Talk:Jesus/Archive 93

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 90 Archive 91 Archive 92 Archive 93 Archive 94 Archive 95 → Archive 100

BBC image.

There seems to be a bit of turmoil concerning this image, and I'm not entirely sure that it's even clear to the editors what the picture is. WLRoss's change does address the fact that the caption prior to his most recent edit did not clarify the relevance of the image, but the alternative caption is extremely misleading (there seems to be a case of overcorrection). The image does not specifically portray "A reconstruction based on what the historical Jesus may have looked like in real life by the BBC". I've seen the show, and this "reconstruction" is based on a skull from Jesus' general location and time period.

The purpose of the experiment, as it was explained, was to give a general idea what people looked like (although one skull tells us zilch about that). As one might rightly conclude, the "may have looked like" in the caption is a dramatic overstatement. It gives us a vague idea of what facial traits may or may not have been prevalent; at the same time, one face is hardly representative of a populace, and while we're at it, one could argue just as much that the face gives us an idea of what Peter or Thomas looked like. Do you see what I'm saying. I think the picture is relevant, but a proper caption is needed- one which explains the relevance of the image without going so far as to patronize some of the hyperbolic statements in the special (that is, taking the picture in its proper context). Unfortunately, I'm not a master of brevity, so I'm unsure how one could explain the image without rambling.--C.Logan (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

C Logan, if what you say is true, then the image isn't relevant. That's what I get from your argument anyway - you can't pick a single skull from, say, France, and then proceed to pick any individual French person and claim he may have looked similar to that skull - people are widely different, even within race and location. It holds no helpful value, because what it says - falsely - is that everyone from France looks basically the same (only very vague resemblences might apply, maybe). However, I think that the editors who are trying insert this image have a different view of what the BBC was trying to do. Bottom line: we need a source for this. The BBC project page or something. Okiefromokla questions? 21:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I have not seen the documentary but I do have the printed article. The BBC article says: "The latest impression of what Jesus really looked like". The CNN article on the BBC reconstruction captions the picture " Image of what Jesus may have looked like". The Popular mechanics article "Real Face Of Jesus" calls it "The most accurate image of the most famous face in human history". The Bible is very clear that there was nothing notable about Jesus' features that would set him apart from anyone else (I.E. he was a typical Galilean Semite of the time). Therefore the forensic reconstruction was a typical average male of the time. As such is has to be reasonably accurate for the general appearance. For this article the caption must be clear as to what it is supposed to be showing us. Wayne (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
BTW. It was not mentioned in the BBC article but of interest is that the average male of the time was 5 feet 3 inches tall and weighed 110 pounds. The Bible implies he was of similar height and physique to his desciples so we can assume this would be accurate as well. Wayne (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I think "reasonably accurate" isn't the case. Yes, the news articles on the subject claim its the best we can do with the information available, and that makes it somewhat reasonable, but the information available only "combines 6th-century pictures of Jesus with skulls found in the area he lived (paraphrase)", according to this news article. This is also in the article: "It's not the face of Jesus, but how he is likely to have looked given the scientific information we've got," said Lorraine Heggessey, controller of BBC1. "That's what people from that area of the world looked like at that time." In my opinion, that's just not notable enough.
So I propose, instead of mentioning this picture and the BBC project at all, we use the news article I found (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2001/mar/27/broadcasting.uknews2), and maybe some other sources, to explain that the most-commonly held image of Jesus is probably not what he looked like based on the racial features of jews of the time. Much of the mentioned news article deals with that as well as the "face of Jesus" BBC project specifically. Okiefromokla questions? 21:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
It is relevant as it is closer to what he looked like than any other image on the page. The Bible says Jesus was average which the picture is so in other words it at least resembles him. I have to say though that "the most commonly held image of Jesus is probably not what he looked like" is way out of the ballpark...there is no probably about it. Blue eyed, white, tall, longhaired or any combination that includes any of those is an impossibility. Wayne (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
We have no idea whether it resembles him or not. We can say that the image was created with the intention of producing a picture of what Jesus may have looked like, based on a skull from the time and place and norms of hairstyle and beard. I don't see why the image shouldn't be included. It's a reasonable modern attempt at an approximation to his appearence which is just as appropriate as the other images. However, do we really neec two files of the same image ("Image:Proposedjesus.jpg" and "Image:RFJesus.jpg").? It is not by any means "impossible" that he was blue eyed, tall "white" (whatever that's supposed to mean) or long haired. Some things are more likely than others, but we have no basis for absolute certainty. Paul B (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Taking a pause from this picture discussion for a second, we should have some discussion in the article of Jesus' probable appearance as opposed to his traditional depiction (based on his race, location, and customs of the time and sourced by the news article I showed earlier, and others). Back to the picture: it seems the main issue with most people here is that the caption should be clear on what the picture is. Perhaps it can be a paragraph-type caption explaining what BBC did to arrive at that face, and that it's not Jesus' face, but a recreation of what people from his time may have looked like. It would include their process of combining skulls with pictures of Jesus, etc. Of course, the ref would need to be included. I'd be ok with that. Certainly it diserves more than a single sentence simply saying it's what Jesus may have looked like - that's too vague and possibly misleading. Okiefromokla questions? 22:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The caption should just as well say that this is an image of what Flavius Josephus may have looked like, or Hillel the Elder, or Judas. The real issue here is that this is an example of the BBC pandering to a popular audience to get more viewers. Does this have any status among scientists and historians? As far as claims about Jesus, it is a joke. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This seems to come up every few months and the outcome is always the same...this picture has nothing to do with Jesus and may have something to do with he average resident of the locale at the time of Jesus. It is irrelevant to the article. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course it has to do with Jesus. It's a modern attempt to create an image appropriate to the time and place. It is comparable to the attempts of artists like Holman Hunt in the nineteenth century to create accurate images by using local models and theories of ethnicity prevalent at the time, or of medieval artists to use theological assumptions about what he should have looked like. Each era has its own way of making a recreation which claims access to truth. It's useful and interesting to have images that represent this range of techniques, values and assumptions in making images. Paul B (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Other works of art represent the artists' of that day's attempt to represent their image of Christ. This particular image however is explicitly unlike any of those other images because it is explicitly not an attempt to represent a contemporarily meaningul image of Christ, it is an attempt to use "scientific" methods to reconstruct an "average" person. like I said, we might as well have a caption "Reconstruction of what Judas may have looked like." Slrubenstein | Talk 23:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
It was part of a project to create an image linked to the figure of Jesus, not Judas. The captions should simply say what it is (the resonstruction of an individual from the time) and the purpose for which it was made. Paul B (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
If the picture must be included, we should indeed make clear that it's a representation of an average person of the time - but, to be fair, BBC took skulls from the area and time of Jesus and combined them with images of Jesus (see news article aboe). So it's not completely irrelevant, but it might as well be... for plethora of reasons. I still agree with slrubenstein et al - It does not seem notable for this article. Okiefromokla questions? 00:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I see reasonable arguments on both sides. I have no issue with the image per se; my concern lies in the effects of the hype machine surrounding this picture. One too many an article have taken the image beyond its scientific value- an explanation of the procedure is necessary so as not to mislead the reader into thinking that record-breaking scientific methods were used.
It's an interesting experiment, and it is certainly notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia (though, I suppose, not necessarily here). Again, I just think the issue is the caption. Can anyone offer suggestions as to what it (if the image remains) should say?--C.Logan (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Earlier I proposed: Perhaps it can be a somewhat lengthy paragraph caption explaining what BBC did to arrive at that face, and that it's not Jesus' face, but a recreation of what people from his time may have looked like. It would include their process of combining skulls with pictures of Jesus, etc. Of course, the ref would need to be included. The more detail would clarify the vague and misleading nature of the current caption.
However, I'm still in favor of leaving the picture out. But such a caption would be better than having the picture with its current caption. Okiefromokla questions? 04:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
If we leave the picture out then I propose we leave all the other pictures out as well as they are no more relevant than the BBC one. If we include it then the caption must say exactly what it is, "A reconstruction of what Jesus may have looked like", as this is what all the sources caption it as. If you want these sources I can give them, they are NYT, CNN, BBC and PM plus a few that are critiques of the picture but still admit it is the mostr accurate. If you need clarification for the caption then include a paragraph in the article about the reconstruction. How can it get any more simple? Wayne (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Images in an article should illustrate points made in the article. None of the images of Jesus do that. What images of Jesus do do, is illustrate changing ways Christians have imagined Jesus. At certain moments in Christian history, written texts (by apostles, clerics, and theologians) have been the principal way of expressing views of Jesus. But at other times, images - stained glass windows, icons, and other figurative art - have been the principal way. What Wikipedia really needs is an article, an entire article dedicated to the history of figurative representations of Jesus. That article would be illustrated by various images we have ... not of Jesus but of how people have imagined Jesus. I think all the images should go in such an article, and I know there is a huge literature in art history that would provide great secondary sources for writing the article. Then this article should have a section "Representations of Jesus in Art" which would summarize the larger article, and this small section could certainly include an image. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The current article on "Representations of Jesus in Art" in art is entitled Depiction of Jesus, but is, frankly, rather poor. There is also section of the article Race of Jesus on this topic. Paul B (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Paul. I respectfully suggest that people involved in this discussion i.e. who care about images move over to Depiction of Jesus and take the time and effort to turn that into a great article. At that point, it would not be hard to write a summary of the article as a subsection here with one or two images accompanying. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the image is non-free media and is only authorised for use in the Historical Jesus and Jesus articles. Wayne (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with those who argue for inclusion with a carefully worded caption. The article intro makes clear a real person is being discussed, and the photo in question certainly reflects the section "Constructing a historical Jesus". At present, the only images, as has been observed, are historically wrong, and most if not all depict him as Caucasian. Given the Jesus-centric orientation of the BBC project, I think the image deserves a spot. I'll try to draft a caption on this page for discussion soon.Mdiamante (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
There's been mention of the Race of Jesus article, which also includes this picture. The caption is "A hypothetical reconstruction of someone from the same time and place of Jesus, created by forensic artist Richard Neave." ... The basic idea of this is perfect. There's no need to hype it up by saying "what Jesus may have looked like". It's been said over and over but you could take a picture of anyone from the area and say "this is what Jesus may have looked like," or Paul, or Judas, or anyone. Just because BBC hyped it up so people would watch their program does not mean we at Wikipedia need to do the same thing. It is what it is: a basic reconstruction of someone from Jesus' time and place. Okiefromokla questions? 22:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
How can this image not be exactly what this section needs? If folks don't like it, then just find a better example of the effort to reconstruct a historical Jesus. Does it violate any sort of guideline? Like "No propagating the lies of the liberal, atheist, one-world-government media"? If we're using the image of a minority viewpoint when we could be using the image of a more popular viewpoint, then that's undue weight. If that's ture, let's use the more popular viewpoint's image. If this is the best we got, it's what we got. Leadwind (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Leadwind, Wiki[pedia policy is never to go with "the best we got." Wikipedia policy is to use reliable sources for notable points of view. I question the claim that this photo is either reliable or that the point of view it expresses (that this is what Jesus probably looked like) is notable - I think it is at best a fringe view. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Slrubenstein, the BBC is a reliable source. It is not for you to say that the image is unreliable. It's no more "unreliable" than the other images. I really don't understand what is so objectionable about it. It was made as part of a project about the image of Jesus. For example the short hair and beard were chosen based on the assumption that Jesus (unlike some other people of the day) would probably not have had long uncut hair. No-one is saying that it reconstructs him specifically, just that it is relevant to this article because of the purpose for which it was made. Paul B (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The picture is from a RS and is as noteable as any other depiction we have. There are at least four passages in the Bible that support the picture as being close to reality for Jesus' general appearance. Wayne (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
"Fringe"? The BBC strikes me as relatively mainstream. Leadwind (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that BBC made this does not necessarily make it apropriate for this article. Please, take time to read about the image: [1] What is being depicted is simply a member of Jesus' most likely race (yes, even his race isn't a 100% sure bet) combined with traditional images of Jesus that were made centuries later and adding cultural norms of his time. One cannot simply combine a couple English people and infer that is what a any certain individual english man looked look like. It wouldn't be close, it's simply spin. It was a ploy to attract viewers to BBC's program. I oppose this because of the hype being placed on it: If the image is included, it must be shown in the caption to be what it is: hypothetically, a member of Jesus' race. Okiefromokla questions? 15:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone here knows what the image is, and words like "ploy" or "spin" are really rather unhelpful. I don't know what yopu mean by "combined with traditional images of Jesus that were made centuries later". Paul B (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It is an image of a hypothetical person of Jesus' race. The "spin" put on it by BBC was that it is "what Jesus may have looked like." As for "combined with traditional images of jesus made centuries later," that is what BBC did to create the image. They combined skulls in the area with sixth-century depictions of Jesus, which are usually slightly different but mostly identical to modern depictions. Again, it's in the article. Okiefromokla questions? 15:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know what it is. We all do. I think the comment about 6th century images in the article is a mistake. As I recall (I saw the programme) the makers used passages from St Paul, and only used later images to demonstate that the "traditional" portrayal of Jesus evolved over time and was consolidated in the 6th century. They also used images of Jews from as close to the period as they could find. Paul B (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know it's safe to assume everyone here knows everything about how this picture came about. For example, this is a quote from the news article: "By combining computer images of ancient skulls with 6th century images of Christ, the series producers believe they have come up with a far closer likeness." Lorraine Heggessey, controller of BBC1, goes on to say: "...That's what people from that area of the world looked like at that time." That's fine, but we have to be clear on what the image is in the caption. Okiefromokla questions? 17:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Okie, that's a fine point. As SLR said earlier. "we might as well have a caption "Reconstruction of what Judas may have looked like."" That's a really good point. The caption could read "A reconstruction of what Jesus, his apostles, and their countrymen may have looked like." Or "A reconstruction of what men of Jesus' time and ethnicity may have looked like." Still useful even if it's not Jesus in particular. Lots of historical reconstructions are based on community norms rather than individual details. Leadwind (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The last suggestion would be better, I think. Okiefromokla questions? 15:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Above, Paul barlow scoffed at my questioning the reliability of "the BBC" as a source. Well, the reliability of a source depends on what the source is being used for. A professor of molecular genetics researching human evolution is a reliable source - on genetics and human evolution. Not on art history or carpentry. "The BBC" is a corporation, whose primary business it is to make money by entertaining people. It is reliable source on the business of the corporation itself. Now, the news wing of the BBC is a well-regarded news organization and I would consider the BBC News to be a reliable source on the reporting of current events. But is it a reliable source on 1st century history? Is it a reliable source on physical anthropology (the science most often associated with facial reconstruction)? Is it a reliable source on art history? No. It is not. Now, the BBC may air a documentary on history or physical anthropology. I would have to know who the producer and writers of the documentary are to know whether that documentary is a reliable source on history or physical anthropology. So they aired a show with a reconstruction of what Jesus may have looked like. very entertaining indeed. But does this image - the people who constructed it and the methods they used - have any credence with people who are experts in this field? this is the question, when asking about reliability. The BBC has also aired historical dramas on Napolean and Boudica. Very entertaining. But would Wikipedia use those shows as sources for articles on the lives and politics of Napolean and Boudica? I hope not!! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Very very good point. BBC had a motive for doing this other than scientific research, and naturally would put spin on what the picture is in order to attract viewers. To answer the question, I don't think we will find a source to confirm the reliability of BBC's study. All we have is the method in which they came to the picture, which is purely circumstantial (combining skulls found in the area of Jesus' life.) Both arguments I have seen are valid, though if we cannot confirm if BBC's picture is scientifically accepted, I am leaning towards leaving out the picture. At the very least, the caption must not suggest that the image is "what Jesus may have looked like", but explain the limited scope of what BBC did to produce a likeness of an average man from Jesus' time. I apologize for being redundant in my comments on this discussion :) Okiefromokla questions? 00:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't scoff at anything. Such terminology is inapproriate. Three editors disagreed with you because you misrepresented the concept of "reliable source" by confusing it with the issue of whether the image (not the source of it) is a reliable, in the sense of accurate, representation of Jesus. You are now compounding your error by confusing matters even further. Is the BBC a reliable source on facial reconstruction? That's a meaningless question. The BBC as a corporation did not create the reconstruction. It didn't get some of its journalists to slap stuff on a skull did it? It asked a specialist to do so, as is documented. The reliability here concerns the fact that the organisation is respectable, follows proper procedures and is accountable to complaints. It is comparable to a publisher in this respect. Your questions are rather like saying "is Oxford University Press a reliable source on facial reconstrcution? No, it's a publisher. Publishers aren't experts on facial reconstruction. Therefore a book on facial reconstruction published by Oxford University Press is unreliable". Surely we can all see the non sequiturs in this argument. They are the same as the ones you make about the BBC. The BBC is a corporation. It is publicly funded, but also has to make financially sound programmes. The same is true of Oxford University Press. It is a subsidised business. Both work within systems designed to ensure that standards are maintained. It is as meaningless to ask whether the BBC as a corporation is reliable on facial reconstruction, ancient history or any other subject (including the news) as it is to ask whether OUP is. The fact thsat you refer to dramas made by the BBC just adds further confusion. That's also like saying OUP can't be reliable on history because it also publishes creative literature! Paul B (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
You ae kidding, or naive. Most documentaries on television, even ones that "quote" qcademics as talking heads, do not stand up to scholarly scrutiny. When a professor applies for propotion and tenure, or his/her file is reviewed either by the university or by a national assessment (as in the case of the RAE in the UK), articles in peer-reviewed journals and books published by university presses - which are also peer-reviewed - count; appearances on TV do not. It is simply absurd to equate a BBC documentary with a book published by say Oxford University Press. That is my only point. I started by asking whether this came from a reliable source and you are hung up on BBC which is laughable. BBC news is a reliable source of news. Its documentaries are not reliable sources of scholarship. To treat them as such degrades this entire project. Now, if you told me that the facial reconstruction used by the BBC came from a book published by an academic press, or from an article from a peer-reviewed journal, then yes, I would consider that a reliable source. I do not deny that it is possible for a BBC documentary producer to draw on reliable sources accurately. It is possible. It has just failed to do so so many times that we cannot accept it unquestionably. All I care about are rigorous standards for encyclopedia articles, Paul. What is your agenda? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent)My point concerned the illogicality of your arguments. My reference to OUP was a reductio ad absurdum. Referring to the fact that the BBC also makes drama was utterly irrelevant, as indeed were all the other points you made. Is the BBC as reliable as the OUP's History publications on history? No it is not. But the question was simply whether it is a reliable source, not whether it it is the highest reliable source. Therefore your comments about tenure etc are irrelevant. Books and articles that contribute to that have to be original research - contributions to knowledge. Text books, for example, generally don't count either, because they are just collations of established knowledge. That does not make them unreliable! The fact is that you made the erroneous implication that the BBC itself made the reconstruction by your irrelevant comment that the BBC is not a specialist in facial reconstructions. You know as well as I do that BBC journalists did not make the reconstruction. All that is being claimed is that this represents a person from Jesus's time and place as part of a project to give a sense of what, roughly, Jesus is more likely to have looked like than the more familiar images. You say " I do not deny that it is possible for a BBC documentary producer to draw on reliable sources accurately. It is possible. It has just failed to do so so many times that we cannot accept it unquestionably". This is a personal opinion, which is pure assertion without substance. It has no place here. It is not for you to judge the reliability of the BBC. "All I care about are rigorous standards for encyclopedia articles, Paul. What is your agenda?" I see no evidence of that at all. I see a personal distaste for this image which makes no sense to me. Why on earth would you think I have an "agenda"? What exactly would you imagine it to be? There are perfectly sensible arguments for including this image. Paul B (talk) 12:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Tell me who made the reconstrtuction and what their training and expertise is in. Tell me how historians and anthropologists have received the reconstruction - do they consider it to rise to their basic standards? That is what we know when an article or book gets through peer-review. That is what I want to know here. Your argument is illogical - youa re suggesting that since a BBC producer liked it, it holds up to reasonable standards. No, it doesn't. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
If you do not know who made it, then you should do, since the information has been repeatedly provided on this page. Yiou should not be adding long assertions about this if you have not looked at what has been said. Wayne below gives the information. It was made by Richard Neave, of Manchester University, who, btw, also made the recostruction of Luzia Woman, the paleoamerican [2]. His work is cited on several Wikipedia pages related to the paleolithic populating of the Americas. Paul B (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Neave does not have a position at Manchester although he has done work for Manchester. How has this reconstruction of his been received by historians and archeologists or physical anthropologists? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
He was formerly at MU, in the Department of Biological Sciences. I think he now works independently. Your unceasing demands for extra information that would require quite a bit of research are, I think, unreasonable. That Neave is a specialist in his field is surely not in dispute. BTW, BBC producers do not just pick things because they like them. The BBC does have to conform to quite rigorously defined standards. It sometimes falls short. So does OUP. Paul B (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not being unreasonably demanding - all of this started when one editor said that we should go with "the best we got" and I replied that Wikipedia's standard is not "the best available" but reliable sources for notable views. This is not unreasonable. You then said that The BBC is reliable and notable and I said not for all things. That was a reasonable point. Then you switched from "the BBC" to Neave and I agree that Neave is reliable. I do not question Neave's qualifications at what he does. But he is one man. NPOV demands that we distinguish between notable and fringe points of view. How do we know whether Neave's POV is notable or fringe? I do not think that using his image in a TV show is enough to make it a notable point of view. I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask whether this work of his is accepted as a reasonable reconstruction of what jesus looked like by other experts in the field i.e. historians, archeologists, and in the case of facial reconstruction physical anthropologists of someone with comparable expertise. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The picture is relevant because many people have a preconceived idea of what Jesus looked like or even what they "want" Jesus to look like. When looking into this I even found that the NYT when they reported the BBC story didn't like the picture "because it made Jesus look dumb" so they commissioned an artist to copy the picture but with a more "natural" expression on his face. They posted this picture with the article. The main difference was not that he had a natural expression but that Jesus was now a white Caucasian again instead of a Middle Eastern appearance! Would we recognise Jesus from the BBC picture? Of course not. But would we recognise the real Jesus from all the depictions of him over the last 2000 years if they were lined up? Most definitely yes. There is no getting away from the fact that the BBC picture is the most accurate artistic representation to date and some could even make the argument that it should be in the lead of the article (appropriately captioned) as it is more relevant than the picture currently there. I can't honestly understand why there are objections to including the picture. I've yet to see a valid reason for exclusion. The picture does not claim to be Jesus, it does not even claim that it "may" be Jesus. It claims it "may" be what he "looked like" which is accurate given the claims made in the Bible on his appearance which Richard Neave, the University of Manchester medical artist who constructed the image with the assistance of Israeli archaeologists, said he used. Wayne (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • May I suggest one of two options on how to proceed from here?
  1. Compromise - Include the image, but in the caption briefly overview what (and who) did what to arrive at the image. Also, do not say it's "what Jesus may have looked like", but rather, that it is an average man of his time and place. This outlines its importance, while not using BBC's twist, and somewhat sidestepping the need for further sources to prove its worth... i.e.: An image unveiled in a BBC documentary depicting a hypothetical Galilean Jew from Jesus' time, compiled from area skulls dating to the time of Jesus.
  2. Dispute resolution - Wikipedia:Requests for comment, possibly. Okiefromokla questions? 19:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Compromise, please. Leadwind (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Okiefromoklas compromise is deceptive. I've been searching to find what academics think of the picture as an image of what he "may" have looked like. There is nothing reliable that disputes it. As far as theological sources are concerned Christian sources seem to not care while Jewish sources are generally accepting of it as "reasonable". I think that unless some one can provide a RS that disagrees with the "may have looked like" caption that is what we should use. Wayne (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
WLRoss, I am confused. You start by saying you looked to see what academics think of the picture. Then you tell us what theological sources say. But can we go back to what academics say? Yes, you say what they don't say. But you don't say what they do say. What did your search show as to what academics say? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
WLRoss, I don't know what sources you are claiming think the image is "what Jesus may have looked like" but I have not seen them yet, aside from, of course, BBC. I assume from your previous comments that you know exactly how this picture was made. So, taking that information into account, it is only reasonable to come to the conclusion that it is simply not close in any way to a picture of Jesus, but BBC can claim that its "as close as we can get" because its a vague extrapolation of a few skulls found in the area. Which is, indeed, "as close as we can get". But, again, to reinvoke the "r" word, its only reasonable to aknowledge that this image is also as close as we can get to reproducing the face of Peter, Judas, Lazarus, or anyone from the time and place. In the interest of compromise, that doesn't mean it doesn't have value. But let's be as straight-shooting to readers as possible. Okiefromokla questions? 17:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My search found that academics are not really taking a position which is why I looked at theological sources. Christian sources are a bit mixed. Some of the more conservative don't like the idea of a coloured Jesus but the more common disagreement is that it contradicts the Shroud of Turin image (Professor Bruno Bar-beris, "any argument that the Neave reconstruction might somehow be an accurate representation of Jesus, potentially refuting the Shroud likeness, is fallacious in the extreme"). The majority though don't care about the image but disagree with other issues brought up in the documentary. The strongest complaint I found was that the image was "oversold" (Cambridge Biblical studies). Jewish sources that discuss it on the other hand are sort of supportive. They say things like the image is "reliable" but even these don't give more than a sentence or passing mention to it. Interestingly the Seventh Day Adventists accept the image as accurate (i.e. historian Richard Nickels). Academics on the other hand are not saying much and I can’t find any that condemn it. Historian Robin Jensen is the one who thought the image had "a particular dumbfounded — one might say stupid — expression" and approved the new one that became a white Caucasian in the NYT. Mark Goodacre from duke university is probably the most critical when he says "it is not ideal" but "represented what one average Jew from that time and that place might have looked like". The original reconstruction had long hair and it was Goodacre who asked them to make the hair short as the Bible implies he had short hair. The University of Auckland warns not to accept it as "scientifically accurate" but as "experts opinions of what he looked like". Alison Galloway, professor of anthropology at the University of California stated "This is probably a lot closer to the truth than the work of many great masters". Midori Albert, a professor of forensic anthropology at the University of North Carolina: "If anyone could create an accurate portrait of Jesus, it would be Neave". Barbara Selznick of the University of Arizona wrote claiming the "lack of controversy over the rendering of Christ was surprising". She wrote a paper on it that has another version of the same picture, that to me looks more real than the one we have.
In reply to Okiefromokla. The picture was not meant to be "close" to Peter, Judas, Lazarus, or anyone from the time and place. It started out that way but was modified to have the features more likely to be Jesus' than theirs. we can technically say it is close to those people but closer to Jesus. I even found mention that the techniques used by Neave to create an image without the actual skull as a reference normally produces results that resemble the subject. Wayne (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wayne, I wish you would keep making this into an argument about whether or not he was "a white Caucasian". Actually skin pigmentation is one of the big variables which cannot be determined. See the debates about the facial reconstrcution of Tutankhamun. Neave chose to adopt a (relatively) dark skin tone. However, we don't have to run round looking for academics who corroborate the image in some way. This is just a hurdle created Slrubenstein that has no basis in WP policy. All that matters is that the image is produced by a reliable source. There is no doubting at all that Neave is an expert in this area and that other experts were also consulted. Experts don't cease to be experts just because their expertise was communicated through the BBC. What an expert says on In Our Time is just as reliable as what he or she might say might say in print. Policy even allows us to accept statements made on unmoderated personal websites if they come from accredited experts. Paul B (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
WLRoss has made it clear that academics for the most part do not even talk about this image. This to me is proof that it is a fringe POV. If it were a notable POV concerning the reconstruction of a historical Jesus, historians, archeologists, and physical anthropologists would at least be talking about it. Not much talk = not notable. As I said above, one criterion for inclusion is that something express or represent a notable point of view. If it is not notable, why bother even discussin git as it won't go in. WLRoss does say that some clerics or theologicans have discussed it, but my question remains: is this notable in theological debates? If so, then it would belong in a section on Christology or some theology, Jewish or Christian ... but if it is not notable it doesn't belong! Slrubenstein | Talk 12:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Just because academics do not dispute the image doesn't make it a "fringe POV". Could it possibly be that "not much talk" = they agree with it? As I said before, the image is as relevant and notable as any other image on the page and probably more so as it is more accurate than any previous image. Wayne (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
WLRoss, please look up "notability" in the dictionary. The question is not wheter they agree with it or disagree with it, the question is whether they think it is worthy of notice nor not. Obviously not, since there is no evidence. If they thought it was notable they would be talking (or writing) about it. It is a non-notable image. Sorry, just because you find something of intense interest just doesn't mean others do, , that is true for all of us, get used to it. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
And what should they be saying to make it notable? What can be said unless they dispute it's accuracy? I suppose they could write about it being a fringe POV but they don't so maybe "fringe" is OR.
"adjective: worthy of notice". At least as worthy as the current picture in the lead.
"adjective: widely known and esteemed". Definately widely known considering the media reporting on the program and more widely known than any other picture on the page. Definately esteemed as there are no major disputes about it. Actually I can't find any disputes about the other pictures on the page either. Actually there is even less discussion by experts for their notability than there is for the BBC picture if you exclude their artistic merits which has nothing to do with an article on Jesus. Your definition is obviously too narrow unless you are arguing that no pictures of Jesus should be on the page regardless of source. Can you give me a RS for it not being notable? Maybe then I can give that theory some credibility. Wayne (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
You are joking. It is important because ... no one is talking about it? Okay, thanks for the chuckle of the day. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
SLRubenstein, is it really necessary to have a collaborating scientific source for this picture if we clarify that it is just one attempt to do this and not try to pass it off as fact? If we specify in the caption that it is BBC's doing and briefly how they did it, we wouldnt necessarily be giving it much endorsement as reliable.... for example, if we were to say "This is what Jesus may have looked like" or "This is what a person from Jesus' time looked like" we would certainly need a valid third-party scientific source to back it up, as why trust BBC enough to make such an unwavering statement of reliability without that extra source? This is where the viewpoint of WLRoss and Paul Barlow diverges from ours, but that's why the compromise I suggested (or some small variant) works. It sidesteps the issue. I think we've established that the image is somewhat notable enough to allow this, coming from a BBC hiree who is apparently very credible and known for similar projects in the past. The other option is to go the dispute resolution-request comment route, since there are only three to four editors participating in this discussion now. Okiefromokla questions? 18:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
All i am doing is asking how WP:NPOV's criterion of notability applies in this case. No article should have illustrations just for the sake of it. Illustrations should illustrate content. Content should reflect notable points of view from reliable sources. What are the notable points of view about what Jesus "really" looked like? Or, what are the notable views about what 1st century Jews looked like? I would think that such views would be found among historians, art historians, archeologists, and physical anthropologists. What are the notable points of view? Does this image illustrate one of them, or doesn't it? I think these are perfectly reasonable questions. And I think that if the question is, what did Jews look like in the first century, notable views should be from historians, archeologists, physical anthropologists. I really do not think a BBC producer cuts the mustard. When talking about a scholarly topic, I think a book published by a university press or a peero reviewed journal article does. And ... this is a long article. I think it should be long enough to include all notable points of view. But why add a non-notable point of view? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus/Archive_93"