Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Christ myth theory/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:00, 21 February 2010 [1].

Christ myth theory

Nominator(s): Eugene (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the article has recently been greatly improved in terms of content, formatting, and sourcing, having emerged about a month ago from a nasty edit war. It's stability has been established, it recently obtained GA status, and I feel it can further qualify for FA status. Eugene (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, 1(d), problems with neutrality. The writers are presenting a POV as fact, and this idea as fringe when it may simply be a minority position. There are two main problems:
(a) The lead suggests that no one reputable holds that Jesus didn't exist, and this is presented as unassailable without in-text attribution. I checked Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion (2006), and he suggests that a case can in fact be made that he didn't, and has been made, reputably, though it's a minority view. Dawkins is Professor for Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford, so his views can't be dismissed or ignored, though I realize it's a general-readership book, not an academic work, but even so. He writes: "Much of what they [Matthew, Mark, Luke and John] wrote was in no sense an honest attempt at history but was simply rehashed from the Old Testatment, because the gospel-markers were devoutly convinced that the life of Jesus must fulfil Old Testament prophesies. It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all, as has been done by, among others, Professor G.A. Wells of the University of London in a number of books, including Did Jesus Exist?", p. 97.
(b) The article needs to make clear, including in the lead, that asserting Jesus existed does not in any sense confirm that the stories told about him are accurate (and I'm not even including the son of god issue; I'm just referring to the various claims about who he and his family were, and the things he did). In other words, the lead seems to set up "he was real" versus "he wasn't real," which is a false dichotomy, or at least a simplistic one, then dismisses the latter without exploring the idea that, even if he existed, it's not clear that any of the claims made about him are true. That is, it's not clear that he existed in any form we would recognize, or that any historians are making that kind of claim. I'll be happy to take another look if these issues can be ironed out, but I think they would involve quite a bit of rewriting to sort out. I'm sorry, I don't like opposing and don't want to be discouraging, but I can't support it in its current form. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 10:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat flabbergasted by the rationale for this oppose vote. Yes, Dawkins (a biologist, who believes Jesus existed) refers to Wells' (a professor of German) work. But so what? The article mentions this, Wells later recanted, and the lead states that specifically "biblical scholars and historians being highly dismissive"--which neither of these men are. Considering that you question the WP:FRINGE status of the subject I'm even more shocked. Given your enormous collection of barnstars, SlimVirgin, I hesitate to ask this, but have you even read the footnotes these statements connect to? The fringe nature of the topic is thunderously affirmed by literally dozens of authorities. Please, please reconsider your oppose vote, at least until we can discuss this further. Eugene (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through the talk page of the article and there are several people, including editors I respect, saying similar things, and suggesting the page be merged into another one whose name I've forgotten; that is, they seem to be saying it's essentially a POV fork as written. Others are saying you criticize or demolish the ideas before you've fully explained them. I have read the footnotes, yes, but you are allowing these people to be representative of the entirety of academia. And comparing a failure to believe that Jesus existed to flat-earthism or Holocaust denial really is a very extreme position. It needs in-text attribution because Wikipedia needs to distance itself from it. In other words, I think you need to step back and write this from a completely disinterested perspective.

Because I know so little about this, I've asked an editor who I know does have some background in this area to take a look at the article, but he's been busy lately, so I don't know whether he'll have time. I'd certainly be willing to be persuaded by him if I've got it wrong. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering just how many awards you have amassed I've got to believe you are a very competent editor. But when you can look at a list of dozens of quotes establishing the scholarly consensus and outting the Christ myth theory as fringe, but still think the theory isn't really fringe, it raises eyebrows. Considering this, and the fact that your initial "go-to" fact checking source for this article was an atheist polemic written by someone with no background in historical Jesus research, I have to wonder if it is really I that needs to adopt a "disinterested perspective". Sure, Dawkins alludes to the theory (though he himself doesn't believe it); the article already says that in the Pop culture section. He refers to G. A. Wells; the article quotes his work at length and dedicates a lot of space to him personally, despite the fact that he's renounced the theory. Calling the comparisons "extremist" is odd; on what basis have you made this determination? Mark Allen Powell, the chairman of the Society of Biblical Literature's Historical Jesus Division, makes the comparison. Is the SBL "extremist"? Eugene (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I quickly checked the Dawkins as the only book I had to hand that might say whether this is a fringe theory. He seems to think not. You appear to be right that it's a minority theory, but to compare it to Holocaust denial and moon-landing conspiracy theories is quite a leap without careful in-text attribution. That's my concern. This is just one of the issues, by the way. There are some prose and layout issues too, but they'd be easier to fix. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard back from the Wikipedian who I believe knows quite a bit about this. He agrees with you that the idea is fringe, but he won't have time to look at the article for a few days unfortunately. It could be that it just needs to be presented a little differently to make it appear more disinterested. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

The last paragraph of the lead seems somewhat sweeping and provocative. "The Christ myth theory is essentially without supporters in modern academic circles, biblical scholars and historians being highly dismissive of it,[51] viewing it as pseudo-scholarship.[42] Some of these specialists have even gone so far as to compare the theory's methodological basis with that of flat-earthism, Holocaust denial and moon landing skepticism.[55]"
I think it needs in-text attribution—who is saying it has no supporters, who is highly dismissive, who has called it pseudo-scholarship, who has compared it to flat-earthism etc. As it stands, there's no indication of how eminent or representative these academics are, or whether they're disinterested. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 08:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those claims are all supported by citations. Given that this is a WP:FRINGE article we've avoided in-line citations so as to avoid implying that broadly held views are only held by the person mentioned, per the policy guideline. As with the provocative and sweeping statements, the citations included in the footnotes indicate these views are rather widespread. Does this change anything? Eugene (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right; I know nothing about it, and I take your point about not wanting to name the sources in case it sounds as though there aren't many of them. But my reaction as an uninvolved and uninformed editor to that last paragraph is whoa, this can't be compared to flat-earthism. So if someone is making that strong a claim, I think they need to be named. Perhaps you could pick the most eminent of the historians (and the most disinterested i.e. not a Christian), and say "Professor Eminent of Harvard University writes that no mainstream scholar today questions that Jesus, the son of Joseph, lived," or words to that effect, and then if there is such a scholar, name him too and tell us what he says. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs}

The bibliography: is that a list of the books you used as references, or is it a list of recommended further reading?
Some image problems:

File:Bruno Bauer.jpg, do we have a source showing how old it is?
File:Arthur Drews.jpg, that the Library of Congress says no known restrictions doesn't mean there aren't any. We need to know how old, and if after 1923, whether it has been released, or whether the author has been dead long enough.
~~File:Mystery of Christ.jpg, an image being PD in the Ukraine isn't enough, I'm afraid; it must be PD in the U.S., or released in some other way. Or you can claim fair use perhaps.~~
File:Robert M Price headshot.jpg is being used with permission, which isn't allowed. You could write to the author to ask if he agrees to its release under a Creative Commons Attribution licence.

SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 09:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bibliography contains all and only those books refered to or cited in the article. Someone is tracking down a more formal permission regarding the Price pic right now. As the US conforms to the "rule of the shorter term", the Ukranian tag would seem to be sufficient for the agitprop. Drews' picture was taken of him as a middle-aged man, which would put the photo prior to 1923, the photographer (Oscar Suck) was referred to as "distinguished" in publications from the late 1880s so he likely didn't make it to 1923, and the Libraby of Congress says it's unaware of copyright restrictions, this doesn't cut it? Bruno Bauer's non-photo graphic portrait depicts him as a young man and thus likely originates in the mid 19th century, that's as close as I can pin it down. Eugene (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. hasn't adopted the rule of the shorter term according to our PD policy: see Wikipedia:PD#Rule_of_the_shorter_term. For Drew and Bauer, you need a publication date. For Price, you need to find out who took the image and ask that person to release it. The person who took the image may not be either of the people who are in it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting my regarding the rule of the shorter term. I've cut the agitprop picture pending a better tag. As for the Price photo, I know who owns it and she's given written permission to include it in Wikipedia. Another editor is also currently obtaining more formal Wikipedia style consent at the time. I've added a date to the Drews photo found at a reprint company. And as for Bauer, come on, that picture is so old and has been on Wikimedia Commons for so long I don't see how this is a serious issue. Eugene (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to give a source for the date of the Drews image. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. ~~Two dab links: Greg Boyd and Joseph. One dead external link: http://www.veritas.org/media/talks/395.~~ Alt text present and good. Ucucha 13:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now fixed these issues. Eugene (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ucucha 15:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just noticed this nomination. Eugene is to be highly commended for the immense amount of labor he's put into this article. However, I feel that the article isn't ready for FA status yet (I'm commenting, not "voting", because I've edited the article also). One reason is that the article does not yet give sufficient coverage to some of the theory's proponents--the sections on Bauer and Drews in particular need rewriting and some expansion.

The other issue, which I've complained about some on the article's talk page, is the state of the footnotes. Again, Eugene has put in a lot of work cleaning these up, which is good. But there are an immense number of footnotes, most of which contain extensive quotations, and I think this makes for an article that reads poorly. In the current version, the very first footnote in the article is number 10, which cites footnotes 1-9. So that's 9 citations for the very first sentence. In contrast, footnote no. 11 cites a single source (without quotation) for a single point. The next footnote mark in the article text is number 51, which in turn cites footnotes 12–50. So that's, what, 39 citations for one part of a sentence ("biblical scholars and historians being highly dismissive of it..."). At the end of the same sentence (the last sentence of the lead), we have footnote no. 55, which cites 13 other footnotes. So I think there are at least three issues with the footnotes: 1) overuse of quotations, which can even give the impression that the footnotes are being used as a quotefarm; 2) overcitation for individual claims within the article--surely 39 citations for a single point are excessive; 3) many footnotes are not cited directly but only cited by other footnotes. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely sympathetic to your concerns about the number of footnotes. But when an editor as amazingly accomplished as SlimVirgin can read the quotes and come away still uncertain as to the fringiness of the subject, what's the solution? Would fewer notes really help? Or, another possibility, could we submit the article to some higher Wiki authority for an official ruling that the subject qualifies as WP:FRINGE? Eugene (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notes are not the issue. It's the way you've presented the information in the article and in particular in the lead, as I've said several times now. It's the lack of in-text attribution for one thing. Some careful writing might take care of my concerns. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The notes are not the issue." Really? Whatever happened to, "I have read the footnotes, yes, but you are allowing these people to be representative of the entirety of academia." As for in-text attribution, as I've said, special guidelines exist for WP:FRINGE articles which specifically discourage this sort of thing. But I'm flexible, what do you have in mind as an example of "careful writing"? Eugene (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are many spelling errors in the quotes: plasible, independant, crucifiction, exicuted, farfetched, historyical. Please correct or mark with "sic". Ucucha 19:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the spelling error you noted. Eugene (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.