Talk:Ebionites: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:35, 20 October 2006 editIgnocrates (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users11,170 editsm →meatpuppets ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 11:49, 28 June 2024 edit undoLoremaster (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers55,212 editsm →Robert Eisenman
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header\|noarchive=yes}}
	{{oldpeerreview}}
			{{Article history
	{{talkheader}}
			\|action1=PR
			\|action1date=01:42, 13 September 2006
			\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Ebionites/archive1
			\|action1result=reviewed
			\|action1oldid=75416130

			\|action2=GAN
	==Archives==
			\|action2date=18:02, 22 December 2006
			\|action2result=listed
			\|action2oldid=95954712

			\|action3=PR
	''Previous discussions can be found at:''
			\|action3date=01:16, 24 December 2006
	*]
			\|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Ebionites/archive2
	*]
			\|action3result=reviewed
	*]
			\|action3oldid=96189889

			\|action4=FAC
	== Towards Featured Article status ==
			\|action4date=03:22, 12 April 2007
			\|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Ebionites/archive1
			\|action4result=promoted
			\|action4oldid=122127869

			\|action5=FAR
	'''Before we push the article to ] - a step that should always be taken before the ] Candidacy step - , we need to 1) preserve a neutral point of view ; and 2) extensively provided references for every paragraph in this article following ] guidelines.''' --] 14:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
			\|action5date=15:33, 24 October 2007
			\|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Ebionites/archive1
			\|action5result=removed
			\|action5oldid=165951556

			\|maindate=July 9, 2007
	==About See also==
			\|currentstatus=FFA
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|1=
			{{WikiProject Religion\|importance=Mid\|Interfaith=yes\|InterfaithImp=}}
			{{WikiProject Judaism\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Jewish history\|importance=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject Christianity\|importance=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism\|importance=Low}}
			}}
			{{Archive box\|auto=yes \|search=yes \|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III \|age=2 \|units=months \|index=/Archive index \|
			</br><center>'''Topic specific archives'''
			]</br>
			]</br>
			]</br>
			]</center>
			}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 200K
			\|counter = 11
			\|minthreadsleft = 4
			\|algo = old(60d)
			\|archive = Talk:Ebionites/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
			\|target=Talk:Ebionites/Archive index
			\|mask1=Talk:Ebionites/Archive <#>
			\|mask2=Talk:Ebionites/Peer Review Archive
			\|mask3=Talk:Ebionites/Spiritual Ebionite Archive
			\|mask4=Talk:Ebionites/Dispute Archive
			\|mask5=Talk:Ebionites/Sources
			\|leading_zeros=0
			\|indexhere=yes}}

			== This article has an unclear citation style ==
	'''According to a Misplaced Pages rule of thumb: 1) if something is in ''See also'', try to incorporate it into main body 2) if something is in main body, it should not be in ''See also'' and therefore 3) good articles have no ''See also'' sections.''' --] 01:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
	Shalom Loremaster,

			I suggest that all contributors to the ] article follow the example of the ] article when it comes to notes, citations and sources from now on. So we have a lot of work to do. —-] (]) 15:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
	:Articals explaining offical Misplaced Pages policy have "see also" sections.] 00:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

			== No primary sources ==
	::I know. However, I have a spoken to Misplaced Pages administrators about this issue and I've confirmed that this rule of thumb is an unofficial policy that is highly recommended. --] 02:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

			Here we have an article about a "group of Christians" that are devoid of any primary sources. I notice one contributor is obsessed with the "bloodline theory of Jesus Christ" as found in the book "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" even though it had nothing to do with Pierre Plantard and the Priory of Sion, and Plantard distanced himself from the nonsense in late 1982 on a French radio programme. Also Plantard actively criticised the book from 1989 onwards. The subject matter has been dead in France for ages. Plantard was a spent force in 1989 when his latest manifestation of the Priory of Sion was responsible for the final demise of Pierre Plantard, who died in 2000. It's only the British people that ever became obsessed with "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail". Plantard himself had no interest in the "Jesus Bloodline" from the get-go because he was an old-fashioned French Roman Catholic, as can be gleaned from his works and writings. ] (]) 07:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	==Toward Peer Review==

			:As the Misplaced Pages article on the ] clearly states in the introduction section: "Since historical records by the Ebionites are scarce, fragmentary and disputed, much of what is known or conjectured about them derives from the polemics of their Gentile Christian opponents, specifically the Church Fathers." This fact has never prevented numerous respected secular and religious encyclopedias of having entries on the subject of Ebionites.
	I am now satisfied with the . --] 17:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

			:As I suggested 4 years ago, the Ebionites article has an unclear citation style. We should all focus on improving it, which means, among other things, making proper use of primary sources (the Church Fathers and the Jewish-Christian gospels) when and where needed.
	:I am also satisfied with the . I will initiate the ] process. Thanks ], for your efforts to make this article into a candidate for ] status. ] 18:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

			:That being said, you are the one who is obsessed with ] since no one here currently believes in the Priory of Sion myth of Pierre Plantard nor the conspiracy theories of the authors of <i>The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail</i>. I've been watching over the ] article for years to ensure, among other things, that readers know that the Priory of Sion has been thoroughly debunked as a hoax.
	:::You're welcome. --] 19:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

			:However, what you seem to fail to understand is that the uncontroversial notion that James the Just is the biological brother (or half-brother) of Jesus is NOT related to unfounded speculation of a Jesus bloodline from Mary Magdalene. (For the record, I personally think that Jesus didn't father any biological children due to a vow of celibacy because of his belief that marriage would cease to exist in the Kingdom of God on Earth, and his alleged promotion of ]s as role models.)
	:::I will continue to make some minor edits to the article but nothing that will change it's structure or core content. --] 17:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

			:Bottom line: Please avoid engaging in unprovoked and absurd personal attacks against contributors to the Ebionites article. --] (]) 14:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	'''See ]'''

			::FYI: You'll be happy to know that the mention of ″relatives of Jesus″ (which could be misinterpreted as promoting the hypothesis of Jesus bloodline from Mary Magdalene) has now been deleted from the Ebionites article. --] (]) 09:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:I have just made a series of suggestions here ] \| ] 20:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Thank you. --] 21:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

			== Robert Eisenman ==
	] I suggest we reserve this page for disussions relating to peer review and follow-up work resulting from the peer review. I suggest moving the last two sections discussing editorial changes made prior to the peer review to Archive 2. I would move the rant about changes to the archived pages to Archive 1, where it can be combined with all the other POV material. ] 02:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

			Fringe. His works on The Dead Sea Scrolls are rightfully rejected. He is a Muslim by faith. ] (]) 07:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	:Agreed. Done. --] 02:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

			:I hope you are not suggesting that someone's Muslim faith (or Jewish faith or liberal Christian faith or lack of faith) automatically prevents him or her from doing good scholarship on Christianity... That being said, although I'm not a fan of Robert Eisenman's works, we cannot deny or suppress the fact that he is among the few modern scholars who have written on the subject of Ebionites. Furthemore, although one of Eisenman's book is used as a source, the article does not discuss the Dead Sea Scrolls nor link them to the Ebionites. --] (]) 14:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	::Its interesting that actual discussion about changes to the artical you call rants. then archiving it by moving it to a different section only makes for confusion. Do smoke screens and confusion work in your favor?] 00:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

	:::Whether they are rants or not, I only archive discussions that have ended and disputes have been resolved. Anyone can easily find and read the archives so my acts cannot be interpreted as some attempt to limit your freedom of speech. --] 16:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

	The peer review has been archived. It contains several ideas we can use to improve the Ebionites article.--] 14:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

	== Act Bold ==

	Well within the policy to ] I reinserted the Ebionite restoration movement artical.

	I thought they would be judged on thier merit and had no part in the prosses but after revewing the log the vote was made after ] gave misleading information regarding the groups size and this seemed to effect the vote and the reason for deletion.once bringing up the notibility issue that was shown to be a non issue compaired to the ME group.

	Once the notibility issue was asked to be judged with fair balance and with equal measures thats how both sections were first removed from the Ebionite artical.lol What could not be shown upfront was sneeked in the back door.] 02:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

	:Imagine that. Let's see where acting "bold" gets you with the Wiki admins. :) ] 13:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

	::Well I should be fine according to wikipedia policy but then if at any point both groups were judged evenly it would be impossible to include the one group and not the spiritual Ebionites so I dont expect Wikipedians to start acting in good faith any time soon if ever] 15:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

	:::As Ovadyah has suggested elsewhere, despite the deletion of the Ebionite Restoration Movement stub, a more general article about modern Ebionites should be considered with the Ebionite Jewish Community paragraph as a subset. Some suggestions for titles are "Modern Ebionite Movements" or "Ebionite Restoration Movements" or "Ebionism in Modern Times". Hopefully the AfD debate narrows the scope of the article so that we don't have to deal with ''']''' calling themselves Ebionites. --] 16:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

	::::Actually, I said Moonbeams, but ''']''' will do nicely. :) ] 17:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

	:::::Funny according the the ''']''' artical is seems you have sided with ''']''' and thats about the only explanation of the deletion outcome. Of which i was the only one involved with this artical that acted in good faith. As far as not many believing what the spiritual ebionites held to be true,historicaly not many did, the Ebionites were not in the fat part of the bell curve] 17:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

	:::::LOL Loremaster,

	:::::So he plans to make an artical with the same title Allan came up with but he will push a POV to narrow the scope of the artical so we could not be included? At least he is consistant. If you remember I said long ago in the end you will have to do away with the majority of what scholars agree is Ebionite material to keep the artical a billboard for that other group.lol ] 20:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

	::::::The results of acting "bold" are in: the consensus of a second AfD on the restored ERM article was SPEEDY DELETE and PAGE PROTECT. If you attempt to restore the article again, you will find yourself speedily deleted as well. ] 17:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

	:::::::Btw, congratulations NM! You are now officially a vandal. Not because I said so, but because of your own actions. ] 12:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

	==meatpuppets==
	While I, in "good faith" let what I thought would be unbiased editors to the ] without it seems ]
	and ] were active ] in the discussion to delete the ] artical.

	Both of them from the archived talk pages clearly know around 400 people are in our main fourm at any given time. We have around 6 other groups also.

	The main one alone has more menbers the the other group. ] , in the role of ] that the group had one or 2 members!

	] memtioned the mis- named neo-ebionite archives but failed to mention after we showed that our group was more notible in every aspect brought out in the prosses to exclude us then we both became subs and removed from the artical.

	Another voter claimed outside of Allan's sites there in no memtion of the group at all. On my talk page I clearly have one site that takes almost a whole page attacking Allan, another site were a P.H.D.ed religous scholar reprints an artical Allan has written, and still another site were Were modern spiritual Ebionite writings are listed side by side with famous Christian and Jewish Mystics.

	By contrast the evidence ]
	claims to be showing his group doesnt even mention them by name and does not show the writers of the articals he links to even know the name of the group or its plaiq I.E. ] I.E.King.

	Only the reference that used the past wikipedia "Ebionite" artical back when the artical was mainly a billboard for the EJC mentions the group but that realy dones mean anything since it was obtained from Misplaced Pages.] 16:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

	:Enough is enough. I have placed the second formal warning to refrain from ] on ]'s user page. ] 18:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

	Ovadyah,

	Funny I didnt attack you but only showed what happened. If I was in error please show me how.
	If reality seems like apersonal attack on you I cant help you there. Feel free to report all you want] 19:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

	:NazireneMystic, please follow the talk page guidelines listed at the top of this page. --] 18:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

	::Most reasonable people would consider being called deceitful or ignorant or diabolical or a meatpuppet to be a ] on their character. If this concept is still not clear to you, I can arrange to have an admin explain it more clearly. ] 23:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

	Ovadyah,

	Any reasonable person could not determin if being called deceitful, ignorant or diabolical or a meatpuppet is a personal attack untill it was looked into to see if this is so, it would be ignorant to do otherwise. Were the charges against Foley a personal attack? They surely would be if it were not true but in light of the evidence even his own party is not calling it a personal attack. ] 17:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

	:Your argument seems to be that none of the things you allege about me can be considered personal attacks because everything you say is true. However, none of these insinuations are self-evident truths that speak for themselves; they are merely your opinions. As I said before to one of your collegues, you are certainly entitled to your views. Such views, however, have no place on Misplaced Pages. I ask you one last time to refer to ] and to refrain from such actions. ] 13:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

	:And I particularly resent being compared to an alleged pedophile! ] 13:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

	LoreMaster,

	Why should I be the only editor involved in this artical that is held to Misplaced Pages standards?
	Do you know the Ignorance I have had to put up with to this point? How about just the last day? After I followed Policy and restored the artical "boldly even", and that it was linked to the main ebionite artical it would be against wiki policy to speedily delete it. Our ever Honorable friend reported my justified undeletion as vandalism and then yet another briliant wikipedian honored the wooo "report" and went as far to tell me not to undelete the artical again. Siteing someone for not following wikipedia policy involved in this artical is like handing out speeding tickets at the
	]] 19:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

	:No, it is well within Wiki policy to speedily delete it. Please refer to the admin's comments on your user page under ]. ] 01:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:49, 28 June 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ebionites article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Ebionites is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 9, 2007.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 13, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
December 22, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
December 24, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
April 12, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
October 24, 2007	Featured article review	Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

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

Religion: Interfaith Mid‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Judaism Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Jewish history Mid‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. 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.

Veganism and Vegetarianism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11

Topic specific archives

Peer Review Archive
Spiritual Ebionite Archive
Dispute Archive

Sources

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

This article has an unclear citation style

I suggest that all contributors to the Ebionites article follow the example of the Gospel of the Ebionites article when it comes to notes, citations and sources from now on. So we have a lot of work to do. —-Loremaster (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

No primary sources

Here we have an article about a "group of Christians" that are devoid of any primary sources. I notice one contributor is obsessed with the "bloodline theory of Jesus Christ" as found in the book "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" even though it had nothing to do with Pierre Plantard and the Priory of Sion, and Plantard distanced himself from the nonsense in late 1982 on a French radio programme. Also Plantard actively criticised the book from 1989 onwards. The subject matter has been dead in France for ages. Plantard was a spent force in 1989 when his latest manifestation of the Priory of Sion was responsible for the final demise of Pierre Plantard, who died in 2000. It's only the British people that ever became obsessed with "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail". Plantard himself had no interest in the "Jesus Bloodline" from the get-go because he was an old-fashioned French Roman Catholic, as can be gleaned from his works and writings. Octavius88 (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

As the Misplaced Pages article on the Ebionites clearly states in the introduction section: "Since historical records by the Ebionites are scarce, fragmentary and disputed, much of what is known or conjectured about them derives from the polemics of their Gentile Christian opponents, specifically the Church Fathers." This fact has never prevented numerous respected secular and religious encyclopedias of having entries on the subject of Ebionites.

As I suggested 4 years ago, the Ebionites article has an unclear citation style. We should all focus on improving it, which means, among other things, making proper use of primary sources (the Church Fathers and the Jewish-Christian gospels) when and where needed.

That being said, you are the one who is obsessed with flogging a dead horse since no one here currently believes in the Priory of Sion myth of Pierre Plantard nor the conspiracy theories of the authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. I've been watching over the Priory of Sion article for years to ensure, among other things, that readers know that the Priory of Sion has been thoroughly debunked as a hoax.

However, what you seem to fail to understand is that the uncontroversial notion that James the Just is the biological brother (or half-brother) of Jesus is NOT related to unfounded speculation of a Jesus bloodline from Mary Magdalene. (For the record, I personally think that Jesus didn't father any biological children due to a vow of celibacy because of his belief that marriage would cease to exist in the Kingdom of God on Earth, and his alleged promotion of eunuchs as role models.)

Bottom line: Please avoid engaging in unprovoked and absurd personal attacks against contributors to the Ebionites article. --Loremaster (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

FYI: You'll be happy to know that the mention of ″relatives of Jesus″ (which could be misinterpreted as promoting the hypothesis of Jesus bloodline from Mary Magdalene) has now been deleted from the Ebionites article. --Loremaster (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Robert Eisenman

Fringe. His works on The Dead Sea Scrolls are rightfully rejected. He is a Muslim by faith. Octavius88 (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I hope you are not suggesting that someone's Muslim faith (or Jewish faith or liberal Christian faith or lack of faith) automatically prevents him or her from doing good scholarship on Christianity... That being said, although I'm not a fan of Robert Eisenman's works, we cannot deny or suppress the fact that he is among the few modern scholars who have written on the subject of Ebionites. Furthemore, although one of Eisenman's book is used as a source, the article does not discuss the Dead Sea Scrolls nor link them to the Ebionites. --Loremaster (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Categories: