User talk:Ignocrates/Archive 4

Name change

My original username, Ovadyah, which I have edited with since July 2005, was apparently too ethnic for some editors, leading to inappropriate talk page speculation about my religious beliefs. Therefore, I have changed my username to the more Wiki-appropriate name of Ignocrates. Ignocrates (talk) 01:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I liked your old name. Where do we stand with the Ebionites? If you have the time, please critically evaluate the sources on my user page. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It's great to see you back. I thought you had retired from Wikipedia. Sorry, but I'm not the right person to ask about the Ebionites article. I have abandoned that article permanently to the idiots and trolls that dominate this encyclopedia. Best. Ignocrates (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That is a shame. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

As part of the "new me", I'm going to be a lot harder on uninformed, yet relentless, editors, who confidently edit on subjects they know nothing about. The problem is not my lack of good faith; it is their lack of competence. And competence is required on Wikipedia if we are going to prevent this encyclopedia from regressing to the mean or worse. Ignocrates (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The so called "Jesus' expounding of the Law" is a Pauline passage, and not an Ebionite passage.

The so called "Jesus' expounding of the Law" is a Pauline passage, and not an Ebionite passage. The Ebionites believed that Jesus Christ did not come to abolish or alter the Law (Torah), as it is stated in Matthew 5:17-19 (which is an Ebionite passage). When the Paulines (Catholics) translated the Gospel according to the Hebrews (also called the Gospel according to Matthew) to Greek, they added the passage called "Jesus' expounding of the Law" (Matthew 5:21-47), in order to give base to Paul's doctrine, which says that Jesus Christ abolished the Law. That passage called "Jesus' expounding of the Law" (Matthew 5:21-47) was not part of the Gospel according to the Hebrews (also called Gospel according to Matthew) written in Hebrew that was used by the Ebionites. The Ebionites did not believe that Jesus Christ had spoken anything that is contrary to what is written in the Tanakh. The Ebionites did not interpret the Torah in light of the so called Jesus' expounding of the Law. So, it is necessary to remove from the section "Inferences about the Ebionites" of the article "Gospel of the Ebionites" the phrase "which they interpreted in light of Jesus' expounding of the Law [56]". The footnote that was put in this phrase refers to a chapter of a book that comments on the so called "Jesus' expounding of the Law", but does not give base to the false affirmation that the Ebionites interpreted the Torah in light of the so called “Jesus' expounding of the Law”. Joaopaulopontes (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Please keep this discussion on the talk page of that article. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

AfD

I read your comment, and you are correct. I have no trouble with the article being deleted or redirected. It was the edit warring that caused me concern. I also think it is good to have a neutral observer to keep things honest. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Same old tricks...

... by the same old people. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll take a closer look when I have more time. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see this as a big deal by itself. We discussed Robert M. Price's review in mediation, and it's fine with me to include it in the article. Let me know if this starts to escalate into something more serious like an AN/I trap or if there are any further incidents of admin misconduct. I'll try to keep an eye on the article as time permits. Ignocrates (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I've checked twice

But still cannot see more than 1 revert in 24 hours, even longer. Where's the second revert? And how can one pull the trigger if I haven't even violated the rule? I really do need a guide for the perplexed.Nishidani (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. The time between reverts was longer than 24 hours. I am the one who needs the guide to the perplexed. Anyway, I can't afford to spend more time on such a small detail. I'll check in about a week and see how the dispute was resolved. Ignocrates (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it (in the past I occasionally broke IR and 3R though even checking I couldn't figure out why. I'm still note good at that). The problem won't be resolved. I'm a realist. Evidence or logical cogency is not, as often as not, the determining factor in wiki disputes. Still, I hope the eyes are well, and you to. Best Nishidani (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. Hope you are doing well too. The vision hasn't gotten any worse at least. If I was still at the lab bench I wouldn't be able to function, so I'm glad I switched careers when I did. Ignocrates (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Gibbet of Jesus

Some time ago, you participated in Talk at an article which has been variously named Torture stake, Cross or stake as gibbet on which Jesus died, Historical disputes over the shape of the Crucifix, Dispute about the shape of the gibbet of Jesus, Dispute of Jesus' execution method, and Dispute about Jesus' execution method. Editors are considering another name change; I thought you might participate in that discussion.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Illumination

What's an "A" game. I know many, though it is a distinct 'crowd' think I play games, and they are entitled to their views. But I don't know what 'game' you mean in this phrase. Or perhaps it's too early in the morning for me to wake up to something obvious? Cheers Nishidani (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That was my way of saying to your friend, "Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it". If he thinks you are persuasive in your arguments now, he should expect you will be even more so in a public forum like an RfC. "Bringing your A game" means performing at a championship level. It has nothing to do with the WP:GAME so often played around here. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Uh! Thanks pal. I should have twigged. Actually, I think in the long term on things like this, and will make my own RfC in 3-5 months, when I have the data together. If he wants to jump the gun, that's his right. It's a delicate matter, but every other week, in my reading over the past 10 years on ancient history, I find words like 'Palestinian rabbi', 'Palestinian Talmud,' 'Palestinian saint', 'Palestinian Jew', and it gets up my nose that because of political obsessions, one just can accept that readers can ever be as mature as scholars, or that a primitive fear that the PLO might be lurking, waving propaganda banners, behind any use of that topological adjective in pre-modern times. Yes, I'm pro-Palestinian, but that is not the problem here. I just grew up with WW2 in my ears, and 'ethnicity' annoys me. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Josephus on Jesus

Earl Doherty, "Josephus Unbound - Reopening the Josephus Question" [1] Lung salad (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. Feel free if you want to help out with the "arguments against" section on my draft page User:Ignocrates/JoJ. I pasted the original on the talk page. Ignocrates (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I added something about Jerome. Lots more. Lung salad (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Great. If you want to create a new section to work on the Origen material here too, that's ok by me. Ignocrates (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

First let's see what the response to these tiny additions will be. Lung salad (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Umm, this was largely in jest ... I am sorry my tone did not translate. Eusebeus (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that. Thanks for letting me know. Ignocrates (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And thanks for User:Ignocrates/JoJ. Quite interesting. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 14:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I did was copy this draft to my user space. History2007 did 99% of the work on a test page. Ignocrates (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Vermes' view given here [2] fits into a wider context of his views relating to Judaism and Christianity, that can be described as somewhat romantic in nature. Vermes believes the "authentic" Gospel can be retrieved, so he's playing this same game with Josephus. Each scholar's view reflects their particular subjective agenda on Christianity and Judaism, hence each particular scholar has a different take on the subject matter. There is no consensus on anything about the passages about Jesus in Josephus. These are all wibble-bibble theories of the moment that will eventually be supplanted by future generations of scholars that will offer their own respective takes and conjectures on this subject matter. Lung salad (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

What happened?

What happened to your work on this [3] Lung salad (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm way too busy off-Wiki right now to spend the time needed to do a good job on this. Please proceed as you see fit. Ignocrates (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The Annals of Tacitus only exist in parts, and were unknown in antiquity, with classical scholars only quoting from Histories. First published during the 15th century. Despite this smoking gun of a forgery, scholars generally tend to treat this work as authentic. Scholars seem to save all their critical faculties on absurdities like The Da Vinci Code. Where's the scholarly refutation demonstrating that the Annals are not forgeries? Lung salad (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

If the Annals of Tacitus is considered a disputed work by some scholars, summarize that bit of insight based on at least one RS to balance the article. Ignocrates (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's the book by John Wilson Ross [4]. Not a scholarly rebuttal in sight, merely the formulated reprise, "Tacitus' Annals is considered genuine." Lung salad (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I found a link to the book on Google Scholar. This journal article in Vigiliae Christianae by Eric Laupot is a critical analysis of Tacitus' fragment 2. The author concludes that the fragment is genuine, but he says there is little scholarly consensus about the authenticity. Ignocrates (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a textual analysis giving a theory that Sulpicius Severus depended on the passage in Tacitus' Annals. Lung salad (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The Josephus on Jesus article is destined to become the best Wikipedia article of all time - undoubtedly destined to receive a Papal Blessing. No doubt the editors will all become rewarded with sainthoods. Lung salad (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC) 22:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The Church made damned sure it got rid of all Josephus manuscripts dating from before the 11th century. It made damned sure of that. But references to what was contained in those earlier manuscripts still exist, albeit known only to specialists of the subject matter. And then the Slavonic manuscripts were discovered, but they are pigeon-holed in a different category - "those manuscripts are not typical and are late examples" scenario. The passages mentioned by Eusebius were not scrapped and were retained because of who he was, and what the passages represented. Josephus has to be a witness to the historicity of Jesus Christ, even if those passages stand out apart from everything he wrote about both his country and himself. Lung salad (talk) 10:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

And if present day scholars do not mention any of this, it's only because they are sprawling wafflers who don't have the guts to present things as they really are. Lung salad (talk) 11:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You seem pretty upset, but I don't understand why. If you still think important content is being deliberately suppressed, you can work with Jayjg to remedy any deficiencies. I'm going to encourage History2007 to finish up and get the article into final form so it can go to peer review. There are still plenty of opportunities for the community to make comments. Bottom line - we need to get to a place where the article is reasonably NPOV and then allow it to be stable for the good of the encyclopedia. Perfect is the enemy of good. Ignocrates (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Recommendations for reviewers

Sorry for the delay in responding, but I've had do help with a sick child & work. Further, I'm not as involved with Wikipedia these days as I once was. Funny thing is that the only people I could think of to review the article would be you (know that I know you changed your user name), Michael Price, & John K, with a caveat that the three of you might end up killing each other. A pity, since you are all sincere in wanting to write good articles, & fairly knowledgeable. I read the article, & at some point this weekend I'll leave some comments at Peer Review about it, which might help. Good luck with the article. -- llywrch (talk) 06:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Michael and I have smoked the peace-pipe since the bad old days, so I don't think that would be a problem. We share many of the same concerns about POV suppression on religious articles. Ignocrates (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

"You two clowns"

The only thing "multiplying" in this case is further evidence of your lack of WP:competence. Ignocrates (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Please lay off. In ictu oculi (talk)

You know I like editing with you right? But, aligning yourself with this character won't end well. Think about it... Ignocrates (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Blanked at the request of Carcharoth per Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3/Proposed decision#Case closing. Ignocrates (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no current dispute over article content

The Josephus on Jesus article is rubbish. I decline from editing because of backstabbing. The editor writes like a Sunday School teacher "He has Risen! Hallelujah!" And guess what, Josephus is a witness. Lung salad (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I can empathize with your concerns, but I have given up on that article. This encyclopedia has become as dystopic as the Lord of the Flies. Ignocrates (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you have recommended the article to be nominated for good article criteria Lung salad (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I recommended that the article go through a vigorous peer review with an eye toward WP:FAC. There's nothing wrong with that. But, I have about given up hope that anything will improve. Ignocrates (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Marcch 2012

You have recently received warnings at User talk:In ictu oculi and User talk:Jayjg regarding possible violations of WP:STALK and WP:HARASS. Please consider this your final warning regarding such conduct. John Carter (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should learn how to spell before you go around handing out warnings, and you have been repeatedly warned to stay off my talk page. Ignocrates (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Polite Warning

I want to make it absolutely clear that, however much you try to brush it off, I regard your recent conduct towards John Carter as unacceptable. If you continue to be rude, dismissive and make allegations with very little supporting evidence I will block you to stop you. You are way out of line. --BozMo talk 06:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

BozMo's correct. You need to stop this. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no axe to grind against you guys whatever, but we all must do what we think is best for the encyclopedia. Regards. Ignocrates (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Doug, if you have something to say then say it. Stop following me around and commenting on my edits. Ignocrates (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If you mean my edit at James Tabor's talk page, I'm hardly following you around there, as I was the first editor at his talk page and it's on my watch list. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do mean that edit. If you have anything more to add, get it off your chest. Ignocrates (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Then it's obvious I'm not following you around as I was there first. But since you ask, I've noticed one other thing - using the word 'stalking' is deprecated for good reasons, see WP:HOUND. Dougweller (talk) 05:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for the advice. Ignocrates (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

August 2010 incident

Ok, I promised I would get back to you on this and I did. It turns out there were two disputes, one of which went to AN/I, and I had them conflated. This is the example I was looking for diff1, diff2, diff3 - the blanket deletion of all references to the book of James Tabor The Jesus Dynasty (2006) from the article. The larger point, argued on the article talk page Talk:Ebionites/Archive_9#Request_for_page_protection, is that John Carter contended this wasn't a content dispute and he was exercising his powers as an admin to enforce Wiki policy. Therefore, he claimed that my reversion of the disputed content was vandalism. That led to a request by him to have the article locked. By contrast, my counter-argument was that the dispute over Tabor as a source was part of a larger dispute over content that was being discussed in an ongoing mediation. I claimed at the time, and still believe, that what he did was an admin abuse of power. diff4, diff5, diff8, diff6, diff7 I apologize for not getting my facts right the first time. Let me know if you need anything more. Ignocrates (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any examples there where he's used his tools - I see he asked for page protection, which anyone can do, but he didn't use his tools to protect it, did he? Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Doug, you are right about that. This disagreement comes down to a definition of what it means to be an admin. One could define the role of an admin in a narrow sense of the use, or misuse, of admin tools. I was defining the term more broadly as using the authority of an admin to enforce, or misrepresent, Wiki policy. Arguing that the book The Jesus Dynasty failed to meet basic WP:V requirements and having the article locked by request on that basis was an abuse of power. As the subsequent WP:3O by Slim Virgin in that link makes clear, that position was far from obvious, and Jayjg, who had been acting as mediator, left a similar comment on my talk page diff. That is why we went back for a second mediation, where Tabor's book was subsequently found to meet the requirements of WP:R. Ignocrates (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Even if all this were true, one might reasonably ask, why bring it up now? After all, this incident happened in August 2010 and it's ancient history. The reason is that history is about to repeat itself. Compare this diff from August 2010 with a recent post on the article talk page Talk:Ebionites#Eisenman_and_Tabor. The latest line of argumentation is even more tenuous in that it relies on WP:Fringe, which is used on scientific articles and requires the application of an objective standard. However, the basic approach is the same as last time - to misrepresent a disagreement over content as the enforcement of Wiki policy. Ignocrates (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Explanation of request for administrative review

The following three incidents are the crux of my complaint; all the rest is just noise:

Incident #1: Contacting User:Dougweller about reopening arbitration here. User:Newyorkbrad put this case to rest nine months ago. It seems to me that this is an attempt to forum shop this dormant dispute with a more sympathetic administrator who actively patrols on Christian articles. Doug hasn't responded one way or another to his credit.

Incident #2: Contacting User:In ictu oculi about assisting in preparing John Carter's case for arbitration here. The is a case of WP:canvassing at minimum. In ictu oculi has indicated support on his talk page for reopening arbitration. Therefore, combining their efforts to forward John Carter's case would be a form of WP:Tag teaming.

Incident #3: This talk page notice Talk:Ebionites#Eisenman_and_Tabor of an attempt to revive the dormant dispute on the Ebionites article as an enforcement of Wiki policy rather than a content dispute. This directly relates to the above section from the August 2010 dispute. Accusing James Tabor of having a religious bias Talk:Jesus_Dynasty#Tabor.27s_religious_bias is related to this incident as well.

The question comes down to a definition of conduct as an administrator. Should this be interpreted narrowly as the misuse of admin tools, as BozMo and Dougweller have done, or more broadly as misusing admin authority to push an agenda in a content dispute? Ignocrates (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Um, I hope you mean 'no misuse of admin tools'. I replied to John by email, as I think you know. Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to "misuse of admin tools" as one possible definition of admin misconduct. John Carter did not misuse his admin tools, as he requested the Ebionites article be locked by another admin. Thanks for raising the question though. Ignocrates (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment (1) I don't see how "Incident #2" can be a problem, I have a lot of respect for User:John Carter both as an editor and in the unrelated areas where I've seem his exercising Admin functions. I have in the past invited John to contact me re reoccurences of WP:FRINGE in the "Jewish-Christianity"/"early Christian"/"Christian origins"/etc. article space, and glad he did. (2) And as far as I know In ictu oculi has not indicated support on his talk page for reopening arbitration as far as I'm aware, as I know In ictu oculi believes that there is still a substantial amount of leftover WP:FRINGE and attracting more mainstream editors into "Jewish-Christianity"/"early Christian"/"Christian origins"/etc. article space is the best way to improve the articles --- I haven't seen that "arbitration" (for who/what?) is needed or will acheive anything more than normal editing. 13:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC) In ictu oculi (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment In ictu oculi (the edit log shows it's you). I have no problem with any of this as long as it's kept at the level of a disagreement over article content. Please sign your posts in the future. I see Doug alerted you to this page to comment, which is fine with me. Ignocrates (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I see no abuse of administrator tools here, or specific actions which would warrant an administrative review. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You've had the response from Jayjg that you asked for, although I doubt that it's what you wanted. Time to step back from this Ignocrates. Dougweller (talk) 07:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the next move is John Carter's not mine. My interest is to get back to focusing on article content. Ignocrates (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Retired

I'm leaving this dung-heap to the Lord of the Flies. I wouldn't expect a rescue anytime soon. Ignocrates (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The stalking emails and vicious personal attacks and threats I have received from admin John Carter post-retirement have forced me to reevaluate the best course of action. I have no plans to return to editing Wikipedia, but I will forward any further stalking incidents by John Carter, or anyone else, directly to the Wikimedia Foundation. Ignocrates (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Not Retired

I'm back after an extended break. I decided against permanent retirement after reading this diff, which has John Carter bragging to another editor about what he did to me. The content is similar to one of the stalking emails he sent me previously. Ignocrates (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to forward the e-mails to the arbitrators. I of course have no reservations regarding forwarding your own e-mail as well, which I believe they would find particularly interesting. And I am rather amused that you have been apparently been monitoring my edits for all this time as well, which calls into serious question your retirement, particularly as your return from retirement comes so quickly after the comment I made. Your apparent rush to judgment regarding exactly who I was referring to, particularly considering I offered no names, and the frankly incredible speed with which you intended your so-called retirement thereafter, are I believe extremely interesting. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I happened upon your diff by chance when I was looking at a dispute on AN/I. I am equally amused by the speed of your response, which provides further evidence that you are still stalking me. Stay off my talk page. Ignocrates (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Ignocrates, fyi, in that diff the personal attacks were most likely directed at me. I have warned him on his talk page that i will seek further community input if this conduct continues. Pass a Method talk 00:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I received something similar in an email about 6 months ago, post-retirement, along with threats of what he would do to me if I ever came back. Well, I'm back. Ignocrates (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep that email in mind along with the other diffs. Pass a Method talk 10:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back, Ignocrates. I too have stayed clear, just, of permanent retirement and JC's admimission of being deliberately "really, really venomously condescending" is certainly a motivator! -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 11:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Michael. My decision to retire had more to do with a general sense of despair over the turn Wikipedia has taken than JC's behavior. I'm particularly troubled by the degradation of GA/FA articles by Randy type editors. Ignocrates (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back, Ignocrates. I too have stayed clear, just, of permanent retirement. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ret.Prof. It's not the same encyclopedia I remember from six years ago, back when I still enjoyed editing. Ignocrates (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Perspective

Pass a Method, I suggest you proceed with caution. Take a look at the user talk pages of User_talk:Lung salad, User_talk:BruceGrubb, and User_talk:DeknMike and then look at the disputes involving these editors on the archived pages of WP:AN and WP:AN/I before you go any further. You will notice a similar pattern of behavior involving a similar cast of characters. The antagonists are all veteran gamers and experts at isolate/intimidate/eliminate. Beware of being drawn into escalating disputes that lead to AN/I traps. Ignocrates (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Pass a Method talk 16:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Your messages

Ignocrates, As I said if there is any credible academic non-OR non-POV non-duplicate content in the article you can helpfully start the process by indicating it - on the Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews or Talk:Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel pages. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Section break

I am really, really, really impressed at the way you handled yourself. I learned a lot! - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I did anything special. However, I felt the point had to be made emphatically that we are not going to countenance railroading by redirect. While that may be an expedient solution, I have a big problem with the ethics of that approach. Ignocrates (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Licensing Breach? Copying? Undo Consensus?

I think I am in serious trouble! Yet I do not have any idea what is going on. Could you please take a look at the bottom of my talk page and help. I have apologized for any wrongdoing on my part and voluntary stopped editing until things are sorted out. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I left a note on Doug's talk page and asked him to work with you to resolve the problem. Ignocrates (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

For letting me know. He is denying editing Oral gospel Traditions as you saw, but he created the article and edited it 283 times so I don't know what to think. Is there still a dispute between you and In ictu oculi and if so can I help sort it. And are you happy with my redirect? It seemed a blatantly obvious thing to do. Hope you are enjoying playing with your grandson. One of the pleasures of getting old. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

In ictu oculi is probably still mad at me, but we will get past it, so there is no dispute as far as I'm concerned. The fact is, despite the occasional bouts of acrimony, we do good work together, and that is what matters in the end. Ignocrates (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Ret.Prof's issue, I'm not sure what to think. He contends (I think) that he wrote this new article from scratch. If that's really true, a redirect was too hasty. Someone should actually look to be sure. However, if it's really all a copy/paste job, as everyone assumes, then a redirect was appropriate. Ignocrates (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad to here there's not a huge problem. I did check it myself. But I don't mind someone else checking it. As I recall it isn't just copy and paste the whole chunk and he created the original article although he denies editing it, so it's possible he was working from something he worked on at home. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I think your supposition is right. He created the whole article at home from scratch, although it may substantially duplicate the deleted version. I have a proposal that may help, which I will bring to your talk page. Ignocrates (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

RetProf's issue is that he has a theory about the origins of Matthew. Instead of writing for a scholarly or semi-scholarly journal, he puts it here. He could spend his time much more profitably elsewhere. PiCo (talk) 07:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. However, I think this should be resolved in a community forum. That is why I proposed an RfC/U as an opportunity to identify the problems and try to make this right. Ignocrates (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Since Ret.Prof has apparently voluntarily recused himself from further editing, per his talk page notice, the point of resolving his difficulties in a community forum is moot (at least for now). If he returns to active editing without going through an RfC/U first, I'm going to take a harder line than I have been. I'm willing to give him another chance, but I don't want to be an enabler either. Ignocrates (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

A blog

Have you seen this blog? (this link is to the author-page). Really interesting things there.PiCo (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Very Interesting, particularly the blog post about p-Luke. Thanks for letting me know. Ignocrates (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Also note Robert Price's analysis of Luke, particularly in what he describes as the Central Section from 10:1 to 18:14 and how closely it parallels Deuteronomy. Ignocrates (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Btw, are you familiar with Ben Smith's website, textexcavation.com? You might find these links of interest: synoptic problem, many sources, P. Vindobensis. Note Ben's text-critical analysis of Papyrus Vindobensis 2325 (also know as the Fayyum fragment). I think P. Vindobensis will turn out to be what is known as the Markan A source in the TC literature, which is believed to be a common source that underlies both canonical Mark and Matthew. You might also be interested in checking out some of my stuff that he graciously agreed to host. You have to use a browser that can handle Symbol font to read it properly. Ignocrates (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Hebrew Gospel hypothesis

We figure about 220 words in a quotation, any more is copyvio - translations are copyright also. I'm removing it at the moment, put back whatever meets the 220. Unless of course you can show unequivocally that the translation is copyright free. Dougweller (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to add I've got no reason to think you were deliberately adding copyvio, a lot of people don't understand our policy here. Dougweller (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem Doug. I thought that was ok to do on a talk page. Ignocrates (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect

Something went wrong. I added a section heading and a reply to you pointing to [5] which shows all the current redirects. Seems ok now. Thanks for adding the section heading. Another Atlantis kook. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Best practice

Greetings. Can you give me some guidance on the current best practice to format notes and citations in featured articles? I am in the process of separating the footnotes in the Gospel of the Ebionites article into citations and notes to make them more FA-compatible here. However, I see many featured articles where citations and notes are combined. Should I make further changes to the article to conform to what is considered FA best practice? I would like to use this article as a tutorial to learn FA best practice and then apply the same format to articles I create or improve in the future. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ignocrates. Thanks for your note. I'm sorry I've not reviewed at FAC, my only experience there has been helping to fix the "problems" that have arisen in two "geographical article" nominations that I've had a shared interest in. These included Somerset (which I didn't nominate) and River Parrett (which I was a joint nominator twice). Of these two nominations, only Somerset uses notes (only one note). You might find it interesting to look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/River Parrett/archive1 (and archive2) to see some of the problems that were raised. My personal preference is that version here is the better of the two versions of Gospel of the Ebionites in respect of layout. I wish you well with that article and please let me know when you nominate it, just in case I can help with the "problems" that may arise. Pyrotec (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I will take a look at the two articles you mentioned. I would be grateful to have your help when this article goes to FAC. Ignocrates (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Consistent reference style

Sorry for the late reply. Your suggestion looks fine to me. I think the subject area (Jewish Christians,their gospels, and all else concerning them) is so arcane and little-visited that you can probably experiment to your heart's content without treading on anyone's toes. You should try (or avoid) getting involved with Genesis creation narrative - now there's a field of landmines! PiCo (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I would not have even considered touching the GH article were it not for all the great cleanup work you did there. Now I can see a pathway to peer review and GA. I'm staying away from controversial articles for awhile. The pity on the Gcn article is that the issue seems so simple from the perspective of an outsider. But nothing is easy when it comes to people's religious beliefs. Ignocrates (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me know when you're ready for peer review. I imagine Mr Eye-blink would also be interested :) PiCo (talk) 06:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Will do, and Blinkie too. :0) Ignocrates (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Archiving

Many apologies for overlooking your post. I would have suggested the help desk myself, as although my talk page is archived I don't mess with archives much. It is always good though to set them up so they can be searched, so make sure you ask about that. Dougweller (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I inadvertently made a mess of this, and I want to make it right. Ignocrates (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Oral gospel traditions

Since I stepped back, I see you have done a lot of good work. (Please note my name seems to have been cleared by a helpful bureaucrat - see talk page). Regarding the Oral gospel traditions, Bart Ehrman has won me over to your position. He is one of the most knowledgeable authors on the subject. He covers all the basics in his most recent work Did Jesus Exist?, HarperCollins, 2012. pp 83-93 and pp 98-101 - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC )

Thanks for the citation. I will check out the pages you mentioned. Ignocrates (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If you have a chance please read it and together we may carefully expand the stub. Thanks for all your help and good sense! Ret.Prof (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I had been thinking about expanding that stub, so yes, I will try to help out when I can. The encyclopedia needs an article on Christian Oral Traditions. However, you made a procedural mistake by creating a new article instead of expanding the stub. That allowed it to be labeled a POV fork and summarily deleted by redirect without discussion. I would let Doug know about what you intend to do before you get started. That will head off any possible misunderstandings. Ignocrates (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes... you are being too kind when you refer to my "procedural mistake", but luckily Nihonjoe was able to finally figure out what happened and I am now back to editing. It is good to let Doug know and head off any possible misunderstandings. I think taking it slow will also help. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Stunned! Could you check to see if I am reading things right?? It appears that some believe Bart Ehrman is not a reliable source and the material form his book is OR???? - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not my call to make (see my follow-up note on Doug's talk page). I'm sure there are some here who would reject all of Ehrman's published works because he is a non-Christian. Such is the landscape of Wikipedia (see, Thunderdome). Ignocrates (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Got your message on my talk page. Thanks. FYI John has made a reply. I am probably in over my head. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying you shouldn't proceed. Just be realistic about the task you are taking on. Consider the irony of this diff. Ignocrates (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Blanked at the request of Carcharoth per Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3/Proposed decision#Case closing. Ignocrates (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Gospel of the Ebionites

I'll be happy to join in the peer review. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Later: I see you haven't opened the second peer review yet. I attach my suggestions here, which by all means cut and paste into the peer review when you're ready:

• General
  • Italicisation: you sometimes italicise "Gospel of the Xxxxxx" and sometimes don't. I think it reads more smoothly without italics, but whichever you prefer, you should be consistent.
• Lead
  • image caption: you use the English possessive form Salamis's here, but the American form Epiphanius' elsewhere
  • "during the time of the Early Church, however the identity"– I think you should either change the comma to a semicolon or change "however" to "but".
• Background – another "however" masquerading as a conjunction, in the first sentence of the second para
  • Block quotations – I think you have the whole of the second quotation in opening and closing inverted commas. The Manual of Style specifies not doing so (and you haven't for the first of the two.)
  • Second quotation: query spellings Tiberias and Isariot.
  • Block quotations– "Moreover they deny…" and the one below it. See comment above.
  • "he would not eat meat on Passover"– "during" seems the usual preposition with "Passover"
• Relationship to other texts
  • In the first para Jerome appears out of the blue. I think a wikilink or a few words of introduction would be helpful.
• Inferences about the Ebionites
  • "syncretistic"– I say! A link to syncretism would be helpful to most of us here.
• Notes
  • Format: when citing others' prose you generally follow the pattern Author, p. xx spaced en-dash, which looks good. But you haven't been consistent. See Notes 1, 10, 14, 15, 17, 21, 23, 42–44,
  • Note 4 – does the source really have both possessive forms Epiphaneus' and Epiphaneus's in one sentence?
  • Note 41– opening quotes missing

That's all that I spotted. I hope these few points are useful. To this layman's eye the article seems impressively scholarly, and just the sort of standard Wikipedia should be aiming at. Happily, the scholarship has not impeded readability. Please let me know when you put the article up for FAC. – Tim riley (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions

• First sentence of lead: "Gospel of the Ebionites is the conventional name given to the description by Epiphanius of Salamis of a gospel used by the Ebionites." This seems to verge on the circular - "Gospel of the Ebionites is ... a gospel used by the Ebionites." Is there some source that gives a succinct definition? If not, something that defines the topic more informaitvely seems called for: "The Gospel of the Ebionites is a lost gospel in use during the first few centuries of the Christian era by a Jewish-Christian community (the Ebionites) on the east bank of the Jordan." (Of course, I'm not even sure this is true, just suggesting how a more informative first line might look). The 2nd sentence could then explain how its existence is known only from the fragments quoted by Epiphanius the existing 2nd sentence can do that, just expanding the reference to his name (the full Epiphanius of Salamis, and add his dates to give some context).

• 2nd para of lead: "Epiphanius mistakenly identifies it as the "Hebrew" gospel, believing it to be a truncated and modified version of the Gospel of Matthew." I feel uneasy with saying the good Epiphanius might have made a mistake. He was, however, mistaken. Try combining that sentence with the next: " Epiphanius ... identifies it as the "Hebrew" gospel, believing it to be a truncated and modified version of the Gospel of Matthew, [but] he text is in fact a gospel harmony of the Synoptic Gospels, composed in Greek, with various expansions and abridgments reflecting the theology of the writer." (Note the two added commas, too).

• 2nd para: "Distinctive features of the text include..." Stop saying "of the text", it can be taken for granted. Ditto "the practice of vegetarianism" - just "vegetarianism" is enough.

• 2nd para: "The gospel harmony is believed to have been composed sometime during the middle of the 2nd century in or around the region East of the Jordan River.[4] The gospel text was said to be used by "Ebionites" during the time of the Early Church;[note 4] however the identity of the group or groups that used the text remains a matter of conjecture.[note 5]" Presumably "the gospel harmony" is this Gospel of the Ebionites, in which case "it" will do. More importantly, you're talking here about composition (when, where, and by whom); you last talked about composition in the first two sentences (The original title of the gospel is unknown. Epiphanius mistakenly identifies it as the "Hebrew" gospel, believing it to be a truncated and modified version of the Gospel of Matthew. The text is a gospel harmony of the Synoptic Gospels composed in Greek with various expansions and abridgments reflecting the theology of the writer.)" Then you talked about contents; and now you're back to composition. Put composition together, and contents at the end of the para.

• 3rd para: I have doubts about this - confusing to the non-specialist reader?

"The Gospel of the Ebionites is one of the Jewish-Christian Gospels, along with the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Nazoraeans, which survive only as fragments in quotations of the Early Church Fathers. Because so little of the text is known, its relationship to the other Jewish-Christian Gospels and a hypothetical original Hebrew Gospel has been a subject of scholarly investigation. More recently, it has been recognized that the gospel harmony is a distinctive text from the others[note 6] and it has been identified more closely with the lost Gospel of the Twelve.[note 7] A similarity between the Gospel and a source document contained within the Clementine Recognitions (Rec. 1.27–71), conventionally referred to by scholars as the Ascents of James, has also been noted with respect to the command to abolish the Jewish sacrifices.[note 8]"

Keeping the same information, but casting into more user-friendly language:

The Gospel of the Ebionites is one of [SEVERAL] Jewish-Christian Gospels, along with the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Nazoraeans,[;] [ALL] survive only as fragments in quotations of the Early Church Fathers [ADD ROUGH PERIOD]. ITS relationship to the other Jewish-Christian Gospels[,] and a hypothetical original Hebrew Gospel[,] has been a subject of scholarly [DISPUTE?]; More recently, [MORE RECENT THAN WHAT?]it has been recognized that [EBIONITES] is [DISTINCT] from [THESE][note 6][,] and it has been identified more closely with the lost Gospel of the Twelve.[note 7] A similarity to the Ascents of James has also been noted with respect to the command to abolish the Jewish sacrifices.[note 8]

Hope this helps. I'll look in again later. PiCo (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Ret.Prof has a point

I have slowly been going through the talk page arguments on the J-C gospel articles and trying to understand what all the fuss is about. I think I finally understand why both sides of the dispute think they are right and the other side is POV-pushing. As is often the case on Wikipedia, context matters. I don't want to put half-baked ideas on article talk pages, so I'm going to put them here for now, until I can distill all this information down into something useable. As usual, the place to start is with reliable sources. I'm going to paste some representative examples (not exhaustive) here as I find them and see how it goes. Ignocrates (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Minority Argument

Now to get back to what I see as Ret.Prof's point. After reviewing many of the major articles on the Jewish Christian Gospels that were published over time, I realized that a lot of the consternation comes down to a Catch 22 argument over WP:WEIGHT. Older articles have tended to be dismissed as dated, and therefore, not representative of the "mainstream" consensus. However, it would be more accurate to state that older articles establish a consensus that was mainstream in their own time period (for more details, see Jewish Christian Gospel Scholarship). Therefore, the weight of older articles should be lower than those that establish the modern consensus, but they shouldn't be weighted zero either. All of the articles I cited were reliable sources and acceptable (i.e., not fringe) at the time they were published. There should be a way to include some of this older material, possibly as a section in the Jewish Christian Gospels article on the history of scholarship. Ignocrates (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Logically speaking, if older sources get less weight because they are older, then current sources should receive the most weight for establishing a consensus; except they don't receive the most weight. This is the double bind that is a major source of the problem. Current sources are dismissed as too new and not representative of a consensus either. Only selected sources in the middle of the time continuum are said to be "mainstream", and therefore, authoritative. This is perceived to be an arbitrary distinction for choosing between sources that are "mainstream" (my way) or "fringe" (the highway). The solution is similar to that for historical sources. The findings of recent scholarship should be captured in their own section of the Jewish Christian Gospels article. Ignocrates (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Majority Argument

I summarized the minority argument in the last section, but I should also spend some time laying out the majority argument to keep this monologue WP:NPOV. If you determine WP:WEIGHT by the number of times a source is cited by academic authors, Vielhauer & Strecker (1991) and Klijn (1992) constitute the core of the majority position. For example, Ehrman (2011) summarizes the current state of scholarship and then reproduces Klijn's work from 20 years earlier as the standard. Skarsaune & Hvalvick's (2007) compilation Jewish Believers in Jesus is frequently cited in reviews of the current literature, and the contributing authors of that magnum opus in turn routinely cite Klijn (1992) and Klijn & Reininck (1973) as reference works for further details. Authors such as Nicholson or Pick are seldom cited, and when they are it is to demonstrate how scholarly thinking has changed over time. Some modern authors like James Edwards are infrequently mentioned in citations or reviews, at least in the context of Jewish Christian Gospel studies. Ignocrates (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

GHeb and GEbi

Sure I'd be happy to go over them some time. I'm assuming it's all very brown-bread and in line with Schneemelcher and SBL sources now? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast! Yes, very brown-bread and in line with Schneemelcher and SBL sources. No surprises. You can check my progress at User:Ignocrates/Gospel of the Hebrews if you like. My pace is slow and steady. There is a lot of reading involved going through all these sources. I finally broke down and checked Klijn (1992) out from the university library. I am in the process of reading the book cover to cover. Thanks for being willing to help out, and I appreciate any suggestions for reviewers. Best. Ignocrates (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

My compliments for the way you are drafting the page. It is going past GA towards FA class in my view.Nishidani (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks pal. It's good to hear from you. Ignocrates (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Blanked at the request of Carcharoth per Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3/Proposed decision#Case closing. Ignocrates (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Ret.Prof's Comments

I am confused and need your help to understand how to proceed??

1. I added some material from Ehrman,Voorst, Casey etc who raise it as an important issue. Nobody has disputed these sources.
2. Indeed everyone seems to agree that there is scholarly consensus that Jesus must be understood as a Jew in a Jewish environment.
3. We all seem to agree that the material is clearly undisputable and obvious.
4. Since everyone agrees that Jesus must be understood as a Jew in a Jewish environment. therefore it must be removed from the article??

Wikipedia:No original research states the obvious may not need a source. ie "Paris is the capital France" or "Jesus was Jewish". However to say that the obvious ie "Paris is the capital France" or "Jesus was Jewish" must be deleted from Wikiedia seem to turn Wikipedia:No original research upside down. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC) PS How do we have a POV dispute when everyone's POV is the same and it is obviously correct?

The content is reliably sourced, and it is an accurate summary of the reliable sources. The POV problem was caused by the deletion of reliably sourced article content without discussion. So, restore the deleted content and note in the discussion section that it is an accurate summary of the reliable sources. You can quote the reliable sources on the talk page to prove it. If there are issues with WP:SCOPE and/or WP:WEIGHT, those things should be discussed on the talk page before the content is added again. Ignocrates (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Ignocrates. What is going on with restoring this. Are you knowingly working with RetProf to add, yet again, material we have endless previous Talk page, AfD and merge discussions to remove? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I am absolutely not "knowingly working with Ret.Prof", and I apologize if my actions led you to believe that. As I stated in my disclaimer on the article talk page, I am trying my best to remain neutral. However, I believe your methods of controlling article content are too heavy-handed at times and the community needs to find a way to allow Ret.Prof to have some input. That is the whole point of attempting to reach a consensus on the talk page. Ignocrates (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

@ In ictu oculi...Please look at the debate over the past few months and you will see that Ignocrates has slammed me a couple of times...and he has been right both times. He is trying hard to be fair and honorable. He has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart! I have not the slightest doubt that if I had used "heavy-handed" tactics he would have dealt with me accordingly. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Good and honorable opponent

First, let me say I did not take offense at your jihadist remarks! Second let me say when John Carter left those harsh comments on my talk page, I defended you by saying you were a good and honorable editor. At that point I had not disagreed with you on anything. NOW we do disagree about Papias! ...and you did not delete my edits proving you are a good and honorable opponent. Thanks - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Ret.Prof, I think you have me all wrong! First of all, no one on this encyclopedia knows what I really think; I edit based on the evidence I find. I try my best to sort through the conflicting evidence to determine if there is a consensus opinion. As you know, that can be a very difficult process on these religious topics (see the workpage link to the J-C gospels above as an example). With respect to Papias, and the Hebrew Gospel question more generally, we do agree to the extent that the weight cannot be zero. The difficult task is to decide how much weight to assign, depending upon the topic of the article. In the case of the canonical Gospel of Matthew, I made the statement that the Hebrew Gospel material is vastly over-weighted compared to the modern scholarly consensus. I stand by that evaluation with respect to that specific article. It deserves a tiny mention there with a link to a historical article on the topic of a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, based on - not conjectures, not hypotheses - testimony of the Church Fathers. Papias and Pantaenus should both have major weight in that article based on received Church traditions. Ignocrates (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The simple fact is the Church Fathers accepted as received tradition that Matthew wrote a gospel in the Hebrew language. That tradition continued unbroken until the end of the 19th century, when scholars studying the synoptic problem using form criticism discovered (to their dismay) that canonical Greek Matthew can't be traced back to a Hebrew original. Since that realization, there has been a systematic attempt to hide Church tradition out of embarrassment and fear: by Christian theologians, by Christian scholars, by conservative Christian editors. What are they so embarrassed and afraid of? (answer to follow) Ignocrates (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Simply put, they are afraid that the cumulative weight of the evidence will prove that: . (commented out) Ignocrates (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Now, let's consider the flip-side: facing this realization, how would you feel? That doesn't mean bury your head in the sand; however, it does require editing with some sensitivity toward your fellow-travelers on this great social-experiment. Anyway, that's my take on the current conundrum. Ignocrates (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Recusing myself

I am recusing myself from further editing on the Gospel of Matthew article and current or future articles that have anything to do with lost or hypothetical Hebrew Gospels of whatever. Also, any current or future articles about oral gospel traditions or Christian oral traditions generally. Otherwise, I will be following User:PiCo into retirement or vanishing like User:History2007. Please don't post on my talk page about any of these topics in the future. Ignocrates (talk) 02:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

GEbi FAC review

The Gospel of the Ebionites article is currently being reviewed to verify that it meets WP:Featured article criteria. You can help to improve the article, leave suggestions for improvement at Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites, or participate in the review process here. Ignocrates (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't say I'm wild about the referencing layout you've gone for, but in my opinion you should stick to your guns. See WP:CITEVAR. As long as the referencing format does the job – which yours most definitely does – then those like me who prefer other layouts can jolly well put up with it. As you have followed the format used in a recently-promoted article (G Harrison) you are fireproof. This question should, IMO, have no bearing at all on eligibility for FA. I'll look in at the FAC tomorrow and put my highly-supportive two penn'orth in. (If, for future articles, you are at all interested in how I, as a moderately frequent submitter to FA, prefer to do my referencing, have a look at Gabriel Fauré. I think this method of referencing is clean and simple, but to each his own.) – Tim riley (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Will do. I would like to use a format that most editors who write FA-quality articles consider to be best practices. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Support duly added, along with a few well-chosens in favour of your ref formatting. I'm not going so far as to recommend that you follow my preferred ref formatting in future. I am a bit of a dinosaur, and many of the best editors prefer using cite web/cite news/cite journal templates, though I find them a dreadful fiddle-faddle to put in. Have a look at edit pages of FAs by User:Brianboulton such as Jane Cobden, his most recent solo FA. And there are editors not wholly unhinged who favour the sfn device, though I can't make head or tail of it. In short, for any new articles you create I'd find whatever suits you best and stick to it contra mundum. For existing articles you overhaul, I'm afraid you're stuck with the status quo for ref style: see WP:CITEVAR. – Tim riley (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'll try to get to reviewing your changes tonight but I don't see any reason that this article shouldn't be considered FA now. Hopefully I can share that on the proper page before the bureaucratic rules dictate it's "time over" for this review. ;-) -- llywrch (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It would be a shame to have it simply "age off" into an archive after all this work. Ignocrates (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Very pleased to see the article promoted to FA. Thoroughly merited. Loud applause! Tim riley (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Gospel of Ebonites

Congrats on the FAC! -- llywrch (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Gospel of the Ebionites

This is a note to let the main editors of Gospel of the Ebionites know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 14, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 14, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Gospel of the Ebionites is the conventional name given to an apocryphal gospel believed to have been used by a Jewish Christian sect known as the Ebionites. All that is known of the gospel consists of seven brief quotations found in a heresiology known as the Panarion, written by Epiphanius of Salamis (pictured); he believed it to be a truncated and modified version of the Gospel of Matthew. The quotations were used as part of a polemic to point out inconsistencies in the beliefs and practices of the Ebionites relative to Nicene orthodoxy. The text is a gospel harmony of the Synoptic Gospels, composed in Greek with various changes reflecting the writer's theology. It is believed to have been composed some time during the middle of the 2nd century. Distinctive features include the absence of the virgin birth and genealogy of Jesus, an Adoptionist Christology in which Jesus is chosen to be God's Son at the time of his Baptism, Jesus' appointed task of abolishing the Jewish sacrifices, and an advocacy of vegetarianism. Although the gospel was said to be used by "Ebionites" during the time of the early church, the identity of the group or groups that used it remains a matter of conjecture. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Ebionites 2

The help desk found a diff for the suspended case: here. Ignocrates (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

And the actual archived file of the case is here. Ignocrates (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a response to a request for help from one of the arbitration clerks:

Greetings! Yes, you need to make a new, fresh request at WP:A/R/C, and add the old evidence on your statement. You could also just link to the old case request, although most arbs that participated in it are now gone, since copying all that information will just be space consuming. You can read the instructions on how requesting a new case here. Remember that, to proceed with a new case, the problem must still be happening right now; you must also inform all involved users that you are requesting an arbitration case. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I pasted Harold's advice on how to proceed here to make it easy to find when I need it. Ignocrates (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Requests for comment

WP:RFC WP:RFCB WP:RFC#Publicizing an RfC

Here are some helpful links to be used later to request comments. Ignocrates (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

TFA

Sorry not to reply. I have put move protection (only) on the article. TFAs are not given pre-emptive editing protection. If the article is being hit by vandalism or poor editing by new/anonymous users, then it can be given semi-protection by any admin, as with any other article, either by a request to WP:RFPP or by directly approaching one or more admins (or by an admin seeing the situation for him/herself). Hope this helps. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 12:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Ascents of James

I've added a few sources from a couple of versions - it was created more than once. Some of the sources look ok, some are obviously not. Dougweller (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Ichthus

I mentioned you in this month's issue of Ichthus .--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)