User talk:Ignocrates/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Hi Ovadyah,

thanks for some sane input into the Ebionite discussion. I've had a look at some of your user page. Does the Ebionite Jewish Community follow the Gospel of the Hebrews and Clementine literature on the subject?

--Michael C. Price talk 08:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Michael,

I'm glad I could help. There are many eyes watching over the Ebionite page including some pretty senior admins. I think they are just sitting back and letting us handle things.

The point of the user page is to demonstrate what other people are saying about modern Ebionites, rather than what Ebionites are saying about themselves (take a hint Nazirene & co). There is not just one small group but a great diversity. Some are residing in the USA and others in Israel. From the polemical commentary of their detractors, you can see they have much in common, and it's not gnostic new wave stuff. One thing I could have pointed out on the talk page but didn't is that Alan Cronshaw was a member of the Ebionite Community -- until he was kicked out. That may help to put some of the emotional tirades in context. Everybody knows Shemayah. It's kind of like a loose extended family.

The EC does not think the Gospel of the Hebrews or the Clementine literature provide any more reliable insights into the ancient Ebionites than the New Testament. The pseudo-Clementines are heavily overlayed with gnostic stuff from later centuries. There is a core document in there somewhere of the Kerygmata Petrou, but it's hard to reconstruct it. That makes it easy for someone to come along and just pick and choose what they want. I think the Gospel of the Ebionites was probably written in Rome by Theodotus the Cobbler, but I can't prove it. His group had a very similar low christology to the Ebionites, but they were Gentiles and probably didn't follow Jewish law. --Ovadyah 01:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks -- this is a fascinating subject. Even if you can't prove Theodotus the Cobbler wrote the Gospel of the Ebionites it might be worth mentioning this as a possibility (if sources are available) or just pointing out some of the similarities between them. --Michael C. Price talk 10:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Eye on Ebionites

Could you keep an eye on the Ebionites page? We have some newbies causing quite a ruckus. I just went thru an RFC there and things are getting a bit out of hand. Ovadyah 00:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've improved both the Ebionites and Talk:Ebionites page. I've also added my comments to the debate about Modern Ebionites. I hope all of this helps. Unfortunately, since I am busy, I won't be able to do more but I will try to keep an eye on things. --Loremaster 15:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
After reviewing all the debates on the talk page, I've come to conclusion that it is wiser to delete the Modern Ebionites section. --Loremaster 21:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ebionite Dispute Resolution

I've created the following two articles and mentioned them in the See also section of the Ebionites article:

Since you have a vested interest in one of these articles surviving a speedy deletion attempt or a full article for deletion debate, I suggest you not only watch over it but also improve and expand it.

I also suggest you move any debate about these two religious groups to their respective talk pages.

The Talk:Ebionites talk page is only for discussing changes to the Ebionites article. --Loremaster 14:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Expounding of the Law

Sources also suggest that Ebionites believed all Jews and Gentiles must observe Mosaic Law but it must be understood through an expounding of the Law by Jesus elevated to the status of "Prophet like Moses".

What evidence can you provide to support the sentence above without relying on Panarion 30.18.7-9? --Loremaster 05:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The Ascents of James

Epiphanius refers to a Jewish-Christian work called "The Ascents of James." In The Ascents of James: History and Theology of a Jewish-Christian Community by Robert E. Van Voorst (1989), Van Voorst argues that parts of this work were incorporated into Chapter 1 of the Recognitions of Clement, and he attempts to reconstruct the original text from the Latin and Syriac versions. Based on this reconstruction, Van Vorst comments on the christology of the Ascents of James (Chp. 5, pp. 163-164), Jesus is the Mosaic Prophet for three reasons, First, and most important for the AJ, he is the one who has come to complete the ministry of Moses. He came to abolish the rite of sacrifice, a concession considered never to have been a part of the law, substituting baptism in its place (1.36.1-2, 1.39.2) [1]. Second, Jesus modelled his choice of first twelve and then seventy-two disciples after the action of Moses in choosing his "disciples" (1.40.4). Third, Jesus is the Prophet like Moses in that he performs miracles which are like those of Moses (1.41.4). The Mosaic-Prophet christology is especially suited to a Jewish-Christian community like the AJ, as it stresses Jesus' ties to the OT and the Mosaic Law. We noted, indeed, in Chapter 4 that the AJ has the most highly developed use of the Mosaic Prophet in early Christian literature.

Assessing the community of the Ascents of James, Van Voorst asks (Chp. 5 pp. 176-177), Is it proper to call the community of the AJ "Jewish-Christian"? and he goes on to state, In practice, the community of the AJ is composed of law-observant Jews. They keep the Jewish feasts and customs; they may practice circumcision. In belief, they are Jewish-Christian as well. Their christology, that of the Mosaic Prophet, is rooted in Jewish belief. And he concludes, We can affirm, therefore, the judgement of J.L. Martyn on the AJ: "There is, in fact, no section of the Clementine literature about whose origin in Jewish-Christianity one may be more certain". [2]

And is the Ascents of James Ebionite? On this, Van Voorst opines (Chp. 5 pp. 179-180), We have argued that the AJ can properly be called a Jewish-Christian document. Is it Ebionite as well? Epiphanius describes it as an Ebionite book, but as Klijn and Reinink remark, "Epiphanius starts from the mistaken assumption that everything Jewish-Christian must be called Ebionite." [3]. Many researchers from Hilgenfeld to Schoeps have applied this name to R 1.33-71. Here again we encounter a problem of definition. He goes on to state, However, most modern researchers reserve this term for the more extreme forms of Jewish Christianity, especially those holding an adoptionist christology opposed to any form of pre-existence. An ideal of poverty is also characteristic of Ebionism. As the AJ has a form of pre-existence christology and shows no evidence of adoptionism or an ideal of poverty, its community probably should not be considered Ebionite.


  1. ^ Jesus is not said in the AJ to complete or fulfill the law, or give a new law. In fact, he does not alter the law in any way.
  2. ^ Martyn, Clementine Recognitions 1, 33-71, Jewish Christianity, and the Fourth Gospel
  3. ^ Klijn and Reinink, Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects

Abd al-Jabbar

In The Jewish Christians Of The Early Centuries Of Christianity According To A New Source by Shlomo Pines, he states, In an attempt to sum up the mission of Jesus, our texts state: (folio 70a) Christ came in order to vivify and establish the Torah. Hereupon a saying of Jesus is cited which is very similar to, but not quite identical with, Matthew v:17-19:

He said: "I come to you. For this reason I shall act in accordance with the Torah and the precepts of the prophets who were before me. I did not come to diminish, but, on the contrary, to complete" (or fulfill: mutammiman) . "In truth, as far as God is concerned, it is more easy for the heaven to fall upon the earth than to take away anything from the Law of Moses. Whoever diminishes anything in it shall be called diminished."

The text adds that Jesus and his disciples acted in this manner until he departed from this world. This passage clearly has a bearing on Christology (a subject which will now briefly engage our attention) as conceived in these texts. For it seems to imply that Jesus' rank was that of a prophet. Another passage (fol. 52a) clearly states that Jesus himself laid claim to this rank only.

He (Jesus) stated (dhakara) that he was an envoy (rasul) of God (sent) to those created by Him (ila khalqihi),and that God bad sent him, as He had sent the prophets prior to him.

The text of al-Jabbar continues (fol. 70a),

He and his companions behaved constantly in this manner, until he left this world. He said to his companions: "Act as you have seen me act, instruct people in accordance with instructions I have given you, and be for them what I have been for you." His companions behaved constantly in this manner and in accordance with this. And so did those who (came) after the first generation of his companions, and (also) those who came long after (the second generation). Then they began to make changes and alterations, (to introduce) innovations into the religion (al-din), to seek dominion (ri`asa), to make friends with people by (indulging) their passions, to (try) to circumvent the Jews and to satisfy the anger (which) they (felt) against the latter, even if (in doing so) they (had) to abandon the religion. This is clear from the Gospels which are with them and to which they refer and from their book, known as the Book of Praxeis (Acts). It is (written) there: A group (qawm) of Christians left Jerusalem (bayt al-maqdis) and came to Antioch and other towns of Syria (a1-Sham). They called upon the people (to obey) the law (al-sunna) of the Torah, to forbid offering sacrifices to those who have not the necessary qualifications (laysa min ahliha) (to practise) circumcision, to observe the Sabbath, to prohibit pork and other things (forbidden) by the Torah. These things were regarded as burdensome by the Gentiles and they took little notice (of the exhortations). Thereupon, the Christians of Jerusalem forgathered to take counsel as to the stratagems which were to be employed with regard to the Gentiles in order (to make) the latter respond and obey them. They were of the opinion that it was necessary to mix with the Gentiles, to make them concessions (rukhs), to descend to (the level of) their erroneous beliefs, to eat (a portion) of the sacrifices they offer, to adopt their customs and to approve of their way (of life). And they composed a book on this.

The events related in this quotation seem to correspond more or less to those referred to in Acts xi: 17-22 (or 21; cf. also xv:1-29). However, the attitude of the canonical Acts towards the conversion of the Gentiles in Antioch which they welcome, is diametrically opposed to that of the quotation which deplores the abandonment of the exigencies of the Mosaic Law with a view to this conversion.


Done. For what it is worth, I think if you and others can follow all my suggestions yiou will have made a signal contribution to Wikipedia. Good luck, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If the editing gets disruptive enough, you can take it to WP:AN/I and ask for a ban of some sort. I would think the continual recreation of that deleted article would be compelling evidence in that regard. Jayjg (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Ov, sorry to hear things have gotten angry at the Ebionite page. Without getting in the specifics of this conversation that's been going on and without taking anyone's side (I haven't even read all of whta' gone on), my advice in cases like this is to try to keep the focus on the content issues. Of course, that's sometimes hard to do when harsh words have been said, but it's still the thing to do. At the end of the day, the article itself is everything-- other people's opinions of you are nothing. So, the important thing is to keep your eye on the article, let the harsh words fall the the wayside, and just be impeccably civil yourself, no matter what. Because insults and incivility don't disparage the person they're directed at-- they just reflect badly on the person they originate from.
Looking over the talk page right now, it's not clear what the outstanding content disputes are right now, so I'm not sure what to comment on-- but I'll add Ebionites back to my watchlist and try to chime in with my two cents on future debates.
--Alecmconroy 00:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

PA noticeboard

Thanks for letting me know. I try not to comment on these kinds of issues, in case I need to get involved as an arbitrator. Jayjg (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the note. I think it is much improved. However, I don't really have any comments to add to my peer-review comments. My advice to you now is to seek the feedback of other very knowledgable editors: specifically, user:Haldrik; user:Jayjg; user:CTSWyneken; and user:Wesley. They may suggest others (well-educated and informed on this topic) who can help, but I would start by requesting their feedback. They are all smart but come from diverse points of view; you will get a wide range of thoughtful advice from them. Good luck, Slrubenstein | Talk 06:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If time permits, I'll drop by. Please do not be disheartened if it takes a bit of time, however. As a librarian at the beginning of an academic term, this is one of my busy seasons.... --CTSWyneken(talk) 11:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Noahide Laws

Hi, please join in the discussion on the Noahide Laws talk page about cleaning it up etc. Thanks! Chavatshimshon 08:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

(iv had a namechange) please suggest points in recategorising the article, it needs a total wipe-over so we can have it featured. Suggest anything, I havent thought of where to start myself!! FrummerThanThou 04:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll have to do some reading up on this topic and better understand what the dispute is, but I will help you get it organized. Ovadyah 13:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Safiyya bint Huyayy

Please also help my out with the above article! Check the talk page, I would like the concubine word to appear in the article about her but an editor keeps taking it out! Would much appreciate it! FrummerThanThou 04:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to pass on this one, at least for now. Two contentious articles are all I can handle at a time. Ovadyah 13:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


I thought you might be interested in my proposal for Wikipedia to use logo variations created by members of the wiki community to mark national and international awareness days, Remembrance Days, notable anniversaries, and observance days. Please comment on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Logo Variations and on my talk page. Thanks! FrummerThanThou 11:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ebionites - FA

Thanks for letting me know, I'll try to take a look. Jayjg (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


Hi, since it there are no WP:rules for having citations in the lead if the topic is covered in the body of the article, i will be moving the refs further down. Will be working on it in time. By the way, whats the nature of your interest in the Ebionites? What info is there of them in Hebron? Just wondering. Ta frummer 23:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with moving the citations out of the lead, as long as they appear somewhere in the body. I haven't done that with the Ebionites article because the lead is bombarded with fact checks from hostile editors. I have been interested in the Ebionites for a long time. After the Talmidi article was deleted for lack of notability, I set up my user page to gather evidence of modern Ebionite movements. There is a lot going on in Israel, apparently, but I don't know about Hebron specifically. Ovadyah 16:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ebionites RFC

You should always feel free to file an additional RFC whenever you want more eyes. Responding to an RFC isn't really an official capacity or anything. I will try to take a look at the ebionite article when real life stop interfering. :) --Alecmconroy 03:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ebionites and Expounding of the Law

Hello Ovadyah. Although the source we currently have is sufficient, do you have more sources supporting the connection between Ebionites and the Expounding of the Law? --Loremaster 17:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review for FA

Please respond to my question that can be found at the bottom of Talk:Ebionites#Peer Review for FA section as soon as possible. Thank you. --Loremaster 11:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit block?

Should we ask an administrator to block the article from further editing until the neutrality dispute is resolved? --Loremaster 00:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I have decided to let the historical revisionists win in order to get to FA. --Loremaster 11:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned a few weeks ago, I am now very busy off-Wiki. When I return, I promise that I will deal with this situation decisively. Meanwhile, keep the process moving toward FA. Please avoid getting yourself into edit wars with Michael. Just stick to the facts, nothing more than that. I want to be able to work with you when we are done with this business. :-) Ovadyah 18:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Although you may be unhappy with some changes, I'm actually satisfied with the current version of the Ebionites article. See Talk:Ebionites#Moving On. I've enabled my email function so feel free to write me if you need. :) --Loremaster 16:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict

sorry, it is beyond my knowledge, I can't help here. My advice: reread WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies and ensure both sides conform to both policies rigorously, that may be enough to forge a compromise. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites edit war?

There doesn't seem to be an edit war there that I can tell; have things calmed down? Jayjg (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, things have calmed down. ;) --Loremaster 22:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I think just knowing that other editors and admins have their eyes on the page helps a lot. Thanks for responding. Ovadyah 00:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites Wip

Would you approve of the structure and content of this draft if we unlocked the Ebionites article? --Loremaster 13:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually quite satisfied withe current version of Ebionites/wip. I think this conflict with Michael has actually resulted in the article becoming much better than it was before he came along. The new structure and content can now accomodate everyone's POVs. --Loremaster 18:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Micheal C. Price

Let me know when you have had enough of this nonsense and are ready to take Michael to RFC. Ovadyah 07:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this will be necessary. Let's just wait till Micheal makes his final contributions to the Ebionites/wip page and proceed from there. --Loremaster 17:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ebionite Jewish Community

Running into it on random pages, I just want to let you know that Ebionite Jewish Community is currently a prime candidate for a WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion, and would also qualify for regular deletion per WP:WEB due to lack of third party coverage. Sandstein 11:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Finishing the Ebionites article

I'm currently satisfied with the last version of the Ebionites article I've edited. Can you work on standardizing the footnotes and cited sources?

--Loremaster 13:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've done all the work. I only need Panarion 30. --Loremaster 20:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Origen on Ebionites

Approximately when did Origen write on the Ebionites? --Loremaster 21:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Wiki article on Origen says the De Principiis was probably written between 212 and 215 ca. Ovadyah 17:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I failed to notice that. Thank you. --Loremaster 20:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

FAC Ebionites

Please show your support on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ebionites page by writing “Support” on the page itself. --Loremaster 18:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Loremaster 21:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The article looks pretty good now, much improved from the way it looked at the end of 2005. Jayjg (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The road to FA has not been an easy one. Ovadyah 23:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Desposyni revisited

I think the Desposyni article is very close to a GAC. It looks like a Peer Review was requested May 2006, but nothing is archived. Want to jump in with me and polish it up when you have the time? Ovadyah 00:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Start working on it and I will jump in next week. --Loremaster 00:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok! Ovadyah 00:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I started working on the article. It's not as close to GAC quality as I first thought. There is a lot of good material, but the article is written in a very POV (conservative Catholic) way. It needs major reorganization and cleanup. Hope you can find the time to jump in and help. Ovadyah 17:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in light of my new work schedule, I don't I will be able to contribute to this article any time soon but I will try my best in the next few weeks. --Loremaster 23:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ovadayah, I have seen you got involved in the Desposyni article. I have long held many concerns about this article and think it needs to be seriously redone, including retititling it (though I certainly cannot agree with you diagnosis that it was written in a conservative Catholic POV - quite the opposite) - regardless of this, it needs work. I hope we can cooperate in this. Str1977 (smile back) 17:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Str1977. I thought at first glance that the article could be polished up for GA without too much effort. My mistake. As you say, it needs to be seriously redone. That's why I put it in for Cleanup in April. Alas, no takers so far. I'm willing to spend more time on it with some other collaborators. I mistakenly assumed it was conservative Catholic POV because of the extensive quotes of Malachi Martin. All of these quotes were copied verbatim from some group's religious website. Ovadyah 18:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately I have urgent business outside of WP and cannot devote much time to certain projects: the Dep. article has long been on the back of my mind. My intention was to have an article titled either "Holy Kin" or, if that is too controversial, "Brethren of Jesus" or "Relatives of Jesus" which covers all this from a neutral perspective, giving first what the sources say, New Testament, Church fathers, going to interpretations and theories. The Dep. would become a redirect or cut down to explaining the term (until today I never found it in the sources, now there is one source) and maybe, but just maybe, summarizing what M. Martin and fringe writers say about this.
I understand why you thought it conservative catholic but, to be honest, Martin's stance puzzles me: he was a very traditionalist Catholic, quitting the Jesuits because of this but at the same time writes stuff like this (as the articles says: without any sources I knew of) which fits neatly into the vein of esoteric writers. The website is some sort of esoteric pseudo-Jewish-Christian, pseudo-Essene group. Str1977 (smile back) 19:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

How can I help?

Would you like your user page semi-protected, for example? Jayjg (talk) 05:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please place an sprotected2 tag on my user page, and temporarily place one on the Jewish-Christian template until Loremaster has time to return and help me fix it. Thanks. Ovadyah 13:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've sprotected your Talk: page for 2 weeks, hope this will help. Jayjg (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Ovadyah 15:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

JC Template

The JC Template is getting out of hand with edit warring over the picture and content. Just thought you should know. Ovadyah 15:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It's too bad I don't have enough free time to resolve this dispute but I will try to find some. --Loremaster 03:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Nazarene (sect)

I think it might be a good idea to restrict it to the historical sect, but then people would simply try to create articles on the modern movements that appropriate the name. I'm not sure why it would fit in Wikiproject Judaism; this was an early Christian sect, after all. Jayjg (talk) 01:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The suggested purpose is two-fold. 1. To free the historical article from some the conflict that prevents doing a first-class editing job. 2. To force any modern movement article(s) to stand on their own.
I'm not sure why it would fit in Wikiproject Judaism either. To get some objective editors working on the project. Just a thought. Thanks for your input. Ovadyah 02:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Free advice

Please keep in mind when you are noodling on the Ebionites article that it makes the article appear unstable and encourages drive-by idiots to make changes too. Ovadyah 02:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of that fact. However, edits by drive-by idiots is what led me to begin noodling the article in the first place. Also, some of their edits actually pointed some flaws in the article that needed to be fixed. That being said, regardless of how stable an article becomes, it should and always will be subject to improvement. --Loremaster 19:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
If you mean by pointing to flaws the following comment, "However, this minority view is well outside the scholarly consensus on the Ebionites and quite unlikely", the drive-by is mistaken. The lead section may be a minority view of orthodox Christian theologians, but it is the majority view of modern scholars. Of course, I accept that an article should be and will always be subject to improvement. Ovadyah 23:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I am confused by your statement. Are you claiming that there is a scholarly consensus supportive of the claim that not only were Ebionites a community distinct from early Christianity before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. but they were more faithful than Paul of Tarsus to the authentic teachings of the Jesus? I seriously doubt it since, for example, the fellows of the Jesus Seminar argue both Jewish Christians, Pauline Christians, and Gnostic Christians were not faithful to the authentic teachings of the historical Jesus... --Loremaster 22:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not claiming that there is a scholarly concensus. The question raised by the editor quoted above is whether the material in the lead is the minority view among scholars that have studied the Ebionites. I don't think it is the minority view among this group. It may be more correct to state that there is not a majority view. The statement "the fellows of the Jesus Seminar argue both Jewish Christians, Pauline Christians, and Gnostic Christians were not faithful to the authentic teachings of the historical Jesus" presupposes that the JS have accurately determined the authentic teachings by their voting methodology. However, their conclusions are at variance with major scholars in the field such as Richard Horsley, Bill Herzog, and Ed Sanders, who see Jesus as a social and/or apocalyptic prophet in the political/religious context of first-century Judaism. Ovadyah 02:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh I understand now. However, my point is that, even if he was mistaken, the editor's mistake pointed out that the material in the lead needed to be better rephrased to avoid other editors, especially Christian ideologues, from pouncing on it. As for the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar, I wasn't presupposing that they have accurately determined the authentic teachings of Jesus or that their conclusions are not at variance with major scholars in the field. I was simply using them to point out the fact that there isn't a scholarly consensus either way on whether or not Jewish Christians and/or Ebionites were more faithful to the authentic teachings of the historical Jesus. --Loremaster 20:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Ovadyah 22:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Good. Are you happy with the article as it currently is? --Loremaster 00:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Free advice on Ebionites as a featured article

Hello Ovadyah, I just wanted to warn you that on the day the Ebionites article is featured on the main page of Wikipedia, I may not be able to help you guard the article from vandalizing edits due to my work schedule. However, I urge you to be as transparent and diplomatic as possible when you revert these edits to avoid getting in trouble with an administrator who has the power to block you. --Loremaster 17:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions, Loremaster. I will try my best to be transparent and diplomatic. If I need backup, I will proactively enlist the help of an administrator. Ovadyah 02:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ebionite talk

I realize that you have been safeguarding your recent feature article (congratulations, by the way), but I am puzzled by your recent removal of material from the talk page. Although you may have more information about this particular editor and his comments, I am of the opinion that talk pages are for talking, come heck or high water. I remove material from the talk pages only if it is clearly vandalism or obscene (by my own generic definition, I suppose) and urge others to do the same. Best wishes. WBardwin 23:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Bardwin, I moved the Phillips material to Archive 5, if that's what you meant. Any material I removed without archiving was directed against me personally, and I found it to be extremely offensive. The talk pages are not for discussing my personal life outside of Wikipedia. A particular editor with an axe to grind seems to want to expose my "sins" all over Wikipedia. It's all character defamation as far as I'm concerned, and I will probably petition AN/I at some point to have him banned. Hope this helps. Ovadyah 17:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Personal attacks, of course, are subject to removal. And I have looked over this user's somewhat peculiar history on the topic. So, forgive me if was intruding, but safeguarding talk pages is particularly important to me as it provides Wikipedia's history to all participants. Best...........WBardwin 20:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to restore any material that you think was removed inappropriately. Cheers. :0) Ovadyah 22:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

John the Baptist as Essene?

Ovadyah, what are your best scholarly sources for criticisms of the John-the-Bapstist-as-Essene theory? --Loremaster 12:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I will look into this, but it may take a few days. Ovadyah 14:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
It took awhile, but I found a very thorough critical analysis by Catherine Murphy, "John The Baptist - Prophet of Purity for a New Age", Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN (2003). Murphy applies a technique called Social-Scientific Criticism to create a multivariate matrix model that compares and contrasts the Essenes with John The Baptist. Murphy concludes (Chp. 5, p.154): "The radical difference in organizational structure and in tactics to advance the ideology of the group argues against the thesis that John The Baptist was an Essene; similarities of practice and belief may be attributed to the general traditions and practices of Second Temple Judaism".
Hope this helps. Ovadyah 01:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Is this sufficient or do you need more? Ovadyah 22:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I would need more to build a solid case but there is no hurry. --Loremaster 01:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I won't be needing this after all since I am no longer a contributor to the Ebionites article. --Loremaster 03:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Saying goodbye to the Ebionites

Hello Ovadyah,

Since I succeeded, with your help, in getting Ebionites featured article status, I will leave it in your hands I'm tired off having to deal with Micheal's edits. It was nice working with you. This experience has deepened my knowledge of a subject that used to interest me when I was on my personal quest for the historical Jesus. :) --Loremaster 20:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Loremaster, I can understand how you would be weary of dealing with such a disruptive editor. It was nice working with you too. :0) Ovadyah 21:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
As long as the Jesus section as well as the caption under the Sermon on the Mount image stay the same, I will be happy. --Loremaster 03:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes to the Ebionites article

Hallo Oyadyah, please have a look at my recent changes on the Ebionites. I will post a similar note to Loremaster and hope that he at least can peep in. Str1977 (smile back) 23:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Oyadyah, I have commented at Meta's amd Jayjg's. Could you please also weigh in on my recent changes, as I am hard pushed by "our friend". Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 20:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, of course. Since there have been so many changes over the last few days, it may take some time to read through them. However, I will try to post a review of your recent changes to the talk page by tomorrow. Cheers. :0) Ovadyah 21:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Vote on keeping or deleting Rabinowitz

Please vote on keeping or deleting the Rabinowitz references and / or the Archaeology section of the Ebionites article here. Ovadyah 01:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You should explain the reasons why you think this material should be deleted in the introduction to this section. Beyond editing a few typos out of the article from time to time, I am no longer involving myself in disputes about the Ebionites article so I will abstain from voting. --Loremaster 18:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

So long

I am taking an extended leave from Wikipedia. Anyone following up on administrative issues concerning the Ebionites article should contact Loremaster. Ovadyah 18:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites FAR

Ebionites has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Avi 18:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you please comment on the "Nazarene in intro" issue on Talk:Ebionites. Str1977 (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I left my detailed comments on the talk page. I support removing or further qualifying the statement in the lead. It is unbalanced as it stands. Ovadyah 16:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites content and source cleanup

I left an invitation on Michael's talk page to work consensually with the other editors to clean up the problems that have been tagged for some time now. Would you be willing to help? I would like to head off having the article delisted as a Featured Article during FAR if possible. I will ask Metamagician to provide some oversight, as he did before. Ovadyah 17:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you be willing to return to the article for a few days under the auspices of formal mediation? Ovadyah 21:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've moved on. Best of luck. --Loremaster 22:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I understand. I have filed a formal request for mediation. If you change your mind, feel free to add your comments to the RfM talk page. Ovadyah 00:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Even if I did change my mind, my new schedule would prevent me from contributing to the article as much I did in the past... --Loremaster 00:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI. Everyone has agreed to formal mediation of the Ebionites article (4 editors). Also, FAR is requesting comments. Ovadyah 21:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Good. However, I won't be commenting since, as I've said before, I've permanently moved on. --Loremaster 03:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

Exquisite-folder5.png A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ebionites.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 00:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Opening statements

To kick off the mediation, I'd like to ask all parties to give an opening statement regarding the issues noted in the mediation request:

  • Content that is based on editorial synthesis of source maerial
  • Proper attribution of sources to support content
  • The proper application of the criterion of undue weight
  • Proper representation of "fringe theories" in the article

I'll have to admit; the mediation request is a bit unclear about how the issues relate to the Ebionites article specifically . I hope that'll be made clear from everyone's statements. The opening statements don't need to be, and should not be, very long. Just a couple sentences for each issue stating your position(s) and why you are adhering to that/those position(s) is fine. Please also limit your comments to your own respective sections instead of responding to the opening statements of others. -- tariqabjotu 20:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


  • Content that is based on editorial synthesis of source material

This is my #1 issue. We have had repeated incidents of the editorial syntheses of source material. What is the proper procedure for dealing with it? I have asked for specific evidence to support questionable statements, especially when I own the source documents and can verify for myself what is being said. The editor refuses to provide the specific evidence, so I provide it myself. Even then, when the source text is made clear on the talk page, the person refuses to retract their statements or allow them to be modified. Specific examples we have dealt with recently are 1. John the Baptist being regarded as a Messiah by the Essenes and Ebionites, 2. all of the early Christians (except Paul) being Ebionites, 3. Essenes being vegetarians, and 4. the Ebionites being the same as or deriving directly from the Essenes. All of these dubious claims have been inserted into the mouths of sources as "facts".

  • Proper attribution of sources to support content

My #2 issue related to the above. This happens especially when multiple clauses are strung together and supported by multiple references. Careful checking reveals that only some of the clauses are supported. Some examples are the dubious claims that Charlesworth said John the Baptist was an Essene and that the Ebionites were Essenes. Another example is the reference of Eisenman in support of the theory that JTB was the Priestly Messiah and Jesus was the Davidic Messiah, whereas in reality Eisenman mentions JTB in passing as a messianic leader and questions whether Jesus even existed. Even when the specific text is laid out on the talk page, this particular editor refuses to correct the references or allow them to be modified.

  • The proper application of the criterion of undue weight

A particular editor claims that there is no such thing as undue weight and that all POVs, even the most fringe, must be allowed in the article. I contacted Fringe theories/N for an opinion on how to weight the Essenes as being the same as or direct precursors to the Ebionites. The opinion was ignored.

  • Proper representation of "fringe theories" in the article

Related to undue weight, the same editor claims that editors should not be allowed to decide what is a fringe theory. This applies to authors as well as sources. An example is Jacob Rabinowitz, who personally added material to the article from his self-published website. His name was added all over the article. I asked for an opinion about Rabinowitz from Reliable sources/N, and they say not reliable. The opinion was ignored.

I have cleaned up the worst of these problems as of the last version. Ovadyah 19:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the purpose of formal mediation is to mediate a dispute over content not user conduct. My interest with respect to this mediation process is to improve the content of the Ebionites article. Ovadyah 00:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The original reason given for the removal of my issues was "rmv conduct issues - everyone has no[w] agreed to enter into substantive discussions in good faith" which indicates that the scope could have been broader to include conduct issues. Anyway, I can't have much confidence in a process where my concerns are not even responded to, so I have withdrawn, case closed. --Michael C. Price talk 08:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What do we do now? Ovadyah 12:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


There was a section for additional issues to be included. I added my issues, which have been deleted without discussion. The content issues (raised by Ovadyah) follow from the misconduct issues I highlighted. Since my issues are not being discussed I am, with great regret, withdrawing from the mediation process. --Michael C. Price talk 07:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


I'm far from being an expert in the field, but I have the article on the watchlist and can at least check on changes as they're made. If something seems poorly sourced, I can remove it and copy it to the talk page. Also, if such conduct becomes a real problem, we can request protection for a while. Kind of extreme, but maybe necessary. Anyway, I'll do what I can. John Carter 15:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

So long (again)

I am leaving (again) for an extended break from Wiki. Please don't ask me to intervene again. It's pointless to continue fighting this fight when there is such a pathetic lack of administrative oversight. I'm leaving the carcass to the jackals. Ovadyah 18:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I understand completely, and I thank you for your efforts to date. I hope we can try to resolve these matters anyway, and hope that when you do return, and I sincerely hope you do, the questions regarding this article are resolved. Thanks again for all your work to date. John Carter 18:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I am considering referring this matter to ArbCom. However, I would be very interested in any input you might have regarding what you see as being the issues, particularly if, as you have stated, you won't be here to present your side as well. If you would like, I would be very interested in receiving an e-mail from you regarding your assessment of the situation. Thank you. John Carter 18:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Please note that a request for Arbitration from the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee regarding the above article has been filed here, in which you are named as a party. John Carter 16:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration proceedings against Michael Price

Although you have permanantly left the Ebionites article, you could do Wikipedia a service by participating in the arbitration proceeding against Michael Price Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Ebionites. The problems we experienced will not be confined to the Ebionites article. The same behavior will proliferate to many other articles unless something is done. I hope you will at least consider leaving an initial statement. All the best. Ovadyah 23:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Loremaster 00:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


I received your comment about requesting a block. The difficulty I have is not being sure whether you are talking about a block on an editor, which probably wouldn't be granted under the circumstances, or a protection of the page itself, which also right now probably wouldn't be granted, as there isn't any real edit warring going one on the page itself, and that tends to be the only reason such protection is given. But if you have received any indication that the article is at imminent risk of losing FA status, please indicate to the involved parties that the article is now apparently at least being considered for WP:ARBCOM, and will be submitted to WP:CSN if that fails, and that there really wouldn't be much chance of improving the article while those processes are under way, which generally won't be for long. I've noticed that the FAR people tend to be indulgent on granting extensions as long as work on the article is acively ongoing, and such oversight as ArbCom and CSN more or less qualify as work in their eyes. I could ask in any event, but am virtually certain the request would be turned down. If ArbCom takes the case, though, then there is a very real chance that they might, partially as a matter of procedure, place a lock on the page for the duration, which I think even FAR knows make active improvement problematic in the short run.
Repeating, though, if you have reason to think FAR is actively interested in removing FA status, let me know and I'll do everything I can think of to at least try to get them to postpone such action. John Carter 15:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


No, indeed, I only intervened when I caught sight of you note to that effect, i.e. that you were being driven off. I will stay the course, brain marrow and knuckles akimbo, until those of you who have made such a good page decide what decision must be taken. Count me in till the end, and don't read too closely what was a rhetorical flourish to flag to arbitrators the seriousness of the situation there. Best regards Nishidani 21:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if I'll be here tomorrow morning US time when Dbachmann might be back. If he makes any comments on the page, maybe he could be persuaded to add a supporting statement on the RfArbitration page. If he does comment tomorrow and indicate sympathy with the rest of us tomorrow, it couldn't hurt to ask him to on his talk page. John Carter 21:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support. You guys are a great asset to Wikipedia. You may have noticed that Dbachmann already withdrew an opening statement to ArbCom suggesting that there were no problems beyond a simple content dispute. So, he is at least rethinking this position. I would ask him frankly where he stands, and if he would be willing to add a supportive statement. Ovadyah 22:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Meanwhile, we should retrieve the relevant quotes from p.62 and p.69 of Eisenman re John the Baptist and lay this farce bare for all to see before dab returns tomorrow am. Ovadyah 22:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No rest for the weary

I apologize for foisting this task on you. However, it seems to me, based on the current construction of the Ebionites page, that some of the text and citations may be found to fail to meet WP:V requirements. This is unfortunate, because several of the disputed citations seem to be directly linked to content which also seems to have citations which are from sources which arguably meet these requirements. I believe the given grace period for adequate citation of this material ends on Tuesday next week, although that does not mean that the disputable material will necessarily be removed immediately at that time. I was wondering whether it might be possible to ask that you review the material which is sourced by both apparently verifiable sources and potentially non-verifiable ones, and determine what content is supported by the verified sources, so that we can act accordingly when the time comes. I regret to say that I am far from an expert in this field, and think that your greater familiarity with the subject would be potentially invaluable. Also, for what it's worth, I believe that 3RR is specifically known not to apply for content which has been found to be inadequately sourced.

On a side point, and pardon the obtuse phrasing, I thought it might be worth noting that as a member of one of the high IQ societies I have myself noted that the incidence of members of such societies who qualify as idiot savants and/or people with Asperger syndrome is significantly higher than that of the population as a whole. If you do find that you need a break in the next few days from the weary work you are being forced through again, may I suggest an extraordinary movie from the 1980s with a magnificent performance by Dustin Hoffman, Rain Man? John Carter 14:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I will try to find time to take a look a the citations this weekend. Unfortunately, I may not have access to some of the sources, particularly the books. But I can let you know which ones are in jepardy of being non-verifiable. What one particular savant suffers from is the hubris of considering himself to be the final arbitrator of truth. Ovadyah 23:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip

I stand by it, and see nothing wrong in using the word 'idiot'. I was first trained in classical Greek where the term denotes 'someone withdrawn from the public sphere' (there's even a monograph on it by Barrington Moore, Jr). Later senses developed (like those one gets in the comedies of the laste lamented Benny Hill), but the residual force is there: someone who acts with self-regard idiosyncratically within the company of people who, to the contrary, recognize a communal sphere of reciprocal public interests. A confession, I did write originally 'Mr Bean' but elided that out of respect for R.Atkinson. Regards Nishidani 08:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I hate to ask you

I hate to ask you, but could you polish up the wording on the Ebionites article? It's in good shape now except for (1a) "Well written". I am just not the wordsmith you are, and I would hate to see the article fall after all this work because of writing style. It would probably be more productive for me to pull the evidence together for arbitration. Ovadyah 03:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If I find the time during the coming week, I'll see what I can do. --Loremaster 09:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Admin Dbachmann is keeping a close eye on the page to deal with any "issues". Things have been quiet now for a few days, and we have been making rapid progress. I still intend to pursue arbitration. We know from hard experience that this is just a lull in a cycle of passive-aggressive behavior. Ovadyah 13:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I may not find the time this week but possibly in the coming weeks. However, if my edits are undermined by you-know-who, I will stop immediately. --Loremaster 13:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I have better things to do than waste my time on a useless excercise in frustration. I am going to focus my efforts on the arbitration case. Ovadyah 01:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I have come to the conclusion, based on recent FAR comments, that the article will fail FAR. No matter what we do to fix it, new objections will appear to replace them. Therefore, I suggest you not waste your valuable time. Ovadyah 01:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Understood. Take care, my friend. --Loremaster 13:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites

Loremaster, if you are willing to lay out your arguments first, I will go next. We should mention all the crap that went on in January that caused Metamagician to lock the article. Hang in there. This will all be over soon, and hopefully the solution will be permanent. Ovadyah 17:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Loremaster, do you still intend to make the opening statement in evidence? We finally got ArbCom's attention and we are leaving things hanging a bit. Ovadyah 19:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my time is too limited to participate in this action so you will have to proceed without me but feel free to report my experiences with Micheal you have witnessed. --Loremaster 12:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I have done by best to address your concerns in an opening statement on your behalf. Let me know if I mistated anything or if there is additional specific evidence you would like to see included. Ovadyah 15:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
No you haven't mistated anything. Thank you for doing all of this on my behalf. --Loremaster 17:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I hope I can pitch in some more. I have a hard disk with cracks in it. I feel morally obliged since your exposition was a marvel of patient research, and the only reason I got involved was that I saw a very dedicated and knowledgeable editor being bullied by an intrusive editor whose kibitizing smacked of of petulently malicious nescience. I do feel ashamed I've done so little to further aid the arbitration. I'm relatively comfortable with analysis and exposition, but a newcomer to the techniques of 'diffs', and this hardware problem persists. I will be away for two days, but will try somehow or another to meet requirements. Whatever, my very best wishes. Nishidani 08:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites arbitration workshop

I have proposed a finding of fact against Michael Price in the ArbCom workshop for violations of WP:SYN and WP:OR leading to the addition of misleading and fraudulent content to the Ebionites article. As one of the parties to the dispute, your comments on this proposal would be much appreciated. Ovadyah 20:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as you know, I am not interested in getting involved in this dispute. However, feel free to speak on my behalf. --Loremaster 20:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
At a minimum, I just need to know if you agree or disagree with the finding of fact. If you agree, a simple "I agree" under my comment on the workshop page with your signature would suffice. I don't feel comfortable assenting for you. I have also permanently recused myself from further editing on the article, as of the day it failed FAR. However, life will be hell for the new editors, if there ever are any, if nothing is done to prevent further abuses. Ovadyah 23:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Done. --Loremaster 13:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites


An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 15:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No disagreements with your premise. This seemed to be the only way to "light the fire" under a certain party, and that seems to be working, so.... I'm not sure we should expect really quick results, though. Maybe we should wait a few more days, though, and focus on taking the opportunity of certain parties' absence to do some positive work on the article itself. John Carter 19:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I would not assume ArbCom's findings will have any impact on FAR, unless we want to petition for a preliminary injunction. ArbCom's decision is more important down the road. Otherwise, Michael will just wait and revert all our changes later. No, we should proceed as planned with removing disputed material to the talk page. The critical difference is dab's oversight. He can block Michael if he stoops to revert warring. This is what I was praying for, just a little oversight. Ovadyah 19:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I watch that page very closely. Don't worry. John Carter 22:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to make sure that nothing I would add wouldn't already be covered by someone else. As a party who came in close to the end of the discussion, I didn't want to appear to overstate myself. Don't worry, I think I'll have at least a beginning statement included no later than tomorrow. John Carter 13:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
If you could indicate where you left of on the various pieces of evidence you wanted to present, it would give me a better idea how to structure my own comments. John Carter 13:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. Eisenman & Tabor conflations resulting in misleading or fraudulent content
  2. Refusal to cite sources and provide specific evidence to support claims
  3. Personal attacks
  4. Persistent disruptive editing against the consensus of four editors
  5. Disregard for Wiki policies
  6. How all of the above was the main reason for demotion of the article

I have focused exclusively on misleading and fraudulent content. I was hoping that Nishidani could complete the diffs for the synthesis of JTB as a Messiah, which both of us refuted on the talk page. That would complete the presentation of my evidence. Other conflations involving disputes with Loremaster and Str1977, such as James the Just being an Ebionite, and the common epithet of the Poor "proving" that the Essenes were the Ebionites, have not even been touched yet. I would appreciate it if you could add a comment to the Finding of Fact I put on the Workshop page. I think it's important that ArbCom address this conflation issue, whether they agree or not.

You may want to direct most of your comments to issues where you interacted with Michael directly. These include documentation of requests for source information and explanations of Wiki policies which he ignored. An important point to make to ArbCom is that you made Michael fully aware of policies regarding Undue weight, and he knowingly violated them. I requested two RFCs to try to accomplish this. You may also want to comment on how Michael's actions contributed to the demotion of the article. Ovadyah 15:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Dbachmann was right. The arbitration process concluded with a half-hearted admonishment. That finishes my involvent with the Ebionites article. I wish the new editors the best of luck. They are going to need it. Ovadyah 13:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ovadyah. I feel I have let you down, and can only apologize. That was an astonishing piece of forensic evidence, and those who will edit the page over the next year certainly owe you due recognition. I still have recurrent problems with this computer, and have reduced editing to a minimum. I have, as an oldster, some technical difficulties in doing things like diffs, (no matter now since the case is closed). So thanks for that valiant effort, and apologies for my not being able to come up to snuff with a technical array of evidences as required by the procedures. You have my best wishes, both for editing elsewhere, and personally. Regards Nishidani 18:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. We all did our best. Cheers. :0) Ovadyah 18:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, allowing one revert per page per week is fairly strict by their standards, I think. Also, this has to be counted, as it were, as a "first-offender" result. Should any similar actions be seen again, anywhere, however, I think much stronger penalties will be presented. The down side of course is that he can be productive elsewhere, and wikipedia has real qualms about banning editors who are even occasionally constructive. But I have to think that, when the case is formally closed, which it hasn't been yet, he will have been stopped. If he does the same sort of thing again, then I think he will face the consequences I emotionally would like to see him face. And I guess it would be hard to ban someone from a page who did include verifiable information from a somewhat reliable source, even if that source is on the outer edge of fringiness. I do wish I'd contacted the now defunct Community Sanction Noticeboard first, though. John Carter 18:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I guess we will see if he learns from the experience. All the carrying on about bad faith suggests otherwise, but time will tell. My reason for suggesting a ban was not punitive. I'm concerned that he will quickly overwhelm any newcomers to the page. Ovadyah 18:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Happily, I can ensure that it won't be only newcomers working on that page. Somehow, I don't think that anyone would be intimidated by someone who has already lost a decision like this, particularly after I make mention of it, if the situation ever arises. John Carter 19:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Purple Star
In recognition of the insults and other damage you received. As I think we all know by now, there is occasionally a price to be paid for acting with integrity. Thank you for having done so, despite the difficulties involved. John Carter 17:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There are now evidently some results available regarding a related matter here. Thought you might like to know. Oh, yes, and on a completely unrelated matter, I have this seemingly random list of pages I would welcome your perhaps looking over, if you are so inclined. Joses, James the Just, John the Baptist, Pauline Christianity, Nazarene (sect), James Tabor, Robert Eisenman, Herod the Great, Essenes, Gospel of the Ebionites, Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera, Clopas, Mandaeism, Historicity of Jesus. There's no real rush on any of those, of course. Thanks again for all your efforts. John Carter 17:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the star! I will take a look at these when I return, but for now I'm taking a break. Ovadyah 18:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Taking a break

I am taking a break from editing. Consequently, I will no longer be checking for messages on my user page. Best of luck to everyone who helped out during arbitration. Ovadyah 19:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee found that MichaelCPrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in sustained edit-warring and is subject to an editing restriction for one year, he is limited to one revert per page per week and must discuss any content changes on the article's talk page. Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 04:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Link to Wikisource/Gospel of the Hebrews

Link to quotations of the patristic fathers on Wikisource that preserve parts of the Gospel of the Nazoraeans or the Teachings of Peter: [1]. Ovadyah (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


I'm just curious about which comments in the RfC you felt were "character assignation" Are you talking about my comments? (I'm really just asking and curious, not annoyed, by your opinion, I want to know more so I can understand your concern better.) futurebird 16:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

response @ my talk page. futurebird 17:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay

Sorry for the delay in responding, I've been busy elsewhere. Do you still need assistance at the Ebionites article? Jayjg (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 19:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm back

I'm back in the editing saddle, and shocked to find out that Nishidani has left Wiki over some 3RR fiasco. That is a big loss. Wiki needs all the competent scholars it can find. Ovadyah (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Missing archives

Thanks, I'll restore them. Also, feel free to revert the article to previously more neutral and/or informative versions. Jayjg (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad I was able to help. Jayjg (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


Please work on this, clean it up, or ask for its deletion. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

OK to me. Bearian, a/k/a Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

New ebionite group

An interesting neo-ebionite group has come on the scene at --Ovadyah (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)