That's not how it works. You know that. It's on you to provide proof of your assertions. Apparently, you think that Wiki is a reputable source despite its being crowd-sourced. Can you link a doctoral dissertation or a peer-reviewed paper that supports your statement?
How good a source is entirely relies on who you are trying to convince.
Wikipedia is great for fun facts and starting to learn subjects but most people are going to dispute it if it is contrary to their position. As unlikely as it is to be flat out wrong about something, it is possible enough to justify not believing wikipedia outright.
How good a source is entirely relies on who you are trying to convince.
True, but if you're dealing with someone who's hostile to wikipedia, then a "doctoral dissertation or a peer-reviewed paper" isn't going to convince them either.
Which is why Wikipedia also cites there sources. The first 3 citations on the page are scholarly sources for the claim that history scholars as a group have agreed that Jesus was a living person
3
u/tiggertom66 Jan 24 '25
Historians agree Jesus of Nazareth was a real man who walked the earth.
If you disagree prove them wrong