This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I note that as per Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 19#The Jesus Dynasty, Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 23#Ebionites, and the prior history of this article talk page, that there is some evidence to support at least Tabor's work, and possibly Eisenman's as fringe theories as per WP:FT. As per WP:CONSENSUS, and I quote "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." So far as I can tell, no substantial arguments have been given that either source does qualify as other than fringe, so I have very serious questions as to whether the sources remaining in the article is in accord with policies and guidelines or not. I would welcome any and all reviews of the matter from newer editors. John Carter (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
If I do not receive the evidence which I believe is required as per wikipedia policy, specifically WP:BURDEN, which would indicate that these sources do meet reliable source standards, I will of course be completely within my rights to remove material which does not meet the appropriate standards from the article. I believe another day or so would be all that should be required. If the evidence is presented later, of course, then it can be considered for restoration in the article at that time. John Carter (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
As it has been over three months and I have yet to receive any indication that the material meets RS standards, I have removed the material in question. John Carter (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Both James Tabor and his book The Jesus Dynasty have articles on Wikipedia. Looking at these two articles, I cannot derive from them that Tabor is a fringe source upon the Ebionites. It is true that his book was attacked by conservative scholars, but their motivation is theological: they are committed to the Christ of their own faith. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
If I remember well, Bart Ehrman admitted in a dispute published on YouTube (I don't remember which, because there are so many) that maybe/likely/probably the Ebionites were the first Christians (or first Christian group). In his Lost Christianities he admits that the Ebionites were not the only Jewish-Christian group. Meanwhile I have read the disputes about Tabor being fringe, but this conclusion has not reached consensus. It can be said that he expresses a minority view, but seen that Tabor is a notable scholar of Christianity, his point is notable enough to demand inclusion in an Wikipedia article. I did not read Tabor's book and I am not a historian, so having no other data than Tabor's reputation as a scholar I cannot conclude that he is fringe. I will take a look on JSTOR and look for articles about Tabor's views. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
If you can produce sources, not just a vague memory, please do so. However, even the opinion of as highly regarded an individual as him is probably still just his own opinion, and there is no reason to think that anyone's individual opinions are in and of themselves sufficient basis to declare that he is right. However, if reliable sources which meet WP:RS can be produced, please do so. John Carter (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, I have very serious problems seeing anything in this section as necessarily meeting basic policies and guidelines. There seems to be a fairly clear violation of WP:SYNTH in placing the scholars together in such a way as to indicate that the scholars are in more agreement than they apparently are. Also, the quotations from the websites of YATI and Moriel Ministries have I think fairly clear RS problems, are still clearly redlinks indicating their own notability is at best dubious, and obvious and perhaps overwhelming WP:WEIGHT problems. Personally, I very much think that we might best scrap the entire section now, start on trying to rewrite the article into a more encyclopedia and less biased piece than it currently is, and then, maybe, if we discover in the process of rewriting the article significant independent material which meets RS and WEIGHT regarding modern movements, include any material to be included on the basis of those sources, particularly considering that these websites might not even meet basic RS requirements, and almost certainly might not merit any real weight in this article. Thoughts? John Carter (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The statement "One of the first men to believe in the prophethood of Muhammad was an Ebionite monk named Waraqah ibn Nawfal, whom Muslims highly honor as a pious man with deep knowledge of the Christian scriptures." is controversial. In fact, Waraqah might have been a Nestorian monk, not an Ebionite. As a Nestorian, he was a heterodox Christian who deviated from Nicene orthodoxy. The author of this piece must bring these other different views about Waraqah to balance the view presented here.Teófilo de Jesús (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I have once again removed the clearly SYNTH/OR material in this section here . Everyone should be aware that WP:BURDEN applies here, and that it is the obligation of those individuals who want to include any material to provide evidence that it meets policies and guidelines. I believe that there is sufficient cause to raise concerns at noticeboards should the material be restored again, without having provided either the clear evidence that it does meet WP:SYNTH and WP:WEIGHT, or to have received consensus from others as per WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page first. Really, I have to say that this apparent disregard for policies and guidelines does not speak well for those who seek to have the material included. John Carter (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)