Talk:Jesus H. Christ

message: This page is a dictionary definition (something which Wikipedia is not).  It explains the meaning, etymology and usage examples of a slang expression.  I can't find any encyclopedic content on this page.  Nothing here rises past what I would expect to read in a truly great unabridged dictionary.  The definitions and usage discussions belong over in Wiktionary where folks with the right skills, interests and lexical tools can more easily sort out the meanings and origins.
Options to fix the page here include:
# Expand the page with encyclopedic content - that is, content that goes well beyond the merely lexical.
# Redirect the page to a more general page.
# Replace the current contents with a soft-redirect to Wiktionary (usually done using the  template).
Pending a better answer, I'm implementing option 3 for now.  Rossami (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the result of a previous AfD was keep, I'm going to ask you to please take this to AfD again before deleting the article (via soft redirect). Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c [talk] 15:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  AfD would (rightly) reject the case because no deletion occurred.  Nor do I believe that deletion is appropriate.  I think the pagehistory has useful content which was merged to the Wiktionary page.  In order to comply with GFDL, we have to keep that pagehistory.  Please remember that turning a page into a Wikipedia:redirect is not deletion in the deliberate way that we use those terms here.  This is an issue that we are expected to solve here on the article's Talk page.  I've read the page again.  The content is still appears to me to be all lexical.  Either show me where I'm wrong or please explain why this content isn't better on Wiktionary.  Rossami (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The logic you are using could be used to redirect every stub on Wikipedia. Why not redirect Raw water or Co-occurrence or any other stub about a term? This article was put before the community for consideration, and the community decided to keep the article. You are now ignoring that consensus and wholesale deleting the article from wikipedia. I dispute your deletion of content, so there is no consensus for your bold deletion. I strongly suggest you wait for a new consensus to be reached before blanking the page again. I believe the best forum to reach such a consensus would be AfD. Good luck.-Andrew c [talk] 15:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

text: An AfD decision to "keep" an article does not mean that the article must forever after be kept in that state or even at that title.  The fact that an AfD discussion doesn't consider a particular option does not mean that we are forever precluded from considering that option.  After the AfD decision, normal editing continues.  A decision to merge or move content is exactly that - an ordinary-editor action.  A redirect is explicitly not deletion (de facto or otherwise).  That fallacy has been endlessly and repeatedly discussed.  The point is clear in both policy and precedent.  If you don't believe me, go ask some regulars at Deletion Review.  An AfD might end in a recommendation to redirect a page but if you open the page with a recommendation to redirect, the case will be speedy-closed because neither the nominator nor the other participants are arguing to delete the page.  You can disagree with the decision to merge and redirect but to call that act "deletion" is to deliberately confuse the issue.  I can't help but note that so far everyone is commenting solely based on the AfD.  So far, no one has answered the original question - where in this current article is there any content that goes beyond what you would expect to see in a truly great unabridged dictionary?  I still don't see it.  Rossami (talk) 01:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

text: There was no consensus for your proposal at the AfD. The last comment summed it up well, IMO: I would think the Wiktionary version and the WP version should be free to grow separately because they are for different purposes. WP:STUB covers this topic (stub vs. transwikifying). The consensus was clear that this topic is notable enough to have coverage at wikipedia. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate to have a stub (instead of a soft redirect). Removing this stub, and replacing it with a soft redirect is only useful for articles that could never possibly have encyclopedic coverage. The question before AfD was in essence "is this topic worthy of an encyclopedia article?" and the consensus, twice now, has been "yes". Therefore, having a stub is preferred to a soft-redirect.-Andrew c [talk] 17:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Though there were a few people who commented as you described, the only consensus out of that AfD is that the pagehistory is worth keeping.  So let me ask yet again, what content on this page currently goes beyond merely lexical content?  Rossami (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The topic is notable enough for an encyclopedia article, whether that be a stub or a full article. End of story. There is no consensus for your proposal. -Andrew c [talk] 18:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that there is not yet consensus.  That's why I continue to ask for it here.  If you feel that there is a viable basis for an encyclopedia article here, all I'm asking is that you show me.  I don't see it.  Where is the non-lexical content?  Rossami (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Expand, merge or redirect

message: I always thought it stood for holy  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.53.130 (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always been under the impression that people use JHC instead of JC because it it supposedly less offensive (as you can pretend, in some meta-sarcastic way, that you are talking about some entirely different person than The Jesus). That would be a more likely explanation for usage in modern times, but there aren't many sources on the subject so it's hard to tell. Is this explanation unheard of or should I add it to the article? Hmpxrii (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you add it, please do so at the wiktionary page.  The editors there have better tools to help verify folk etymologies like this.  Rossami (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  My impression has also been that the H is added so that one is not technically "taking the lords name in vain".  Similar to how you might say "Gosh Darnit". Konky2000 (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Agreed, completely new to Wiki edits but I'm convinced It's important that, "H," avoids taking the lord's name in vain... does anyone have a reliable source to verify?Dujek (talk) 07:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

text: "Haploid". 24.20.44.159 (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does H stand for 

message: Much more people use simply "Jesus Christ" as a profanity, while "Jesus H. Christ" is seldom used in comparison. This entry should either be deleted, redirected to Jesus, slang, or expanded to include the similar but much more popular slang of simply "Jesus Christ" or "Jesus!"142.68.117.113 (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs to be changed 

message: Is H pronounced /eɪtʃ/ so we get the usual /jiːsəs eɪtʃ kɾaist/? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation?

message: People need better things to do.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.17.55.49 (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: JESUS H. CHRIST!! THERE IS A WIKIPEDIA PAGE FOR THIS!!

message: "it is plausible that JHC similarly led to Jesus Harold Christ,[4] Harold coming from the mispronunciation of the word "hallowed" of the Lord's Prayer"
This is the least explained and least sensical of an altogether rather confusing article. Hallowed makes a kind of sense (not that I found any explanation of why hallowed instead of holy, etc in this article), but why is is most likely that the H stands for a mispronunciation of Hallowed, and why this particular mispronunciation?  Wisnoskij (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Is is simply supposed to be a joke, one of the sources for another sentence mentions this possibility as well, but in a clearly joking manner. I really think it would be advantageous to leave out jokes and stick to facts and useful information, if so; Or at least use sources that at least attempt to be serious. Wisnoskij (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Mispronunciation? 

message: There is no way to know whether or not every Christian in the world believes Jesus' middle name didn't begin with H.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.200.160 (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an interesting comment but perhaps a bit hair-splitting?  I think it likely that "Jesus H. Christ" is not used in any hymnal, prayer book, printed sermon, or similar work. These are the documents that we might take seriously in an effort to define Christian worship. Were we to look into the minds of congregants, we would surely find all sorts of beliefs that are rejected by the Christian churches -- many of them perhaps even more bizarre than giving Jesus a middle initial. These can hardly be taken as defining what Christian worship is. A relevant link is this:  , describing work by the Pew Foundation showing that adherents to various religions are often not very well informed about the actual beliefs that their religions teach.  Opus33 (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Thank you. Opus33 (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It is not used in ... context of Christian worship" is a matter of opinion 

message: A well-intentioned edit removed this sentence but I think we should err on the side of conservatism and leave it in.  The Pew report cited above indicates extensive ignorance about religions even among their adherents, and many WP readers come from completely different cultures (e.g., countries where Christianity is not widely represented) and would have little basis for knowing.  Opus33 (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: "It is not used in the context of Christian worship"

message: Hi, I am the person that keeps adding to this article. In ancient Greek, there are no principles in where the definite articles go (definite articles are 24 cases of the word "the"). Where we know the difference is in the case ending of the definite articles and the noun and verbs(there are two paradigms to learn these). The eta as you pointed out and I keep adding has a harsh breathing mark over it rendering a breathing sound to make 'ay to hay. The definite articles range from masculine, feminine and neuter in singular and plural then divided into: nominative, genative, dative and accusative. For nouns only. What you said about the placement of the hay in between is modern Greek. So, I guess you and I correct there too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.197.49.39 (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: (I moved your comment to the bottom and added a header.) What you need to do is find a reliable source that makes the statement that Jesus H Christ is derived from Koine Greek. We can discuss the finer points of grammar forever, but that is still original research and not good enough to warrant including it in the article. Sjö (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: (if it's not clear, this derives from 's repeated attempt to add a reference to the use of the Greek article ἡ (hē) in the phrase Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡ, literally "Jesus Christ the"). It occurs to me that the purpose of this edit was not clear. If it was to claim that ἡ is the origin of the H in the article's topic, and was the editor's own idea, it is indeed OR unless there is a reliable independent source, even if it is intended facetiously. On the other hand, the could be interpreted as an interesting or amusing but unrelated coincidence, especially if you move the article into the middle of the phrase to give the correct designation "Jesus The (hē) Christ". If this was the point, then it's classed as trivia and may or may not belong. I'd lean on the side of belonging as there are other amusing bits in the article. Perhaps the editor could explain the purpose. David Brooks (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I take that back. As far as I can tell, even pointing out the Greek coincidence is OR. David Brooks (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. And it's also WP:UNDUE weight. Sjö (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Koine Greek

message: The lead currently describes usage as being "sometimes also with humorous intent". The cite for this is more an explanatory note than an actual source citation. As it is in the lead paragraph, this cite should be removed. Either it is a fair summary of the body of the article (which, IMO, it seems to be) or it is not.
A new editor,  has changed this wording three times.
The first change from "though sometimes also with humorous intent.<ref>The humor resides in the apparently arbitrary choice of "H", which has no Biblical justification." to "though sometimes also with blasphemous intent.Their is no humor in the phrase." This change is problematic across the board: the removal of the "ref" tag mangles the page, "blasphemous intent" is nowhere it be found in the sources, lack of humor is a personal opinion.
The second and third changes were from "though sometimes also with humorous intent" to "though sometimes also with blasphemous intent". While blasphemy is mentioned once in the article, apparent humorous intent is a dominant theme throughout. Whether or not you find it humorous is immaterial; that is your opinion (your opinion does not belong in an encyclopedia). The intent of the those using the phrase is certainly valid.
Is the intent "blasphemous"? Sure, to Christians, but no more so than the simple use of "Jesus Christ". Thus, we describe it as an "expletive". Adding that you find it blasphemous in the second sentence after that is partially redundant and wholly unencyclopedic.
Then again, maybe your just a simple vandal, here on a lark. It's hard to tell at the moment, but completely irrelevant. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  humorous vs. blasphemous 

message: /'hærəld/ is the british pronunciation of Harold, it doesn't sound like hallowed in General American English. AmazinglyLifelike (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of Harold 

message: One of my favorite takeaways from Outlander that I use in my life is Claire's outburst, "Jesus H. Roosevelt Christ" and she uses it often.  Whether it is historic or not, it actually identifies her at least once as not being in the right time - to other time travelers, but mostly it's funny. 192.234.160.247 (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we add reference to Outlander?