instead of asking me personal questions about what i believe the same question can be put to you in reverse do you seek to exclude these ancient accounts of miracles of jesus based on your personal belief that certain ancient accounts are valid sources and others are not do you claim to know which sources people are allowed to read about in the article based on which ones are considered canonical does it really matter who historians deem any of sources whether the ones you personally approve of being mentioned or the ones you don't to have genuinely been written by they are all definitely ancient sources and they were all definitely written by somebody whether it was the person they were ascribed to or someone else the only possible basis you have for mentioning some and not mentioning others would be based on certain of them having been declared frauds that must bve suppressed by various councils of bishops wikipedia is not bound to avoid mentioning them at all just because some council of bishops wants them to be suppressed bringing up what historians say is a red herring because as you well know plenty of historians can be found who say they are all frauds hence there is nothing alongside historians to differentiate one set from the other set the only differentiation comes from your personal beliefs or from the declaration of some council and please note we are just mentioning them in the article as existing not stating which ones are true or untrue we've clearly stated that they aren't part of the canon it's wrong to pretend they don't exist and to suppress all mention of them based on which ones you bishops or even historians personally might feel are untrue they are noteworthy simply because they are ancient