Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Authentic Matthew (inconcluded): Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
-Ril- (talk | contribs)
10,465 edits
Line 67: Line 67:
*'''Keep''' but consider '''Merge''', '''Transwiki''' and '''redirect''' as and where appropriate. [[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich Farmbrough]] 00:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' but consider '''Merge''', '''Transwiki''' and '''redirect''' as and where appropriate. [[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich Farmbrough]] 00:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


*'''Keep''' - As the original writer of this article, I specifically deny all the allegations made by Ril and put him to the strictest proof thereof.
*'''Keep''' - As the original writer of this article, I specifically deny all the allegations made by Ril and put him to the strictest proof thereof. --[[User:Melissadolbeer|Melissadolbeer]] 03:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

*'''DELETE''' See talk. [[User:Davilla|Davilla]] 05:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
*'''DELETE''' See talk. [[User:Davilla|Davilla]] 05:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
*''extensive comments moved to talk page'' [[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] 07:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

1. ''A large source text:'' Although the article is short, I cited a large number of published works to facilitate other editors' work in this controversial area.

2. ''Eusebius:'' Some published scholars like Eusebius, particularly his catalogue. Even those who do not appreciate Eusebius' work rarely critcize his catalogue. However, it is not our place to do original research regarding Eusebius. I would welcome use of any published source that challenges his catalogue.

3. '' Jerome'', a published scholar who did the original research on Authentic Matthew wrote,
::'''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.''' (On Illustrious Men 3)
He further wrote,
::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'''
(Commentary on '''Matthew''' 2)

Many of the published authors cited also did primary and secondary research in this area. It is their work that I have used in this article from a neutral point of view. I did not agree with all that was published, but what I wrote was in good faith based on published books - NOT MY ORIGINAL RESEARCH. What Ril does not seem to understand is that he can't dismiss Jerome in a Wikipedia article. What he can do, and what we all welcome, is Ril using published sources that show how some of Jerome's research may be faulty.

[[Wikipedia:No original research]] '''Original research''' refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research '''that is published''' or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate).

The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas '''that have not been published in a reputable publication.'''

''Sock-puppets'': See [[Melissa's response to sock-puppet allegations]] Please note that my response seems to have disappeared: can someone get it back?

--Melissa
--[[User:Melissadolbeer|Melissadolbeer]] 03:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:45, 17 July 2005

Authentic Matthew

This VFD concerns the above AND its copy+paste duplicate, if recreated, at Authentic Gospel of Matthew.

Article is

This was merged by me, as a result of someone else requesting a merge, as follows

  • The source text is already at WikiSource
  • Salvagable content about Eusebius and Biblical Canon was already moved to Eusebius and Biblical Canon.
  • Salvagable content about the Gospel of the Hebrews merged there.
  • Unsalvagable original research deleted.

This was then changed into a redirect to Gospel of the Hebrews.

There followed an edit war between editors restoring the article and me returning the redirect. The editors restoring the article (not including the recent addition of Mel Etitis, who was requested to do so by one of the aforementioned editors, and appears to have a vendetta against me for no known reason) are in my opinion sockpuppets of Melissadolbeer - the original creator of the article. For further discussion of this alleged sockpuppetry see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer.

Votes

  • DELETE. ~~~~ 22:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote (for the moment) - I've a Phd in New Testament - and I'm going to need time to get my head round this - it is all quite technical. This article looks to me like original research - and very questionable at that. So I think I'm with User:-Ril-. However, I'm not sure that redirecting Authentic Matthew to Gospel of the Hebrews is valid either, I'm off to do a little thinking. --Doc (?) 22:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I chose the redirect merely based on the fact that most of the content that was merged rather than deleted was merged to Gospel of the Hebrews. I have no particular preference over where it gets redirected to, and have no quarrel if it is preferred that it goes to Gospel of Matthew or other such article. ~~~~ 23:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User has 32 prior edits. ~~~~ 17:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
N.b. the item of the apocrypha in question is alleged by the article to be the Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Ebionites, and Gospel of the Nazarenes. These 3 already have articles. ~~~~ 07:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Melissadolbeer's behaviour with sockpuppets as described in the RFC is beyond acceptable. The article was edited. Melissadolbeer + sockpuppets reverted it back. ~~~~ 17:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For the record 1) I am not Melissa's sockpuppet but rather her husband. 2) Melissa has never used a sockpuppet! 3) I do know sockpuppets are legal at Wikipedia but not to vote more than once or to lie and abuse people like my wife. Over the years you have hurt many people including my wife and that is what I object to! People are more important than articles or your ego. --Poorman 08:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In wikipedia, articles are more important, this isn't about creating an collection of popular opinion, but one of noteworthy facts. ~~~~ 19:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned before, this was already done. Melissadolbeer's sockpuppets reverted it back to its original state. ~~~~ 19:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - please see Special:Contributions/Mikefar, indicating the desperation with which the sockpuppets are trying to defend the article. Clearly indicating it is their original research. ~~~~ 19:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    'Non sequitur. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Large comment about what a user thinks is "original research" (as opposed to what Wikipedia policy - WP:NOR says is "original research") moved to talk page. ~~~~ 19:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As it stands, current article is original research and very dodgy. More importantly, the name of the article is inherently POV-ridden. I cannot imagine a way for this article to be salvaged. IT is my understanding that the small usable parts have already been incorporated elsewhere, leaving nothing left to but to delete this one. DreamGuy 19:36, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. --Carnildo 19:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and {{cleanup}}. Disputes about the "additions to Matthew" etc. go back to the time of the canonization of the NT. Tomer TALK 19:57, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Josh Cherry 23:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • SEE BELOW - As the original writer of this article, I specifically deny all the allegations made by Ril and put him to the strictest proof thereof. Melissadolbeer 07:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    further extensive comments by the above moved to talk page
    USER HAS ALREADY VOTED AS A SOCKPUPPET. ~~~~ 10:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The previous user has stated clearly that he is Melissadolbeer's husband. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    And I am definitely not -Ril- but his wife. Yeh right, like a sockpuppet's word is trustworthy. The Wife of -Ril- 16:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me for jumping in here, but where is the concrete proof that said users are sock-puppets? You suspect they may be, yes, but from what I can see, there has been no point where this has been verified by admin. I've noted that every single "Keep" vote was followed up with an attempt to discount, either waving the sock-puppet flag, pointing out prior edits, or, in my case, by asking for a review of the vote on my user talk page. Might I suggest leaving the discounting of votes to those who are qualified to discount votes? That would help to cool down this debate. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 22:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was restored by numerous extremely obvious sockpuppets after its having been merged. There has been a massive series of postings to User talk pages by sockpuppets to try to get the article preserved. This seems to have happened also a prior time that the article was merged by someone else. The sockpuppets have even opened up an RFAR (WP:RFAR) claiming that everyone who has voted delete here is a sockpuppet of me. The likelyhood that sockpuppets will be voting here is extremely high, and their contribution history makes it extremely obvious. ~~~~ 22:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to an appropriate sister project, or Keep. Article is noteworthy enough in my opinion. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 10:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have been asked for a review of my vote, to determine whether I feel that the article as it stands deserves existance. I do feel that the article does deserve existance as it stands, although I also feel it may be better suited for one of Wikipedia's sister projects, as I'm not entirely convinced it is strictly encyclopedic. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 10:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Authentic_Matthew_(inconcluded)&oldid=19004330"