Talk:Pontius Pilate

Wiki Education assignment: Equitable Futures - Internet Cultures and Open Access

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HMartinez25 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by HMartinez25 (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Jesus

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

<comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Ultrabomb (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.Andre🚐 00:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)> It's not an established historical fact that Pontius Pilate presided over the trial and execution of Jesus. There is insufficient reliable writing on this subject to make that determination. अल्ट्राबॉम्ब (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Not according to reliable sources there isn't. There is no doubt in the overwhelming majority of historians' minds that Pilate presided over the trial and execution of Jesus.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

::Based on what, one sentence in the writings of Tacitus? That's not enough. अल्ट्राबॉम्ब (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

You and I don’t get to decide what’s enough. WP:RS do.—-Ermenrich (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

::::The only non-biblical citation in the article is someone named Helen Bond (007 relative?), the head of the University of Edinburgh School of Divinity and a Christian, hardly what I'd call a source of unquestionable objectivity. अल्ट्राबॉम्ब (talk) 04:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

That’s the only citation in the lead. Read the rest of the article. It’s only cited in the lead because people like you keep coming to remove it, see WP:LEAD.—-Ermenrich (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Also: your argument is based on a false premise. Why would Christians invent that Pontius Pilate executed Jesus? You appear to be advocating for the Christ myth theory, which is a wp:Fringe position. See also Historicity of Jesus.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Spelling apocrypha

Hi Llywrch. You can try and fight it out at New Testament apocrypha.

My sense is that those apocrypha accepted as gospel in certain specific canons become an established corpus and as such are named "the Apocrypha" within that denominational frame, but in every other context it's simply a common noun, apocrypha. Arminden (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Perspective

I changed the line

The written sources provide only limited information, and each has its own biases, with the gospels in particular providing a theological rather than historical perspective on Pilate.

to

The gospels are ancient biographies that present a selective and theological perspective on Jesus, though they also employ historical materials.

This fits well with the original source, which does mention the presence of historical material in the gospel accounts. Moreover, while gospels utilize historical materials about Jesus, they present Jesus from a theological perspective on Jesus…The gospels are theological in that they are concerned to show God’s purposes being worked out in Jesus.

@Ermenrich Birjeta01 (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the solution is just to remove “on Pilate” then. But I think this is a solution in search of a problem.—Ermenrich (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree, that would be an improvement. I still think changing Pilate to Jesus, mentioning his minor role in the surviving sources, and the history would be worthwhile though. Birjeta01 (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

References

User- and editor-friendliness vs rigid observance of presumed "rules"

Always the same: mainly German-socialised colleagues insist on rigid observance of presumed "rules" and formal order, while I'm more in favour of logic and using one's own reason with the goal of reaching a much more user- and editor-friendly result, of course while staying within the general framework of enWiki standards and styles.

I was quite clear in my edit summary:

Direct link to cited page. VERY USEFUL. I challenge anyone to explain how we're better off w/o.

Nobody tried to argue against that, but my edits were reverted by Ermenrich (hi!) with the edit summary: "Use the talk page before changing the citation style of an article - Carter is in the works cited , there’s no reason to change it".

1. I didn't "change the citation style" of the article: I only did so in a couple of cases where the source is on Google Books, by adding the direct link to the cited page. This allows for one-click access to the page. The previous system did not: it took 1) a click on the note, 2) at best, the source has its ISBN indicated. Click on ISBN. 3) Scroll down to Google Books, click on it. 4) Click on the book. 5) Either scroll down to cited page (OK for the first 20-30 pages, but not more). 6) If (!) one is a skilled Google Books user, copy URL, remove ballast (useless) parts, and add pg=PA... to it. Several minutes of wasted time for each user or editor for every source one looks up! I did it once for everyone, adding the 1-click link - and the access date, which allows bots to recover dead links or others to guess why the URL might have went out of reach with time.

The Carter source is indeed in the list of cited works, but w/o direct link, as written above.

German Wiki (deWiki) works on trust: there are very few inline refs, one cannot easily check up most of those listed (like Carter here), or worse: no online link whatsoever is offered, like with Grüll (2010) here. I googled for the article, found it and linked it; Ermenrich removed the link again.

I also looked up Luisier (1996), and found out it's not to be had online: also time-saving for users & editors, if they can rely on us editors having done our homework (not there means: when editor put it in, it wasn't available online, period.)

Back to deWiki working on trust: My best guess from reading through it is that they used to have well-educated people writing the best articles in one go, and one can trust them doing a good job, at least if you agreed with that single author-type editor's approach. That trust is less based on reality now even on deWiki, and enWiki never had that privilege: So many more people do, or believe they do, master global English, with tonnes of substandard enWiki interventions needing constant revision. Good sources which aren't available online are for now a necessary evil; but not bothering to offer the links when they exist, or removing them when a fellow editor puts them in, for some bureaucratic, formal reasons, borders on working against the user or even vandalism. It is our duty (and right) to check if the indicated sources really contain the information given on the page; and that must be made as easy as possible. Thankfully, we're not in the era of library cards anymore, Wiki is an online medium par excellence.

As simple as that. EnWiki is not deWiki, and thank Zeus for that. Besides, all across Wikipedia we have the overarching principle of Wikipedia:Five Pillars#Wikipedia has no firm rules. The only firm rule is to serve the user (which includes minding the fellow editor). And enWiki also has this: "Ignore all rules" (IAR) is a policy of the English Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, which reads: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." (emphasis and links in original). The rule was proposed by Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger to encourage editors to add information without focusing excessively on formatting, though Sanger later criticized the rule's effects on the community." In this case here it's not even about ignoring any rule, but about allowing for a mix of ref styles in order to allow 1-click online access to sources where possible. Fighting that can only be seen as anti-constructive, i.e. going against the Wiki fundamentals. Arminden (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Why don't you just add the url to the entry in the works cited? I fail to see why we should clutter the page by adding urls everywhere. This is how most pages that use harvref work. I'm not sure why you're bringing up deWiki when this is enWiki.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

​But that's what I did! For Carter I added the page URL for each ref (if one ref cites p. 11, its not very helpful to add just that page URL when another ref cites, say, pp. 111-119!), and for Grüll I put in the academia.edu URL and a Wikilink to the journal, both of which you have removed again. I see that as the complete opposite of user-friendliness! What's wrong with reaching each of the indicated pages with one single click? Or the article in the journal? Or the journal as such? But you just bulk-reverted on principle.

Why I brought up deWiki? Because I knew, even before checking, who organised the page and who has reverted my edits. It screams out loud: German approach! It's very different from the enWiki aproach, and it's as German as Ordnung muss sein and Duden.

I am happy to admit that I do not master plenty of technical issues. I would be very grateful to you for instance if you could reinstate all my edits re. page URLs etc., but show me how to fix the conflicts with the "multiple-ref" formats which popped up. For that we can revert to the "Stand der Dinge" before your revert, and check the problems showing in red. Such a step would be in a wounderfully cooperative and constructive spirit, educational for me, and beneficial to the user! What do you think about it? Arminden (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

​To make it even more concrete, even though it's maybe less relevant: A priest just contradicted me on the Ethiopian Church's sanctification of Pilate. I knew he's wrong, came to the page here, but although the fact was apparently supported by 3 sources, none was connected to a direct online link! I had to work my way to those sources through Google. Whoever put the refs in forced me to either go on trust (which I can't; far too many cases of wrong refs), or to repeat each of his steps before reaching the source: exactly what online platforms like Wiki are supposed to have made superfluous!

A huge part of my upbringing and education happened in the German "Sprach- und Kulturkreis" and I'm appalled at the careless way in which its primary values are squandered, while its secondary ones are upheld although they're stifling progress. That goes far beyond our discussion here, but is connected to it. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

But you can just add the url to the entry in the works cited rather than change reference styles. It takes about as much clicking for the reader as what you did and is far simpler.—-Ermenrich (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Happy to learn.

To the Grüll ref details I've added URL & access date, plus a Wikilink for Classica et Mediaevalia.:

• {{cite journal |last=Grüll |first=Tibor |title=The Legendary Fate of Pontius Pilate |journal=[[Classica et Mediaevalia]] |volume=61 |year=2010|pages=151–176 |via= academia.edu |url= https://www.academia.edu/2035441/The_Legendary_Fate_of_Pontius_Pilate |access-date= 24 October 2025}}

I don't think you actually had any issue with that?

Now to the inline refs. For instance this:

• {{sfn|Carter|2003|4}}

I replaced with:

• <ref>Carter (2003), p. [https://books.google.com/books?id=mvhHcXKK0UEC&pg=PA4 4].</ref>

Do you mean it would work like this:

• {{sfn|Carter|2003|[https://books.google.com/books?id=mvhHcXKK0UEC&pg=PA4 4]}}

?

As I said, I'm not good with many technical aspects, templates included. Thanks.

I think I've placed the Carter ref details inline ONCE, by mistake (would remove it now); all the rest in the format "Carter (2003), p. [https...books.....PA4 4]. Arminden (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I think having a centralized link (which I've now added) is preferable to having the page linked each time like that. As A Google Book, half the time the specific page isn't going to load for our readers anyway.

I've re-added your link to Gruell.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear enough. I asked if one can add the page link inside the sfn-type template. So, does that work? Because reaching the referenced page by 1 click is clearly best. If you disagree, I'd love to hear why. If there are no arguments, centralisation by itself is not a value for the user. It's precisely that general approach I spoke about... Arminden (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, no. But have a look at how harvref's work. The user is taken to the central reference just by putting their mouse over the footnote. They can then click directly on the link to the work in question. This is why I don't find what you've been doing helpful in this instance. I've brought up other problems with linking to pages on Google Books already.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

About Google Books: how often the specific page does or doesn't load differs depending on the country or domain ending (.com, .de, .co.uk etc.), year (publishers may withdraw access), publisher's decision (Brill is among the most exclusive, others offer full access), etc. That does in no way diminish the value of linking the page. I'm usually checking first if it's accessible, and if it is for me, it is for many. EnWiki likes Google Books, deWiki does not: and you're asking me why I'm bringing up that topic? Arminden (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not German and I don't edit deWiki. Please stop commenting on some strawman opposition. I've laid out my reasons for keeping the current set-up, some of them are practical, one of them is policy - you need consensus to change a citation style. You don't seem to be listening to any of the practical ones. I'm not going to keep repeating myself.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Since you seem to have found a way to do the linking within the refharv style, I have no further objections.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

If the bible sources are removed, how much is known about Pontius Pilate?

If the bible sources are removed, how much is known about Pontius Pilate? ~2026-30153-66 (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Quite a bit. Have a look at the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

See "Life and political career" and "Archaeology". Arminden (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2026 (UTC)