This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook Christianity: Jesus Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive. Phoenicia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Phoenicia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Phoenicia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.PhoeniciaWikipedia:WikiProject PhoeniciaTemplate:WikiProject PhoeniciaPhoenicia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Ancient Near East Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

• First, I have removed a large section regarding the historicity of Jesus, which is inappropriate for an article discussing the Christ Myth, considering there is already an article on the historicity of Jesus which goes through the material.
• Second, I have temporarily relocated the material at The Christ Myth/Witnesses to the historicity of Jesus.
• Third, I've marked this article for a merge with Christ myth theory.

The material is marked as having been removed from the Arthur Drews article and the Christ myth theory deals with Drews's notion and its impact. -- spin|^control 00:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The merge is not going to work on procedural grounds in any case, given that this page is 25k, the other page is 70k and per WP:Length it would immediately run over the limit, as well as WP:Due. So we will have to call that a no merge. Arthur Drews is 34k, so it cou;d conceivably go back there, but then why? The book meets WP:Note so and Afd is not needed; nor will it succeed. So merge will have to be abandoned just as a procedural issue. History2007 (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a result, the original complete article has been left emptied of the most important aspects of Arthur Drews's work and life, which is no longer a complete biographical article on Arthur Drews.

The editors have decided to arbitrarily dismantle the complete biographical article of Arthur Drews and remove the most significant parts to assign them or transfer them to other articles according to their own personal POVs: the Christ Myth I book; the Christ Myth II book; the Denial of the Historicity of Jesus in the past and present book; the connection with the Dutch Radical School. All of them are an integral part of Arthur Drews's biography. And could be listed as links to sections of the master biographical article.
They may have tampered with the full quotations, and modified the complete German references, which are essential when one is referring to German documents.
As a result, they may not realise that they have distorted the Arthur Drews article from a truthful account of his life and work, and discouraged researchers the world over for whom this is the only encyclopedic article available, and who could use the Wikipedia article as a a major source of basic encyclopedic information on the totality of Arthur Drews's life and work.

The question remains whether this dismemberment is due to an intrinsic lack of interest in a major German philosopher, and a similar lack of interest in German philosophy and German culture, where the essential value of information is "Gründlichkeit" (thoroughness and reliability)

THE COMPLETE ARTICLE CAN BE RETRIEVED ON THE HISTORY PAGE, FOR THE DATE OF AUGUST, 23d, 2012 --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]