Talk:Criterion of embarrassment

message: Couldn't this sort of "loop around itself", in the manner of "Sicilian logic", ad infinitum? Like, "Clearly, this embarrassing story was deliberately included because its inventors thought that we would think that they would not want us to hear it"… 71.58.69.203 (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criterion applied to itself… 

message: This is the most absurd thing I have ever read on English Wikipedia. I'm how can a serious historian even consider it as a possibility to analyse historical event and this same criteria is used to say Jesus was historical. Looks like all those Christian historians are busy in creating new idiotic criterion to somehow prove that Jesus was historical. I mean it is a common practice today that people add many embarrassing details in their recounts to make it look more believable. Then can any serious historian tell me why couldn't people do it 1000 or 2000 years ago? And author has lots of reason to add embarrassing details in the stories they are creating to make it look like more realistic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.251.94.13 (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Having come across the article for the first time due to your message, yes it is pretty strange. Remember this is a page used to discuss improvements to the article - if it meets the Wikipedia policy WP:Notability then it's suitable for inclusion. NottNott|talk 18:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I think this "article" defines the absurd on Wikipedia: Camel_toe. This "criterion of embarrassment" article, on the other had, discusses a real evaluation criteria that scholars utilize when evaluating Biblical tales. You may not approve of scholars using this criteria, but it is used nonetheless. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit disappointed not to see the story of Jesus cursing the Olive tree.  It's both the most absurd story in the Gospel, seemingly embarrassing, and not in any context.  If anyone has context, that would be interesting too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:242:C201:7890:4CEA:A610:1D2D:44B7 (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  (Off-topic:) The :NABRE suggests (link) that it's a metaphor for Christ's relationship with Israel. Rebbing 00:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most absurd thing on Wikipedia 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Criterion of embarrassment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070316185139/http://ancienthistory.about.com:80/b/a/229667.htm to http://ancienthistory.about.com/b/a/229667.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: One of the big problems I have is the statement "The criterion of embarrassment is one of the criteria of authenticity used by academics..." at best this needs to be qualified to "Christian academics" since it is used exclusively as a defense in Christian Apologetics. In fact, why not move this to an entry in that article?
Padillah (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It absolutely can, it is actually an important element mentioned in the article about the so-called Satanic Verses in Islam (and linking here as well). I am actually surprised there is no mention of this at all on this page, which is definitely very Christian-centric right now. I will probably edit that at some point, but if someone else is motivated before that happens please go for it (and if you have other non-Christian examples even better!). Choucas Bleu (T·C) 17:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can this approach be mentioned in an other article?