Talk:Jesus bloodline/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Rex Deus Merge?

Shouldn't there be some real research into the probability of Jesus being married, taking into account the time period, culture and his status in life? I am not an expert, but there must be some acctual investigation of this. There seems to be considerable overlap here with the Rex Deus article. Perhaps they should be merged. Paul B 12:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting, thanks Paul, hadn't seen that article. Seems from a casual inspection like there's more places where the phrase "Jesus bloodline" is used that the slightly pompous "Rex Deus", maybe just make Rex Deus a reference to the bloodline? There's a bit if info in the Deus page that isn't in the bloodline page though, for example on comparative religion, the Druze, and the "shadow court", etc. What thinks you my liege? MarkThomas 12:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The Rex Deus article was merged with the Jesus bloodline article. --Loremaster (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

More sources

I think more sources should be added to the article, The Da Vinci Code and Holy Blood, Holy Grail, yes are very good sources, but more sources are needed to fully understand the Jesus bloodline, you know, movies and books about the Jesus bloodline theory, one example of a movie is, The Last Tempation of Christ. And yes, with more sources, maybe the article can be expanded, and maybe a genelogy based on the books based on the Jesus bloodline theory can be made, well, I can do it myself, if I knew more about the Jesus bloodline theory.

Good question - which leads to the inevitable answer and conclusion that 'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' inspired Margaret Starbird, Laurence Gardner, Timothy Wallace-Murphy, and a host of other authors both in pseudo-history and in fiction (of which Dan Brown is the most famous, but only one out of many other novelists that were inspired by 'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail'). Everything begins with 1982 when 'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' was first published and does not go back any further. When someone out there claims that Sara the servant of Mary was "the daughter of Jesus" that statement does not exist in the medieval legend - it is a modern interpretation of the medieval legend designed to fit-in with the desired belief that Jesus had children. And so on. Wfgh66 14:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Statistics and descendants

The quoted source says:

[i]f anyone living today is descended from Jesus, so are most of us on the planet.

This implies that one of two things is the case:

  • A very large number of people living today ("most of us on the planet") is descended from Jesus.
  • No one living today is descended from Jesus.

This argument is correctly summarized in the edit that I made:

The notion that a person living millennia ago has a small but nonzero number of descendants living today is statistically improbable.

The text that was previously in the article, which User:Lowell33 wants to reinsert, said:

The notion that a person living today has a small number of ancestors from millennia ago is statistically incorrect.

The problems with User:Lowell33's text are that is not the argument of the source (thus failing WP:V and WP:OR), and that it is not in fact relevant to this topic. It is true that, as we go back millennia, the potential number of ancestors in any given generation increases. However, this fact is not in any way an argument against the Jesus bloodline theory. The Jesus bloodline theory claims only that some people today have Jesus as one of their countless ancestors. For example, say that Jesus is George Bush's ancestor from 100 generations ago. Then Jesus would be only one of a potential 2^100 ancestors of Bush from that generation. But so what? Why does this pose a problem for the theory? And where is this argument made in the quoted source?

Please do not revert again without answering these questions. Thanks. Grover cleveland (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you've got it backwards. It is not "improbable" that a person living millennia ago has a "small but nonzero number of descendants living today." It's impossible. That person either has no descendants or many, many descendants ("most of us on the planet").
The "problem for the theory" in your George Bush example isn't that Bush is one of Jesus' many descendants. The problem is that there's nothing special about that. If Bush is Jesus' descendant, then so is everybody else. There is no "bloodline" that distinguishes Bush from anyone else. That's why I think it's important to phrase it in a way that goes from the purported contemporary descendant to the purported ancient ancestor. (Rather than from the ancient ancestor to the contemporary descendant, as you have phrased it.) That shows that, even if this particular contemporary person is a descendant of this particular ancient ancestor, there's nothing special about that. You could say it about virtually anyone. Lowell33 (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Lowell, Based on your point above on this talk page, it seems that we basically agree in our understanding of the argument. You say
even if this particular contemporary person is a descendant of this particular ancient ancestor, there's nothing special about that. You could say it about virtually anyone.
I think this is a fine summary of the argument, and I would have no objection to putting something like that in the main article. However, I just don't see how the original wording of
The notion that a person living today has a small number of ancestors from millennia ago is statistically incorrect
expresses that argument. What does the number of ancestors of an arbitrary person living today have to do with number of descendants of Jesus living today? I just don't see the logical connection. (btw, I don't have strong feelings about "improbable" vs. "impossible" -- if you prefer "impossible" I guess that's OK, though it's not strictly impossible, if you imagine an extremely inbred dynasty!) Grover cleveland (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


No, it's entirely possible for someone from 2000 years ago to have exactly one living descendant, and it wouldn't require any kind of close inbreeding. If person A and his/her spouse have one child (B), and then B marries some random person from anywhere in the gene pool and they have one child (C) together, and then person C marries some random unrelated person and they have one child (D) together, and so on. Of course, it isn't even necessary for each generation to have just one child--they can have more, so long as those childrens' bloodlines die out completely at some point along the way--which definitely does happen in real life.

I'm not enough of a demographic statistician to be able to calulate the likelihood of person A having exactly one descendant 2000 years later, but it's clearly possible and wouldn't require any more inbreeding than is inherent in the fact that all the people on earth are cousins to some degree.

That said, I think there's a high probability that the Jesus Bloodline story is a load of malarkey.

65.213.77.129 (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Claimants - Jesus Bloodline

Kathleen McGowan, Niven Sinclair (and possibly Michel Roger Lafosse) all claim to be of the Jesus bloodline. Wfgh66 (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The madness continues... That being said, I agree that we should create a new section for notable claimants. However, we absolutely need to cite sources. --Loremaster (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I heard somewhere that Joseph Smith and/or the Mormon priesthood claim to be of the Jesus bloodline. If it's true, they should be included in this section. --Loremaster (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This is Vern G. Swanson's book, Dynasty of the Holy Grail: Mormonism's Sacred Bloodline (Cedar Fort; 2006). Mormons believe that Jesus Christ was married though this cannot be traced back to the founder, Joseph Smith jr, and I'm unsure if the idea extended into a bloodline.Wfgh66 (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. --Loremaster (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Niven Sinclair hinted that the Sinclairs of Rosslyn were of the Jesus bloodline on an ABC Documentary (he's a serious follower of the books by Laurence Gardner and a friend of Tim Wallace-Murphy of Rex Deus fame), though his blood relationship to the Sinclairs of Rosslyn has to be established; need to read the books by Olsson and Lafosse to obtain solid citations (Olsson's claim existed in an article on her website that's no longer there). Laurence Gardner promoted Lafosse in his book 'Bloodline of the Holy Grail' as the descendant of Christ but would need to consult his latest books Forgotten Monarchy and Knights Templar of the Middle East to see how he stands on the matter these days. Here are links on Kathleen McGowan: [1] and [2] Wfgh66 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. However, let's limit this section to people who have themselves claimed to be of the Jesus bloodline rather than claimed by others to avoid a dispute. --Loremaster (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Geza Vermes and a married Jesus

User:Loremaster wrote:

Some prominent scholars involved in the quest for the historical Jesus, such as Géza Vermes, counter that the notion that Jesus was married and had a child or children is not only possible and probable but should not be viewed as "heretical", "blasphemous" or "anti-Christian". However, they are critical of claims made about a hypothetical Jesus bloodline which originate from works of pseudohistory and conspiracy theory.

I found this reference:

Geza Vermes summary is: "Against such a background of first-century AD Jewish opinion, namely that the prophetic destiny entailed amongst other things a life of continence, Jesus' apparent voluntary embrace of celibacy, at any rate from the time of his reception of the holy spirit, becomes historically meaningful." Jesus the Jew, Geza Vermes, Fortress: 1973, pp.284.

Wfgh66 (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was in the process of replacing Vermes with some other scholar when I read something similar. --Loremaster (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Marvin Meyer cannot be classed as a typical Gnostic scholar, since most Gnostic scholars accept that Gnostics rejected the physical substance of Christ, and that the act of procreation by their Saviour was considered unthinkable. Wfgh66 (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The statement I am writing is about the opinion of some mainstream scholars I have read. If Marvin Meyer is not a good reference for this statement, remove him since I am not the one who wanted to cite him. That being said, to avoid an edit war, please refrain from editing this statement until I have provided a reference since we are clearly not talking about the same thing. --Loremaster (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

About the New Age / Devotion section

I do not consider New Age an appropriate title for this section. Also, some of these new religious movements might legitimately reject the label New Age; and 2) we need sources who describe them as being New Age. --Loremaster (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

New Age is an umbrella term for all modern alternative religious movements that oppose the established forms of belief. What's the problem? It always has been. New Religious Movement spring up but they model themselves on established religions and usually differ in marginal areas. Wfgh66 (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Even if this is true, I don't think it fits as the title of a section. --Loremaster (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Margaret Starbird describes herself as a genuine Roman Catholic. Does that mean that we have to place the Jesus bloodline article under the category of Roman Catholic? I have read the article New Religious Movements and the Jesus bloodline does not really fit into that category since it is about religious movements that have heads and leaders, and movements that are generally organised, something not apparent in relation to Jesus bloodline and those who have chosen it as the focus of their religious faith. Wfgh66 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Please provide second or third-party sources for your opinion. --Loremaster (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Read Margaret Starbird's books, messages on internet discussion lists, and her comments on her website. Not "my opinion" at all. Also, read how Sandra Miesel poked fun at Starbird in her review of "The Da Vinci Code". Wfgh66 (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. Please provide sources which explain that Jesus bloodline devotees are "New Age" or "new religious movements". By the way, I hope you realize that messages on internet discussion lists can NOT be considered as reliable sources. --Loremaster (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

New Age is the only terminology that can be used to define the Jesus bloodline as an object of religious devotion. New Age is a terminology that encapsulates all forms of alternative religion. Obviously, those disagreeing with this statement need to subscribe to a few Yahoo Groups devoted to the Jesus and Mary bloodline (there are quite a few), and then to see the various Yahoo IDs and check out the Profiles and Photos. These people can only be considered as classic examples (or caricatures) of New Age stereotypes. Wfgh66 (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  1. Please provide sources which state the Jesus bloodline as an object of devotion falls under the category of New Age.
  2. Describing people who belong to a Yahoo Group as "classic examples (or caricatures) of New Age stereotypes" is an opinion (and a prejudiced one at that) not a fact. Inserting opinions in an article goes against the Wikipedia:No original research guidelines.
--Loremaster (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've recycled the content from the deleted New Age devotion section for a new section called Religious adherence. After thinking about it, I have come to conclusion that the use of the expression "New Age" is appropriate if properly contextualized. If anyone has problems with this section, please discuss it here for deleting anything. --Loremaster (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wfgh66, please do not delete the new Religious adherence section without discussing it here otherwise it will create a dispute and edit war that can be easily avoided if everyone acts maturely. --Loremaster (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Religious Adherence section

Why change something that is concise, simple, easy to understand and to the point???? Your latest wording to the category that I introduced was stodgy and cumbersome like some overweight elephant. Can't we leave the existing description as it is, and not devote too much diffuse explanations of something that does not need that much attention? Wfgh66 (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I simply disagree that your contribution was "concise, simple, easy to understand and to the point" since it confuses the Jesus bloodline with the sacred feminine, which are two related yet different concepts. Furthermore, I consider that the new section (that I have improved in light of your criticisms) is far more comprehensive, which a Wikipedia article should always strive for. --Loremaster (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Still not good enough, it is all rubbish. The believers swoon over the erotic energy between Jesus and Mary in the act of coitus that produces the bloodline. And you cannot merge "liberal Christianity" with "New Age". That's atrocious! Wfgh66 (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It ultimately doesn't matter what you think is good enough. That being said, I'm confused: Are you saying that believers do or do not "swoon over the erotic energy between Jesus and Mary in the act of coitus that produces the bloodline"? Regardless of your answer, that's not what I wrote. As for "merging liberal Christianity with New Age" as you call it, it is simply a fact that some New Agers are liberal Christians. --Loremaster (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
But what you think is good enough has to override others' opinions! Liberal Christianity involves churchgoing and an attempt to radicalise the status quo of the religion. New Age is rebellion against religion and viewing Christianity as some sort of pagan religion that would never incur churchgoing. Wfgh66 (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It doesnt mattter what *I* think is good enough. What matters is whether both of us are following Wikipedia guidelines or, in this particular case, the spirit of Wikipedia which encourages comprehensiveness (not neglecting major facts and details). I completely disagree with your opinion that Liberal Christianity and New Age are inherently antagonistic. However, to avoid a dispute/edit war over such a trivial aspect of the article, I'm willing to let it go. --Loremaster (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the current contribution is good enough. There does not have to be too much explanation involved to something which is easy to understand. Surely???Wfgh66 (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. The goal should be comprehensiveness: (not neglecting major facts and details). --Loremaster (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you agree that the current edit is satisfactory? Wfgh66 (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
No. --Loremaster (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Everyone knows that all conventional and traditional religions reject the bloodline theory without having to read it. Surely that self-evident fact does not have to be put in writing? And there can only ever be one category of people who devote themselves to it. Wfgh66 (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
No. Not everyone knows that. I know many people who are completely clueless about the most fundamental beliefs of Christianity so we have to write a comprehensive encyclopedic article while operating under the assumption that most readers are unchurched. --Loremaster (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. But there is a huge difference between Liberal Christianity and New Age that needs to be addressed. Namely that whatever form of Christianity the New Age devotees accept it will invariably be of such an extreme nature that it will never involve churchgoing, an issue that does not affect Liberal Christianity. Wfgh66 (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You seem to have a very rigid understanding of what liberal Christianity is and can be. Regardless, as I said above, to avoid a dispute/edit war over such a trivial aspect of the article, I'm willing to let it go. --Loremaster (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Even Liberal Christians who do not believe in things like the Virgin Birth and the Resurection still go to church. New Age devotees would never consider setting foot in a church. Am I wrong about this? Wfgh66 (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, you have too much of a rigid interpretation of what liberal Christianity is and isn't but it's a moot point. --Loremaster (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

After much editing to improve the prose, I'm almost satisfied with the current version of the Religious adherence section. I hope everyone is happy. --Loremaster (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Suzanne Olsson link spamming?

I wish to add a few words here. I have spent past several hours checking various sites at Wikipedia. I noticed that someone keeps inserting the name of Suzanne Olsson with links back to a web site called 'The Refiner's Fire' where Olsson is then attacked. Is there a way to block this person from inserting links at Wikipedia that obviously have a questionable intent? I have been removing them (including from this page) as I find them, which is a random hit and miss endeavor. Please advise. Thanks. R. Tabor. May 13, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by R.Tabor (talk • contribs) 02:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Post a description of the problem at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. That being said, there is nothing wrong with posting links to the website of a source that is critical of a subject. The issue is whether or not the source is reliable, which they don't seem to be in this case. Therefore, I've restored the mention of Suzanne Olsson in the Claimants section of the Jesus bloodline article and added a "citation needed" tag. --Loremaster (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing dubious calling Susanne Olssen the descendant of Jesus Christ. There is a review of her book by Fida Hassnain on Amazon.com where he calls her "the descendant of Christ." Wfgh66 (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. We must remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person. Therefore, we need to cite either a work of scholarship or an article from a mainstream news organization, which makes it clear that Suzanne Olsson (or anyone else) claims to be a descendant of Jesus(!). Some self-published website from a non-notable writer doesn't cut it. A review on Amazon.com even less. So please find better. Until then any mention of Olsson in the Claimants section will be deleted. --Loremaster (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

R.Tabor, please stop deleting sourced content from the article without discuss it here first. --Loremaster (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Why was Suzanne Olsson deleted from the list of claimants?

Why was Suzanne Olsson deleted from the list of claimants? There was no rational reason for this. She was dragged into an anti-Kathleen McGowan thread on an internet discussion list not long ago presented as the real descendant of Jesus in preference to McGowan. Wfgh66 (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, Wfgh66, for an independent researcher who, despite his bias and zeal, has an erudite knowledge on a wide range of topics, and an editor who have been contributing to Wikipedia for years now; I am stunned that you do not seem to understand what is and isn't a reliable source! Do you understand that some thread on an Internet discussion list OR a customer review on Amazon.com OR a self-published website by an non-notable writer are NOT reliable sources for an encyclopedic article? You are a smart man so I am sure you do. Therefore, I have to assume that you simply don't care about standards. As Wikipedia guidelines explicitly state, "Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person." Therefore, we need a *reliable* source that reports that Suzanne Olsson herself claims to be a descendant of Jesus. If we can't find one, we can't mention her in the Claimants sections until we do. Is that a rational enough reason for you? --Loremaster (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The "reprinted with persmission" open letter to Kathleen McGowan from Suzanne Olsson, which states she is a descendant of the bloodline of Jesus, is a good enough source. I consider this dispute resolved. --Loremaster (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
A statement from the horse's mouth on the internet for the entire world's population to see is not good enough? You're getting to be as bad as the goofballs, Loremaster.Wfgh66 (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Did you understand what I just said? I said it is good enough. So what's your problem? --Loremaster (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I apologise. I misread your statement. Wfgh66 (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Apology accepted. --Loremaster (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed Suzanne Olsson from the list of claimants once again. The source provided does not appear to support her inclusion. Per the biographies of living persons policy, this removal is not subject to the three revert rule. If you believe I am mistaken, please discuss the matter here. CIreland (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In a "reprinted with persmission" Open letter to Kathleen McGowan from Suzanne Olsson, the author, Suzanne Olsson states:

I have a genealogy in my family that goes as far back as a generation or two after Jesus. It is irrefutable and unwaiving. It has nothing to do with Laurence Gardner's books or Dan Brown, or Michael Baigent's claims. Why do you think I followed the trail to India? There is a scroll with the family genealogy on it. There are people there who claim direct descent to Jesus through that scroll and the location where it was found. It is not a "secret" scroll. We were getting ready to make it public.

If one takes into account several sources online which state that Suzanne Olsson is a descendant of Jesus (one source is a colleague of Olsson), can someone explain to me why the mention of Suzanne Olsson in the Claimants section of the Jesus bloodline article keeps getting deleted? I can understand people wanted to remove links to websites that personally attack Olsson but this isn't the issue at hand. --Loremaster (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the quotation above and the open letter in full do not contain a claim by Suzanne Olsson that she is descended from Jesus. CIreland (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it's an issue of interpretation and context. However, I am willing to wait until we find a better source. --Loremaster (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
See also the discussion at Talk:Suzanne Olsson, in particular that comments by John Vandenberg. I don't see the interpretation that you seem to but, given the use of rhetoric in the letter, clarity is lacking. However, for this kind of extremely controversial (and potentially damaging) claim about an individual I think we need a cast-iron source. CIreland (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. That's what I was trying to explain to Wfgh66 earlier. --Loremaster (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
What has saved you (and it appears Suzanne Olsson, who is now ashamed of her previous claims), is that I did not save the webpage in question that Suzanne Olsson removed from her website, providing a genealogy from the present day to the time of Jesus Christ, together with "legal verification" of the material in question. Otherwise, I would have placed it back online myself. Wfgh66 (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You can always use the Wayback Machine of the Internet Archive to track down old pages of websites... --Loremaster (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Does Suzanne Olsson here claim to be the descendant of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene? http://web.archive.org/web/20060618031440/jesus-kashmir-tomb.com/GeneaologyA.html Wfgh66 (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I think she does:

The Genealogy (Bloodline from Mary Magdalene) appears below, from Jesus and Mary Magdalena to this author’s family. Prior to that, we follow the bloodline of King David. We are very unique to have these records survive for so many thousands of years.

I'm restoring the mention of Suzanne Olsson in the Claimants section using this source. --Loremaster (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I concur. However, I think you need to add a clarification that this is someone who has previously claimed to be a descendant. The fact that her webpages are no longer extant, may imply that she no longer claims this (or it may not, it is uncertain). CIreland (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the issue is whether or not a person at some point in time has made a public claim (which can be found and referenced) regardless of whether they continue to make the claim. --Loremaster (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Loremaster and Paul, let me make this very clear once again. The geneology was based (in part) upon a book published by Laurence Gardner, 'Bloodline of the Holy Grail' and at all times Olsson clearly stated the proof was lacking...this was all mere speculation. As soon as the Gardner geneology tables were questioned, Olsson removed her geneology and submitted many open letters to the effect that no one can make such claims without solid proof such as DNA. She then set out to obtain DNA, often at great personal risk. Paul and 'Loremaster' seem determined to beat up on Olsson without giving any recognition to the fact that even she disputed these charts and attempted to set the reord straight. At no time and nowhere did she EVER claim she was a decendant.She has repatedly made that clear publically on the internet and in numerous articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmir2 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Kashmir2 is Suzanne Olsson. Wfgh66 (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
No Paul, Kashmir 2 is my grandaughter who cannot be here all day to follow you around and take notes of your irresponsible "editing" and behavior. and asked for my help to undo the damage and harrassment you have been wreaking all over Wikipedia. I know you would prefer to beat up children instead of Olsson, but sorry, you are stuck until she returns.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmir2 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Kashmir2, regardless of the nuances, rationalizations and retractions, an unambiguous claim was made on a notable individual's personal website that can be found and referenced. Although the claim can be better contextualized in the Claimants section of the Jesus bloodline to avoid misinterpretation, it should not be deleted. Furthermore, although you have a right to remain anonymous, if you are Suzanne Olsson or one of her relatives, you should be aware that there is a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy that you should read and respect. That being said, I am restoring the mention of Suzanne Olsson in the Claimants section of the Jesus bloodline with a better context. --Loremaster (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Lore, who died and made you Grand Master of Wiki edits? Paul, I cannot believe you because you obviously have an agenda here. If I reinserted the links and dug up every verification demanded here, you would still feel compelled to pursue your agenda,. whatever that is. As for the 'Jesus Bloodline' section, I will continue to edit there as well. I have repeatedly made it clear that at I support the DNA evidence only. I have taken great personal risks trying to protect the sites that could contribute to this research. Several of these projects are still very active and ongoing. You are putting years of work at serious potential risk because if you continue to strip me of credibility, there also go the projects that the world so depserately needs now. I am saddened and dissapointed that you go so far and without any thought to the consequences of your actions. I would prefer the Wiki page be deleted forever and if you can do that, it will be the only good thing I can give you credit for. I am saddened for my grandaughter but we must settle these issues now. Please delete the page and never use my name again. Thank you. Suzanne Olsson (on behalf of Kashmir2) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Suzanne_Olsson" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmir2 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Unlike Paul Smith, I'm not a zealous debunker of the Priory of Sion hoax and its related subjects. I have simply taken an interest in various articles I now maintain on my watchlist. I am willing to collaborate with anyone to make Jesus bloodline a well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable article. So I don't have an agenda but it is clear that not only do YOU have an agenda but also an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to editing the Suzanne Olsson article and the Jesus bloodline article. I don't care (nor should I care) that my editing of these articles to reports facts may jeopardize your precious years of "work". The only consequences of my actions I should have a thought for is whether or not the Jesus bloodline article is the best possible resource for anyone (e.g. students, journalists, cultural critics) who is interested in the subject. Nothing more. Nothing less. Now, if you continue to vandalize this article, I will be forced to report you to Wikipedia administrators who will temporarily or, if necessary, permanently block you from contributing to Wikipedia. --Loremaster (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the Claimants section of the article to state the following:

Suzanne Olsson, an American author (who retracted her claim, and is actively seeking DNA from several ancient tombs to aid in clarification of such claims).[1]

Can unbiased parties accept this reasonable compromise? --Loremaster (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

FOR YOUR INFORMATION, this information has been banned from being included in the Suzanne Olsson article. Wfgh66 (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I see. I didn't follow that debate. Although I disagree with this decision, I have no choice but to respect it. --Loremaster (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Suzanne Olsson and Co. are claiming that by inserting her name into the list of claimants that this part of a "personal vendetta" by me against her. This is how low they are now prepared to stoop. And they are bringing elements into the argument that have no bearing on Wikipedia whatsoever, just so long as they can have their way so as not to have their name included in the list of claimants. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It's outrageous but I'm not going to get involved in rectifying this error. --Loremaster (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Olsson and Hassnain

Olsson and Hassnain's books are universally regarded as being fringe material. The reference to Faber-Kaiser's book was made simply to refer to a claimant of the Jesus bloodline, not to cite any notability of the subject matter in Faber-Kaiser's book. The subject matter itself is fringe material. Wfgh66 (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Loremaster (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think both Loremaster and Wfgh66 have completely misunderstood the issues at hand. Olsson researched claims by Gardner about bloodlines, but she also researched claims by Bashrat Shaheen (Saleem) in India. He claims to be decended from Jesus on the India side of the family. Millions of Ahmadi Muslims believe these claims as well. Hassnain and Olsson have produced 3-4 books dealing with the topic of possible bloodlines of Jesus in Asia.The article about Jesus bloodlines is not limited to European claimants is it? To call them 'fringe' is a reflection of ignorance. This topic is not well received among Chrisitians who believe Jesus died on the cross and never went to India. But there are a few billion people on the other side of the world who do not regard this as "fringe" at all. They are entitled to same access to information as European claimants. You are being grossly unfair and not allowing healthy balance of views. Wfgh66 insist this is about Olsson denying bloodlines. No. That does not appear to be the issue at all. It is Olsson who published in-depth accounts of others who claim bloodlines and it is Olsson who asks for DNA as only valid proof for anyones' claims. This is relevent research in anyone's book.

On other Wiki pages in similar topic, they are even allowing mention of UFO's and channeling as a valid source for reference at Wikipedia! Goes to show you how ridiculous these issues get. Please help me to reinstate Hassnain and Olsson books because they are more valuable and valid to this topic than sourcing claiments of UFO's as a "reliable" source (Jmanuel by Jim Deardorf)or fictional self-published books as inclusion of 'Roza Bal Line ' by Shawn Haigins....

I trust we can work together to make Wiki editors appear fair, rational, and sane, even when the topic is not. Thank You.NewYork10021 (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's WP Policy on Fringe Material:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe theories
Wfgh66 (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, for a few days now, I have been thinking about how to incorporate the Kashmiri version of the Jesus bloodline hypothesis (as long as this fringe theory is not given undue weight) since I agree with you that the article should not be limited to the "eurocentric" versions of this hypothesis. However, we would need evidence before incorporating the statement that there are millions of Ahmadi Muslims who believe in claims reported by Andreas Faber-Kaiser or Suzanne Olsson. --Loremaster (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Basharat Saleem was a claimant, and I used Faber-Kaiser's book simply for a citation. Are we removing another claimant from the list? Wfgh66 (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm talking about improving and expanding the Thesis section of the Jesus bloodline article. --Loremaster (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I made a lengthy post in reply but it doesn't appear. Did I hit the wrong button?NewYork10021 (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. However, if you are interested in contributing to the Jesus bloodline article or any Wikipedia article, I strongly recommend you read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Manual of style pages. Also, when you comment on a talk page, you should only sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your messages (not the beginning and the end as you are currently doing). --Loremaster (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Lore, Thank you for your ongoing help. According to the link you provided,

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia."

"The prohibition against original research limits the possibility that editors may present their own points of view in articles. By reinforcing the importance of including verifiable research produced by others, this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view."

So if the theory of a Jesus bloodline in Kashmir has existed for years and appeared in publications worldwide since the mid 1800's, this would constitute verifiablility of theories already published in reliable sources? And if the authors are reviewed and copied and relied upon for further research, and appear regularly in newspapers and magazines and books and films, then the authors are mainstream and not fringe or self-promoting...is this correct?NewYork10021 (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes but my only concern is the Wikipedia:Undue weight guideline. --Loremaster (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I read the link you provided. It does seem to get complex when making decisions. If I can help you with anything, I will. I am sure you will make interesting decisions. It is an interesting topic. Thank You.NewYork10021 (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll let you know. --Loremaster (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me know too, although apparently I don't know very much. I am a fringe something or other who wrote some aweful non-book about Jesus or aliens or bloodlines or fishing...I can't quite recall now..I feel somewhat brain-dead after an evening's exploration here at Wiki..I feel like a basket case (hmm, but then that's how Moses started out too as I recall) Good luck with your page here. It looks like it's going to be very interesting. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It might take some time before I get around expanding the article to include more information about the Kashmiri Jesus bloodline hypothesis. Others are obvioulsy free to do it. However, I will not tolerate original research especially if it does not respect the Wikipedia manual of style. --Loremaster (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I've radically improved the article but I haven't included information about the Kashmiri Jesus bloodline hypothesis or any of the other hypotheses. If anyone wants to work on that, go ahead and I'll tweak your contributions if necessary. --Loremaster (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Barbara Aho

I don't believe Aho qualifies as a reliable source. watch.pair.com appears to be her own website, which means she is self-published. I don't find any books by her at Amazon, so I don't see that her self-published material meets any of the exception which would allow its use. Wednesday Next (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I'll delete the paragraph which cites her as a source and restore it when I find a more reliable one. --Loremaster (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
To hell with your useless way of rubbish thinking. You are rubbish. Wfgh66 (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The paragraph I deleted was reporting a fringe theory from an unreliable source. Can you explain why my thinking on this particular issue is "rubbish" when it is based on Wikipedia guidelines? --Loremaster (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Wednesday Next, I've restored that paragraph but rephrased to present the "maintream Christian" view rather than a fringe one for now. --Loremaster (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)