Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ebionites/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 15:33, 24 October 2007.

Ebionites

[edit]
Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity, Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history,‎ Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism,‎ User:Jayjg, User:Codex Sinaiticus,‎ User:Str1977, User:MichaelCPrice, and‎ User:Ovadyah

Review commentary

[edit]

Based on the continued discussions on Talk:Ebionites, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive287#Expert_attention_needed_on_Ebionites_featured_article, and talk pages of various editors, including, but not limited to:User talk:Jayjg#We could use some help, User talk:Ovadyah, and User talk:MichaelCPrice, it appears that this article may be lacking in stability, neutrality, and factual accuracy, to say the least, and thus should undergo a review -- Avi 18:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could the nominator post a notice at the top of all the persons that have been notified? I noticed that some of the major editors have already been notified on their talk pages. --RelHistBuff 07:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I had a quick read-through of the current version, the original FA version, and the talk pages. There has been many changes, but unfortunately the article is going through a dispute between several editors. Although the nominator is welcome to bring this article to FAR, I would suggest that this nomination be withdrawn and that the editors work through the dispute resolution process first. The talk discussion seems to be moving in that direction anyway. --RelHistBuff 13:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that won't work under the present circumstances. All of the editors responsible for getting the article to FA have left the article. The only editor remaining is the person that caused the dispute. If a new group of editors could be identified to fix the problems, then I agree that dispute resolution could work. Ovadyah 19:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, I contributed to this article at a time long in its past & would be willing to offer my own disinterested opinion. However, if someone could provide a link to the version that made FA status, it would help immensely. -- llywrch 00:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it was on April 12, 2007, the day it was promoted to FA by Raul654, can be found here. Ovadyah 02:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it was on April 21, 2007, the day it was unprotected by Raul654, can be found here. And here is the diff between the two versions. The main difference is that a page was created on Wikisource for the primary sources cited in the article. One of these would probably be considered the "official version" if there ever is such a thing. Ovadyah 05:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it was on July 8, 2007, the day before it was featured on the Main Page, can be found here. There were relatively few changes between this version and the April 21 FA version. Here is the diff between them. Discussion of the changes between April 12 and July 8 can be found here. Ovadyah 05:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have gone over the article and fixed what imho were the most egregious problems affecting neutrality and factual accuracy. The article is closer to the FA version in that respect. However, when a certain disruptive editor returns, all this may change. We will be using formal mediation to resolve any remaining disputes. Ovadyah 21:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns stability (1e), neutrality (1d), and factual accuracy (1c). Marskell 13:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. 1a. This is appallingly writtennot well written. Shoot it dead now to be kind to the animal.
    • Tons of stubby paragraphs. Disjointed.
    • "Modern scholars, aiming at elucidating on the views, practices and history of the Ebionites draw on other sources as well as the Church Fathers, with some agreeing with the substance of the traditional portrayal as a re-judaizing offshoot of mainstream Christianity,[3][4] while others argue they may have been disciples of the early Jerusalem church, who were gradually marginalized by the followers of Paul of Tarsus despite possibly being more faithful to the authentic teachings of the historical Jesus." Oh yuck. Tony 12:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove: This is a really interesting topic and it deserves a much better article. Please fix the dispute, i.e. bury the hatchet first. Then I suggest to start from the original FA version, work on it together, and bring it back to FAC. --RelHistBuff 12:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Michael Price has withdrawn from formal mediation, so the content dispute is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. The oversight system is broken. A disruptive editor should not be able to demolish a featured article and then just walk away. Thanks everyone for your helpful suggestions. Ovadyah 12:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The above editor has regretably decided that the article is unsalvagable with the current situation. I have recently posted a request for Arbitration on this matter. I believe that if they should choose not to accept it WP:CSN may also be contacted. I request that the individuals involved in review realize the difficulty of improving the article while such efforts are ongoing, and will hold off on a decision until after these efforts have been concluded one way or another. John Carter 17:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can hold. It's just a had a great deal of work done, so up it stays. Marskell 19:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's work. It looks like more disputing (see talk page). Sad, really. --RelHistBuff 21:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The voting on the request for Arbitration is taking much longer than expected. Therefore, a majority of editors has voted to remove the disputed material to the talk page to fix it within the next few days, as a last-ditch effort to avoid demotion. We now have the oversight of an admin (Dbachmann) which will help a lot. Please give us a little more time. Ovadyah 16:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A couple more days; people can update here. Marskell 10:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Progress report The editors collectively feel that we have now addressed the problems with stability (1e), neutrality (1d), and factual accuracy (1c). We are now working diligently on the problem of 1a, the aftermath of the ceaseless edit-warring. Dbachmann is keeping a watchful eye on the page to handle any immediate problems, and a case is proceeding through arbitration to make sure this doesn't happen again. Ovadyah 17:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I may have limited knowledge of the subject, but I will work to address what seem to me to be some of the major existing problems with the copy of the article. If anyone sees fit to point out specific flaws they see to me, I will gladly do what I can to address them. I regret to say I've never worked in a situation like this, and am not at all sure of the protocols and procedures, but will do what I can to return the article to FA status. John Carter 19:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. There are still a lot of issues. I just fixed the footnote punctuation per WP:FN (haven't had to do that in a very long time, so just noting it so that regular editors will be aware). See WP:MOS regarding use of e.g. There is a likely copyvio citation to a geocities personal website, not a reliable source. Many publishers aren't identified on sources, making it difficult to evaluate reliability of sources without clicking on each source. (ah, and I see I asked for this to be attended to during the FAC, and apparently it never was.) For example, one sources is selfhelp-guide.com; is that a reliable source? Is hebrew4christians.com a reliable source? There are still citation needs, samples only:

  • Most historians place the end of the Ebionites during this time.
  • Regarding the Ebionites specifically, a number of scholars have different theories on how the Ebionites may have developed from an Essene Jewish messianic sect.

There are still copyedit needs and redundant prose, samples only:

  • The question remains whether or not Epiphanius was able to make a genuine distinction distinguish between Nazarenes and Ebionites.
  • Can someone check if this is correct? "Origen in c. 212 remarks that ... " in circa together?
  • Why is the Poor Ones capitalized? ... from the Hebrew Evyonim, meaning "the Poor Ones" ...
  • I don't know what this sentence is saying: The actual scope of the term Ebionites is difficult to ascertain, as the contradictory patristic accounts in their attempt to distinguish various sects, sometimes confuse them with each other. Ah, then as I read further along, I find a redirect link to patristic; first occurrences should be linked. Anyway, I still can't understand the sentence. Then further on again, we find Church Fathers linked.
  • Is this correct punctuation? This article is just hard to read: The Ebionites believed that all Jews and Gentiles must observe the commandments in the Law of Moses, in order to become righteous and seek communion with God; but that these commandments must be understood in the light of Jesus' expounding of the Law, revealed during his sermon on the mount.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It appears as though people are determined to find new things wrong faster than we can fix the old ones. Knock yourselves out, but it will no longer be at my expense. Ovadyah 01:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I will try to attend to some of the grammatical, etc., issues presently. Thanks for pointing out the weaknesses of the article. Like I said above, I'm new at this and hesitate to act on my own to make changes to what is an FA. Now I have something to work with. John Carter 01:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Removal

  • For all the unresolved points stated previously.
  • In response to: "..appears as.. people are determined to find.. wrong faster than .. can fix.. old ones..." If it's not up to FA quality, then I am happy that wikipedia has such diligent reviewers. Learnedo 02:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After reading the current version, I am afraid that I must reaffirm my vote to Remove. The Ebionites of which we have so little in terms of extant writings are used by modern scholars to push interesting, if not controversial views. For this reason, I believe the article really needs more depth in the History, Views and practices, and Writings sections. I write below some criticisms which I hope will help in improving the article.
  • In the lead, mention is made of two opposing views, the traditional view that the Ebionites were offshoots of mainstream Christianity and a modern view that the Ebionites were “more faithful to the authentic teachings of Jesus” and that they were “marginalized by the followers of Paul of Tarsus”. The latter modern view which is presumably more controversial is not explained at all in the article. Why were Ebionites considered more faithful to the teachings of Jesus? What is considered the “authentic” teachings? What group were the “followers of Paul”?
  • The lead mentions that they regarded James as the head of the church, while the article only says some scholars claim this. The rejection of Paul comes from Patristic sources. Putting the two together appears like a synthesis which is WP:OR. The text in the lead needs to be rephrased and cited.
  • The assertion that the earliest reference of the group uses a cite to Justin Martyr’s writing, a primary source. But surely it wasn’t Martyr who said that this is the earliest reference! Some scholar must have said that. Who? Please cite the secondary source.
  • Similarly, Irenaeus supposedly was the first to used the term “Ebionites”. But the cite is again to the primary source of Irenaeus. Who made the assertion that Irenaeus was the first to use the term? The secondary source cite is missing.
  • In a previous version of this article, there were more explanations on why Epiphanius’ account was questionable. I would suggest putting this back in or expanding the current text (and again giving the cite to the secondary source).
  • Related to all this is that there is a heavy use of primary source citations and use of tertiary sources such as Schaff and other encyclopaedias and websites. Secondary sources should be mainly used especially for featured articles. And for articles on the history of religion, preferably printed books or journals.
  • The line "Many scholars link the origin…" should be cited.
  • One paragraphs starts with “According to these scholars…”. It is not clear which scholars. Is it the “Many scholars…” from the previous paragraph?
  • Under the writings section, the definition of the grouping of writings is from the Catholic Encyclopedia which is again only a tertiary source and one that has a certain POV on the Ebionites. Probably a better source should be used. Again, the cites tend to use primary sources that does not really cite the assertions made in the text. There is a mention of Ebed Jesu. Who is he? Without the explanation, that line adds little value.
  • If the Ebionites reject the gnostic doctrines within the Book of Elchesai, then why is the book considered part of Ebionite writings?
With some work, I am sure this can be brought back to FAC. --RelHistBuff 14:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I hope you can appreciate the dark irony of this proceeding. I could have said nothing and the article would have remained a featured article, replete with fraudulent content. The few readers that know something about the Ebionites would have dismissed it as complete crap, and the many more that don't would have been misled. By calling attention to this wrongdoing, all I accomplished was to bring down what was once a well-sourced and well-written featured article. Never again. Ovadyah 15:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ovadyah, the last confuses me. If the article was previously "replete with fraudulent content" and "complete crap" how has your work brought down "what was once a well-sourced and well-written featured article"? As I see it, the article has improved regardless of the star, but should go because there's multiple removes after nine weeks. That is, no longer FA but not a waste of time. And, of course, it can go back to FAC. OK? Marskell 21:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My work here is done. Frag it. Ovadyah 05:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Ebionites/archive1&oldid=1085530606"