Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Authentic Matthew (inconcluded)

message: ;This is so wrong; I feel as though I have been violated by Wikipedia.To have Ril and his bullies succeed makes me feel sick.
--Melissadolbeer 11:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Melissa only used the research of others and has never used a sockpuppet.( --Poorman 08:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Above User is alleged by ~~~~ to be Melissa's sockpuppet, although claims itself to be her husband. ~~~~ 19:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Unsigned comment by Melissadolbeer ~~~~ 16:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

message: M is not the original matthew. 
M is defined as those elements which are not in either Q or Mark, but are in Matthew. ~~~~ 23:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  M 

message: *R. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah.  - After reading Brown one comes to the conclusion the this Wiki-article is a true and objective reflection of what we know of the Authentic Gospel of Matthew spoken of by the Church Fathers.
This article is basicly sound. And is mere reporting the work done over the years. There is no part of this article which is original research.
--Poorman 07:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  *R. Brown 

message: This is so wrong; I feel as though I have been violated by Wikipedia. To have Ril and his bullies succeed makes me feel sick.--Melissadolbeer 11:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violated 

message: ====Wikipedia:No original research====
Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate).
The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication.
:You might like to read the whole of WP:NOR. It requires that one of the following is true
:* the ideas have been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal
:* the ideas have become newsworthy: they have been independently reported in newspapers or news stories (such as the cold fusion story).
:Neither of these are true for your article. It is original research.~~~~ 19:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from main page (more)

message: Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate).
The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication.
:You might like to read the whole of WP:NOR. It requires that one of the following is true
:* the ideas have been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal
:* the ideas have become newsworthy: they have been independently reported in newspapers or news stories (such as the cold fusion story).
:Neither of these are true for your article. It is original research.~~~~ 19:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:No original research]]

message: The debate about the authenticity of whichever Matthew is fascinating and all that. I really believe this sort of information should go into an encyclopedia. The question as I see it is about the format, for instance efforts to clean the page up. In particular, the question to be decided is, should there be a page concerning "Authentic Matthew"? Apparently some Wikipedians have been laboring the article. I've noticed that the page is linked all over the place, to anything related to the canonical Matthew, whether its authenticity is discussed or not, often as an imbedded and parenthesized "see also", and even on pages related to authenticity in general or simply the letter M. But if some members are overzealous, it doesn't make sense to punish the Wikipedia for their efforts. Should Authentic Matthew exist in some form?
To answer that, it makes sense to weigh other sources on the subject. Curious, I also wanted to see others' opinions and eccentric theories. But the problem with a Google search is that there are so many mirrors, and the phrase "Authentic Matthew" appears in so many Wikipedia articles, that it's difficult to find independent webpages. Pages were filtered with the minus directive to exclude wikified sources containing "GNU", "disambiguation" and "external links", and specific wiki pages with unrelated information like "morse code". The result? There is one page voting in favor, on the topic of infidelity or something. There is a repeated article that uses the words "authentic Matthew" in the correct context. In neither case is the A capitalized. There are some other biblical pages in which the two words do not refer to a missing gospel, and many in which punctuation separates the two words. And there is a bunch of other stuff like apparel.
This didn't seem right, so I found a couple of really thorough sites on the synoptic problem and searched them using "site:" in Google. Lots of authentic stuff, lots of Matthews, but otherwise no luck. Apparently, Wikipedia has more to say about "Authentic Matthew" than the rest of the web. Now it's time to cast my vote! Davilla 05:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google 

message: 1. A large source text:  Although the article is short, I cited a large number of published works to facilitate other editors' work in this controversial area.
2.  Eusebius: Some published scholars like Eusebius, particularly his catalogue.  Even those who do not appreciate Eusebius' work rarely critcize his catalogue.  However, it is not our place to do original research regarding Eusebius.  I would welcome use of any published source that challenges his catalogue.
3.  Jerome, a published scholar who did the original research on Authentic Matthew wrote,
::Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek (and the Greek has been lost) though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it. (On Illustrious Men 3)
He further wrote,
::In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call The Authentic Gospel of Matthew
(Commentary on Matthew 2)
Many of the published authors cited also did primary and secondary research in this area. It is their work that I have used in this article from a neutral point of view. I did not agree with all that was published, but what I wrote was in good faith based on published books - NOT MY ORIGINAL RESEARCH.  What Ril does not seem to understand is that he can't dismiss Jerome in a Wikipedia article.  What he can do, and what we all welcome, is Ril using published sources that show how some of Jerome's research may be faulty.
Wikipedia:No original research  Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate).
The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication.
Sock-puppets: See Melissa's response to sock-puppet allegations Please note that my response seems to have disappeared: can someone get it back?
--Melissa
Your "response" was an inappropriate use of Wikipedia article space, so it was deleted. 
Try something like User:Melissadolbeer/Response to sock-puppet allegations, which is allowed.
~~~~ 07:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments moved to talk on 17th at 8:44 

message: === Reply to VFD ===
As the original writer of this article, I specifically deny all the allegations made by Ril and put him to the strictest proof thereof.  
*A large source text:  Although the article is short, I cited a large number of published works to facilitate other editors' work in this controversial area.
*Eusebius: Some published scholars like Eusebius, particularly his catalogue.  Even those who do not appreciate Eusebius' work rarely critcize his catalogue.  However, it is not our place to do original research regarding Eusebius.  I would welcome use of any published source that challenges his catalogue.
* Jerome, a published scholar who did the original research on Authentic Matthew wrote,
::Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek (and the Greek has been lost) though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it. (On Illustrious Men 3)
He further wrote,
::In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call The Authentic Gospel of Matthew
(Commentary on Matthew 2)
*Many of the published authors cited also did primary and secondary research in this area. It is their work that I have used in this article from a neutral point of view. I did not agree with all that was published, but what I wrote was in good faith based on published books - NOT MY ORIGINAL RESEARCH.  What Ril does not seem to understand is that he can't dismiss Jerome in a Wikipedia article.  What he can do, and what we all welcome, is Ril using published sources that show how some of Jerome's research may be faulty.
*Wikipedia:No original research  Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate).
*The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication.
*Sock-puppets: See Melissa's response to sock-puppet allegations Please note that my response seems to have disappeared: can someone get it back?
--Melissa
--Melissadolbeer 08:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  more talk 17th June 11:48 

message: As the original writer of this article, I specifically deny all the allegations made by Ril and put him to the strictest proof thereof.  
*A large source text:  Although the article is short, I cited a large number of published works to facilitate other editors' work in this controversial area.
*Eusebius: Some published scholars like Eusebius, particularly his catalogue.  Even those who do not appreciate Eusebius' work rarely critcize his catalogue.  However, it is not our place to do original research regarding Eusebius.  I would welcome use of any published source that challenges his catalogue.
* Jerome, a published scholar who did the original research on Authentic Matthew wrote,
::Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek (and the Greek has been lost) though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it. (On Illustrious Men 3)
He further wrote,
::In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call The Authentic Gospel of Matthew
(Commentary on Matthew 2)
*Many of the published authors cited also did primary and secondary research in this area. It is their work that I have used in this article from a neutral point of view. I did not agree with all that was published, but what I wrote was in good faith based on published books - NOT MY ORIGINAL RESEARCH.  What Ril does not seem to understand is that he can't dismiss Jerome in a Wikipedia article.  What he can do, and what we all welcome, is Ril using published sources that show how some of Jerome's research may be faulty.
*Wikipedia:No original research  Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate).
*The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication.
*Sock-puppets: See Melissa's response to sock-puppet allegations Please note that my response seems to have disappeared: can someone get it back?
--Melissa
--Melissadolbeer 08:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to VFD 

message: As the original writer of this article, I specifically deny all the allegations made by Ril and put him to the strictest proof thereof.  
*A large source text:  Although the article is short, I cited a large number of published works to facilitate other editors' work in this controversial area.
*Eusebius: Some published scholars like Eusebius, particularly his catalogue.  Even those who do not appreciate Eusebius' work rarely critcize his catalogue.  However, it is not our place to do original research regarding Eusebius.  I would welcome use of any published source that challenges his catalogue.
* Jerome, a published scholar who did the original research on Authentic Matthew wrote,
::Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek (and the Greek has been lost) though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it. (On Illustrious Men 3)
He further wrote,
::In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call The Authentic Gospel of Matthew
(Commentary on Matthew 2)
*Many of the published authors cited also did primary and secondary research in this area. It is their work that I have used in this article from a neutral point of view. I did not agree with all that was published, but what I wrote was in good faith based on published books - NOT MY ORIGINAL RESEARCH.  What Ril does not seem to understand is that he can't dismiss Jerome in a Wikipedia article.  What he can do, and what we all welcome, is Ril using published sources that show how some of Jerome's research may be faulty.
*Wikipedia:No original research  Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate).
*The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication.
*Sock-puppets: See Melissa's response to sock-puppet allegations Please note that my response seems to have disappeared: can someone get it back?
--Melissa
--Melissadolbeer 08:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved to talk 16:18 on 18th July 2005 

message: As the original writer of this article, I specifically deny all the allegations made by Ril and put him to the strictest proof thereof.  
*A large source text:  Although the article is short, I cited a large number of published works to facilitate other editors' work in this controversial area.
*Eusebius: Some published scholars like Eusebius, particularly his catalogue.  Even those who do not appreciate Eusebius' work rarely critcize his catalogue.  However, it is not our place to do original research regarding Eusebius.  I would welcome use of any published source that challenges his catalogue.
* Jerome, a published scholar who did the original research on Authentic Matthew wrote,
::Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek (and the Greek has been lost) though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it. (On Illustrious Men 3)
He further wrote,
::In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call The Authentic Gospel of Matthew
(Commentary on Matthew 2)
*Many of the published authors cited also did primary and secondary research in this area. It is their work that I have used in this article from a neutral point of view. I did not agree with all that was published, but what I wrote was in good faith based on published books - NOT MY ORIGINAL RESEARCH.  What Ril does not seem to understand is that he can't dismiss Jerome in a Wikipedia article.  What he can do, and what we all welcome, is Ril using published sources that show how some of Jerome's research may be faulty.
*Wikipedia:No original research  Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate).
*The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication.
*Sock-puppets: See User:Melissadolbeer/Melissa's response to sock-puppet allegations Please note that my response seems to have disappeared: can someone get it back?
--Melissa
--Melissadolbeer 08:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved to talk 07:40 on 19th July 2005