Talk:Christ myth theory/POV tag

POV

Okay, I've tried to sort this out, but I'm going to add the POV tag now, something I very rarely do, because Eugene has just removed Martin. [1] That combined with all the other omissions and commentary make me feel that this article is inherently POV and OR-ish. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I also want to draw attention to Eugene's edit summary: "Removed addition of Martin from lead as consensus against it (Akhilleus, Bill, Eugene vs. SlimVirgin; 3:1" We don't do NPOV by numbers. We do it by policy, and if you have a statement in the lead saying "no or very few academics take X seriously," you are obliged by NPOV to add a dissenting voice if there is a reliable one. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict). I agree with the need for the tagging, this article contravenes WP:NPOV. Graham Colm (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of the Martin quote btw. Seems much more balanced. It would be nice to allow other editors some time to comment before claiming consensus has been reached. ^^James^^ (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I support the addition of the tag - let's hope it brings in fresh eyes and sources. Sophia ♫ 22:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't do NPOV by number. But neither do we suppress facts by numbers (as was attempted by the pseudo-whatever vote above). Furthermore, I'm not saying that there should not be a "dissenting voice" in the lead; I'm only saying that it should be in context. You are attempting to mislead the readers into believing the CMT is simply a minority position. It isn't; it's been rejected over and over again. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's deeply disheartenly to find the Ivy-League educated chair of the SBL's Historical Jesus Section dismissed as "biased".[2] (The SBL, far from being some benighted fundamentalist group as some of the editors here have tried to characterize it, is a member of the American Council of Learned Societies, right alongside the the APA--American Psychological Association.) Even more depressing is that, apparently, even agnostics like Bart Ehrman are now also thus dismissed for pushing a pro-Christian "POV".[3] I remember when some of this page's critics objected to strong statements appearing without particular attribution; now it seems that even such attribution isn't enough--full deletion is necessary. I also see that the not-so-subtle insinuation that Christians are inherently untrustworthy has resurfaced.[4][5][6] It's fairly clear that some of the editors are trying very hard to de-FRINGE this article and misrepresent the CMT as a respectable minority position in contradiction of literally dozens of high-quality reliable sources published by a wide variety of specialists from all over the ideological map. This has been a problem for a long time and the more reasonable editors have tried to address it with everthing from simply RfCs to formal mediation. Apparently that isn't enough. I think it's time for arbitration. I've posted a request on the ArbCom notice board and hopefully they can sort this out. Eugene (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Eugene continues to remove the tag though it's clear that the dispute remains unresolved, and most of the people who've commented believe the article has POV issues. Eugene, you've undone most of the material that was added in an effort to improve things, and you've made the lead worse by removing the dissenting voice and restoring the "pseudo" issue. If you remove the tag again I'm going to request admin assistance. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It might be helpful if you summarized what you felt the remaining POV issues were. Eugene asked for this recently and you didn't respond, so he may have concluded that there was no longer an active dispute. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It is way too early to remove the tag Eugene. Anthony (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If that is so, he should have been answered. NJMauthor (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Akhilleus, the disputes seem to have driven several of the uninvolved or less involved editors away. That doesn't mean the issues are resolved, simply that people have been worn down. Two key issues for me are, as I said, no dissenting voice in the lead, and the addition of the "pseudo" issue or any other phrase that denigrates the sources (these are not the only issues, but they're the most immediate ones). I've said this many times; if I fail to answer on any given occasion it doesn't mean there's been a resolution. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this is the version I added the tag to on April 12 because efforts to improve the article were being undone. This is the current version. The lead still has no modern dissenting voice. There is still a prominent "pseudo" claim. The historical responses section is still entirely negative, but is placed outside arguments and counter-arguments as though it's definitive and neutral. The Price section is almost the same as it was; all the extra details have been removed, though at least now we have a decent image. Those are just some of the issues to be starting with. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to SV's list: the historical responses section needs to be improved, but I tend to agree that it needs to be incorporated into the arguments and counter-arguments section. I would also like to improve the arguments and counter-arguments section so that each argument has the "for and against" in the same paragraph, as it makes more sense than having the counter in a different section entirely. However that can be managed. Please add back the "missing" Price details, with a justification for each, and let's debate the justifications before anybody removes them again. But as far as the lead is concerned, I still don't understand the need for a "modern dissenting voice". The lead currently states what the proponents believe, and that the many detractors reject their assertions. If you want to know who and what, you have ten pages of "history" to wade through. I don't see why you need to mention a particular individual in the lead, either for or against, as the lead summarises all the content of the article. There is nothing wrong with the pseudoscholarship comment, as many people have indeed made that comment, and it does say "many" not "all". We don't need to have a counter to that, as the existence of the Theory alone indicates that some think its a valid Theory based on good evidence - some of which evidence is already summarised in the lead. I think the use of the word "pseudoscholarship" already indicates that the detractors tend to be emotional rather than scientific, which I think is an accurate assessment in many cases, but adding an equally-emotional "voice" in favour of the Theory adds nothing to the lead. Wdford (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

SV, the RfC is very clearly against including the Martin quote and the new lead--with the referene to many scholars considering the theory pseudoscholarship--was agreed to here on the talk page. If that's all you've got, then that isn't much. Eugene (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

POV?

With the new lead and the excision of Powell's actual quote, does anyone still think that the article has POV problems? Eugene (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

SV, I noticed that you restored the POV tag. What specifically do you object to at this point? Eugene (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, SlimVirgin reinserted the tag on the following basis: (1) lead doesn't include a dissenting voice, (2) a reference to pseudoscholarship appears in the lead, (3) the "historical responses" appears outside the arguments section and so masquerades as some neutral and comprehansive accounting, and (4) Price's section is... something-or-other. These don't seem like sufficient reasons for a NPOV tag.

1. The RfC sided clearly against mentioning Martin in the lead; he now appears in the 20th century's "Other authors" section.
2. Including a reference to pseudoscholarship in the new lead was the the consensus of the editors here with only one giving any reasons against including the material--reasons which he explicitly conceded violated WP:V.
3. The "Historical responses" section has been renamed "Historical rebuttals" to prevent confusion.
4. Price's section includes many new elements which SlimVirgin originally put in: a new picture, a quote about finding a skeleton, his nationality, an allusion to the Jesus Seminar, his disdain for appeals to authority, etc. I simply don't see how this section can be faulted for POV.

Given all this it seems that the tag should come down. I'm not saying that the article is perfect, but the specific issues advanced to justifty the tag have either been resolved or are trivial. If someone objects, please give reasons why, reasons which do not themselves violate policy or seem like little more than sour grapes over a RfC that didn't go your way. Eugene (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've waited 24 hours and, again, no one has responsed with reasons. On the assumption that SlimVirgin isn't just stonewalling, I'm taking the tag down. Eugene (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:POV issues and WP:OWN problems

I have added the POV tag to this article, to reflect the fact that the WP community recently delisted it as a good article due to its POV issues and WP:OWN problems. This is just a warning to other editors who dip their toe in this pond and try to make changes to this article as I did.

To get a pretty quick idea of what is going on, check out this page:

Good article reassessment of CMT

It is clear to me from the discussion that there are two camps at war in editing this page. The POV which currently dominates is one which enforces strict criteria for "notability" in order to give an advantage to the anti-CMT POV. These criteria are not in compliance with Wikipedia standards. Currently this camp is exhibiting WP:OWN behaviors which make it impossible to resolve the POV issues.

The article presents a weak straw-man version of the CMT, provides very limited elaboration of the evidence for the theory and has a much larger amount of material focused on arguments against the theory. It also focuses too much on the history of the ideas and the people associated with the theory, instead of the theory itself.

If you peruse the archives you will see that there are HUGE unresolved POV issues with this article, and it is hard for me to see how these can be resolved currently.

My understanding of the WP policy is that the POV warning tag should remain at the top of this article until these issues are resolved. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read Template:POV, particularly the section that reads 'The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.' Your purpose here seems to be to express frustration and warn other readers that you think the article is biased. This is not what the template is for. If you think there are substantive problems with the article, please discuss them. Otherwise, the tag should be removed. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Akhilleus, you make a very good point. I am not adding the tag as a "badge of shame". The existence of POV and WP:OWN issues is documented elsewhere by editors far more experienced than me:

Good article reassessment of CMT

My apologies if my above comments caused any offense. I believe I have presented a number of specific concerns about the lack of NPOV. In looking at the archives of the talk page I see that a number of editors have also raised concerns that remain unresolved. Hopefully editors from opposing sides of the controversy can work together in good faith to resolve these issues. My concern is that editors like myself who do not hold the anti-CMT position will become discouraged, as I am getting, and simply give up on this thing and "get a life". Removing the POV tag with the issues unresolved simply because no editor wants to spend their life taking on the "owners" of this article is not really doing a service to the integrity of this article. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we've come to the point where we need to start discussing implementing a FAQ. I have no intention of rehashing old arguments when a FAQ can be much more efficient. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

To reiterate, I appreciate being informed that the POV tag is not supposed to be used as a warning or a badge of shame. I am fairly new to the WP editing process, so I am learning as I go and I intend to be involved in this process in good faith.

How is an FAQ written from a POV going to resolve this articles POV issues? Wasn't there already an FAQ in the past that was deleted because of complaints about its POV? I think I saw that somewhere in the archives. How can we ensure that an FAQ is not just a mechanism used by some editors to attempt to control the POV of the article?

Please note that this article's POV issues are documented here by multiple editors: Good article reassessment of CMT I am just the messenger, adding a tag to help make this article better. Please don't shoot the messenger. Or remove the POV tag until the POV issues are resolved. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

For more extensive discussion of the many POV problems that this article has, see this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_reassessment/Christ_myth_theory/1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceLoveHarmony (talk • contribs) 20:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

PLH, this really won't do. The POV tag must relate to an active, ongoing dispute on the article with discussion on the talk page. Links to archived discussions don't constitute active, ongoing discussion. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Akhilleus, we are having an active ongoing dispute right now here on the talk page. The pages that I have referenced simply document that these issues have been ongoing and remain unresolved. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A FAQ can be used to answer...well...frequently asked questions. And the reason the previous faq was removed was because it didn't support certain editors' preconceived notions/POV. PLH, you are asking questions and making accusations that have been made innumerable times before, and which have been ultimately rejected. So, I ask you once again, before making any edits to the article, please discuss them here first. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the same POV problems keep emerging as different editors come across this page should be a red flag that it has POV issues. The fact that editors who want an article that presents the pro-CMT and anti-CMT positions in a balanced and unbiased manner are being overruled by the WP:OWN editors who clearly have an anti-CMT view does not mean that the POV issues have been resolved. It just means that some editors give up, move on, and then some new editors come along to try to fight the same battle for NPOV that was previously lost. I really need to get a life and move on from this ridiculous debate. You win. The integrity of Wikipedia loses. Whatever. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the POV, but there does seem to be a bit of OWN. I would recommend remembering that it's just a wikipedia article, and if it stresses you out, work on something that isn't stressful. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your first sentence: no, the only thing that that indicates is the fact that few people know that virtually no scholar supports the CMT; and not only that, they ridicule it if they don't just outright dismiss it. Many well-meaning people, such as yourself, believe that the CMT theory is plausible. It isn't. It has been almost universally rejected by mainstream scholars. But don't take my word for it. Check out former FAQ #2 here.

Also, according to WP:Fringe, it is not possible to present this theory in a balanced manner any more that it is possible to present the so-called moon landing hoax in balanced manner. Neutral? Yes. Balanced? No. If you have the time, check out this audio by the biblical scholar Bart Ehrman (who is NOT a Christian, but is an atheist/agnostic). It's not long and I think it would be well worth your time. And please remember, this article is about a physical, historical person who did or did not exist. It's not about the miraculous claims of the bible. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

CMT is not a fringe theory, using the Wikipedia criteria. "Fringe theory" refers to pseudoscience, not the questioning of theology on the basis of empirical evidence. If the majority of Book-of-Mormon-scholars reject the theory that the Book of Mormon was a hoax document written by John Smith, is the hoax theory a fringe theory? After all, Book-of-Mormon-scholars by definition are the experts in the field. Of course not. By your criteria of "reliable source", which violates the Wikipedia criteria BTW, any non-Book-of-Mormon-scholars should not even be mentioned in an article about the hoax theory unless they have written at least three articles on the subject that have appeared in scholarly journals devoted to the study of the Book of Mormon.

I listened to the radio dialogue between Bart Ehrman and an unidentified radio personality and I found it fairly worthless for the purpose of evaluating the veracity of claims for the historicity of Jesus. The radio personality was not well-versed in the issues, so it can not be regarded as an even-handed debate. I was frankly shocked to hear Bart Ehrman making the claim that the evidence for the existence of Christ is just as strong as the evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar. Julius Caesar has many many extant contemporaneous documents that refer to him. Jesus of Nazareth has zero. None. Zip. Nada. (The first documents that reference Jesus were written by Paul at least ten years after the crucifixion-story-point-in-time.) Julius Caesar has plentiful physical evidence, e.g. statues and coins that clearly were created during his recorded lifetime. Jesus has none. Zero. Zip. Nada.

If, from these facts, a leading scholar who says he is an agnostic can claim the evidence for the existence of the two figures is equally strong, then there is clearly something wrong with the mechanism theologians are using to evaluate evidence. (A more honest statement would be that the evidence for a single historic Jesus is as strong as the evidence for a single historic Robin Hood.)PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

For a more detailed argument about why CMT is not a fringe theory (and possibly mislabeled as a single cohesive theory at all) please see my response here: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman isn't a theologian. He's a historian of early Christianity. It would be nice if you stopped assuming that everyone who writes about the historical Jesus is motivated by faith, and recognized that scholars of religion are the sort of mainstream sources that should be used to write this article, and any article about early Christianity—these are the recognized academic experts in this subject. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, Bart Ehrman is a "New Testament scholar" according to his WP page, so I concede your point; substitute the words "bible scholars" for the word "theologians" above. Now please address the actual argument regarding the completely different level of credible documentation of Julius Ceasar's existence vs. Jesus' existence and the problem that exists when even an agnostic bible scholar like Bart Ehrman cannot seem to see the impact of this fact on historicity. I am not saying we should exclude bible scholars, just that we should not exclude non-bible-scholars who meet the credible-sources-standard of Wikipedia. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Why does this matter? I mean, it's fairly obvious that there's more physical evidence for Caesar than there is for Jesus, and it's also the case that when people are speaking extemporaneously in an interview situation, they make statements that are less careful than the ones they'd make in print. This is one reason why I think we shouldn't use podcasts as sources. Use printed sources instead, peer-reviewed if possible. It should be obvious, though, that Ehrman's opinions are more important than mine or yours, since he's an expert in the subject and we're not. And he thinks the evidence for Jesus' existence is strong, and another thing he says in that podcast is absolutely correct—“we have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period.” --Akhilleus (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It matters because it demonstrates the intellectual blind spot of bible scholars when it comes to objectively evaluating the veracity of the bible, even when they profess to be unaffected by their years of faith-based instruction. This statement that you say is "absolutely correct" is astoundingly wrong and misleading. This page lists dozens of writers from the period of Jesus' alleged lifetime: Classical Latin. The fact that we have their writings is stronger proof of their existence than the proof we have for Jesus. Every single contemporary who is mentioned in all of these writings has stronger proof of existence than the proof we have for Jesus. (There are no contemporaneous documents that mention Jesus during his alleged lifetime. None. Zip. Nada.) This is just basic logic. Why is that so hard for bible scholars to grasp? PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'm going to defer to an expert on the ancient world rather than a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor. If you want to find out why Ehrman thinks that the evidence for Jesus' existence is just as strong or stronger than the evidence for other ancient people, I suggest you take a look at his works, and the works of other scholars who study the historical Jesus. You can get a start at Historicity of Jesus, but keep in mind that Wikipedia articles aren't reliable sources in themselves; they only serve as a starting point for further research. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Appeal to Authority? Really? That's your best answer? Are you suggesting that there is anything stronger to prove the existence of something in history than multiple contemporaneous extant documents? Do I really have to read the collected works of Bart Ehrman to find out what that stronger standard of proof actually is? I sure wish someone would just tell me what it is.

--PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(BTW, I would like to apologize now and in the future for any tone in my comments that might be seen as violating the spirit of Wikilove. I really do not hold any personal ill intent to anyone who is engaged in this discussion. Thanks.)--PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is all about appeal to authority. The articles are supposed to be based on reliable sources, which is a form of appeal to authority. Basically, we're just supposed to summarize authoritative sources, rather than make arguments on our own. As for not answering your question, I can do it of course, and the basic reason why Ehrman and other scholars think the evidence for Jesus' evidence is strong, it's precisely because of the letters of Paul and the Gospels, documents written not long after Jesus' death. And this is something that people who don't study the ancient world probably don't understand: because of the paucity of surviving evidence, there are lots of people whose existence is only attested in documents from centuries after their deaths. Try Pythagoras, Empedocles, Solon, Cylon of Athens, Croesus, and so on. Yes, some of those guys left writing behind that's (allegedly) by them, but it's only quoted by much later documents. So when you have documents that may be from 1-2 decades after Jesus' death, that's much better than centuries afterward; it's within living memory of the person, for one thing. The Gospels are somewhat later, but most scholars think that material in them derives from oral tradition or earlier written documents within the early Christian community, passed down from people who knew Jesus personally. So again, you have evidence that's pretty close to the person himself. But the reason that I prefer not to answer questions like this is because my opinion counts for nothing in comparison to expert opinion, and because conversations like this are usually futile—when Wikipedia editors start opposing "basic logic" to scholarship they disagree with, that's usually a sign they think they're smarter than these guys with their fancy Ph.Ds, and aren't going to be receptive to the actual scholarship...but maybe I'm wrong, in which case you're better off reading Ehrman yourself than asking me what he thinks, because I haven't read him. And in any case, this article is about a theory that says the historical evidence is poor; it doesn't need to cover in detail why people think the evidence is strong, because we have Historicity of Jesus for that. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(redent) I think that WP:FRINGE says that we should cover why an argument is poor, and what the strong evidence is. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher: good point. But this article should devote the bulk of its attention to the CMT—extensive refutation makes readers feel the article has a POV. So this article should briefly cover why the mainstream thinks there's good evidence for historicity, and refer the reader to historicity of Jesus for more detail. That's my $.02, anyway. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the POV tag needs to stay on this article until the disputes are resolved. Multiple editors feel that it's inherently problematic, but we haven't been allowed to fix it. That's the kind of situation in which a POV tag is appropriate, and I speak as someone who otherwise doesn't like them. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I endorse restoration of the POV tag. Is there an OWN tag? There are still issues, inter alia, with:

• most of whom regard its arguments as examples of pseudo-scholarship. - most?
• In keeping with his pervasive anti-Semitism - how did this get back in?
• English historian Edwin Johnson denied not only a historical Jesus but much of recorded history prior to the 16th century AD as well. - ad hominem, Not an argument.
• Despite their unevenness - redundant sleaze.
• Thus when the Zurich professor Paul Wilhelm Schmiedel identified just nine "pillar passages" in the gospels which he thought early Christians could not have invented, they proved to be tempting targets for Christ myth theorists—despite Schmiedel's intention that these passages serve as the foundation for a fuller reconstruction of Jesus' life. Redundant
• Joseph Klausner wrote that biblical scholars "tried their hardest to find in the historic Jesus something which is not Judaism; but in his actual history they have found nothing of this whatever, since this history is reduced almost to zero. It is therefore no wonder that at the beginning of this century there has been a revival of the eighteenth and nineteenth century view that Jesus never existed." - redundant waffle
• Evidence for this cult was supposedly found - supposedly
• His work proved popular enough - enough.
• the American New Testament critic Robert M. Price has sought to represent the thesis - sought to?
• An argument commonly presented in connection with the Christ myth theory is that the biblical material related to the life of Jesus bears allegedly striking similarities to both Jewish and pagan stories which preceded it. -allegedly.
• James D.G. Dunn has written that Christ myth theorist Robert Price with regard to the epistles ignores "what everyone else in the business regards as primary data." Dunn writes that Price's interpretation is "a ludicrous claim that simply diminishes the credibility of the arguments used in support." - not an argument.
• and that "no serious work on Jesus places him outside that context" - not an argument

I recommend we move Marxist and soviet adoption down to Ideological issues. Anthony (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, you and others have personal opinions that happen to disagree with what reliable sources (i.e., virtually all experts in the field) have concluded. Slapping a POV tag on the article because of your personal opinion is a violation of three core Wiki policies - specifically NPOV, verifiability, and no original research. Unless you and/or others can back up your POV and "problematic" claims with reliable sources, I'm removing the POV tag sometime tomorrow (because no one can use "consensus" to violate core policies). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at "In keeping with his pervasive anti-Semitism,[28] Bauer held that Mark was in fact an Italian who had been influenced by Seneca's Stoic philosophy,[29] and that the Christian movement originated in Rome and Alexandria, not Palestine.[30]". It sounds like OR. Ref 29 and 30 have his beliefs, but ref 28 says his beliefs are in accordance with his Antisemitism? It should all be in one ref, or it's synthesis. Maybe only ref 28 is needed? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that Anthony provided that list; specific bits of text are much easier to deal with than sweeping charges of POV. Most of them are easily rephrased to answer Anthony's objections, too. As for moving the Marxist/Soviet bit down, I'd rather move the "ideological issues" sections up; the "atheist polemics" section should really be called New Atheism and focus on uses of the CMT that are truly notable. The "Christian apologetics" section only covers writers from the early 20th century, who were largely reacting to Arthur Drews; this material could therefore be put into Drews' subsection.

Peregrine Fisher, Bauer's antisemitism was discussed before (the discussion has probably gone into the talk page archives) and my feeling was that the issue is complex enough that it would better be covered at Bruno Bauer; an explanation detailed enough to do the matter justice would be too long for the section here (currently 5 paragraphs). --Akhilleus (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

So, does that mean we remove the antisemitism part of the sentence, or do we move the refs around? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd just chop "In keeping with his pervasive anti-Semitism," along with the ref. This isn't OR, BTW, and Bauer's anti-Semitism is well established (see the entry at the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy for details). It's just that explaining exactly what antisemitism means in mid-19th century Germany is not something that this article really needs to do... --Akhilleus (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made that change. If further discussion on this point is necessary, we should start a new section on the talk page. If I have time later tonight, I'll try to make some edits to address Anthony's concerns above. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That seems constructive. How about the fact that this article doesn't make it easy to find out what the CMT is, and why it isn't accepted? Most of the article seems to be about people through history and their opinion on the CMT. It's not easy for a reader to come here, get an idea of the CMT and why it's bogus. They have to read the whole article right now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As I have pointed out before part of the problem is the literature itself is not always clear on what CMT.

Bromiley is unclear if his definition of CMT is in the Jesus didn't exist at all or if it is in the he existed by the Gospels don't tell anything useful about him as he constantly shifting gears from Lucian to Wells to Bertrand Russel and he starts the rebuttal with Thallus (likelyt he worst source in all the supportive sources)

Dodd's "Or, alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him." under the page title Christ Myth Theory is similarly confusing.

Welch's "The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory" would seem to say Meed and Ellegard with their c100 BCE Jesus are historical Jesus theorist while Wells with his mythic Paul Jesus belongs in the Christ-myth theorist--something Price, Boyd, and Doherty agree with despite Wells saying he belongs with Mack.

Schweitzer in his (1931) Out of My Life and Thought putting Frazer (who believed in a historical Jesus) with John M Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, and Arthur Drews.

Throw in pro historical Jesus non scholars like Holding who label Remsburg and Dawkins who are in Boyd's Jesus existed but the Gospels tell next to nothing camp as Christ Myth theorists and you quickly see why this article is a mess.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Or it might be a mess because tendentious editors make unsupportable claims about the definition being vague.

Peregrine Fisher, if the article isn't doing a good job of providing information to the reader, that's a problem. However, this article has to have a lengthy history section, because the CMT is something that's developed over time, and each of the figures named has a different take. Bruno Bauer, for instance, never makes any appeal to mythological parallels, and believed that Christianity arose in an almost entirely Greco-Roman context (i.e. not Jewish). Drews, on the other hand, thinks that Christianity arose from a Jewish monotheistic cult of a deity named Joshua, who became the Jesus we see in the NT; other authors give different reasons why Jesus isn't historical, and alternative pictures of the rise of Christianity. So the history section, if done correctly, explains clearly each author's version of the theory. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the article on sound ground in identifying one "Christ myth theory" that changed through time? Or is it actually giving a false impression of continuity and coherence to some ideas that have a logical but no historical connection? (I don't know, am actually asking, but it does seem to be the crucial issue.) Itsmejudith (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. (BruceGrubb will tell you differently, but he's been making copy-pasted versions of the same post over and over again for years now.) The crucial reason for thinking so is that multiple academic sources treat the subject this way. An easily accessible sources is Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, ch. 1. Walter P. Weaver The Historical Jesus in the 20th Century, 1900-1950 has good material in Ch. 2 and a second bit starting on p. 300. There's really no shortage of academic sources covering the theory, its definition, arguments, and prominent figures. By and large you find the same people named as important advocates of the theory—Bauer, Drews, Smith, Robertson, Wells, etc. The same people we cover in this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've had a look through both of these now, within the limitations of Google Books preview. Van Voorst goes through the history of the rejection of Jesus' historicity fairly quickly, as a preliminary to looking for Jesus in ancient literature. Weaver's treatment is more lengthy. Neither of them say that they are discussing "the Christ myth". I don't think that either of them are experts on 18th century, 19th century or 20th century philosophy or thought, which you need to be to work out some of the nuancess. I'm not sure what Weaver's field of academic scholarship is but his publisher seems to be a Christian, rather than an academic one. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It's "Christ myth theory", actually, and it's true that neither Van Voorst or Weaver use the phrase. But the subject of this article is not a phrase, of course, but a concept—the theory that there was no historical Jesus. Both Van Voorst and Weaver are discussing the history of that idea. Weaver (and it's Walter Weaver not William as I originally wrote) is Emeritus Professor of Religion at Southern Florida College and former chair of the Humanities Division there. Since this article falls within history of ideas/history of scholarship, Weaver and Van Voorst both seem well-qualified to comment on the history of their academic fields. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

And for that matter, G.A. Wells, who is an expert on 18th-19th century German intellectual history, gives more or less the same overview of the CMT as Van Voorst, etc. (except of course that he's more sympathetic to the CMT). --Akhilleus (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent)Akhilleus seems not to realize that "the subject of this article is not a phrase, of course, but a concept" claim would fall under WP:SYN which clearly states "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." and WP:OR with its "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research." something I pointed out way back in Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_21 with the statement "To date no reliable source has been produced to explain the variance in the definitions of "Christ myth theory" in ALL the sources sited and until such is produced trying to say "Christ myth theory" mean a certain thing is OR." (08:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)) So far what we have gotten has been a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT regarding this key point. Ignoring the fact that Welsh's definition would cause Wells current position to bridge the ground between Christ Myth theory and historical Jesus theory is not going to make it go away. It is a fact that Price, Boyd, and Doherty all put Wells into the Christ Myth theorist category after Jesus Myth something Wells challenges at least as far as Boyd is concerned but the issue is are they all using the same definition? Price doesn't classify himself as a Christ Myth theorist either but Boyd clear puts him in that category. These all point to something not being consistent with the way Christ Myth Theory is used. Also on 12 February 2009 Akhilleus himself states "Since Schweitzer, Drews, Case, Goguel, Van Voorst, Bennett, and Weaver all present this as a coherent position, and largely name the same people as its proponents (see, e.g. this), I'm having real trouble seeing how you can say this is original research." after I pointed out on 22:42, 23 December 2008 "Frazer did not doubt that Jesus had lived, or claim that Christians had invented the Jesus myth," and yet Bennett also notes that Schweitzer lists Frazer as a doubter of a historical Jesus a point I repeated on 6 January 2009, clear examples of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by Akhilleus.

The Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Christ_myth_theory/1 showed eight other editors pointing out this article having WP:POV or WP:OR issues if not both and we have POV tag on this article again. Clearly there is something wrong with the article and it is NOT due to me.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure about the above - and correct me if I'm wrong - but what I think you're saying is that in this article, the "Christ Myth Theory" is being defined by its opponents. ^^James^^ (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

All I am saying is that the definitions I am finding by both supporters and opponents don't seem to agree within the groups nor between them and the article's definition does not reflect that fact. Some clearly don't mesh up; trying to explain how Wells current position doesn't fits both of Welsh's definitions (ie being simultaneously Christ Myth Theory and historical Jesus theory at the same time) is a real issue when you have three other people all independently calling Wells a mythic-Jesus thesis, Christ Myth theorist or Jesus myth theorist long after he was presenting the idea that there was a historical Q-Jesus.

It certainly doesn't help when you realize Boyd is arguing against the Legendary-Jesus thesis which ranges from Bauer to Crossan and doesn't always tell you when he changes his line of thought. For instance 186 Boyd expressly states "thereby refuting the Christ myth theory that Paul thought of Jesus as mythological figure who lived in the distant past." but on 202 it is pointed out that the idea that 'Jesus lived in the distance' past part of the extreme Legendary-Jesus thesis group which only partly includes the Christ myth theory group. But Habermas in 1996 citing Was Jesus crucified under Pilate? in The historical Jesus: ancient evidence for the life of Christ said "Wells admits that his position depends on the assertion that Christianity could have started without a historical Jesus who had lived recently. He suggests that, for Paul, Jesus may have lived long before "and attracted no followers until he began, in Paul's own day, to make resurrection appearances."" Oh by the way at you can see on my talk page Akhilleus has said he may fill a WP:RFC/U in an effort to shut me up; boarder line WP:GAME IMHO.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it's one way of dealing with a tendentious editor who keeps making the same post over and over again. In your comment above, you're harping on a comment I made in February 2009, almost a year and a half ago. Even before that, you've been repeatedly making the same argument that the definition is ambiguous, often simply copy-pasting the same comment over and over again, and you have paid no attention to responses that you 1) tendentious misinterpret sources and 2) do not understand that Wikipedia articles are about concepts (in this case, the theory that there was no historical Jesus) rather than phrases ("Christ myth theory"). This is wasting huge amounts of time, filling up way too many talk page archives, and holding back progress on the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

By "Boyd" BruceGrubb seems to be referring to Eddy & Boyd, The Jesus Legend: a Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Baker Academic 2007). They believe that the Gospels are largely historically reliable (a "maximalist" position). Anybody who thinks that there's a historical core to the Gospels, but that much of the material in them is theological elaboration and therefore much of the Gospel narrative isn't historical, gets called a "legendary Jesus" theorist by Eddy/Boyd. That includes a lot of mainstream scholarship, like John Dominic Crossan and Bart Ehrman. Nevertheless Eddy/Boyd make distinctions among legendary Jesus theorists, and group advocates of a nonhistorical Jesus together. Wells has responded to Eddy/Boyd in his 2009 book Cutting Jesus Down to Size, and complains (quite legitimately) that Eddy/Boyd haven't read his most recent books carefully, because he (Wells) now thinks that there was a historical Jesus. There's been some talk page discussion about this: Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_33#G._A._Wells. Now, I think Eddy/Boyd are idiosyncratic in creating this category of "legendary Jesus theorists", but it's important to note that even for them, the CMT is in a category of its own. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And it might be worth quoting Eddy/Boyd, pp. 24-25, where they break down categories of what they term the legendary-Jesus thesis. Category 1 is the CMT: "1. Scholars such as Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, and G. A. Wells have argued that the Jesus tradition is virtually—perhaps entirely—fictional in nature (i.e. 'legendary' as we are using the term). Indeed, it might be more accurate to refer to this position as the mythic-Jesus thesis rather than the legendary-Jesus thesis inasmuch in common parlance 'myth' tends to connote a fictitious story that revolves around an ostensibly historical figure. In any event, this view holds that view have no good grounds for thinking any aspect of the Jesus narrative is rooted in history, including the very existence of an actual historical person named Jesus. Some scholars we could include in this category, such as Robert Price, would back off this thesis slightly and argue that we simply lack sufficient information to decide whether a historical Jesus existed. Here, a sort of 'Jesus agnosticism' emerges." The phrase "Christ myth theory" doesn't appear here, but when the phrase does appear in the book, it's always to this category 1 position, e.g. p. 165: "As we have noted, some legendary-Jesus theorist argue that, while it is at least possible, if not likely, an actual historical person named Jesus existed, he is so shrouded in legendary material that we can no very little about him. Others (i.e. Christ myth theorists) argue that we have no good reason to believe there ever was an actual historical person behind the legend." On the following page Earl Doherty is called a Christ myth theorist; elsewhere G. A. Wells is called a Christ myth theorist. Eddy/Boyd use "Christ myth theory" in the same sense as this article, and name some of the same people this article discusses as prominent advocates of the theory; this recent academic book supports the definition of this article, instead of questioning it as BruceGrubb claims. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I would remind Akhilleus that he made no point regarding "Wikipedia articles are about concepts" when Eugene was doing his "Christ myth theory" phrase nonsense on this talk page. For future reference, I would ask just exactly where in the Wikipedia rules and guild-lines this statement is made.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOT#DICDEF. Point #2 under "Wikipedia is not a dictionary": "Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness." --Akhilleus (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

POV tag again

It is a running problem on this page that Eugene and Bill constantly remove the POV tag. Several people here have agreed that it's appropriate for a number of reasons, none of them resolved that I can see. I've listed my objections many times, including no dissenting voice in the lead, and the inclusion of any pseudohistory or other smears. Bill, I notice when Eugene was away you left the tag in place, but as soon as he's back and removes it, you follow suit. That's a poor show. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

To me, SV, it seems like you're trolling. Please stop and instead try to make constructive suggestions on improving the article. Thank you for your understanding. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 08:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty rich coming from somebody who spends 16% of their time editing articles.[7] I would like to point out that there is something very strange going on with these two accounts. It appears to be a coordinated effort of some kind. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL, what could it possibly mean? You know, we are not Anunnaki. Play spooky music here. We...I mean...they, the Anunnaki, just might feel threatened by the power of Wikipedia in general, and this article in particular so we...I mean they...are doing their best to mold everyone's opinion to suit their own evil ends. Play more spooky music here. ROFLMAO. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen no hint of collusion. They just concur. But both seem actually unable to recognize there is genuine concern about the neutrality of the article's tone. Anthony (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There's plenty of colllusion. The Bill the Cat 7 account is a meatpuppet/tag team warrior for Eugene. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for Bill, but speaking for myself I've found the POV tag gratuitous and unserious since the last three seperate times (I think) that it's been added the reasons behind it have sooner or later been exposed as less than compelling. Take a look at the talk surrounding Sophia's attempt, then look at SlimVirgin's attempt, then recongnize (Anthony, I'm looking in your general direction here) that PeaceLoveHarmony (the most recent initiator of this issue) refuses to concede even that the CMT is fringe [8] and thinks that the consensus threshold for inclusion is a plot of some sort to undermine the subject [9]. As for SV's claim that those favoring the POV tag have set for their specific concerns, let's take a look at those concerns: The article...

1. presents a weak straw-man version of the CMT
2. provides very limited elaboration of the evidence for the theory
3. has a much larger amount of material focused on arguments against the theory
4. focuses too much on the history of the ideas and the people associated with the theory, instead of the theory itself
5. states that most scholars regard the CMT arguments as examples of pseudo-scholarship but we don't have a source that uses the precise phrase with reference to "most scholars"
6. refers to Edwin Johnson's denial not only a historical Jesus but much of recorded history prior to the 16th century AD as well and this "ad hominem" and not an argument
7. refers to Paul Wilhelm Schmiedel's "pillar passages" in a way that is redundant
8. quotes Joseph Klausner but the quote is "redundant waffle"
9. says that evidence for a pre-Christian cult of Joshua was "supposedly" found in such and such phenomena
10. says that Drews work proved popular "enough"
11. says that Robert M. Price has "sought to" represent the thesis
12. quotes James D. G. Dunn's take on Price's take on the epistles and isn't itself an argument
13. quotes a statement from Fredriksen which is not an arguement
14. includes no dissenting voice in the lead
15. includes a reference to "pseudohistory or other smears"

Concerns 4, 7, 8 and 11 seem to be totally unrelated to POV; they may stand correction, but semantic redundancy, while irksome, isn't generally biased. Concern 1 has been slapped down by RSes over and over again, it's not a credible concern. Concern 6 seems a little odd; accurately describing Johnson's views about history and its limitations is hardly "ad hominem". Likewise, concerns 12 & 13 don't seem to be POV issues; that certain statements may not be arguements, and that such non-arguments may not be helpful, doesn't automatically make them biased. 9 & 10 seem mostly innocuous (I think this level of sensitivity demonstrates just how artificially high a standard this article is being held to) but if Anthony is adamant I wouldn't oppose minor word changes at these points. Concern 14 led to a RfC a while back and, despite SV's odd appeal to WikiProject Atheism and her odd non-appeal to Wikiproject Christianity, the RfC was overwhelmingly opposed to including a dissenting voice in the lead; SV, please drop this WP:STICK.

That shrinks the initially formidable list to just 2, 3, 5, and 15. Concerns 5 and 15 are basically the same (unless SV is bucking WP:V and just opposes the "smears" no matter how well sourced they are), so really that just leaves 2, 3, and 5. On 5, really Anthony, let this go. You've tried to build consensus on this several times and never succeeded. If you really want to report exactly what the sources say I wouldn't oppose replacing the bit about pseduoscholarship with a phrase to the effect that "most scholars regard the CMT as unworthy of any response, on par with claims that the Holocaust never happened or that the moon landing was faked in a Hollywood studio". Since that's what McClymond actually say it would be less liable to tedious charges of OR or SYN. But perhaps the more general "pseudoscholarship" is more encyclopedic, less contentious over all, and sufficiently tied in to the sources to pass inspection.

On 2, I agree, if someone would expand the section on the arguements in favor of the theory, that would be helpful. As for 3, I also sort of agree; the arguments against section should be roughly the same length as the arguments for. We can expand the one or we can condense the other. In any event, even with issues 2 and 3, I don't think that the POV tag is really justified; the problems just aren't serious enough to warrent what's essentially being used as a badge of shame while we iron out the two legit issues. Eugene (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Who, me? Eugene has made a good case for CMT being fringe, PeaceLoveHarmony. The only thing that would change my mind on that would be proof that it is only fringe among Christian scholars. But his list seems to contain a number of atheist or disinterested historians. (It may be reasonable to call it pseudoscholarship, too. But I'm still uncertain about that.) About a month ago Eugene, I and a couple of others discussed the question of who to include from the pro CMT camp. While the bar can be set quite high for opponents, because there are so many in mainstream history and NT studies, it needs to be a lot lower for proponents, as there are so few. But there needs to be a bar somewhere. Eugene proposed what I thought were reasonable parameters of notability. I'm sure Eugene can point you to the discussion. (I haven't read all of the above post yet; just responding to these since I felt Eugene staring at me.) Anthony (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Eugene removed the tag again, and I added it back per Talk:Christ_myth_theory#WP:POV_issues_and_WP:OWN_problems. Have the problems raised in that section been resolved? It is not up to Eugene to make this decision. According to statements in that section, eight editors raised concerns with POV and OR in a May 10 GAR which delisted the article. As the primary editor to this delisted article with 525 edits, Eugene needs to take a step back. It is also important to point out, that out of the many editors who voted to delist, only two voted to keep listed: Eugene and Bill the Cat 7. Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You're not being entirely forth-right, Viriditas. You say that the GAR sided against the article's neutrality. That's mostly true (some of the delist votes stemmed from instability), but changes were made in the midst of that discussion and immediately after it that render moot much of the criticism found there. Also, when you say that only Bill and I opposed delisting the article, you fail to mention that, as a result of the changes made in the midst of the GAR, Geometry guy also indicated that the article should retain its GA status. So why the subterfuge?

Also, as is so often the case, much of the GAR criticism that was directed at this article was vague, counter-factual, and even prejudicial ([10] and [11], then [12]. As for the more tangible objections which are currently being leveled at the article, I've reproduced them above in a list. As I've said, only 2 or 3 of them are in any way substantive as POV concerns. If you think that the section on the CMT arguments should be fuller then add the information. Instead of just joining this article's inexhausitibly malecontent peanut gallery, man-up (or "woman-up", as the case may be) and do some actual high-quality encyclopedic work.

(Eugene strides confidently away from the podium to thunderous applause.) Eugene (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You failed to address my question about the issues that resulted in this article being delisted from the GAR. Please address that issue directly. FYI, Geometry guy did not vote to list or delist, but simply made a comment indicating that the GAR be closed as "no action". Khoikhoi closed the discussion as "delist", noting "POV issues have not yet been resolved, and there are WP:OWN problems". There were 8 delists and 2 lists, with you and Bill the Cat 7 voting alone on the issue. Calling this "subterfuge" on my part, reveals that you have some outstanding issues that cannot be adequately addressed on this site. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about a thunderous applaud, but I do agree the POV concerns are not well articulated. Having Martin in the lead was rejected by most independent commentators, so how exactly can that issue be resolved? But even before talking about anything else, what are these concerns about a straw-man definition? SV, Bruce, Sophia, PLH, or whoever is complaining, please, what would would a real definition look like then? Vesal (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me also add that a NPOV tag cannot be used because an editor simply disagrees with a whole host of verifiable reliable sources. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The GAR review shows that there are problems with the POV in this article. Have those problems been addressed? Will the article pass another GAR? Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The GAR review is academic at this point. Consider what Akhilleus said above (to PLH, not directly to you):

PLH, this really won't do. The POV tag must relate to an active, ongoing dispute on the article with discussion on the talk page. Links to archived discussions don't constitute active, ongoing discussion. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, at this point we are only quibbling about how to best represent various issues in the article. There is no reason for a NPOV tag. I am now removing it. If I'm mistaken, then please add it back in. But if it's added back in by whomever, then I request that a detailed explanation be given on this talk page, in order that objections can be noted, discussed, and ultimately end up in a FAQ (if necessary) to prevent future, similar objections. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You were asked not to remove it until all concerns have been addressed. Please address my concerns above. Will the current article pass a GAR? Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Who cares about GAR? Viriditas, if you have concerns with the NPOV of this article, could you please spell them out? I don't see that you've explained on this page what you think the problems are (please correct me if I'm wrong), and pointing to an archived GAR doesn't strike me as a helpful way to proceed. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, you should care very much about the GAR, Akhilleus, because we are here to improve articles, not to promote ideas or ideologies. I've pointed to several discussions above, and I've asked the major players to tell me whether these concerns have been addressed. Is there a reason I have not received an answer? Viriditas (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, I don't care about the entire GA process, because I don't think it does much to improve articles. The reason that you haven't gotten an answer to your questions (from me, anyway) is because I don't even understand what your concerns are. If you take the time to spell them out, I'll try to see what I can do. As far as I can see, you're only pointing to the GAR discussion, where I think you didn't participate (please correct me if I'm wrong). So I'd like to know what specific concerns you have with the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

specifics

I'm concerned with every statement in the entire article. I'm seeing cherry picking, poor use of sources, deliberate skewing of opinion, failure to attribute claimants, etc. There are too many examples, and the entire article needs to be gutted and rewritten, but I'll give you three for illustration: In the atheist polemics section, the first sentence starts out with the claim that atheists advance the Christ myth theory for "self-consciously anti-religious reasons". Putting aside the unusual, unencyclopedic, non-neutral wording for the moment, this statement is sourced to Robert E. Van Voorst, professor of New Testament Studies at Western Theological Seminary. If this is Voorst's opinion, it should be attributed as such, rather than stated as fact. The section goes on to quote a small, unsourced personal footnote from a paper written by Craig A. Evans, professor of New Testament and director of the graduate program at Acadia Divinity College. Ignoring the content of Evans' paper, this almost unnoticed footnote claims that the Christ myth theory "was picked up by Karl Marx and became the official view of Marxism". However, there is no source in Evans' paper that supports this bold statement, and we can see how this almost invisible footnote was used to associate proponents of the theory with Marxism. The footnote appears after this statement in Evans' paper: "For two generations or so this radical view was treated seriously in most major German universities, though it never came close to being the dominant view among scholars." So why does the footnote appear as content instead? Moving on, the next statement says that the CMT was "promulgated in both Soviet and Maoist literature" and this is sourced to Michael James McClymond, associate professor in Theological Studies at Saint Louis University. There is no page number listed, however, looking at the source, we find related content on p. 24[13] (you're welcome), but again, the claim that this is found in Soviet and Maoist literature is repeated, just like in Evans, unsourced. Perhaps it would be better to find neutral historians who can point to actual Soviet and Maoist literature, rather than repeat the same claim without any primary reference point. But the fact is, this was included as red-baiting, painting anyone who discusses the theory as a "godless communist". The article is saturated with this POV. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(Viriditas, despite you shrill claims to the contrary, the page number for the McClymond book citation has always been there. [14] Eugene (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC))

Thank you for naming some specific points. The latter two seem to be largely problems of attribution. The point that the CMT was an official Soviet position is made by several sources; one is Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament pp. 9-10: "Perhaps Bauer's most important legacy is indirectly related to his biblical scholarship. When the Prussian government removed him from his Berlin University post in 1839 for his views, this further radicalized one of his students, Karl Marx. Marx would incorporate Bauer's ideas of the mythical origins of Jesus into his ideology, and official Soviet literature and other Communist propaganda later spread this claim." Several sources are listed in a footnote on the last sentence, including Zvi Rosen, Bruno Bauer and Karl Marx (The Hague 1977), K.L. Clarkson and D.J. Hawkin, "Marx on Religion: The Influence of Bruno Bauer and Ludwig Feuerbach on His Thought," SJT 31 (1978) 533-55. The relationship between Bauer and Marx has been discussed a few times on the talk page (hopefully the relationship between Marx and the Soviet Union is clear enough).

I think I've said before that I'm not a big fan of the "Atheist polemics" section as it stands, and I've proposed rewriting it so it focuses on uses of the CMT in New Atheism. I'd be happy to get rid of "self-consciously anti-religious reasons"; some proponents of the CMT were/are religious, a point which often gets missed on this talk page. If a particular advocate was motivated by anti-religious reasons, it would be better to attribute those motives to that particular person, rather than all proponents of the CMT. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Could someone investigate this and show how it is an important historical event? In other words, how were Bauer's ideas used by Marx, and where did it actually arise? My understanding is that this a very minor point, and should probably not even appear in this article. If it was important, however, it should be very easy to find a non-theological scholar who has written about Marx and the CMT, considering the voluminous published criticism related to Marx. The "red" flag here, is that we only find theologians harping on this tune, without even referring to other historians or their works. Something isn't right here. Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, when you disputed that the CMT was a fringe theory I suspected I would have a hard time taking your critcisms seriously. Now that you dispute the notability of the CMT/Marxism connection my misgivings are only confirmed and magnified. On the scholarly level, the CMT was almost the wholly owned property of the Second World from about 1920 onward to the collapse of the Soviet Union. If this fact isn't notable, nothing is. And considering the statement linking Marxism and the CMT is sourced with a peer-reviewed academic journal, that should be more than sufficient. Eugene (talk) 06:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, you are still making stuff up as before, and as that it appears to be your style, I have very little to say to you. I will say that I have never "disputed that the CMT was a fringe theory" nor is that my reason for posting here. I have disputed your use of sources and content from those sources. The statement linking atheism with Marxism and the CMT is not sourced in any of the sources you listed above. In one, it was a small footnote representing the opinion of the author, in another it was an unsourced claim made by the author. Do you understand how to write encyclopedic material and use sources? You drew a link between atheism, Marxism, and the CMT where none could be reasonably shown to be found or supported, and you did this while standing on your soapbox of Christian apologetics. The article was rightly delisted and I don't see that situation changing anytime in the future. Viriditas (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, you said to Eugene, "...I have very little to say to you". Can you please extend that benefit to me too? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Why so hostile, my friend? 35 pages of discussion archives with no improvement to FA? Why not? Viriditas (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that Viriditas, I got you and PLH mixed up. After a while the tendentious critics of this article start to blur together. As for why the article has 35 pages of discussion and no FA, my only guess is that it is the routine target of fringy POV attempted hijackings for promotional purposes and a number of FA reviewers seem to be inherently distrustful of the academic consensus and thus assume something like this: "It just can't be that fringe! There must be a POV issue here!" As you yourself recently wrote, on the authority of some vague and unsourced intuition, "Something isn't right here." Eugene (talk) 06:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

So, is the article ready to go back to GAR? Viriditas (talk) 06:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairy confident that a conscientious editor from a relevant Wikiproject (E.g. history) would promote this article to GA. The problem is that someone from the peanut gallery would just put in the call for a delist review and then the mobocracy would go to work: not reading the whole thing, not checking sources, making snap assumptions based on previously held incorrect beliefs, objecting to the article because of their own POVs, etc, and it would be delisted again within a couple weeks. I think that the size disparity between the arguments for and agin' should probably be addressed first to possibly prevent this. Eugene (talk) 07:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so you're saying it was delisted in error? I can understand your position, considering I just had two images deleted in error. I provided detailed explanations of why the images were necessary, only to have a single user show up and say "does not significantly increase readers understanding of anything", after which an administrator deleted both of them. So, maybe you're right. It's possible that the editors around here are not as qualified as they appear. So, relist it again. Viriditas (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Viriditas that the current text on Marxism is crude and insufficient. Two issues need to be kept entirely separate: the Bauer-Feuerbach-Marx connection on the one hand, and the Drews-USSR-China connection on the other. The relationship between Marxism and Soviet thought cannot be taken for granted, actually. Theologians are relevant scholars for this article, but we should not be relying on them when they are writing out of their main fields of scholarly interest and when there is a great deal of scholarship in other fields. The history of Enlightenment thought, the history of 19th century German philosophy, the history of the USSR and that of China are all areas of scholarship in their own right. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, if you think that you can add some helpful nuance to the Marxism issue (based on high-quality reliable sources, of course) please do so. Viriditas, I do think that the article was delisted in error, but given the demographic/ideological realities that prevail at Wikipedia I hesitate to take another crack at GAC/FAC until every last blemish and wrinkle (no matter how small) has been taken care of. The article is like the Wiki-Jackie Robinson; it has to be flawless to even get a hearing since there are so many people hoping that it fails. I fully intend to get it to FA status, but so long as new editors keep coming to the article and raising all kinds of unsupported hell about POV, its chances of success are slim. So we keep plugging away, sourcing every single sentence (and sometimes every single phrase) in the whole article, standardizing the citations, making sure that all the notable sources that don't quite trash the topic are included (hence the inclusion of Zeitgeist despite its obvious limitations, for completeness sake) to the point that the article (I think) outshines every other page in Wikipedia in terms of comprehensiveness and verifiability. Of course there's a Catch-22 involved in this though: as the sourcing grows evermore bullet-proof, the bibliography grows every longer (E.g. sourcing the Marxist stuff to dedicated sociological/historical books will add another 2-5) and then other critics complain about there being too many references. Sigh. Eugene (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

On point 5, "that most scholars regard the CMT arguments as examples of pseudo-scholarship but we don't have a source that uses the precise phrase with reference to most scholars". Do you have a source that says anything about what most scholars think because it does look like OR. Editors have complied lists of many scholars saying negative things about CMT, from which editors have concluded that most scholars regard CMT as pseudo-scholarship. If that isn't OR what is? I am not saying it is a wrong conclusion but to remind us why we prefer referred studies, how do we know, for example, that the quotes are correct and not out of context? how do we know what fraction of scholars those quoted represent? Again, I am not saying the conclusion is wrong, but it is OR. Find a source that says most scholar dismiss the theory or something like that. This is different from, for example, quoting Grant as saying the theory has again and again been discredited (which incidentally is Grant quoting someone else). It may have again and again been discredited to Grant's satifaction but it is nevertheless logically possible that most scholars do not consider it pseudo-scholarship, whatever that means. E4mmacro (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Several entries in my FAQ comment on the way most scholars (as opposed to some particular scholar) see the theory. Here are just a small few.

• "While The Christ Myth alarmed many who were innocent of learning, it evoked only Olympian scorn from the historical establishment, who were confident that Jesus had existed... The Christ-myth theory, then, won little support from the historical specialists. In their judgement, it sought to demonstrate a perverse thesis, and it preceded by drawing the most far-fetched, even bizarre connection between mythologies of very diverse origin. The importance of the theory lay, not in its persuasiveness to the historians (since it had none), but in the fact that it invited theologians to renewed reflection on the questions of faith and history."

Brian A. Gerrish, The Old Protestantism and the New: Essays on the Reformation Heritage (London: T. & T. Clark, 2004) pp. 231 & 233

• "The scholarly mainstream, in contrast to Bauer and company, never doubted the existence of Jesus or his relevance for the founding of the Church."

Craig A. Evans, "Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology", Theological Studies 54, 1993, p. 8

• "Most scholars regard the arguments for Jesus' non-existence as unworthy of any response—on a par with claims that the Jewish Holocaust never occurred or that the Apollo moon landing took place in a Hollywood studio."

Michael James McClymond, Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) pp. 23–24

Eugene (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting these sources. One thing we need to be very clear about is which period these writers are talking about. Evans, referring to "Bauer & Co.", may only be talking about the 19th century. Despite Evans' statement I don't think we can so readily assume that Bauer was not in the "scholarly mainstream". Gerrish, on the other hand, may well be dealing with the 20th century. Is the McClymond text an academic one? The title implies it may be popular, and I don't recognise the publisher. I fully accept, by the way, that the CMT as expressed in recent popular writings is pseudoscholarship. My worry about this article is that it conflates writing that was regarded as scholarly when it first appeared and writing that never was. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Despite Evans' statement I don't think we can so readily assume that Bauer was not in the 'scholarly mainstream'." I see that the anti-source mood is picking up steam. In any event, Eerdmans is a publisher that prints academic works and McClymond's specific book here is advertized as a text book by the publisher, was said to give a "comprehensive overview" by Publishers Weekly, was positively reviewed by Booklist, and appears on syllabi at such schools as Boston College, Westmont College, Queen's University, the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, and the University of Aberdeen. Eugene (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm no particular fan of FAQs for articles. To-do lists are a better way of building consent. Still, many thanks for your comments. I've had a look at Gerrish. A great source for how Drews was received - not for anything later. We mustn't cherry-pick, because he calls the reception "mixed". It was specifically the historians who looked down with Olympic disdain. Theologians discussed the book in detail. Clearly, Drews' book was received as highly contentious scholarship, not as non-scholarly drivel. And I read elsewhere that it influenced Nietzsche... Itsmejudith (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead specifically says

"While the hypothesis has at times attracted scholarly attention, it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians,[2] most of whom regard its arguments as examples of pseudo-scholarship."

That theologians and philosophers toyed with the implications of the theory as a thought experiment is irrelevant to the verifiability of the above text. Eugene (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that Eerdmans is a religious publisher. I'm not sure if it counts as scholarly, could check that out but it's by the way. Looking at McClymond's text in Limited preview, I can see the context of his comments on CMT. The thing that really stands out is that all he is making is a rapid overview in one short paragraph. He doesn't even mention Drews. For his purpose, that is probably fine. But it means that his book is of limited use for this article. I don't think it's an appropriate source for potentially contentious statements, and certainly not as our main source of how various non-existence theses are perceived today. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you are setting the bar artificially high. McClymond is a tenured academic publishing a well-reviewed book through a mainstream press which has been used in a variety of university classroom. That's more than adequate to meet WP:IRS. In any event, McClymond's statements are echoed by the other sources included in the footnote and elsewhere--including statements by prominent mythicists themselves:

"[T]he view that there was no historical Jesus, that his earthly existence is a fiction of earliest Christianity—a fiction only later made concrete by setting his life in the first century—is today almost totally rejected."

G. A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1988) p. 218

and

"It is customary today to dismiss with amused contempt the suggestion that Jesus never existed."

G. A. Wells, "The Historicity of Jesus," in Jesus and History and Myth, ed. R. Joseph Hoffman (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1986) p. 27

This datum is incontrovertable. Eugene (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

POV tag again

I'm once again (for the 100th time) asking that the POV tag not be removed until the issues have been dealt with. There are multiple people with concerns about this article's neutrality. My own concern is the debunking tone in general; the lack of dissenting voices in the lead; the inappropriate description of Wells and Price in the lead as though they're not academics; and the inclusion of any pseudoscholarship, pseudohistory, or other smears.

Not one of these has been addressed, I'm not the only person with concerns, and any attempt we've made at clean-up has been reverted by Eugene, who also keeps removing the tag. Therefore the tag is being used correctly. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Come on SV, give it a rest. You wanted a dissenting voice in the lead, you put together an RfC, you even posted it to various wikiprojects in a way that would skew the result in your favor and it raised some eyebrows on the ANI, and the RfC still sided against you. Let it go.

Nothing in the lead says that Wells and Price aren't academics; the lead just notes that they have been instrumental in popularizing the theory in recent times. Beyond the fact that this is clearly truw, academic popularize things all the time: think of Richard Dawkins with evolution, Carl Sagan with astronomy, and William Lane Craig with Jesus.

As for your complaint about "smears", it's just counter to WP:V, plain and simple. We have tons of sources backing this up and the information is currently presented in a very even-handed way. If, with these sources in hand, this article can't use the disignation "pseudo-scholarship" or "pseudo-history" or whatever, then no article can. But clearly other articles do (including FAs), so this article may. You've cried foul on this a few times and everytime you've failed to build consensus; again, let this go.

Concerns about "tone" are pretty vague and hard to address, could you be more specific? I and the others here aren't unreasonable, if you have reasonable concerns that don't violate policy or consensus then I'd be happy to address them in the article. But as it stands your complaints seem more like sour grapes than anyting at this point.

So, contray to your claims, your concerns have been addressed and thus your justification for the NPOV tag fails. I'm taking it down again. (Just imagine if all the global warming skeptics could so causually throw the same tag on that page. Eventually the scholarship wins out and the critics, presumably, find a way to live with it.) Eugene (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Eugene on this as I'm not sure the problems the article currently has are really POV ones any more. I will admit that are a few hiccups in the definitions and some of the lists but for the most part things seems to hold together. Sure we need some reliable sources to explain the more problematic hiccups and blink and you may miss it Radical Dutch school section but this is more a Refimprove tag than a POV one.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh thank God. Thank you Bruce. Eugene (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Just an honest evaluation of the situation. If you look at the material 95 to 98 percent seem to be on the same page. The problem is explaining that page along with the occasional wrong page to readers via reliable sources. Such issues of "Jesus never existed" and "Jesus existed but in a different time (ala many historical candidates for Robin Hood)" and people who believe in a historical Jesus in the correct time (Remsburg, Dawkins, Post-Jesus Myth Wells) are called by some "Christ Myth Theorists" really need to addressed and so far not dealing with them just makes this article get POV chargers when the problems are really Refimprove.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Throwing up a POV tag, for the 100th time, and ignoring both WP:RS and WP:V seems like disruptive editing to me. That's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please sign here if you agree with the POV tag

If I'm the only person who believes the article should be tagged, then obviously I'll withdraw. I don't like to see well-attended articles tagged just because one person thinks so. I'd therefore like to ask anyone who believes the tag should remain to say so here, and to add their reasons in brief. I'll contact people who've commented on the tag in the past to make sure they see this.

• The issues I have include the debunking tone; the lack of a dissenting voice in the lead; the inappropriate description of Wells and Price in the lead as though they're not academics; the inclusion of any pseudoscholarship, pseudohistory, or other smears. The Wells and Price sections are too short given that they're the major proponents, and the aetheist polemics section is inappropriate. Also, I'm afraid I don't believe Eugeneacurry understands the content policies, and there are too many editors on this page who are willing to go along with whatever he says. He has driven off opposing editors with attacks and aggressive reverting, and that skews consensus. Also noting this discussion on the Fringe noticeboard just a couple of weeks ago, raising all the issues previously raised by others and never dealt with. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• I strongly agree with keeping the POV tag in place. As I and others have noted in many previous discussions, there are many, many POV issues with this article that remain unaddressed. The hostile and unprofessional attacks from the conservative Christian editor Eugene and his supporters, who collectively WP:OWN this article make it impossible to resolve these issues in a collaborative fashion. (Eugene's creation of an attack page today on a fellow editor is just one example of a long pattern of abuse.) Most of the POV issues that were identified in the last GA review remain unresolved. I do not have the time to fight this battle right now. It is comforting to know that there are many resources on the internet that do a much better job of presenting the Christ Myth Theory than this current article. This article is so disorganized, turgid, and self-contradictory that most readers probably fall asleep or go elsewhere after reading a few paragraphs. Unfortunately, it will remain impossible to improve the article as long as Eugene and his allies continue to WP:OWN it. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. Though, my objection is more to its tone and quality. It correctly presents CMT as fringe, and considered to be pseudoscholarship by many academics. So, in these important respects, it is neutral. But its description of the CMT is poor, its explanation of what is wrong with the theory is unconvincing, and importantly for the NPOV question, it uses obviously slanted language and innuendo to discredit the theory and its proponents, which works against that very goal and perpetuates this fun on the discussion page. Anthony (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
• Agree to keeping the tag on. Article isn't out of the woods yet. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

"I'll contact people who've commented on the tag in the past to make sure they see this." How is this not yet another violation of WP:CANVASSING on your part? And, as I hinted at before, if I were to canvass, how many editors skeptical of global warming do you think would sign up for a POV tag on the global warming page? I imagine a lot. Clearly that's not the best way to proceed. Eugene (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You've driven people away who would otherwise see this, so they need to be informed. I'll make sure my post is neutrally worded, and I won't ask many. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

But you'll be asking people whom you suspect of agreeing with your position, that's textbook vote stacking... again. Eugene (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm only interested in finding out for this section whether anyone else agrees with the tag, so obviously there's no point in asking people who don't. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That's nonsense: you've staked out a position in a (faux) controversy and now you are actively seeking out support for your position under the guise of a survey. As I said, such an approach could manufacture support for a POV tag on any article that deals with a controversial subject: global warming, intelligent design, Israel, Barack Obama, etc, etc, etc. And if it would would "legitimize" a POV tag for any article then clearly it can't meaningfully be used at all. Eugene (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the procedures being used here are sub-optimal. I can't get that worked up about a POV tag, really, but if this issue is to be resolved we need to get more people involved, especially people who haven't been involved in the article before and so won't be looking at the article through the lens of long-running disputes. So, SV, if you're going to post messages to user talk pages, could you post to some WikiProjects too? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I think at least part of the reason for keeping the POV in place may be that it prevents the article from going to GA and then to FA status. Doesn't a POV tag do that? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It's unlikely that the article would be promoted with the tag in place. But I can't get that worked up about the GA/FA process either. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Bill, my support for the POV tag is purely based on my above vote statement. I'm involved because I'd like it to be a good article; a motive I share with you, SV, Eugene, , PLH, Vesal, etc. Anthony (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, more than any other POV "vote" I respect yours. Setting aside the quality issues, as they're not immediately relevant, if you could enumerate a few specific instances of "innuendo" then we could meaningfully discuss them with reference to reliable sources and so on; which I would be happy to do. Eugene (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, I believe you. However, SV and others clearly don't want the CMT presented as fringe. I, too, am happy to work with you, but what are we supposed to do when SV slaps on a POV tag and then refuses to discuss the issues in a way that we can come up with result that represents the vast majority of reliable sources?

And now that I think about it, I can't even remember the last time (if there was one) SV has replied substantially to any of my points. She seems to accuse me of this or that and then "strongly suggests" that I do what she tells me. A little while ago, I took the time to rebut her objections (see "unindent: response to Akhilleus" below) point by point. Let's see if she responds and is willing to dedicate some time in going through the issues to be addressed point by point.

My last point is this: compare the reasoning you gave above in your vote with that of PLH and Itsmejudith. Neither of them even bothered to list valid reasons for their vote; both you and SV listed your concerns and we can work with that (assuming SV is willing to be actively involved in the discussion). At the very least, they should have said "Agree - per SV". I mean, where do we go with "It's not out of the woods yet?" It doesn't say anything. Or how about PLH's remark, which once again violates WP:AGF, "The hostile and unprofessional attacks from the conservative Christian editor Eugene and his supporters...."? I would ask for the basis of PLH's antipathy towards "conservative Christians" but 1) this is not the place for it; and 2) it's most likely a waste of everyone's time. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent: repsonse to Akhilleus) Well, neither do I get that worked up if this article doesn't achieve FA status (and I've said as much in the past). However, trying to prevent it from happening for personal (spiteful, vengeful, or whatever) reasons and attempting to do so by canvassing seems to me to be disruptive editing and, obviously, against wiki policies.

At any rate, let's take SV's allegations of POV one by one (from above)

• Debunking tone - none of the editors here have debunked the CMT. the vast majority of scholars have done a thorough job of that and we should note that according to WP:Fringe. This is the main problem of SV's argument. SV wants portray the CMT as a valid, minority opinion. We both know that the CMT is almost universally rejected by scholars as bogus and it should therefore, according to WP:Fringe, be noted as such. Thus, attempting to detail the verifiable level of acceptance by the vast majority of reliable sources in the article is not a justification for slapping on a POV tag.

• The lack of a dissenting voice in the lead - I see five dissenting voices (i.e., CMT advocates) are mentioned in the lead, so how their "voices" should be heard is a stylistic/prose concern, and not an indication of POV.

• The inappropriate description of Wells and Price in the lead as though they're not academics - No such thing is being done, as Eugene as noted above,

Nothing in the lead says that Wells and Price aren't academics; the lead just notes that they have been instrumental in popularizing the theory in recent times. Beyond the fact that this is clearly truw, academic popularize things all the time: think of Richard Dawkins with evolution, Carl Sagan with astronomy, and William Lane Craig with Jesus.

• The inclusion of any pseudoscholarship, pseudohistory, or other smears - That's not our opinion or smear. That is the judgment of almost every scholar in the field. That is, that is the level of acceptance, according to WP:Fringe, which says (underline added),

...ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources.

• The Wells and Price sections are too short given that they're the major proponents, and the aetheist polemics section is inappropriate - Once again, these are stylistic/prose issues, and not an a reason for a POV tag.

• I'm afraid I don't believe Eugeneacurry understands the content policies, and there are too many editors on this page who are willing to go along with whatever he says - I'm not sure how well Eugene understands the content policies, but he knows the policies involving vote stacking and WP:Fringe better than some folks.

• He has driven off opposing editors with attacks and aggressive reverting, and that skews consensus - LOL. What's that saying about the pot calling the kettle black? :)

Anyway, that's my $1.50 (used to be $0.02, but with inflation and all...). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I see people responded before I'd asked anyone to, and the tag is restored, [15] so there's probably no need to let anyone else know. I strongly suggest in future that neither Eugene nor Bill remove the tag again; the frequent removals have become disruptive. If consensus is reached to remove it, please let someone else do it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

SV, I'm willing to leave it there for a few days to give everyone an opportunity to discuss the issues you mentioned. However, if you don't want me to remove the tag in a few days, then I strongly suggest you respond to my rebuttal of your points in my comments at time 20:58, 18 June 2010 above in an active and substantial manner (i.e. no "drive-by" accusations and complaints). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether the tag remains isn't up to you and Eugene. It needs to be left to a consensus of editors. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If you refuse to discuss the issues while others reach a consensus (which I have no doubt will happen), then don't be surprised that I, or someone else, removes the tag is removed in a few days. And by the way, saying that the article is POV and not giving a reason, or saying "just because", is meaningless when it comes to a consensus. Such tactics will be ignored. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

SV: I implore you, please do not resort to canvassing again. For the sake of the integrity of Wikipedia, do not do this. It makes any progress on articles like this one impossible. Do you recall last time, when you canvassed on the atheism wikiproject and not the Christianity, Ancient Near East, Judaism, or any other relevant wikiprojects? It's simply ethically wrong from a scholarly perspective to do what you did. You attempt to flood votes with uninformed editors through these canvass appeals. NJMauthor (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I have never canvassed in relation to this article; posting a neutral note about an RfC to Wikiproject Atheism and Wikiproject Religion at the same time is not canvassing. And I did not ask anyone to comment about the tag. Please don't buy into Eugene's propaganda. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"Buy in?" I was the one who pointed your canvassing out to Eugene, and called it as I saw it. Like I said down below, this isn't a mindless puppet show. NJMauthor (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't keep repeating the canvassing claim; it's wrong and there's no point in trying to turn it into a meme. No one was contacted about the tag, so it's pointless mentioning it anyway. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

SV, can you prove that no one was contacted about the tag? Until you can do that, NJMauthor has a valid point. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That's silly - how exactly do you prove a negative? She can't prove a negative therefore she is guilty? --B (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

In an oddball way that is in essence one of problems with some of the challenges to the Christ Myth Theory--the idea is presented as somehow trying to prove Jesus never existed. Boyd-Eddy's "we have no good grounds for thinking any aspect of the Jesus Narrative is rooted in history, including the very existence of an actual historical person named Jesus" is IMHO a much clearly and more correct definition. I still say incorporating this exact quote from a recent reliable source would be a major step in trying to clean up some of the issues the article has had since day one.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Bruce. I don't think I've seen one instance of an author who claims to have proven Jesus was just a myth - only authors who argue he may not have existed, given the poverty of historical evidence, and that he need not have existed, as the stories were already in circulation.

Bill, from where I sit, you and SV both have the best interests of the article in sight. Anthony (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, the most egregious and self-defeating use of slanted language is "fringe" and "pseudoscholarship". You know where I stand on that. The theory's status can more effectively be communicated by using words like "virtually no support in mainstream scholarship." "Fringe" and "pseudoscholarship" stink, stink, stink, stink, stink, stink (ad nausium) of bias. It doesn't matter how many RS's you point to. They stink of bias. Stink. Which means they undermine the credibility of the article. Sorry for the shouting. They add nothing to the article. They weaken it. Anthony (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear here. The idea that the evidence that exists is not enough to show the Gospel Jesus existed is fringe. Remsburg the darling of so many armchair researchers (and who believed in a historical Jesus in the correct time but has gotten the Christ Myth Theorist label slapped on him anyhow) like Boyd-Eddy some 100 years later separated what this article calls Christ Myth theory from the more moderate "Christ is a myth, of which Jesus of Nazareth is the basis, but that these narratives are so legendary and contradictory as to be almost if not wholly, unworthy of credit." Even in Remsburg's time (1909) the idea was pretty far out there and time has not changed that.

As for sources themselves having bias WP:NPOV covers that: "All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired." If this article does have any POV failings it is in the "analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence." part but this can also be a Refimprove issue or finding that one reliable source that explains a confusing point about the concept.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)