text:
Talk:Massacre of the Innocents/Archive 1

Curious similarities between Indian and Abrahamic religions
The similarities and common heritage (including deities, saints, customs and beliefs) within Indian faiths (Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, etc) and within Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are probably well-known and over-researched. However, I'm often surprised by several such "historic incidents" or "beliefs" that are common to both Indian and Abrahamic faiths. The massacre of the innocents, for example, is very similar to an incident mentioned in several ancient Indian scriptures relating to the birth of Krishna (the eighth avatar of the Hindu God Vishnu as per the Dasavatara tradition) wherein the contemporary King Kamsa (also the maternal uncle of Krishna) of Mathura (the place of Krishna's birth), afraid of losing the throne and his grip on the kingdom when he came to know of a prophecy, ordered the execution of new-born male children in Mathura. Of course, there are several other such similar traditions between Indian and Abrahamic religions, such as a giant life-wiping deluge (the manifestation of Pralaya on Earth), the efforts of some sages to save life by building a vessel and collecting herds of animals in it, etc etc, the list is probably long. What is not unarguably clear is whether it is Indian events that have influenced or given rise to the Biblical beliefs or vice-versa. It may be dangerous to conclude that the former is more likely solely on the simplistic data that Hinduism and other Indian religions pre-date Abrahamic ones, because it is generally accepted that "incremental embellishments" were continually made to most ancient Indian scriptures right through into the 1st millenium A.D. But this is all very interesting indeed, and I wish more work existed to research and document the commonalities between Indian and Abrahamic faiths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.95.130 (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments
Title -- I think that I've always called this story "The Slaughter of the Innocents" or "The Slaughter of the Holy Innocents". Perhaps this is Commonwealth countries usage? (martin a.)

Is there any evidence of this from primary sources and/or contemporaneous writers? IIRC, it is only in one of the gospels, and is not in Josephus or other writers who described the reign of Herod. --FOo

 * I'd have to check, but it probably shows up in the Infancy Gospel of James, or some such account. There's also a tradition that says John the Baptist had to be hid as an infant as well to escape this massacre, but I'm not sure how old that is or its source. Wesley
 * I think the John the Baptist tradition comes from the Infancy Gospel of James as well. Clinkophonist 11:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The scale of the event
I moved this from the article to here: It has been estimated (by whom?) that, if the story is true, 20 to 30 little boys were killed. - Zoe

 * I saw something like that in a documentary on TV. It is based on estimates of Bethlehem's population at the beginning of the Common Era, and does not seem unreasonable.  Sorry, I don't have a better reference, but it does not seem suspicious enough to remove from the article.  SCCarlson

Yes, the 20-30 figure was mentioned ina Discovery Channel documentary, which explained that the relatively small number of people killed could be the answer as to why is was not recorded by contemporary historians.

JW: The article says: "Brown estimates that the population was no more than a thousand. Given the birth rate and high infant mortality rate of the time, either of these figures would mean at most only a few dozen children killed."

This refers to page 204 of The Birth Of The Messiah and Brown indicates no such thing. The numbers you attribute to Brown above are Brown's summary of Apologist arguments and not Brown's argument. Brown indicates that based on what "Matthew" wrote the numbers would be much larger and therefore less plausible.

If you want to try and defend against error you first have to deal with the proper translation of "Bethlehem and its vicinity" which most Christian translations have mistranslated thereby underestimating the area referred to. Once you have done this then you can properly estimate the number of innocents "Matthew" intended and you have a default position that this would be the worst thing Herod ever supposedly did. Then you need to identify what was the worst thing Josephus identifed that Herod did and compare it to the slaughter of the Innocents.

When you refer to Apologist arguments this is what you end up with. Joseph
 * Can this be worked into the article in a factual and neutral way? --Wetman 20:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

JW: Okay, here's what Brown says, Pages 204-205:

"The double use of "all" ("regions all around it") in this verse gives the impression of large numbers. Despite the obvious storytelling atmosphere, those interested in establishing the historicity of the event have calculated how many children there would have been in a village like Bethlehem and its surroundings. Because of the high infant mortality rate, we are told that if the total population was one thousand, with an annual birthrate of thirty, the male children under two years of age would scarcely have numbered more than twenty. In this thought pattern the lowness of the number is judged to increase the likelihood, as opposed to the tendency in later writing to exaggerate the number."

Not exactly a ringing endorsement by Brown of the "no more than a thousand" and "at most only a few dozen children killed" assertions in The Article. Now Brown doesn't use the "fantastic" word here which he reserves for the worst Apologies but he doesn't bother to give a footnote reference either. The references in the article to Brown and the numbers above need to be removed.

Joseph

JW: (From Article) "If the event is historical, given the small size of "Bethlehem and its vicinity," it did not involve a large number of boys age two and under. Albright estimates the area had about 300 people at the time. Brown estimates that the population was no more than a thousand. Given the birth rate and high infant mortality rate of the time, either of these figures would mean at most only a few dozen children killed.[2] This would not have been a particularly large atrocity for the period in general and Herod in particular and thus might have escaped mention by Josephus and others."

I can see that Price changed his footnote reference based on what I've written above but the Article itself has not been changed. "Brown estimates that the population was no more than a thousand." No, Brown doesn't say this. Read your own article Price, I know it's confusing now since you had to change it. Brown is reporting what Apologists say. Read properly Brown is saying that reasoning related to the supposed Massacre is Conclusion based. The Early Church wanted big numbers. Modern Apologists, concerned with Historicity, want small numbers. This is Brown's point. The reasoning is Conclusion driven. Thanks for showing us how the Apologist game is played.

Here's a suggestion, read all of The Birth Of The Messiah and not just parts you think agree with your conclusions. Then you will see Page 36:

"Indeed, close analysis of the infancy narratives makes it unlikely that either account is completely historical. Matthew's account contains a number of extraordinary or miraculous public events that, were they factual, should have left some traces in Jewish records or elsewhere in the NT (...the massacre of all the male children in Bethlehem)."

Obviously Brown thinks the Massacre Not historical. Yet you use his name in a plausibility paragraph, attribute an estimate to him that he didn't make and imply he's part of your support for "at most only a few dozen children killed." Here's the deal guys (Price, Carlson). You correct the article or I'll make a special on it at II. Don't make me go through the whole Infancy Narrative here.

Joseph

 * Joseph, I have not made any changes to this article for several months, so I am not sure of what I am accused of changing in response to your post here. And if Brown is that tentative about a 1,000 person population (I'd have to go back and check), then simply remove the reference.  That is what Wikipedia is all about.  As for accusing me of being somehow hypocritical on the issue, please be advised that I am not one of the early Christian writers who claimed tens of thousands of children were killed and have always thought that the number was much smaller.  Bethelehem was hardly a metropolis and the lower number of under 2 year old boys there at the time has been endorsed by many respected scholars who are not apologists.

 * As for going "through the whole Infancty Narrative" I am not sure what the point would be since this entry has a much narrower scope. As for threatning to take this to "II" and presumably getting skeptical activists involved, that's hardly in the spirit of things Wiki.  No one has been opposing you or preventing you from making the edit yourself. Trying to bully people into making edits you want is unnecessary. Layman 02:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Has it escaped anyone's notice that 20-30 deaths couldn't be called a massacre? Clinkophonist 11:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What about the Boston Massacre? I thought they only had one death from that. It's a nearly completely arbitrary definition.128.211.254.142 19:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved from article:

NOTE from a Bible believer: The higher number of 14,000 or even 64,000 may be easily accounted for when a strict interpretation of the Biblical text is used. The King James says clearly in Matthew 2:16 "Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men." If we include "all the coasts thereof" we can easily understand why there are differing numbers in the different liturgies referenced. Different historians seem to often include a different number of surrounding cities and smaller settlements when adding up total numbers in events.

It's also easy to believe that the massacre may have taken place in a number of different sequential events and this also may account for the varying numbers in the various non-Bible liturgies. The Biblical text tells us that Herod the Great "sent forth" rather than performing the massacre himself. It may well have been that his own son Archelaus did the actual killing as Archelaus was known to be an effective military leader and I believe he would have been of a commanding age. (See wikipedia on Archelaus)

We know for a fact that Bethlehem's temporary population was increased due to the time of taxation that forced Joseph to leave Nazareth and travel to Bethlehem. (xref Luke 2:1). The Bible tells us that Joseph had to go to Bethlehem because he was of the house and lineage of David (xref Luke 2:1-4) so we can safely assume that all people of that descent went to Bethlehem and the surrounding areas at that time to be numbered and taxed. I don't know how long they had to stay there but the wise men found Jesus as a young child, in a house rather than a manger, so we know that Jesus' family had remained in Bethlehem for some time. Indeed when the wise men told Herod that they were looking for the Christ they assumed him to be under the age of 2 years. (xref Luke 2:8-12, Matthew 2:11,16). With these facts in mind it is reasonable to believe that many people that came to the area for the taxation may have had an extended stay or may have simply decided to remain around people of their own descent rather than making the difficult and expensive journey back home. Doesn't the Bible clearly tell us that when Mary and Joseph first arrived at Bethlehem the town was so full that they couldn't find a room at the inn and had to sleep in a manger (Luke 2:7)? All of these facts point to a city bursting at it's seams. We know that Joseph had no intention to return to Nazareth because he only left Bethlehem when an angel of the Lord warned him in a dream that Herod was going to try to kill Jesus. (xref Matthew 2:13) The following massacre described in the Bible would have scattered the large temporary population and returned Bethlehem to the sleepy little town it once was. As we know the Bible specifically tells us Bethlehem was normally a small place and it may not have been an ideal place to sustain a large population for an extended period of time. (Micah 5:2-3 "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel.") Because of the warning God gave Joseph his family was able to flee to Egypt before the massacre and remained there until Herod died and it was safe to return to Israel. We know that he never returned to Bethlehem because he was afraid of Archelaus (which supports the theory that Archelaus had a part in the killings) but being warned of God Joseph decided to settle in Nazareth again were he and Mary had begun. (Matthew 2:19-23, Luke 2:4) Also a dead town like Bethlehem may not have had much need for a carpenter looking for work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.177.123 (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2007

A Question
In the present day Roman Catholic Church, is it common for the homily to be against abortion? If so, and if this can be sourced, a statement to this effect would be in order. (Since it is still the Feast of St. John in the United States, I cannot yet get the answer just by going to a daily Mass.) Robert McClenon 00:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I think it is pretty well assumed. Normally the homily is to tie the readings together, and not be an expository on Church teachings. Often I wish it were as well. Procuring an abortion is grounds for automatic excommunication and the problems of all offenses against life are taught in CCD classes. Dominick (TALK) 12:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

 * True. At Mass today, however, the homily focused not on the baby boys, but on St. Joseph.  Robert McClenon 13:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Herod Timeline
The timeline at Herod would put the massacre of the innocents in Herod Archelaus reign, not Herod the Great's 63.27.184.145 19:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Chapter 2 of the Gospel of Matthew clearly attributes the massacre of the innocents to Herod the Great, as you can see from 2:19–22:

 * 2:19 But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,
 * 2:20 Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.
 * 2:21 And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.
 * 2:22 But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:

 * This makes it clear that when "Herod" was dead, his son "Archelaus" ruled in Judea. So Matthew must mean Herod the Great when he writes "Herod".

 * There are several possible explanations for the dating problem. First, Dionysius Exiguus may have been mistaken when he placed Jesus' birth in 1 BC (see Anno Domini for details). Second, Herod the Great may have died later than 4 BC; see the Herod the Great article for an extended discussion of the difficulty of dating his death. Third, Matthew may have been mistaken when he placed Jesus' birth in Herod's reign. Gdr 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * There are a few instances in the Gospels, though, where the writer will be calling something by one name but later lapse into calling it by another of its names. They did this with town names sometimes, too.128.211.254.142 19:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Historicity
Is there a reason why Jacolliot writing about the Krishna tale was removed? It is describing a similiar story of Herod. (i.e. The same way Horus, born of a virgin in a stable resurrecting El-Lazar-us, was retold as Jesus resurrecting Lazuras. )
 * "[The tyrant Kansa] ordained the massacre in all his states, of all the children of the male sex, born during the night of the birth of Christna ..."

I'd guess that since the Khrisna tales are likely to be copied from stories of Jesus (as Hinduisations) that parallels with Khrishna aren't that significant for Christianity. The parallel should probably be discussed in the article for whatever the Krishna tale is called rather than here. I'm extremely curious what something about Horus has got to do with whether Khrishna details belong in the article. Clinkophonist 23:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

 * If non-Christians have adapted the massacre story or vice versa, that is interesting for the article, provided it is treated in a Wikipedia-worthy fashion. --Error (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Secular historians
There has been an addition to the article:
 * Secular historians generally regard the account as ahistorical

and again
 * Secular historians do not regard the massacre of the innocents to be a historical event. One common explanation for the story is that the redactor of the Book of Matthew includes it in order to liken Jesus to Moses and to portray him as fulfilling prophecy.

There is one reference supporting this:
 * Robert Eisenman, James The Brother of Jesus, 1997, I.3 "Romans, Herodians and Jewish sects" discusses Mariamne, the last representative of the Maccabean line, by whom Herod had two sons, whom he put to death. "Here Herod really did kill all the Jewish children who sought to replace him, as Matthew 2:17 would have it, but these were rather his own children with Maccabean blood!" (p 49). No modern secular Roman history mentions the massacre

My question: Does Eisenman say that "generally, secular historians don't read the account as historical", or does he just say that he doesn't regard the account as historical?

Also, I am quite uncomfortable with the phrase "secular historians" — historians themselves don't see themselves as divided into secular and unsecular groups, nor am I really sure what that is suppose to mean. What is a "secular historian", and is there a reference that actually suports this division of the scholarship? Lostcaesar 15:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

 * LC, please suggest an alternative to "secular." "Scholars of the historical Jesus. . ." would work. "Historians that regard the gospels as fallible historical artifacts. . ." would also work. "Nonsectarian. . ." has its own issues, but I'd be fine with it. "Scholars who puts Man's reason above God's Word. . ." would be acceptable to me. "Historians that base their work on the historical method rather than faith in the Gospels. . ." "Secular" means "temporal" or "worldly." Secular scholars are those who see the gospels, etc., as temporal, worldly artifacts rather than as eternal, supernatural phenomena. I still like "secular." Jonathan Tweet 16:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I suggest we merely use the term "historian" when it applies, or whatever relevant field we are discussing (biblical scholars, professors of religion, &c.). The historical methods do not take into account doctrines such as infallibility and as such there is no need for said qualifiers.  I don't think you will find historians characterizing their colleagues on these terms.  Lostcaesar 22:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

 * LC, could you find one general-purpose, modern history that takes the massacre of the innocent seriously? There's a significant difference between gospel events that historians credit, such as the crucifixion, and those that they don't such as the magi, the massacre, and the flight into Egypt. It is a disservice to the neutral reader not to differentiate between events commonly accepted as historical and those commonly understood as ahistorical. Jonathan Tweet 02:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, I can look. Personally, I don't expect historians to have much to say one way or the other, since the event doesn't impact the overall historical picture, even of studies of Herod.  The event only appears in Matthew.  Matthew is a difficult source because it has a religious aim.  However, based on what Josephus says, we know that Herod's disposition was such that Matthew's claim seems entierly within his character.  Josephus doesn't mention the event itself, but no historian thinks Josephus was omniscent, and were dealing with a township of a few hundred to a thousand people, and so about 20 or 30 children (still a horrible crime, but not something Josephus needs have heard of).  At least, that's how one of my old history profs I had described it in my classes on Rome (and he had no problem in using critical methods on the Bible).  Point is, who knows - I don't really see historians getting in a fuss about it, saying one way or another, since it doesn't impact the telling of history much.  It does seem like the kind of thing Biblical scholars would go round about, since that's their field.  I wouldn't say its commonly accpeted as historial, or ahistorial, by historians - I would say that they generally aren't forced to say one way or the other, and couldn't even if they needed to, but don't need to because the history of the Near East under Roman rule is the same either way.  Lostcaesar 02:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

LC, I think we're letting our readers down if we don't state the strongest historical case up front. But let's say for compromise' sake that this story is too petty to be of interest to historians in general. Still, the Book of Mark's role in the New Testament is of more general interest. Let's try this on for size: "The story of the massacre occurs only in Matthew, which is generally understood by historians to include material invented in order to glorify Jesus. Since the story of the massacre glorifies Jesus by likening him to Moses, it is suspect. Since the massace is directly related to the stories of the wise men and the flight into Egypt, which also appear only in Mark and also glorify Jesus, the massacre fits a pattern." The follow-up question is, Do historians generally regard the Bible as a sacred but fallible text written, redacted, and canonized by mortals and reflecting their changing beliefs? Jonathan Tweet 04:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, historians' religious views obviously vary. What makes someone a historian is his employment of historical techniques when discerning truth about the past, and his ability to tell history in a narrative structure that interprets the history in a way consistent with these facts.  I think it can be said that historical methods show the Bible to have human authors, to represent a developing set of beliefs, and, concerning manuscript transmission, certain changes have occurred creating differences between the autograph and the texts we have now (some which we know, some which we do not).  I think such statements quite rightly leave unanswered the question of whether the various books are divinely inspired, infallible, or sacred — a question that no method of textual analysis is really equipped to address.   As for the question of the historicity of the Gospels, which is a historical matter that more directly affects religious claims, I will say that historians have differing views.  In general will say they are all very glad to have these sources, and are comfortable using them in areas where religious ends were not in view (for example, Luke's description of Paul's boat ride is the only description of small-craft water travel in ancient Rome, and a great insight into this simple part of history).  On the overtly religious material, some historians are more comfortable working with it than others.  Generally, I would say that views on the veracity of miracles per se are philosophical / religious, and historians mostly try and stay in their realm, asking whether or not the source is accurate and trustworthy, and leaving the veracity of miracles as a question subordinate to this.  There is certainly no requirement to doubt miracles in order to be a historian, instead one must simply stay within the realm of historical methods, and what they can and cannot say.

 * Biblical scholars deal much more directly with this material, and in my experience are much more comfortable importing philosophical assumption into their work. It seems to me that the willingness to reject the historicity of biblical events is more pronounced and divisive in this community, probably simply a result of the fact that their interest is directly this.  They are less likely to leave certain matters open ended and try and tell the larger narrative regardless, because their field is not about the larger narrative but exactly these events.  Some people in this field do see certain religious or philosophical dispositions as prerequisites, a reason why I chose to work in (medieval) history, rather than biblical studies.

 * Lostcaesar 08:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

 * The reason that "secular" is essential in this specific context is that Christianists when discussing the "Massacre of the Innocents" invariably pose as "historians". To the question "what is a secular historian", if it is a genuine request for information, one might present in contrast two biographies of Herod the Great: one is included in Clarence E. MacArtney, Great Characters of the Bible, there offered as if historical; another is Michael Grant, Herod the Great. Michael Grant is a classicist and a highly respected secular historian. One looks in vain for the "Massacre of the Innocents" in his biography of Herod the Great, needless to say. -Wetman 08:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I frankly find it insulting that you say Christians "pose" as historians, as if a Christian cannot truly be a historian. If so then we have much rearranging to do in our libraries.  If what you mean instead is that amateurs pose as historians, then that is a different matter, but of course this removes any essential need for "secular" as a modifier.  And yes, my question as to what a "secular historian" is indeed is a genuine request for information.  Lostcaesar 08:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

 * LC, I don't like to try to corner you, but it's hard to resist. I will at least give you a heads-up: Here it comes. You say, "I don't expect historians to have much to say one way or the other, since the event doesn't impact the overall historical picture." I now invite you to indulge in a subjective, hypothetical scenario. Two months from now archeologists discover incontrovertible proof that the massacre occured. What's the result?
 * A. Most historians really don't care one way or anther.
 * B. Most historians regard this finding as the most significant new knowledge of the year, and Bible scholars regard it as the most significant new knowledge of the decade (or several decades).
 * Your assertion that historians don't have much to say on it doesn't square with my read. Imagine evidence that the magi really came to Herod and that Jesus really was born in Bethlehem! It would redefine gospel scholarship. Jonathan Tweet 07:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would think A, as far as most historians are concerned in their work, because it doesn't change much what we know about antiquity. The overall narrative of Roman / Jewish history is unchanged.  Even what we know about Herod the Great is the same — he was still a ruthless ruler willing to do anything, including kill, to stay in power.  Perhaps we have one more piece of evidence to confirm that picture, and it helps support what Josephus (and Matthew) said about him).  It would cause some historians to be more comfortable with the infancy material in Matthew, but other than this event there is little there that could be incorporated into the historical narrative anyway.  Now, for biblical scholarship it would be very significant, and for apologists it would be a kind of coup.  This has happened before.  It used to be said that Luke got his topography of Antioch wrong, until archaeological work showed that he was actually right.  It also used to be said that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher was actually within the walls of Jerusalem, meaning it couldn't be the place of execution, until another archaeologist discovered that it was actually outside the walls of Old Jerusalem.  Neither of these discoveries changed much the historical narrative of ancient Rome, or Israel.  Now I don't mean to paint so clear a picture.  I am sure that some historians would find this relevant to their work.  But it is fairly obscure. Lostcaesar 07:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * OK, thank you for indulging me. Now back to the issue at hand. I propose adding: "The story of the massacre occurs only in Matthew, which is generally understood by historians to include material invented to glorify Jesus. Since the story of the massacre glorifies Jesus by likening him to Moses, it is suspect. Since the massace is directly related to the stories of the wise men and the flight into Egypt, which also appear only in Mark and also glorify Jesus, the massacre fits a pattern." Comments? Jonathan Tweet 07:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The article already says the following:
 * The historicity of the event is questioned by some biblical scholars.
 * Some scholars, such as Robert Eisenman, have called the historicity of this event into question, arguing that the prophetic nature of the account, and the lack of multiple attestation, decreases its credulity
 * There is a near-contemporary Talmudic Haggadah referring to Moses and Pharaoh, with very similar features. As Jesus is portrayed in the Gospels as a Moses Redivivus, it is likely this legend influenced Matthew. (unsourced)
 * I dont see what is to be gained, not already in present in the article, from your proposed edit. Lostcaesar 12:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * "...as if a Christian cannot truly be a historian:" A red herring, needless to say. Many historians who happen to be Christians write secular history. Lactantius is a Christianist who poses as a historian. And much of the zaniest hagiography is presented with "historical" details as if true. --Wetman 10:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So now you are making a distinction between "secular history" and unnamed other kinds of history, rather than "secular historians" — yet the point is none the clearer. The example about Lactantius doesn't help much, as I can't say I'm very familiar with his historical works.  Lostcaesar 12:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

LC, "I dont see what is to be gained, not already in present in the article, from your proposed edit." You don't see any advantage to this addition. I do. I could try to point out what it adds, but that's beside the point. If your criticism is merely that you don't see what it adds, then that's not enough to keep me from adding it. Jonathan Tweet 14:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Julius Caesar wrote the Conquest of Gaul to glorify himself, but, of course, he really did cross the Rubicon (and conquer Gaul, for that matter). If all the section adds is a duplicate of material, some of it unsourced, I don't see its worth.  Maybe you could indulge me anyway, even if you dont see think its beside the point.  Lostcaesar 14:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * OK, as a favor I'll indulge you and lay off. I have recently made a change or two, but I'll stop now. I have a rewrite of the historicity section ready and waiting to be pasted in, but I'll let it sit. Now how about you remove the expert, OR, and fact tags from the academic section of Purgatory? Jonathan Tweet 15:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I mean indulge me and explain, even though this is "beside the point", why this material is unique or relevant. I didn't mean to ask for a favor.  I want accurate info and good articles, that's all.  Lostcaesar 18:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Assume that the nativity narrative of Jesus, with the wise men, the prophecies, the massacre, the angels, etc. is either true or not. Historians have reason to categorize the entire narrative as an invention, thus defining the gospels as including fiction. But there's no known reason for Herod to kill the sons of Bethlehem, unless this narrative is at least partially true. If Herod really did kill these boys, maybe he really did get a visit from wise men and maybe something supernatural (or at least remarkable) really did happen. At the least, historians would have to look again at the nativity story and at the gospels. If archeologiosts found proof that the massacre happened, it would open up a whole new window into the historical Jesus. When I say, "historians care," I mean "historians for whom this their field." How about "Scholars of the historical Jesus usually portray the massacre as a story invented to glorify Jesus, along with the rest of the nativity narrative"? Scholars of the historical Jesus sure care. Again, there's a world of difference, in terms of historical acceptance, between certain events in Jesus life (e.g., crucifixion) and other (e.g., massacre). It's a disservice to the reader to understate this difference. Jonathan Tweet 20:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, first, I don't think that, historically speaking, we have to take the prophecies, wise men, massacre, angels, &c as a bundle package. Furthermore, there is a third option between true or false, and that is "don't know", to varying degrees.  As far as I know the part about the magi and the massacre contains no miracles per se (there is a vision that tells the holy family to flee, so I suppose that counts, but its not about Herod or the magi).  Magi were astrologers / astronomers; they, a bit like sailors, followed stars frequently, and read portents into them.  People also believed in prophecies.  None of this is dipping into the supernatural.  "Scholars of the historical Jesus" — that's getting there; me, I like prefer specifics rather than generalities in these things.  I would feel even better if we had a source (well, we do — one — and we quote it).  My style: get a source, represent it farily, and avoid gereralities not supported by the source.  I would prefer "biblical scholars", since that's who the scholars of the historical Jesus are, basically.  The crucifixion is more knowable because it is attested in all the canonical gospels, apocaphyral works, and Paul's letters.  The massacre is in just one text, which makes discerning its veracity less possible.  Lostcaesar 20:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

 * LC, your new wording was not more neutral. It was less informative. To portray the historical view as an open issue, rather than well decided, is to understate the case. You might be an expert on what Catholics say about the massacre. I feel equally qualified to say what secular scholars say about the account. Maybe this wording would be better: "Bible scholars working in faith traditions often treat this incident as historical, while those investigating the historical Jesus generally treat it as a fiction." That way we get both views. We could even put the faith view second so it gets the last word. But it is a disservice to the reader to be coy about the secular consensus when it is clear. Find me a prominent secular NT historian who regards the incident as real and I'll happily restore your wording. Jonathan Tweet 00:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * alright; Lostcaesar 08:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, after some investigation, I was not able to find much from historians regarding the event. There is only one biography of Herod that I know of, that of Grant mentioned before, and he thinks it was a legend.  So, for historians, we are 0/1.  That's not a very notable thing to bother mentioning.  Concerning Biblical scholars (and as far as I know that’s basically the same thing as "scholars of the historical Jesus") there was a variety of views.  So, I rephrased the statement accordingly, noting that it is debated by Biblical scholars.  Lostcaesar 15:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

 * "Scholars of the historical Jesus" and "Biblical scholars" are not the same thing. If you think they are, what would be your term be for the sorts of scholars who rely exclusively on the historical method to reconsruct Jesus. To portray this issue as debated is to be coy. It's a settled issue for secular historians (didn't happen) and for true believers (did happen). There is disagreement, but no debate. Maybe there are some like Raymond Brown who would debate whether it happened, but that's not "historical" Jesus any more. Jonathan Tweet 16:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

An Alternative Interpetation
The allegorical style of the 16th Century in the European Low Countries had a hidden meaning: in alchemy, the "massacre of the innocents" was the title of a process (involving spiritual renunciation) in one of the texts describing the transmutation of gold. In tangible terms, it led, for instance, to the mass-murder of children in the 1430s by Joan of Arc's chief lieutenant, Gilles de Rais - similar events on a smaller scale occur from time to time to this day. As such, the numerous paintings on this subject dating from the late Renaissance must be viewed alongside the more tangible Alchemical paintings and other associated allegories, such as the various Icarus and Labyrithmic images frequently portrayed. The interest of the painter in such studies was probably pragmatic: he was interested in the possibility of new pigments arising by accident from such proto-chemical studies.

As the Low Countries were under the Inquisitorial tyranny of the Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba, such heretical practices could not be mentioned explicitly - the execution of the Counts of Egmont and Hoorne, two of Alba's most trusted lieutenants (and the subject of Schiller's play for which Beethoven composed the famous Egmont overture) is a case in point, having been provoked by a Hoorne's Dominican confessor overhearing a plot to create a vast amount of wealth alchemically, which is reported to have succeeded. The practitioner in question subsequently sparks the interest of Jan van Helmont in chemistry.

Further to the Herodian discussion above, don't exclude Herod's plan to kill a stadium-full of hostages in his final hours. The antipathy of the Herodian line is specifically cited in Matthew 2:22 as the reason for Joseph's exile into Roman-controlled Judea: however, given the scale of Roman construction at Sebaste and Caesarea Maritime during this period, Nazareth being roughly halfway between the two, it's a fair presumption that as a building contractor (ho-tekton in the Greek does NOT mean carpenter, it's just the closest term in 17c. English) he was comfortably protected without having to restart overseas. jelmain Brussels 03:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Bias
There seems to be a fair amount of bias in this article, towards the veracity of this event. I think since the article itself states, and all independent research I've done on my own assures, that the Bible is the only place this story appears, and there is no mention of it anywhere else ever, then weaseling in some comment about how "skeptical" scholars deny the existence but "others" think it happened. Clearly, those who are fans of fact and truth should not be labeled skeptics, as if they were the minority. The majority of scholars today cannot find proof that this event happened. Therefore, they are not skeptical. They are being factual. Vaguely 15:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Outdated sources
Why do we have sources as out of date as the Catholic Encyclopedia - from 1910, nearly a century out of date? And the source quoted in the reference is from even earlier, a book published in 1897. If no other source is available, these may be better than nothing, but Biblical scholarship has moved on so much in the past century that these references are virtually useless. Besides, the section has modern sources quoted; we don't need this one. Unless someone can come up with a useful explanation as to why the Catholic Encylopedia represents a valuable and still current view that is not elsewhere available, I propose to remove it again. --Rbreen (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Those with content contribute content. We await Rbreen's report of more recent mainstream scholarship, which will doubtless add some nuance to the outdated Catholic Encyclopedia and Maas' Life of Christ (1897). --Wetman (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

 * We have modern content; we ought not to depend on outdated citations. --Rbreen (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nimrod
Nimrod (Bible) mentions a parallel in the story of Moses and the story of Nimrod and Abraham, but I don't understand whether the Christian story is documented earlier than the Nimrod one or the other way round. --Error (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

historical and textual context
I added it, as it had been missing. Properly, the massacre is understood in the context of the historical Herod and Matthew's narrative and agenda. Did some reorg, too. Leadwind (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-neutral, sided to the "fiction"/atheist view.
This is HEAVILLY weighted and one-sided toward the atheist/"this is fiction" side, as they claim it as Biblical depictions of Holy Men, how it is excluded from biographies of Harod the Great, even saying the Nativity is Biblical fiction.

How is that neutral? Wikipedia is unbiased, and is to show us both sides. Other then reference of "Ambrosius Theodosius Macrobius, Saturnalia, book II, chapter IV:11", that's about the only "evidence" that the genocide happened. The article actually dismisses it, over and over again.

How do you call this neutral? "Most recent biographers of Herod therefore do not regard the massacre as an actual historical event,[3] but rather, like the other nativity stories, as creative hagiography."

Weasel words! Who claims this?

"The gospel of Matthew was written c 80 - 85 by an anonymous Christian appealing to a Jewish audience."

First off, the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew, not an "annonymous Christian", according to theology. You failed to bring it up. That is not neutral.

"The story was patterned on the Exodus story of the killing of the Hebrew firstborn by Pharaoh and the birth of Moses."

This is biased toward atheism and "fiction". Not only is it blasphemy, it also contradicts the Bible itself, and though you have the right to type it, this is WAY too one sided. Again, this not a parody of Exodous to Christians! It's history to them! As an un-biased, neutral website devoted to telling ALL sides of the story, I believe you should add some more SUPPORT fro this instead of saying "it's fiction, it's fiction, it's fiction, here's a secular reference. it's fiction, it;'s fiction".....

"The story is not mentioned by the contemporary Jewish historian Josephus, nor in the other gospels, nor in the early apocrypha."

Again, you are dismissing it as FICTION, and provide little backup on evidence that is real!

WIKIPEDIA IS NEUTRAL! What ever happened to neutrral1 This is the most one-sided article I've laid eyes on!

Someone, please fix it!

--74.184.65.160 (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Actually, virtually no scholars today believe the Gospel of Matthew was written by the Apostle Matthew, so saying it was written by an anonymous Christian is both accurate and neutral. —Angr 12:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Please correct me if I am wrong. Neutrality in an encyclopedia is not the politically correct or diplomatic treatment of a topic.  It is the unbiased treatment of facts.  Unbiased in the language and unbiased in the display of available facts.  In other words, no facts are left out.  These facts may be supported by the opinions of professionals and scholars.  Their opinions must always be qualified by "So-and-so believes...".  These become judgment calls and must be weighed as such.  However, their judgment holds much more weight than the layman's.  Think of it as a fair trial with all of the available evidence and top professionals and scholars.  Without the lawyers.  Sometimes lawyers bring in biased language and intentional skewing of the facts.  Out with them.  The judge and jury?  The readers of the articles.  However, their verdict is not the ultimate say in the truth of the matter.  They may draw the wrong verdict.  Ever see "The Shawshank Redemption"?

 * 'The story is not mentioned by the contemporary Jewish historian Josephus, nor in the other gospels, nor in the early apocrypha.'

 * Again, you are dismissing it as FICTION, and provide little backup on evidence that is real!"

 * The quote from the article is highlighting the scant "evidence that it is real." It is not being dismissed.  Rather, the Biblical claim is not being verified.  To create an accurate history, historians seek verification through multiple sources, the more the better.  In this case, verifying sources have not been found.  The account in Matthew is the only one.  Historians are very reluctant to put all their cookies in one jar, especially for high profile events.  MangyMaestro (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article is one-sided, however, I might need to point out that wikipedia is written by many contributors and that you cannot cast out any blame at any author, just say that the article is biased.
 * Concerning the article itself and its claims, I have read in "The Case for Christ" the interviews, done by Lee Strobel, with thirteen leading evangelical apologists: Craig Blomberg, Bruce Metzger, Edwin Yamauchi, John McRay, Gregory Boyd, Ben Witherington III, Gary Collins, D.A. Carson, Louis Lapides, Alexander Metherell, William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, and J. P. Moreland. Then the view that the massacre never took place is countered with the fact that it probably "only" was 25-30 boys that were killed by Herod, which would seem totally irrelevant to the historic scribes (or whatever their proper English names might be) of the day.  It also note that the deed was totally in agreement with what is known about Herod's character and I heard at a TV-program during Christmas that virtually all historians considers it to be in his character, even though they doubt it.
 * Since the interviewees are wellknown scholars (or at least some), their view might be included. --KMA "HF" N (talk) 10:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"This is HEAVILLY weighted and one-sided toward the atheist/"this is fiction" side... How is that neutral?" Editors are just reporting what historians say. That's neutral. When WP discusses evolution, it reports what scientists say because that's neutral, even if some people have supernatural reasons to disagree with it, just like some people have supernatural reasons to disagree with what historians say. Leadwind (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia attempts to offer concise reports of the scholarly mainstream. It does not guarantee authenticity of episodes narrated in texts, but describes and reports. This is not Sunday-school: there is no special reverence for "Scripture" afforded in Wikipedia: these are historical texts, with cultural contexts and manuscript traditions to be reported, just the same as Sophocles . Claims that Wikipedia violates NPOV do invariably turn out to be cries of "not my point-of-view".--Wetman (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not oppose the sentence itself, I only oppose to the repeating of it in the article. It was in the lead AND the section I removed, which is totally unnecessary.  —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  06:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Nativity story in the Gospel of Matthew
POV tag added - as this is a non representative and unduly sceptical view. Springnuts (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have therefore had a go at simplifying and improving, and rm'd the tag. Springnuts (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I made a small change re Matthew's account of the magi. Original said: "magi from the east follow a star to Judea". But the text doesn't say that the magi **followed** a star to Judea, only that the magi **saw** a star (actually, the "King of the Jews' star") in the east, so went to Jerusalem. GDon (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)GDon.

Lead
"historicizing"??? Mannanan51 (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)mannanan51

 * the verb "to historicize" is derived from "history" and means: "to prove that something has actually happened like it's written in history books". 93.219.169.49 (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Actually, "historicize" means "To make or make appear historical" or "To use historical details or materials." The Oxford online dictionary defines it as "treat or represent as historical"--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * “When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.” Springnuts (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

historicity doubts - body and heading, or body only?
Hi, there is a bit of ping pong on the horizon re this topic, see this diff [] and check history for others. It would be good to head it off at the pass. We are dealing with a contested argument from silence.

The lead section should 'summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies'. I would suggest two things follow:

1) The ref to numbers is removed - since there seems little controversy that the 'tens of thousands' figure is not believed, see eg the Catholic Encyclopedia: .  Given that the lead already calls Bethlehem a village, there is no need to spell out the now generally accepted estimates of numbers, though it could be added in if wished.

2) The section of the lead re historicity is rewritten: "Many modern writers treat the story as fiction." is one sided. Would an editor not involved so far have a go at a non POV summary of this notable controversy please?

Hope this may provide a better way ahead. Springnuts (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Have had a go at a non POV summary, changing "Many modern writers" to "Some historians". Springnuts (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Fair enough. Biographers of Herod are not necessarily representative of all historians writing on the subject. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

 * No reason to drop the quote out of the text. The Historicity section has lost well-supported text, which I've restored.--Wetman (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Please read WP:NPOV. The way to write a neutral article is not to treat both sides equally. The way to write a neutral article is to portray both sides the way they're portrayed in mainstream sources. If there is a majority viewpoint (with most historians favoring one view or the other), then it's biased to treat the two views as if they are equal. In this case, we should treat the majority viewpoint as the majority viewpoint and the minority viewpoint as the minority viewpoint. Violating NPOV is not really an option. Please humbly stick with what our best sources say rather than changing the article to suit your personal viewpoint. Leadwind  (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Here's one section on WP:NPOV that's relevant to the majority/minority viewpoint: "Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view." Historians mostly don't think the massacre really happened because there's no corroborating evidence (such as it being mentioned anywhere else in the Bible). I know it can hurt people's feelings to be in the minority, but on WP it's important to distinguish between majority and minority viewpoints. It's also the honest thing to do. If you can find a source that says most Christians think it's true, then we can talk about that, too, as long as it's separate from what most historians think is true. Leadwind  (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I think the difficulty here arises from Maier's quote about "most modern biographers ...". It is quite possible that Maier is overstating the case against historicity in order to justify his journal article, which argues for historicity (and from my reading of Maier's article most of the "biographers of Herod" he speaks of are dependent on secondary rather than primary sources).  It is certainly an act of academic rigour to ensure you give full justice to opposing views, which Maier (imo) does.  The other part of the trouble is that many of those who comment in the literature have a pre-sharpened axe to grind.  Fortunately whether the incident really happened or not is of no interest to Wikipedia - only reflecting what is written by scholars.  My conclusion: find more verifiable stuff to balance the Maier's quote.  Hope this helps - and suggests positive ways forward!  Springnuts (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The lead currently states that "There are historians who view the event as non-historical." This seems to imply that such a view is not the majority view, and that would seem to be false. Are there any sources that claim that 'many' or 'most' scholars accept the story as real? If not, the lead should more accurately present the majority viewpoint.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Massacre or Slaughter?
It's a very minor point, but is 'Massacre of the Innocents' the standard terminology for this event? In England, at least, I think 'Slaughter of the Innocents' is more common.109.158.131.253 (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Slaughter is the term with which I too am familiar. Daniel the Monk (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Might be worth checking in some older standard textbooks. Springnuts (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Year
What year did this take place in? --68.6.227.26 (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm - there is a lot of "generally assumed" here ... but this:
 * It is impossible to determine the day or the year of the death of the Holy Innocents, since the chronology of the birth of Christ and the subsequent Biblical events is most uncertain. All we know is that the infants were slaughtered within two years following the apparition of the star to the Wise Men (Belser, in the Tübingen "Quartalschrift", 1890, p. 361).
 * (Quoted in the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07419a.htm) )
 * is probably a fair exposition of the uncertainty. Springnuts (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Massacre of the Innocents → Slaughtering of the Innocents – I've never heard the biblical event described in this article as the "Massacre of the Innocents", always "Slaughtering". Apart from being PC, is there any reason this title is at "Massacre" and not "Slaughtering"? p b  p  03:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Google books indicates 295 use Slaughtering, 68,600 use Slaughter, and 114,000 use "Massacre". Apteva (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I have not heard the incident being referred to as the "Slaughtering of the Innocents". But is anyone aware of any systemic bias?  Maybe in other English speaking areas it is so named?  Springnuts (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Despite the nom's preposterous claims, almost invariably referred to in English as the Massacre of the Innocents. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Slaughtering" isn't the same word-phrase as "Slaughter of the Innocents". -- 70.24.245.16 (talk) 10:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all Johnbod (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Massacre of the Innocents" is the clear common name. Sometimes it's "Slaughter of the Innocents", but nobody says "Slaughtering of the Innocents". See this ngram. Kauffner (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Would suggest the originator needs to provide reliably sourced verification that Slaughtering (or perhaps Slaughter) is used more commonly at the majority of religious perspectives and denominational groups (eg: Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, etc.).  Currently I'm not seeing that majority view.  Perhaps it is a POV / syntax or even a biblical translation thing - rather like King James translation and language style, vs the St Joseph, New International, New American, etc., versions of the gospels?  If so, would suggest providing the alternate names of the event in the introductory information section, and make sure there are suitable wiki-redirects in place, so folks coming from the "slaughter" POV can find their way home.  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 16:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Barclay's argument
Presently, we say:

"William Barclay argues Josephus' silence is not relevant, drawing a parallel with the diarist John Evelyn's failure to mention the massacre at Glencoe."

One's a history, the other a diary. An intelligent diarist includes what interests him, an intelligent historian, like Josephus, includes the king murdering all of Bethlehem's infant boys, whether it interests him or not. In a history written by a highly-educated, very well-informed, intelligent reporter, absence of evidence strongly suggests absence.

Has an historian responded to Barclay's argument? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Logically, yes, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. We don't need a historian to tell us this. But absence of evidence means absence of historicity, since historicity is something for reasonably proven events. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Any information from the Bible is filtered through several criteria: it has to be ancient (dated within a century from the narrated events), it is likely if it is dissimilar to (shameful for) the author's agenda, it is more likely if it is independently attested, it has to make sense in the historical context of what we already know about ancient Palestine, it is unlikely if it serves author's agenda. Basically, from applying these criteria it follows that Matthew's claim for the massacre is not very trustworthy. It is of course compatible with Herod's character to have done such thing, and his acceptance of astrology offers an explanation of why he would have ordered such massacre. But the later is of course speculation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Barclay isn't even an historian. Why are we citing him? Does anyone mind if I remove that sentence? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted it and Rudolf Schnackenburg's opinion - he's not an historian either. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Massacres of Men Category
The Massacres of men category has been recently removed from this article, the requirements of of Massacres of men category are "For inclusion in this category there must be evidence that demonstrates men and boys were specifically targeted for death based on their gender, and the fact that men were specifically targeted during the event must be WP:DEFINING of the incident." This entire incident is a massacre of infant boys, and only boys. This would mark it as defining, and that only boys were targeted. As such I believe that this category is accurate for this article and should be reinstated. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no proof this event ever happened. Putting in mythological events into this category is not within the remit of the category description. jps (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Apart from the fact that in the story they're babies, not grown men - the category itself is problematic (why not 'Massacres of males'?) - and that the category appears to relate to gendercide (Herod has nothing against males as such, he just wants to ensure the death of one particular male), the fact that this is a fictional event excludes it. --Rbreen (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not a "fact" that the massacre never happened, but an opinion, if a widely held one (as is its opposite). Categories are not the place to slug this out, and the other categories do not treat the event as fictional. See the extended discussion in the article. I have readded it to the main ungendered category, though the other should perhaps be "Massacres of males", which this would fit. Johnbod (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There are no reliable sources which indicate that this event took place, so it is a fact that it did not happen. jps (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Er, no. There are plenty of RS, some cited in the article, that think it did, or may have done. Treating the New Testament as fiction will not stand, and it is not worth attacking even this soft underbelly. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there are precisely ZERO sources that are not Christian which state that there is independent evidence of this event occurring. Christians seem to want their mythology to be true, but that's not the way we decide whether something is a historical fact. jps (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Jps, being a WP:BIASED source does not automatically qualify the source to be automatically unreliable. Though there may be other factors, such as being self published that does, being biased does not disqualify it. Additionally, rollbacking my edits without an edit summary is considering them to be 'vandalism' and that's an abuse of rollback. Once more and I'll be reporting it. Tutelary (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This comment is not about content, and this is the first brush you've had with this page. Following your friends around must be fun, but do you have any sources at all? jps (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Jps, you incessantly talking about user conduct rather than talking about the article is not acceptable. Following your friends around must be fun, is an example of what I'm talking about, and you should knock it off. I am allowed to comment on any portion I want, or not at all. I'm not mandated to comment further, or I'm obligated in my own mind to leave a 10 paragraph response. Filibustering rules permitting The sources are mostly book sources which I cannot personally access but that does not disqualify them. Tutelary (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you can't read the sources, it seems you are basing your opinion on bias and favoritism. I haven't seen any evidence that you actually do anything else here. jps (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

 * @ Rbreen, from the category page of Massacres of men the difference of age is considered irrelevant. Much like the similar category Massacres of Women, the category is intended to categorize instances in which men or boys were killed because they were men/boys.  While Herod may have only wanted one particular boy dead, the method used was to kill all boys.  As such boys were targeted because they were boys. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

 * keep in category If this was a purely fictional event, I would agree, and it should not be categorized with real events. Nonetheless, there is a debate in the scholarship over whether such an event happened. We know that some stories in the New Testament are true, and some are more myth, but given this is an extremely well-known story and is referenced in the literature on massacres (e.g. The Massacre in History) and was itself the subject of a huge outpouring of artwork, writing, literature, and so on over the past 1000 years, I think the navigational value provided to the reader by its presence in this category outweighs any concerns about the historicity of this event (which as noted is not an open-shut case, but is rather debated in the literature as covered in the article). For another example, see Rape which starts with an image of Lucretia being raped, a story which is likely somewhat true, and somewhat myth. The rape category contains a whole subcat of Category:Mythological_rape_victims, and the Rape category also contains myths such as Orang Minyak Popobawa. I think readers are clever enough that when they click on the article, they can read the title and see "Ah, ok, this is a biblical story that may or may not have occurred, but it IS a story about massacring all male infants, and is thus topically linked to the other articles in this category". If we had several other examples, we could create a category of, but for now we don't have enough to merit such a subcategory, so keeping in the main category seems reasonable.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Name one secular historian who thinks this event is likely to have occurred. jps (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Remove Evangelical wishful thinking does not mean we pretend there is any sort of controversy amongst historians about this "event". Second Quantization (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove It's not read as an example of gendered violence. Of course it's within the categories scope to include fictional events that are widely seen as gendered violence, but it seems like the curators of this category are again scraping the barrel for anything even tangentially connected to Violence against men, only a week or two after promising to be more careful with it. Is it even seen as discrimination against men anywhere in the Bible? The aim was to "avoid the loss of his throne to a newborn King of the Jews". Of course they were killed for their gender, but I seriously doubt that the massacre occurred due to Misandry. Are there any bible scholars who assess this topic in tangent with Violence against men or is this another case of independent research related to this category on website? It trivilaises both VAM and VAW to include loosely associated topics like this within their categories --80.193.191.143 (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Summary
There is no strong evidence that this happened. Therefore it should not be categorized with categories that include verified events. jps (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The cat does not demonstrate the need for it to be real events, and given the particulars of interpreting Biblical narratives and the offset of including sources which I personally cannot access, IE: Book sources. The cat's defining scope is this This category is for articles on the topic of mass murder or massacres of men or boys where the victims are selected to be killed based on their gender. This is true of this article, and I !vote to include the cat in this circumstance, due to the scope of the cat. Tutelary (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Name one other article that is included in either of the two categories about an event for which there is no independent verification that it actually happened. jps (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OSE (even in this case), and everything requires context, especially in this situation. It's a complicated scenario which can only be resolved through discussion. In this case, there's an encyclopedic benefit for having the category there for an event which is still debated to have happened. Again, as I stated, the cat's scope does not require it to be fictional/nonfictional/proven to have happened, and even if it were summarily disproved, the cat would still belong. Tutelary (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You haven't named a single source. You have nothing. Your edits don't add anything to this conversation but a lack of demonstrating that the academic research which is required to contribute has occurred. jps (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears to me the summary of your argument is that the sources that do state that this event happened do not constitute "strong evidence". In that case what would constitute "strong evidence? --Kyohyi (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Any independent source who gave a historiographical explanation for why it was likely that this event actually happened would be a great start. And by "independent", I mean "a source that was not authored by a Christian predisposed to believing the Bible at its face value." jps (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope, jps, you will turn your sceptical eye to Lucius Aurunculeius Cotta for whom only one, POV, source is available. There is no strong evidence that he existed, so will you be removing him from the categories of: 1st-century BC Romans / Roman people of the Gallic Wars / 54 BC deaths and adding him to List of Roman mythological figures?  But I doubt you will!  Springnuts (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

NPOV and reporting what the sources say
There are some problems with the current edits in that there is one attempt to paint the supporters of historicity as "devout Christians" while at the same time making claims which are not found in sources, such as that about a lack of evidence. Neutrality is key here, we must report what the sources say and not embellish them with our own perceptions or agenda. Elizium23 (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I support the removal of such content. Tutelary (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * All of the supporters of the historicity of this account are Christians. No one denies this. Do either of you? We have plenty of sources which so identify this. Essentially all of these sources indicate as much for just about everything written in the New Testament: . The whole historicity game is one where conservative Christians engage in apologetics while more scholarly approaches question the poor evidence for historicity of many claims including this one. jps (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Do the sources explicitly state Christian Apologetics like you are attempting to portray? We cannot imply or heavily imply connections without the collaboration of what's written in reliable sources. Tutelary (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Read them. jps (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

There is not a lack of evidence for the Christian viewpoint. There is only jps's opinion that that evidence does not count. Even if there were no secular authorities who accepted the Biblical account as true historically (an unproven claim), it is a non-sequitur to state that therefore there is no evidence. It is not required that there be any secular acceptance. The disparate viewpoints can be mentioned and discussed in the article, but they are viewpoints belonging to WP:RS. Insistence on secular views alone would be WP:POVPUSH and cannot be accepted. A Christian viewpoint is admittedly a viewpoint, as is a secular viewpoint, but viewpoints are expressed, neutrally, per WP:NPOV. Calling Christian viewpoints WP:FRINGE is WP:SNOW, and again a POVPUSH. The central point is that while there are disparate views, each held widely, they therefore are governed by NPOV and balanced by rejection of POVPUSH. In my opinion, "slaughter" is a more appropriate term to use to describe the Biblical account, as "massacre" is more subject to shades of meaning not universally agreed on. Evensteven (talk) 08:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ?Of course there is a lack of evidence. The word "lack" can mean 'deficient in' or 'not having enough of something', and so far as I can see there is just one source for this. Dougweller (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:MAINSTREAM sources that discuss this event question its historicity on the grounds described in the article. We do not give equal time to all viewpoints when one viewpoint (in this case, the religious one) is less supported by the scholars in the field than the other. jps (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Dougweller, re your point on the meaning of "lack", I grant that. There is a deficiency of evidence in that there is but one source (the Bible), as I have said at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard, although I didn't yet say it here. Jps, scholars have neither the freedom to invent ungrounded theories nor to ignore what evidence there is. They recognize the single source, and the lack of confirming sources, and the inability to construct a definitive scholarly statement about the historicity. This differs from your contention that there is no evidence at all (not a "lack", but an absence), and from your contention that scholars "support" either the idea that the event did not occur, or that it did. They may give their own opinion, even a scholarly opinion, but they do not give a scholarly "support" in either direction because they do support the fact that there is a deficiency of evidence. There is a difference between scholarly opinion and that of support. As I have said, this matter cannot be resolved simply on the basis of available information, and that is what the scholars say also. Unresolved does not equate to "proven false". There are at least two viewpoints, Christian and secular, and neither prevails. But they can be presented neutrally in the article and without pushing a viewpoint. Evensteven (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The fact that we have confirmatory independent evidence for other massacres that occurred in the same category means we shouldn't lump this story with historically verified accounts. In Wikipedia, secular WP:MAINSTREAM scholarship always trumps the magical thinking that imbues Christian faith in the infallibility of their scriptures. jps (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And I agree with Bermicourt that there is no necessity for restricting the category to confirmed historical massacres. Evensteven (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Then Texas Chainsaw Massacre is appropriate? I'm fine with that, just don't think that's the intention of the category. jps (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

 * The point of these categories is to help in navigation. We often will split fictional events from real ones, but as pointed out somewhere else, in the category we have several "myths" in the head cat. In this case, the historicity of the event is actually debated, but its overall influence is significant and has inspired art and discussion for at least 1,000 years. Thus, no useful comparisons can be drawn between this and purely fictional massacres for which no serious debate about their having occurred exists. On balance, in spite of the debate about the historicity of the event, it is an excellent example to go in  (the scope includes boys) and the reader is the better for it. If one must invoke WP:IAR to do so, that's fine.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Show me a source which indicates there is "serious debate" that this event occurred. The sources in the article right now that are most sympathetic to the case only argue about plausibility, but no one says there is evidence that the event occurred outside of the unreliable cultic Christian account. jps (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Obiwankenobi is correct. You make no argument here, but only cast aspersion in the form of "cultic". Your opposition to Christianity is known, but reiteration is unproductive. Evensteven (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Most Bible scholars and NT historians (except fundamentalists), readily admit that the massacre does not have historicity (either because it did not happen or because it is unproven). Even favorable scholars claim there were six to twenty infants killed, so that's why other ancient sources do not report it. Other scholars say it is a legend derived from the fact that Herod killed his own sons. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

 * As I have said repeatedly, what some say, and what words they use to say it, does not settle the matter. I don't deny your sources, or their proper significance. That does not change what I have said. Evensteven (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Who cares what you said. Where are you reliable academic sources for claiming the massacre occured? Second Quantization (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, there are precisely zero reliable sources which attest certainty to the occurrence of the event. The most positively inclined only deal with plausibility. jps (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't spend a lot of time looking at ancient history, I take it? Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You take it wrong. I am concerned that you are a Wikipedia Ambassador considering how poorly you've conducted yourself in this affair. jps (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yada, yada; I'm not in fact. Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That seems like a reach and low blow, jps, seeing as how Johnbod's comments were made in a personal capacity only. I'm surprised at the cheapness of the statement. Ceoil (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * jps, just noting: Johnbod, as Wikimedian in residence at Cancer Research UK, is getting them to peer-review (some of, but hopefully lots more later) our cancer articles. I think he's the most effective and beneficial WIR we've ever had. By a mile. Let's focus on the article. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

 * I wish the user in question wouldn't then do obnoxious things like this: . jps (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Problem solved: the article has been categorized with Massacres in the Bible. No longer need we to worry about it being real or fictional. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Never did need to worry about it. Evensteven (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ldolphin source
I am familiar with the site ldolphin.org It is a WP:SELFPUBLISHed website. We should not be using it in this article.

jps (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is a self-published website and that it cannot be accepted per WP:RS. Evensteven (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OP SOFIXIT. Ho hum, not everything needs a cheer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceoil (talk • contribs) 16:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I did fix it, and was reverted. Which is why we needed to discuss it here. After this, I fixed it again and, so far, the fix has stuck. [jps]
 * Exactly. And since we were in considerable disagreement above about what constitutes reliable sources, I thought it appropriate to verify that we were on the same page with this one. Evensteven (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead paragraph, last sentence
With all due respect to the cited authors, who say the church calls the Innocents "Christian martyrs", I must say that the viewpoint is western, and I have no knowledge of how widely-held it is there. I would ask if anyone knows. I will also say that I do not have a copy of the source, and cannot tell if the editing fairly represents the authors' view. It is certainly off-center as regards Orthodox teaching, so there may be viewpoint differences. We should be very careful about how this matter is stated, particularly in the lead.

For now, please realize that Orthodoxy may (I think it does, but need to check to be sure) identify them as martyrs. I am virtually certain it does not identify them as Christians. They were Jewish. Please be aware that many Jews are identified and celebrated as Orthodox saints, among them: Adam and Eve, Abraham, Moses, many Prophets such as Isaiah, and foremost, John the Baptist (the Forerunner), and the Virgin Mary (the Theotokos). None of these post-date Christ's time on earth, as acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah would identify them as Christian. But the Orthodox teaching of the harrowing of hell describes the release of the righteous dead and their raising to life in God's heavenly kingdom; hence, as saints. The Holy Innocents would fall into that category. (Please be aware also that the "Holy" in "Holy Innocents", the Orthodox way of referring to them, is a translation of "Agia" (Αγια), meaning "holy", and which is also used for "saint".) Evensteven (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


text:
Michael Richards

Michael Anthony Richards (born July 24, 1949) is an American actor and former stand-up comedian. He achieved global recognition for starring as Cosmo Kramer on the NBC television sitcom Seinfeld from 1989 to 1998. He began his career as a stand-up comedian, first entering the national spotlight when he was featured on Billy Crystal's first cable TV special, and went on to become a series regular on ABC's Fridays.

From 1989 to 1998, he played Cosmo Kramer on Seinfeld, three times receiving the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series. During the run of Seinfeld, he made a guest appearance in Mad About You, reprising his role as Kramer. Richards also made numerous guest appearances on a variety of television shows, such as Cheers. His film credits include So I Married an Axe Murderer, Airheads, Young Doctors in Love, Problem Child, Coneheads, UHF, and Trial and Error, one of his few starring roles. In 2000, he starred in his own sitcom, The Michael Richards Show, which was canceled after only two months.

After that stint, Richards returned to stand-up. In 2006, he was filmed going on a racist tirade against hecklers while performing at the Laugh Factory in California. After the tape was obtained and released by TMZ, significant backlash and media coverage led to Richards retiring from stand-up in early 2007. In 2009, he appeared as himself in the seventh season of Curb Your Enthusiasm alongside his fellow Seinfeld cast members for the first time since that show's finale. In 2013, he portrayed Frank in the sitcom Kirstie, which was canceled after one season. He most recently played Daddy Hogwood in the 2019 romantic comedy Faith, Hope & Love.

Early life

Richards was born in Culver City, California, to a Catholic family. He is the son of Phyllis (née Nardozzi), a medical records librarian. As a child Richards was told his father was William Richards, an electrical engineer, who died in a car crash when Michael was two. He later learned his mother's pregnancy was the result of a sexual assault, and she had considered abortion and adoption before deciding to raise him as a single mom. Richards was also raised by a grandmother who suffered from schizophrenia.

Richards graduated from Thousand Oaks High School. In 1968, he appeared as a contestant on The Dating Game, but was not chosen for the date. He was drafted into the United States Army in 1970. He trained as a medic and was stationed in West Germany where he was a member of a theatrical group called The Training Road Show. He became interested in performing after taking a theatrical class in seventh grade.

After being honorably discharged, Richards used the benefits of the G.I. Bill to enroll in the California Institute of the Arts and earned a Bachelor of Arts in drama from the Evergreen State College in 1975. He also had a short-lived improv act with Ed Begley Jr. During this period, he enrolled at Los Angeles Valley College and continued to appear in student productions.

1979–1989: Early career
Richards got his big TV break in 1979, appearing in Billy Crystal's first cable TV special. In 1980, he began as one of the cast members on ABC's Fridays television show, where Larry David was a fellow cast member and writer. It included a famous instance in which Andy Kaufman refused to deliver his scripted lines, leading Richards to bring the cue cards on screen to Kaufman, who responded by throwing his drink into Richards' face, causing a small riot (Richards later claimed he was in on the joke). The film Man on the Moon featured a re-enactment of the Andy Kaufman incident where Richards was portrayed by actor Norm Macdonald.

In 1981, he appeared in the It's a Living episode "Desperate Hours". In 1986, Richards had a minor role in the cult satirical TV miniseries Fresno, playing one of a pair of inept criminal henchmen. That same year he auditioned to play Al Bundy in the TV series Married... with Children, but he was passed over for Ed O'Neill. In 1989, Richards had a supporting role in "Weird Al" Yankovic's comedy film UHF as janitor Stanley Spadowski. On television, he appeared in Miami Vice as an unscrupulous bookie; in St. Elsewhere as a television producer making a documentary about Dr. Mark Craig; in Cheers as a character trying to collect on an old bet with Sam Malone; and made several guest appearances with Jay Leno as an accident-prone fitness expert.

According to an interview with executive producer David Hoberman, ABC first conceived the series Monk as a procedural police comedy with an Inspector Clouseau-like character suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder. Hoberman said ABC wanted Richards to play Adrian Monk, but he turned it down.

1989–2005: Seinfeld and rise to prominence

In 1989, Richards was cast as Cosmo Kramer in the NBC television series Seinfeld, created by fellow Fridays cast member Larry David and comedian Jerry Seinfeld. Although it got off to a slow start, by the mid-1990s it had become one of the most popular sitcoms in television history. It ended its nine-year run in 1998 at No. 1 in the Nielsen ratings. In Seinfeld, Kramer is the neighbor across the hall of the show's eponymous character, and is usually referred to only by his last name. His first name, Cosmo, was revealed in the sixth-season episode "The Switch".

Richards won more Emmys than any other Seinfeld cast member, taking home the award for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series in 1993, 1994, and 1997 for his role as Kramer. When referring to speculation that he would launch a spin-off to Seinfeld about Kramer, Richards said he was not interested in doing so. During the run of Seinfeld, Richards made cameo appearances in several TV shows; he played himself in Episode2 of Season1 "The Flirt Episode" (1992) of the HBO series The Larry Sanders Show. He also had a cameo role in the comedy thriller film So I Married an Axe Murderer, credited as "insensitive man". In 1996, Richards made a cameo in Epcot's Ellen's Energy Adventure, where he portrayed a caveman discovering fire. He played radio station employee Doug Beech in Airheads, and co-starred with Jeff Daniels as an actor pretending to be a lawyer in 1997's Trial and Error. He also made guest appearances on Miami Vice, Night Court and Cheers.

In 2000, two years after the end of Seinfeld, Richards began work on a new series for NBC, his first major project since Seinfeld's finale. The Michael Richards Show, for which Richards received co-writer and co-executive producer credits, was conceived as a comedy/mystery starring Richards as a bumbling private investigator. When the first pilot failed with test audiences, NBC ordered that the show be retooled into a more conventional, office-based sitcom before its premiere. After a few weeks of poor ratings and negative reviews, it was canceled. Critics said the show was too "Kramer-esque" and Richards invoked the so-called "Seinfeld curse" as to why the show failed.

Starting in 2004, he and his fellow Seinfeld cast members provided interviews and audio commentaries for the Seinfeld DVDs. Richards stepped down from providing audio commentary after Season5, though he continued to provide interviews.

2006–2012: Laugh Factory incident and aftermath
During a performance on November 17, 2006, at the Laugh Factory in Hollywood, California, Richards launched into a racist rant in response to repeated heckling and interruptions from a small group of Black and Hispanic audience members. Richards was recorded shouting "He's a nigger!" several times and making references to lynching and the Jim Crow laws. Kyle Doss, a member of the group that Richards addressed, said the group had arrived in the middle of the performance and were "being a little loud." According to Doss:

"[Richards] said, 'Look at the stupid Mexicans and blacks being loud up there.' That's the first thing he said. And then he kept on with his bit. And, then, after a while, I told him, 'My friend doesn't think you're funny.' And then when I told him that, that's when he flipped me off and said, 'F-you N-word.' And that's how it all started."

The incident remained unknown to the larger public for three days until a cellphone video filmed by a member of the audience was obtained and released by TMZ. On November 20, after the video made rounds around the news, Jerry Seinfeld invited Richards via satellite during a broadcast of the Late Show with David Letterman, where Richards was recorded saying: "For me to be at a comedy club and to flip out and say this crap, I'm deeply, deeply sorry. I'm not a racist, that's what's so insane about this." Many studio audience members laughed as Richards began his unscripted explanation and apology, thinking it was a bit, leading Seinfeld to reprimand them, saying: "Stop laughing. It's not funny." Richards said he had been trying to defuse the heckling by being even more outrageous, but it had backfired. He later called civil rights leaders Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to apologize. He also appeared as a guest on Jackson's syndicated radio show. Doss stated that he did not accept Richards's apology, saying: "If he wanted to apologize, he could have contacted ... one of us out of the group. But, he didn't. He apologized on camera just because the tape got out."

A Gallup poll conducted in late November found that Richards was then the most unpopular Seinfeld cast member, with just 41 percent viewing him positively; by contrast, other Seinfeld cast members' favorability ratings were in the 60s and 70s. The same poll also found that 45 percent of non-whites expressed a negative view of Richards due to the incident. The incident was parodied on several TV shows, including Mad TV, Family Guy, South Park, Extras, and Monday Night Raw. In the ninth episode of the seventh season of Curb Your Enthusiasm, Richards appeared as himself and poked fun at the incident. In 2008, rapper Wale referenced the incident and used recordings of the incident, as well as Richard's apology, in the song "The Kramer" on The Mixtape About Nothing album.

One year following the incident, Richards voiced character Bud Ditchwater in the animated film Bee Movie, which starred and was produced by Jerry Seinfeld. In 2009, Richards and the other main Seinfeld cast members appeared in the seventh season of Curb Your Enthusiasm. In 2012, he appeared in the comedy web series Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee, hosted by Seinfeld, in which he remarked on the 2006 incident. In the episode, Richards explained that the outburst still haunted him, and was a major reason for his retirement from stand-up.

2013–present: Recent years
In 2013, Richards was cast to play Frank in the sitcom Kirstie, costarring Kirstie Alley and Rhea Perlman. It premiered on TV Land on December 4, 2013 and was canceled after one season. In 2014, Richards appeared as the president of Crackle in a trailer for Season5 of Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee. Seinfeld said the trailer's storyline would be expanded on in one of the episodes. In the comedy book SuperMega Saves the Troops written by Matt Watson and Ryan Magee, Richards is a key character as an undercover spy.

In 2019, Richards played Daddy Hogwood in the romantic comedy Faith, Hope & Love starring Peta Murgatroyd and Robert Krantz.

In November 2023, Richards announced he would be releasing a memoir entitled Entrances and Exits. The memoir was released in June 2024.

Personal life
Richards was married to Cathleen Lyons, a family therapist, for 18 years. They have one daughter, Sophia. They separated in 1992 and divorced the following year.

In 2010, Richards married his girlfriend Beth Skipp. They have been together since 2002 and have one son, Antonio.

Richards is a Freemason. He revealed in his 2024 memoir Entrances and Exits that he survived stage 1 prostate cancer in 2018 via a surgical removal of his entire prostate.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Michael Richards


text:
Talk:Kublai Khan

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Wenwu (Marvel Cinematic Universe) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Marco Polo
You could do a small section on Marco Polo 2A02:C7F:4465:AE00:F941:C452:FE7E:E19A (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

5.4 Japanese Invasions
Just for the sake of accuracy,

QUOTE Maritime archaeologist Kenzo Hayashida led the investigation that discovered the wreckage of the second invasion fleet off the western coast of Takashima District, Shiga. END QUOTE

Takashima District, Shiga is landlocked, and quite a bit northeast of the invasion site. Takashima Island, Saga is just west of the invasion site and a much more likely site of discovery of the the wreckage.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurogane666 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kublai Khan