Talk:Massacre of the Innocents/Archive 1

message: The similarities and common heritage (including deities, saints, customs and beliefs) within Indian faiths (Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, etc) and within Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are probably well-known and over-researched. However, I'm often surprised by several such "historic incidents" or "beliefs" that are common to both Indian and Abrahamic faiths. The massacre of the innocents, for example, is very similar to an incident mentioned in several ancient Indian scriptures relating to the birth of Krishna (the eighth avatar of the Hindu God Vishnu as per the Dasavatara tradition) wherein the contemporary King Kamsa (also the maternal uncle of Krishna) of Mathura (the place of Krishna's birth), afraid of losing the throne and his grip on the kingdom when he came to know of a prophecy, ordered the execution of new-born male children in Mathura. Of course, there are several other such similar traditions between Indian and Abrahamic religions, such as a giant life-wiping deluge (the manifestation of Pralaya on Earth), the efforts of some sages to save life by building a vessel and collecting herds of animals in it, etc etc, the list is probably long. What is not unarguably clear is whether it is Indian events that have influenced or given rise to the Biblical beliefs or vice-versa. It may be dangerous to conclude that the former is more likely solely on the simplistic data that Hinduism and other Indian religions pre-date Abrahamic ones, because it is generally accepted that "incremental embellishments" were continually made to most ancient Indian scriptures right through into the 1st millenium A.D. But this is all very interesting indeed, and I wish more work existed to research and document the commonalities between Indian and Abrahamic faiths.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.95.130 (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curious similarities between Indian and Abrahamic religions 

message: Title -- I think that I've always called this story "The Slaughter of the Innocents" or "The Slaughter of the Holy Innocents".  Perhaps this is Commonwealth countries usage? (martin a.)
Is there any evidence of this from primary sources and/or contemporaneous writers? IIRC, it is only in one of the gospels, and is not in Josephus or other writers who described the reign of Herod. --FOo
: I'd have to check, but it probably shows up in the Infancy Gospel of James, or some such account. There's also a tradition that says John the Baptist had to be hid as an infant as well to escape this massacre, but I'm not sure how old that is or its source. Wesley
::I think the John the Baptist tradition comes from the Infancy Gospel of James as well. Clinkophonist 11:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: In the present day Roman Catholic Church, is it common for the homily to be against abortion?  If so, and if this can be sourced, a statement to this effect would be in order.  (Since it is still the Feast of St. John in the United States, I cannot yet get the answer just by going to a daily Mass.)  Robert McClenon 00:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is pretty well assumed. Normally the homily is to tie the readings together, and not be an expository on Church teachings. Often I wish it were as well. Procuring an abortion is grounds for automatic excommunication and the problems of all offenses against life are taught in CCD classes. Dominick (TALK) 12:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True.  At Mass today, however, the homily focused not on the baby boys, but on St. Joseph.  Robert McClenon 13:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Question 

message: Is there a reason why Jacolliot writing about the Krishna tale was removed? It is describing a similiar story of Herod.  (i.e. The same way Horus, born of a virgin in a stable resurrecting El-Lazar-us, was retold as Jesus resurrecting Lazuras. )
:"[The tyrant Kansa] ordained the massacre in all his states, of all the children of the male sex, born during the night of the birth of Christna ..."
I'd guess that since the Khrisna tales are likely to be copied from stories of Jesus (as Hinduisations) that parallels with Khrishna aren't that significant for Christianity. The parallel should probably be discussed in the article for whatever the Krishna tale is called rather than here. I'm extremely curious what something about Horus has got to do with whether Khrishna details belong in the article. Clinkophonist 23:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If non-Christians have adapted the massacre story or vice versa, that is interesting for the article, provided it is treated in a Wikipedia-worthy fashion. --Error (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historicity 

message: The allegorical style of the 16th Century in the European Low Countries had a hidden meaning: in alchemy, the "massacre of the innocents" was the title of a process (involving spiritual renunciation) in one of the texts describing the transmutation of gold. In tangible terms, it led, for instance, to the mass-murder of children in the 1430s by Joan of Arc's chief lieutenant, Gilles de Rais - similar events on a smaller scale occur from time to time to this day. As such, the numerous paintings on this subject dating from the late Renaissance must be viewed alongside the more tangible Alchemical paintings and other associated allegories, such as the various Icarus and Labyrithmic images frequently portrayed. The interest of the painter in such studies was probably pragmatic: he was interested in the possibility of new pigments arising by accident from such proto-chemical studies.
As the Low Countries were under the Inquisitorial tyranny of the Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba, such heretical practices could not be mentioned explicitly - the execution of the Counts of Egmont and Hoorne, two of Alba's most trusted lieutenants (and the subject of Schiller's play for which Beethoven composed the famous Egmont overture) is a case in point, having been provoked by a Hoorne's Dominican confessor overhearing a plot to create a vast amount of wealth alchemically, which is reported to have succeeded. The practitioner in question subsequently sparks the interest of Jan van Helmont in chemistry.
Further to the Herodian discussion above, don't exclude Herod's plan to kill a stadium-full of hostages in his final hours. The antipathy of the Herodian line is specifically cited in Matthew 2:22 as the reason for Joseph's exile into Roman-controlled Judea: however, given the scale of Roman construction at Sebaste and Caesarea Maritime during this period, Nazareth being roughly halfway between the two, it's a fair presumption that as a building contractor (ho-tekton in the Greek does NOT mean carpenter, it's just the closest term in 17c. English) he was comfortably protected without having to restart overseas.jelmain Brussels 03:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An Alternative Interpetation

message: There seems to be a fair amount of bias in this article, towards the veracity of this event. I think since the article itself states, and all independent research I've done on my own assures, that the Bible is the only place this story appears, and there is no mention of it anywhere else ever, then weaseling in some comment about how "skeptical" scholars deny the existence but "others" think it happened. Clearly, those who are fans of fact and truth should not be labeled skeptics, as if they were the minority. The majority of scholars today cannot find proof that this event happened. Therefore, they are not skeptical. They are being factual.  Vaguely 15:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: Why do we have sources as out of date as the Catholic Encyclopedia - from 1910, nearly a century out of date? And the source quoted in the reference is from even earlier, a book published in 1897. If no other source is available, these may be better than nothing, but Biblical scholarship has moved on so much in the past century that these references are virtually useless. Besides, the section has modern sources quoted; we don't need this one. Unless someone can come up with a useful explanation as to why the Catholic Encylopedia represents a valuable and still current view that is not elsewhere available, I propose to remove it again. --Rbreen (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those with content contribute content. We await Rbreen's report of more recent mainstream scholarship, which will doubtless add some nuance to the outdated Catholic Encyclopedia and Maas' Life of Christ (1897). --Wetman (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have modern content; we ought not to depend on outdated citations. --Rbreen (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated sources 

message: Nimrod (Bible) mentions a parallel in the story of Moses and the story of Nimrod and Abraham, but I don't understand whether the Christian story is documented earlier than the Nimrod one or the other way round.
--Error (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nimrod

message: I added it, as it had been missing. Properly, the massacre is understood in the context of the historical Herod and Matthew's narrative and agenda. Did some reorg, too. Leadwind (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: historical and textual context

message: POV tag added - as this is a non representative and unduly sceptical view.  Springnuts (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have therefore had a go at simplifying and improving, and rm'd the tag.  Springnuts (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nativity story in the Gospel of Matthew 

message: "historicizing"??? Mannanan51 (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: the verb "to historicize" is derived from "history" and means: "to prove that something has actually happened like it's written in history books". 93.219.169.49 (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, "historicize" means "To make or make appear historical" or "To use historical details or materials."  The Oxford online dictionary defines it as "treat or represent as historical"--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: “When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.” Springnuts (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Hi, there is a bit of ping pong on the horizon re this topic, see this diff [] and check history for others. It would be good to head it off at the pass. We are dealing with a contested argument from silence.
The lead section should 'summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies'.  I would suggest two things follow: 
1)  The ref to numbers is removed - since there seems little controversy that the 'tens of thousands' figure is not believed, see eg the Catholic Encyclopedia: .  Given that the lead already calls Bethlehem a village, there is no need to spell out the now generally accepted estimates of numbers, though it could be added in if wished.
2) The section of the lead re historicity is rewritten: "Many modern writers treat the story as fiction." is one sided.  Would an editor not involved so far have a go at a non POV summary of this notable controversy please?
Hope this may provide a better way ahead.  Springnuts (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Have had a go at a non POV summary, changing "Many modern writers" to "Some historians".  Springnuts (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Biographers of Herod are not necessarily representative of all historians writing on the subject. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

text: No reason to drop the quote out of the text. The Historicity section has lost well-supported text, which I've restored.--Wetman (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:NPOV. The way to write a neutral article is not to treat both sides equally. The way to write a neutral article is to portray both sides the way they're portrayed in mainstream sources. If there is a majority viewpoint (with most historians favoring one view or the other), then it's biased to treat the two views as if they are equal. In this case, we should treat the majority viewpoint as the majority viewpoint and the minority viewpoint as the minority viewpoint. Violating NPOV is not really an option. Please humbly stick with what our best sources say rather than changing the article to suit your personal viewpoint. Leadwind (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Here's one section on WP:NPOV that's relevant to the majority/minority viewpoint: "Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view." Historians mostly don't think the massacre really happened because there's no corroborating evidence (such as it being mentioned anywhere else in the Bible). I know it can hurt people's feelings to be in the minority, but on WP it's important to distinguish between majority and minority viewpoints. It's also the honest thing to do. If you can find a source that says most Christians think it's true, then we can talk about that, too, as long as it's separate from what most historians think is true. Leadwind (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the difficulty here arises from Maier's quote about "most modern biographers ...".  It is quite possible that Maier is overstating the case against historicity in order to justify his journal article, which argues for historicity (and from my reading of Maier's article most of the "biographers of Herod" he speaks of are dependent on secondary rather than primary sources).  It is certainly an act of academic rigour to ensure you give full justice to opposing views, which Maier (imo) does.  The other part of the trouble is that many of those who comment in the literature have a pre-sharpened axe to grind.  Fortunately whether the incident really happened or not is of no interest to Wikipedia - only reflecting what is written by scholars.  My conclusion: find more verifiable stuff to balance the Maier's quote.  Hope this helps - and suggests positive ways forward!  Springnuts (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  historicity doubts - body and heading, or body only? 

message: It's a very minor point, but is 'Massacre of the Innocents' the standard terminology for this event?  In England, at least, I think 'Slaughter of the Innocents' is more common.109.158.131.253 (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Slaughter is the term with which I too am familiar. Daniel the Monk (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be worth checking in some older standard textbooks.  Springnuts (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massacre or Slaughter? 

message: Presently, we say:
 
One's a history, the other a diary. An intelligent diarist includes what interests him, an intelligent historian, like Josephus, includes the king murdering all of Bethlehem's infant boys, whether it interests him or not. In a history written by a highly-educated, very well-informed, intelligent reporter, absence of evidence strongly suggests absence.
Has an historian responded to Barclay's argument? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)  19:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Logically, yes, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. We don't need a historian to tell us this. But absence of evidence means absence of historicity, since historicity is something for reasonably proven events. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Any information from the Bible is filtered through several criteria: it has to be ancient (dated within a century from the narrated events), it is likely if it is dissimilar to (shameful for) the author's agenda, it is more likely if it is independently attested, it has to make sense in the historical context of what we already know about ancient Palestine, it is unlikely if it serves author's agenda. Basically, from applying these criteria it follows that Matthew's claim for the massacre is not very trustworthy. It is of course compatible with Herod's character to have done such thing, and his acceptance of astrology offers an explanation of why he would have ordered such massacre. But the later is of course speculation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barclay's argument 

message: The Massacres of men category has been recently removed from this article, the requirements of of Massacres of men category are "For inclusion in this category there must be evidence that demonstrates men and boys were specifically targeted for death based on their gender, and the fact that men were specifically targeted during the event must be WP:DEFINING of the incident."  This entire incident is a massacre of infant boys, and only boys.  This would mark it as defining, and that only boys were targeted.  As such I believe that this category is accurate for this article and should be reinstated. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no proof this event ever happened. Putting in mythological events into this category is not within the remit of the category description. jps (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Apart from the fact that in the story they're babies, not grown men - the category itself is problematic (why not 'Massacres of males'?) - and that the category appears to relate to gendercide (Herod has nothing against males as such, he just wants to ensure the death of one particular male), the fact that this is a fictional event excludes it. --Rbreen (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a "fact" that the massacre never happened, but an opinion, if a widely held one (as is its opposite). Categories are not the place to slug this out, and the other categories do not treat the event as fictional. See the extended discussion in the article. I have readded it to the main ungendered category, though the other should perhaps be "Massacres of males", which this would fit.  Johnbod (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no reliable sources which indicate that this event took place, so it is a fact that it did not happen. jps (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, no. There are plenty of RS, some cited in the article, that think it did, or may have done. Treating the New Testament as fiction will not stand, and it is not worth attacking even this soft underbelly. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Jps, being a WP:BIASED source does not automatically qualify the source to be automatically unreliable. Though there may be other factors, such as being self published that does, being biased does not disqualify it. Additionally, rollbacking my edits without an edit summary is considering them to be 'vandalism' and that's an abuse of rollback. Once more and I'll be reporting it. Tutelary (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment is not about content, and this is the first brush you've had with this page. Following your friends around must be fun, but do you have any sources at all? jps (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jps, you incessantly talking about user conduct rather than talking about the article is not acceptable.  is an example of what I'm talking about, and you should knock it off. I am allowed to comment on any portion I want, or not at all. I'm not mandated to comment further, or I'm obligated in my own mind to leave a 10 paragraph response. Filibustering rules permitting The sources are mostly book sources which I cannot personally access but that does not disqualify them. Tutelary (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you can't read the sources, it seems you are basing your opinion on bias and favoritism. I haven't seen any evidence that you actually do anything else here. jps (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

text: @ Rbreen, from the category page of Massacres of men the difference of age is considered irrelevant.  Much like the similar category Massacres of Women, the category is intended to categorize instances in which men or boys were killed because they were men/boys.  While Herod may have only wanted one particular boy dead, the method used was to kill all boys.  As such boys were targeted because they were boys. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Name one secular historian who thinks this event is likely to have occurred. jps (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

text: The cat does not demonstrate the need for it to be real events, and given the particulars of interpreting Biblical narratives and the offset of including sources which I personally cannot access, IE: Book sources. The cat's defining scope is this  This is true of this article, and I !vote to include the cat in this circumstance, due to the scope of the cat. Tutelary (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Name one other article that is included in either of the two categories about an event for which there is no independent verification that it actually happened. jps (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  OSE (even in this case), and everything requires context, especially in this situation. It's a complicated scenario which can only be resolved through discussion. In this case, there's an encyclopedic benefit for having the category there for an event which is still debated to have happened. Again, as I stated, the cat's scope does not require it to be fictional/nonfictional/proven to have happened, and even if it were summarily disproved, the cat would still belong. Tutelary (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't named a single source. You have nothing. Your edits don't add anything to this conversation but a lack of demonstrating that the academic research which is required to contribute has occurred. jps (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to me the summary of your argument is that the sources that do state that this event happened do not constitute "strong evidence".  In that case what would constitute "strong evidence? --Kyohyi (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Any independent source who gave a historiographical explanation for why it was likely that this event actually happened would be a great start. And by "independent", I mean "a source that was not authored by a Christian predisposed to believing the Bible at its face value." jps (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope, jps, you will turn your sceptical eye to Lucius Aurunculeius Cotta for whom only one, POV, source is available.  There is no strong evidence that he existed, so will you be removing him from the categories of: 1st-century BC Romans / Roman people of the Gallic Wars / 54 BC deaths and adding him to List of Roman mythological figures?  But I doubt you will!  Springnuts (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

text: I support the removal of such content. Tutelary (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

text: All of the supporters of the historicity of this account are Christians. No one denies this. Do either of you? We have plenty of sources which so identify this. Essentially all of these sources indicate as much for just about everything written in the New Testament: . The whole historicity game is one where conservative Christians engage in apologetics while more scholarly approaches question the poor evidence for historicity of many claims including this one. jps (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do the sources explicitly state Christian Apologetics like you are attempting to portray? We cannot imply or heavily imply connections without the collaboration of what's written in reliable sources. Tutelary (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Read them. jps (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

text: ?Of course there is a lack of evidence. The word "lack" can mean 'deficient in' or 'not having enough of something', and so far as I can see there is just one source for this. Dougweller (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:MAINSTREAM sources that discuss this event question its historicity on the grounds described in the article. We do not give equal time to all viewpoints when one viewpoint (in this case, the religious one) is less supported by the scholars in the field than the other. jps (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Dougweller, re your point on the meaning of "lack", I grant that. There is a deficiency of evidence in that there is but one source (the Bible), as I have said at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard#Attempt to categorize New Testament events as fictional, although I didn't yet say it here. Jps, scholars have neither the freedom to invent ungrounded theories nor to ignore what evidence there is. They recognize the single source, and the lack of confirming sources, and the inability to construct a definitive scholarly statement about the historicity. This differs from your contention that there is no evidence at all (not a "lack", but an absence), and from your contention that scholars "support" either the idea that the event did not occur, or that it did. They may give their own opinion, even a scholarly opinion, but they do not give a scholarly "support" in either direction because they do support the fact that there is a deficiency of evidence. There is a difference between scholarly opinion and that of support. As I have said, this matter cannot be resolved simply on the basis of available information, and that is what the scholars say also. Unresolved does not equate to "proven false". There are at least two viewpoints, Christian and secular, and neither prevails. But they can be presented neutrally in the article and without pushing a viewpoint. Evensteven (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

text: And I agree with Bermicourt that there is no necessity for restricting the category to confirmed historical massacres. Evensteven (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Then Texas Chainsaw Massacre is appropriate? I'm fine with that, just don't think that's the intention of the category. jps (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Show me a source which indicates there is "serious debate" that this event occurred. The sources in the article right now that are most sympathetic to the case only argue about plausibility, but no one says there is evidence that the event occurred outside of the unreliable cultic Christian account. jps (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Obiwankenobi is correct. You make no argument here, but only cast aspersion in the form of "cultic". Your opposition to Christianity is known, but reiteration is unproductive. Evensteven (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Most Bible scholars and NT historians (except fundamentalists), readily admit that the massacre does not have historicity (either because it did not happen or because it is unproven). Even favorable scholars claim there were six to twenty infants killed, so that's why other ancient sources do not report it. Other scholars say it is a legend derived from the fact that Herod killed his own sons. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have said repeatedly, what some say, and what words they use to say it, does not settle the matter. I don't deny your sources, or their proper significance. That does not change what I have said. Evensteven (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Who cares what you said. Where are you reliable academic sources for claiming the massacre occured? Second Quantization (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

text: You don't spend a lot of time looking at ancient history, I take it? Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You take it wrong. I am concerned that you are a Wikipedia Ambassador considering how poorly you've conducted yourself in this affair. jps (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yada, yada; I'm not in fact. Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a reach and low blow, jps, seeing as how Johnbod's comments were made in a personal capacity only. I'm surprised at the cheapness of the statement.  Ceoil (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

text: jps, just noting: Johnbod, as Wikimedian in residence at Cancer Research UK, is getting them to peer-review (some of, but hopefully lots more later) our cancer articles. I think he's the most effective and beneficial WIR we've ever had. By a mile. Let's focus on the article. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)  18:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish the user in question wouldn't then do obnoxious things like this: . jps (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Never did need to worry about it. Evensteven (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massacres of Men Category 

message: There is no strong evidence that this happened. Therefore it should not be categorized with categories that include verified events. jps (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The cat does not demonstrate the need for it to be real events, and given the particulars of interpreting Biblical narratives and the offset of including sources which I personally cannot access, IE: Book sources. The cat's defining scope is this  This is true of this article, and I !vote to include the cat in this circumstance, due to the scope of the cat. Tutelary (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Name one other article that is included in either of the two categories about an event for which there is no independent verification that it actually happened. jps (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  OSE (even in this case), and everything requires context, especially in this situation. It's a complicated scenario which can only be resolved through discussion. In this case, there's an encyclopedic benefit for having the category there for an event which is still debated to have happened. Again, as I stated, the cat's scope does not require it to be fictional/nonfictional/proven to have happened, and even if it were summarily disproved, the cat would still belong. Tutelary (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't named a single source. You have nothing. Your edits don't add anything to this conversation but a lack of demonstrating that the academic research which is required to contribute has occurred. jps (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to me the summary of your argument is that the sources that do state that this event happened do not constitute "strong evidence".  In that case what would constitute "strong evidence? --Kyohyi (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Any independent source who gave a historiographical explanation for why it was likely that this event actually happened would be a great start. And by "independent", I mean "a source that was not authored by a Christian predisposed to believing the Bible at its face value." jps (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope, jps, you will turn your sceptical eye to Lucius Aurunculeius Cotta for whom only one, POV, source is available.  There is no strong evidence that he existed, so will you be removing him from the categories of: 1st-century BC Romans / Roman people of the Gallic Wars / 54 BC deaths and adding him to List of Roman mythological figures?  But I doubt you will!  Springnuts (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: There are some problems with the current edits in that there is one attempt to paint the supporters of historicity as "devout Christians" while at the same time making claims which are not found in sources, such as that about a lack of evidence. Neutrality is key here, we must report what the sources say and not embellish them with our own perceptions or agenda. Elizium23 (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the removal of such content. Tutelary (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

text: All of the supporters of the historicity of this account are Christians. No one denies this. Do either of you? We have plenty of sources which so identify this. Essentially all of these sources indicate as much for just about everything written in the New Testament: . The whole historicity game is one where conservative Christians engage in apologetics while more scholarly approaches question the poor evidence for historicity of many claims including this one. jps (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do the sources explicitly state Christian Apologetics like you are attempting to portray? We cannot imply or heavily imply connections without the collaboration of what's written in reliable sources. Tutelary (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Read them. jps (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

text: ?Of course there is a lack of evidence. The word "lack" can mean 'deficient in' or 'not having enough of something', and so far as I can see there is just one source for this. Dougweller (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:MAINSTREAM sources that discuss this event question its historicity on the grounds described in the article. We do not give equal time to all viewpoints when one viewpoint (in this case, the religious one) is less supported by the scholars in the field than the other. jps (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Dougweller, re your point on the meaning of "lack", I grant that. There is a deficiency of evidence in that there is but one source (the Bible), as I have said at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard#Attempt to categorize New Testament events as fictional, although I didn't yet say it here. Jps, scholars have neither the freedom to invent ungrounded theories nor to ignore what evidence there is. They recognize the single source, and the lack of confirming sources, and the inability to construct a definitive scholarly statement about the historicity. This differs from your contention that there is no evidence at all (not a "lack", but an absence), and from your contention that scholars "support" either the idea that the event did not occur, or that it did. They may give their own opinion, even a scholarly opinion, but they do not give a scholarly "support" in either direction because they do support the fact that there is a deficiency of evidence. There is a difference between scholarly opinion and that of support. As I have said, this matter cannot be resolved simply on the basis of available information, and that is what the scholars say also. Unresolved does not equate to "proven false". There are at least two viewpoints, Christian and secular, and neither prevails. But they can be presented neutrally in the article and without pushing a viewpoint. Evensteven (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

text: And I agree with Bermicourt that there is no necessity for restricting the category to confirmed historical massacres. Evensteven (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Then Texas Chainsaw Massacre is appropriate? I'm fine with that, just don't think that's the intention of the category. jps (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Show me a source which indicates there is "serious debate" that this event occurred. The sources in the article right now that are most sympathetic to the case only argue about plausibility, but no one says there is evidence that the event occurred outside of the unreliable cultic Christian account. jps (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Obiwankenobi is correct. You make no argument here, but only cast aspersion in the form of "cultic". Your opposition to Christianity is known, but reiteration is unproductive. Evensteven (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Most Bible scholars and NT historians (except fundamentalists), readily admit that the massacre does not have historicity (either because it did not happen or because it is unproven). Even favorable scholars claim there were six to twenty infants killed, so that's why other ancient sources do not report it. Other scholars say it is a legend derived from the fact that Herod killed his own sons. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have said repeatedly, what some say, and what words they use to say it, does not settle the matter. I don't deny your sources, or their proper significance. That does not change what I have said. Evensteven (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Who cares what you said. Where are you reliable academic sources for claiming the massacre occured? Second Quantization (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

text: You don't spend a lot of time looking at ancient history, I take it? Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You take it wrong. I am concerned that you are a Wikipedia Ambassador considering how poorly you've conducted yourself in this affair. jps (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yada, yada; I'm not in fact. Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a reach and low blow, jps, seeing as how Johnbod's comments were made in a personal capacity only. I'm surprised at the cheapness of the statement.  Ceoil (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

text: jps, just noting: Johnbod, as Wikimedian in residence at Cancer Research UK, is getting them to peer-review (some of, but hopefully lots more later) our cancer articles. I think he's the most effective and beneficial WIR we've ever had. By a mile. Let's focus on the article. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)  18:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish the user in question wouldn't then do obnoxious things like this: . jps (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Never did need to worry about it. Evensteven (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV and reporting what the sources say

message: With all due respect to the cited authors, who say the church calls the Innocents "Christian martyrs", I must say that the viewpoint is western, and I have no knowledge of how widely-held it is there. I would ask if anyone knows. I will also say that I do not have a copy of the source, and cannot tell if the editing fairly represents the authors' view. It is certainly off-center as regards Orthodox teaching, so there may be viewpoint differences. We should be very careful about how this matter is stated, particularly in the lead.
For now, please realize that Orthodoxy may (I think it does, but need to check to be sure) identify them as martyrs. I am virtually certain it does not identify them as Christians. They were Jewish. Please be aware that many Jews are identified and celebrated as Orthodox saints, among them: Adam and Eve, Abraham, Moses, many Prophets such as Isaiah, and foremost, John the Baptist (the Forerunner), and the Virgin Mary (the Theotokos). None of these post-date Christ's time on earth, as acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah would identify them as Christian. But the Orthodox teaching of the harrowing of hell describes the release of the righteous dead and their raising to life in God's heavenly kingdom; hence, as saints. The Holy Innocents would fall into that category. (Please be aware also that the "Holy" in "Holy Innocents", the Orthodox way of referring to them, is a translation of "Agia" (Αγια), meaning "holy", and which is also used for "saint".) Evensteven (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead paragraph, last sentence