Talk:Pontius Pilate's wife

Older Comments

While I'm inclined to agree, "seemingly cannonical" is a bit snide, isn't it? --cpritchett42 02:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not meant to sound snide. My use of the term 'seemingly canonical' is literal. I think it's appropriate. Much was made of the 'authenticity' of the production - especially of its use of Aramaic and Greek - and when interviewed the producers of the movie imbued it with an authority which led many to believe it was a faithful adaptation of the gospels. Put simply, it is not. Thematically of course it is faithfull to the Christian story but most of its memorable scenes don't originate in the Bible. Yallery Brown22:13, 28 November 2005

Ok, that just seemed to stick out at me there. I totally agree though, its wholesale acceptance as being taken directly from the bible is an interesting look at what people will incorporate into their lives with the right amount of fanfare. I also find it interesting that Anne Catherine Emmerich was beatified the same year that the movie was released, but that may be purely coincidence. I'm not very familiar with the canonization process, but I assume she was on the list "in queue" to be beatified long before. --cpritchett42 01:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, the more information the better, but I don't understand why the link to Anne Catherine Emmerich is changed to Anne C. Emmerich like it was previously. Not trying to step on anyones toes or start an edit war, but seriously.. From what I can see she's almost always noted as being Anne Catherine Emmerich instead of using the middle initial. --cpritchett42 02:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't understand why that had been changed either, escpecially as a page for Anne Catherine Emmerich exists. It may have simply been an oversight on the part of the person who made the additions. I've repaired the link. Yallery Brown 12:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Article name

This seems an odd title for the article. Is there a reason this is here and not at Claudia Procula? Would anyone object to a move? Pastordavid (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the article has been turned into a massive bloat of unreferenced or badly referenced stuff, including: "[...] most commonly, Claudia Procula" - who says that? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Gee, as the guy who expanded the article, I don't know what to say about my "massive bloat of unreferenced or badly referenced stuff" -- considering the previous article had no references at all. These articles are works in progress, so please judge them accordingly (this is my second effort to assist the Saints project). And please exercise some civility in talking about other people's work, okay? The articles don't write themselves -- there's some guy at a keyboard doing his best to make the grade. That said, I think renaming the article Pontius Pilate's wife (Claudia Procula) is fair. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't want to be unkind. Is there a serious reference for "Some scholars have stated she may have been the illegitimate daughter of Julia the Elder, the granddaughter of Augustus Caesar, but this is speculative"? http://www.historian.net/romejud.html is not, as far as I can see it is self-published, see WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper). --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't share your concerns about the source material that was cited (you also have to acknowledge that the bulk of information online would fall into the category of self-published -- including Wikipedia!). However, to be fair, a second reference from NationMaster.com was added. I would also invite you to help build and expand the article -- but please do not chop away other people's work indiscriminately. I noticed that some text that I added was deleted (it has been restored and properly referenced). Thank you! Ecoleetage (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Francis, thanks for your words. Ecoleetage, the point Francis raises about self-published sources is a very good one - indeed it points to one of our core policies. I will work on finding some more reliable sources, I have always found Claudia to be an interesting figure. Pastordavid (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I seem to remember the subject is included in the Holweck Biographical Dictionary of the Saints. Also, I personally do think that, based on the fact of her alleged letters, the subject is better known as Claudia Procula than as Pontius Pilate's wife. That might be different if she were mentioned in the Bible more than once, but she isn't. John Carter (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I too will work on finding some better sources. It may take a day or so; I have a lot on my plate at the moment, and the only thing I've found thus far is in German. I'd be happy to help, though. And I too believe a move is in order but would like to find out which version of the name is most commonly used in scholarly literature. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The Gospel of Nicodemus names her as Claudia Procula. Pastordavid (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Which version? I linked to two English versions of the Gospel of Nicodemus/Acts of Pilate, neither of them uses "Claudia Procula": in one she is nameless [1], in the other "Procle" [2] (which is another variant, but not "Claudia Procula") --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that this is confirmed by Maier, p351: ..."Claudia Procula" derives from a late tradition,... - Why does our Wikipedia article currently state, in its opening paragraph no less, that this name (including "Claudia") derives from an early tradition? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, by far the source best known is Matthew (many, many, times more copies distributed than all other sources added together, and then I'm not talking yet of the ratio of listeners to readings of that passage of Matthew compared to numbers of listeners of readings of all other sources taken together). In the best known text she is Pilate's wife (without name). That's the best recognisability for the article title. This resumes to: a Wikipedia article name derived from her apocryphal names is out of the question. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree, respectfully. I certainly see where you are coming from, but the fact that the name comes from later sources does not mean that it is not the most recognizable name. By that logic, we should have an article entitled The centurion who pierced Jesus' side, rather than Saint Longinus. Yet the later hagiography for many people - like Longinus and Claudia - has become a part of the story. Thus the two most watched depictions of the gospel story - The Passion of the Christ (2004) and The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965) - both name her Claudia. Pastordavid (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I always defended Salome (which is a bit a similar case). But in that case there are less variants of the name, and in English, Salome has an overwhelming recognisability ("Daughter of Herodias", the way she is called in scholar circles, derived from the gospel text, is less recognisable). There's a contemporary source too (Josephus), not "apocryphal", but the work of a historian. The number of works (paintings, theatre, lyrics and whatnot) that contain this name in the title, referring to this person, is also a sign in favour of the recognisability of that name.

Compared to that:

• ..."Claudia Procula" derives from a late tradition,... [3]
• Procula's [name] is [...] not attested by an original primary source [...] [4] (the only early source, the Acta Pilati, is 4th century or later, and apocryphal, and in its historical ambitions it is at least partially flawed - "with gross historical inaccuracies and fantasy" [5]).
• Saint Prokla (and variants) is for some parts of the Eastern world a tradition, none of them very close to English usage.
• Her name seldom appears in titles of works of art, which indicates that most publishers don't see a possible high recognisability there ("Pilate's wife" is not unusual in titles of works of art)
• There are many variants of the names, of quite different form ("Salome" and "Salomé" have comparable recognisability; "Procla" and "Claudia" are not even near - Procula and Procles are also more different than "Salome" and "Salomé")
• Choosing a name is also choosing between traditions: "(Saint) Procla" would have an Eastern churches POV; "Claudia Procles" an Emmerich/Gibson POV; "Claudia Procula" a Catherine Van Dyke POV

I'm sure the descriptive name is more appropriate for Wikipedia.

BTW, has anyone answers to these questions:

• "Perpetua" has been in the article for a long time as one of the name variants - is there any source for this? (note, Saint Perpetua is late 2nd century/early 3rd century)
• Are any other text versions of Procula's letter known (apart from Catherine Van Dyke's English version)? The current publisher of the English version alleges "an ancient Latin Manuscript first found in a Monastery in Bruges, Belgium where it had lain for centuries and is now referenced within the Vatican Archives" [6] - if so it shouldn't be too hard to find such Vatican Archive reference, but I could find none. Has the Latin text been published? Has it been translated in other languages? Again, I could find none. Does the "Monastery in Bruges" have a name? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Perpetua name variant from the Greek text, The source is listed as "The Greek text of the stories useful to the life of Anastasius (the Sinaitic)." "τήν δέ Περπετού ἀν' ἕν ἥ φῠλᾰ́κη ἔτηρουν ἥν Ποντεντιάνα κόρη εὐλαβής ἥ λαβοῦσα τοὺς γονεῖς αὐ τῆς καί πᾶσαν, τήν ὑπόστασιν χριστιανή γενέσθαι καί τηρουμένη, ἥν ἕν τῇ φῠλᾰ́κη, καί ἥ Περπετού πάντα τά περὶ τοῦ Παύλου ἐξηγήσατο αὐτῇ καί πλεῖον οἵ γονεῖς αὐτῆς ἕν τῇ εἰς Χριστὸν πίστει,"

"And if Perpetua be visited in the palace, the pious widow of Pontius, who received her parents, and went away, being born and kept a Christian, being in the palace, And Perpetua explained to her and her parents all things concerning Paul in the faith in Christ,"Gcsnipe (talk) 08:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Relics of Repentance

Please do not edit the section regarding "Relics of Repentance" to state it contains a letter. I have a copy of that publication and it consists of three different letters, all addressed to someone named Fulvia. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The publisher of that booklet talks about only one letter believed to be by Claudia. According to the same source the booklet also contains purported letters by Pilate. See http://issanapress.tripod.com/ --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have the booklet and there are three letters from Claudia, not one. Whether the publisher broke the letter into three parts is another matter. We could compromise and use the word "correspondence" rather than "letter(s)." Ecoleetage (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Issana (the publisher of the booklet) appears to be a thoroughly unreliable source, e.g.: "Pilate & Claudia both canonized Saints in the Coptic Church" [7], contradicted by the Coptic Church [8]... etc. We shouldn't be giving undue weight to this probably spurious text, and the publicity tricks surrounding it. Maier doesn't seem to mention this text written by Van Dyke, though he lists all sorts of sources (apocryphal and other) in his endnotes, and discusses their reliability. This one seems to be even below that radar.

Has any scholar ever studied this text? Has the purported manuscript ever been analysed? Is it even known where it was, where it is today, and *how*, where and when the Vatican refers to it? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a copy of "Relics of Repentance" in front of me and the cover reads "The Letters of Pontius Pilate & Claudia Procula." Claudia's correspondence, according to the table of contents, consists of three parchments. However the booklet has it both ways: it speaks of a "letter" but divides the correspondence into three parts spread throughout the booklet. Whether this is a single letter or three different letters, I don't know. In order to prevent further disruptions to the editing of the article, however, I will be willing to compromise and identify the document as a "letter."

Sources

Just to get us started, here are some things I found (sifting out all the psuedo-historical fiction out there about Claudia). What I found seemed to indicate that there may be more out there, but there is a lot of non-scholarly speculative material to sort through in order to get to it.Pastordavid (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• A sermon by John Philip Newman, the dream of Pilate's Wife (1877).
• The historical Afterword to Paul Maier's Pontius Pilate:A biographical novel.
• The primary material (mostly origen and the Gospel of Nicodemus).
  • Gospel of Nicodemus is not a reliable source [9] - see also above #Article name
  • Has anyone actually read the parts of Origen speaking about Pilate's wife? Or does anyone have access to this part of that source?
    • Catholic Encyclopedia has: "The belief that she became a Christian goes back to the second century, and may be found in Origen (Hom., in Mat., xxxv)" [10]
    • Maier has "According to a very early tradition, Pilate's wife became a Christian, See Origen, Commentarii in Matthaeum 121-22 (ed. Migne, XIII, 918)" [11]
    • I searched two on-line editions of Origen's Commentary on Matthew [12] [13], but could find nothing of the sort: both the Catholic Encyclopedia cite as the "ed. Migne" cite appear to be without merit for the on-line version, as every edition appears to use its own numbering.
    • Anyway, the sources on Origen appear to mention *only* that from this early author can be concluded that there is a tradition of Pilate's wife becoming a Christian. Nothing more. Divorce? (etc.) ...not sure whether any of the complementary story-telling derives from Origen. If anyone has access to the source, please share a verbatim quote of what can be found on the subject in Origen. Until then, I don't think we need any of the detail none of the available third party sources deem interesting enough to share (and might well be added fantasy). --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I found this via Google Books. It doesn't seem to mention Pilate's wife by name, but it does say that God sent her the dream in order to convert her. I'll see if I can lay my hands on a translation, since most readers won't be able to read the Latin. I'd also like to get a look at the context. This may take a day or two... I know this isn't the most helpful source in the world, but it's a start. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Acta Pilati, scholars seem to have decreed it spurious. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• A Christianity Today review of Ann Wroe's book (only a partial preview available free).

Other sources that may be useful (I have not read them, but seem pertinent):

• The Annals of Imperial Rome, Michael Grant, Cornelius Tacitus; Penguin Books, 1956
• Agrippina: Sex, Power, and Politics in the Early Empire, Anthony A. Barrett; Routledge, 1999
• Who's Who in the New Testament, Ronald Brownrigg; Routledge, 2002

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've no clue why the first two are suggested, there's nothing about Pilate's wife in Tacitus' Annals. A lot of reading (which I've done several times, with pleasure, I'm a Tacitus fan) is suggested here with no merit whatsoever for referencing the current article. Why? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that it is probably safe to assume that it was an attempt to be helpful. Pastordavid (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to the Brownrigg source? Seems promising imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no reference for "it is also believed that she walked out on her marriage to Pilate following the Resurrection and became a Christian missionary" - the pseudo-reference to Origen at the end of the paragraph is fake. Further, having such dubiously referenced text in the lead section is (quote:) "horrible formatting". --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a few notes:

Ulrich Luz's Matthew 21-28:A Commentary published 2005 by Fortress Press of Minneapolis, ISBN 0-8006-3770-4, says on page 499 that according to Acta Pilati 2:1 she is described as a "God-fearer". On that same page, in a footnote, it refers to Origen saying that because of her suffering she is "saved" and "blessed". In that same note, it says that she has been called "fidelis" since Hilary (presumably Hilary of Poitiers), (33.1=SC 258.248), and that Augustine (presumably of Hippo) in his Sermo 150.4=PL 39.2038 said she is an antitype of Eve because she led her husband not to destruction but to salvation. It says in the main body of the text on that page that she received the name "Procula", which was popular in the middle ages, in translations of the Gospel of Nicodemus. The chronicle of Pseudo-Dexter (whatever that is) in 1619 is the first place known where she is referred to as Claudia. That page also indicates that there has been a good deal of discussion by people like John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Theopylactus, Bruno of Segni, Christian of Stavelot, Erasmus, and Calvin, possibly others as well, about who sent her the dream. Some say God, some say the devil, who wanted to prevent Jesus' death and the accompanying saving of souls, others good spirits or angels and providence. That page also indicates that one possible reason she couldn't rely the message to Pilate earlier was that noble women of that day tended to lay around during the morning while hubby was off working. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Tx. Above Kafka Liz gave another source for the ancient theological (!) "who sent the dream" discussion (also listing parties involved) [14]

Anyway, no "she walked out on her marriage to Pilate following the Resurrection" anyway near, nor "became a Christian missionary", there really appears to be no source for this, and certainly not Origen. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Questionable

Francis, I'm with you on the sentence about the marriage/missionary thing - at least until I see something sourced on it, and Ihave taken it out. It is much easier to deal with a thing at a time, rather than a wholesale reversion. Any other specific questionable assertions we can get out of the way? Because I really am with you on wanting this to be what we can source, and think we probably see things pretty similarly, and just have differing editing styles. (btw, I added a sentence in the lead about the historicity of her life - making clear that we are largely talking about later Christian legend. I am in no way attached to that particular wording, but feel something to that effect should be stated.) Pastordavid (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Pontius Pilate's wife#Biblical references, first paragraph:
  • "somewhat elusive" should be removed: personal opinion, unreferenced.
• Ditto, second paragraph:
  • "but the evangelist does not record why he chose to ignore her" - bloat, are we going to mention everything that is not in the sources?
  • "The Gospel of Matthew 27:20 abruptly switches from the plea by Pilate’s wife to the successful efforts by chief priests and the elders to persuade the crowds to rally for the release of Barabbas and the death of Jesus." - nothing about Plate's wife in that sentence. "abruptly" is also personal interpretation, unreferenced.
• Ditto, 3rd paragraph:
  • "The other three Gospels do not mention Pilate’s wife" - redundant repeat, it has already been said in the same section that Matthew was the only Gospel mentioning her, in a *single* paragraph.
  • "nor is she cited in any of the Gnostic texts" - nor in Tacitus, Josephus, nor in thousands of other sources that could be listed where she isn't mentioned; bloat, better to remove it.
  • "However, there is nothing to suggest that this Claudia was Pilate's wife.^[1]" - The given reference DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE CONTENTION IN THE SENTENCE PRECEDING IT. The given reference doesn't even relate to 2 Timothy discussed in that paragraph. Fake reference, remove.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• First and foremost, please show respect to the contributions of other editors. You are engaging in a revert war and that is not acceptable.

To answer your points:

It is not "bloat" to cite that Pilate's response to his wife's request was ignored. Why was it ignored? The abrupt cut from Claudia's message to the priests' actions would seem like poor editing. Compare Matthew's version with the one in Nicodemus, which details that Pilate wanted to believe Claudia but was dissuaded.

The absence of Claudia from the Gnostic texts is not bloat, either. You are not defending your argument.

The reference to a Claudia in Timothy is relevant, since Claudia is the name commonly given to Mrs. Pilate. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read my comments above again, you missed every point I made, replaced them by points I didn't make and replied to these. And then you didn't even read the argumentation I gave. What you're doing is called straw man argumentation. Note that the one showing disrespect for contributions by others is you. In your massive reverts you continue to delete over and again things I put in the article years and months ago and that were stable since, until you came along. I don't think I have to take lessons there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Francis: Please remember that you do not own articles on Wikipedia and that all users are free to edit articles and to add information that may have been lacking. Furthermore, you should always assume good faith with regard to other editors and their contributions to the articles -- making insulting comments is not conducive to proper scholarship. If you want to publish your own articles on Pilate's wife without the interference of other writers, then please feel free to start your own blog. But please (and this is not the first time it is being requested) -- show respect for other people who are contributing to the Wikipedia article (not the Francis Schonken article) on Pilate's wife. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I've about had it with your false accusations. Please explain why you show disrespect for my contributions. If you can't do that, concentrate on content (and references of course) of the article you want to improve. Your rants have quickly become a nuisance, and are not successful in improving the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Francis, you have been repeatedly asked to show civility in this discussion. I am more than willing to work with you (not against you), but I will not tolerate having you describe my writing as "bloat," my conversation as "rants" and my participation as a "nuisance." There is no place here for rudeness. Please show respect when communicating with your peers. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"Relics of Repentance," in the introduction to its American text from Issana Press, cites what has been deleted from this article: "Historical references suggest that Claudia was the granddaughter of Augustus Caesar and the illegitimate daughter of Julia, Augustus' only natural offspring." Thus, that information will be back in the article when the page protection is lifted -- with this as a reference. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd really rather this information not be readded. A religious tract is not a reliable historical reference, and despite the claims it makes, there is in fact zero historical evidence that the wife of Pilate was in any way related to the Emperor Augustus. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Kafka Liz: first and foremost, thank you for not leaving this conversation. Your input is highly appreciated. To answer your concern: "Relics" makes no claims that Claudia was the daughter of Julia. Please recheck what I wrote -- the references only "suggest" this. I am aware of the lack of verified proof linking Claudia with Julia the Elder. However, we cannot ignore the fact that this linkage (albeit unverified) keeps popping up. If we place it in, as I suggest (acknowledging it is not verified), that may create problems with some people. But leaving this point out also puts a hole in the Mrs. Pilate story. Is there a middle ground solution -- one that openly acknowledges this attribute while clearly stating that it was never verified? Ecoleetage (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2008

(UTC)

PS This link to Augustus is also cited in Antoinette May's novel: [[15]]. Yes, I know it is NOT a historical reference, but the point is this aspect of the story is going to keep popping up. I cannot see how it can be ignored - there has to be some sort of balanced compromise. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

IMDb as a reliable source

Before I make a reversion without asking for input, I would appreciate if someone could please cite the specific WP policy regarding the Internet Movie Database being excluded as a reliable source. Considering the IMDb is viewed in the real world as the most reliable source for Net-based information relating to cinema, I find that designation strange. If IMDb is not singled out as being a non-reliable source, I would ask that the recent reversion be switched back. (It may also be worth noting that Jon Reeves, the head of data for IMDb, is on record dismissing WP as being singularly unreliable!)Ecoleetage (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, to short-circuit the argument that IMDb is self-published: you cannot post anything on the IMDb without first having the input cleared by IMDb staff. Information takes a week to 10 days to go online -- unlike Wikipedia, where a mouse click can put the most ridiculous nonsense online immediately. There is an editorial review staff at IMDb, whereas none exists on WP. Self-publishing, as I understand it, is DIY with no editorial oversight. IMDb has editorial oversight. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIMDB describes some of the issues regarding siting IMDb. As far as I can tell, there is no explicit policy, but it is widely regarded as an unreliable source, and citing it is discouraged. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIMDB is rejected, not to be considered as guidance. I see no reason to object to a reasonable use of IMDb for sourcing, and I see no reason to believe the use wasn't reasonable here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the context I agree that its use here was fair. I was providing a link to the only remotely (and let me stress that I fully understand) offical stab at a policy or guideline.

And with that, I am through trying to help here. The tone of the conversation on this page is frankly repellant. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I behaved rude, or was perceived so. As far as I can see your contributions are very high quality. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Kafka Liz. When the page protection on this article is lifted, I will restore the IMDb reference to the article's coverage of Claudia Procula in cinema. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

And I've removed it... again, I believe. You claim that IMDb is a reliable source previously, I assume you can you backup they're "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" then? Matthew (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• And I am restoring the source. As per WP:CIMDB page (exact quote, I added the bold print): "Therefore, the IMDb can be considered an acceptable source for things such as release dates, technical specs, credits, and anything else of this nature." Thank you!

Oh...although the CIMDB policy was not approved, there is also no specific policy banning IMDb citations. And no evidence is being presented that the data offered in this source is incorrect. (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Matthew, you are also welcome to add anything to the article. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a very specific policy "banning" any non-reliable source: WP:RS. As I've previously said, "Wikipedia doesn't give every source in existence a usage policy". WP:CIMDB is a rejected proposal, which you made clear. Matthew (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• My last word on this subject: IMDb is not a vanity site for self-publishers. It is owned by Amazon.com, it has a full-time editorial and data management staff, and information must be sorted and approved before it goes online (which can take up to two weeks). Yes, incorrect information gets online sometimes -- as that happens in any media outlet, and corrections to mistakes are made once they are identified. Thank you! Ecoleetage (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree then. Anyhow, thank you for adding an alternative source. Matthew (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• My extra-last word (okay, I talk too much): To build consensus and avoid rancor, I added a new source that confirms the original source. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Article protected

I've protected this article for a couple of days to allow discussion and a possible compromise to foster here; please not that I generally adamantly refuse to protect the same page multiple times for the same conflict. I hope all of you can reach an amicable situation to the disputes that you're having. east.718 at 00:19, May 16, 2008

Compromise for finalized version of the article

Since I requested the page protection, I will get the ball rolling. Let's get some degree of consensus here. I am working from the version that was locked in the page protection.

1. The article's name? Do we keep it as "Pontius Pilate's wife" or can we expand/edit it?

• Eco's opinion: rename it as "Pontius Pilate's wife (Claudia Procula)" - I think this is a fair compromise.
• Better to keep as is. "Pontius Pilate's wife (Claudia Procula)" is not OK with Wikipedia's current article naming conventions, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions. A parenthesis at the end of an article name suggests that there would've been another wife of Pilate, with another name: a parenthesis in this fashion is a disambiguator, according to current conventions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably go with keeping the title as is. Claudia Procula and any variations on that name can be made redirects to this page and the alternate names can be listing in the article shortly after the article's name. John Carter (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

2. The section on "Biblical references"

• Eco's opinion: I am in favour of keeping it as is.
• I was the last to update it: yes, of course keep "as is". --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well, it appears we can agree on something! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No reason to disagree when you two agree. :) John Carter (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

3. The section on "Early Christian references"

• Eco's opinion: I am in favour of restoring the reference from Nicodemus where Pilate reacts to his wife's dream, but is dissuaded by the priests. This is relevant, since it contradicts the absence of response in Matthew. Plus, this is referenced correctly.
• Irrelevant regarding the subject of the article (Pontius Pilatus' wife), and OR if no reference can be given for such interpretations. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree, since the relevance comes in understanding why Mrs. Pilate was unsuccessful. Matthew offers no answer, but Nicodemus (FWIW) offers a clue regarding her lack of influence. The reference would come from the text of Nicodemus, without any extra unreferenced commentary. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"Matthew offers no answer", indeed, then speculating about it is inappropriate: here at Wikipedia we call that Original Research, which is not allowed in articles. If you find a *source*, the matter is different, then we can render in the article what we find in that source (a bible commentary, a scholar study,...) if the source is deemed reliable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I would not say "Matthew offers no answer" in the actual article. I am only stating that here. Perhaps I was not clear about what I was trying to get across. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If the dubious phrasing isn't used, I can't see any objections to including the comments from Nicodemus. John Carter (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

4. The section on "Sainthood"

• Eco's opinion: Restore references to the Catholic and other Orthodox churches -- I don't understand why they are omitted while only the Coptic Church remains. Either that or just state that no other church recognizes her as a saint -- the sole Coptic reference is odd, I think.
• We currently only have a *reference* for the Coptic Orthodox Diocese of the Southern United States stating their point. Feel free to find references on what the Catholic Church and other specific churches thinks on the matter. Without references, I wouldn't mention any by name: there are too many churches, and it is irrelevant to list them all by name. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well, if no one else objects, we can drop that line about not being a saint anywhere else. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If we can find sourcing about CP's status in other churches, however, that might merit a short statement to the effect of "not recognized as a saint by "X". John Carter (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

5. The section "Purported letter of Procula"

• Eco's opinion: This is not the heading I chose, but I can live with it since it was never verified. I would rather see it as "Claudia Procula." However, I must insist that the section's text on this letter be fully restored. I have provided information on the content of the letter(s) and independent resource verification. Not citing the content puts a big hole in the article. I will, however, agree to scrubbing the text to meet academic language requirements. But I do not feel this should be omitted.
• I would not expand further than what can be found in secondary sources (the publisher is not a secondary source). There's no "academic language requirement". The content should adhere to Wikipedia's content policies (WP:V, WP:UNDUE,...) the style to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. None of this requires "academic language". I'm a bit concerned not to give too much undue weight to a publication no scholar appears to have researched, despite the publication's far-reaching claims. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there was a secondary source (from Time Magazine) that was deleted during the back-and-forth. The reference to this text could be kept very brief. (Personally -- and this is just for the Talk Page, not the article -- I always thought the letters were a fraud.) Ecoleetage (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the Time Magazine source was never deleted from the article since you put it there. Sorry if you thought so, but it wasn't. On the contrary, I had provided a "text link" version instead of a bare link to the Time Magazine article. It is still in the article, click this link and you'll see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate%27s_wife#cite_note-10 --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, because I used that link to describe what the purported letter(s) was about, which was cut from the version that was locked. As it stands, the section makes little sense (she wrote a letter, but what was in it?). I think we should also mention that the letter is now available from Issana Press as "Relics of Repentance" (question: is it available in any other languages?). That said, I understand the concern about giving too much undue weight -- but at the same time, it is a bit thin in its current state. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Would agree with Eco except for the mention of the letter's availability, which comes close to if not crossing WP:ADVERT. John Carter (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

6. The section "In the arts"

• Eco's opinion - I would prefer having the original transition sentence that went with this section when I expanded it. However, I can live without it in the name of compromise. I recommend restoring the IMDb listing of who played Mrs. Pilate (as per Kafka Liz's pointing out this did not violate WP policy). I would remove the reference to a radio play (I know nothing of U.K. radio history and I don't know if this was a national show, a local show, when it was broadcast, etc.).
• You mean "Throughout the years, Pilate’s wife has been occasionally featured in literature and popular entertainment based on the life of Jesus."? I think we can do without, it really doesn't say much imho. All listings of works of art should either be referenced or removed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Agreeing that everything should be referenced in every article, I do think some sort of transition, though maybe not that one, is called for. John Carter (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

7. Unresolved: Claudia as the daughter of Julia the Elder

• Eco's opinion: I would recommend citing this in the "Purported letter of (Claudia) Procula," as Ms. Van Dyke notes that historical (though unverified) sources suggest this is the case. There is a brief citation in one of the novels in the arts section, but that gives the assumption this is the only place where that attribution takes place.
• Ms. Van Dyke is not a reliable source. If there are "historical" sources for the purported ancestry of Pilate's wife, then find these sources. My best guess: not many of such sources would be found... --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, there is a quasi-solution: two of the novels in the "In the Arts" section cite this "suggestion" of Mrs. Pilate's parentage, and there are reliable sources to back that up. In this case, we are strictly talking about the books, not suggesting anything historic. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• If the sources meet WP:NOTABILITY requirements, I can't see any reason to exlude the information, although it might be made clear where the idea comes from. John Carter (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to weigh in. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh...is there anyone else out there who wants to help build consensus? I don't want this to be "The Eco & Francis Show." Ecoleetage (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there's me. Sorry I've been so crap about commenting here; I've been a bit wrapped up in an article we're trying to get to FA. I've also had unusual difficulty finding sources in English for this article.

The difficulty we face in improving the article is that it concerns a historical figure around whom a legend has grown up. There is very little if any hard information available on the historical Mrs. Pilate, and there doesn't seem to be a comprehensive study (in English, anyway) on her legend. In writing about her, we will mostly be addressing the evolution of this legend, beginning with the mention in Matthew. We then have the character written about by the early Church fathers, and the related yet separate figure of the Eastern Church's St. Procla. How do others feel about this assessment? Kafka Liz (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been having the same difficulty finding sources. Your assessment of the situation seems fair. My one question would be about the alleged letters. If there is reasonable cause to think they might be genuine, that should be made clear. If there isn't, then counting them as "part of the legend" seems reasonable. John Carter (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

First revisions under consensus

Okay, as part of the consensus building, I just revised the In the Arts section. I added the book by H.D. that we all seemed to overlook. The radio play was taken out (there was no source and it doesn't appear to be available to the public today). I put back the reference to Jesus Christ Superstar with a reference source to the song "Pilate's Dream." And since we are not violating WP policy (as per WP:CIMDB), the film references are back.

Let me know what you think, and if this works we can then get the rest of the article in place. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I also took out the reference to the Coptic Church in the Sainthood section, as per the previous comments. If everyone is okay with these edits, let me know. And if you're not, I would respectfully ask that you state your comments here rather than reverting them -- something equitable can be worked out. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I just revised the "purported letter" section of the article, and my additions are backed by the referenced sources. I sincerely hope that anyone who strongly objects to that revision will state his explanation here first, for the sake of maintaining consensus. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:GA

In view of the new and improved Mrs. P article, I am putting this up for WP:GA consideration. I think the changes and compromises worked to our advantage. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of May 26, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass, well referenced

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Fail so far. I can not confirm the copyright of the main image (Image:October27.jpg) until a source for the image is provided

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Million_Moments (talk) 10:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

GA passed

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of May 26, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

Furture work mostly would involve expansion. For example, the letter claimed to be from Pilot's wife, are their details availible on how authentic it is? What else did it say? Is there an image of it? If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Million_Moments (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Response This is wonderful news. On behalf of the editors responsible for the article, I would like to express my thanks for this honour. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to object to this because the references are very poorly formatted. Can someone fix them?-Wafulz (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please be specific on the references in question and they will be corrected. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Almost all of them, actually. All references should have (at a bare minimum) a title and publisher. Online references should have an access date. Random example:

• Ref 19 says "Variety review" and has a link.

After using the {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} template, it should look like this:

• McCarthy, Todd (2004-02-22). "The Passion of the Christ". Variety. Retrieved 2008-05-30. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

The rest of the references should be formatted that way as well.-Wafulz (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will get to this. I would ask if you could be a bit patient, as real life is somewhat inconveniently intruding. :) Thanks for your input! Ecoleetage (talk) 12:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Take as long a you need. If you need help, just give me a shout.-Wafulz (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 28 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. EdJohnston (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Pontius Pilate's wife → Wife of Pontius Pilate – Put the subject first. Also, possessive-formatted titles like this are very rare here and questionably encyclopedic in tone. Some could also raise a WP:SYSTEMICBIAS/sexism issue with using a masculine possessive as the leading part of a title about a female subject, even if her married status to a another figure of note is principally how we know her historically. Relisted. Favonian (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• oppose – "... his wife ..." in all English Bible translations available at Wikisource (not "... wife of him ..."); "of" is as possesive as "...'s" (red herring); Google books has more hits for "Pontius Pilate's wife" than for "Wife of Pontius Pilate"; Book titles include Pilate's Wife; Titles of tertiary source entries include PONTIUS PILATE'S WIFE; Please find yourself something more useful to do than take your fellow-Wikipedian's time with such non-issue (excuse my French): the article title is fine where it is. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
• FYI:
  • Schubert's last sonatas
  • Bach's church music in Latin
  • Friedrich Nietzsche's views on women
  • William Shakespeare's collaborations
  • etc... nothing "rare" or "questionably encyclopedic" about it... --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• A small number of -'s cases, mostly from classical music, the titling of which Francis Schonken has a great deal of individual personal influence over, doesn't do anything to demonstrate that such a style is common on Wikipedia, nor encyclopedically preferable. All it does is show that Schonken likes that occasionally-used style. None of these examples are compelling with regard to this RM, and some should be renamed to match our more conventional format: Last sonatas of Schubert is more in keeping with our site-wide naming patterns, and makes sense especially since treatment of that subject in sources is all over the map, with appellations like "last three sonatas", "last piano sonatas", "last of Schubert's sonatas", "The Last Three Piano Sonatas", "the last of the three big sonatas", etc., which is also why it should not be "Last sonatas (Schubert)" – "last sonatas" is not even a consistent traditional title. Collaborations of Shakespeare is better, since he is the primary topic for "Shakespeare", thus including "William" is pointless verbosity, and doesn't particularly help disambiguate, anyway; cf. William Shakespeare (disambiguation). Friedrich Nietzsche's views on women is a questionable article to exist at all, and should probably be merged as a section into Friedrich Nietzsche (and note that he is the primary topic of "Nietzsche", so even if his views on women were kept as a separate article it should not have "Friedrich" in the title, just as the Bach example doesn't have his full name). Bach's church music in Latin is a special case in which probably any other formulation presents an ambiguity or parsing problem (e.g. "Latin church music of Bach" or "Bach's Latin church music" may seem to refer to a Latin church; "Church Latin music of Bach" could refer to Latin music or to Church Latin; etc. That particular article title is simply the choice of the least of many "evils". The vast majority (by orders of magnitude) of WP article names that use descriptive titles that involve a possessive or other associative do so with "of", and use of the -'s / -s' possessive is not contemplated at WT:AT policy at all, except the single reference to this article, a very poor case for using it. and one that isn't even relevant to that section of AT, which is about disambiguation (Bach's church music in Latin is a much better example).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose It's entirely "how we know her historically"! If we had an article on Potiphar's wife, that should be at that title too. Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Francis Schonken, Johnbod please review Ngrams. (for some reason when the search comes up, you will have to hit the search button again). If anything "Wife of Pontius Pilate" is in more common use than the, I think, old fashioned and biased, "Pontius Pilate's wife". It is ridiculous to take a stance to reject a legitimate issue such as WP:SYSTEMICBIAS out of hand. It is an issue. Schubert's last sonatas was all very characterful but it was composed at the control and whim of the composer and it was only an entity in its own right because it was created to be so.

In regard to the current topic the subject is the Wife. The disambiguation is then made to demonstrate her association with Pilot. If we didn't, for instance, know the name "Nefertiti", should we call her "Akhenaten's wife"? Of course not. She is the subject. Yes, in this case, the association is a necessarily defining factor but she is the subject.

In cases where we have more information we even use disambiguations such as Sarah Jane Brown so as to not merely define her as wife of Gordon. The current title goes back even further into, IMO, sexist prejudice. Please reconsider your opposition or at least can admin be sure to consider the arguments rather than just the !votes. GregKaye 04:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and note also that in a multiple-choice RM for Sarah Jane Brown, with 11 choices suggested by the various participants, in what was then the 9th RM discussion (see Talk:Sarah Jane Brown/Archive 6#DRAFT: title choice table, no possessive -'s option was even considered; all the options were disambiguations like "(campaigner)", or associations like "(wife of Gordon Brown)", "(spouse of Gordon Brown)", and "(spouse of prime minister)". The main sticking point in that debate was related to the one here; all three of those disambiguations were objected to on the basis that they were occluding the subject behind her husband. We don't have any other option in this case (at least none has been proposed, and I'm not biblically steeped enough to suggest one), but we have no rationale for using the most sexist and occluding wording there is when a less potentially offensive phrase can be used, that also better matches the vast majority of our associative-phrase article titles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Easily disproved (Johnbod's assertion, I mean). When searching "wife" and "Pilate" in the online NIV bible at BibleGateway.com[16], we get this result: "While Pilate was sitting on the judge’s seat, his wife sent him this message ...". The OJB gives: "And while Pilate was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying ...". The NLT gives: "Just then, as Pilate was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent him this message ..." And so on. I checked every single one of the dozens of bible versions available in English there, and only two, the controversial, idiomatic modern paraphrases (rewrites, not translations), The Message and The Living Bible, use the -'spossessive: "While court was still in session, Pilate’s wife sent him a message ...", and "Just then, as he was presiding over the court, Pilate’s wife sent him this message ...", respectively. [One other case, the 1599 Geneva bible, used "Pilate's Wife" as a section title, only.] Thus, the present title is also a WP:NPOV problem favoring postmodernist revisionism, and it also violates both WP:COMMONNAME and, arguably, WP:OFFICIALNAME. In the preponderance of bibles (which are both the primary sources for the topic, and, by definition, the authoritative sources in the aggregate for what "the" bible actually says, when examined collectively), the phrase is separated as "Pilate" and "his wife", treating the two individually as figures, which is precisely what the title Wife of Pontius Pilate will do.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support, adding to the, I believe, strong arguments above re usage and bias, the woman concerned was referenced as γυνὴ Πιλάτου, gunē Pilātou or, in other words, "Wife of Pilate" and I think that it is fair to consider WP:OFFICIAL to have some weight here. We provide information for the use of education and a reference that additionally helps readers attune to the rhythms of the ancient texts can only be of benefit. GregKaye 05:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Re WP:OFFICIAL: "γυνὴ αὐτοῦ" ([17]) is *as officially as it gets* translated as "his wife" (see above) – that's difference of languages for you, word order isn't necessarily the same. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Re WP:SYSTEMICBIAS/sexism: serious matters, maybe put somewhat less energy in trivializing these with unrelated topics. Further I take offense in the characterisation "Schubert's last sonatas ... was composed at the control and whim of the composer and it was only an entity in its own right because it was created to be so." Well, he didn't, Syphilis intervened causing his death, otherwise he'd happily composed more sonatas, he definitely didn't compose them "to be so". Also, quite unrelated: the point is that there's nothing "unencyclopedic"/"biased"/"sexist" or whatever about the "...'s ..." format for descriptive article titles. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

In English it is quite common to use the format "wife of Foo" in saying who a person is. In Greek "γυνὴ Βαρ" quite literally presents "wife of Bar". (there's no "oo" in Greek"). I have struck "and whim" and consider control to be applied in a loose sense. Never-the-less, unless we take some kind of romantic view, a Sonata or piece of writing or other construction, is not a self directed thing. Most living people, with exceptions such as those involving medical conditions, are. In this and every other similar case, the person is the subject and can fairly, I think, be treated as such. GregKaye 07:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

"Pilate's wife" is as literal a translation of "γυνὴ Πιλάτου" as "wife of Pilate", there's nothing to make a distinction there. Current use at google books favours "Pilate's wife". There's nothing else. Other distinctions ("self-directed" and whatnot) are WP:OR and/or have no bearing.

Re. "γυνὴ Βαρ" – sounds like your Greek syntaxis isn't correct, I suppose "γυνὴ Βαρ" translates as "woman Bar". Next thing you'll be proposing The Queen Margot as English translation of La Reine Margot. Languages are different, traduttore traditore and all that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI "Πιλάτου" is genitive case, as explained in that article "Depending on the language, .... genitive-noun–main-noun relationships may include: ... relationship indicated by the noun being modified ("Janet’s husband") ..." Anyway, no possession implied. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Francis Schonken TY, My mistake. What I had done was I had just taken the text of the article's lead text at face value and adapted that. I have fixed the opening text as best I can. But it would be great if you could check it.

Can you also please comment on the text "κατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον"? In this text the name Matthew appears before the word for Gospel and yet the Wikipedia article for the subject is Gospel of Matthew. I did a machine translation of both "Gospel of Matthew" and "Matthew's Gospel" and both turned out to "Ευαγγέλιο του Ματθαίου" featuring the "of" (minus the accent) that I missed in my faulty earlier rendering.

I am struggling to understand how a text can be mentioned in sequential prominence as in the "Gospel of Matthew" but when a person is the subject she's relegated into second place as is currently the case with "Pilate's wife". GregKaye 15:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

If grammar of all languages of the whole world would be identical that would be easy but boring.

"κατὰ" means "according to" or "following" (along with a few dozen other meanings like "coming down from"). Word order is different depending on language & habits. If you want to know how it is in a specific laguage, study that language's grammar. For instance in Latin, verbs can end a sentence (see e.g. word-by-word translation at Tacitus#Prose style), which is quite unnatural in Germanic languages like English and Dutch.

Anyway, inviting to perform less WP:OR ("machine translation" is NOT a reliable source for Wikipedia - also: don't confuse modern Greek, e.g. Κατά Ματθαίον Ευαγγέλιον with the language spoken and written two millennia ago, e.g. Κατά Ματθαίον Ευαγγέλιο), but devote the time to study grammar or whatever for your personal interest and/or Wikipedia's benefit. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Francis Schonken thanks once again. Many, many moons ago I did a course of Koine Greek at Birkbeck College in London but to my shame have forgotten most. For what it is worth my Hebrew is better. GregKaye 16:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• There are other reasons to prefer "...'s wife" over "Wife of ...", while the last can have a different meaning not implying being married to someone, think e.g. Wife of Bath. "Wife of Pontus" would have such a meaning and so displays a less clear distinction with "Wife of Pontius..." --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Francis Schonken but a reason to prefer "Wife of ..." over "...'s wife" is based on WP:CRITERIA : Consistency. We use Mary (mother of Jesus) while Mary (Jesus' mother) acts as a redirect. We similarly use: Antonia (daughter of Mark Antony), Berenice (daughter of Salome), Calpurnia (wife of Caesar), Charmion (servant to Cleopatra), Eunoe (wife of Bogudes), Iotapa (daughter of Artavasdes I), Iotapa (contemporary to Cleopatra Selene I), Iotapa (spouse of Antiochus III), Iotapa (spouse of Sampsiceramus II), Laodice (sister-wife of Mithridates VI of Pontus), Laodice (wife of Mithridates II of Commagene), Mariamne (third wife of Herod), Nysa (daughter of Nicomedes III of Bithynia), Pompeia (daughter of Pompey the Great), Porcia (sister of Cato the Younger) and Salome (daughter of Herod the Great).

Also Wife of Phinehas, Pharaoh's daughter (wife of Solomon), Gomer (wife of Hosea), Naamah (wife of Solomon) GregKaye 16:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

"Pharaoh's daughter" indeed, QED - what happens in the parenthical disambiguators is different, per WP:NCP: "letters only" is usually preferred for disambiguators by convention, while the influence of WP:CRITERIA is stronger for what happens before the parenthical disambiguator.

Also, the "consistency" (CRITERIA #5) for article titles of biographical articles is explained at WP:NCP, for the case here specifically WP:NCP#Descriptive titles (for the content of parenthical disambiguators that is the next section, WP:NCP#Disambiguating). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Francis Schonken I agree and on the same token there is also Lot's wife. It seems to me that the "bad guys" most regualarly get down played while the good guys, good things, gospels etc. get elevated. While letting this potential bias pass I think it is fair to note that the wife of Pilate/Pilate's wife was one of the good guys. See: Wife of Phinehas. GregKaye 16:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Bad? Good? Seems quite unrelated to me. Think you're over-interpreting again (WP:OR). Maybe read the article while you're here, theologians have disputed for centuries whether Pilate's wife is good (to the degree of sanctity even), or bad (influenced by the devil and the like). The guideline using her article title as example does not take a stance on such issues, "wife of ..." or "...'s wife" bears no moral judgement I can think of. If you think it does: --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I was offering you the example of Lot's wife which, if anything, supports your argument. In this context I think that I made a valid talk page WP:OR conjecture in regard to the presentation of various Biblical women. We predominantly hear of the "mother of Jesus" we also predominantly hear of "Lot's wife". In the case of the unnamed wife, whether or not she is considered to be good or bad, she should still be considered to be a person and should be treated in the same way as Wikipedia treats other article subjects. GregKaye 08:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Struck the WP:OR comment, I was too kind assuming research (be it original) had gone in to this.

I don't think either Mary (mother of Jesus) or Lot's wife qualify as a WP:POVTITLE: they just follow naming conventions as they should, which is imho the best method to steer clear of bias in article titles.

Even if it would be possible to demonstrate that the "... of ..." construction is more positive than the "...'s ..." construction (which obviously can't be demonstrated), the argument would still be moot while even then it would still be needed to demonstrate that the "... of ..." construction would have less of a positive bias than that the "...'s ..." construction would have a negative bias (in other words, even then the "...'s ..." construction might have less bias over-all).

Then new degrees of weird are reached in the argumentation: not only is it without a shred of plausibility argued that the "...'s ..." construction would have a negative bias (which it hasn't), then follows the next completely unfounded contention that the lightheartedly assumed degree of negativity would involve the subject not "be considered to be a person"... I've heard certain Wikipedians say consider finding another hobby for less.

Pharaoh's daughter (wife of Solomon) has both the "...'s ..." and the "... of ..." constructions, neither the "Pharaoh's daughter" part, nor the "wife of Solomon" part has any bias I'm aware of, and the more far-fetched the assumptions get, the less convincing it gets. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Re: Schonken's There are other reasons to prefer ... comment: "Wife of Pontus" isn't a real topic, and so is not relevant. "Wife of Bath" is Middle English; that sense of "wife" does not even survive in Modern English (except incidentally, in combing form in the word "midwife"), and that phrase is only remembered because it's a title used in a work most of us muddled through in school. Regardless, we do not entertain "pre-emptive disambiguation" arguments at RM, on the basis that some title could maybe, possibly, somehow conflict with an as-yet-undiscovered subject. (Contrast this with cases where a title like "Florida White", now naturally disambiguated at Florida White rabbit coincides with something real for which we didn't happen to have an article yet.) I have to say, you can't seriously argue that "of" is as possesive as "...'s" as you did above (and that is linguistically wrong; the "of" in that case is associative in general, not limited to possessive), and then try a bit later to confuse the RM question by mixing in uses of "of" that are even further from possessive, but indicating geographic origin, which is the case with "Wife of Bath". No one is actually confused about such distinctions, or we would not conventionally use "of X" constructions in descriptive titles. Such self-contradictory arguments add no clarity to this discussion. The present article title was arrived at because the subject has no recorded name. It's conventional in Wikipedia article titles to use "X of Y" formatting when using descriptive titles; we have List of birds of Nicaragua, not "List of Nicaragua's birds" or "Nicaraguan bird list" or any of several other formats we could use but never use. Cases like Bach's church music in Latin are very uncommon outliers, usually selected because any other formulation presents insurmountable problems. That is not the case here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep rabbiting on if you must; I don't think you are pursuading anyone. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Johnbod Please do not resort to WP:PA if that is what it was. This certainly does not persuade anyone. If the rabbiting reference was purely presented on the basis of humour then, arguably, fair enough. However it is the genuine arguments presented here by all parties that have to carry. GregKaye 08:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

{{Collapse top|title = Pointless exchange <small>''[[User:GregKaye|Greg]][[User talk:GregKaye|Kaye]] 10:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)''</small>}}

Johnbod is generally not jocular toward me at all, but I don't care that much. Personalities clash some times. The colloquialism is unfamiliar and conveys no particular meaning to me. I just have to observe that if one's argument relies upon an insult, it probably isn't a valid one. [shrug]. As for persuasion, that's not my goal. I've laid out a logical proposition, and various commenters here agree with it. Some do not, and have presented arguments I believe can easily be countered, so I've endeavored to do so. But this is a matter of reason and where it leads us, not "persuasion"; this isn't a religious or political cause, to which people must be converted or something.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Animosity aside, you haven't got much have you? The "site-wide naming patterns" you postulate are nothing but a chimera, and your only proof has consisted in contending a lot of article titles shouldn't be where they are to make it match with your frivolous pre-conceptions:

• mechanical fan is preferred over fan (mechanical) as a policy level preference (putting qualifier before actual topic)
• most descriptive names do the same, Roman Empire and thousands and thousands of examples
• several names don't even mention the actual topic, e.g. I don't see the topic (violin concertos) mentioned in the actual page name The Four Seasons (Vivaldi)... etc... etc...
• Maybe the expression "etc..." is unclear to you: this means there are many, many more...

This reduces your argumentation to squat, I think Johnbod is correct: "I don't think you are pursuading anyone" --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

{{Collapse bottom}}

@GregKaye: obviously not your call to fold replies you get. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: Fair enough. I had not been in reply to SMcCandlish and I did not consider that he was in reply to me. My edit was made independent of any conflict that may exist between editors. My sole thought was to try to keep the thread on track. Ideally I should have contacted you both directly in regard to the collapse but I considered the content to be sufficiently off the rails for such requirement not to apply. GregKaye 10:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

As it replies to "Put the subject first" ([18]), subsequently and frivolously declared a "site-wide naming pattern" ([19]) this is as on-topic as it gets for this time-sink of a WP:RM. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have no idea how either title is more or less sexist. Therefore, oppose per WP:CONCISE Red Slash 17:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Firstly, I haven't heard anything convincing explaining how "wife of Pontius Pilate" does not have the same sexist pitfalls as "Pontius Pilate's wife" despite the large outpouring of words suggesting otherwise. Secondly, I looked at the n-gram above which was suggested supported the change, but what I saw was a back-and-forth over the decades of one peaking, then the other, with the two neck-and-neck over the last 20 years shown, 1980-2000. Thirdly, there are Anne Hathaway (Shakespeare's wife) and Wang Yi (Zhao Ang's wife), the latter of which was the subject of an unsuccessful RM proposal to change it just this past September. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
• OPPOSE. Both seem almost equally common WP:COMMONNAME per Google Ngram. However oppose move per WP:CONCISE. Khestwol (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

For some reason the search button needs to be hit a second time. Since the 1830s the proposed title marginally has predominant use and you have to go back a long way for things to be equal. Wife of Pontius Pilate get straight to the point in the way that Wikipedia titles are prone to do. She is the subject. The two titles have an identical number of characters. The difference as per WP:CONCISE is a space. GregKaye 23:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Invisible comments added to mainspace

Hijiri88 added a few comments to the article in templates that don't process such comments:

1. To "death place" in infobox: "If I (Hijiri88) am right that Matthew's having her warn her husband against harming Jesus was part of the gospel's anti-semitic agenda in placing the blame for the crucifixion on "the Jews", then this and the above "birth place" are extremely dubious -- she would have gone with her husband when he was recalled and placed in some other province, surely?"
   • Please don't add your editor alias to mainspace (even if invisible): this talk page is for discussing such matters: a discussion via invisible comments in mainspace is quite inappropriate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
   • On the content of the matter, I'd remove the birth and death parameters of the infobox. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

   Good idea. The material was introduced since the initial GA review; but the fact the article now contains dubious, unsourced material, along with all the other problems, is justification for starting a GAR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

2. To the lead paragraph: "These legends are not mentioned anywhere in the article, although they definitely should be. The closest thing to a "legend" is the commentary by (unnamed) rivals of Origen that her dream mentioned in Matthew was sent by Satan -- this is not a legend, but a somewhat dubious interpretation of the "brief anecdote ... in the New Testament"."
   • "...sought Jesus' aid to heal the crippled foot of her son Pilo", "...book depicts her parents as Roman aristocrats related by blood to Emperor Augustus", "...consoles Jesus' mother Mary and Mary Magdalene as she generously hands them towels to clean up the blood from his scourging", etc. are entirely in the domain of legends. The "not verified in body" tag can be safely removed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

   Those quotes are taken out of context. None of them are legends as discussed in the article. The first is from a probably-forged letter whose coverage is woefully-inadequate; if the letter dates from Roman or medieval times, then maybe it is a legend, but that is not what the article says. The second is from a twentieth-century novel, not a legend. The third is from a 2004 film, not a legend. There are no legends discussed anywhere in the article except the lead. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

3. To Pontius Pilate's wife#Sainthood: "Bart Ehrman connects Christian reverence for and "saint-ifying" Pilate (and Dale Martin explicitly mentions the Matthew passage) to Christian anti-semitism meant to mitigate Pilate and place the blame for Jesus's death on the Jews -- is the reverence for his wife similar? This section should cover this matter."
   • Please provide a content and reliable source proposal: as it stands the expand section tag is an invitation to WP:OR. As there is no indication that such expansion is possible the "expand section" tag is inappropriate and should be removed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

   The section is extremely short; if the only material related to her sainthood are the facts that she is considered a saint in two churches and that she has a feast day in each of these churches, then the section should be merged into a larger section discussing, say, "veneration in later Christianity". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

4. To Pontius Pilate's wife#Purported letter by Pilate's wife: "The section title implies skepticism about the authenticity of the letter, and I'm inclined to agree that it was probably an obvious forgery, but what is the view of scholarship on this question? This is not even mentioned in the section. If there has not been extensive scholarship on this letter, is the letter even noteworthy enough to merit its own separate section?"
   • See earlier discussions about this above on this page (#Relics of Repentance, #Compromise for finalized version of the article §5). Expansion of the section with scholarly sources doesn't seem very well possible (no scholarly sources have turned up); merging the content of the section in Pontius Pilate's wife#Depictions (instead of "expanding" it – with what?) seems the more logical thing to do. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
   • I'd remove the "expand section" tag per prior discussions above: editors have tried to find reliable sources for a more comprehensive treatment of this aspect: none have been found, and that has been accepted as sufficient treatment at the time of GA promotion. So, unless additional sources have turned up (in that case: name them), there is no reason to doubt the due diligence of the GA process on this matter. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

   If the material presently in the article is all that can be found in reliable sources, should we just assume that the letter was actually penned by her? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

In general, regarding the WP:GAR listing (Talk:Pontius Pilate's wife/GA1) the first approach is an attempt to repair issues: several of the issues raised in the article, including the ones not copied here while they show up in mainspace, are either easy to address or remote OR conjectures that should not be in the article in the first place (like "is the reverence for his wife similar?" – don't say what an article "should" cover if you've got nothing but OR on why and how it should be covered in this article). I'll remove the invisble notes that I copied above from mainspace now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no policy against adding invisible comments to explain citation needed templates, etc. Please see WP:COMMENT, although this isn't technically the same thing, as I used the "reason=" parameters in the templates. Not adding my username to these comments would make the referent of "I" extremely confusing to later editors. Also, please do not call material that I did not add to the article "remote OR"; it is entirely acceptable to speculate on what an article should say to be a well-rounded discussion of the subject -- the burden to demonstrate that I am wrong in this speculation is on whoever thinks my concerns are not valid. That Pilate and the Romans (presumably including Pilate's wife) were exonerated by later Christians as an anti-Jewish measure is the consensus view among modern scholars; if you want to contradict this assertion, the burden is on you to find sources.

As for the (unrelated) issue of my opening a GAR at around the same time: The burden isn't on me to repair the issues. I do not have the time or the inclination to make this article meet the GA criteria in the short term. The fact is that the article is not of GA-quality, as it does not meet the criteria. If no one is able to improve it, then it should be delisted.

I could go on and on about the problems with the article: The expanded form of the Mathean account in Nicodemus (I have just checked Ehrman and Pleše's translation) is clearly anti-Jewish, but this fact is not mentioned in the article. The claim that the name "Procula" (presumable the same as the "Procla" mentioned in the letters of Pilate -- again see Ehrman/Pleše) is derived from translations of Nicodemus is unsourced.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I've expanded some of my comments above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The only prior discussion I see is between you, John Carter and site-banned sock-user. This does not count as a "prior consensus" one way or the other. If I am missing something, please link the specific discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Please keep numbering in the numbered list above intact (i.e. start comments with "#" before other indentation marks).

Re #2: is there a "rule" that legends can't originate in the 20th century? Afaik some of the "legends" pictured in the Mel Gibson movie go back to Emmerich (c.1800). As I haven't found a reliable secondary source yet that says so, Emmerich is currently only mentioned in the "EL" section. Of course Emmerich too is all "Christian literature and legends" that (as far as the topic of this article is concerned) "amplified the brief anecdote about Pilate's wife in the New Testament". Maybe the body of the article could be somewhat more explicit on what is legendary treatment of the subject, but as such I see no problem with the current last sentence of the lead section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's a reference that should allow to bring the Emmerich material to the body of the article and connect it to the Gibson movie. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"Legends"

[20] Sorry -- I ran out of characters and accidentally pressed "Enter" instead of "Backspace". The only source I have is a book of translations of primary source material with very brief commentary, and the commentary does not cover the brief passages that mention Pilate's wife. It is obvious that later Christian legends (as opposed to modern novels and films) do expand on the Pilate's wife material in the New Testament, and obviously Matthew either made the story up or he himself was drawing on later legends. The source texts I am referring to are the "Gospel of Nicodemus" and the "Letter of Pilate to Herod". The gospel (an anti-Semitic work, as even Ehrman/Plese's brief commentary notes) has "the Jews" talking with Pilate, who says his wife received a dream, and the Jews respond that Jesus, a magician, must have sent this dream himself. The letter (an obscure pseudepigraphic work whose oldest extant manuscripts date to the late Middle Ages, but which at least one twentieth century scholar dated to the third-to-fifth century, and Ehrman/Plese do not give any reason to disagree) names her as Procla (in the English translation) has her becoming a Christian because of "visions" that come upon her before the crucifixion, and going with Longinus the centurion and seeing the resurrected Jesus and hearing an apocalyptic speech, before returning home and telling her husband and the two of them fasting while "wrapped up in the pain" (?).

Obviously, all of this belongs in the article, and it is certainly "legendary", but until I can find secondary sources that discuss it in more detail, it would be OR for me to post my own summary of the primary source material to the article, as I have done above. The "legends" that FS cited above most certainly are not legends, as they are not traditional narratives but rather entirely fictional ones with known (modern) authors. Until some bona fide legends are discussed in the body of the article, the solitary mention of them in the lead is somewhat jarring.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• "Gibson picks up the legends of the nineteenth-century Roman Catholic mystic, Anne Catherine Emmerich,..." (emphasis added). As said, no problem to provide a reliable source for qualifying Emmerich's visions as "Christian literature and legends". --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, stories with known authors are not usually called "legends" in this context; not when we have legit legends that we could be covering. I read the word in the lead as referring to "a traditional story sometimes popularly regarded as historical but not authenticated" (OED), not as the apocalyptic visions of a nineteenth-century Roman Catholic woman whose name and biography are both known. I therefore ignored the PotC discussion when tagging the word in the lead as not being verified in the body. I was peripherally aware of the fact that much of Gibson's embellishment of the Passion story came from Emmerich (I read Dom Crossan's review of the film years ago), but I think most readers would agree with me in not taking this as a "traditional" story. It is also difficult for me to see the GBooks link you gave on my iPad's internet connection; can I assume that it is actually about the portion of the film dealing with Pilate's wife? Your quote doesn't mention her.I have now checked the source, and thankfully everything I needed was in the free GBooks preview. Discussion of Emmerich's influence on Gibson's portrayal of Pilate's wife (and the non-historicity of this portrayal) is on pages 84-86 of the book linked. It says on page 85 that "she was given a name in late medieval legends" (this is actually inaccurate, as she is named in at least pseudepigraphon from the late Roman period; see below). The quote Francis Schonken gives above is from a completely different passage of the book (page 63) discussing Emmerich/Gibson's portrayal of Judas.

Either way, the bona fide legends recorded in ancient texts should be cited in the article. End of story. I will try to find some reliable secondary sources that specifically discuss them, but I would appreciate if you would help in this endeavour rather than continue to claim that the article already cites the nineteenth-century Roman Catholic mystic legends featured in a 2004 Mel Gibson movie.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Emmerich's visions, rather "bona fide" than "apocalyptic" afaik, are for the most part of unknown origin: she does not claim authorship as she claims they are revealed to her by someone else (i.e. "visions"). Some of it can be traced back to medieval legends, older apocrypha, and of course also for a large part to non-apocryphal Christian tradition. In some Catholic traditions these visions have been "popularly regarded as historical", and, despite some Catholic authentication attempts with partial success, they remain largely "not authenticated" by independent scholarship.

No need to explain all that (I only did because possibly you are less at home in Christian visionary literature, which is far from always "apocalyptic", but where pseudo-historical, as most of Emmerich, rather "legend" than "fiction": she was beatified in 2004, somehow rubber stamping her claim to divine inspiration), we simply have a reference that points to the legends in Emmerich's works (whether the legend originated with her, or is based on unclear sources). I updated my link above: no it is not specific about Pilate's wife, but reflects the outside-popular-Catholicism-universe view that she generated/emulated "legends". --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Your little jab at my awareness of "Christian visionary literature" is noted, as is the irony of making such a jab while simultaneously indicating that you do not know what "apocalyptic" means (read: "she claims they are revealed to her" [emphasis mine] contradicts your claim that they were not apocalyptic). If you want to claim that Gibson's movie is based on Emmerich's accounts of her visions which in turn are based on bona fide (read: legitimate, authentic) medieval legends and older apocrypha, the burden is on you; at present no connection between Gibson and Emmerich, let alone between Gibson and medieval legends, is made in the body of the article -- in fact Emmerich is only mentioned in an EL that might just barely pass WP:ELMAYBE as "Claudia Procles" is mentioned only twelve times in the course of the very long text -- so the Gibson reference being justification for removing the "Citation needed lead" template for the word "legends" is ... well, it's making me doubt your willingness to engage in constructive discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

"Apocalyptic" supposes prophesy (most often with the connotation "end of times"): Emmerich's visions don't look to the future in this sense, they look back, constructing a (pseudo-)history based on legends and the like. The expression "apocalyptic visions" necessarily contains the "looking to the future" connotation, otherwise it would just be tautology ("visionary visions", "revelating revelations").

Well, let's end the OR, providing background is obviously not appreciated: at least one reliable source indicates the content of these visions as "legends", that should suffice.

Also, as said above, the Gibson-related source should allow us to bring the Emmerich material from the EL section to the body of the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Meh. You may be right. I thought I was using it in the sense Dale Martin used it when he said "Paul saw Jesus in apocalyptic visions, but he never saw Jesus' flesh and blood"; I don't think Martin was talking about "prophecy" here but rather a plain and literal "revelation", although I might be wrong; Paul and Jesus did both believe the world was coming to the end in the near future, and this might be what Martin was talking about, but it would be somewhat off-topic. However, the most often with the connotation "end of times" bit is questionable. Many scholarly sources I have seen on the subject (including the aforementioned Martin lectures) imply that the whole "apocalyptic⇒end times" thing is a modern American popular culture phenomenon based exclusively on the Apocalypse of John in the NT, and it is not shared with ancient texts. In fact, the Apocalypse of Peter is neither prophetic nor eschatological: it has almost nothing whatsoever to do with the end times except for a brief aside about the sinners being forgiven at the end of time, and is only about the "future" in the sense that Peter in the narrative and presumably the reader are not dead yet, and so what happens to people after they die is in a certain sense in the "future" for them, but the "apocalypse" itself is not prophetic in the sense that Jesus shows Peter the "future"; the "apocalypse" is the revealing of the nature of heaven and hell as they exist in the present.

And of course, you are misrepresenting WP:NOR: there is no rule about discussing the definition of the word "apocalypse" on an article talk page, and I am not proposing we start adding that "Emmerich saw Jesus in apocalyptic visions" to the mainspace. In fact every where you have accused me of "OR" in this discussion you are either talking about a talk page comment or an instance of me wanting to remove something questionable from the article based on something I read elsewhere that appears to contradict it.

The sentence in the lead talking about "Christian literature and legends" does not read like it is talking about a 19th century mystic and her visions; we should add discussion of the actual classical and medieval legends surrounding this figure, as found in ancient gospel texts and the like.

You can feel free to also add discussion of Emmerich to the body of the article, of course. I also think we should remove the EL, as it is probably an ELNO. I personally think a detailed summary of what Emmerich had to say about the subject should be added to the article, and if I am right in thinking this then the link definitely "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article".

However, since I am not that interested in or knowledgeable of Emmerich (and since, frankly, everything about that topic area from Emmerich to Gibson scares the hell out of me), I don't think I am the one to do it (I obviously don't think reading through the EL and creating an original summary of what it says is appropriate). I will stick to discussing this figure as covered in early Christian texts.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Re. Paul's visions: they get apocalyptic (in a modern usage of the word) in some of his letters (e.g. from 1 Corinthians 15:52: "...at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible..."). Afaics that's what Dale Martin is referring to (calling Paul an apocalyptic prophet etc). Again, the connotation is clear from the context: Martin doesn't imply that Paul is a prophetic prophet with visionary visions, he implies that Paul talks about the visions he had regarding what will happen at the end of times.

It is true that the literal translation of the original Greek word apocalyps is revelation, but that's not the only word that changed meaning in the course of history, e.g. "barbarian" in original Greek is someone with a beard, but that's not how it would be understood in current English. So please, words used on talk pages are used in their current meaning (unless qualified). In that sense there's little apocalyptic dimension in Emmerich's visions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Could you attribute any of the above to a reliable source? I had always assumed Martin was saying that all the visions in which Paul saw Jesus were apocalyptic (essentially, "Paul didn't see Jesus in the flesh, only in his apocalyptic visions"), and this still seems like the better understanding (note that I only cited the transcript because it is easier to navigate than the 40-minute YouTube clip; I have not read the transcript from start to finish), and I still get the feeling that you are reading modern popular culture into this. Again, the second most popular (if not the most popular) Christian apocalypse in antiquity and the middle ages had nothing to do with eschatology. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Re. "the second most popular (if not the most popular) Christian apocalypse in antiquity and the middle ages had nothing to do with eschatology" – sorry, you're talking in riddles here, no idea what you're talking about. Could you clarify? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The Apocalypse of Peter. I named it in my last comment above. It "very nearly made it into the canon" (Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted, p.136). In parts of early Christendom, it was accepted where the Apocalypse of John was rejected (ibid. 196-197). It also just happened to be included in the same medieval manuscript as the Gospel of Peter discovered by French archaeologists in the 1880s (Ehrman/Pleše p. 367). It is OR to say that this means it was popular in the middle ages, but clearly it was read between the second and eighth centuries, and for the first few centuries widely read. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

"The Apocalypse of Peter (...) has developed the eschatological (...) traditions (...)" ([21] – emphasis added). So no, I don't know what you're talking about. Also, afaics no further relevance for the development of this article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you are familiar with the work, and I think you Googled "Apocalypse of Peter" "eschatological". I don't know what that writer is talking about, but the Apocalypse of Peter is almost all about the afterlife in the present, not in some eschatological future. You did this earlier with "Gibson" "Emmerich" "legends" and wound up giving a completely irrelevant quote out of context. Please stop doing this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Apocalyptic Thought in Early Christianity by Robert J. Daly seems to have pretty little about the Apocalypse of Peter (mentioned twice in a footnote, and that's all AFAICS). So "the second most popular (if not the most popular) Christian apocalypse in antiquity and the middle ages" seems to be an inappropriate exaggeration (Old Testament apocalypses seem to have been far more influential in early Christianity, and I don't get the impression that the Apocalypse of Peter was copied or commented upon all that much in antiquity or middle ages, certainly not when compared to the canonical ones written or adopted in Christianity). Of course I'd rather rely on what turns up after a diligent Google Books search, than on what a Wiki editor says.

So, let's stop about this side topic, it doesn't help for the improvement of this article. As said, on this talk page the qualifier "apocalyptic" should be used in its current meaning in order not the confuse the discussion. For this discussion it has no relevance whatsoever when that current meaning originated: a lot can be found in reliable sources about visionary literature relating to Pontius Pilate's wife, but not, afaik, that that visionary literature on that topic is "apocalyptic". --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason Apocalyptic Thought in Early Christianity doesn't discuss the Apocalypse of Peter is that the title of that book uses the modern American pop culture definition of "apocalyptic" as being synonymous with "eschatological"? The preface and chapter list certainly imply this. This would explain why they don't discuss the Apocalypse of Peter (which isn't eschatological) and would also support my assertion that the Apocalypse of Peter is not eschatological. Your honing in on a side-note of my main point (that the AOP was popular) is ... difficult to take in good faith, and your citing one source that doesn't discuss the AOP doesn't even dispute that side-note anyway -- I cited a source that specifically said the AOP was a major competitor for inclusion in the New Testament, something that isn't true of almost anything discussed in-depth in Apocalyptic Thought in Early Christianity. If I wanted to simply pick a fight with you in order to get under your skin, as you seem to be doing with me, I would ask: What do you mean by "the canonical ones"? The canonical apocalypses? What canonical apocalypses? The only apocalypse in the NT canon is John, and the only one in the OT canon is Daniel.

Anyway, I agree that we should stop discussing this side topic. I think it was mistake for you to bring it up by firmly insisting that I was wrong to use the word "apocalyptic" in the way I did. I will continue writing the way I do and assuming that other users will not try to pick holes in what I say just to get a rise out of me. Anyway, nineteenth-century "visionary literature", whether we call it "apocalyptic" or not, is not "legends"; to be a legit GA, the article should discuss the actual legends recorded in early and medieval Christian literature, and should not contain apparent errors like the ones discussed. A topic expert will need to read over the article before I accept its GA status.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Recap:

• It is wrong to qualify Emmerich's visions as "apocalyptic" based on WP:OR: afaik these visions were never qualified thus, not in the 19th century, nor in the 20th nor the 21st, not in English, not in any other language I know.
• The more important point is that such moot interpretations try to insert non-existent divisions in the descriptions of the subject of this article. Old legends surrounding this figure, mostly rooted in apocrypha of undefined quality, continued in Medieval times with further developement of the legends, followed by further legend elaborations, including assigning of a name and Brentano's account of Emmerich's visions in a way that makes it impossible to say that these legends would have stopped developing in further legendary treatment, that had become part of the legends too by the time layers of artistic creation were added in movies, poetry and the like. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
• Re. "...everything about that topic area from Emmerich to Gibson scares the hell out of me" – just a side-remark: fear may not be a good companion when the intent is to give the subject of this article a WP:NPOV treatment Wikipedia-style. That's why I tried to sketch some context on this talk page, hoping it would all fall somewhat more into perspective: no aspects of the content area are particularily scary to me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Not commenting on this point, except to say that it is off-topic. I never tried to insert the phrase "apocalyptic visions" into the article, so accusing me of OR is a borderline personal attack.
• So much wrong with this. (1) What "apocrypha of undefined quality"? I have named several ancient texts, but you have apparently done no research of the matter, so it is not clear to which of the apocrypha I discussed, or which other, unnamed apocrypha, you are referring. (2) When did "Medieval times" begin? The figure was apparently given the name "Procla" before the fall of the western Roman Empire, so your timeline is likely flawed. (3) Recorded accounts of visions experienced by a known individual (still-living at the time of recording) are not usually classified as "legends". (4) Modern movies, poetry and the like are also not usually classified as "legends", so none of this is explaining how "legends" in the lead is backed up by the content of the body.
• In my view, this article already focuses far too much on modern popular culture (none of the early Pilate literature is even mentioned in the article), so my not being particularly interested in said modern popular culture (for fear or whatever other reason) should not be a barrier to my expanding and improving the article, or my saying that it should be expanded and improved and that the earlier GA review's failure to note this potentially invalidates it.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Slight aside about what could be immediately added, and the article's claim of the origins of "Procula"

Note that the secondary commentary material in Ehrman/Plese at least gives us enough to say:

The apocryphal "Letter of Pilate to Herod" references Matthew 27:19,(Ehrman/Plese 509, note 2) and portrays Pilate and his wife "Procla", along with the centurion Longinus, as Christian converts.(Ehrman/Plese 506)

This much is not OR, but I would still prefer to give the full story about Procla and Longinus seeing the resurrected Jesus and hearing a lecture. They also do not seem to disagree with the dating of this text to the third, fourth or fifth century. Their discussion of the "Gospel of Nicodemus", or the "Acts of Pilate" or some such, is long and complicated, and it would seem that some form of the text was known to Justin Martyr sometime around 160, but our article's unsourced claim that the name "Procula" originates in "translations" (which ones and in which language?) of "the Gospel of Nicodemus" (which one?) appears to be ... oversimplified, at best. Ehrman/Plese's translations of two versions of the text do not appear to give any form of the name "Procula" or "Procla", but I haven't done a very thorough search. And for the article's claim to be accurate would require the "Letter of Pilate to Herod" to have been derivative of translations of the "Gospel of Nicodemus", despite both having (probably? Sorry, not a specialist) been written in Greek.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Note that it would be OR for me to add to the article the claim that

The "Letter of Pilate to Herod" was written in Greek<ref1> and the "Gospel of Nicodemus" was also written in Greek.<ref2> The "Letter of Pilate to Herod" was apparently composed not long after the "Gospel of Nicodemus"<ref3> (scholars are divided on the dates of both texts<refs>). So it is unlikely that the surviving "Letter of Pilate to Herod" took its use of the name "Procla" from non-Greek translations of the "Gospel of Nicodemus".

I have never said this is not OR, nor have I suggested we add it to the article. I am requesting a citation for the currently unsourced claim that "The name Procula derives from translated versions of that text." This is the opposite of OR.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources giving the name "Procla"

• Ehrman/Pleše's translation of "The Handing Over of Pilate" is based on Tischendorf's edition, which was based on five manuscripts, two from the twelfth, two from the fourteenth, and one from the fifteenth century. They tentatively date the composition to sometime in the fourth or fifth century. "Procla" is named twice in their translation (sorry, I do not read Greek, but they do give the Greek text as well). Pilate says in a prayer:

"Lord, do not destroy me with the wicked Hebrews; for I could not have lifted my hand against you if it were not for the nation of godless ews, as they were starting a rebellion against me. But you know that I acted out of ignorance. Do not, therefore, destroy me for this sin I committed, and remember no wickedness against me, Lord, or against your slave Procla who is standing with me here in this the hour of my death. For you appointed her to prophesy that you were to be nailed to a cross. Do not hold her, too, accountable for my sin, but forgive us both, and number us among your righteous ones." [...] Then the executioner severed Pilate's head, and behold! An angel of the lord took it. When Procla his wife saw the angel coming and taking his head, she was filled with joy and immediately gave up her spirit. And she was buried with her husband.

So here we have a text exonerating -- indeed, glorifying -- Pilate along with his wife, and the context is very clearly anti-semitic (Ehrman/Pleše introduction to the text discusses this; it is not OR).

• Ehrman/Pleše's translation of "The Letter of Pilate to Herod" is based on Montague R. James on the basis of a single fifteenth-century manuscript, but it is also "found in a Syriac manuscript of the fifth or sixth century". James apparently dated the original composition some two hundred years earlier than the Syriac manuscript, and Ehrman/Pleše don't cite any other theories or give any reason to disagree. Although I cannot tell the difference between Koine Greek and other languages written with the Greek alphabet, the fifteenth-century manuscript Montague used also apparently included a Greek copy of "The Letter of Herod to Pilate", which Ehrman/Pleše state unequivocally was originally written in Greek. The fact that an early Syriac copy exists indicates (at least to me) that, if the Syriac copy left out the name, critical scholars would probably leave it out in their critical editions of the Greek text. "Procla"'s name appears three times in their translation:

My own wife, Procla, came to believe because of the visions in which he appeared to her when I was about to hand him over to be crucified because of your advice. [...] While everyone was watching and observing him, he became aware of their presence and spoke to them: "Do you still not believe in me, Procla and Longinus? Are you not the one who watched over my suffering and tomb? And you, woman, did you send a message to your husband about me?" [...] When he said these things [eschatological prophecy about how believers will not perish and how Jesus had set loose the birth pangs of death and slain the many-headed dragon], my wife, Procla, heard them, along with centurion Longinus, who had been entrusted to watch over the suffering of Jesus, and the soldiers who accompanied them. They all came, weeping and grieving, to proclaim these things to me.

• I give this level of detail to show that, in light of this evidence, it is unlikely that what Corley and Webb say about late medieval legends being the first to name her can be taken on its face. Likely, they were careless with their choice of words, and didn't mean to imply that these legends were the first to name her; this seems more likely all these name-drops in medieval manuscripts of two Roman-era texts being solely the result of medieval insertions of a name invented in the late medieval period (especially considering that two of the manuscripts consulted for the "Handing Over" were copied in the twelfth century). I'll do a bit more research on Pilate's wife's coverage in the "Gospel of Nicodemus" later.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

GA reassessment

Pontius Pilate's wife

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: delisted AustralianRupert (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is not very thorough in its coverage of the topic, and reading it raises more questions than it answers. The following problems were present when I first edited the article:

1. A work apparently composed in the seventeenth century is cited in a section called "early Christian literature".
2. A sentence from the New Testament about an entirely unrelated figure who probably didn't have the same name is quoted with no commentary indicating why it is quoted.
3. An obvious modern forgery is given its own section of the article but it is not clarified that it is a forgery.
4. The highly dubious claims in the infobox that she was born and died in Israel are not sourced, and the former was templated over two years ago.
5. The "Christian literature and legends [that] have amplified the brief anecdote about Pilate's wife in the New Testament" are barely discussed in the body ("legends" are not mentioned at all), and they definitely should be.
6. The anti-semitic elements of her veneration by later Christians, along with that of her husband, are not mentioned.
7. There is an unsourced claim that the name "Procula" originates in translations of the Gospel of Nicodemus, but Nicodemus dates to the fourth century, and "the Letter of Pilate to Herod" apparently called her "Procla" and at least one scholar dates that letter to the third or fourth century (see this book by the leading NT scholar in the United States). Also: what translations?

These problems about things I do know about. All of these problems were already present in the 2008 version, so I don't think this should have ever been listed as a GA. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

(Note: this page is being created from the previous individual reassessment that was opened through a misunderstanding; a community reassessment was what was desired. I've done this for Hijiri 88.) —BlueMoonset (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

(Further note: I have copied the section below, which was added to the abovementioned closed individual reassessment back in September, and to which Hijiri88 replied earlier today. This discussion should continue here, on the active reassessment.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Llywrch

Although no one has commented on this proposed reassessment, I concur that the article doesn't meet the intended standards for GA, & either needs work to keep this status or be downgraded.

Having read this article, I am left with a confused impression of this minor character. (I've read the Gospels several times each, & managed to overlook her existence until I discovered this article, so I feel comfortable calling her a "minor character".) Is there any evidence for pre-modern traditions about her? The talk page allude to the fact she might be mentioned in the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus, which would indicate some pre-Medieval tradition about her. I'd also like a list of primary texts that name her "Procula", "Claudia", a combination of the two; otherwise, I'm left suspecting that she never was given a name, & any assertion that she had one is a hoax. (Yes, there are people who add hoaxes to Wikipedia articles that don't get much attention just to see how long the misinformation will stay.) Looking at the article on her husband, I found a lot of evidence that confirms there were many traditions about him; yet no indication whether any of those traditions mention her. Her only visibility appears to be in modern works -- which makes her something of a modern antihero.

Lastly, while I don't agree with some of Hijiri's criticisms, addressing most of them would be a good first step. But I haven't seen any effort to make any changes in response, so I wonder if the proper thing to do would be to remove it's GA classification, requiring any advocate for the article to make desired improvements to it. -- llywrch (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Llywrch: Re "Is there any evidence for pre-modern traditions about her?" Yes. As you indicate you have read the talk page, several NT apocrypha feature her much more prominently than Matthew. This material absolutely needs to be added to the article. But, not being a content expert, I don't feel comfortable doing so myself. FS does not appear to be either. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Shearonink

Downgrade. To a C-Level.
This article might be more appropriately called "Cultural depictions of Pontius Pilate's wife" - if you look at the amount of content in the article about the cultural depictions there is more about Mrs. Pilate's appearances in all kinds of literature, both modern and not, in theatre, film and TV than there is about the woman herself. After all, there is only one sentence about her in the New Testament. If you want to look at a well-written article about a somewhat-minor person in the Bible then Dorcas, one of the disciples, is in much better shape, in my opinion at least a C-level (and Dorcas did have more than one sentence written about her). I became interested in how this article became a GA so I went poking around its editing history and the talk page's history. The procedure in the past, as I understand it, is that naming an article a GA was left up to individual editors. There is no record of community discussion about how the article qualified or if the article qualified, because no such discussion took place. In June 2008, an individual editor designated the article as GA, it received the GA icon in 2010 and that was that.
So, the question now is - does the article deserve to be a GA? In my opinion and in its present state?...No. Do I want to do the work to get it up to a GA quality-level. No, I do not. And from the looks of it, neither does anyone else. What level do I think it should receive? *Maybe* a C, maybe even start-class.
And this Reassessment is the first community review that the article has ever really received. This reassessment has been going on since June. I think the community consensus is pretty clear. Delist the article from GA, maybe even downgrade the article to a C and if anyone wants to work on it, let them improve it up to a B (and so on.) It serves no good purpose to let an article like this languish and keep its Good Article status during that languishment.
If nothing else changes within 7 days, I am going to request that an uninvolved editor or admin close this discussion and delist this article. Shearonink (talk) 05:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment: from what I can tell, the issues raised above have not been dealt with. As such, if there are no objections, I intend to close this review with the outcome of "delist". I will wait until this time tomorrow to do so, though, for any last minute objections. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closed as delisted. Once the issues identified above have been dealt with, the article can be renominated at [[WP:GAN]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

"Failed verification" tag?

@Francis Schonken: I'm not sure what to make of this. Do you own a paper copy of the book, or did you look at a GBooks preview, or some such? I posted the exact text I intended to include in the article, with the same cites, further up this page. My GooglePlay eBook edition, which has the 2011 copyright date on the contact info page and no other date apparently visible, has on "page 506" nothing but original text by the two UNC scholars who compiled the book in 2011 on it. In any case, it's possible that the page numbers in my copy are in error -- can you check the scholarly introduction to "The Letter of Pilate to Herod", which is chapter 30 (the eighth-to-last) of the book, and fix the page number(s) to cover the following two blocks of text? The text says In the Letter of Pilate [to Herod] he [Longinus] converts to become a blessed devotee of Jesus after being converted by him, personally after the resurrection. [...] this text shares more with the Handing Over of Pilate, where also Pilate and his wife, Procla, are portrayed as Christian converts, anyway, which would seem to support pretty much everything in that sentence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• This one (p. 506 in the cited book) showed up for me at Google Books. The 30th chapter starts at p. 517 afaics, ending at p. 521 – with that info it should probably be possible to set the page numbers straight: if the page with the 2nd footnote of that chapter doesn't show up (I couldn't make it show up in Google Books, however much I tried), maybe just replace the two separate references by a single one, referring to the chapter, page range 517–521, which should be accurate enough for WP:V. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I got as far as 517 to show up in the preview, so I can vouch for the whole introduction being on that page (read: just change 506 to 517). I'm pretty sure the Greek text is on pages 518 and 520, with the English on 519 and 521, but note 2 appears roughly half-way through the English text, which almost certainly takes up less than a page and a half (read: no matter how the font differs, it's almost certainly 519). The latter is a guesstimate, but I'd still say put 519 and WP:COMMENT that there's a small possibility that it's on 521. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. It was only 518 that wasn't in the preview. Note 2 is definitely on 519. I'll go ahead and fix it now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, was just able to see p. 519 too now. However, the 2nd footnote on that page says "Cf. Matt. 27:19", Cf. being an abbreviation of Latin confer, meaning "compare". The document containing something that can be "compared" to a verse in Matthew (according to the authors of the 21st-century book in their translation of the purportedly ancient text), is not the same as the original author of the Greek document "referencing" the Evangelist. So the current phrasing in the Wikipedia article isn't too sound WP:OR-wise. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. How about "contains a passage that is comparable to Matthew 27:19"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

"The apocryphal Letter of Pilate to Herod mentions the message Pilate's wife sent to her husband, comparable to the account of Matthew 27:19, and portrays..." is maybe a bit less vague than "contains a passage that..." without specifying what is in that passage. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that works. Honestly, I was having the opposite concern (I hate using primary sources, even on modern popular culture articles). But if you're cool with it, I am too. I normally wouldn't consider writing something vague like the above, except that "Matthew 27:19" is cited in the second sentence of the body and quoted in full thereafter (and if we're honest, it probably should be mentioned in the lead as well). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

That said, since it's a 3rd- or 4th-century composition (E&P cite an 1893 book by M. R. James and nothing else, indicating that they agree), it seems like a near-certainty that the author was familiar with Matthew and was "referencing" it, so if a source can be found that directly supports that, I think the original wording is still the best. (On a completely unrelated note: I missed it because the chapters are apparently out of order, but the text is Syriac, not Greek. E&P strongly hint that the text was originally composed in Greek, but that's off-topic for this article anyway.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Proceeded with a more thorough update (including tagging, regrouping, etc, etc) which appeared direly needed after the obviously necessary GA de-qualification. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Pontius Pilate's wife → Wife of Pontius Pilate – Consistent with Anne Hathaway (wife of Shakespeare) and Wang Yi (wife of Zhao Ang). Interstellarity (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose – see also #Requested move 28 April 2015 above. The rationales in the previous RM still seem valid, and not impressed by the "wife of ..."s in parentheses: in all of these cases "wife" is not capitalised, and the proposal is to move the current article to a version where "Wife of ..." is capitalised? Nah, prefer the current version where "wife" is not capitalised. As said, in addition to previous rationales given in the previous RM (and elsewhere). There's no fixed format in this case: if there was it should be mentioned at WP:NCP, which isn't the case. O, wait, "wife" is mentioned once in that guideline, in WP:NCP#Descriptive titles, where Pontius Pilate's wife is given as example. Why don't the others move to that format? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • This has nothing to do with whether "wife" should be capitalised in running prose (and it presumably shouldn't). —BarrelProof (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Soft oppose. This is what people call her. Compare Lot's wife. Consider that Pharaoh's daughter (Exodus) and Pharaoh's daughter (wife of Solomon) are not "Daughter of Pharaoh". Similarly Healing the mother of Peter's wife is not "Healing the mother of the wife of Peter". I would guess that the "wife of Shakespeare" and "wife of Solomon" form is used to separate the primary name ("Anne Hathaway", "Pharaoh's daughter") from the husband's name ("Shakespeare", "Solomon") for ease of reading, not for the sake of a perceived formality or anything like that. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per wp:COMMONNAME.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per opposers, and indexing convenience etc. Nb also Manoah's wife. People may be interested in the ongoing RM discussion at Talk:Zuleikha (tradition). Johnbod (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. If this were a matter of which sounds like the more "formal" title, then the proposal might pass by a nose. It's not a huge improvement. But because the search window is involved, and the choice is between leading with a specific phrase (Pontius Pilate) and a generic phrase (Wife of), the current title should win hands down. From a purely practical standpoint, if "Wife of..." were the standard entry for every wife of unknown or dubious name, it would quickly become difficult or impossible to use the search window's autocomplete feature to any benefit whatever. Whereas with "Pontius Pilate's..." anything, there are never going to be more than three or four entries, and it'll be easy to locate the right one. We don't want potentially dozens of entries about people's wives, from completely different times and places, all filed under 'wife of', any more than we would want to file a chair, a briefcase, a letter from Winston Churchill, and a spectator at the 1999 World Series under 'a'. Doing so makes about as much sense as moving this article to "Mrs. Pontius Pilate". Everyone would know who the title refers to, but nobody would expect to find her there. P Aculeius (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can we say that the verse in Matthew about Pontius Pilate's wife is "generally taken to be legendary rather than historical"?

The article says of Mt 27.16 that it is "generally taken to be legendary rather than historical." Three book sources are given to support this, but it seems to be a bit of a leap from "three bible commentators take it to be legendary rather than historical," to "it is generally taken to be legendary rather than historical". If someone could find four bible scholars - all with axes to grind no doubt - who would say that they take it as historical rather than legendary, would we then say "it is generally taken to be historical rather than legendary"? I think not.

I suggest that all we can say is that some scholars think it is historical, and some think it is legendary, and leave it at that.

Jinlye (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Jinlye, "generally taken"? "some scholars"? {{by whom?}} I would suggest you find a way to write this without weasel words. Preferably through in-text attribution to the sources. Elizium23 (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

These are not "three bible commentators. Bible commentary is an entirely different genre and is often religiously motivated. These are three scholars on Pontius Pilate/his wife. They do not state that the dream is "probably" legendary, but each states in absolute terms that it is legendary.

I challenge you to find any reliable source that states that it is a historical fact that Pontius Pilate's wife had a dream warning her husband to stay away from Jesus. The dream is in the realm of the miraculous and copies other well known tropes from contemporary religious legends.

The only change I would be willing to accept under these conditions is to the exact wording "this dream is a legendary rather historical account." That is what the sources say, and you won't find any reliable source that states otherwise. This is not a "teach the controversy" situation.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Ermenrich I wasn't impuning the cited scholars or doubting their bona fides. My point was that we cannot extrapolate from three scholars to "generally taken to be..." (in the sense of 'most people believe that...') unless we can find some survey where a statistically significant sample of the population has been asked "do you consider Mt 27.16 to be legendary rather than historical?" and more than 50% of respondents (including don't-knows) said "yes I consider Mt 27.16 to be legendary rather than historical". I know of no such survey, but if you do, please add it to the article to justify the use of the "it is generally taken" phrase. Thank you for your challenge to find any reliable source that states that it is a historical fact that Pontius Pilate's wife had a dream warning her husband to stay away from Jesus, but I will politely decline, because a) I can't find anyone who was there at the time, and b) that's not the point. My point, to reiterate it, is not about getting into a 'is it factual or not' debate, it is that "it is generally taken to be..." in the plain sense of the English language means "most people are sure that...", and the article provides no reliable source for that assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinlye (talk • contribs) 18:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest you look at the current text - it's no longer an issue.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, excellent fix, Ermenrich. I should check articles for revisions before follow-ups, and check my talks I am tagged in more often. Jinlye (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)