Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SpiritualEbionite (talk | contribs) at 20:30, 10 November 2006 (→The Way Forward (from peer review)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ebionites received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives

Previous discussions can be found at:

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2
• /Neo-Ebionite
• /Neo-Ebionite 2

Towards Featured Article status

Before we push the article to Peer review - a step that should always be taken before the Featured Articles Candidacy step - , we need to 1) preserve a neutral point of view ; and 2) extensively provided references for every paragraph in this article following Misplaced Pages:Citing sources guidelines. --Loremaster 14:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

About See also

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. --Loremaster 01:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Shalom Loremaster,

Articals explaining offical Misplaced Pages policy have "see also" sections.NazireneMystic 00:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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. --Loremaster 02:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Toward Peer Review

I am now satisfied with the 12:03, 10 September 2006 version of the article. --Loremaster 17:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I am also satisfied with the 12:03, 10 September 2006 version of the article. I will initiate the peer review process. Thanks Loremaster, for your efforts to make this article into a candidate for featured article status. Ovadyah 18:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Loremaster 19:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I will continue to make some minor edits to the article but nothing that will change it's structure or core content. --Loremaster 17:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Ebionites

I have just made a series of suggestions here Slrubenstein | Talk 20:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Loremaster 21:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster 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. Ovadyah 02:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. --Loremaster 02:27, 17 September 2006 (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?NazireneMystic 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. --Loremaster 16:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The peer review has been archived.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

The Way Forward (from peer review)

Now that we have taken a bit of a break, I thought I would get things rolling. UberCyrix had some questions about sources as follows:

1. There are some claims in there that definitely appear sketchy to average readers....like...."Accordingly they dispossessed themselves of all their goods and lived in communistic societies"

2. "While Ebionites undoubtedly drew their doctrines from ideas circulating in the 1st century CE, Judeo-Christian origins scholar Robert Eisenman argues that they existed as a distinct group from Pauline Christians and Gnostic Christians before the destruction of Jerusalem," among many others.

Can we identify the sources of these entries and provide citations? Any others? Let's nail down our source material before we take on organization and style issues. Ovadyah 01:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Jewish Encyclopedia: Ebionites

2. Eisenman, Robert. James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Viking, 1996

--Loremaster 01:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That was quick!

How do you feel about UberCyrix's other suggestion:

The section Ebionite writings should be written in summary style, not lists. Same thing with the Sources section.

There is content overlap between Sources and Writings. The summary style comment may reflect a preference for inline citations. Ovadyah 03:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The rationale for summary style is that the length of a given Misplaced Pages entry tends to grow as people add information to it. This cannot go on forever: very long entries would cause problems. However, I don't expect the Sources and Writings sections to grow. However, I have no problem with these sections being merged. --Loremaster 06:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we should merge Sources 1 into History and Sources 2 into Writings. If we decide to expand the article later to list writings of the church fathers about Ebionites, we can create a separate bullet for Panarion 30.

BTW, this is refreshing. Been down so long I was starting to forget what up was like. Ovadyah 18:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Merged Sources into History and Writings sections as we discussed and used summary style. I think these changes address most of UberCyrix's suggestions. Ovadyah 02:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful! :) --Loremaster 02:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I seem to have lost control of my NazireneMystic account. I changed a passward and forgot it but then I tried to get a new one send to my registered Email it never showed up and now I would have to wait a day to try again so I made up this one.

In the history section this sentence is totaly POV and should be removed as it has no justification "whether or not his claims are accurate" That could be placed in front of every source in the artical. who in the world edited that sentence in? LOL

Since we are going as far as list one scholars wild therory the Clement writings are Gnostic Christian I believe to attempt to present a NPOV I will add the ideas Hans Joachim Schoeps presents in his reviewed work: "Aus fruhchristlicher Zeit: Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen " were he states the Clementine materals nearest parallels are to be found in the book of "Jubilees" and "Ehoch". His entire work is not on line but I found a nugget or to here http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9231%28195203%2971%3A1%3C58%3AAFZRU%3E2.0.CO%3B2-N&size=LARGE

Since we know this materal is very populous among the dead sea scroll fragments.SpiritualEbionite 09:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I just looked over the rest of the artical and it seems since ive been gone a darkness has come over the artical. Someone seems to have nailed "Epiphanius of Salamis" to the cross while ive been away.SpiritualEbionite 09:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Darkness??? LOL Putting histrionics aside, I have no problem with your removal of the disclaimer sentence about Epiphanius. However, it was the addition of Shlomo Pines' opinion which made the article NPOV so adding Schoeps' opinion supposedly to counter Pine's is unnecessary. --Loremaster 17:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster,

I think you are going have to explain yourself a little better then that. My adition was writen in a NPOV mannor. My " Schoeps " adition did not counter Pines but just gave credit to the clementine writings your current artical is trying to discredit. Schoeps is listed in the sources section . I cant help it if this does not support your point of view and I do not see any reason slant the artical and keep opinons of this scholar supressed in order to keep the artical somewhat in line with the EJC doctorines. A NPOV artical presents the facts,Misplaced Pages is not an experiment in socialism were a week, unsupported point of view is given creditbiliy by hindering evidence regarding the topic of the artical. Takeing from the pro clementine camp to support your anti clementine view is a form of wikipedian welfare. You do not own this artical. I would call your revert of my NPOV edit vandalism. Instead of a well written artical is seem people here waht to build a house of cards that looks sound from a quick glance but quickly falls apart under careful observationSpiritualEbionite 20:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding Pines without giving the pinion of Schoeps does not make the artical NPOV as you contend. Pines brings up the point that the source is not from the Jewish thought but rather from greek thought by calling it Gnostic christian. The unknowing might be lead to believe this. Schoeps clears this misconception up and shows the spiritual concepts come directly from a Hebrew mindset.SpiritualEbionite 20:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review