summarize the extant content of those two sections. AintItFunLiving (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Chintu89 Birjeta01 (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::I too am confused by your reason for reverting. My edit regarding the portrayal of Peter in Mark is as relevant for Jesus as Sanders’s claim about Mark’s views on the disciples. I do not see why adding summary of the Historical views section is entirely unwarranted either, though I disagree with the wording. Birjeta01 (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Of course everything in the lead must be verified in the body per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, but it would be better if Dunn’s sentence about oral tradition was moved to the body rather than being removed. The lead section of this page is the result of a consensus by various editors, and string reasons should be provided for changing removing anything there. I’m afraid I disagree with your rendition of the Historical views section as well. The criteria of authenticity have faced growing criticism in recent years and many scholars are moving away from them, as the Quest for the historical Jesus page describes. The lead already mentions scholarly views on the reliability of the gospels too. Birjeta01 (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::What do you propose as next steps? AintItFunLiving (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Also, if I’m understanding the notes correctly, only the first paragraph was established by consensus. AintItFunLiving (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::My proposal would be copying Dunn’s quote to the body, perhaps the First paragraph of the Sources heading of the Historical views section. I think adding that the criteria have been subject to more critique would be good as well, with the sources for this already being available on the aforementioned page about the Quest. I think that the summary of Historical views, if added, should mention the three quests, the ‘basic consensus on the general outline of his life’, and the differing portraits of Jesus. Birjeta01 (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I see that this was discussed in 2013 at Talk:Jesus/Archive 121#Possessive of Jesus. I also note that there seem to be instances of both possessive forms currently in the article, {{tq|Jesus'}} and {{tq|Jesus's}}. I'm fairly agnostic on which type to use, but I think this article should only use one. Does there need to be another discussion? John (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think I saw this in a MOS somewhere, but can't find it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::MOS:'S says to use {{tq|Jesus's}} but to reword where possible if that would make pronunciation difficult. -- LWG ^talk 19:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, I think what's happened is that the MoS has changed; I've a feeling it used to allow the no-s possessive in some cases but now does not. So we should standardise on "Jesus's" then, I think (or, as you say, reword if it becomes awkward). John (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=1292408459 updated] the article; there were only two instances apart from titles and quotes which obviously we retain. I've edited the FAQ to reflect the change, and requested that the edit notice also be adjusted. John (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is written in British English, Oxford spelling. This dialect [https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/rooster doesn't usually use "rooster" to describe a male chicken, but either "cock" or "cockerel".] Seeing the American word "rooster" doesn't seem quite right to me in this context. I am more familiar with the King James version, in which Matthew 26 is rendered as "Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice." The [https://www.biblesociety.org.uk/explore-the-bible/read/eng/NRSV/Matt/26/ New Revised Standard Version] version is similar. I've been reverted by {{u|Jtrevor99}}, and I don't quite know how to proceed in a way that is consonant with WP:ENGVAR. Any thoughts? I'd probably prefer to avoid "cock" for obvious reasons! Could we compromise with a piped link, cockerel? John (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see an issue with using cock for New Testament texts, and the strange word "rooster" brings to mind Foghorn Leghorn instead of scripture. Dimadick (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you. I've restored the cockerel language. I really don't think "rooster" sounds right. Happy to discuss, obviously. John (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:All three terms are understandable to me as an American English speaker who is literate enough to know they refer to a male bird in this context but not educated enough to know that "cockerels" don't typically crow. I don't have a good way of gauging what proportion of our readers would be confused by "cock", or if is a big enough deal to make an exception to English dialect consistency. The possible confusion between the bird name and the vulgar slang isn't exclusive to American English and existed even when the King James Bible was written, but even more recent translations like the [https://www.bible.com/bible/294/MAT.26.CEVUK CEV], [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026&version=ESVUK ESV], and [https://www.bible.com/bible/113/MAT.26.NIVUK NIV] still use "cock" in their anglicized editions. I haven't found "cockerel" used in any translation of the NT texts. I think using "cock" and piping it to rooster might help any readers that aren't familiar with the term as referring to a male bird. -- LWG ^talk 16:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::Excellent suggestion. Thanks for your time. Done. John (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't have an issue with "cock" either. "Cockerel", however, does carry the connotation I noted in the revert - or at least, it does in the American Midwest where I live and where chickens are abundant. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::just to note that I think it would be easily demonstrable that the standard Br Eng translation of the passage would be that that the three denials come before the "cock" crows, rather than anything emanating from either a "cockerel" or "rooster". It's pretty much used without exception, for this passage. DeCausa (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm reminded of Talk:United_States_v._One_Solid_Gold_Object_in_Form_of_a_Rooster#Usage_of_"cock"_repeatedly_in_the_article.. Which became part of a ANI discussion. That said, I see no problem with "before the cock crows." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::That's funny and just the sort of issue I was thinking of in using "cockerel". Like you and {{u|Jtrevor99}} I too have no problem with using "cock" as that's what the primary sources use. John (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

{{tq|Jesus often debated with his fellow Jews on how to best follow God, engaged in healings, taught in parables, and gathered followers, among whom twelve were appointed as his chosen apostles. (my emphasis)}}

{{u|Chintu89}}, tell me why we need "chosen" as well as "appointed". See, to me, the two words mean pretty much the same thing, so why would we say it twice? It gives our time-poor reader more work to do for the same information. It looks clunky. More than that, it lends a sort of dreary churchy tone to the article. Articles like this always need to be very careful not to be too "in-universe"; we are not writing (exclusively) for Christians here, but for readers of all religions and none. I'm actually rather impressed at how good a job it does of that (though less so about how spelling and linking have been used but that's relatively easy to fix, and I have been doing). Word choice is important, and this is not a church newsletter but a general encyclopedia. What do you think? John (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:I agree, and since there was no explanation given for the edit, which was also mistakenly marked as minor as it affects meaning, I've reverted it for now.

:I would also consider changing the remaining {{xt|appointed}} to merely {{xt|chosen}}. Remsense ‥ 论 19:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::I think {{xt|appointed}} works since membership in the twelve apostles is generally considered to have been an official position or status. -- LWG ^talk 20:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Fine by me. Remsense ‥ 论 20:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for raising an important point about word choice and the tone of the article. I understand the concern about avoiding overly "churchy" language in a general encyclopedia, but I’d like to offer some context on why terms like “chosen” might still be appropriate, even necessary, in this case.

:Jesus is, by nature, a religious figure. The Gospels are not neutral biographies in the modern sense; they are theological texts, preserved and transmitted by the early Church. They represent the only substantive sources we have about Jesus’ life, teachings, and actions. As such, any reference to events like the appointment of the twelve apostles carries inherently theological language, because that’s the language of the source material itself.

:To suggest we "neutralise" expressions like chosen may unintentionally impose a modern, secular editorial lens on a deeply religious narrative. Terms like appointed and chosen may seem redundant at a glance, but within the Gospel context, chosen conveys a spiritual selection or divine calling, not just an administrative appointment. This nuance matters to accurately reflect the original texts.

:Of course, I agree that this isn’t a church newsletter, and editorial neutrality is important. But in the case of religious figures, neutrality shouldn’t mean stripping away the essential nature of their religious identity. It should mean presenting what the source material says, faithfully and clearly, while making it accessible to all readers. While I understand the article isn’t written for Christians, we also can’t overlook the fact that Jesus is a religious figure known through Christian sources. The Gospels — the primary accounts of his life — are not secular or neutral texts. They were written, preserved, and interpreted within a religious framework. So terms like chosen aren’t just poetic or redundant — they carry theological weight. They reflect that these twelve were not just selected for a role, but were of deep personal and spiritual importance to Jesus. Appointed might cover the functional aspect, but chosen conveys intentionality and significance.

:Even for non-Christian readers, understanding Jesus accurately means acknowledging his identity as a religious figure.

:Appreciate the work you're doing on readability and clarity – just thought it was worth highlighting how, in this case, the "churchy" tone might actually be part of preserving historical and theological accuracy.

:Happy to hear your thoughts further. Chintu89 (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{xt|may unintentionally impose a modern, secular editorial lens on a deeply religious narrative}}

::I appreciate the general concerns raised here, but it's worth explicating that the bulk of our reliable sources are secular in nature, and almost all of them are not only modern, but from the last fifty years of scholarship. Remsense ‥ 论 20:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::However, I believe we need to distinguish between secondary modern scholarship and primary source material, especially in the case of religious figures like Jesus.

:::While it’s true that many modern scholars approach these topics with secular methodologies, the core sources for Jesus’s life — the Gospels — are not secular in nature. They are explicitly religious texts, composed and preserved by the early Christian community. Nearly everything we know about Jesus, whether scholars interpret it as history, theology, or myth, ultimately traces back to Christian tradition. Here it is the context to explain the readers the summary of gospel. If you go with a scholarly framing we're left with nothing that wouldn't save anything for the article of Jesus.

:::That means an encyclopedia entry about Jesus must take this into account: the language and terminology (such as “chosen”) reflect how the source texts present him, not how modern editors might reframe that narrative in secular terms. Even secular scholars cite the Gospels as their primary textual basis. To edit out or reword theological language simply because it sounds “churchy” runs the risk of imposing a modern secular editorial lens on a deeply religious narrative, and that may in fact obscure the historical and cultural reality of how Jesus was understood. Chintu89 (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{xt|While it’s true that many modern scholars approach these topics with secular methodologies, the core sources for Jesus’s life — the Gospels — are not secular in nature.}}

::::We are not citing the Gospels directly. We are a tertiary source that mainly synthesizes secondary sources—here, the aforementioned modern, critical, largely secular scholarship.Remsense ‥ 论 23:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Saying we shouldn't write "exclusively for Christians" misses the point: the article isn't for Christians — but it is about a person whose story is inherently and unavoidably Christian in origin. Presenting that honestly doesn't make the article biased; it preserves theological and historical accuracy.

:Recasting the narrative to suit readers of “all religions and none” risks distorting the very sources that make the subject notable in the first place. Chintu89 (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you {{u|Chintu89}} for explaining the background to your views. I'm still not quite seeing just why we need to use both these near-synonyms or why omitting one threatens to "[recast] the narrative" or makes it somehow less "honest". To me it's a choice of language, and it seems very simple that as a secular encyclopedia we use the simplest, shortest form of words that adequately sums up the sources. I think you may be confusing the "narrative" (the story) with the "register" (the exact words chosen to tell the story). We don't need to adopt a churchy register to tell the story of Jesus honestly, sensitively, and in a way that will be appealing both to believers and non-believers, in my opinion. John (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I see chosen and appointed as closely related terms, both reflecting how Jesus selected individuals based on certain attributes or purposes. So I find the original wording appropriate, as it best conveys the nature of his relationship with the disciples—whether understood in a theological or secular context. Chintu89 (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::This is detailed in the Gospels, notably Mark 3:13-19, Luke 6:12-16, and Matthew 10:1-4.Selection of Disciples: Jesus chooses a group of followers to be His disciples. For instance, in Mark 3:13-14, it is written that Jesus ascended a mountainside and summoned those He wished, and they came to Him. This group, including the Twelve, was chosen to accompany Him and learn His teachings.Appointment as Apostles: Following a period of instruction, Jesus designates these disciples as apostles, granting them specific authority and a mission. In Mark 3:14-15, it is noted that He appointed twelve to be with Him and to be sent out to preach, with authority to expel demons. The previous wording was correct and appropriate, without understanding you just went by your personal revision of secularism and churchy language interrogation instead of being faithful to gospel narratives. Please do not change the summary as it is correct and has been consistently verified by several authors. Chintu89 (talk) 06:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Whatever you do, you need to be aware that re-adding changes you know to be against editor consensus is unacceptable. You were told no, you were given concrete reasons why, and your counter-arguments weren't considered convincing. Deciding you're entitled to have things your way regardless is completely contrary to how Wikipedia operates, and becomes disruptive very quickly, and you need to stop acting that way immediately.

::::Frankly, we're not going to be interested in going through many more posts that are way longer than they need to be because you generated them with an LLM. It shows additional lack of consideration for our time. Please write out your arguments yourself, or refrain from editing the English Wikipedia if you can't comfortably communicate in English. It's not fair to others to have to act as if they are replying to you directly, when they're not. Remsense ‥ 论 12:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response. However, I must clarify that the term "chosen" is not an overly “churchy” or biased word—it is a direct reflection of the language used in the biblical sources themselves. For example, John 15:16 explicitly states: “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you…” Similarly, Luke 6:13 and Mark 3:14 speak of Jesus calling and appointing the twelve. So, far from being a churchy euphemism, chosen and appointed both are accepted as secular, historically and theologically rooted terms. In fact, appointed might sound even more formal or institutional, yet no one claims that is biased or churchy language as it is also used by the church to preach the inclusion of disciples to aid in his ministry.

Here are verses from the Bible where Jesus is described as appointing his disciples:

1. Mark 3:14 – "He appointed twelve that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach."

2. Luke 6:13 – "When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles."

3. John 15:16 – "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last..."

Secondly, the article subject is someone whose historical notability is preserved almost entirely through gospel tradition. Applying modern secular standards to retell that story in a way that intentionally downplays the narrative of the very texts that define the subject risks distorting the figure himself. This isn’t “writing in-universe”—it’s being faithful to primary source characterisation, especially when no contemporary secular records exist outside of Christian tradition.

Rephrasing Jesus' actions to make them more digestible to "readers of all religions and none" seems to cross from neutrality into revisionism. We're not dealing with a public figure like a politician where neutrality means balancing conflicting press accounts; we're discussing a theological figure whose core identity is shaped by gospel claims. Neutrality should mean fairly representing how those sources depict him, not translating them into modern secular terms that end up muting or reshaping their intent.

In summary, if the concern is language being too "churchy," then we should note that terms like chosen and appointed are scriptural—not ecclesiastical embellishments. Attempting to filter them out for neutrality misunderstands Wikipedia’s goal, which is verifiability, not reinterpretation. Thank you again for the exchange. Chintu89 (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:Verifiability does not mean echoing the language of a (translated) primary source, nor does it require imitating the primary source's register. If it did, our article on Beavis and Butt-Head would be written in 1990s teen argot, and our article on Kurt Vonnegut would end with "So it goes". We do have WP:ENGVAR, but this only applies to national dialects of English. It does not extend to making our article on Jesus sound like it was a sermon. Also, could you please not edit-war against consensus? John (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

There's a reference to a book from 1977 under modern scholarship position. By Michael Grant. Maybe it should be removed, because it is too old to be relevant for what modern scholarship thinks? 60.250.44.227 (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:Depends on the field generally and the specific claims we're citing it to verify. Given Grant is being cited as part of a survey of different scholars, which specifically emphasizes the time when he was writing, and the footnote is making a rather clear point that a position has had staying power over time—there's less than no reason to refrain from citing Grant (1977) here. Remsense ‥ 论 16:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::Fair point. I'm just wondering where the cut of point is? Because we could go further back to, I suppose? 60.250.44.227 (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It definitely depends, like I said. We'd likely never cite any paper from the 1970s in many computer science articles, but that's often totally fine for more evergreen claims in fields like history or mathematics. Remsense ‥ 论 16:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::It just seems a bit out of place since all the other references are post 2000. But I suppose it is ok. Another question:

::::The reference to Robert M. Price doesn't reference a specific page and i couldn't find confirmation about the specific view expressed, can someone find it and add the page reference? 60.250.44.227 (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::There are many citations to works published prior to 2000, actually. There are even several others also published in 1977!

:::::Thanks for noting the Price issue also. Remsense ‥ 论 17:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::No worries! 60.250.44.227 (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• I suppose in a nearly 2000 year story, 1970 does count as recent! John (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::Michael Grant's work has gone through numerous editions since 1977. In "Jesus" (2004) ISBN 1898799881 p. 200", his claim still stands in the 2000s. I updated it in the article. I also see a 2011 edition. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand BC/AD may be used due to regarding a Christian subject, or that the article is talking about a person (though my Christian beliefs are adverse to calling him simply that, this is a point of dispute historically) who lived prior to a modern time (similar to Alexander the Great, whose article also uses BC), but this seems...odd given the article places his birth as 6-4 BC and BC means before Christ. So we're saying Jesus was born before he was born. 199.101.33.173 (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:It has been known for centuries that Dionysius Exiguus miscalculated the date given some of the info given in the gospels, but, we are stuck with it. Whether BC/AD or BCE/CE are used depends on the article and what consensus the editors come to (note CE and BCE are just as Christian centric and are read as "Christian Era" as well as 'Common Era"). Erp (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I was just looking over MOS:CAP and I think there are some tweaks to make. I'm busy IRL but plan to look at this in the next day or so. Any preliminary thoughts? John (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Reference 451 might be superfluous. The Michael Grant one. There's already so many references so doesn't feel like it adds much. It would benefit from having one less, I think. 61.101.80.201 (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:If no one object, I take it as that it can be removed. 61.101.80.201 (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::It's fine as is. You seem to have trouble articulating substantive reasons to change things. Remsense 🌈 论 17:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::It is already established in many sources, so it is just repetition. There's no good reason to have so many either. It is nothing controversial. The majority of historians don't dispute Jesus existence, so there's no reason to have so many references. 61.101.80.201 (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::It's not really about assuaging historians, it's about best serving our readership. This is one instance where it really does not hurt to fluff the pillow some. Remsense 🌈 论 17:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::But our mission is not to fluff the pillow. We should be straightforward. Simplicity and clearness is preferred. It is not contested, and I don't see how it serves the readership. 61.101.80.201 (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Because it's likely a key point of particular importance for many of our readers. Citations are ultimately about verifiability, and in cases like these there's a case to be made that a higher-than-average number of references provided for key points means readers are more likely to have access to at least one reference they can verify claims with. Failing that, there's no negative case I can see beyond the usual incremental increase in visual clutter or difficulty to maintain. I find it insubstantial here. Remsense 🌈 论 17:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Alright, I can understand your way of thinking. Let's keep it. 61.101.80.201 (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I saw in the FAQ that it says it's frequently used, but when I search for it

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=250&offset=0&ns0=1&search=%22virtually+all+scholars%22

I can only find 22 instances, and most are on religious themes articles. So is it commonly used or not? Because I couldn't find it. Would be great if someone cleared it up. Maybe it would be better to write something like scholars, or historians etc? 61.101.80.201 (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:What are you asking here? There's nothing confusing about the statement. In fact, you seem to be tripped up by {{xt|scholars}}, while it's clear to me the FAQ is there to address questions readers may have about {{xt|virtually all}}. Remsense 🌈 论 17:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::What do you mean by "tripped up?" I don't really doubt the sentiment as such, (the statement in itself is true as far as I understand) just that I pointed out that it is not that commonly used in Wikipedia as is stated in the FAQ. 61.101.80.201 (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)