"
Part II - Sources inside the New Testament
Now I am working on those sources that make up the Christian Canon. 

Gospel of Matthew
Here I am running into the same difficulty as I did at the Gospel of the Hebrews. I have now completed my review of WP policy on duplication. It appears to me that Ictu may be using duplication as a cover for POV pushing. Over the past several weeks he has visited many many many articles and removed all material from Edwards, Parker, Nicholson, Butz etc. 

However, there are some legitimate Duplication concerns.  The problem is that sources explain that during the formative years of Early Christianity 75 ancient witnesses testify to the fact that there was a Hebrew Gospel in circulation. Google Link Over 12 different witnesses testify that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. Google Link No ancient writer either Christian or Non-Christian challenges these two facts. Google Link 

Nicholson, Parker, Edwards, Bütz and others agree with Jerome. Thus the Hebrew Gospel is the basis for a number of topics. How do we go back to the fountainhead without duplicating material? The matter is further complicated by the fact that the Catholic Church and a number of scholars believe that Jerome was wrong and that the Gospel of Matthew in the Bible was written by Matthew.  As a sign of good faith I have removed most of the material objected to until we work out a solution.   

Comments
Two Ways
I offer a simple observation, born of my personal experience. There are TWO WAYS (see the Didache).  One path leads to assumptions of WP:AGF on the part of all editors and a focus on improving article content.  The other path, the dark path, leads to arbitration.  Once you start down the path of poisoning the well, you will end up drinking deeply from its water.  Hang in there.   
Thanks for the kind words. My problem is that although I have a strong grasp of the sources and references, I am truly dim witted when it comes Wiki-warring techniques. I need admin help to allow me to focus on the scholarship. -   

While we're talking generalities, my further observation is that I don't think you understood my ""blending"" point about NPOV.  Trying to judge and weigh sources often leads to unintentional synthesis, which is forbidden.  Even experienced editors often do not understand this point, and attempt to suppress POVs that are, in their opinion, out of favour, to the detriment of the readers.  As I said, all significant views should be represented.  From your response I'm not clear that you understood that.  If you did, my apologies. I would hate to see you sanctioned in any way (and this is not a threat from me, BTW, but an observation about what others may do), but you need to familarise yourself more with the Wikipedia policies, or else you are likely to be be reported at ANI with undesirable consequences. It takes awhile to get into the Wiki-style. If another editor reprimands you, claiming that you are in breach of policy, it would be a good idea to presume that they are correct for the next 6 months or so. There is a lot more to policy than just avoiding content forks.  For instance, reacting to an edit war by reverting is not the answer, but would be judged as edit warring itself if you were reported.  And that's the sort