Talk:Jesus/Archive 137

Archive 130

←

Archive 135

Archive 136

Archive 137

Rephrase "Most Christians"?

Original Text: Most Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah, the Christ that is prophesied in the Old Testament.

Proposed Changes: All Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son, though there is a minority, which have been deemed heretical by many major denominations, that recognizes neither Jesus as God the Son nor the Holy Trinity. Christians also believe Jesus to be the awaited messiah, the Christ that is prophesied in the Old Testament.

Reason Why: Belief in Jesus of Nazareth as God the Son is quite literally one of the cornerstones of the Christian faith. To say that "Most", but not "All", Christians believe in him as God the Son and still refer to them as Christian would be wrong. You are removing a key factor of the faith and acting like it has not been removed. Vilo2023 (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

You have provided to reliable source for this. The current text is sourced. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Obviously we're not adding in a logically inconsistent "all, except..." language that contradicts the cited source (Ehrman). Please remember not to inject your personal beliefs or synthesis into editing. VQuakr (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Granted, it could be amended further, yet changes should still be made.

As I have said first, the Trinity and belief in Jesus as God the Son have been established as cornerstones to the Christian faith by multiple different events, such as the Council of Nicea and the Athanasian Creed. To say that a denomination is still Christian while it rejects a fundamental part of Christianity makes no sense. So, the inclusion of "Most", rather than "All" seems quite silly and is the main thing I see needs to be changed.

This isn't merely because of personal beliefs, though I am quite biased as a Christian myself, but because it is part of the doctrine of every major Christian denomination. It would be the same as an anti-Fascist organization participating in Fascism. The bedrock of the ideology has been removed, therefore it no longer fits the grouping. A denomination cannot be both Christian while rejecting the guiding principles of Christianity, which is what denying Jesus as God the Son and the Trinity.

Even the Wikipedia article on Christianity contains neither "Most" nor "All" in a portion of text, which seems to have been copy and pasted over. Either "Most" needs to be changed to "All" in this article, or it could be removed as was in the article the text was taken from. Vilo2023 (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate you coming here to condemn other faiths as heretical, but the reliable sources tend to disagree with you, and that's a pretty important thing around here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Please read Nontrinitarianism. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

And No true Scotsman. VQuakr (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• I think we could use an FAQ for this as this narrow view keeps coming up. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Good idea; I took a shot at it (as Q10). Feel free to modify/improve. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Minor semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2024

Intro section:

"He was arrested in Jerusalem and tried by the Jewish authorities turned over to the Roman government, and crucified on the order of Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect of Judaea."

I suggest to change "He was arrested" to "He was eventually arrested". It's a very minor edit but this text is preceded by a description of Jesus' activities and adding "eventually" will show more clearly that there is quite a bit of time between him starting his own ministry and his arrest. 2A02:C7E:3188:4C00:8D40:6944:3880:BC12 (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe this change is necessary. The text's statement that Jesus was arrested in Jerusalem does not imply that he was immediately arrested upon arrival.

The length of his ministry is irrelevant to this section of the article, the purpose of which is to highlight the scholarly agreement that Jesus was a real, historical person. Zoozoor (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Understandable, thank you for responding. 2A02:C7E:3188:4C00:6965:6918:9D4D:3E40 (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 11:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

All Christians believe in Jesus as the Messiah

In the introduction paragraph, I can understand the phrase "Most Christians" for the belief in the Son of God, however universally all Christians believe in Jesus Christ as the awaited Messiah of Judaism, as that is a central tenet of Christianity. Augustus2714 (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Please see FAQ#10: Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view written utilizing reliable scholarly sources. It does not take a position on religious tenets. In this case, the sources cited clearly state "most", not "all", Christians hold the stated beliefs, as some sects and persons who describe themselves as "Christian", such as Unitarians, nevertheless do not hold these beliefs. This was agreed upon multiple times, including in this discussion. While it may be true the vast majority of Christians hold the belief, there are some sects that do not, therefore "all" is not entirely correct. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate link in the lead

Hello,

I noticed a duplicate link in the lead. Ordinarily duplicate links should be removed, but I wanted to ask out of consideration of the note requesting discussion before edits.

The duplicately linked page is Second Coming, referred to in the 4th paragraph from both "will return" and "Second Coming." The MoS cautions against repeating links within a major section.

I suggest an alternative way to indicate that "will return" is referring to the Second Coming: "...from where he will return (known as the Second Coming)." abcasada (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Suggest linking to "itinerant teacher"

In the third paragraph of the lead, it's mentioned that Jesus was an itinerant teacher. I'd recommend linking to the appropriate page. abcasada (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion. HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Please

Please, put that Jesus has central role in Christianity AND SPIRITISM. It's so annoying how christians think they are the only who beieve in Jesus. Fix it, please. João L. Paiter (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

While Spirits certainly can be Christians, that isn't a requirement. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean, the majority, more than 90% are christians, so it is better to put something like "Major role in christianity and spiritism (most cases)", or something like that. João L. Paiter (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the article and the article makes no reference to this. We don't add stuff to articles without reliable sources even if we know it to be true. 〜 Adflatuss • talk 22:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm brazillian and I live and convive with lots of spiritists and in spiritism (not just here I live) Jesus is treated EXACTALY like in christianity. What do you want as a reliable source? João L. Paiter (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Click on blue link in my reply above. 〜 Adflatuss • talk 00:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I meant "Spiritists". Sometimes the spellchecking means trouble. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

TRUE NAME OF MESSIAH

The Messiah was a Yahudim (Hebrew). He had a HEBREW name, it is YaHushua or in short they wrote "Y'shua", they commonly shortened many long Hebrew names then and now. He never used their Greek name, "Jesus or Ie'sus" as they typically call him. He was a Yahudim, not a Greek. He was raised Yahudim and practiced as such whether He agreed with the Pharisees or not, He practiced and lived as a Yahudim. The Hebrew inscription of his name says "YaHushua", not Jesus or Iesus. His true Hebrew name was YaHushua and it means "salvation of YaH". Shalom Bobdanyels (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all this, however if you'd like it included in the article you will need both reliable sources and a reasonable amount of context in relevance and notability. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Reliable Sources: "The Hebrew New Testament"; "The Cepher Besora'oth"; "The Peshitta, Aramaic English New Testament"; "Y'SHUA (YAHUSHUA), the Jewish Way to say Jesus"; among many other resources. 64.224.81.174 (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

You may or may not find something interesting in Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2024

Please re-add the line "Modern scholars agree that Jesus was a Jew of 1st-century Palestine." that was removed on November 11th 2023‎ by "Baruch Benedictus Spinoza."

Modern scholars agree that Jesus was a Jew of 1st-century Palestine.[428] Ioudaios in New Testament Greek[r] is a term which in the contemporary context may refer to religion (Second Temple Judaism), ethnicity (of Judea), or both.[430][431][432] In a review of the state of modern scholarship, Amy-Jill Levine writes that the entire question of ethnicity is "fraught with difficulty", and that "beyond recognizing that 'Jesus was Jewish', rarely does the scholarship address what being 'Jewish' means".

I think it is fairly obvious what Baruch's edits are intended to subtract here. Zuberii (talk) 09:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Afaict, that text is found at Jesus#Language,_ethnicity,_and_appearance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2024

HAIR OF WOOL, SKIN OF BRONZE. Get an accurate picture. The source is the friggin bible’s description of Jesus. Get real! 2600:1017:B8B6:A8F4:20A7:CBDB:228F:DA59 (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

And where, in your opinion, is an accurate picture of this person of which there are no surviving depictions from his lifetime? WP:LEADIMAGE may or may not be of help to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

feet like bronze glowing in a furnace. And don't forget the sword coming out of his mouth. Anyway, WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you mad his “hairs are [not] white like wool” as stated in the translated passage you’ve cited?

In any case, the oldest known depiction of Christ is the likely most appropriate iconography if one is to be supplied. It’s historically interesting and the least controversial. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to forward your individual historiography or messianic race theories. Palmetto Carolinian (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Harrowing of Hell in the lede/article

There's no mentioning of the harrowing of hell even though it is a pretty substantial piece of early Christian theology that is still taught today. Is there a consensus on not having this in the article? Ayyydoc (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Apparently some previous discussion exists: [1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The Harrowing is a bit of a funny one! As you say, it is certainly early and attested, but exists basically non-canonically one might say. I don't see why it couldn't be mentioned in the article, but I tend to think including it in the lead would be a bit much. As ever though, reasonable minds can certainly differ on the issue. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

You can start with proposing (or WP:BOLDLY add) a cited WP:PROPORTIONATE text for Jesus#Christianity. If that gets accepted, we can look at if it's reasonable to mention it in the WP:LEAD. Hopefully, there are some usable sources at Harrowing of Hell. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Should we rename Jesus' entry "Jesus of Nazareth"?

Hello,

Thank you for not calling him "Jesus, the anointed one", and I don't think we would confuse him for some other Jesus, but a name change might suggest a nontrinitarian stance and that Wikipedia sees him as no more or less divine than anyone else. 2603:7000:D03A:5895:134F:919:A36B:DBFC (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

General Wikipedia policy is to refer to subjects by the name which they are most commonly called. When you say "Jesus", almost everyone would assume you're talking about Jesus Christ. And similarly, he is most often referred to simply as "Jesus".

We also refer to Muhammad, Buddha, Moses etc. mononymically. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the current title fits WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

sentence structure correction

First sentence of the third paragraph:

Jesus was circumcised at eight days old, was baptized by John the Baptist as a young adult, and after 40 days and nights of fasting in the wilderness, began his own ministry.

The above sentence is clunky/confusing to read. I suggest rewriting into several sentences, e.g.:

Jesus was circumcised at eight days old. When Jesus was a young adult, he was baptized by John the Baptist. After 40 days and nights of fasting in the wilderness, Jesus began his own ministry. 2600:6C55:69F0:7EB0:49BA:41CB:A27B:2D76 (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Changes

I'm waiting. What is your reasoning for reverting my changes? Khassanu (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The existing infobox is fine: this is a featured article and it's been laid out with relative care. In my view, and likely in the view of the editors who added that note, these additions are contrary to an infobox's purpose, which is to relay only key facts at a glance, as briefly as possible. Please be receptive to this attempt at concision and parsimony in your numerous highly visible edits you've made recently across many highly developed articles: less is more with infoboxes. Remsense ‥ 论 21:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand. Khassanu (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

So why did you add many changes to the infobox again without prior discussion, as both I and the article specifically asked you to do? Among other unexplained edits, it's not clear what point these template swaps are doing. You need to explain these things and ask beforehand if you don't understand as a new editor—on featured articles, especially ones as highly visible as this one, many things are the way they are for good reasons. Remsense ‥ 论 03:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

(One more thing, for when you should be adding one, please do not just put line breaks between the items of a list, per WP:NOBR) Remsense ‥ 论 04:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Baháʼís and Druzes has a population that is incomparably smaller than Islam. The infobox should be accordingly. Who knows him because he is a Baháʼí and Druze prophet? The infobox is already pretty simple.
• One of the most familiar things about Jesus from the Islamic perspective is that he performed miracles and had the Gospel (Injil) revealed to him.

Khassanu (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

So, what is your objection? Khassanu (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It's fine the way that it is. The lead summarizes the body of the article proportionally, which reflects the cited sources proportionally. That can't just be crudely measured by raw word count, especially when dealing with passages as brief as this one. The summary is perfectly concise and fair. The distinction is slight, but the article is about Jesus, not the Gospel, so an aside about the Gospel in Islam is unwarranted in such a broad summary, reflecting the relative importance of Jesus and the Gospel in Islam versus in Christianity. Remsense ‥ 论 05:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand, what do you say about the infobox? Khassanu (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

On top of changing what was already well-weighted, you seemed to destructively remove formatting templates that serve a purpose. Remsense ‥ 论 06:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not. Baháʼís and Druzes has a population that is incomparably smaller than Islam. Who knows him because he is a Baháʼí and Druze prophet? Khassanu (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

This is what I was getting at above about "representation ≠ raw word count": these are brief passages, and the idea that you're making it "more fair" by adding more detail to something that's not meant to be detailed at all is not good editing. Remsense ‥ 论 06:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you're talking about the edit I made before. I'm not talking about that. The edit I made is extremely short and simple. Khassanu (talk) 06:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Baha'i, Druze and Rastafari are already gathered in one place. ("Imporant figure in Baháʼí Faith, Druze Faith, and Rastafari") Khassanu (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Missing Word

Near the top of the article, in the Islam section, the article currently reads: In Islam, Jesus is considered the messiah and a prophet of God who sent to the Israelites and will return to Earth before the Day of Judgement.

Isn't this missing a word? Should it read as follows: In Islam, Jesus is considered the messiah and a prophet of God who was sent to the Israelites and will return to Earth before the Day of Judgement.

I have not just gone ahead and changed it because it is near the top of the article.

I think you're right, so I added it. Thanks for noticing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I think his position in Islam should at least be mentioned once in the paragraph

If the first paragraph is supposed to be summary then I think it should include what around two billion people think he is SpartanWarrior197 (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, not the first paragraph. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

It is acutely tiring when editors assume a mindset that any active engagement being required to locate a given bit of content is tantamount to its censorship. No, it's just that there's an entire article here, not only the prose we can fit onto a postage stamp. What else do people do on here, if not read? Remsense ‥ 论 06:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, OP didn't say anything about censorship. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I retract my polemic for clarity's sake. Remsense ‥ 论 08:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

No fighting in the war-room ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@SpartanWarrior197, the lead section does actually have that. At the bottom of the lead section, it states:

In Islam, Jesus is considered the messiah and a prophet of God, who was sent to the Israelites and will return to Earth before the Day of Judgement. Muslims believe Jesus was born of the virgin Mary but was neither God nor a son of God. Most Muslims do not believe that he was killed or crucified but that God raised him into Heaven while he was still alive.

So it is actually in there, you just had to read a little bit further. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Revised Edit on Mark/Matthew

After a previous talk above I believe there is agreement that my edit adding Michael Barber, Dale Allison, and Matthew Thiessen was too detailed. My new edit is far less detailed and flows better with the rest of the article while providing the key information on Matthew's historicity, which challenges the claim that Mark is considered the most reliable by most scholars. I did not want to add any controversial edits without consensus, so I have justified and contextualized it in this talk and will consider any objections if they arise. Silverfish2024 (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not how it works. You're ignoring what's been said to you. You've now been given a 3rr warning on your talk page and you've been warned by an admin here. Don't attempt to restore any part of your edits until you have agreement on the talk page. DeCausa (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Your concerns have been noted. Silverfish2024 (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I was already worried my edit was premature; thank you for confirming this. I will not edit the main page again until I find agreement.

This is my edit, which has taken into consideration a previous discussion regarding detail:

Mark, which is most likely the earliest written gospel, has been considered for many decades the most historically accurate, though this view has been strongly challenged in recent years. Silverfish2024 (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Most of the first part of the sentence was already present, and I have not included my sources in this Talk page. Silverfish2024 (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I also propose an edit that goes this way:

Scholars have suggested an oral relationship or dependence emphasizing memory rather than visual copying. The care with which Matthew handled his sources means that the Gospel is not significantly different theologically or historically.

Although I disagree that my other edits were too detailed or that naming a scholar is bad, I hearkened to feedback to create this edit. Silverfish2024 (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I can provide my sources if anybody wishes. Silverfish2024 (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It has been a full week since I first proposed my two edits in the Talk page here and have not received any objections to my changed content, so I assume agreement has been reached per WP: TALKDONTREVERT. I will thus insert my edits if there are no issues. Silverfish2024 (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Nope, that would be you ignoring the clear consensus that exists against your proposals. The interest others had in replying has dried up because you've argued a considerable amount here already but haven't engaged with the core objection others have heretofore raised. You have been told "no, this is a biographical article with a very broad scope, and a discussion of this kind would constitute excessive detail about what are ultimately metatextual topics in that context" multiple times—with various explanations and references to site guidelines given but more or less dismissed out of hand each time. Your stance is not one that seems interested in establishing consensus; rather, you're attempting to ram through what you've wanted from the start with changes that do not actually address the core point you've been told. No one else wants to spend more time trying to chip away at that. Remsense ‥ 论 08:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll try articulating it in a more concrete way, because that sometimes brings it into clearer focus. As an extremely rough ballpark figure, we want encyclopedia articles that don't stray far above 10k words. That may sound extremely one-size-fits-all to the point of farce, but I ask that you take me seriously when I say 10k is rather useful as an extremely preliminary benchmark. This article is currently 13.3k words—safely past the point where every single article on the site needs thousands of words chopped out in my opinion, though that would be a bit strong for some others' tastes. Think about how much we have to cover about Jesus in those 10k words—we simply cannot afford to branch out from discussing him, his life, his ideas, his global impact directly, to second-order discussions of how scholars analyze the sources about him. That is how broad we must be. That's pretty clear in how I see it, anyway. Remsense ‥ 论 08:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. This latter explanation is quite informative, though I do not think my edit of less than 150 words contributes much to the overflow of info here. Can I start editing some things down from this article without making proposals? I can see material here that is probably not absolutely necessary to understanding Jesus or is not directly connected to his career. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

It would actually be very much appreciated if some actionable ideas for how to slim this article down came out of this discussion. Remsense ‥ 论 19:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you think I should create another Talk topic? This one already looks kind of cluttered. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not see any consensus against my newest proposals (not the original) since no one before today replied with any objections, and this edit actually does respond to the objection on the previous Talk that my old edit was too detailed. I do not see what issue I am not addressing. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

You do see it, because there is no reason to assume you have adequately addressed previous objections. You have been told that an added discourse in this vein is categorically unwarranted for this article, so why would your new slimmer revision of said discourse be assumed acceptable? I do not think you are unaware of this—in fact, you've bluntly rejected the validity of these concerns multiple times above. That is to say, if you add your changes again, it will be an indication as clear as the last time that you are uninterested in actual consensus, because you feel you are simply right where others are wrong. That's all. Remsense ‥ 论 19:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I saw the need to compromise based on the objections I received whether I am necessarily convinced or not. A slimmer version is less detailed and takes less reading time, which was the main objection all along. At this stage of the discussion however I think I agree that cutting this article down is much more worthwhile than trying to add more content. I think that's what I will look into rather than pursuing my current proposed addition any further. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Remsense that the extreme length of this article means that there is a higher bar for inclusion, especially for content that already exists in other articles. The bar is not "is this information sourced and true", the bar is "is this information absolutely central to the subject of this particular article." -- LWG ^talk 15:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"the key information on Matthew's historicity" With the main exception being the two contradictory Nativity narratives, I am not aware of differences in historicity within the Synoptic Gospels. Their narratives are similar enough to point to common origins, and there are few details than can be either directly confirmed or contradicted by other sources of the era. Dimadick (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Removed scholarly info

@Golikom Removed various information I posted from scholars, namely Alan Kirk and Michael Barber, that are well sourced and highly relevant to the sources for the Historical Jesus, claiming that they are "unnecessary". As far as I can tell there is no rule saying that supposedly unnecessary material can be removed from Wikipedia (the info is well-sourced and relevant). I would appreciate feedback and consensus on this matter. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

You've added these significant bits of text to multiple articles already. They don't need to be added here as well Golikom (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure how anything I put in other articles say has to do with my edit on this page. My edit provides good information that improves this page, which also likely has much more traffic than almost any other Christianity-related articles on Wikipedia.

I also do not think that Wikipedia articles must limit themselves to the bare minimum that is absolutely necessary. As long as information is properly sourced and relevant I do not see the issue in adding it. Silverfish2024 (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

On that basis there might as well be one article for The universe that contains every bit of information ever. There are articles about the gospels, and copy pasting your text here is over detail. The level of traffic of a page does not have a bearing in this. Golikom (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I would presume that an article on the universe would include much of the characteristics in detail throughout the known universe, such as its formation, stars, and galaxies, future, etc. In this case the transmission of material and historicity of the canonical Gospels, our primary sources for the historical Jesus, is highly pertinent, especially given how prominent the particular scholars I have cited are.

I still have not found any rule preventing my edits from being confirmed; is there some kind of limit to how detailed an article can be? Silverfish2024 (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It's WP:TOOMUCH here - we don't need a load of this scholar says, that scholar says about the sources gospels when it's sufficiently covered in those articles. It's notable for those articles - it's not critical to have this level of detail here Golikom (talk) 08:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

In this case Derico and Kirk provide key insights on the oral/mnemonic nature of the transmission of the Jesus tradition; media criticism is absolutely key to researching the Synoptic Gospels, and there is no coverage on this page regarding how the authors used their sources. If anything I could provide much more detail (the entire book and Brill article in fact!), but I only chose to include the bare fact of oral dependence and Kirk's single quote, so I find it difficult to claim that I have added too much detail.

Barber's work has provided several major contributions as well, so I find it fitting to be included, though I am considering removing Allison's quote. Finally, this article already has "a load of this scholar says, that scholar says", several from much less prominent scholars than the ones I give. It is odd to single my edit out in particular. Silverfish2024 (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The fact that the whole article needs a clean up is not a justification for adding more. Details about researching the gospels belongs in the articles about the gospels, not in the article about Jesus. Golikom (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The article does not need a "clean up"; citing academics by name is what you should expect in a field as contentious as historical Jesus studies. There is no requirement that everything in Wikipedia be in Wikipedia's own voice.

Information about the Gospels can be in an article about Jesus, since they are the main sources. Why include the notion that Mark is the most reliable Gospel if we are talking strictly about Jesus in the first place, for example? Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The article Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia, which is just one random example from a very different field, cites various scientists like David Deutsch, Jeffrey A. Barrett, and Leon Cooper by name. I highly doubt all these articles need any kind of clean up because of this. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Silverfish2024, see WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. This is an overview article. There are subsidiary articles where more detail may be better suited. Apart from one post, you seem to be focussed on 'why shouldn't' your material be added. That's the wrong perspective. Per WP:ONUS, you need to persuade others why it should be added. DeCausa (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Golikom deleted my edit, which is itself an edit, so he must have a good reason if he is to maintain it. I already showed my justification; the manner of Gospel transmission and some homage to the Synoptic Problem, key to understanding the Gospels and henceforth Jesus himself, deserves inclusion. Barber's work has already convinced other top scholars and has not received much (if any) dissent as far as I can tell, so the claim that Mark considered the most reliable should not be trusted uncritically. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I linked to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and the other editor linked to WP:TOOMUCH. Did you read them? They are making similar points. That's what you need to answer. The reason why you need to answer them is because of WP:ONUS. Did you read that? "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I suggest you address the issues raised. DeCausa (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I have indeed read these articles, and I have already justified my edits twice. I have already responded to all the issues @Golikom has raised. Is there any issue you wish I dealt with? @DeCausa Silverfish2024 (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Your edit is too much detail for this article, IMO. The other editor seems to be saying the same thing. As far as I'm concerned you haven't addressed that so currently you have no WP:CONSENSUS to add the material, so you can't add it. Maybe other editors will join this thread and agree with you, in which case consensus will change. If you still want to add the material you can either wait until that happens or seek to persuade me and the other editor that it's not too much detail. Up to you. DeCausa (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I have already explained that the transmission of the Gospels is important for studying the Gospels and Jesus, so I do not understand why you still believe my edit is too detailed.

As for my other edit, I do agree now that it was too detailed, though it supplies needed information against any supposed agreement Mark is more reliable. Silverfish2024 (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I would say that if the scholarly info is kept short and sweet, (1-2 paragraphs with all important info) then it should be added. of course, if it fits better in another article then you should add it there instead. you're grown people, be responsible and keep the edit wars to a minimum. DarlingYeti (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The birthplace of Jesus

It should be clarified in the infobox that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, Palestine. It adds important detail that allows people to understand where his birthplace is in the modern world. Wikieditor969 (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

It's fine the way that it is. Moreover, another comment that you blew through should've given you a hint: there's actually no consistent contemporaneous textual evidence stating Jesus was born in Bethlehem; the evidence we have is the longstanding tradition that he was and the relatively late accounts in Matthew and Luke, which are understood to contradict each other. See Bethlehem § Classical period. Remsense ‥ 论 03:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no scholarly agreement that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Some scholars think that this detail was invented to connect Jesus to the King David who was supposed to be the ancestor of the Messiah. Also it is not the common practice in Wikipedia to put anachronistic data in the birth or death place of ancient historical figures. For example we don't say about the birth place of Alexander the Great that it is now in Greece and that his death place is now in Iraq. Vegan416 (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)