Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constantine Conspiracy

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MeBee (talk · contribs) is yet another now-blocked reincarnation of Melissadolbeer pushing Authentic Matthew despite prior consensus on the matter. I've uncovered a socknest in CheckUser-ing the account, and am speedying this as a creation by a banned user. Dmcdevit·t 07:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Afd is divided up by Keep, Merge, Delete and Comment. Please keep comments short. Only place large extensive discussion/essays on the talk page.

This appears to be a recreation of Authentic Matthew by a suspiciously acting "new user". I am alleging that most of the voters in the previous afd were sockpuppets of User:MeBee. User:MeBee's whose User:MeBee/Matthaei Authenticum appears to be a recreation of another previously new user's article that was redirected (without merging). Among the similar points that shout "sockpuppet" are the highly unusual use of boldface text where it wouldn't ordinarily be suspected, and the fact that most of the content is the same. Since I have grounds for suspecting that most of the previous votes were due to sockpuppets, I am re-opening the afd, and requesting a sterner test of sufference (ability to vote).

The article in question, Constantine Conspiracy, appears to be trying to assert the same original research, to wit that the original version of the Gospel of Matthew was the Gospel of the Hebrews and that the latter was historically called Authentic Matthew. This position is, as far as I can tell from reading the talk page Talk:Authentic Matthew total original research with no academic merit whatsoever, that has been supported by an extraordinary large number of sockpuppets in the past.

I also suspect that the previous afd was an incident of gaming the system. The proposer, User:Anikk appears to be a straw man; they have made absolutely no edits to any article other than those related to Constantine Conspiracy. In effect, I suspect that MeBee created the article, created Anikk to afd it, so that MeBee could game the system by claiming that the article was kept after afd, when in fact the only people voting, or who knew about the article, were sockpuppets of MeBee.

Due to the likelihood of sockpuppet votes, I would like to ask the closing admin to discount votes from any editor with less than 200 edits on 1st April 2006. Clinkophonist 22:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and send to cleanup. Pardon me. I've actually done research on this; an entire half of my graduating thesis from high school was on Constantine's role as leader of Sol Invictus and his motives for convoking the Council of Nicaea. That aside, the article as it exists right now can't be properly described with civil diction. It is, to say the least, terribly off-topic, and in need of a major rewrite.

On a side note, I would like to remind Redvers that Articles for Deletion behaves dialectically and meritocratically. People voice their opinion here with a vote and an argument. Consensus here is rare. - Corbin ^{Be excellent} 03:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In this article I have used no original research. Every fact can be backed by at least two sources. Nor am I trying to put forward a point of view. From my study of the sources, Constantine seems to be trying to do what is right. However, Jerome, Epiphanius and other Church Fathers state clearly that the Gospel of the Hebrews was written by the Apostle Matthew. Its disappearance has affected the Christian faith. Indeed the sources show that 'The Way' was changed from a Jewish Faith to a Christian Faith!

• "The story of Emperor Constantine and his conspiracy with the apostate church to change the times and laws of God. Accounts his anti-Semitism, his ruthlessness, and the error of the church. Documented using centuries old writings of Jesuit priests." (David M. Hargis, The Constantine Conspiracy, 2005. http://mbiy.safeshopper.com/11/42.htm?198 http://home.triad.rr.com/thefamilee/tccc.html. )

• "They (the Apostles) were led to write only under the pressure of necessity. Matthew, who had first preached the Gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going to other nations, committed the Gospel to writing in his native language. Therefore he supplied the written word to make up for the lack of his own presence to those from whom he was sent." (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.24.6)

• "They too accept the Gospel of Matthew, and like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus, they use it alone. They call it the Gospel of the Hebrews, for in truth Matthew alone in the New Testament expounded and declared the Gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script. "(Epiphanius, Panarion 30.3.7)

• "In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call The Authentic Gospel of Matthew " (Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 2)

• " Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek (and the Greek has been lost) though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it. " (Jerome, On Illustrious Men 3)

• "The Constantine Conspiracy: Another remarkable claim in The Da Vinci Code is that the Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, (231). Brown lifted this idea straight from Holy Blood, Holy Grail: It was at this point that most of the crucial alterations in the New Testament were probably made and Jesus assumed the unique status he has enjoyed ever since. The importance of Constantine’s commission must not be underestimated.7"

--MeBee 02:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Any non-OR material in this article is already covered adequately in Gospel of the Hebrews, Synoptic problem, etc, and the article title is an unlikely search term. Tevildo 22:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 22:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete tinfoil hat OR --Aoratos 22:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per original research. The article fairly sites a number of books on the subject as sources, but the lack of specific citations in the article attached to statements implies that this is an individual's theory, not an encyclopedia entry regarding a historical subject. -Markeer 23:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom Scented Guano 05:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI seem to have entered theAuthentic Matthew mess! I used http://pedia.nodeworks.com/A/AU/AUT/Authentic_Matthew/ (a big mistake)! I am not able to defend myself against DocUser:-Ril- etc! Would an admin please look into this very bad situation --MeBee 02:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment since this isn't a vote, there are no votes to discount. Anyone "voting" will be discounted immediately. There are no qualifications on who can express an opinion here in this discussion, although new and anonymous users will be weighted accordingly. Nevertheless, reasoned discussion based on existing Wikipedia policy and AfD precident are welcomed from everybody. "Votes" from anybody will be discounted automatically; "opinion" will not without good reason. ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentUser:-Ril- hasn't posted on Wikipedia since March. In the last three weeks, Doc has a total of one post of one sentence. What are you talking about? Fan1967 03:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.