 | Ebionites is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 9, 2007. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||
Passed Featured Article
The article passed Wikipedia GA. Merely 1 in 1300 articles are that sufficient. I told you guys this article was a superb expose on the Ebionites, which gives the author even more credit considering the near completely insufficiant sources and knowledge of the topic, the Ebionites. 66.161.185.110 12:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Joshua
- Thank you, Joshua. --Loremaster 00:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations Loremaster! The Ebionites article is now comprehensive, well-written, well-sourced, and NPOV. It is the best encyclopedic article on this subject that I have seen. You have another FA to add to your growing list of accomplishments on Wikipedia! Ovadyah 13:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Congratulations Ovadyah! If you hadn't convinced me to come back and contribute to the article, none of this good work would ever have happened. :) --Loremaster 21:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Congratulations to you folks. Well done. Metamagician3000 13:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
About See also
According to a Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policy have "see also" sections. NazireneMystic 00:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- I know but official Wikipedia policy pages and encyclopedic articles are not held to the same standard. Futhermore, I have spoken to Wikipedia 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)
- "See also" are a list, lists are worse then text. Wiki is not paper, we should have room to discuss all related issues, and "see also", which rarely discuss the linked items, give little indication why they are relevant. --Loremaster 19:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Reference audit
Connected Klijn and Reinink reference back to article using ref tags. Ovadyah 01:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The following are "dead references" that don't connect back to anything in the article:
- Akers, Keith. The Lost Religion of Jesus : Simple Living and Nonviolence in Early Christianity. New York: Lantern Books, 2000.
- Cameron, Ron. The Other Gospels. Philadephia: Westminster Press, 1982, pp 103-106.
- Danielou, Jean. The Theology of Jewish Christianity. Chicago: The Henry Regnery Company, 1964.
- Lüdemann, Gerd. Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.
- Skriver, Carl Anders. The Forgotten Beginnings of Creation and Christianity. Denver: Vegetarian Press, 1990.
- Vaclavik, Charles. The Origin of Christianity: The Pacifism, Communalism, and Vegeterianism of Primitive Christianity. Platteville, Wisconsin: Kaweah Publishing Company, 2004.
These were added to the reference list during the early stages of writing the article. I'm preserving them here on the Talk page but removing them from the article. Ovadyah 01:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Stop deleting post from this page without talking about the issues.
With the two recent reverts is wouls seem someone has something to hide.
- No. It is perfectly acceptable to delete pure propaganda and hate speech, NazireneMystic. However, it does raise a concern about the illegal phishing of private email communications. Ovadyah 03:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
If it were acceptable to delete pure propaganda then most of the Ebionite artical would be deleted! The very post you deleted exposed someones pure propaganda . I see now you call truth, " hate speech". If my post were hate speech according to you then you give hate speech a good name.
I think I can post Emails sent to me anywere I would like. Is there something in that Email that bothered you? lets discuss it like this page is for since it says a lot about a editor that has done a lot push his pure propaganda.
- No. I mean that you seem to have intercepted a private email that I sent to Shemayah Phillips, informing him that the Ebionites article would be featured on the Wiki main page. It was just a courtesy, and nothing more than that. :0) Ovadyah 03:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
As you well know noone can post to his fourm accept for the moderator and then he puts it across the group. He was replying to a member of his group which is you?
- I wouldn't know about that, since I am not on the EJC mailing list. Are you, NazireneMystic? Ovadyah 03:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes you have to be as innocent as doves but wise as serpents to get at the truth of things.
OvadyahI have emails going back to 03 of you posting in that group. this was before your leader desided to not let people post directly to the group and ended any meaningful discussions. Shall I post them? "nazirenemystic"— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.93.27 (talk)
- Remember to play nice, everybody. Kevin 05:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Kevin, Your words are a few years late. someone involved in this artical has not "played nice" from the start.
Sources
It's somewhat concerning that all of the references for the "Ebionites were the authentic Christians and Paul was the heretic" works are modern; and all the "Ebionites were the heretics" references are ancient. This could give rise to the view that scholars once considered the Ebionites to be heretics, but are now universally of the view that they were authentic Christians. Yet there are plenty of modern-day theologians/church historians who consider that the Ebionites were heretics. Could we maybe "culture-jam" this 'narrative' by mentioning one of them? Slac speak up! 03:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- You can find plenty of references to the Ebionites as heretics on the Catholic encyclopedia. However, they seem to be mostly religious POV rather than scholarly findings by verifiable secondary sources. Ovadyah 03:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Rival Ebionite groups?
Since Wikipedia has one group mentioned in the text of the artical but claims there are others claiming to be ebionites why are they not memtioned? Is the notibility bar held at 14 members like the featured group? If in reality there are suce groups why are they not mentioned? Has an editor with strong ties to the featured group played a role in reverting post exposing this fact? has he played an active role in voting to delete articals or other Ebionite groups?
I have seen the deletion log of one such group were this editor has done such things. If this is so then the fact these other groups do not have an wikipedia artical and the one with Ovinyah's backing does have one this is not grounds to not mention the other groups? Will level headed people that can search the net realise this present wikipedia topic is biased?
Did this same editor play a role in how the artical seems to not even give the Essene,jewish mystism. a fighting chance?
Wasnt the most abundant fragments among the dead sea scrolls "Enoch" and "Juliblies" and who ever collected or wrote the scrolls actualy called themselfs the "Poor" in hebrew text which is actualy the word "Ebionite"? If people with a mystic belief that read or wrote text of thier own , calling themsleves Ebionites and the dating of such scrolls is no later then 70 A.D. and there are scholars that can back this up why is this artical promoting what it is? Are there maybe only one or two strongly biased editors the cause of this?
Improve the article by adding a map
I think the main article could be improved if someone added a map to it, with an arrow indicating where the Ebionites were most often found.198.177.27.33 04:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting suggestion, thank you. There is a Wiki map of Arabia with some of the cities that Jews with Ebionite practices were said to have lived in. This could be added or linked to the article. Ovadyah 05:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Scholar Jans-Hoachim Schoeps
I see he has not yet been turned into a dead link but his only online source what can be easly checked without having to rely on one editor seems to point to another position and interesting enough he seems to have his position supported but the later publishing on the Dead Sea Scrolls.
His work is hard to find without being able to access research papers but here is evidence directly contrary to the POV of the editors regarding the source of the Clementine writings
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9231%28195203%2971%3A1%3C58%3AAFZRU%3E2.0.CO%3B2-N&size=LARGE
The only mention of Schopes's opinion in the article is in the form of a narrative that seems to counteract the little that can be found in the public ___domain.
Decimation?
Is this a precise description - ie that one in ten were killed, or is meant by this description that "a lot" or "most" were killed? docboat 07:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Modern usage, that a lot or most were killed. Ovadyah 12:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Translation issue
WRT: Ebionites featured article, what Bible translation was used for this? "Congratulations to the poor?" What a distortion of "Blessed are the poor"
- Try asking on Talk:Ebionites, that'd be the better place to ask about the article.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Changing it on that page wouldn't fix the Main Page, afaik. But seriously, if it's going to be billed as a "best known quotation", it ought to be taken from a mainstream translation rather than the current odd (and frankly childish-sounding) rendering. I suggest that a better translation would be something like the NIV, KJV, NASB, or NRSV. The current one is awful - and not used in the Beatitudes article, I might add. The reference is Luke 6:20, available in numerous translations in the link. Vonspringer 03:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
You should understand not only were Ebionite's not christian they only used a Gospel that is now lost to history apart from quotes from it that can be found in some early christian writings. It would be troubling for a Christian to stumble on but not only is it lost it was regarded by a chain of church fathers ending with Jerome as the origional Gospel. Jerome stated in his ealry days it was handed down from Mathew but after Constantine sealed the canon Jerome changed his story.
There is little reason to quote from a modern day translation as the codex its translated from didnt even exist till the 1500's at which time a number of codexs were used that did not agree with each other.
- I agree with Vonspringer, and find the unsigned answer entirely beside the point. We know nothing of what Jesus said apart from what is in the New Testament, so to refer to his best-known statements means to refer to the best-known Bible-verses (best-known to US), which makes it absurd to cite them in an unfamiliar form. Even if "congratulations" were a good translation of the adjective makarioi (happy), which I doubt. --Doric Loon 10:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
What was the reason for the push for FA status? Ovadyah has an lot of explaining to do along with a few other editors!
Below is an message from the group Phillips runs. Remember Ovadyah has actualy voted on other ebionite groups articals of deleteion and has ran countless people off the artical like a bulldog snaping at anyone that adds anything that goes aganist his leaders teaching. Calling almost all changed not approved by him "vandalous POV". Is this the making of a featured artical? I would say that a pretty low standard.
To revert this artical back to a billboard for his group the opinions of some scholars had to be snuffed entirely and then thier dead links dropped while others misrepresented. All to please this editor that we are suspsed to assume good faith in?
The assumptions of the wikipedians have been abused.
--- In evyonim@yahoogroups.com, Shemayah Phillips <spgehr@...> wrote:
Ovadyah wrote: > Shalom Shemayah, > > Just thought you would like to know. Fewer than 1/1000 articles make it > to Featured Article. FA status should make it easier to fend off > malicious mischief from our moonbeam friends in the future. > > The EJC stub is now well referenced. The source of specific content may > be challenged, but now it's highly unlikely that the entire article can > be deleted. The EJC is here to stay! > > Both the Ebionites and EJC articles are now listed under the Project > Judaism template. > > My next project is to work on improving an article on the Desposyni. > Currently, the article has a very conservative Catholic bias. The major > secondary source is Malachi Martin. > > Take care, > > Ovadyah >
And so the need for non-profit is clear to me. Shemayah
--- End forwarded message ---
Kind regards, NazireneMystic
So now truth" is being defined as "malicious mischief"?
Why is wikipedia afraid to say the obvious, that they may not have been even existed?
I read on the front page, "there's no evidence, i.e. their nature can't be..". Shouldn't it read "their nature or even if they even existed"? --Leladax 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)