Talk:Pontius Pilate's wife

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Pontius Pilate's wife has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
May 26, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy. See also The Oriental Orthodoxy Portal. (with unknown importance)
This article is supported by WikiProject Saints. See also the Saints Portal. (with unknown importance)
This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. See also the Eastern Christianity Portal. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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."

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:
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)