Wikipedia’s editorial integrity is once again being questioned after its entries on Jesus Christ were found to promote fringe theories that contradict traditional Christian doctrine. A recent Fox News report highlights how the platform includes speculative and controversial claims about Jesus’ sexuality and relationships, raising concerns about religious bias on one of the world’s most-visited websites.
The article “Sexuality of Jesus” on Wikipedia devotes significant space to theories suggesting Jesus may have had romantic or sexual relationships with men. These claims, which lack support from orthodox Christian scholarship or Scripture, appear alongside traditional teachings without clear distinction. In one section titled “Homoeroticism,” Wikipedia editors cite sources speculating on a special bond between Jesus and the Apostle John, suggesting pederastic interpretations that most theologians reject outright.
Critics argue this reflects a pattern of ideological slant on the platform. While Wikipedia maintains a “neutral point of view” policy, its editing practices often allow activist contributors to insert unorthodox views under the guise of academic balance. This trend is not limited to religious articles. Conservative figures like Charlie Kirk and President Trump have also seen their Wikipedia pages subjected to negative framing, while left-leaning counterparts receive comparatively favorable treatment.
Wikipedia’s open-edit model has long made it vulnerable to misuse. Though volunteer editors are tasked with enforcing sourcing standards, the platform frequently elevates minority viewpoints—especially those critical of traditional values—without appropriate disclaimers or context. In cases involving Christian doctrine, this can create confusion, especially for younger readers or those unfamiliar with church history.
The inclusion of speculative content about Jesus’ sexuality undermines Wikipedia’s credibility and risks promoting misinformation about one of the most significant figures in human history. Faith leaders and scholars have called for greater editorial accountability, warning that the platform’s handling of religious topics distorts centuries of well-documented teaching in favor of contemporary ideological trends.
