Wikipedia:Peer review/Christ myth theory/archive1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has made serious progress in the last few months, it has recently obtained GA status, and is within striking distance of FA status (I posted it for FA review only to have it shot down for somewhat dubious reasons; Ruhrfisch has given a special dispensation to allow the article a PR prior to the normal 2 week wait time). Needless to say, this is an article that attracts a lot of fringe attention and knee-jerk criticism. But if Intelligent Design and Xenu can make it to FA status then, theoretically, so can this article. To ensure that the Peer Review is actually helpful (and not just a rerun of old, baseless arguments) I'd really appreciate comments from people who are at least tangentially familiar with the general topic; editors with earned degrees in history, religion, theology, literature, and so forth would be especially helpful, as would comments from professional post-secondary academics of any sort. Please read the entire article (including footnotes when necessary, as well as the FAQ if need be) before commenting.

Thanks, Eugene (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be mentioned here that there is an active request for mediation Requests_for_mediation/Christ_myth_theory that is specifically addressing some of the points below. Sophia ♫ 08:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]