Talk:Talpiot Tomb

message: Do any of you know if the James Ossuary has any picture or designs on the front side or the side without the inscription?
Also, do any of you know the dimensions of the missing Talpiot Tomb ossuary. So far it has been unclear if the 10th ossuary is in reference to a different original talpiot tomb ossuary. This is to say that, the james ossuary connection might be in connection to some other ossuary rather than the commonally refenced 10th one in the reports. The use of the term 10th ossuary is somewhat ambigious; I can name any of the ossuaries to be the 10th one.
The book claims they were nearly identical in dimensions. There was a two and a half inch difference in one of the dimensions, I forget which, but they explain that by saying it could've either changed in size slightly when it broke or that the archaeologists estimated all the numbers since the dimensions listed are all round numbers. But their book's the only place I've been able to find any discussion at all about the dimensions of the "lost" ossuary.--74.207.77.138 15:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  James Ossuary 

message: I am starting to think this page needs protection from anonymous editors.  Any thoughts? Heathhunnicutt 22:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess I'll betray my ignorance because I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, but I didn't realize anonymous editing or postings were allowed.  If so, I'm against it if controls to prevent it are available.  That's just my opinion, but I'm open to what the majority want.  --pkuchnicki 22:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm certainly no expert on page protection, but my impression is that it is usually done when an article is being vandalised a lot. This article has been subject to unsourced statements (some later sourced), sloppy writing, some ignorance of Wikipedia's style guidelines, and a few just plain dumb edits. But it doesn't seem that there has been much vandalism, and I would hate to deprive anon, but legit, editors from contributing possible important information, unless things get out of control. My two cents.  Ward3001 01:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sprot?

message: I just noticed some trails of quotation marks that lead me to fear that previously attributed material has made its way into the article as non-quoted text.  This would be a WP:Copyvio.  Consider, for example, this old revision  and the statement The use of limestone ossuaries and the varied scriptstyles are characteristic of that time that has made its way into the article mostly unattributed.  As I am writing, we are at this revision:  and you can see there is a dangling quotation mark remaining. Heathhunnicutt 05:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvios

message: I think this line in the article should be kept, but placed somewhere else (perhaps in a section titled "Conflict with Common Christian Beliefs"): Christian tradition holds that Jesus was buried in a tomb at the location of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Christianity holds to a belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Anthius.  
:Is this the same Christian tradition that says Jesus was crucified through his palms versus his wrists?  The same tradition that holds there should be four gospels as there are four corners of the earth or four winds? We don't need tradition per se, we need truth and truth is found sometimes in tradition and sometimes not as time and history teaches us.... a lesson we forget at OUR peril.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pkuchnicki (talk • contribs).
::Yeah but unfortunately the truth certainly isn't found in this Talmudist myth.
I tried to consolidate the Support section to contain subsections for some of the cited evidence.  I think Support and Criticism need to be maintained as whole sections for the sake of the article having any cohesion. Heathhunnicutt 05:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: It is NOT sufficient to quote people in various sections as though the mere utterance of their opinion was the equivalent of fact.  If supporting facts or logic are not supplied, the statement is, ipso facto, an opinion and needs to be qualified clearly as such.  I do not have any issue with someone giving me their opinion.  I do have a problem with someone passing off an opinion as fact.  Facts are supported by data or tight reasoning.  Opinions are not supported by anything other than an "appeal to authority" which is bogus.  That being said, it is understandable to some extent when "authorities" are quoted in a section CLEARLY LABELED as Criticism.  That's fair enough since they don't pretend to be factually or logically based and in fact, are not and there is, in my opinion, a place for opinion at times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pkuchnicki (talk • contribs) 03:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It is the same at the first description, about the inscriptions on the ossuaries, saying they're "highly disputed". Michael S. Heiser, who they reference, has been known to say many idiotic things. If it does not fit his narrow view, he discredits anyone who writes, or says, anything different. I take what Heiser says with a grain of salt. One might say it is disputed, but to say it is highly, is stretching the truth to breakage.--Craxd (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: This is going to get tricky.  It's archeology, either mixed with - or versus - theology, according to taste.  We are dealing with hard science on the one hand, pseudoscience in the middle, and people's emotions and beliefs on the other.  We therefore need ONE article - this one - confined STRICTLY to dates, locations, and physical aspects of the discovery, burial of found remains, inscriptions etc.  We then need another article dealing with controversy, speculation, criticism, debunking etc.  Otherwise this page is going to grow like topsy and become a mess of 'von Daniken' - style pseudoscience and various religious rantings. I would suggest that everything from the 'Support' paragraph downwards belongs in a different article called 'Controversy Regarding the Talpiot Tomb' ChrisRed 09:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It already looks like this article has a lot of overlap with The Lost Tomb of Jesus. Perhaps we should transfer all unique content from this article to that one (as it is the documentary that's causing all of the commotion) and delete the overlapping content? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 17:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: POV forking is against Wikipedia's policy. 205.250.233.59 20:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already forking. Someone found some tombs in Israel, and it's just a matter of time until people start adding their own rants here. This page should be confined to a physical description of the tomb...whatever or whoever was in there.  Then: "There has been speculation that this tomb once contained the remains of Jesus of Nazareth and his family. See......". Make a separate place for rants elsewhere or this will degenerate into farce ChrisRed 22:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not forking if it's in the same article. Read Wikipedia:POV forking and Wikipedia:NPOV for the policies. This article has to include all the views of the tomb in a balanced and NPOV way or it will be in violation of policy. Ecto 01:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should have read them yourself first before posting that.  This is a page in an encyclopedia called 'Talpiot Tomb', so it has to describe the tomb; end of...  If it then refers out to a subsequent 'Controversy Regarding....' page, then this must, as you say, include all the views of the tomb in a balanced and NPOV way, because it's a page about the controversy. To comply with the rules; it is necessary to have one 'Controversy' page only: it must not 'fork' into two pages 'for' and 'against' the tomb being that of Jesus and his family.  At the moment, this 'Talpiot Tomb' page only deals with the actual tomb briefly, before almost immediately launching into a series of statistics, thinly-veiled slanging matches between experts, credibility slurs etc.  If I click on a page called 'Talpiot Tomb', I want to see pictures of the tomb, drawings, location, inscriptions with translations etc. If I then want to read all about the documentary and how it was received / disputed / accepted / discredited, then I will click on the link to the 'Controversy' page.ChrisRed 08:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did read those myself before posting them. Usually controversy stays in the related article. The only way it moves to a new article is if the main article gets too long, and even then that's just an if. Read Wikipedia:Article size. The relevant section of that guideline will refer you to Wikipedia:Content forking (which isn’t necessarily done along POV lines), which will refer you to Wikipedia:NPOV. Burying controversy in a separate article when there is plenty of room for it in the main article is unnecessary and possibly POV. Feel free to start one up, but it will probably just get merged back into this article. I have no problem with moving the bulk of the controversy content in this article to the documentary and book articles as the controversy seems to be surrounding those works more than the actual tomb. We can then maintain a brief summary of the controversy in the Talpiot Tomb article. That should address your concern. How does that sound? Ecto 06:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading through the article, I don't think that it's worth it.  I learned far more from the Discovery Channel website - a better source of information about the actual tomb than this page.  I know it won't happen; but this page itself would be more accurately called 'Talpiot Tomb Controversy', as far more of its content deals with the controversy rather than the tomb itself, which barely gets a paragraph.ChrisRed 08:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Something ironic. :-) I notice that someone added a link to the article I wrote on the epigraphy of the "Yeshua` bar Yehosef" inscription, but that it was later removed as a "bad source." I'm a professional Aramaic translator. It's my vocation. :-) Since I don't want to mess with links to my own page, as that's not in the spirit of Wikipedia, I wonder what the problem was? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 17:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Steve.  I should have entered a more intelligent comment.  The problem I saw was not with your aticle; rather with the statement that claimed your article for a citation.  The statement I removed claimed the inscriptions are easily read.  Even if you consider them to be so in your opinion, the article would need a couple of references to support the claim that they are easily interpreted inscriptions.  Since WP:OWN is bad, what would you suggest as a replacement statement that your article does support? Heathhunnicutt 22:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like how you've put it in. Not obtrusive, but accessible. :-) It's so difficult working with Wikipedia articles that cite your own work. I can only imagine how tricky it must be to have a biography. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 17:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bad source for references" 

message: All the sections below the "The Lost Tomb of Jesus and The Jesus Family Tomb" header has to do with those two works, the claims made in those works, or the controversy surrounding those works. Why are these subjects disassociated from the relevant header? Are the two sections named Support and Criticism about support and criticism of the actual tomb itself, or about support and criticism of those two works? If about the tomb itself, what do they support or criticize about the tomb? Is the connection to the James ossuary made anywhere besides in those two works? This header organization makes no sense and should be changed. Ecto 23:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article organization 

message: Is this a real photograph of the tomb? I saw a report on TV and it looked very different. The reporter was standing beside a slab over a raised hole, not an entranceway carved in rock. Ecto 01:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This newspaper article has a picture. It's not as romantic as the picture taken from The Lost Tomb of Jesus Web site, but it looks like the one they showed on TV. Ecto 01:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: I know there was DNA testing confirming that "Mary Magdalene" was not of the same family as "Jesus" (and hence could be a wife or lover)... but did they do any DNA testing to confirm that the other "Mary" was in fact the mother of "Jesus"?  Or how about the family relations of the others... was "Jose" confirmed to be the brother of "Jesus"... "Judah" to be confirmed as his son...
It seems reasonable to assume that they would have done DNA tests on all the members... but then why don't we hear of the other results?  The silence on this and my above crucifixion question suggests that the filmmakers either aren't asking some pretty basic questions... or they aren't telling us about evidence that contradicts their theory.  They would have benefitted from peer-review. David Bergan 19:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just watched the documentary and Ted Koppel's critical commentary... seems like Ted wondered the same thing I did.  David Bergan 03:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Salient Question

message: The following sections should be merged with The Lost Tomb of Jesus and The Jesus Family Tomb:
1. "Support"--about support for the documentary and book, not support for the actual tomb itself.
2. "Criticism"--about criticism of the documentary and book, not criticism of the actual tomb itself.
3. "Connection to James ossuary"--a ridiculous claim only made in the documentary and book, and refuted only in relation to the documentary and book.
3. "Inscriptions"--heavily disputed translations only presented by the documentary and book.
Why are these sections in this article? This content is relevant to the Talpiot tomb only by way of the documentary and book. All of these sections are about the documentary and book, and so should be merged with the articles about the documentary and book. They do not reflect the views of the wider scholarly community in regards to the tomb, but only present the material in or about the documentary and book (which are not scholarly works whatsoever). These sections should be merged into the proper articles. The "Lost tomb of Jesus and Jesus Family Tomb" section can then be expanded in summary style, with main article links provided. Ecto 22:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section merge with The Lost Tomb of Jesus and The Jesus Family Tomb

message: I'm interested in whether this is the tomb of the historical (i.e. REAL) Jesus, not the character that appears in Christian mythology.  Obviously mythic and metaphorical elements have already been added to the story (virgin birth, walking on water and other magic, etc.).  Is there any reason or evidence to believe the crucifixion took place in actuality?  And how would finding evidence of the body in this tomb having been crucified or not prove or disprove that this is the historical Jesus except of course for a devoted (and therefore inherently biased) Christian who already believes in the myth as being literally true?Rglong 05:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to take a look at Historicity of Jesus.  Presumably the finding of substantial bodily remains would contradict the biblical episode of the ascension, although this is probably not the right place to get into that discussion.  Grover cleveland 06:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A Third Salient Question

message: Gilabrand, I'm sure your edits are well-intentioned, but you simply don't know enough about this subject to attempt a major rewrite. You need to read (and understand) all the sources on which this article is based, before you attempt to rewrite the article.
Your edits and summaries contain numerous factual errors and misunderstandings. No, it is not a natural cave; it's a man-made tomb. Yes, the text "Jesus, son of Joseph" is disputed. Yes, bones were found in the tomb. Yes, James Cameron has been responsible for many very famous Hollywood movies. No, the "James Ossuary" is not one of the ten ossuaries that were discovered when the Talpiot tomb was opened. No, there was not any bone material found in the James ossuary.
The main effect of your edits has been to compromise the accuracy of this article, so I have reverted them. You are welcome to continue to edit, but I hope you will do a lot of studying first. 70.171.59.131 17:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major rewrite, 4 June 2007, reverted 

message: Since all the "evidence" rests on the inscriptions - has it ever been checked whether they are as old as the ossuaries? The tenth (re-discovered) one "maybe" had the line "son of..." added, is stated in the film - maybe? This seems like the crucial point to me. ALu06 01:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Fourth Salient Question 

message: I removed the paragraphs below which were apparently inserted into the article by Pellegrino.  While his opinion may be of interest the article isn't a forum. Gr8white (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments deleted 

message: One thing the article very much needs but does not have: A list of the various ossuary inscribed names, complete with variant versions. Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Inscriptions needed

message: It seems that even the merest mention of Feuerverger's statistical analysis has been expunged from the article.  Anyway, the news is that it was published, together with a lot of (mostly negative) commentary and a rejoinder, in the eminent journal The Annals of Applied Statistics.  Feuerverger has kindly provided a copy on his web page.  Some mention in our article is clearly indicated.  McKay (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feuerverger's statistical analysis 

message: I see Christians have heavily edited this article...many updates are included above paragraphs stating the same thing with less detail.  It seems whoever wanted to have wikipedia seemingly discredit any of the science that went into the claim that this was likely the Jesus family tomb was in a real rush! 72.204.36.90 (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization/Citations

message: Interesting discovery made near this tomb. Don't know if this is relevant. Machinarium (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tomb Exploration Reveals First Archaeological Evidence of Christianity from the Time of Jesus" 

message: Hello, my name is Jerry Lutgen.  I have been studying the Talpiot Tomb for  years and I have made several independent contributions to Talpiot Tomb related research.   Additionally I am the editor of a site that is dedicated to educating the public regarding the Talpiot Tomb - www.talpiottomb.com.  The editorial policy of this site is that even though the meaning of the Talpiot Tomb is controversial and uncertain, it is plausible that the Talpiot Tomb could be associated with the family of the biblical Jesus.  However, since there are so many open questions related to the tomb, it should be the subject of further dispassionate debate and research.
As I read this wiki article it seems like it suffers from three problems; 1) it has had a lot of contributors over the years and hence it is kind of a mess, 2) despite all of the contributors it is still missing a lot of critical material, especially information that has arisen in recent months and 3) there are factual errors.  
This is a very important subject and it has gotten even more important given the events of the last month, so I think it deserves some careful attention from experts on the subject.  I am reluctant to just dive in and start making edits.  I worry about adding to the messiness and triggering a round of re-edits.  Is anyone open to working jointly on a new version - is that done in wiki?  For example I would be willing to upload a "straw man" version to my website (talpiottomb.com) and those who were interested could download it and offer edits.  My plan would be to keep as much of the current content and proposed edits as possible while trying to improve on the problems I listed above.
If you want, you can email me at jlutgen@jterp.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jllutgen (talk • contribs) 01:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for being so open. However, you need to read some of our policies and guidelines. Start with WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Also WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. And it may be inappropriate for you to edit this directly, see WP:COI. We've had to give James Tabor the same advice. Any changes need to be reliably sourced according to our polices, and your website doesn't seem to meet those criteria. Suggestions here though are very welcome. Dougweller (talk) 06:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is contributing to this page 

message: This could be useful for the article. . Dougweller (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q&A with Mark Goodacre and Eric Meyers 

message: The article states "In 2011 Tabor and Jacobovici examined (although without fully excavating) the previously unexcavated 1st century Jewish tomb next to the alleged 'Jesus Family tomb'. The results of that examination have not yet been released. Tabor has indicated that they will be released at a press conference in November 2011, and in a forthcoming book."  It is now July 2012 and I know that National Geographic has done a television special on this expedition.  It may be appropriate for someone to update the article.  I am not myself familiar enough with archeological publications to know what would be considered reputable sources in this matter. Wickedjacob (talk) 09:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  2011 press conference? 

message: I tweaked Second Temple-Third Temple period.<ref]Holy Bible - Revised Standard Version, Dictionary p.30 (Melton Book Co., 1971)</ref] King Solomon's Temple was the First Temple, Zerubbabel's Temple was the 'Second Temple', and Herod's Temple was the 'Third Temple'. This is often messed up! The prophesied rebuilt temple will be the 'Fourth Temple'. - Ben Hirt  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.11.183 (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Second Temple-Third Temple period" 

message: The permit was issued Monday, March 31, but work actually began the day before: Palm Sunday<ref]Palm Sunday in United States - Time and Date www.timeanddate.com/holidays/us/palm-sunday </ref]. I added "Palm Sunday" since this 'coincidence' is very important! - Ben Hirt  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.11.183 (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, so important! May the Lord rise again! Hallelujah! Debresser (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read this before reverting my edit again. You keep changing it from saying "...started the day before: [which was] Palm Sunday" to "...started the day before Palm Sunday" which would mean it started on Saturday.  If you want to change the link formatting that's fine but don't change the meaning to make it inaccurate.  I've already told you in the comments that it was inaccurate and you just say "so what?"  How much clearer can I make this? IT DIDN'T START THE DAY BEFORE PALM SUNDAY!!!  IT STARTED THE DAY BEFORE THE MONDAY THAT IS MENTIONED, WHICH HAPPENED TO BE PALM SUNDAY!!! Gr8white (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you dense? This is just a reference. And the article referenced is called "Palm Sunday". That doesn't mean anything. Just that such is its name. What can you do about it? Debresser (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's refrain from personal attacks.  The text of the article as you have edited it (before I revert your latest edit) reads "The permit was issued Monday, March 31, but work actually began the day before Palm Sunday."  This makes the article inaccurate.  It has nothing to do with the reference.  You can look at your version and compare it to the original if you don't believe that. If you have some problem with the link formatting you can change that without modifying the text of the article. Gr8white (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Then just add the colon, you fucking dumb ass, but don't revert everything else I do. Never seen such a stupid guy, reverting my edit instead of just adding the damn colon. Debresser (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  When someone makes an inaccurate edit I will revert it.  If some other constructive changes were made you can make them without adding the inaccuracy. Gr8white (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you're just plain stupid. Don't simply revert, fix it! Debresser (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Your previous comment proves me right about the name calling. Just an arrogant guy, not willing to do anything constructive. Debresser (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This and other comments made here clearly violate Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Article talk pages are supposed to be for discussion of improving the article, not personal slams. DreamGuy (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  I was considering removing that reference myself.  I just thought if it was there it should read accurately.  Sorry to have got caught up in this. Gr8white (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  And I am sorry it took me along time to figure out that the reason of your reverts was a simple colon. Debresser (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The permit was issued Monday, March 31, but work actually began the day before: 'Palm Sunday'" 

message: To Gr8white and other lazy and arrogant editors: 1. the reference was a dead link. I found it archived, and added that info. 2. the words "Palm Sunday", which were the cause of all the aggrevation here, were not in the source. I have therefore removed them with great pleasure. 3. The source is a blog, and you're lucky I don't kick out half of that paragraph.
:Agreed.  I was considering removing that reference myself.  I just thought if it was there it should read accurately.  Sorry to have got caught up in this. Gr8white (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  And I am sorry it took me along time to figure out that the reason of your reverts was a simple colon. Debresser (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad 

message: I concur with Wikingvi's opinion below. The Lost Tomb of Jesus and The Jesus Family Tomb imply a sectarian, storytelling connotation, which may be of interest to those in the fields of Theology & Religious Studies, Whereas Talpiot Tomb connotates facts- i.e. the description and history of the actual archaeological site, which may be of more interest to Historical researchers of all types, e.g. scholars, archaeologists, secular-minded individuals.
I see no reason for The Lost Tomb of Jesus and The Jesus Family Tomb to be separate articles. I support the position of DreamGuy below. I do however believe that these two aforementioned articles should =not= and never be merged with Talpiot Tomb.  It seems that the scholarly consensus among accredited biblical archaeologists is that the claims of the film The Lost Tomb of Jesus are indefensible according to the discipline of biblical archaeology.  To merge The Lost Tomb of Jesus and The Jesus Family Tomb with Talpiot Tomb would render Talpiot Tomb unnecessarily long and unwieldy and detract from the more scholarly focus on the Talpiot Tomb itself rather than on the film =The Lost Tomb of Jesus= and the book =The Jesus Family Tomb= which, most competent and neutral scholars,I submit, would quickly recognize to be of dubious or little scholarly value, or as DreamGuy more diplomatically describes, ". . . are not notable on their own."
Wikingvi (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging in other articles 

message: I've protected this article temporarily. If the editors involved can't resolve the dispute themselves, maybe they should seek a third opinion or some other form of dispute resolution. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are a little hasty here, Malik. We are actively discussing, both here and on my talk page. And I have good hope that my warning to IRISZOOM has made him/her more cautious. I am fine with the present version of this article, but I'd appreciate your vote of confidence in IRISZOOM as a two-year editor in good standing by reconsidering the protection of this article at this stage. Debresser (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's you who should be cautious with placing occupied territories in Israel. You certainly seem fine with the present version but I am not and I will therefore seek dispute resolution. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

text:  I've undone the page protection. My recommendation for 3O or DR still stands. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay. I will go Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, which seems to be the best solution. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine with me. I'd appreciate it if you'd drop me a note when you post there. Debresser (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I notified you but I link it here too so other's see it: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Talpiot Tomb should not be associated with Israel. Welcome to discuss it there. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protected 

message: Maybe it can be used for something: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/09/living/jesus-tomb-talpiot-evidence/index.html  Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  CNN article on the tomb 

message: The section on Statistics is a complete mess.  About half of it should be thrown out and the rest revised. Apparently nobody in the past 7 years noticed that Feuerverger actually withdrew his final calculation when he learned that he had been misinformed on Bovon's views. I added that, but it is buried in all the dross.McKay (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Talpiot Tomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080127132945/http://www.ptsem.edu:80/NEWS/talpiottombsymposium.php to http://www.ptsem.edu/NEWS/talpiottombsymposium.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why is that so hard?  Can't the page just do that at the top then talk about all the theories?--JaredMithrandir (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  I just want to read exactly what the inscriptions say without all the speculation around them? 

message: The Jesus ossuary (IAA S-767) used as illustration for this article is not from this tomb. The Jesus ossuary from Talpiot (IAA 80.503, CJO 704) is not decorated. 08:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  misleading illustration 

message: I believe that this page needs serious editing. The idea that Talpiot Tomb is Jesus's tomb has been rejected by basically all archaeologists and scholars, who have dismissed it as absurd. This page risks to legitimize it.--Karma1998 (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see from preceding threads on this talk page, this has been debated at length over the years. I understand that it is a sensitive subject for Christians. And I happen to agree with you that the evidence is faulty, and the story doesn’t make much sense. Unfortunately, our opinions do not matter here; what matters here are sources. If you have source material strong enough to justify a major rewrite, and your sources conform to WP:V and WP:NPOV, by all means, go for it. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 02:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   It's not really about Christians (although I am one), because atheist and Jewish scholars also think that this is nonsense. I'll make some examples:
* Those names were extremely common in ancient Palestine;
* The names don't match with Jesus's family (he didn't have a brother named Matthew, nor a sister named Myriam, nor a son named Judah);
* The name Mariamne doesn't mean Mary Magdalene: this equation has been dismissed by most linguistics and epigraphers;
* All major scholars on the historical Jesus (Christians, Jews and Atheists) reject the idea that he was married or had children;
* The connection between the Talpiot Tomb and the James Ossuary has been dismissed by scholars and the James Ossuary is also suspected to be a forgery;
* The overwhelming majority of archaeologists do not believe this tomb is connected to Jesus of Nazareth, including self-declared atheists like William G. Dever;
* Despite his widow's melodramatic announces, it has been proven that Gat never thought that Talpiot had connections with Jesus;
* The people in this tomb are Judeans and Jesus was a Galilee;
* The people in this tombs are from the higher classes, and Jesus of Nazareth was from the lower classes. Even if he were rich, his tomb wouldn't be in Jerusalem, but in Nazareth (or maybe in Bethlehem, assuming his father was actually from there);
* No major scholars believes in this theory. Even those few who were open to some connections between Talpiot and Jesus of Nazareth (such as Israel Knohl) have strong doubts about it and recognize that the evidence is lacking;
* The majority of scholars believe that Jesus of Nazareth was buried in the Holy Sepulchre, as tradition tells;
* The so-called "new evidence" of 2015 has already been dismissed in a article by Candida Moss, who isn't exacly a bible-basher;
* Jacobovici has been supporting weird and nonsensical theories for years (see The Exodus Decoded);
So you see, this really is nonsense. It's fantasy, pseudo-science, just as The Da Vinci Code is. As you can see, I've added many sources that show how most scholars refute Jacobovici's claim and will add more, if I find them.--Karma1998 (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit page 

message: See the link to the study here, not sure if should be added. Unfortunately I'm not able to link directly to the study itself. https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/new-evidence-james-ossuary-and-its-probable-connection-talpiot-jesus-tomb Semoniole (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Study finding similarity between James ossuary and Talpiot tomb