Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talmidaism

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 05:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Talmidaism
Unverifiable and non-notable Internet based micro-movement. All information in the article comes from members of the movement or its website; the small number of google hits lead to the website, or Wikipedia and its mirrors. Most of the article is a POV re-write of Christian history by one member of the "group". Jayjg (talk) 8 July 2005 19:32 (UTC)
 * Delete. Jayjg (talk) 8 July 2005 19:32 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree, non-notable internet micro-movement. -- M P er el ( talk 8 July 2005 19:46 (UTC)
 * Comment this article has been around for a long time so I'm leaning keep. And is this a translation of Wikipedia or the other way around . and what about his . There is also reference here . And here . That link connects it to this  which is verifiable. What do you think? Falphin 8 July 2005 20:13 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I'm changing my vote for now. Delete Falphin 8 July 2005 20:16 (UTC)
 * Those links are all to Wikipedia mirrors, or translations of the original Wikipedia article. That's the problem when you leave stuff around on Wikipedia for so long, it propagates.  As for the link to to the article on Karaism, the Karaite movement has been around for at least 1300 years, so Karaism is indeed verifiable.  However, that has nothing to do with "Talmidaism", which was apparently invented in the last 5 years by a couple of former Christians who met on the Internet, and who do not consider themselves to be Karaites. Jayjg (talk)  8 July 2005 20:17 (UTC)
 * I meant the connection the article made when it stated a more conservative form of Karaism or Talmidaism. Another question what about their claim to Sefer Yeshua? Falphin 8 July 2005 20:29 (UTC)
 * They can claim a connection to anything they want; they've added information about their movement to a number of articles. As for Sefer Yeshua, that article was written by one of the "movement's" two founders, User:Shmuliq, who also wrote much of the Talmidaism article. Thanks for pointing that one out as well. Jayjg (talk)  8 July 2005 20:41 (UTC)
 * I posted another link above that is on wikisource that has the text. Not sure what you want to do about that. Falphin 8 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)
 * One thing at a time. :-) Jayjg (talk) 8 July 2005 21:22 (UTC)
 * Ok well here is one more article, Iggeret Ya'aqov. If this is deleted on the references on wikipedia to it will need to be deleted.Falphin 8 July 2005 21:27 (UTC)
 * Added to the list of VfDs. Jayjg (talk) 8 July 2005 21:54 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable despite their efforts to appear so. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 01:20 (UTC)
 * Delete the claims of notability don't fool me. -Splash 9 July 2005 01:58 (UTC)
 * Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:44 (UTC)
 * Delete As Jayjg explained above. --Eliezer 06:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This has been an eyesore since I arrived on Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk  12:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete seems contrived to me. And incorrectly spelt, it should probably be Talmudism.     22:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You are probably incorrect about the spelling. It has nothing to do with the Talmud. JFW | T@lk  00:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This article was submitted after requests for information about Talmidism by Athanasius and Wetman. See Ebionite Talk Page Nov, Dec 2003.  Jayjg, it's intersting that you describe the artice as a POV rewrite of Christian history since you spent so much time editing it.  I think the POV is all your own.  --Ovadyah 04:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Jayjg, could it be that you are trying to accomplish as an Administrator what you could not do as an Editor? I witnessed similar extensive deletions to the Nazarene page, and I think the pattern of your behavior is obvious.  --Ovadyah 04:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You don't have to be an admin to nominate an article for VfD. If voters disagree with the nominator, the article is kept. Carbonite | Talk 16:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not enough evidence of notability. Carbonite | Talk 16:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This stuff should have been removed at the same time the "Nazarene Karaites" rubbish was removed.  Tomer TALK  18:38, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I began this article because I was asked to do so; when I saw how many people disliked its existence I tried to delete it; the article was restored within days. People around Wikipedia (in other articles) have made comments like, "It is not clear what Talmidaism stands for," or "Talmidaism has no clearly defined beliefs." So, I responded in those articles by giving clear, detailed, information. These were objected to, and the information promptly deleted. If people here consider that an article about a faith which teaches others to love one another, and to practice one's religion with humility and compassion, is an eyesore, then it might as well be deleted. As for myself, I would like to practice our faith in peace. Spirituality is not about persecuting and saying hateful things about those who wish to do good; it is about trying to get in touch with something greater than ourselves....PS the majority of the assumptions made here about us and our movement (even my personal biography) are incorrect. However, I have no inclination or desire to correct those assumptions, since they will probably be amended or deleted. This is the last post I will make anywhere on Wikipedia - but please do not think I harbour any bitterness; it is not our way. I wish you all long, prosperous and fulfilled lives. May God bless you all. Shalom and farewell to you all. Shmu'el ben Naftali, 20:58 13 July 2005 GMT
 * Keep. This is not an individual's vanity fantasy. If the movement actually exists and uses this title, it belongs at Wikipedia, no matter how much we may disapprove of them. Google pulls up some 400+ hits, mostly Wikipedia mirrors. But here is the webpage of Talmidi Judaism which might be the better title. It should be noted that User:Jayjg has recently been blocked in his efforts to merge this page with the Nazarene page. --Wetman 20:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Please don't confuse my calling the "Nazarene Karaites" stuff "rubbish" with my comments regarding the so-called Talmidi Jews. The Nazarene Karaites stuff was similar to this stuff, but completely unverifiable, since no such group ever existed except as a single person's concept, relayed through 2 other people into a WP article.  Literally, "from my mind to another person's WP article".  This group at least happens to exist.  Be that as it may, however, the group is not noteworthy, for a number of reasons, including:
 * Their approach to scripture is not innovative
 * Their membership is miniscule
 * They're brand new
 * etc. As a little test (perhaps someone should take this up as a project somewhere), they have fewer than 1000 adherents and they're historically non-notable.  Take the Samaritans on the other hand.  There are only perhaps as many as 500 of them, but their sect has been around for 2500 years.  There are whole libraries of material written about them, and museums dedicated to them.  They're noteworthy.  As of yet, these "Talmidi Jews" are not sufficiently notable to warrant a Wikipedia article.  Tomer TALK  20:34, July 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * The Talmidi approach to scripture is not innovative. It is based on Ebionite traditions     going back to the 1st century.  That relates back to my earlier point about why the article was contributed.  It seems to me that the criteria for being "noteworthy" is highly POV here. --Ovadyah 21:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The sect is still small, that is true enough. Maybe you can relate to what it's like to be a despised minority.  Perhaps the most noteworthy thing about the group is that modern-day Ebionites are finally standing up to discrimination.  This article is the proof. --Ovadyah 13:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Who despises or discriminates against these people? This article is not proof that anyone is "standing up", the more I look into it, the more it appears to be little more than sheer conjecture.  There are, to be sure, modern groups of Ebionites, but no evidence that there exists any "loose grouping" called Talmidaism, nor "Talmidi Jews" as the article was first named.  Please review what wikipedia is not.  Tomer TALK  19:48, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. Because of the lack of credible, independent sources, the article has no chance of becoming encyclopedic. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:25, July 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment I did some checking and found that all articles contributed by User:Shmuliq were marked for deletion by User:Jayjg on the same day, and all without comment. Articles should be evaluated for their merit individually, and some discussion is warranted before a decision is made to delete them.  This smacks of some kind of polemic against the contributing author or the group.  Jayjg's issues with the group can be found on the Talmidaism talk page along with my replies. --Ovadyah 21:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No, VFD is seeking community consensus. It can be taken out at any time on any article (unless obviously frivolous). Go VFD some of Jayjg and my contributions, and see how you fare. The fact is that Wikipedia is not the place to describe a tiny group of people endeavouring to live by a what they think authentic philosophy unless it has some form of notability. This seems to be lacking. JFW | T@lk  00:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article was informative to me. I would like to see it stay and be added to.  If User:Jayjg has another view of history, I think he should add it as an alternate contention instead of deleting the part he disagrees with.  If you look at User:Jayjg's edits, you can see a clear pattern of revisionist history through the deleting and reverting of articles.  Everything he's doing on this page seems like part of the same pattern.  --Zephram Stark 01:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC) Information doesn't hurt people; censorship does.
 * The article itself says that it is "history" from the Talmidi POV. As for the rest of your comment, it appears to be a personal attack that has nothing to do with the reasons for putting this up for deletion, that is that it is unverifiable and non-notable. Jayjg (talk)  20:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * My comments on this article are certainly not a personal attack. Your motivation in proposing this article for deletion is entirely relevant.  Your pattern of doing this to other articles that disagree with your POV is also entirely relevant.  I agree that the article in question may be POV, but the generally accepted method of dealing with POV articles is to change them or to add the opposite POV, not to delete them.  More information is good.  Censorship is bad.  Agreed?  --Zephram Stark 20:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Zephram, normally I'd agree with you about how to handle POV in articles...in this case, however, that's impossible, since the entire article is someone's POV. You can't NPOV a POV.  Tomer TALK  20:33, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Short of the heavens opening up and God declaring his intention for humanity, I don't know how you would verify the claims of any religion. --Zephram Stark 21:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The issue is not in verifying their theological claims, but in verifying they exist, have a history, believe the things they say they do, are organized in a certain way, use specific holy books, have various rites, etc. from credible sources. You can do that for most religions, and certainly for encyclopedic ones. Jayjg (talk)  21:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I see. So you want verification of the existence of Talmidi and, if they exist, you want verification that they practice their religion in the way that the article claims.  That should be easy enough to verify.  There are three links to Talmidi sites on the bottom of the article:
 * Followers of the Way
 * Ebionite Community
 * World Fellowship of Followers of the Way
 * The information on each site is consistent with the article. I have emailed Shmu'eyl Nappach, one of the Talmidi, to verify his existence and that his beliefs are consistent with what he purports.

 Dear Shmu'eyl Nappach (shmuliq_ferreira@hotmail.com),

In order fact-check a Wikipedia.org article, User:Jayjg would like to verify that you exist. Please send back an email with verification of your existence as a Follower of the Way (Talmidi). With existence verification, please also verify that you believe what you say you believe. Thank you for your patience with User:Jayjg as we are forced to comply with his verification demands on a regular basis here at Wikipedia.org.

Yours truly, Zephram Stark
 * If and when Shmu'eyl Nappach verifies that he exists and believes what he says he believes, one would hope that you honor what you claim to be your concerns and not invent any new ones. --Zephram Stark 05:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No, of course not. Anyone can put up a website claiming anything.  The key here is to have independent confirmation of these claims, so that they can be verified.  The fact that the two individuals who created this religion, and the articles on Wikipedia about it, and their webpage, will be willing to e-mail you back saying "yes, it's all true" is not verification. Jayjg (talk)  18:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Your suppositions about my motivations for nominating the article are, in fact, both a personal attack and entirely irrelevant. I have no issue with the POV of this article; it seems written in a reasonably NPOV way, in that it attributes all beliefs to those who hold them. However, the majority of the article appears to be original research, that is, proposing a novel view of history. The other problem with it is that it is not verifiable. Original research and unverifiable material are not "information", they are theory and rumour, and removing them is not "censorship", but rather is Wikipedia policy. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You seem to be negating yourself, Jayjg. If the article is "written in a reasonably NPOV way," why did you claim in your introduction that "most of the article is a POV re-write of Christian history?"  When it comes to religion, it's kind of hard to verify your material.  The only difference I can see between this article and the one on your religion is the popularity of the sect.  --Zephram Stark 21:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That's not a contradiction at all - the problem with the POV is not that it violates NPOV, but rather that it violates NOR. That is, the article itself admits its a POV re-write of Christian history, and since it cites that, it does not fall afoul of the NPOV policy.  The problem is, the vast majority of it is original research, written by the article author.  As to your other point, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "your religion", but as I said above, it's easy enough to verify that most religions exist, have a history, believe the things they say they do, are organized in a certain way, use specific holy books, have various rites, etc. from credible sources.  You can't do that here, because there are no verifiable sources on this. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  21:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The longer a VFD page, the higher the probability that the original poster will be accused of censorship. JFW | T@lk  23:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think deletion is the answer as much as placement and revision. shemayah@ebionite.org
 * Delete. Membership is probably in the dozens at best. – Smyth\<sup style="color:gray;">talk 11:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for most of the above reasons, but maybe as a matter of compromise the article could be trimmed down to a paragraph or two with a link to the website? These folks certainly aren't more notable than that, but I don't know that I could say for absolute certain that they're not serious in their belief.  I would hate to be accused of actually oppressing a genuine religion, no matter how completely fabricated it might appear to me.  Junjk 23:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment My name is Shemayah Phillips (Ebionite COmmunity) and I'd like to say that "Talmidaism" is not a large phenomenon, and a splinter group from my own. An addition to the Ebionite wiki page might be enough with a link. But I wish some more time was spent, and had been sent doing more research on both ancient and modern Yeshuine groups, and a more honest analysis of ancient Judaisms. Yes, JudaismS. Talmidaism should be mentioned for the simple reason that is part of a growing attitude taking place among people of Jewish background (often removed by generations due to forced baptism, cultural pressures, persecution, etc.) who are rediscovering their family's past (as I have, and many of the Ebionites, including many of Latin America of Marrano and Crypto-Jewish families). Additionally, gentiles are also seeking conversion to some form of Yahwism. Gentiles have always done so, even before the predominance of Judah or rabbinic Judaism. Symmachus was a Ebionite convert to Yahwism (since we have to be careful not to use the word Jew when not referring to the modern monopoly on Judaism). Not only this but the same people may be attending rabbinic synagogues, assisting missionized Jews to rejoin rabbinic communities, and various groups who "Judaize." The reason we know so little and must do the research today concerning Yeshuine groups, and Christianity is because of censorship and control of history by single POV people. So the notability of this small group may not be there, but the trend it is a part of certainly is, and Wiki has an opportunity in recording this. How, on what page/article, etc. is the question. Also some comments have been made concerning this group's relationship to "official" Judaism (i.e., Orthodox Judaism whose importance may also be a matter of non-objective POV). I do not know the Talmidi relationship with the Orthodox community other than some mention in these comments about hatred. The Ebionites are not recognized by the Orthodox community---officially. But rabbinic Jews have been present at b'rit milah for Ebionites as witnesses and to read blessings, and even people of Jewish background go through hatafat dam b'rit or milah. Ebionites have been assisted by Chabadniks against Christian missionaries, most recently collaborating in Latin America; Ebionites gladly take the grief from the Christian community for converting Christians to Judaism whether these become Ebionite, Qaraite (Karaite, if you prefer), or rabbinic Jews---while the rabbinic authorities can still maintain dialogue with the Christian community. Muslims have even helped Ebionites in combating Christian missionaries. I do not know how much of this could be true of the Talmidis, but know they take the same view concerning Christian missionaries. Now we are the most extreme of such groups (one missionary group called our site the most blasphemous ---to the Christian view-- on the Internet! ;-)) Add to the phenomenon "Jewish Roots" groups and other Christian and former Christian Judaizing groups. As part of all this, Talmidaism is notable as one of the components. I think the short section on Modern Ebionites in "Ebionites" is appropriate. It says that there are people still practicing a form of Evyonut, and allows them to follow links. Maybe something similar, in an article discussing the modern Judaizing phenomenon would provide notice of Talmidaism, and other similar groups. But it is a disservice to vote them out of existence on Wiki because of more a censorship type response than objective expression. Also there is a problem concerning the difference between Nazarenes and Ebionites. Let me suggest a better way of looking at the problem than calling people Jewish-Christians, etc. Yeshuines (who were not Christians at all) were concerned with the man Yeshua (Jesus) as known from his life example and teaching. Paulines, and related groups like the Gnostics (Paulines or Pneumatics) were/are concerned with the resurrected Jesus (the Risen Christ) as revealed in visions and spiritual/mystical communication to Paul of Tarsus and others. Of course, I think the Pneumatics are full of it---but that doesn't matter because they sincerely believe in these revelations as much as we seek more rationally derived infomation. Ancient Nazarenes came to compromise to certain Pneumatic, Pauline doctrines. Some Ebionite later took up Gnostic/Pneumatic beliefs. I hve an article from a Christian biographical dictionary that makes this distinction (Ebionites Proper vs. Essene type Ebionites) well.
 * For whatever it might be worth, I agree with you. There are indeed modern-day followers of the belief system espoused (according to Christian polemicists, at the very least) by the 3rd and early 4th-century Ebionites.  This is a noteworthy phenomenon in the context of the Ebionites article.  The terms "Talmidi Judaism" and "Talmidaism", however, have never, as far as I can find, ever been applied to such groups, collectively or otherwise, except for by one specific group of claimants to this tradition, who use the term gratuitously to describe everyone with whom they think they agree on theological and eschatological issues.  Such sheer conjecture is not encyclopedic, hence my opposition to the continued inclusion of this article in WP.  Tomer <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:#129DBC;">TALK  07:44, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * I would just like to clarify something about the expression Talmidaism. This label was created by Jayjg  because he could not bear to use the terms Talmidi Judaism and Talmidi Jews.  I let it stand as a compromise with him in the course of editing the article.  It's all explained on the Talk page.  As far as the origin of the term Talmidi, it's a modern designation.  It's inception and purpose are also explained on the Talk page, as an umbrella term to include more Yahwistic groups than the Ebionites. --Ovadyah 13:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This belongs on the talk page of the article. Can you restrict comments on this page to the issue of whether the page is to be deleted or retained? Thank you. JFW | T@lk  16:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It is relevent to the discussion at hand because web searches for such terms are being used as criteria for exclusion of the article. Thank you back. --Ovadyah 17:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEPThe ebionites really did exist. Why would you want to do away with the truth that the Ebionites were Jews not worshippers of Jesus? The early church fathers speak of them and in a quite negative way. My guess is that the church attempted to erase them from history being that their writings no longer exist. What little we know about the movement 2000 years ago shows that they didn't accept the virgin birth, trinity, or the writings of Paul. Early followers of Yahshua were Jews. They weren't looking for a new religion but reform within their own. Any true studier of the scriptures will eventually come to realize that most of the church doctrines are nothing more than tales of pagan dieties transferred over to a man named Jesus/Yahshua. Those that birthed the religion known as Christianity voted these pagan stories in example: Council of Nicea. Gentiles find themselves extracted from the churches as they begin to question as they learn. This is a great article to show them that they are not the only ones out there. Many go on to convert to Judaism or to be Noachides. I think it would be ashame for this article to be removed. Bethany
 * OOOH! Sockpuppets!!!  Yippie!.  Sockpuppet Bethany:  noobdy's saying the Ebionites didn't exist, see Ebionite.  Nobody's even saying they don't exist today...just that they're insufficiently noteworthy, as well as insufficiently noteworthy, for inclusion in an independent WP article.  Tomer <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:#129DBC;">TALK  21:41, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not me Tomer. I don't need to resort to subterfuge to make my arguments.  And as far as I know, Shmuliq is gone from Wikipedia.  There is no reason to think this Bethany person is a fake, other than your own wishful thinking.  Speaking of sockpuppets, it sounds like you could use one.  Stop being such a sourpuss and let others have their say. --Ovadyah 22:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Why would you assume that it was you that was being accused of being the sockpuppet? Carbonite | Talk 23:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP. Loremaster 23:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP. Bethany is an Ebionite from our group. She is giving her two cents, which looks to be one cent more than some. I think some editors take themselves a little too seriously. The one notable difference is from a few (Loremaster, Wetman?) who recognize that an attempt should be made to chronicle rather than suppress things they may not understand or have the scholarly background to tackle--like some of the Users. I vote Keep to make a point that some folks voting Delete are fabricating excuses based on something other than editorial issues. Also it is apparent to me that while a good number of written sources Ebionites were consulted, contemporary information was not checked. I had to make corrections as to the year we started, and a claim that I was a Baptist minister (!!!! Never !!!!) and this incorrect information is still mirrored and cached all over the internet. The way to improve Wiki is to research the information from actual living sources, rather than delete everything outside your experience. Loremaster (if he is responsible for Ebionites) took corrections I placed, while I tried not to place an ad, and presented them in a responsible way. I think something can be learned. What the hell is a sockpuppet? Sounds like adolescent slang for something derrogatory.
 * See Sockpuppet. Please review WP:Civility and WP:AGF.  Please also consider getting an account.  That said, by your own admission, you are a member apparently of the "Talmidi Jews" or whatever, which is nice, welcome to the project, but you can't just write up a description of your beliefs and publish them on WP.  This is an encyclopedia project, please see what Wikipedia is not:  it's not a forum, it's not an advertisement board, it's not a webhosting service.  To establish this, WP has a very specific policy prohibiting what is called (on Wikipedia) "original research".  Including mention of this group is, as I've said previously, far less questionable in a section on "Modern Ebionites" in the Ebionites article, but as only one claimant to that title, and with such poor verifiability using outside sources, there is no WP policy that supports maintaining this article, either as "Talmidaism" or "Talmidi Jews".  Tomer <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:#129DBC;">TALK  16:42, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Shemayah Phillips, if that's who this is, is not a member of the "Talmidi Jews". He is the paqid of the Ebionite Community. --Ovadyah 17:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sorry, I did not identify myself in the Keep vote directly above. And it is true that I am not a talmidi. I am a member, but joined only to make a correction concerning the Baptist minister matter. I don't want to participate--not that these comments I have made would prove it--edit articles, etc. It was a means of correcting the info. in the Ebionite article. I will look at the Tomer links given above.Shemayah Phillips.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.