it didn't actually conflate them so far as i can see rather it didn't address a non issue it just assumed the existence which given that there is no general scholarly controversy is appropriate that's not conflation it's just taking the scholarly perspective which is npov correct for wp virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that jesus was a jewish teacher from galilee in roman judaea who was was baptized by john the baptist and was crucified in jerusalem on the orders of the roman prefect pontius pilate perhaps if there is need for clarification in the lead itself it could be less prominent but you know it's the lead can't we assume the scholarly consensus there and give the footnote now settled dispute later be critical