Talk:Ebionites/Mediation

Let's use this page for the mediation. To start, could each of you summarize, in one paragraph, what specific content you would like to add to/delete from/modify in the article? Jayjg (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ovadyah
A newspaper editorial on Ebion and the Ebionites which appeared on June 11, 2010 in the online version of the Guardian, a major newspaper in the UK. . The article does not mention James, but the comments which link James to the Ebionites are revealing. The article and the responses which follow show there is some level of popular awareness of the subject. Ovadyah (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The Ft/N has an interesting discussion concerning the misapplication of WP:FRINGE to religious topics here. This is the most relevant paragraph for our purposes:
 * But there is a larger problem here. Wikipedia's definition of a "fringe theory" pertains to ideas that contradict scientific scholarship and the focus is on pseudoscience. It goes against the spirit of Wikipedia to label a theory as "fringe", simply because a majority of people who have been schooled in a religion that is threatened by that theory do not agree with it. The evaluation of the theory should be empirical and based on evidence (or lack thereof). It is certainly relevant to let readers know that a majority of theologians have great disdain for the theory. However, an evaluation of it's qualification as a "fringe theory" should be based on it's acceptance in the scientific community not a particular religious community that holds belief in the existence of Christ as a matter of faith, the questioning of which puts one in danger of eternal damnation in Hell. (Yes, I know not some of the Bible scholars that are quoted in Eugene's infamous FAQ #2 claim to be agostic, not Christian, but they almost all obtained their degrees from institutions that hold belief in an historical Jesus as a core principle and an unquestionable matter of faith. Few if any are scientists.)

Ovadyah (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My point about the application of WP:FRINGE to religious articles is very simple. As the editor of the above statement points out on Ft/N, a rigorous application of the fringe theories guidelines could be used to conclude that all articles about Christianity are fringe, because the empirical evidence that Jesus really existed is tenuous at best.  Therefore, we must use a uniform standard when this guideline is applied to religious articles based on empirical research, lest it be misused in a subversive way to undermine minority or controversial religious views. Ovadyah (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's move this content dispute along. Many sources with detailed quotations have been provided in support of the included material. No sources have been provided yet opposing inclusion. Can we please have a last call for sources and move to the next phase where we review the sources in detail. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Twenty days have passed to simply provide a list of sources. That is a generous amount of time.  By John Carter's own admission, he hasn't bothered to crack the books he claims to disagree with.  Why should the other editors be penalized for this lack of effort?  I'm ready to review what we have gathered so far. Time to put up. Ovadyah (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Btw, I'm sticking to providing sources and analyzing their contents. I don't have time to read through endless rambling rants let alone respond to them. If someone asks me a direct question regarding a specific source, I will do my best to respond to that request. Ovadyah (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

While we are waiting to finalize the list of sources, I should mention that I agree with Michael's suggested changes to the disputed section. The section now has broader scholarly support - no longer being dependent on only Eisenman and Tabor. The changes reflect that as well as tightening up the language. All of the primary source material that Str1977 added before this paragraph about Acts can be consolidated into inline quotations by the secondary sources that say the same thing. Ovadyah (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I am committed to continuing mediation to resolve this content dispute. A content RfC is a step to be considered prior to resorting to mediation. We are already past that point. No content RfC is going to say go ahead and blank an article and replace it with your own personal version. If it comes to that, I would say we have a serious user conduct problem. I'm open to recommendations from the mediator. Ovadyah (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If I am understanding John Carter's comment correctly, his proposal still amounts to replacing the existing article with a John Carter-written article, whether entirely or in part. This violates the spirit of Wikipedia, which is based on editing by building consensus.  To claim that the article is so poorly written that it requires a complete John Carter rewrite is an insult to the integrity of all the editors who contributed over the years, principally Loremaster and Wetman, as well as those who participated in Peer Review, GAC, and FAC.  Walking away from mediation is a demonstration of editing in bad faith which should be subject to a user conduct RfC.  Ovadyah (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We can include a review of all your personal attacks and defamatory statements in the user conduct RfC in addition to an unwillingness to participate in mediation. Ovadyah (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of where this continues, either here, or on an article content RFC, I would recommend discussing only article content. User conduct should only be discussed in a User conduct RFC. Jayjg (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I apologize for bringing it up here. We have spent almost a month waiting for a response.  What are the next steps? Ovadyah (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Once again, we have an editor who refuses to try to reach a consensus by evading mediation, who is trying to impose his own views of what is "mainstream", who is sifting through the primary sources and rendering judgments about what the primary sources must have meant. All of this is contrary to the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia. We are here to report what is contained in the secondary literature, not draw conclusions about the accuracy or legitimacy of primary sources, and not to take a poll of tertiary encyclopedic sources to get a consensus of what constitutes an "average" article. I warned about this misuse of primary and tertiary sources back in October 2007. diff My second point is that Wikipedia strives to achieve a neutral point of view through community consensus, not by writing personal versions of articles. As I recall, when Michael Price attempted to write his own version of the article on his talk page back in 2007, John Carter had that personal version blanked by the admins. diff This is nothing short of rank hypocrisy and it will not happen. Ovadyah (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * After all the vicious personal attacks and defamation of my character that I have endured, I am beginning to take a renewed interest in this article. Let the record note that John Carter's objections to my editing on this article are not based on any actual edits I have made (adding a new source, Painter, that was requested?) but his (mis)perception of who I am as a person. Ovadyah (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we recreate the Ebionites/wip page. This was created by Loremaster so that all editors could try out various ideas for improving the article and to avoid the sustained edit warring that was preventing any progress on the article. If other editors are free to make changes and additions to a suggested version (or versions), there should be no problem with doing this. Ovadyah (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The proposal put forward by John Carter, that he continue to work on his personal version of the article on his home page, while other editors write their own competing versions on their home pages, is unacceptable. I'm sorry to read that he has withdrawn from mediation, but it's not a big surprise either. I propose we continue to edit and improve the existing article, and if this process becomes contentious, to recreate the Ebionites/wip page to try out different ideas. John Carter is free to do as he likes of course, but I think the remaining editors will be able to edit cooperatively and get something done. I have already indicated on the Talk:Ebionites page that I am fine with incorporating Michael's wording on the James section along with the new references. We should finish this section up and move on to the John the Baptist material as Michael suggested. Question for Michael: Do you want to leave mediation open to work on the JTB section? This material needs to be sorted out by author before it goes back into the article, and there may be some disagreements over how to do this. Ovadyah (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If John won't participate in the mediation, then there's no reason you shouldn't edit the article itself. I'm hoping the mediation will resume at some point in the future. Jayjg (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Michael's proposal to make good use of mediation. Our record of edit-warring on this article is not good.  Yet, there were times when we were more civil and worked together quite productively.  I'm ready to turn the page and try it again.  I will lay out my own proposal for the article's organization and content.  Meanwhile, there are some micro-level tasks we can get started on, such as the specific wording and sources for the JTB section.  We also need to clean up the primary sources in the James section.  There is no rush to do any of this. Ovadyah (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Michael C. Price
I have no problems with sourcing statements to Tabor or Eisenman. Although some of their views may be questioned, they both have made many original historical contributions which even their detractors acknowledge as invaluable. Carte blanche dismissal as fringe is simplistic and naive at best, POV-pushing at worst. If you look at the discussion which John Carter claims states Tabor is fringe you see nothing of the sort. One editor says the Jesus Dynasty is fringe. Another says it is not fringe, just a minority view (which it is, of course). The general conclusion seems to be that his views should not be presented as mainstream within the article (which I agree with).

Changes needed:
 * 1) remove the unsubtle mainstream Christian bias which views the Ebionites as heretics. E.g retrospective statements such as "Nazarenes/Ebionites were first recognized as a distinct group when some Jewish Christians receded farther from mainstream Christianity" need NPOVing.
 * 2) Restore the deleted John the Baptist section, to accompany the sections on James the Just and Jesus. John the Baptist is mentioned extensively in what remains of the Gospel of the Ebionites (as much or more so than Jesus); that should be reflected here, alongside the claims of John and Jesus' vegetarianism.
 * 3) And of course John's Essene links are widely speculated and commented upon. So we should mention the possible Essene / Ebionite / Dead Sea scrolls linkage, etc.
 * 4) Expand the religious perspectives section, give it subsections.

--Michael C. Price talk 14:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to try to help with all these issues, but I think it would be easier if we worked on one issue at a time. Would you be willing to start with the James, Bishop of Jerusalem/James Tabor issue listed below? Jayjg (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's start here. I mostly agree with the article at the moment about James.  So what are the contested points?
 * that James the Just was the leader of early church, designated by Jesus as his successor?
 * that these early groups (including the Dead Sea scroll authors) all referred to themselves as "the poor" or "Ebionites"?
 * that James and Paul didn't get along very well?
 * --Michael C. Price talk 10:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm working with John now to try to figure that out. Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that John Carter is canvassing editors, such as Nishidani who is indefinitely "prohibited from editing any Arab-Israeli conflict-related" article. This will only make the mediation process more difficult.--Michael C. Price talk 18:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The subject of "speculation" continues to be raised as a "reason" for excluding material. John Carter reminds us, ad nausem, that what we "know" about the Ebionites is speculative. The Oxford Dictionary saying it is an "open question" whether the group could be seen as descendant from the original churchThe entire field is, basically, just speculation But Wikipedia is not about the truth, but about what is reported in the literatrue. Or to put in terms that John Carter can understand, everything we "know" about Jesus is speculation. Does that mean that Wikipedia should not mention Jesus?

One other point: John Carter cites a negative review of Tabor's "Jeses Dynasty" which claims that Tabor's "facts" are not facts. What is the basis for this criticism? Reading the review we find that the reviewer's objection is that Tabor argues that a Hebrew version of Matthew (found amidst a Hebrew text) may preserve a more accurate version of the hypothesized Q source than the more familar versions of Matthew. Try as I might this objection just makes no sense. Why shouldn't the Hebrew Matthew be a translation from an older Greek Matthew which contains material since lost from, or garbled in, the synoptic versions? Just wondering, of course, but it does look like much of the criticism of Tabor is POV based, not objective. --Michael C. Price talk 15:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Michael. I'd like to get all the sources and quotes out first; then we can debate their meaning, applicability, notability, reliability, etc. One thing at a time, please. Jayjg (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest a tweaking of the wording of the currently debated clause to read "Some scholars argue that the Ebionites regarded James, brother, or cousin of Jesus, as their leader after Jesus' death. rather than Peter. Some scholars argue that the Ebionites claimed a dynastic apostolic succession for the relatives of Jesus."''

--Michael C. Price talk 16:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Since these claims are less strong than those in the existing sentences, which John objects to, I don't see any issue with this. Jayjg (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Since no sources have been provided against the role of James as Ebionite/Jerusalem leader, and John Carter has indicated that none are forthcoming for the indefinite future, then I guess we can proceed, if Jayjg approves, with updating the article as suggested?

Regards the mediation generally, there's no rush to resolve these issues; I am quite happy with the slow-burn approach here. That John Carter has effectively withdrawn on one issue is a welcome outcome and shouldn't be seen as a failure of the mediation process, rather the inevitable outcome of the lack of sources regarding the "anti-James position". Of course it would have been politer to just concede on the issue, but that is probably expecting too much of John.

Regarding the proposal by John and Ovadyah to work on separate versions of the article, I would rather we channel issues though mediation until we can see a way forward. Once the direction is agreed, then we can start microediting on the single article without (hopefully) edit-waring. So, can we move forward on some of the other major issues, such as John the Baptist?--Michael C. Price talk 18:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that John has withdrawn from the mediation for now, and no opposing sources have been brought to the material in question, there is no reason why you shouldn't start editing the main article again. Creating personal versions of articles is generally not conducive to collaborative editing. Jayjg (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

John Carter

 * The material to be added is somewhat dependent on the sources I am discovering, which can be found at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites in a still fluid state. I have to say that the obvious fringe theories of Eisenman and Tabor almost certainly require deletion of the non historical source information, possibly preserved as a sentence or so in a different section on recent theories, but probably not even there. John Carter (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks John. I assume that the crux of the current issue is indeed the material by Eisenman and Tabor. Can you explain specifically and briefly what theory it is of theirs that you consider to be fringe? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I can try. All presented? I don't know either work directly. Fringe theories/Noticeboard indicates that the Tabor book is fringe. Previous discussion indicates the Eisenman work is probably fringe. That being the case, we would probably be better off finding some less fringey source for anything coming from those books.
 * The last paragraph of that section is problematic. "Some scholars argue" sentence and the following "James Tabor" sentence to my eyes, at this point, clearly violate WP:UNDUE.
 * The James vs. Paul issue is a given, as several sources indicate they didn't get along real well. But I don't at this point in the sources I have found see that much direct linkage of the Ebionites to James either, and think that on that basis the remainder of the material might better fit in the parent Jewish Christians article, where it would probably be more appropriate, than this article about only a specific group of Jewish Christians. John Carter (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. I'm not looking (at this point) for a discussion of the sources, just an explanation of the crux of the content dispute. Can you try to explain, in your words, what the theory is that you find fringe? The theory that, for example, James was the rightful leader of the church, not Peter? That the Ebionites considered Paul to be a Greek convert? Please be very explicit, here on this page, as to which theories you find fringe. That would be extremely helpful. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Some scholars argue that the Ebionites regarded James, brother, or cousin of Jesus, the bishop of Jerusalem, the rightful leader of the Church rather than Peter. James Tabor argues that the Ebionites claimed a unique dynastic apostolic succession for the relatives of Jesus" and accompanying references. Saying that it was just the Ebionites who regarded James as the rightful leader of the church is probably undue (the Symmachians and Nazarenes may well have as well). At this point, I haven't checked on the content there, but the Symmachians can and probably should be included in the article on Symmachus, their nominal leader. And the last sentence about Tabor, frankly, could easily be axed entirely. Is that OK? John Carter (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the problem Michael still apparently continues to be either unable to see, or, possibly, as per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, ignoring, is that the two sources currently used the Eisenman book on James the Just and The Jesus Dynasty, present information which falls well outside the mainstream, has in the latter case been pretty clearly determined by independent editors on the Fringe theories noticeboard to be fringey, and, thus, as per WP:FRINGE, do not deserve the degree of attention they have in the article. Also, for the record, it seems to me that the article is currently structured to support the contention that the Ebionites of Jewish Christianity were a distinct group about whom conclusions can be reached, and that that contention itself probably at this point qualifies as a fringe theory. John Carter (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi John. I think I'm a bit confused again. I thought the issue was with the claim that the Ebionites considered James to be the rightful leader of the church, and that they claimed "a unique dynastic apostolic succession for the relatives of Jesus". Were you not arguing that the material is either incorrect, or not worth mentioning at all? I get the impression that you're now arguing a perhaps different point, that there was no unique group known as "Ebionites". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a right to be confused. I've been busy finding additional sources, and the later comment reflects the material more recently found. Yes, I do believe that the evidence that James the Just was considered the rightful leader of the church is not supported by much if any documentation. This is, at least in part, due to the fact that the reliable sources I have to this date found (encyclopedias and the like) do nothing to indicate that the Judeo-Christian group called Ebionites by Irenaeus can be historically traced beyond Irenaeus. However, having reviewed a larger number of reference sources, those sources are saying that the evidence is less than sufficient to be considered probable cause for anyone to say that the term "Ebionites" can be applied to any specific, distinct, Judeo-Christian group. Sorry, like I said earlier, but I have been reading up on the subject as time goes on, and my own opinions of the current academic consensus is based on a having exposed myself to more of the recent academic material on the subject. Also, unfortunately, if we are going to indicate that it deserves significant mention as a "minority view", then the better reported and thus, probably, more "notable" "minority views" which can be and have been documented that the Ebionites were the Essenes, the Nazoreans, the Qumran Covenanters, the Symmacheans, and whomever else as well, each deserve more material and coverage, because not only are these beliefs currently held, they are also notable as historical theories, as per the encyclopedic sources, which the Tabor/Eisenman theory is not. There is also another book, released earlier this year with an introduction by Tabor, that the Ebionites were the founders of the Freemasons. At some point, the amount of speculation, even if it is by academics, regarding a little-understood subject like this runs a very real chance of overwhelming the other material, and allowing any one minority/fringe theory this much space would more or less obligate us to give at least equal weight to any and all other similar theories, and that would lead to an even greater chaos than we currently face. And it has been admitted by Ovadyah that the Tabor theory is speculation.
 * Personally, at this point, I could see perhaps a single section to cover all the fringe theories which have been put forward, including Tabor, giving no more or less weight to any which have received substantive academic attention than any other. However, that is speaking only of them as fringe theories. The amount of space they receive based on historical importance and/or amount of discussion would be another matter entirely, and one in which, I daresay, the Eisenman/Tabor theory would be near the bottom of the list of such theories.
 * Lastly, one of the things indicated in the FTN discussion was an indication that if the academic reviews were negative or nonexistent, that would be an indication that the source would be counted as fringe. I have recently added to the bottom of Talk:Ebionites the only two academic reviews which I have to date found, both of which indicate that, in effect, this is not an "academic" theory, but the case of an individual pushing a POV. "his "facts" are not facts" is I daresay one of the most critical statements I have ever seen of an allegedly academic work. John Carter (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So are you saying this article shouldn't exist at all? That there's no evidence for Ebionites? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, far from it. The term is definitely notable, and still seems to be primarily used in relation to the patristics and the groups they referred to by that name. However, the article is clearly structured in a way which gives entirely undue weight to the single fringe/minority theory which receives its own section, Eisenman/Tabor, while the other, more mainline theories are comparatively little spoken of. And, as far as I remember, the policy of WP:UNDUE applies to articles at all level of development, including this one at its current level. On that basis, given the current structure of the article with so little attention to the mainstream beliefs, I believe that the Eisenman/Tabor section more or less has to be removed to comply with policy. Also, the section title is probably itself far from appropriate. "Current speculation" seems to me to be a much more appropriate title for the content and nature of that section. And, of course, there is still the unresolved matter of whether the speculation qualifies as WP:FRINGE. Finally, there is the very real fact that the academic world seems to itself not hold with the belief that the Ebionites referred to in the patristics were a single identifiable group about whom information can be concluded based on the available evidence. I am in the process of beginning what I think is a more neutral and more acceptable article in userspace, at User:John Carter/Ebionites. The existing lead of that article gives a rough idea of how I think the final article should be structured. Upon completion, I expect to file for an RfC to determine how the article should be changed and whether or not it should replace the existing article. Is that an acceptable answer? John Carter (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * O.K., just to be clear again, this is the crux of the Eisenman/Tabor material in question:
 * Some scholars  argue that the Ebionites regarded James, brother, or cousin of Jesus, the first patriarch of Jerusalem|bishop of Jerusalem, the rightful leader of the Church rather than Peter. James Tabor argues that the Ebionites claimed a unique dynastic apostolic succession for the relatives of Jesus.
 * You think it, and the section around it, should be deleted completely? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically, yes. There is more than adequate sourcing in the material I have seen to say that some Ebionites placed a particular emphasis on James and works related to him, and it would be reasonable to have the article indicate that, but there is a very great difference between saying a group emphasizes James and saying that it claims dynastic apostolic succession through him. John Carter (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that I contacted Nishidani about the article on his user talk page. I did so after I had contacted Ovadyah and others, because his talk page indicated his retirement. I saw a posting of his on one of the noticeboards and on that basis sent him substantially the same message I sent Ovadyah and others. His choosing to post here is entirely his own idea and was in no way directly prompted by me. There are more directly relevant matters which I believe Michael might better spend his time addressing. John Carter (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe my sources can be found at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites. I also believe that, as per that page, what should be included are the exact quotations of the sources, because there can be and often is a bit of a WP:SYNTH problem with topics such as this. As an example, the Bernheim quote below is in fact not from the book cited, but from an interview about the book, and uses only the word "head", which can be seen as substantively different from the word "patriarch". There have also been difficulties in the past regarding people selectively editing material to appear to support their contentions, when, in fact, the source itself taken in toto did not itself lead one to the conclusions which it is being used to support. I would thus request page citations of the material in question, and exact quotations. Three of the sources listed below have no academic standing whatsoever and are simply popular works. The other, Painter, seems to actively dispute the Eisenmann contention on pages 333-344 of the book cited. I have to question how much emphasis to give sources which are often outdated, non-academic, and even directly criticize the contentions they are cited to support. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi John. I'm looking for specific sources and quotes, either explicitly supporting or contradicting the two claims made. Your sources are good in general, but seem to me to deal with many things, and I'm trying to narrow this down to the essentials. So please, in order to assist the progress of this mediation, add your best material to the relevant sections below. I agree that exact quotes are a good idea to avoid synthesis (and other) problems. Also, please don't start analyzing the sources yet; I'd just like to get them all out on the table, then we can go through them in terms of their validity, relevance, reliability, etc. Thanks! Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That being the case, it should be pointed out that the claim is not in fact explicitly supported by most of the sources cited below, and that it would be, in fact, a violation of WP:SYNTH to say that they do. Even the Painter book only says on page 229 of the 1999 Fortress edition "a connection between early Jewish Christianity (the Hebrews) and the later Ebionites is probable," without giving any sort of exact indication of what the nature of that connection might be. Also, in the event this hadn't been made clear earlier, there are no real reliable sources regarding this group beyond the patristic references. Specifically, there is no archaeological evidence of the group, nor are there any other documents which clearly and explicitly claim to be Ebionitic. The entire field is, basically, just speculation about the partistic citations and other documents of that era. John Carter (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * John, once the sources and quotes are all posted, we'll be able to examine them closely to see if they really support the claims being made for them, or are being used for synthesis etc. Let's just take this one step at a time. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am forced to once again state that Michael seems to be trying to duck the real issues. Few if any of the sources indicate that the Ebionites per se saw James as the Patriarch. Granted, they probably did - virtually everybody did. It is however WP:SYNTH to say that because others did the Ebionites did. In fact, none of the patristics I've seen even explicitly say the Ebionites had bishops. This means, of course, logically that they did, because otherwise they would have been very much "out of step" with everyone else. However, it is still OR to say that the Ebionites could observe patriarchs, or bishops, without a clear and direct statement that either the Ebionites specifically saw James as a bishop or that the Ebionites in fact had bishops. I am of course simply saying this to ensure that the point is not lost behind the rhetoric and possible attempted distractions of other irrelevant commentary. John Carter (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For the sake of a successful mediation, let's just focus on sources, not the other participants. And we can make arguments about the sources after they're all on the table, so if you could provide your own sources and quotations, that would help move things along. Thanks! Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The questions I still have are still I beleive unresolved. First, as found in User talk:John Carter/Ebionites, in the quotes from the "excursus" on Eisenman in that book, Eisenman's development of theories, means of putting them forward, and conclusions, have been criticized before, and those criticisms have been, effectively, ignored. Eisenman however seems to continue to make the same sort of argument, and ignores any indications that, as indicated there, his own work seems to weaken his theories. Emmanuel Velikovsky was also an academic whose theories were effectively ignored and derided for lack of evidence, or being contrary to established theory. I don't think I see his theories, such as the one on the creation of Mars, for instance, included in the main articles on that subject. I do not think that Eisenman is necessarily as extreme as Velikovsky, but it is a comparable example. Most everyone else has rejected the identification of the Qumran Covenanters and any sort of Christians, although Eisenman's theories, as found at Robert Eisenman, clearly identify James with the Teacher of Righteousness of Qumran. There is a reasonable question as to how whether his simply being an academic is, in effect, enough to make his theory qualify as "academic," even if the theories themselves are in effect largely ignored by the academic community, as is apparently alleged in Just James.
 * As I remember, Velikovsky also had at least several supporters, or at least people who discussed his theories, as well. They famously disrupted one presentation of Carl Sagan complaining that Velikovsky's theories were being adequately discussed by other scientists.
 * Frankly, Tabor's theories have, in effect, the same problem of being effectively rejected, but still continued to be put forward anyway.
 * It is also, I believe, worth noting that the Eisenman theories could easily be put forward at length elsewhere, at Bible conspiracy theories (which could be better named) and at Robert Eisenman. Tabor's theories can easily be discussed elsewhere as well.
 * Ultimately, my reservations lay not so much directly dealing with "fringe theories", if those theories are, for lack of a better word, "primary" fringe theories. There is also the question of cherry picking and possibly trying to establish a false sense of agreement between the sources. Both Eisenman and Tabor's theories seem to me to perhaps be theories which integrate a number of other fringe theories into their basic structure, making them that much "fringier" than a first-level fringe theory. (At least, that is the impression I get from reading about the works - I have not read them myself). And it seems that the core of the Eisenman theory is that James is the Teacher of Righteousness of Qumran. If that is true, that is what should be sought to be added to this article, not the seemingly lesser points being argued for inclusion. This leads to the impression that what is being sought is to just add anything to the article about these sources, even if it is only be, apparently, misrepresenting one of them to give a perhaps false sense of their agreement. Whichever article discusses the political atmosphere of the time, or even the main Zealot article, might be a better place to include material that both the Ebionites and Qumran Covenanters were apparently, according to Eisenman, the religious wings of some form of Zealotry. It would also be possible to find other theories, perhaps less "fringey", from Eisenman's book which could be reasonably added to other articles. None of this seems however to have even been considered. This can easily be seen as being "soapboxing" of a form. John Carter (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Having said all that, Jeffrey Buetz/Butz's The Secret Legacy of Jesus has received two neutral/positive reviews in Library Journal and Booklist, the only two reviews I have yet seen. It is a successor to another book, evidently being considered for a movie according to one review, which also talks about the underplaying of James the Just in mainstream Christian history. The Secret Legacy book however links the Ebionites (and Nazarenes) with the Elkasites, Cathars, and Freemasons in a rather tenuous relationship with the Founding Fathers of America. With this linkage to the other groups, including Nazarenes, I personally think that whatever content is selected for inclusion would probably better fit in the Jewish Christianity article (given the inclusion of the Nazarenes as well). Perhaps something along the lines of "Recent scholars have linked early Jewish Christianity with James the Just, as well as more tenuously with the Elkasites, Cathars, Freemasons, and, ultimately, the Founding Fathers of America." John Carter (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * John, we can't really analyze the sources until you provide then, and quotes from them. Wikipedia is a sourced-based encyclopedia, so that's where we must start. Please participate in this mediation in good faith, and provide the requested material. No more responses are required yet, except for the requested sources below. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What I am proposing is that the content be changed to reflect the newer sources. As per Library Journal, 1/1/2010, V135#1, p. 84 by Christian Graham "Butz, a Luthern minister attempts to follow the survival, through Ebionites, Elkesaites, Catahars, and Freemasons, of James the Just's tradition, down to the ideas that informed the founders of the United States." From Booklist, 1/1/2010, V106#9/10, p. 20, by Ilene Cooper, "... he makes the case for a heavy Jewish Christian effect on Islam. The book goes further afield as it tries to trace this influence on groups such as the Knights Templar and Freemasons, which Butz claims affected America's Founding Fathers." Another comment from the Cooper review is "He carefully follows groups known as the Nazarenes and the Ebionites and explains the effects they had on later permutations of Christianity." I do not currently have access to the book itself to be able to state specifically that the Nazarenes and Ebionites are not treated separately in the Butz book, although I do not get the impression from the context that they are treated separately. John Carter (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you mind putting those sources, and the relevant quotes regarding Ebionites, in the sections below? Thanks. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Question regarding Ovadyah's comments above. He seems to be arguing that these assertions are religious beliefs of people. I haven't seen any evidence to support the contention that these assertions are believed by anyone. If there is no evidence to support that the assertions made in these specific sources are demonstrably taken as points of belief by a group of people notable or significant enough to merit inclusion in the article, then I have no reason to believe the references to the Fringe theories noticeboard do not apply. And as the Cooper review does not specifically mention the Ebionites, I cannot add it below. Actually, the Graham source doesn't specifically address the two points below either. John Carter (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with at least some of Ovadyah's comments above. The existence of Mohammad, for example, is not a "fringe theory", nor is it a fringe theory to say that he apparently was involved in the events he claims to have have been involved in. And I have no objections to moving on to analyzing the material discussed. However, I do think that analysis should at least be delayed until a more accurate view of the material in question is presented. At this point, I get the impression that the only one who will be providing the material against the theories of Eisenman and Tabor is me - certainly the articles themselves seem a bit biased at present. And I do not particularly look forward to being placed under time limitations in trying to gather the information. For instance, Painter says in the beginning of his excursus on James the Just that the book contained nothing new that he [Painter] hadn't dealt with in terms of other sources from Eisenman, and I still haven't gone through that primary text to find the apparently questionable conclusions and methods used in those earlier books. I certainly do not look forward to being rushed to find that material. I know already that I haven't added the quotes directly about how James and his brothers are identified as Zealots by Eisenman, or how he sees all the messianic movements of the first century as being variations on a single messianic movement, or other information that is included in the excursus. And, like I said, I haven't gotten to the material of Eisenman's earlier works in that book at all yet. And that's just Eisenman. I haven't started reviewing the material on Tabor at all yet. John Carter (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am frankly appalled at the gross, obvious, and blatant distortion that I haven't bothered to crack the books, as Ovadyah makes above. I have in fact been cracking any number of books, certainly more than have been "cracked" to date. Please see User talk:John Carter/Ebionites for the material gathered to date, which includes about 25 encyclopediae and about 6 other, more recent, sources. I think it is more reasonable to ask why other parties, who have been much more focused on this content for a much longer time, could have created an article that is as bad as this one is. As I have indicated elsewhere, I think, I still haven't checked material on encyclopedias and similar sources on Jewish Christianity, being still involved in the sources I have found to date. I have every reason to believe that those sources might have directly relevant information as well. If other parties were actually interested in seeing the article be a good one, they probably would have done the grunt work already, not placing the burden on me now.
 * Also, on a side point, in addition to all the groups mentioned in the reviews above as being associated with the Ebionites, it is reasonable to include the Zealots. There is also, I think, based on observations I have made elsewhere, good reason to think that, maybe, some of the entries on Jewish Christianity in encyclopedias might contain information indicating that at least some early Jewish Christians may have entered the territory of Eastern or Oriental Orthodoxy, what is now Eastern Catholicism (like maybe the Maronites), or maybe the Assyrian Church of the East. I think it is not unreasonable to think that such information might be overlooked by predominantly Western sources, particularly regarding such groups which have received such little attention. John Carter (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * John, Ovadyah's comments aren't relevant yet, so your responses to them aren't needed. In order to cooperate with this mediation, and move it along, you'll really need to provide the sources, and quotes from them, requested below, in the format suggested below. I am certain you do not want to be seen as an editor who scuttled a mediation by refusing to co-operate; indeed, I'm sure you do want to co-operate. So, please provide the requested sources and quotes below. Nothing else yet; no commentary, responses, discussions about sources, discussions about other editors. Just relevant sources and quotes, provided in the section for them below, in the format requested. Once you do that, things will move ahead very quickly. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You will, I hope, pardon me for saying this, but I personally am not so sure that I am really interested in the mediation succeeding or continuing at this point. I have already stated that upon completion of the gathering of sources, quotations, etc., I intend to rewrite the article in userspace based on the sources found, and then file an RfC on possibly replacing the existing article and, if desired, removing the quality templates. Those sources, even at an academic library, aren't always available, and, personally, I think getting ahold of the most useful ones first, whether they deal directly with the two authors in question, is more important, because I can't always know from checking the indexes whether the content even relates to this subject or not. And, frankly, I'm not sure that this discussion really merits a lot of separate attention. However, I am more than willing to take as a given that James and his first successor as Patriarch of Jerusalem were, in some way, related to the house of David/family of Jesus. However, the third person to hold the post, Justus I of Jerusalem, at least according to the two sources I've checked, wasn't. If this claim of Tabor's is based exclusively on the first two patriarchs, James and Symeon, it would be important to know that. If it includes others, considering the third patriarch, Justus, apparently was not a relative, that would be important to know as well. However, repeating my early comments, I do think that my own first priority is to assemble the sources for improvement of the entire article, rather than continue to, effectively, devote potentially undue time to this potentially comparatively minor matter. The entire article, not just the Eisenman/Tabor material, needs work, and it makes more sense to me to gather all the most reliable, potentially relevant information on the subject first; that has to my eyes very clearly not yet been done. Upon the gathering of all the relevant information, it might make sense to continue mediation, but, at that point, I think an RfC involving the parties involved as well as any others would be probably more useful and beneficial in the long run. John Carter (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding RFCs, it would be very unusual for one to decide to replace an entire article. That said, if you want to withdraw from the mediation, that is your right, of course. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be unusual, but in a previous RfC regarding Athanasius of Alexandria, which was a similar case of the article being obviously unbalanced, more or less did completely rewrite the article, and I think that something along those lines might be called for here. The article as it stands seems to me, based on my reading, to be grossly unbalanced. I expect to complete the finding of sourcing, including Tabor and what I can of Eisenman, and then write a proposed version. I myself do not expect to take much part in the actual insertion of material into the main article, once the draft if proposed, barring copyediting and the like. But there are, particularly regarding this article, a number of serious questions, like whether Irenaeus and Epiphanius were even describing the same group, whether Epiphanius, well, made stuff up, whether there were one or more groups, including some possibly preexisting ones, questions as to when the Christian Ebionites first appeared, and other serious questions, which I honestly have to believe would have to adddressed before we can go further to decide how material more or less contingent on those matters can be reasonably addressed. I do not see that it is likely this mediation is likely to ever deal with those matters, and, honestly, I am far from certain that those involved are free from overriding bias, or are necessarily particularly knowledgable about the subject. Having fresh eyes who have not been challenged, one way or another, by the other parties involved, which rules out all three of us, look over the material and come to decisions is to my eyes probably the best possible way to go. John Carter (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In response to Ovadyah, I would really hope he at some point stopped prejudically interpreting the things I say, as he seems to have once again done above. The RfC would not be about wholesalely replacing the existing article, but also in determining if there are any points in which the draft needs work. And it would have a lot more information about the subject, including other sources which might be relevant which aren't immediately obvious based simply on the few questions this will deal with. If, however, he is saying that I should have chosen not to accept the mediation until such time as I have finished the basic work I think is required on the article, I think he may be right in that, and I apologize if I had made an error in doing so. I would however welcome Jay's opinion, as I think he probably knows more about this than I do. John Carter (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ovadyah is, apparently, incapable of understanding anything correctly, and his seemingly obstinate refusal to acknowledge that whoever wrote the FA, which is no longer even remotely similar to the extant article, is an insult to the intelligence and effort of everone. This is of course not particularly surprising. What I am proposing is, to try to make it so clear perhaps even Ovadyah, can possibly understand it, is to actually review all the sources, which even he and the others did not, apparently, do, and suggest a draft based on those sources. This draft, with the accompanying sources, as per the draft article's talk page, would then be reviewed in the RfC. Any and all comments would be welcome, even comments from a party who, according to his history, bears a remarkable stylistic similarity to the author of the webpages of the Ebionite Jewish Community, such as, well, Ovadyah. The fact that the current article is in the profound state of disrepair it is in is the real matter, not the previous revisions, which were themselves apparently based on outdated and incomplete information. The fact that at least one of those previous editors has been banned may make it harder for them to respond, but that ban was not my doing and I don't think there is necessrily any responsibility to potentially outdated material. In any event, I am getting truly sickened by the conduct of, on one hand, an editor who I think many individuals would consider to have an apparent conflict of interest and another editor who, despite his remarkable record of advocacy of a certain book, displays a rather remarkable lack of knowledge of the book (such as, for instance, much if any knowledge of the details or relevance of the Dead Sea Scrolls to Eisenman's theory, the more or less basic point of Eisenman's book). At this point, I am very seriously inclined to simply gather together the research on the subject from the sources included in the bibliographies of the various reference works available, as well as any books or articles that have been written so recently that they may not be included in any such reference works, and then, basically, abandon the article to whomever else might be willing to deal with what seem to me to be single purpose editors who have little if any interest in the topic beyond using it as a soapbox for their own pet theories. John Carter (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ovadyah in his last inflammatory comment clearly indicates that he does not either trust me, or even agree that the sources I am using are not personally chosen. For what it is worth, I am clearly indicating in the summaries what and where the material being quoted is from. The fact that Ovadyah seems once again to be betraying a lack of knowledge of the subject, by seeming to believe this is binding mediation, which it is not, by seeming to think that any independent party called in would necessarily be bound to only my research, which they would not, and basically seemingly trying to create a paper tiger to fight against is, I think, more than sufficient grounds to think that mediation on this topic is very likely to be inadequate. Of course, I can say that I am trying to add all relevant, not obviously repetitious material from pages included in the index, but anyone can and I hope will review the quotations I use for accuracy, and I will welcome anyone reviewing the sources used, or adding other sources, or anything else they would choose to do. And, yes, I do acknowledge that I do wish to try to at least delay mediation, for the reasons I have indicated above, and I personally wonder why this other editor, who has indicated that he had no interest in the article now, would be in such a rush to finish this. He is not bound to take part himself, after all. And honestly, what harm can the article suffer by allowing individuals to fully verify all the relevant information, which, by my extensive quotations, is what I am seeking to do? John Carter (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is to me obvious that there are at least 7 ways in which the term "Ebionite" has been used by reliable sources. (1) In Skarsaune, to refer to hypothetical pre-Dead Sea Scrolls Jewish Ebionites, (2) the Ebionites as mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls, (3) the Ebionites referred to by Irenaeus and others, (4) the Ebionites referred to by Epiphanius, who are substantially different from those described by Irenaeus, (5) the Ebionites of the Gospel of the Ebionites, who may be a different group, (6) the term as used by Hort and others to refer to all Jewish Christians, and (7) the neo-Ebionites as mentioned in the book review "The Revenge of the Ebionites". I acknowledge that the first and last are, at present, based on only a single source, but the others have all been referred to as separate groups by multiple reliable sources. On that basis, I personally believe that it would be incumbent on everyone to indicate which specific Ebionites are being referred to in any context.
 * Also, I have to admit that I made a serious mistake in assuming both the good faith and the complete and accurate research of those who brought the article to FA. The information which I have seen indicates that that article was woefully incomplete and very likely prejudiced. I accepted mediation based on that mistake of mine. Considering I now know that it was a mistake, I am personally suspending my involvement in the mediation until such time as I have finished going through all the sources I have indicated on my work page. I would personally object to having a single draft version of the article for all to work on, because it would itself likely be simply a continuation of the battle. However, I would welcome seeing others produce similar pages as User talk:John Carter/Ebionites which would be used to provide basic data about the information as they have discovered it from reliable sources, and then asking previously uninvolved editors to review that information and provide the basic assembly of the article. I would not myself ask or even accept other users to necessarily take my quotation collection as necessarily accurate. Articles make mistakes here, and those quotes aren't even an article. However, they do provide basic information about where in what books and articles certain things are said. I am deleting the draft of the article I currently have in userspace. John Carter (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * John, I was really hoping that we'd focus here on specific texts and what they said, which is the preferred methodology on Wikipedia, rather than on other editors. I can't force you to participate, but I do feel things would have gone much better had you done so, and still feel that is the most fruitful way of proceeding. Creating your own version of the article is, in my view, a recipe for edit-warring and endless conflict. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani
John Carter asked me to look over this, since I did participate in the earlier editing of that page. I haven't time to do anything substantial here or with that page, but, as a contributor to the earlier page and arguments, I hope my few reflections on the article may help. The whole article should be redacted ex novo, since it is poorly sourced, having (a)far too many primary sources, (b)extensive use of outdated sources, such as Harnack, Schoeps, Wace and Piercy, Brandon, Ramsay, Gibbon, Pines, Adler, or (c) useless sources (Self-Help Guide etc), or (d)extremely controversial fringe sources (Tabor, Eisenman). It seems relatively oblivious of the fact that a paradigm shift has been underway for over a decade, that scholars ranging from Daniel Boyarin and Simon C.Mimouni to Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik have been organizing symposia, publishing comprehensive studies of the vexed Judeo-Christian problemata. There is no evidence of this on the page which is hunkered down in a battle line between encyclopedic tidbits, primary sources uninflected by secondary source filtration, and fringe theories. Tabor and Eisenman (the latter's work fascinates me personally) is fringe, polemical and extremely speculative (outsiders should not touch that kind of extremely intricate or wholly speculative technical literature  except through what peer-reviewing scholars say of their work. The risks of misrepresenting, especially Eisenman, are extremely high for anyone not grounded in the several disciplines, semitic philology, history and hermeneutics he works in). Neither Tabor nor Eisenman are mentioned for example in Oskar Skarsaune, Reidar Hvalvik (eds.) Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries, Hendrickson Publishers, 2007 I suggest one look closely at the model provided by Skarsaune's essay in that volume on the Ebionites. See pp. 419-462. The page omits a large amount of background material. There is nothing on the ebionim in the Tanakh, though it occurs there some 47 odd times.Nishidani (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Next step
The crux of the current dispute is the following material: "Some scholars argue that the Ebionites regarded James, brother, or cousin of Jesus, as their leader after Jesus' death. rather than Peter. Some scholars argue that the Ebionites claimed a dynastic apostolic succession for the relatives of Jesus."'' Having looked at the section it is in, to be frank, most of the rest of it is supporting material to it, often based on primary sources. I think if we can hammer out agreement on these two claims, then the structure of the rest of the section will follow. I'm going to lay out the material below. I'd appreciate it if, to begin with, both people just brought sources which they think support the material. Not arguments yet, just sources. The sources should refer specifically to these claims. If the sources have quotations, that would be better.

Sources supporting inclusion of this material

 * 1) James, The Brother of Jesus: The key to unlocking the secrets of early Christianity, Robert Eisenman, ISBN 978 0 14025 77 31
 * 2) James, Brother of Jesus, Pierre -Antoine Bernheim, ISBN 978 0 334026 95 2  "The fact that he became the head of the Jerusalem church is something which is generally accepted." from an ABC interview  with author.
 * 3) Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition, John Painter, ISBN 1570035237


 * 1) The Birth of Christianity, John Dominic Crossan, ISBN 978 0 060616 601
 * 2) The Jesus Dynasty, James Tabor, ISBN 978 0 7432 8723 4


 * 1) The Story of Civilization:III. Caesar and Christ, Will Durant, 1944. Page 577: James "the Just," "the brother of the Lord," became the head of the now reduced and impoverished church in Jerusalem [...] Thereafter Judaic Christianity waned in number and power, [...] Judaic Christianity survived for five centuries in a little group of Syriac Christians called Ebionim ("the poor"), who practiced Christian poverty and the full Jewish Law. At the end of the second century the Church condemned them as heretics.
 * 2) Ebionite: Torah, Expounding of the Law, James the Just, Council of Jerusalem, Paul of Tarsus, Church Fathers, Apostasy, Judaizers, Nazarene (sect), Pauline Christianity, by Frederic P. Miller (Editor), Agnes F. Vandome (Editor), John McBrewster (Editor),  Alphascript Publishing, Nov 2009, ISBN 978 6 1302 3046 3


 * 1) The Brother of Jesus and the Lost Teachings of Christianity Jeffrey J. Butz, 2005, ISBN 978 1 59477 043 2


 * 1) James the Just in History and Tradition: Perspectives of Past and Present Scholarship (Part I)  Matti Myllykoski, Currents in Biblical Research, Vol. 5, No. 1, 73-122 (2006)

Sources supporting removal of this material

 * 1) None of the sources at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites support this contention. The Oxford Dictionary saying it is an "open question" whether the group could be seen as descendant from the original church is probably the most directly addressing this issue. However, as said above, there seems to be very little to support as per that page the existence of "Ebionites" in the Christian community that early.
 * This section is only for sources and quotations; please provide sources which support removing the material, and quotations from those sources supporting its removal.Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources supporting inclusion of this material

 * 1) The Blessings of Africa: The Bible and African Christianity, Keith Augustus Burton, Intervarsity Press 2007 ISBN 978 0 8308 2762 5


 * 1) James the Just in History and Tradition: Perspectives of Past and Present Scholarship (Part II)  Matti Myllykoski, Currents in Biblical Research, Vol. 6, No. 1, 11-98 (2007)


 * 1) The Jesus Dynasty, James Tabor, ISBN 978 0 7432 8723 4.  Given the title quotes would be redundant.

Withdrawing from mediation
Based on this comment from Ovadyah, at User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive/Juli 2005 3, in which Ovadyah accuses Jayjg of libel against the founder of the Ebionite Community, and other comments he has made indicating "everybody knows Shemayah", I believe it is unreasonable to ask that any mediation by a party who was himself accused of libel by one of the parties involved regarding this matter is appropriate. I believe formal mediation from the mediation committee, who would presumably choose someone who has not been accused of such indiscretions, would be more reasonable and fruitful, and less likely to be challenged later. By saying this, I in no way am myself necessarily questioning the quality of the mediator. However, I think that this matter in itself might be cause for others to reject the mediation, and believe a formal mediation, which is the last step before Arbitration, would probably be most reasonable in any event. John Carter (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought John Carter's problem with mediation was his inability to bring a single source to it - I fail to see how Jayjg's role was relevant to that issue. If Ovadyah and Jayjg have had issues in the past, surely that might be a problem for Ovadyah, not John Carter? --Michael C. Price talk 16:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The above statement is of course completely unfounded and completely and explicitly refuses to deal with any matters of substance, which seems to be an ongoing habit of his. I have produced, whether he acknowledges it or not, sources which indicate that Eisenman's central thesis has been rejected by the academic community, which he has ignored. Also, it is not unknown for individuals to withdraw from informal mediation if they believe there are problems. One other concern I have is that Nishidani, who I honestly think probably knows more about this subject than any of the other is not a part to it, after Michael saw fit to try to dissuade his involvement. In any event, it is informal, and thus there are no real demands that any sort of formal withdrawl, which has been given by me above, and stated before as well, needs be made. If Michael wishes to continue to beat a dead horse rather than engage in a formal mediation, which would hopefully involve other editors as well, he is of course welcome to continue to do so. My impression, based on his own previous behavior, is that he will. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The above statement is of course completely unfounded? Simply scroll up for evidence. --Michael C. Price talk 17:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And also see User talk:John Carter/Ebionites for the evidence for the evidence. John Carter (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The reason I asked Jayjg to step in as a mediator was to cool down a content dispute before it devolved into an edit-war. I asked Jayjg because he is one of the most experienced admins on Wikipedia. I knew from past interactions that he has at least a basic familiarity with the subject area, and I think a basic knowledge of the subject area on the part of the mediator is important to an effective outcome. As to his "fitness" as a mediator, our past interactions on opposing sides of several arguments should make him less likely to be accused of bias in my favor. But that doesn't stop John Carter from making defamatory charges wherever possible. In order to even come up with these allegations, John Carter had to comb through my entire edit history, all the way back to 2005 when I first began on Wikipedia. This is not normal human behavior. Ovadyah (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I was rather surprised to see this thread. I had absolutely no recollection of that comment made over 5 years ago; I only vaguely recalled interacting with Ovadyah at all. Also, if Ovadyah had problems with me as a mediator, surely he would have brought them up? If anything, this statement would be more likely to bias me against Ovadyah rather than for him, though in reality it was irrelevant to this mediation. People are free to withdraw from mediation for any reason, but this particular reason does not seem applicable. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is general bafflement all round. Indeed I believe we had some disagreements over the years, but why John Carter should use any of this as a reason for him to withdraw from mediation is incomprehensible. --Michael C. Price talk 19:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)