Talk:Jews for Jesus/Archive 4

message: ::1 Christianity tag: you are entitled to your POV. Read above discussions for more.
:::The above discussions demonstrate clearly that there are no reasonable grounds for including the template.ParadoxTom 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they do not, and every attempt to hide JFJ's deceptive methods justifies its presence even more. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you reveal your own bias; you want to bring light to "JFJ's deceptive methods" through the use of the Christianity template, whether it is warranted or not.  That is unacceptable.  The tag should go.  If you have arguments for its inclusion that are based on fact and not desire, make them.ParadoxTom 23:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Humus, I think its safe to say that throughout the fight we had previously over this article, there is very little chance that any "attempts to hide JFJ's deceptive methods" (Which I take to mean the actions of people who kept blanking much of the article, who were blocked mostly) actually got through or will get through in the future. Besides, the article doesn't even assert as fact that JfJ has done anything deceptive at all, which it really shouldn't anyway. Homestarmy 23:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This has been talked to death, an we even voted. JFJ is a Christian ministry and Ch-ty tag belongs here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you gave a specific reason which I felt compelled to oppose :/. (Plus, I don't think you ever before stated that the mere attempts to edit the article in a pro-JfJ fashion warrent using a template as, quite frankly, spam for the other side of the argument) Homestarmy 01:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  If there are serious grounds for including the template, cite them.  Remember that it is a necessary but insufficient condition that JfJ is Christian for the template to be included.ParadoxTom 01:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, to Humus's credit, he seems to believe in some very serious reasons for including the template, it's just I personally think their wrong is all :/.  Homestarmy 01:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those who demand to remove the Christianity tag from an article on a Christian group (against the logic and against the vote) should explain their insistence. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have done so.  If you wish to include the template, you must prove two things: (1) that JfJ is Christian, and (2) that JfJ is sufficiently Christian to warrant the template.  You have done neither.  All you have done is state that you desire the template as a warning to Jews who might be 'swayed' by JfJ.  And that is obviously unacceptable.ParadoxTom 04:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You stated your POV. We talked about this and we voted. Unless you have something new to say, accept  that other editors may disagree with you. Oh, and yes, JFJ is Christian. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course they're Christian.  You're missing the point very badly.ParadoxTom 02:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but that's not the point.  The POV of everyone here, including me, is that JfJ is Christian.  There are people who disagree.  But that's not relevant.  The relevant question is: 'Is JfJ sufficiently Christian to warrant the Christianity template, given the template inclusion standard?'  And it seems clear to me--and many others--that it is not.  Again, if Thomas Aquinas does not get the template, JfJ certainly doesn't.ParadoxTom 02:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If Christian Wicca, Jewish Christians, Shakers and Antichrist are "sufficiently Christian", then JFJ are as well. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Christian Wicca represents a distinct and separate movement of beliefs, (And the paragraph where the template is in discusses Christology and important concepts to Christianity like that), Jewish Christians are, as the article notes, often used to describe the earliest converts to Christianity since they mostly were ethnically Jewish and thus is important to early Christianity, the Shakers were even in my history book last year and were quite a notable group in the days of the American colonies, and the Antichrist is an extremely notable figure in Christian end-times theology. Jews for Jesus does not even come close to comparison importance or signifigance-wise to any of these articles. Homestarmy 20:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  JFJ tries to revive (or align with) these early Jewish Christian movements, and therefore Christianity tag belongs. JFJ's beliefs strongly correlate with those in the template, and therefore Christianity tag belongs. Articles on other Christian movements proudly carry the tag, and this one deserves it as well. And we talked about it, and we voted, and so far no good reason to remove the tag was presented ("sufficiently Christian to warrant" is comical, try harder). ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You mean the Jewish Christians article alone, right? Because neither Shakers nor "Christian" Wiccan's have much to do with JfJ. The Jewish Christians article, in the last section I think, even points out that Messianic Judaism and Jewish Christian movements are not exactly the same, and while the analogy given might be OR, JfJ seems far more related to Messianic Judaism than trying to reform itself around the principles of Jewish members of the early church. JfJ is not its own Christian movement, they are a singular organization (of, as I think we agreed, around 100 full time members) advocating opinions similar to Messianic Jewish movements, they certainly aren't their own special denomination or classification like either Jewish Christians or Messianic Jews are. JfJ certainly isn't trying to revive any movements which were once gone, somehow, I don't think the early church went around handing out pamphlets and DVD's and trying to draw parallels between Jewish celebrations and Christianity to get people to convert. It doesn't matter how much the subject of an article has beliefs conforming with Christianity, the template has never gone on every tiny little Christian organization article, or on every single biography of Christians, and the same follows for all other religious templates. I also don't care if you don't think my reasons which I gave very extensively earlier in the discussion were good or not, I will continue to hold onto them until somebody can explain when exactly templates were mandated to be spammed (and yes, spam would be required, unless you want to take years compleating the task) on every single article related to any religion or concept mentioned in said article, irregardless of how important the subject is to the subject of the template. Homestarmy 17:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's crucial "how much the subject of an article has beliefs conforming with Christianity". OTOH, the number of full time members is not important, and the rest of argument is even less convincing to me. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree and move on. Any Christian organization would be proud to carry a Christianity tag. I don't think it qualifies as spam. If you don't like that particular tag, let's try another one. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you've just gotten to the heart of the issue, by saying that a Christian organization would be "proud" to have a tag of Christianity. The Christianity template is not a stamp of approval on an article's subject for being "Christian" or not, and neither are any other templates, the goal of this template and hopefully all others is to improve the encyclopedia by giving links to relevant issues, not say to the world "Don't worry folks, they try to say that their not just Christian, but we know you, the reader, are too easily influenced by deceptive Judaism exterminaters (I'm using your sides language here Humus) to read the ton of references we have at the bottom, so look at the pretty stamp of approval and be convinced of Wikipedia's ability to slam you with the facts, after all, verifiability is so over-rated!" Homestarmy 14:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And since the Christianity template has links to the topics relevant to beliefs of this Christian group, we include it in the Beliefs section - rather than a template on Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Shamanism or Satanism. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why would we need an entire template for the beliefs section of Jews for Jesus , when simply wikilinking terms would be much more space efficient and wouldn't lead the reader to clicking on articles not pertinent to JfJ? Homestarmy 00:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because the role of an encyclopedia is to systematize information. The template has it all in one place, rather than scattered links. As for space, it doesn't take much and WP is not a paper. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Systems are generally implemented to be as efficient as possible, and the beliefs section is hardly a scattered collections of words with a few blue ones thrown randomly around. What's the reader going to be looking at primarily, the template or the text? Probably a combination of both, since one would assume the template would have articles pertinent to the beliefs of Jews for Jesus. But, surprise surprise, none of the articles describe the topic in the context of Jews for Jesus! Most of them simply describe their topics and make no attempt to compare them with the beliefs of Jews for Jesus. Maybe it's because Jews for Jesus's choice of beliefs aren't really notable for every bit of Christian theology and history there is.... Homestarmy 02:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here's what I see on my screen: Trinity, salvation, virgin birth, Jesus as the messiah/god, his resurrection, New Testament, and to top it all, Supersessionism. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The template appears to be having topic changes, i'm not involved in the discussion their having, it is possible they may change the template in a way that will invalidate my arguments. Homestarmy 20:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1. Christianity tag

message: ::2 Do you seriously complain that we have too many footnotes, or that they do not reflect your POV? 
:::I "serious complain" that there are too many footnotes, and that it is stylistically very weak.ParadoxTom 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I gotta point out here, number of references is never a bad thing, but rather, quality. the ref=name format can be used to lower the amount of purple next to each sentence however. Homestarmy 20:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "number of references" can be a bad thing, when they are redundant--as is the case frequently within this article.  When a statement needs external grounding, a single footnote must suffice.  When there are multiple citations, find the best one and excise the rest.ParadoxTom 21:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been established practice to give singular facts extensive verification when they could be controversial, as this article certainly is. As another good example, look at the Christianity article, we had a large feud over whether it should present Christianity as a monotheistic religion, which pretty much ground to a halt when it was extensively referenced in the first citation. Homestarmy 21:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine: let's do that here.  You will notice in that case that there is a single citation.ParadoxTom 21:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, its about 8 or 9 citations, using the ref=name thing I mentioned above. You can group several citations concerning one fact into one number by copying all citations into one set of ref tags. Homestarmy 21:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's one citation.  That in the footnote text area you reference multiple sources is irrelevant.  But I think you and I agree, anyway: let's do it that way.ParadoxTom 21:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Humus might of been reading this, he already seems to of started consolidating :/. Homestarmy 22:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, let's do what we can.  There are also stylistic problems which I can enumerate, though they are minor relative to my other concerns.ParadoxTom 23:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2. Too many footnotes

message: ::4 "all Jewish denominations... just add a 'nearly'" - on what grounds? Evidence please. 
:::This has been answered.ParadoxTom 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the rationale for (3).  Underneath all of this is the fact that some of you want to hold that it is a logical truth that you cannot be both Jewish and believe in a divine Christ.  And while you are certainly right about the actual world, the statement must be qualified.ParadoxTom 23:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nonsense. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Nonsense" is not an argument; just easy polemic.  Absence of argument will be assumed as concession.ParadoxTom 01:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reliable refs are provided. See WP:OR. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is not a valid response.  I have given a rigorous argument for adding the qualification "nearly".  Do you, or do you not, have grounds to dispute it?ParadoxTom 04:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sources say "There is virtual unanimity across all denominations [of Judaism] that Jews for Jesus are not Jewish." Where did you get the idea of inserting "nearly", why not insert "half", or a "nearly none"? WP:RS please. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Humus, read your own writing. Your source says "virtual unanimity". If it had meant "unanimity" it would have written it. "virtual unanimity" means "nearly all believe this". DJ Clayworth 19:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't have a problem using the same word as the source, "virtual". ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am fine with that also. DJ Clayworth 22:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As am I.ParadoxTom 02:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 4. all Jewish denominations - just add a 'nearly'

message: ::5 beliefs - you must've missed the ref to their Doctrinal statement. 
:::Right, fine; then I will remove all the business about that organization and say something like 'here are JfJ's stated beliefs: . . .'.ParadoxTom 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 5. JFJ's beliefs

message: ::6 "Incompatiblility with Judaism"--"all" to 'nearly all' - Evidence please. 
:::Has been given.ParadoxTom 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See (3), (4).ParadoxTom 23:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nonsense repeated stays nonsense. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ibid.ParadoxTom 01:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reliable refs are provided. See WP:OR. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ibid.: That is not a valid response.  I have given a rigorous argument for adding the qualification "nearly".  Do you, or do you not, have grounds to dispute it?ParadoxTom 04:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Those fail to address the salient question.ParadoxTom 02:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 6. Incompatiblility with Judaism - just add a 'nearly'

message: ::7 "Messianic Judaism is not Christianity: A Loving Call to Unity" is obviously not a NPOV source. - don't know about that one.
:::Well, let's get rid of it, then.ParadoxTom 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 7. Messianics

message: ::8 The quotation from Emil Fackenheim is nonsensical. - LOL. Unlike you, he's a WP:RS.
:::That I do not dispute.  I dispute the sensibility of his remark.  I find it unintelligible.ParadoxTom 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your POV. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but not in the way "POV" is construed on Wikipedia.  Is it just me, or his statement more or less nonsensical?ParadoxTom 23:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tend to think that Christian-Jewish dialogue, Christian missions to the Jews, and framing Jesus as a Jewish issue are very relevant here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are not answering the question.  Again: "Is it just me, or his statement more or less nonsensical?"ParadoxTom 08:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I didn't realize I am being interrogated. See the answer above, it begins with "I tend to think...". It really doesn't matter whether Fackenheim makes sense to user:ParadoxTom. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 8. Emil Fackenheim

message: ::9 What is the basis for the claim that "the Pope spoke out against targeting Jews for conversion in 1996"? - good question.
:::If you cannot find grounding, let us remove it.ParadoxTom 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  HRH JPII did in fact say such a thing, but outside of that statement, which was certainly not ex-cathedra, there are several "Catholic Jews" who have obtained all positions of the church, including the very highest (Pope!), and even presently, and IN 1996, there is an active, voting, member of the College of Cardinals, Jean-Marie Cardinal Lustiger, who was born a French Jew, of which neither ethnicity disqualfys him as either a Cardinal or as a future Pope. All of which matters not at all to the subject matter, so even if true, I think it ought to be removed, since the "Jews for Jesus" claims to be both a Christian AND a Jewish organization, but in no ways qualifys or claims to be a Catholic organization. V. Joe 17:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 9. the Pope spoke out against 

message: ::10 Why is "Jews for Jesus is a member of numerous evangelical Christian groups" cited under "Support"? - I guess because these evangelicals finance JFJ.
:::Do you have evidence that that's the case?  Typically it works the other way: an single entity (JfJ) would join a larger 'group' and fund it--not the other way around.  Unless you have evidence that JfJ is receiving funds in an unusual way, let us remove it.ParadoxTom 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look for "funding". ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A number of us have looked, but have not found any.  Unless this can be demonstrated, it must be removed.ParadoxTom 04:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 10. Funding

message: ::11 What are the grounds for having a "Litigation" section? - To the answer by Homestarmy (above) I'll add that we have such data for many orgs.
:::Answered above.ParadoxTom 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 11. Litigations

message: In the intro: "It also promotes awareness of the Jewish roots and heritage of the Christian faith to non-Jewish Christians." Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had thought I was the only one that didn't understand that sentence, so I didn't say anything.  :)  6SJ7 12:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's several articles on the JfJ site talking about this, we could find them, but the sentence should then probably be worded to "JfJ has created many articles trying to show a common heritage and Jewish roots concerning Christianity" or something like that. Homestarmy 12:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is a good place to start with JFJ's articles on the Jewish heritage of Christianity. 'trying to show a common heritage' is unnecessarily obtuse. Christianity and Judaism clearly share some heritage (they share some scriptures if nothing else). DJ Clayworth 19:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In particular, I am curiious where "to non-Jewish Christians" came from. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I assume their dividing Messianic Jews and plain old Christians into separate categories :/. Homestarmy 12:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to WP:LEAD, "If something is not mentioned after the lead it should not be mentioned in the lead." Unless there is a reliable source for this claim, the phrase should either be changed or go. ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It looks like DJ has a link to a good example right above :/. Homestarmy 22:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please elaborate. That is a link to several articles. The question still stands. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems to present itself as an informative lists of articles from the JfJ website presented to a generalized "You", which admittedly, doesn't really seem to support the idea it is primarily meant for ""non-Jewish Christians", but I guess they want it meant for, well, anyone.... Homestarmy 23:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: As far as I can understand the point of those articles is to give Christians without a Jewish background an idea of Jewish heritage, culture and belief. That includes how (in their opinion) it relates to Christianity. Presumably it is assumed that Jewish Christians already know about this heritage. It seems to be a significant 9though minor) part of their work. DJ Clayworth 13:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see any basis for these assumptions. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the basis for this phrase?  

message: What does this even mean? How is this information encyclopedic? What exactly is it trying to say that isn't already said in the intro.--Andrew c 22:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, this is very confusing. According to some sources, Ishmael is a descendant of Abraham. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted this phrase from the intro.  It is misleading, because J4J is made up both of people of Jewish ancestry (which I assume is intended to be equivalent to "descendants of Abraham") and those who are not.  Their web site says that their missionaries are Jewish people or their spouses, which pretty much says that some of the other people involved in the organization are not Jewish at all.  6SJ7 23:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd, I never noticed that phrase in the introduction, I guess it sneaked itself in :/. Homestarmy 01:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was added by Kdbuffalo. Unsurprising, if you're familiar with him. I support its removal. Jayjg (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  made up of descendants of [[Abraham]] 

message: When I looked up the article on Jews for Jesus in Wikipedia I wasn't shocked to see that almost everything said was written in such a way as to create an impression that would dispute the validity of our existence. Last June I tried to edit the article but not a word I wrote was accepted. CTSWyneken said it did not meet standards.  There is factual information that might be valuable such as how we are governed (by a board of directors, a field council, and an executive director) or others might want to know the educational standards for being a staff missionary, some might even want to know the associations to which we belong and why.  The presumption of the disputors is that we are deceptive but that presumes we do not believe what we say we believe and/or that we are not forthright in identifying what we are and what we believe.  But I guess that when everybody/anybody has the right to edit an article, those who shout the loudest and the most will have their view published no matter how prejudiced.
67.188.123.113 01:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can I sugest you try again. One thing we lack for sure is a concise summary of JFJ's core beliefs. For some reason we are quoting Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance (who?) on the subject. You could try adding statements here and I'll try and get them into the article. DJ Clayworth 16:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Although at times your "analysis" of wikipedia can actually be somewhat on target, this article actually demonstrates the opposite, the "people shouting the loudest" have a viewpoint that is rather similar to yours. Luckily however, wikipedia policy is preventing this article from turning into a clone of your organization's website.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What makes you think the loudest people share Moishe's viewpoint? Humus certainly doesn't. DJ Clayworth 16:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: To Moishe: So far, the article mostly seems to just be saying that many groups see JfJ as deceptive, unfortunently, because google searches are flooded with anti-JfJ sites and commentary, finding notable responses to the accusations is very difficult, if not impossible. (Trust me, i've tried) Homestarmy 17:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I should also say that we would need references to back up anything you say, even if you are the leader of JFJ. The internet is an anonymous medium, and we have to be careful. DJ Clayworth 19:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From the Founder of Jews for Jesus 

message: Currently the one thing this article is lacking is JFJ's own statement of their beliefs. Even if we quote other organisations on this matter, we should at least say what JFJ say they believe. Even the Flat Earth society gets that. DJ Clayworth 17:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is inside the belief section, but the Religioustolerance interpretation gives slightly more information and allows us to avoid OR with the generalization in that section. Homestarmy 17:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see several statements in the article that represent what J4J say they believe.  6SJ7 18:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added a couple of sentences just now, but I think it could do with being longer. DJ Clayworth 19:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement of Beliefs

message: Regarding my concerns above?  There have been no comments.  Unless anyone has a problem with those issues, I'll make the relevant changes.ParadoxTom 02:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please check again. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I took out the pope one myself, I figured out when it was added, and it seems to of never been sourced from the start. Homestarmy 20:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Humus, I don't know what "Please check again" means.  If you have a problem with any of the cited issues, let me know; otherwise, I will make the necessary changes.ParadoxTom 23:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It means read the corresponding discussion first. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I am against the removal of references. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: For it, strongly.ParadoxTom 08:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That is not an argument.  We have elucidated our reasons for removing them.  If you disagree, make a case.ParadoxTom 22:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WP:CITE citatons are especially necessary for disputed topics: "Text that is, or is likely to be, disputed.  Think ahead. Try to imagine whether people might doubt what you wrote, or need more information about it. Supporting what is written in Wikipedia by referring to a clear and reliable source will add stability to your contribution. When in doubt about whether something might be disputed, provide a specific citation.".  I think this supports keeping, rather than trimming, cites and footnotes.  Elizmr 23:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Any objections to 2, 5, 7-11?

message: "Jews for Jesus states that it promotes awareness of the Jewish heritage of the Christian faith". Do we need the 'states that'? Is there any doubt that that is one of the things they do? They have materials that do exactly that on their website. DJ Clayworth 02:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO the "states that" needs to stay. "Jews for Jesus it promotes awareness of the Jewish heritage of the Christian faith" sounds suspicious and there are several editors on here who, my guess is, would deny that such a thing is even possible. - Abscissa 13:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see how anyone can claim that Jews and Christians have no common heritage - they share at least some of the same scriptures. However, even if that were the case, a better sentence would be "Jews for Jesus promotes awareness of what they believe to be the Jewish heritage of the Christian faith". The doubt is in whether there is a shared heritage, not whether they promote it. DJ Clayworth 18:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Check

message: Here is the quote if someone wants to reinsert it.
"Several Christian denominations have issued statements criticizing evangelism of Jews, including the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the United Church of Christ and the PCUSA, which said in 1988 that Jews have their own covenant with God. In 1996, Pope John Paul II said Jews shouldn't be targeted for conversion."  - Abscissa 14:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks for finding that :) . Homestarmy 17:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  J4J and the Pope 

message: I investigated the state of the mediation committee. The chairperson appears to be on an extended Wikibreak, and the committee lists only five active members. I don't think we are likely to get a response to this.
The Wikipedia:Requests for mediation page recommends that we go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment and Wikipedia:Mediation cabal before this approach. If everyone involved is agreeable I propose that we try one of these. DJ Clayworth 22:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the person you contacted accepted the case for us, maybe the bot just wasn't running? Homestarmy 00:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: User:Jayjg please don't remove the disputed tag from the section. The mediation on this is still ongoing. DJ Clayworth 21:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Please do not remove the disputed tag from the section 'incompatibility with Judaism'. There is still an ongoing mediation on it, and a discussion on this talk page. Just because it is currently a relatively polite dispute does not mean it isn't a dispute. DJ Clayworth 18:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The dispute is not going anywhere, if we included such a tag on every article where there is still an editor who does not agree with something, we would have that annoying tag everywhere. I'm removing the tag once again.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because a dispute is currently going nowhere doesn't mean we can just stop telling that to readers, it would be like saying "Well world, there's a fight in the background over this article, but its just been going on for so long, we're sure y'all wouldn't care at this point. " This is not merely a situation of "an editor" not agreeing with "something", rather, it is several editors (Well, now just two again :( ) disagreeing with many things. Homestarmy 19:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't mean to sound rude, but if we included a tag on every article that shared the same conditions that you have just stated, we would probably have them on 40% of the articles on wikipedia.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience, most disputes of this nature end with some acceptable comprimise on most of the issues, which as far as I can tell, has not yet been reached here. While it rarely makes both sides agree compleatly with what's there and probably does comprise of the number of articles you refer to, it stops the dispute. Homestarmy 19:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Additionally this article (including the section tagged) is the subject of an ongoing mediation. Follow the link at the top of this page. Until very recently the 'one editor who does not agree with something' was Humus. We didn't assume there was no dispute just because he was the only person on one side. DJ Clayworth 19:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Am I missing something "ongoing"? ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You agreed to the mediation and it hacn't finished yet. I assume it's ongoing. DJ Clayworth 21:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It appears Essjay closed our mediation case as "stale" :( Homestarmy 17:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: I can't remember, why is there the POV template on the aims section, I don't recall that being a part of our recent discussion.... Homestarmy 19:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea. DJ Clayworth 19:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It reads like a promo pamphlet for JFJ. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How exactly? The favorable adjectives mostly come straight from the references, and it already says that JfJ just claims to be doing whatever their stated goals are. Homestarmy 02:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  I second that question. It's now more than a week later and I see no specfic areas where this section is inaccurate or biased. DJ Clayworth 21:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Since it is now ten days since an explanation was asked for here. I've removed the tag. I imagine it will get reverted, but this way at least we might get an explanation. DJ Clayworth 18:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is the Aims section disuputed again?

message: This is a problem that's occured in Criticism of Christianity as well, where the actual criticism doesn't really refer to the subject, but just some action that the subject may be participating in. Right now, almost all of the "Christian opposition" section here doesn't actually refer to JfJ personally at all, but rather, attempting to evangelize to Jews in general. Now, I would agree that this type of general opposition in this case is probably warrented to discuss somewhat, since it illustrates an important trend which would be relevant to refer to when actual, specific opposition is presented. But right now, almost all of the Christian criticism has nothing to do specifically with JfJ, just evangelism to Jews in general, and this seems rather off-topic to me. Isn't there some other article with a subject similar to Evangelism to Jews or something that could take most of this, and then just have it as a see also Evangelism to Jews or whatever at the top of the appropriate section? Homestarmy 19:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since JFJ's official mission is evangelism to Jews, I don't see how that constitutes an OT.  ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although their mission revolves around it, they aren't actually "Evangelism to Jews", they are merely an organization which evangelizes to Jews. For instance, in the Criticism of Christianity article there was a long section which was removed which had things against religion. However, it didn't say which religion, so while it was criticism of religion in general, it had nothing to do with criticism of Christianity itself. I think the situation is somewhat analogous here, evangelizing to Jews is criticized, but it mostly doesn't specify JfJ as a particular organization to be criticized. But like I said, removing all of it that doesn't have to do with JfJ probably would be a bad idea because the information can be useful to build some background on the atmosphere of opposition, but right now its mostly not centered on JfJ itself. Homestarmy 03:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  JFJ core value #1: "Direct Jewish evangelism as our priority". May I ask you (all) to please restrict your comments on topic. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "On topic" or what you consider to be on topic? As a matter of personal belief, I have no vested interest in doing whatever can be done to make JfJ look as badly opposed and reviled as NPOVly as possible. JfJ's core value is important, and mentioning the trend that many Christian organizations oppose this value is also important, but not nearly as important as actually having criticism from Christian organizations which oppose JfJ itself. Most of the content doesn't have to do with JfJ itself, but rather a related yet distinct subject which would rightly belong in its own article, I consider this to be an issue of at least Undue Weight. Homestarmy 23:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not see how WP:NPOV#Undue weight applies here. Are we giving undue weight to some fringe views? To make clear what that section is about I have retitled it to ===Christian opposition to Jews for Jesus and to efforts to evangelize Jews===. Hope you (all) will find this satisfactory. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It's undue weight because it is giving so much space to a subject which would be better treated in a different article. (Yes, I know undue weight is most frequently called to rail against Pseudoscience and fringe views and all that jazz, but there's more to it than that.) Homestarmy 01:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't mind the idea of another article (Counter-Missionary?) but I don't see how this content is unrelated here (much of it is about JFJ). What does mysterious "there's more to it than that" mean? If there is more to Christian opposition to Jews for Jesus and to efforts to evangelize Jews, I'd like to know it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I meant more to the Undue Weight policy than simply stopping overly fringe views, not something more with the article content. Homestarmy 02:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The scope of the opposition is getting off-topic :/

message: Come on people, quit tagging the article as disputed without leaving anything detailed in Talk. Just to say that the article is in dispute is not enough. Saying that the entire article is in dispute is not enough. Such unhelpful reasoning is not fair to the rest of the editors trying to make this article NPOV and factually accurate. If you want to see the article improved talk about it here. Otherwise, don't post nonsensical dispute tags on the article. If you aren't going to post in talk after immediately posting a dispute tag, don't bother posting the dispute tag. I will be removing the current one unless the disputer wishes to list EXACTLY what items in the article are in dispute as to neutrality or factual accuracy.  Tell us here what's not neutral. Tell us here what's not factually accurate. At the very least, update the current dispute list. Let's get this article improved. inigmatus 15:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In all fairness, the article is pretty much at the end of where it can be right now, there's so much negative material on JfJ blocking any searches, what we have here is basically it as far as i've seen. The problem was Paradox had been blocked for yet another week, so he couldn't continue the dispute we had earlier. Homestarmy 15:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The group deliberately chose to put itself in this position. Even the Messianics (!) don't want to be associated with JFJ. ←Humus sapiens ну? 18:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Probably, but still, the fact remains that it is not a simple task to expand this article. Maybe go into more detail on events JfJ does, but then that would probably all be from the JfJ website, and I dunno about having that kind of thing all coming from a single source.... Homestarmy 20:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  In all fairness to JfJ, as a Messianic I support their efforts to raise discussion among Jews about Jesus - for that is what I believe any people group should be willing to discuss. I am not here to make sure they don't get a fair voice in this article, and I do support the effort by some to at least claim there are disputes and inaccuracies. I encourage the disputers that if they dispute the entire article, that they propose a new one from scratch. I did for Messianic Judaism and after some consensus, the redraft not only help ended the previous edit wars, it also ballooned the article into a good quality article and spawned a project that is now managing Messianic Judaism information in Wikipedia. I encourage those who dispute the JfJ article to consider doing the same. Make a /temp page and propose it here for consensus. Let us see what YOU have in mind. To the other editors, no matter what is proposed, if the opposition wants a redraft, we can always work on NPOV later. I think we can work towards a common goal here for all of us if we participate in this process. I can volunteer to help mediate it.inigmatus 01:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That would be fine, inigmatus. The official mediation seems to be at a standstill before it started. Feel free to help in any way you see fit. DJ Clayworth 17:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If the article is in dispute, please list here EXACTLY what is in dispute. 

message: "belief in one God and one God only (see Devarim 6:4) with no partnership of any kind". The scripture reference backs up the first part of the statement. Is there meant to be a reference for the second part? Is it intended to be a statement that follows on logically from the first, or is it an additional statement? I know there used to be more references and we may have got rid of the relevant one in some previous edit. DJ Clayworth 22:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A week later, and nobody has given a reference for the second part of this statement. DJ Clayworth 19:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trying to clarify another issue

message: I am not even going to recapitulate my disputes on this issue.  They are listed here, on my Talk page, on our mediation page, on other editors' pages, and so on.  This article is totally disputed.  Because mediation is apparently failing to obtain, I am going to file a request for arbritration.  Please leave the template on in the mean time.  Thank you.ParadoxTom 22:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I suggest instead looking for less formal input rather than more formal? The normal procedure is to go to Request for Comment, then informal mediation and then formal mediation before arbitration. Let's try RFC or the mediation cabal first. DJ Clayworth 23:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine.  But in the meantime, the tag needs to be there.  However, how long have we been waiting for mediation?  Well over a month, I imagine.ParadoxTom 03:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Essjay is gone, it seems the Mediation system has fallen apart, apparently only he ran the bot to automate alot of things :/. Homestarmy 03:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Essjay is back so mediation should be up and running again shortly (someone may want to poke him about it). JoshuaZ 04:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute Tag

message: Can anyone tell me why it is that appropriate compromise language has been reached at Messianic Judaism and we seem to be unable to reach the same compromise here? That article is a model of neutrality and factual accuracy, despite the dispute seeming to be absolutely identical. Why can't we do the same thing at this article? DJ Clayworth 01:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand this correctly, not only do almost all Jewish organizations which care about the issue reject JfJ, but all the Messianic Judaism ones do too x_x. JfJ just can't get a break can it.....but anyway, it seems the Messianics problem is that they still want to follow the law, and JfJ doesn't. Homestarmy 03:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Messianics are a variety of groups/beliefs. JFJ belongs to the wing indistinguishable from Christianity in their beliefs. Moreover, this is not Christianity tolerant to other faiths and engaged in ecumencical dialogue, but extremist one, attacking core principles of Judaism and proselytizing among its members. Why would some WP editors choose to join such attacks? ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Humus, since you are here, would you mind reading the article Messianic Judaism and seeing if you agree with the way it deals with the issue? If you do, or at least find it acceptable, how would you go about changing this article to make it more like that one? If we can make this article as neutral as that one I for one would be very happy. DJ Clayworth 04:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you mean exactly? ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: What I mean is that the language used in Messianic Judaism is much more neutral than the language in this article, and more neutral than the language you seem to think appropriate here. Let me give you an example: "While Messianic Judaism identifies itself as a branch of Judaism rather than a branch of Christianity, this classification is rejected by all major Jewish denominations (Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism), as well as national Jewish organizations,  the State of Israel and others.". In my view this is an appropriate and neutral way of describing the dispute, and if we could get similar language put into this article I would be very happy. So my question is: Why should the language that is appropriate at Messianic Judaism not be appropriate here? DJ Clayworth 17:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, hasn't about that same wording been in the introduction for awhile now here? Homestarmy 19:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, the issue here is in the "Incompatibility" section, where some editors are arguing we should have "all Jewish organizations and denominations therefore consider it impossible to profess Judaism and also believe in the divinity of Jesus", or a wording that is (in my opinion) more neutral, like "all mainstream Jewish organizations" or "virtually all Jewish organizations". Messianic Judaism does a much better job of this with phrases like "all major Jewish denominations" , "virtually all Jewish denominations" and such like. DJ Clayworth 19:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No weaseling. Some editors still don't seem to get that Judaism and divine Jesus are incompatible. Read some reputable book or at least Judaism's view of Jesus. ←Humus sapiens ну? 13:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Humus, we all understand that you believe that. And we all agree that a huge majority of Jews believe that. But to say "all Jews believe this" when Jews for Jesus (and some other groups) do not is implicitly to define Jews for Jesus as "not Jewish", which is taking sides in the dispute; something that WP:NPOV won't allow us to do. 'Virtually all' is not much of a weasel word. It means 'nearly all but not quite all', which sums up the situation very clearly. You remember that for a long time you were insisting that the intro should say "all Jewish groups believe that Judaism and divine Jesus are incompatible", but even the best source you could find said "virtually all...". That's the phrase we ended up using in the intro, and if we use it again further down I'm happy. DJ Clayworth 18:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Intro is talking about something else. See refs and please back your claims with WP:RS. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The intro is indeed talking about something slightly different. However the references used to 'back up' the statement that 'all Jews believe...' simply supports nothing of the kind. One even uses 'most' and 'majority'. I've given a detailed explanation of why the references don't back up the statement at the bottom of the page. DJ Clayworth 04:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know who other than you (and trolls this page seems to attract) says 'all Jews believe...' Until you show exactly which Jewish organizations or denominations consider Judaism compatible with belief in the divinity of Jesus, you cannot be taken seriously. Don't try to create a circular argument by involving JFJ or the Messianics in this. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Great, you're finally getting to understand that a circular argument may be involved. Whether or not Messianic Jews are Jews is something that is disputed. Since Wikipedia doesn't take sides in such disputes, Wikipedia cannot say categorically that they are not. Hence it cannot make the definitive statement that "all Jewish organizations and denominations therefore consider it impossible to profess Judaism and also believe in the divinity of Jesus.", because Messianics don't. So Wikipedia has to go with other wording. "virtually all" or "a vast majority" would all be acceptable. You can suggest other wording if you like. DJ Clayworth 05:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It might be simpler to follow the MJ example and just state which groups and organizations within Judaism believe their faith is incompatible with a divine Messiah - it would be informative, and specific; and it would also therefore put the burden on the reader to determine the obverse: which "Jewish" groups do? This keeps the printed statement NPOV and hands over responsibility to the reader to decide for themselves what the answer is to the unasked question: "Which groups do consider Messiah to be divine, and still consider themselves 'Jewish'?" Non Mormons who claim to be Christians for example, will never allow Mormons to be classified as "Christian" - but the Mormons do claim such. Disputes like these can be avoided by being specific as to which relevant groups object to the status of who. Doing so ends POV disputes and provides the reader with even more specific information about certain groups' stances toward others - stances they can further research elsewhere. In Wikipedia, generalistic and stereotypical statements are usually the cause, rather than the solution, to disputed POV statements. I think "all Jews" is one such unsupported generalization - in that though a reference to the statement maybe available hyperlinked and provided off site, the article itself though implies that it is a standalone and undisputed truth when it doesn't say who says it, but if there is a dispute, then to keep such a standalone statement unchanged without an accompanying clarifier, is wrong. Even a reference provided for this generalization would itself then could only be of one particular group who claims Jewish identity, publishing a statement what they think "all Jews" believe, but in reality it's only that group's opinion of what "all Jews" believe. Therefore when a generalization is in dispute, it is POV to simply keep the such a statement stand-alone without providing an accompanying statement as to who makes the generalization. We would do well in these kinds of disputes to avoid making unsupported generalizations when we do not make specific reference to who is making the generalization in the first place. When a generalization is not in dispute, this isn't an issue, but when a generalization is in dispute, I posit that specific references must be offered and clarified to support whatever generalization is being made. Doing so only serves the public interest by providing more information about specifically who says what. This is just my two cents. inigmatus 06:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No need to write long paragraphs. If a group considers it possible to profess Judaism and also believe in the divinity of Jesus, it is not Jewish. See refs. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ...Says the references. Attribution is rather important in controversial articles like this, and I don't think that all Jewish organizations really care at all about JfJ as they probably haven't come in contact with them. Homestarmy 15:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The references simply don't back the statement up. DJ Clayworth 17:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Messianic Judaism]]

message: :Redraft the JfJ article from scratch. If you rebuild it, NPOV will come. inigmatus 05:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Inigma's KeYs to Acheiving nPOv Organically (IKYPOO): 1. Have the subject editor which supports the POV of the subject, draft the article from scratch. (The best articles are those drafted by those who support the article's subject). 2. The subject editor must plan the article to include opposition statements if he/she doesn't include them to begin with (This forces the subject editor to be mindful of the opposition's influence in the final version of the article, and provide room for the oppositions voice to be "contained" from taking over the whole article, and thus also see the importance of having the opposition's statements grow into something useful for the subject. Inigma's Rule of Article ContEnt Manipulation (IRAC'em!): if YOU voluntarily put in the opposition's statements, you stand a better chance of controlling where they will ultimately appear!) 3. Let the opposition have a free ride (and let them know! It makes them think you want to be on their side! - they will be more than happy to mark where you need to provide sources, or change wording to be less POV. Even more useful: they will add their own comments to the article, and mostly in the sections (if you created them) where they can actually voice their opposition - congrats, you've stayed in control!) 4. Work on the opposition's suggestions for improvement (The more you provide sources and answer their objections the more in control YOU will be). IKYPOO is based on inigma's Wiki article theory that suggest that he who responds to the most valid complaints, controls the article's content. If you want true NPOV, then get your POV in first before the opposition, let em butcher it, sell 'em back the pieces, and pretend to be everyone's friend. If you follow IKYPOO and IRAC'em, in the end, you WILL be out of the poo you first started in, and in control of an Featured Article that has your name written all over it's history. inigmatus 06:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The thing of it is, I don't really support the POV of the subject much, its just so hard to find anything from non-JfJ related neutral sources that I have misgivings about trying to defend them too much. (Plus, I don't like how the attitude against JfJ seems to be based on trying to get the reader to accept the idea that JfJ is implicitly deceptive and wrong.) Homestarmy 16:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I totally agree Homestarmy. DJ Clayworth 20:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, is anyone here a JfJ supporter? If so, I invite them to redraft the article from scratch. inigmatus 07:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all the out and out JfJ supporters that have passed by have all either been blocked or left after finding too much oppostion.... Homestarmy 13:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: It appears that the NPOV tag on the Incompatability section is what's causing that huge white space instead of the Christianity template, now that i've checked to see the result when you remove it. Is there a way to format that tag so that it doesn't shove the body of the section below the template? Homestarmy 14:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag conflict

message: Unfortunately, it appears that original research regarding the "majority" of Jewish organizations and "Orthodox, Conservative, Reformed, Reconstructionist)" is being re-added to the article. There are no sources for this claim; rather, the sources say that belief in Jesus is incompatible with Judaism, not with the "majority" of denominations, or with specific denominations. Jayjg (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think those are just trying to be added as examples, though as it was, it was a bit ambiguous. After all, this is not the Judaism article, why should a reader be expected to be familiar with denominations in Judaism? Homestarmy 20:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I can understand that, I was going to add something like (....for example), but then I couldn't find the line again :/. Homestarmy 20:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually the "majority" words are not original research. They are in fact better sourced than the "All  Jewish organisations..." wording. I've given details in the "references" section above. DJ Clayworth 22:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Majority" and other original research being re-added 

message: A good way I can think of to resolve this whole messy situation with this article is to get people who have nothing much to do with this subject to take a look at it. Now, in terms of quality, this article is probably one of the most well referenced articles in all of Wikipedia, (Seeing as we nearly have a line-by-line series of citations) is about as broad as its ever going to get since we've gathered a little of everything from sides who report on JfJ, and it is more or less well-written prose wise and fairly logically ordered. I think it would be a good idea to nominate this for Good Article status, where a reviewer who must not be heavily involved with the article will likely be able to indicate, compleatly impartially, whether or not the article is actually written and constructed with a neutral point of view in mind. The reason I have to discuss this first is that in the GA criteria, stability is a requirement as well and the article can't be in the middle of an edit war, which we are. Therefore, i'd like some cooperation, in that everyone stop reverting right now, and since it seems the "side" i'm on is outnumbered, we just leave it as "all", since of course part of our problem is arguing over whether that is neutral or not. It will take time for a Good Article nomination to go through, perhaps almost a month, but it would seem to me that if it is made a GA then it would mostly settle the issue of whether the article is neutral by the communities standards or not, in addition to maybe getting some uninvolved suggestions on how to improve the article other ways. (Of course, if somebody gives a review that's way too short and doesn't show signs of even reading most of the article i'd probably put it up for review). So what does everyone think, can we put down the revert cannons for a bit and see if this is, in fact, a Good Article, as by all rights it should be, assuming that it actually is neutral? Homestarmy 18:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently not.... Homestarmy 13:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I'd like to make a proposel

message: This article is being turned into another battleground, now between Judaism (or as some call it , "mainstream Judaism") and "Messianic Judaism". It is a POV that Messianics are a part of Judaism. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you're right! It is POV to say that Messianics are a part of Judaism. It is also POV to say that they are not. Do you understand that? Wikipedia shoulnd't be doing either. DJ Clayworth 04:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Humus, hasn't it been a battle ground ever since this article first started heating up months ago and those new users kept coming in and blanking everything? :/ Homestarmy 01:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is wiki, so new users are welcome. Blanking is vandalism, trolling is bad and Wikipedia is not a battleground. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, that kind of battleground, I thought you meant in a broader sense. So, is it true Humus, am I really that intimidating to make this a battleground? :D I haven't even been trying honestly :/Homestarmy 01:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Humus, have you considered the ways in which you are contributing to making this a battleground? If you can think of ways of making it less of a battleground I'm certainly willing to listen. (Incidentally I find 'blanking is vandalism' very ironic - you're the one taking words out) DJ Clayworth 04:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't turn this into a battleground 

message: How about an alternative?  Instead of putting this in the Beliefs section or in the Criticism section, how about putting it in a separate factual section that addresses the schism and the unbridgeable chasm?  Thoughts? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support that as a compromise. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I support that too. I'm all for maintaining a clear and logical flow to articles, and keeping opposition statements to an opposition section is good article-making. inigmatus 04:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If that's what it takes to get a compromise here, then OK. For myself I think that the schism is covered adequately elsewhere in Wikipedia, but if the alternative is a never-ending edit war then yes, we should re-iterate it here. DJ Clayworth 21:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Location of 'incompatibility' section revisited