"

 POV  talk section moved 

POV

i've tried to clean things up a bit though someone else will have to remove the vandalistically applied christianity template lest i be reported for ""edit warring"" by humus.   i've added a link to the christianity and judaism portals in the ""see also"" section.   these links are more fitting than claiming this is ""part of the series on christianity""

this article was very heavy on anti-jfj stuff.  a lengthy ""criticism"" section as well as criticisms inserted into nearly every other section.  the missionaries are ""taught to speak in hebrew"" (these people already went to hebrew school!) and jfj is known to ""target vulnerable jews"" (oh really?) and ""most of the funding comes from christians"" (well did we think it was coming from muslims and religious jews?) and the current leader ""is not jewish"" (even though his mother, father, all grandparents were apparently jewish)

some of the criticisms' references were just opinion pieces from religious jews who oppose conversion.  most come from biased publications that don't meet wikipedia's reliable sources standards.  including these references is analogous to editing the ""buddhism"" article to say that ""all buddhists will burn in hell"" along with a reference to some fire-n-brimstone website.

anyway, if all we're trying to get across is that some, even many, jewish people and groups oppose jfj we don't need to spread it all over the article.  it isn't at all surprising that religious jews don't want other jews to accept jesus  every missionary movement is opposed by someone.

 

Friend, your edits pushed your delusion that J4J is just another Jewish denomination that a bunch of long-bearded Hassidim oppose. You don't seem to comprehend how the group ruffles feathers throughout the whole length and breadth of the Jewish community even among commies and even among a lot of Christians, as it is contrary to the spirit of modern ecumenicism. J4J is as much defined by the hostility to it as anything else. That is the state of play. I think that you can make a case if you feel the wording is not neutral, but you can't water down the unanimous opposition to J4J and call that ""NPOV"" 

Thanks for the ""friend"", nice words are always welcome, even though the rest is not.   Please don't accuse me of ""pushing my delusions"".   Some jewish groups may strongly oppose them, but there's no way to show that ""all"" ""mainstream"" jewish groups, including ""secular"" groups ""strongly"" oppose them, without taking the liberty of defining who ""all"" the ""mainstream"" jewish groups are, and what degree of ""opposition"" is ""strong"".  Can you really not see this simple truth?
Beyond that it just isn't appropriate to overwhelm this article with criticism.  I outlined this above already.   Statements like j4j approachs ""vulnerable jews"" are unabashedly POV  and tautological.  If anyone converts then its clear they were ""vulnerable"" to conversion,  so if anyone approached converts, then j4j has approaches ""vulnerable jews"".
It's not in question that all missionary groups are converting someone from some belief system to another, but it is only barely notable that someone opposes this conversion.  Does McDonald's oppose Burger King and try to put them out of business at every turn?  Yes...but who cares?  Do drug smugglers ""strongly oppose"" DEA agents coming along and busting up their operations?   Yes...but it would be silly to put it in an article.   Everyone has opposition and it just goes without saying.   Still, I wouldn't be ""strongly opposed"" to his article having a section on opposition, but nearly every corner of this article is littered with criticism that is all essentially the same.
Compare this article to that of any other missionary group.   In the article ""christianity"" is there a section labeled ""incompatibility with paganism"" and ""a belief that is incompatible with paganism"" and ""all pagan groups strongly oppose christianity""?   Do we see ""incompatibility with catholicism"" in the protestant article?   I know this analogy is not going to be satisfying, but no analogy is ever complete.
What are the further objections?   Yes, the group may be called ""Jews for Jesus"" and that offends people, but what would you have them call themselves?   Would ""Jews that are now christians but still consider themselves jewish"" be better?  They did use Jackie Mason in a pamphlet.   They also used Steve Jobs and Curious George, and a whole bunch of others, but i don't see Steve Jobs supporters here furious about Jews for jesus ""deceiving"" ipod owners into believing in jesus.
I've given up on the fair play of