::::Again, BRD is an essay: you are wrong in assuming that we "must" assume prior consensus just because one Wikipedia essay suggests it as a good way to go about doing business. WP:BURDEN is a policy, and it states directly that the burden to prove consensus is not on the party wishing to remove material, but on the party wishing to add it (or keep it in). And again, if you think they are being quoted because "they have been critical of the methodology of HJ researchers", why can you not actually demonstrate where they have stated such criticism? The article quotes one book by Akenson, which is clearly primarily about the Hebrew Bible and the Talmuds, and the quote contains no criticism of research methods. Our Wikipedia article attributes a massive amount of such criticism to him, but without citing a source. The only source cited that might support the material was written by a different author. I never said Akenson was a "mythicist"  are you trying to put words in my mouth? Or did Jeppiz make this claim somewhere? I said the sourcing for the paragraph on him is a disaster. As for Ellegard  what on earth are you talking about?? The section Jeppiz and I are arguing to remove is all about the CMT, and has nothing to do with HJ research methods. If you want to remove the "However" in the following sentence to say something like "Albrektson has countered criticisms that Christians are biased by their theological views ..." and leave that part of the paragraph in, then I have no problem. But the Ellegard discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with research methods.  ()