Talk:Pontius Pilate

Bust of Pontius Pilate

Why is there no picture of Pontius Pilate's bust in the article? [1] Mysticair667537 (talk) 07:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

That’s some modern guys idea of what PP looked like, not a classical bust. The article doesn’t say they found one either.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

There is supposed to be one, so he could be more clearly demonstrated 45.146.232.68 (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

How are the coins relevant?

"Dated coins in the name of emperor Tiberius minted during Pilate's governorship also have survived."

How are they of any relevance here, if Pilate isn't mentioned on them? Arminden (talk) 10:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

They are something he’s demonstrated to have done while governor and are mentioned as such in any source discussing his governorship. Entire theories about his policies are based on the coins and their design.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: hi. I'm not a Catholic, I don't find sentences ex cathedra in any way convincing. Or polite and collegial. Please provide some sources answering to my very legitimate question: if the coins are not inscribed with his name, how are they relevant? What is written on them, how are they connected to him at all? I could imagine that if the years are inscribed on the coins, and the years coincide with firmly confirmed years of governorship by Pilate, then an indirect connection can be made, firm enough as to allow conclusions to be drawn. But there is nothing of the kind either in the article, nor in your harsh reply. This is not a way to make yourself understood - or accepted. Regards, Arminden (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I see the text says "dated coins". That's a start, the rest is still missing. If entire theories are based on the coins, please do elaborate. First and foremost, how exactly are the coins connected to Pilate? Thanks. Arminden (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

It says in the captions, & you've been told. He was responsible for minting them, as governor. That's enough. Johnbod (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Aye, aye, Captain, Sir!

Next time I join an army I'll make sure to remember. Going the way of the Schweik. Arminden (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The section of the article entitled Pontius_Pilate#Coins cites some sources (Bond and Taylor), but of course it would be good to have more. I'm sorry if you feel that people have been rude or uncollegial in this exchange, but I think the responses are just a bit terse and that is to be expected given the number of people who come to this talk page and adopt a pose of extreme skepticism without doing the work of looking for sources themselves or even reading the whole article. It would equally have been possible for you to ask for further evidence without making attacks on individuals or catholics. Furius (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm afraid you didn't get what I said. A sentence ex cathedra has to be accepted and followed, and the term stands for accepting someone else's authority w/o comment, let alone dissent. Mild irony is allowed, I have no idea what religion my distinguished co-editors are following, so I can hardly see that as an attack on Catholics. And yes, I did answer concretely to those who wrote back:

"The coins are relevant because the sources say they are".

"It says in the captions, & you've been told. He was responsible for minting them, as governor. That's enough."

Sorry again, but that is a. wrong, and b. not the proper way to discuss on WP in my opinion. Why wrong? Because the text as it is doesn't work logically (some logical links are presupposed, but not offered); and you can read at "Roman Procurator coinage: Pontius Pilate" how the argument can be built up, which is missing here, where it belongs at least as much as there, as it goes to the person and character of Pilate. Mind that the years in office are in doubt, which obliges the editor to be particularly careful when citing an indirect proof.

There can be no obligation to read a whole article, especially not such a long one. The least one can do is to use links, which are so easy to add.

The same material is present twice on the page (far from ideal), which only became obvious from the start (table of content) once I (re-)introduced the sub-headings, which had been kindly bulk-reversed by our colleague along with my "dubious" tags. See "Sources: Archaeology" & "Archaeology", and "Sources: Literary sources" & "Apocryphal texts and legends", respectively. Now I've added the needed links.

As to "It says in the captions": That whole part is as user-unfriendly and poorly edited as they come. This is not a numismatics magazine, the lingo used there is Chinese to most users (did I offend anyone Chinese? Sorry.) Why is Greek left untranslated? (Copy & paste must be the answer.) What makes LIZ or LIS mean what they're said to mean? Why is it "LIZ (year 16, 29/30 C.E.)" and then "LIS (year 16 = 29/30...", which one is a typo, or do both work and why? What is the source? And so forth. So no, I wouldn't let that pass in a million years - a logically lame statement in one section, supposedly explained (w/o indicating it) by a terribly poorly copy-edited caption several sections below. Arminden (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree. The article needs to be more specific and explain how are they exactly connected to Pilate in case of any dispute. 45.146.232.68 (talk) 10:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Have you considered looking at the sources on the coins if you’re concerned they aren’t relevant? Everything here is sourced, after all. The captions could use some attention, but the relevant section is under archaeology and the places you added tags are also sourced.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Look, one can go by TRUST, or by the LOGIC of the ARTICLE TEXT itself. Being about Wikipedia, I much prefer the latter. At face value (= immediate logic), a coin not bearing the name of Pilate doesn't add anything to the knowledge about him. If you go to the article about coins minted by the Roman governors of Judaea (which I had to discover myself; it wasn't linked), you see how a chain of logical links can indeed be created and conclusions about him drawn. But it's there, not here. Years in office - years on coins (part of uncontested, later years) - he chose the patterns - they include pagan symbols, which other governors have avoided - SOME conclude he was authoritarian toward Jews, OTHERS point to the fact that still, no portrait of the emperor used, so maybe not, or not really. That's the argument, not very conclusive but whatever - but it's there, not here. That's it. My brain lights up when smthg is lacking logic. Accepting a source as the ultimate argument to REPLACE logic doesn't cut it: the source, however RS, can be wrong or controversial, and even more: the EDITOR who cited it hasn't fully done his work if he didn't sum up the chain of arguments presented in the source. Arminden (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• These points are there at Pontius_Pilate#Coins. It is actually, your decision to split the sources section into multiple subsections has created a good part of this confusion, since it makes an introductory list of source material appear like a number of stubby sections... Thanks for the point about the typo in the caption. Furius (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Most welcome.

Now you're shooting the messenger. By creating a visible structure, it becomes obvious that the "Sources" section is in large parts covered/repeated/overlapping with the "Archaeology" section. This is a common result of creating sub-sections: hidden faults become visible. I did nothing wrong, I hardly changed a word when I rearranged the existing text by topics. As I keep on saying, this doubling of topics needs to be addressed. Making cosmetic fixes to a fundamentally wrong item never works well. Arminden (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The sources section describes what sources exist on Pilate. That hardly makes it into a repetitions of what’s elsewhere in the article. I don’t find the introduction of subsections helpful.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: please revert the removal of the sub-sections. I have made it very clear why they DO add to the quality of the article - they make it more user-friendly and editor-friendly, and make it visible that there is an overlap/repetition, which needs aďressing. You are not allowed to revert w/o discussing it here once it reaches this stage, this is rude on top of being counter-productive. Arminden (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I share the belief of editors Ermenrich and Furius that subsections do/did not help the Sources section. While it's clear one editor believes otherwise, let's please move on to something else. —ADavidB 03:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

ERA consensus

@Oopsemoops: please refer to the consensus from RFC above and revert your changes to the WP:ERA style. Elizium23 (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I can do that, but first, are you aware that both exist currently on the article? Usually there should just be one date/ERA system on a single article. Also, other articles I've seen on this subject use the CE style such as Pontius Pilate's wife just to take one example. TY. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 19:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Good, so do it. Elizium23 (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry if I came off as rude, I was just mentioning that this article seems to stand in isolation related to the others that are similar like that one, thats okay? — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 19:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

WTF?? You've been ADDING some CEs, and removing others. There are now a ridiculous number of era indications - PP might (just) have been born BC, but everything in the article is AD. We only need a few of these near the start. Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Pontius Pilate born c. 4 BC, died c. 40 AD

We can logically guess that Pontius Pilate was born c. 4 BC and died c. 40 AD. 2603:3020:BF5:4000:1188:B6E1:57BF:A3F6 (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you can, but that’s WP:OR.—Ermenrich (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Equitable Futures - Internet Cultures and Open Access

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HMartinez25 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by HMartinez25 (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Jesus

It's not an established historical fact that Pontius Pilate presided over the trial and execution of Jesus. There is insufficient reliable writing on this subject to make that determination. अल्ट्राबॉम्ब (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Not according to reliable sources there isn't. There is no doubt in the overwhelming majority of historians' minds that Pilate presided over the trial and execution of Jesus.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Based on what, one sentence in the writings of Tacitus? That's not enough. अल्ट्राबॉम्ब (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

You and I don’t get to decide what’s enough. WP:RS do.—-Ermenrich (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The only non-biblical citation in the article is someone named Helen Bond (007 relative?), the head of the University of Edinburgh School of Divinity and a Christian, hardly what I'd call a source of unquestionable objectivity. अल्ट्राबॉम्ब (talk) 04:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)