RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Critics of the historicity of Jesus

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Critics of the historicity of Jesus | Result: Moved to essayspace[edit]

Critics of the historicity of Jesus (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) โ€“ (View log)

Delete[edit]

  1. This is a long list of Wikipedia articles that does not advance our mission. Leaving it up just invites potential inaccuracy if not outright trolling Hastur! (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. 15 times. I asked user Dbz at least 15 times on the talk page why is this listicle missional. He didn't answer me. Granted, Bongolian gave an answer but I personally found it unconvincing. Most of the names are a bunch of utterly, literal nobodies; many of them are so irrelevant they don't even have an article on Wikipedia. Even among those with a Wikipedia article there are many of them who aren't even historians or whatever. Article lists lawyers, "independent scholars", bloggers, journalists, linguists, etc. Sources include motherfucking Medium (although a considerable part of the names don't even have a source). Also, the very definition of a "critic of the historicity of Jesus" is iffy. For instance, it includes authors that belive that "Despite many other flaws, the gospels support a rounded figure and a historical Jesus certainly existed". Guess we can add almost every single intelectual (even most Christian historians and intelectuals) since the XIX century then? Maybe Dbz's theory ain't fringe after all! This happens to be one of our worst listicles. And that's quite a lot. The fact that not even the author knows why the article is missional is just the icing of the cake. GeeJayK (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. Long, rambling, confusing, and a listicle. I hate it. โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 11:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  4. there is an article on the historicity of jesus. why is this even necessary? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  5. Rambling, confusing listicle that doesn't really advance the mission. Added to that, the great majority of these names are taken from existing listicles on other websites, including Wikipedia and tumblr; we don't need local duplicates of listicles others have already made. ๐’ฎ๐‘’๐“‡๐‘’๐“ƒ๐‘’ talk 15:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  6. Dbz is a sysop and can move it to essayspace themselves if they want to. Christopher (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  7. On second thought, no. Nuke it from orbit. Borderline unreadable. Someone can recreate it compared to the other listicle, but as is, no. -- Techpriest (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. This article/listicle is related to the "Question of the historicity of Jesus" which is a rambling, confusing topic indeed, because many Christ devotees are "Biblical Scholars" who are incapable of addressing this topic in a rational manner. Also this article/listicle is useful for presenting how Wikipedia goes off the rails and falls flat on its face and then is unable to "right the ship" when the modern consensus is malformed and thus no longer citable as reliable. Something Wikipedia never expected to ever occur and thus is unable to deal with. RW should be presenting how and why this academic train-wreck is occurring and how and why Wikipedia is failing. --Dbz (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. If this is allowed to exist on mainspace, so does this article. Might as well make an AfD for every listicles on here and there are dozens. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 14:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
    there should afd on every listicle. they are dogshit AMassiveGay (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
    I actually thought about mentioning this other listicle on my vote. Despite all its flaws it tries to show how the creationist intellectuals are far less relevant, even as a gish gallop, than people on Conservapedia think. GeeJayK (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. Clearly a devoted labor of research and writing. Keep it. Jake Holmesyell at me 14:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
    I'm sorry for the stupid question, but how does this make the article more suitable for the main space? I believe your vote would be more coherent on the merge section. GeeJayK (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
    Doesn't make the article good. We've deleted / moved some huge effort stuff. Remember the obsession with sub sub sub anarchist schools? This strikes me as similar bordering on obsessive efforts that result on work that neglects the value of brevity in favor of excessively thorough comprehensiveness. Maybe I don't get it. It's evident dbz finds this interesting but this article is just me scrolling through this completely bored at opinions of people I don't care about regarding a subject that's not the most interesting thing in the world, probably up for disagreement). I mean economics bores me way more in general and the article on the mess that is the 2008 recession is far more followable. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 16:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

essayspace it. -- Techpriest (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Changed my vote. -- Techpriest (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I feel bad deleting something someone took a gigantanormous amount of time editing. Either Essayspace or be it its own article under "Rationalwiki:Webshites" since it could work well there. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 11:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  1. I vote to essayspace it, just because of the fact that I don't want someone's work to completely go away. DELETE ANY REDIRECTS FROM MAINSPACE. Andrew5 (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. To RationalWiki:Webshites. Senioritas (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. This thing is so well sourced I canยดt stand the thought of it being deleted.๐”–๐”ฒ๐”ช๐”ช๐”ž ๐”„๐”ฑ๐”ฅ๐”ข๐”ฌ๐”ฉ๐”ฌ๐”ค๐”ฆ๐” ๐”ž (๐”ฎ๐”ฒ๐”ข๐”ฏ๐”ข๐”ฉ๐”ฆ๐”ฐ) (๐”ฐ๐” ๐”ฏ๐”ฆ๐”ญ๐”ฑ๐”ฒ๐”ฏ๐”ž) 14:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  4. Joining the growing essayspace chorus.-Flandres (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  5. Article always struck me as a bloated pet project by a single-issue contributor and finally people are gonna vet this thing. This isn't easy to vet since it's so bloated. Consign this unsightly (and no offense but also extremely boring) cruft to essayspace. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 16:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  6. As noted in Goat: Essayspace. Bongolian (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  7. 178.198.8.40 (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  8. Inclined towards essayspace as well. โ„•oir LeSable (talk) 01:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  9. essayspace preferably with a heavy cleanup and streamlining.BruceGrubb (talk) 08:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  10. Looks like someone's notes or bibliography. I oppose deletion, but would be better as some sort of essayspace or draft or appendix or userspace or some other type of note. The historicity of Jesus is a very complex topic (meaningless, irrelevant, yet a matter of passionate debate) that it seems nobody can write about in a simple manner. So I have sympathy for anyone trying to kick these ideas into shape - the coverage here on RW is not the best but deleting this will not help (unless the plan is drive away everyone writing on historicity). A list like this isn't the best way of covering the issue, but it's a step on the way, and part of being a Wiki is not deleting intermediate steps just because they're not finished. --Annanoon (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
    I like the idea of it as an appendix. You are correct that the historicity of Jesus is a very complex topic and trying to get a handle on it is the main function of the Christ myth theory article showing that what the very mean of "Mythical" (and therefore its counterpoint "historical") varies between experts with some falling in a "historical" camp. As for why we need this somewhere take a look at the way too long "new topic" piece on Talk:Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ. BruceGrubb (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
    Related to Category:People whose existence is disputedWikipedia and originally inspired by Renรฉ Salm's Talk:Christ myth theory/CitationsWikipedia --Dbz (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  11. I support moving to essayspace. Spud (talk) 09:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  12. Take it over to essay space. โ€”cosmikdebris talk stalk 20:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

  • If this gets deleted, @Dbz should consider putting it up in Essayspace. Bongolian (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • It would be nice if people actually reviewed the article and its sources... โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 15:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
    It would be nice if you didn't whine because you're losing the poll. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 15:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
    Do us all a favor and shut your trap. โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 15:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I like how the article begins with a weird color legend using two colors for one viewpoint (?? Why???) but then goes on to incldue pinks, cyans, tans, maroons, reds with a sliver gradient of yellow, and rainbows? What the hell?? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 16:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
    @LeftyGreenMario Even pre-supposing the thesis, the article itself is kind of shit at actually conveying said thesis. Hence my vote to delete, as well as my reasoning for said vote. โ˜ญComrade GCโ˜ญMinistry of Praise 16:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
    Delete would be my second choice too. I have no idea what the article is arguing. It just vomits at me a bunch of quotes and a weird legend that doesn't even cover all the bunch of random colors. What even is the end game of this? I imagine there is some application on arguing why or how Jesus Jesus'd and if he's a historical figure or not but does this subject really need so much attention to get this amount of information? Jesus myth theory also suffers from being a gigantic article which is also another laser focus of dbz and that article is also, no offense, not an easy thing to read either. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!
    Rather than arguing anything, it seems to be the sort of bibliography you create when doing research on a complex topic. Until we have really good coverage of the historicity debate in proper articles, it should stay (in some place) for that very reason. --Annanoon (talk) 08:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think the article is well-source. At beast, it has many sources (though many names don't have sources). Among the sources you have Medium links, blog links, YouTube videos, at least one pseudohistory promoter, Richard Carrier, books written in the XIXth century or in the first decades of the XXth century...
    Users here keep mentioning Medium, but in its defense, it is a generally far more reliable source than say, Tumblr as it is heavily moderated. It is good for opinions, and occasionally, it is good documentation that could be useful for RationalWiki. My main concern are the blog links, and potentially, the Youtube links if they are from pseudo-intellectual smucks like Thought slime, Contrapoints or Vaush. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 16:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
    I didn't know about the tumblr "source". This is just... embarrasing, to say the least. GeeJayK (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
    The Xenogender article had plenty of these until I decided to scrub them all off, sick shit in all honesty. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 16:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I encourage people to look at Jesus myth theory too. Hideously bloated and suffers from the same overreliance on opinions on never ending tons and tons of scholars. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!
    This article (as well as the one you've mentioned) remind me of when I read The Da Vinci Code some 15 years ago. In one scene, Langdon shows to his publisher a hefty list of people that agree with him about the Da Vinci Code, thus "proving" that his theory is not fringe. I feel like Dbz is doing the same with these articles. GeeJayK (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
    Professor Robert Langdon is a fictional character meaning his "hefty list of people" is likely a made up fiction just like all the sources at the back of Crichton's Andromeda Strain. By contrast the sources at Jesus myth theory are real piece written by real people. The total non sequitur of comparing Robert Langdon to any of those who step back and think about it should be obvious. That said a lot of what is in Jesus myth theory does need to be daughtered out as the article way is too long. BruceGrubb (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
    I think you didn't understand my point, Bruce. GeeJayK (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

โ”Œโ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”˜

โ€ฆone pseudohistory promoter, Richard Carrierโ€ฆ โ€”User:GeeJayK (revision oldid=2362820)

I think we all get the point that you would like it if everyone drank the Kool-Aid of "TRUTH!". --Dbz (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)