Talk:Ebionites

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria. Please feel free to leave comments.
When the FAC director promotes or archives the nomination, a bot will update the article talk page.
Good articles Ebionites (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Peer review Ebionites has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Peer review Ebionites has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ebionites article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Portal:Judaism
 Judaism Portal
Ebionites is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:

Contents

[edit] Archives

Previous discussions can be found at:

[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Citing sources guidelines. --Loremaster 14:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Good. --Loremaster 02:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference links in the article without references: Tabor 1998 (4 times), Schonfield, Urrutia

Loremaster, I need your help with these. We either need to add the references or remove the ref tags. Ovadyah 02:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What a coincidence! I was in the process of writing the exact same commen and request. I don't know which works of Schonfield and Urratia the person who originally added their names to the article was refering to but I won't be able to look into it due to time constraint. As for Tabor, the reference is already mentioned as "Tabor, James D. Ancient Judaism: Nazarenes and Ebionites. The Jewish Roman World of Jesus, 31 August 2006, 20:02, [13] [accessed 31 August 2006]" --Loremaster 02:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the ref tags for Schonfield and Urrutia. We can always add them back if needed. Ovadyah 14:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Good. --Loremaster 17:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster, is the Keith Akers reference another "dead reference"? I don't see anything pointing to it in the notes. Ovadyah 23:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. We should remove it. --Loremaster 23:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Good. I moved it to the talk page. I'm also considering removing the Klijn and Reinink tag and reference because it doesn't tie to a specific page in their book. I don't think we need it to support the sentence. It's clear enough from the context. Ovadyah 23:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. --Loremaster 00:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. Ovadyah

[edit] Passed GA

Congrats! You have made the requested changes and your article now qualifies under Wikipedia:Good Articles. That said, I enourage you to continue to work on it, especially to resolve the issues you have been discussing. You may now want to submit it once again to peer review, as I believe it still has a ways to go to meet FA criteria. Montanabw 21:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Montanabw. Ovadyah 00:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. Good work, Ovadyah! :) --Loremaster 02:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Good work, Loremaster! Ovadyah 14:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Complete

I beleive my recent edits have addressed all concerns. Let me know if you have others. --Loremaster 18:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I am satisfied with your changes. Please nominate the article for FA. Ovadyah 19:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
OK. --Loremaster 03:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Done. Show your support on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ebionites page. :) --Loremaster 20:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting Sources section to Talk page

Bartmanand dropped his opposition to the Featured Article candidacy of the Ebionites article on the condition that we delete the Sources section, which I have done. He suggests that we preserve this information in Wikisource. Can someone work on this? --Loremaster 18:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I will work on this when I can find the time. Meanwhile, please archive the primary sources to their own talk page for now. Ovadyah 20:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Done. --Loremaster 21:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Please link the primary sources in the notes section to the archived talk page, where appropriate, so that readers will have easy access to them. I will change the links later when I am finished with the Wikisource page. Ovadyah 07:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Done. --Loremaster 19:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination for Featured Article

I have informed James Tabor of the Featured Article nomination and asked him to support it or suggest further changes. I also requested that he post a notice of the nomination on his blog. Ovadyah 07:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

JT said he will try to find some time to stop by. :-) Ovadyah 15:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I have notified Slrubenstein, Alecmconroy, Jayjg, CTSWyneken, and Wesley of the FA nomination and asked them to either show support or suggest further improvements to the article. Slrubenstein contributed to the first peer review, Alecmconroy provided RFC suggestions, and the others were previously suggested by Slrubenstein as well-qualified potential reviewers. Ovadyah 08:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Good. --Loremaster 19:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've done more work on the article in light of some criticisms that came up on the FAC page. --Loremaster 03:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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
Please show your support on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ebionites page. Ovadyah 14:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested slight improvement

The article (2007.04.09) states

However, in 58 C.E., Paul complains in one of his epistles of "super-apostles", most likely the Ebionites, sent from Jerusalem who question his honesty and continue to counter his mission.

"Most likely" is too strong. Scholars such as Margaret Thrall, Kasemann, Hafemann, and Barrett believe that υπεραποστολοι refer to the chief apostles -- i.e., Peter and the other apostles. Betz and Georgi argue for some sort of early Gnostic-like intruders. Other commentators (Carson, Barnett) agree that the "superapostles" are Paul's opponents, but leave their exact identity as unknown. I've not come across any commentators who have suggested that the superapostles were Ebionites.

In light of all that, "most likely" seems overly confident, possibly even original research. A citation and a more tentative qualifier such as "possibly" seem helpful here. jrcagle 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have made the change to "possibly". Please indicate your support on the nomination page if you are now satisfied with the article. Ovadyah 00:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the change. --Loremaster 02:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/b/i/Talk%7EEbionites_da7a.html"