Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Jews for Jesus 2/Archive 1

message: This proposal is for the attention of all users involved with this case: I propose a "blanket ban" on all users, where they refrain from editing the article Jews for Jesus. This way, we can concentrate on the matter as it was accepted by the mediation committee, rather than an article that is constantly being edited, reverted, fixed, gnomed, and re-reverted again. I invite all users to agree or disagree immediately below this proposal, in the same format as we agreed (with the option to disagree) to the mediation. Regards, Anthonycfc [T • C] 18:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had made a long comment justifying it, but since Anthony says its a vote like the preliminary accept ones, I assumed he'd delete my comment.... Homestarmy 23:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I'm not following you at all. Please clarify. Kind regards, Anthonycfc [T • C] 01:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what Homestarmy and Mackan (and me too) are wondering-would this be a prohibition which applies solely to users in this mediation (which would just require our consensus and for everyone to honor it), or would it really be a ban on all users, even those outside this mediation (which would require protection or some other kind of admin intervention?) Seraphimblade 01:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's not what I was wondering. It's just the last revert I made to someone's change over one of the issues in question was a revert that I think anyone should be allowed to make any time, I mean, the person I reverted (who I don't think i've ever seen before) changed "Jews for Jesus is a Christian...." to "Jews for Jesus is a jewish...." without captializing, without replacing the old references with superior ones that demonstrated that the previous ones were wrong, without talking, and as far as I can tell without any real prior participation in the article at all. This sort of thing happens often in the history of the page, and the article quality would probably go downhill fast if people couldn't revert in time.  Homestarmy 02:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point there too-although I think that's one everyone involved would have agreed on, I looked through the history and saw that, and I can't imagine any of us would've argued not to revert that. Maybe a better agreement would be not to make any changes that have previously been made and challenged? Seraphimblade 03:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The most effective method would be not to "ban" (indicating repercussions similar to arb com's such as banning in the event of defiance) but to "request that users involved in the mediation refrain from editing a) any edits of any other users involved in the mediation, and b) anything more than simple spelling, grammar or gnoming edits to the article." This means that we are mediating the article and therefore dispute as it was registered, rather than one that no longer exists as the article has been edited so much since the case was accepted. Anthonycfc [T • C] 17:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree to it at that, and I'd suggest someone should put a copy of the article in userspace in case anyone wants to do any "demonstration" edits. (Of course, I don't think anyone would have any objection to the removal of blatant vandalism or that type of thing from the main copy.) That way, it can be done like Mackan did earlier ("Hey, I suggest this, what does everyone think?") but not disrupt the main article. What does everyone think of this? Seraphimblade 00:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blanket Ban Proposal 

message: Do we need to protect the article then, to prevent newcomers from editing, or is this just for the people in mediation?  I'm inclined to agree; I'm just curious why Homestarmy disagreed.Mackan79 20:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had made a long comment justifying it, but since Anthony says its a vote like the preliminary accept ones, I assumed he'd delete my comment.... Homestarmy 23:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I'm not following you at all. Please clarify. Kind regards, Anthonycfc [T • C] 01:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what Homestarmy and Mackan (and me too) are wondering-would this be a prohibition which applies solely to users in this mediation (which would just require our consensus and for everyone to honor it), or would it really be a ban on all users, even those outside this mediation (which would require protection or some other kind of admin intervention?) Seraphimblade 01:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's not what I was wondering. It's just the last revert I made to someone's change over one of the issues in question was a revert that I think anyone should be allowed to make any time, I mean, the person I reverted (who I don't think i've ever seen before) changed "Jews for Jesus is a Christian...." to "Jews for Jesus is a jewish...." without captializing, without replacing the old references with superior ones that demonstrated that the previous ones were wrong, without talking, and as far as I can tell without any real prior participation in the article at all. This sort of thing happens often in the history of the page, and the article quality would probably go downhill fast if people couldn't revert in time.  Homestarmy 02:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point there too-although I think that's one everyone involved would have agreed on, I looked through the history and saw that, and I can't imagine any of us would've argued not to revert that. Maybe a better agreement would be not to make any changes that have previously been made and challenged? Seraphimblade 03:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The most effective method would be not to "ban" (indicating repercussions similar to arb com's such as banning in the event of defiance) but to "request that users involved in the mediation refrain from editing a) any edits of any other users involved in the mediation, and b) anything more than simple spelling, grammar or gnoming edits to the article." This means that we are mediating the article and therefore dispute as it was registered, rather than one that no longer exists as the article has been edited so much since the case was accepted. Anthonycfc [T • C] 17:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree to it at that, and I'd suggest someone should put a copy of the article in userspace in case anyone wants to do any "demonstration" edits. (Of course, I don't think anyone would have any objection to the removal of blatant vandalism or that type of thing from the main copy.) That way, it can be done like Mackan did earlier ("Hey, I suggest this, what does everyone think?") but not disrupt the main article. What does everyone think of this? Seraphimblade 00:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blanket Ban Proposal Comments 

message: (Apologies for the length, but I think it’s necessary to lay out the issues.  Along with my statement, I made my proposed edits here, (Difs here) for easy reference.)
In my view, statements like "Jewish groups oppose JfJ and many see its proselytizing activities as a veiled attack on Judaism" need to be qualified, either by a.) naming the opposing groups, or b.) reference to "many" or "most" Jewish groups, with sources cited.  If not, WP is improperly speaking for all Jewish groups, when no sources support this.  Such unqualified statements are especially problematic when speaking of opposition to JfJ (considering many Jewish groups have never even commented on JfJ), but also when talking about theological positions which JfJ disputes, in the article about JfJ. ("According to Judaism, these 'indications' are based on mistranslations.")
Opposing editors misconstrue Weasel, which doesn't prohibit qualifiers, but prohibits crediting beliefs to large groups without citation.  Essentially, they get the policy backwards, trying to fix a sentence, "Many people believe the Yankees are the best ever," with simply "People believe the Yankees are the best ever."  Clearly, removing "many" does not improve any weasel problem, but only makes it worse.
Ultimately, statements of what "many" or "most" Jewish groups believe are necessary, however, since listing each group is infeasible.  Thus, referencing "many Jewish groups" and then citing several, is entirely appropriate. See Weasel ("As with any rule of thumb, this guideline should be balanced against other needs for the text, especially the need for brevity and clarity," and stating as an exception to the rule situations "When the belief or opinion is actually the topic of discussion," as it is here.)  
This summary of what many Jewish groups say would be especially appropriate in the Lead, rather than listing "Jewish denominations," "Jewish groups" and "The State of Israel" separately.
Finally, IMO, minority views should not be presented as wrong in articles about the minority, nor can JfJ's views re: Judaism simply be disregarded in an article about JfJ.  Per NPOV, "Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better," and "[V]iews that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views."(Emphasis added).  This doesn't mean presenting JfJ as authentically Jewish, but it does mean not disputing JfJ's claims except by reference to the disputants. (See section on JfJ and Judaism, which is essentially an extended argument against JfJ)
Other issue:  I oppose the Christianity banner for several reasons.  1. The banner says this is part of a series on Christianity, which is incorrect.  It’s  an article about a controversial group, not about Christianity. 2.  To the extent the article is "related" to Christianity, it's also related to Judaism.  3.  That the group espouses Christian views does not make it an article about Christianity.  The banner is not placed, for instance, on any evangelical organizations I can find, nor evangelical individuals.  In sum, the banner should be for articles on Christianity, not any group alleged to be Christian, particularly where the label is controversial and potentially insulting both to the group itself and to Christianity generally.  Many thanks, Mackan79 00:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does appear that your proposed edits implement WP:NPOV in the most efficient manner; however, no edits are to be implemented until everyone has had the opportunity to make their statement. Anthonycfc [T • C] 14:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, sorry, I was just finding it very difficult to describe the changes I think are necessary.  I tried to fix the problem.  Thanks, Mackan79 16:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't worry, it wasn't a telling off :P I'll revert it, unless you've managed to fix it. Regards, Anthonycfc [T • C] 17:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]]

message: The thing about all this is, i'm not actually as concerned about the primary issues as most other editors I think. I recognize that NPOV is clearly in dispute much of the time, and i've certainly thrown my 2 cents in several times over probably all of these issues, but my main problem is the Christianity template. Most of what i've seen about motivations about using the template aren't really good, as much of it seems to be that some editors feel that without it, readers might somehow get the impression that Jews for Jesus is Jewish. How they would get this impression despite the plethora of references against this, the entire section dedicated to espousing the fundamental principles of Judaism, and the long list in the intro of authorities denouncing JfJ's claim is something I don't quite understand. Irregardless, the template is still there, and any attempts at removal have resulted in edit wars. It didn't help that many of the attempts at removal were by single-purpose accounts or frequent 3RR violaters though.... Homestarmy 02:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]]

message: Practically every sentence in the article has been disputed at some point or another, that explains the amount of refs. The essence of the dispute is whether JFJ may represent Jews and Judaism. My positions are based on reliable sources. Unfortunately, despite all the evidence, some editors still seem to be unable to believe that there is no "minority" in Judaism that accepts Jesus as son of God and the Messiah. There is no such minority because it would contradict one of Judaism's core beliefs. This was the nature of the historical schism between two belief systems that occurred about 2 millennia ago. When someone claims to adopt or follow some religion, it would be wrong for him to contradict or misrepresent its core beliefs. Now to Issues to be mediated:
* Attempts to add "many", "most", "in general" when addressing the position of Judaism in regards to JFJ's beliefs effectively mean there is the minority... - see above. 
* "Jewish organizations oppose..." ... should a qualifier such as "several", "many", or "most" be used? - same question, same answer. 
* "majority side of a debate as correct when the opposing side is clearly a very small minority, on a page devoted to the minority group?" - same question, same answer. 
* IMO, the  template does belong in the beliefs section because it shows how JFJ beliefs correspond to Christian beliefs: trinity, etc. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] 

message: I have positions on this issue which puts me in both camps of the mediation.  The first one is a simple one for me.  The Christianity banner in the article is inappropriate.  Jews for Jesus is a fringe group in Christianity with limited influence on the religion as a whole.  To place this banner in the article is to mislead readers as to the nature of this organization and it's relationship to the rest of Christianity.  To wit, Jews for Jesus does not even fit into any of the links of the banner as it is not a denomination but rather a parachurch organization.  I will not assume bad faith of the users who originally placed the banner in the article, but as it is, it appears to be used in a manner to embarass Jews for Jesus.  There were also links to Anti-Semitism, and anti-Judaism in the article that seemed to serve the same purpose. 
On the other hand however, Jews for Jesus is a Christian organization.  They explicitly claim that the Jews in their title relate to their ethnicity.  They also unambiguously state:
Seraphim believes that they claim to be of both religions.  We disagree on that point.  I believe their actual position is that the teachings of Jesus, (i.e. the New Testament) is compatible with Judaism.  They do not claim that belief in him as Messiah, or as Deity, is compatible with Judaism.  In fact, it is not.  One of the 13 pillars of Judaism states "I Believe With Complete Faith In The Coming Of The Messiah....".  Therefore any ethnic Jew who takes a Messiah ceases to be religiously Jewish.  To couch this incompatibility in terms of "Most", "Many" or "Virtual All" is misleading and unnecessarily inaccurate.  In addition, as Jews for Jesus believe in the Trinity, this is also incompatible with Judaism.  The first two pillars of Judaism is: 1)I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, blessed be His Name, is the Creator and Guide of everything that has been created; He alone has made, does make, and will make all things; and 2) I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, blessed be His Name, is One, and that there is no unity in any manner like His, and that He alone is our God, who was, and is, and will be. 
However, all this discussion of what Jews for Jesus is, and whether one can be of both faiths is irrelevant, as the subject of the article does not make this claim in my opinion.  Sorry for the length. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User: Ramsquire|Ramsquire]]

message: In response to the above, I believe that User:MPerel has halted contributions; he/she has also blanked the page User:MPerel. I invite all users to draw their own conclusions on the matter; however, I believe that we can, at the moment, not expect a summary from him or her.
Regards,Anthonycfc [T • C] 19:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was on a little wikibreak. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 20:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:MPerel]]'s absense 

message: === Draft 1 ===
I have drawn an overview of the dispute from Seraphimblade's summary, Mackan79's summary, Homestarmy's summary and Humus sapiens's summary. From this overview, I have drew up this draft compromise which I believe is the most efficient way to satisfy the concerns of all the above users; of course, this will change as (hopefully) the other users post their case summaries.
*The weasel words in the article, such as "many" and "in general", are to be removed replaced with specific terms that cite their sources.
*The  template is to be removed and any attempts to place it back on the article - particularly by anonymous users or frequent 3RR violators - are to be removed unless discussed and gained consensus on Talk:Jews for Jesus.
*The article is to be cleaned out by a neutral third party, possibly from CUTF, in accordance with WP:NPOV.
Your feedback on this is appreciated. Regards,Anthonycfc [T • C] 17:58, 15 January 2007 (UTCSee #Draft 2 for rewritten version.
:I would go for having a neutral third party look at the article, so long as it's someone we can all agree on and we can all have feedback in the matter. I do object, however, to the invocation of "weasel words" here. WP:WEASEL is meant to address one specific problem-use of weasel words to "sneak in" unsourced opinion (e.g. "Most people think that the Beatles were the best band ever."). However, it is not weasel-wording to say "Many critics state that the Beatles were the best band ever", when one has right there source cites from eight different critics saying exactly that. In this case, however, it would be misleading to simply say "Critics state that the Beatles were the best band ever" without the qualifier-that's leading the reader to believe that all critics say so. The second scenario is more what we have here-we have ample evidence that most Jewish groups oppose JfJ, but we can't possibly source every last one of them. In a case like that, the use of "many" or "most" or "several" isn't weaseling-it's sourced and accurate. Seraphimblade 21:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anthony, you have expressed your POV (it seems you have taken one side without explanation) and suggested that the article should be entrusted to someone most likely lacking knowledge of the subjects involved. I don't see where is a "compromise" here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must disagree here; I am simply drawing conclusions together from the various summaries above; I would appreciate if you refrained from calling into question my neutrality - it is probably my most valued quality. As you can see, if you are of the opinion that the above draft does not benefit everyone, all it takes is to state what you think should be changed and I will implement accordingly. My apologies if I seem a little irritated, but we are not here to brandish POV claims - we are here to civilly resolve this dispute which I see as very important, and I am anxious to have the compromise/solution benefit everyone. Therefore, I invite you to post your opinion on what you wish to see changed, and as I have said I will implement is accordingly as much as possible. Kindest regards, Anthonycfc [T • C] 18:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Humus, what would you think of having a neutral third-party come in and working on a "draft" copy of the article in userspace, as I suggested earlier? That way, we'd all have a chance for feedback on the changes before they hit the main copy, but we'd also have the advantage that we'd know they were made by someone not involved in the argument. Anthony (and anyone else) please throw in your thoughts as well. (To add to previous) I think someone "without knowledge" might be valuable-we should be writing articles from sources, not from our own knowledge. If anything, lack of personal knowledge makes that easier. Seraphimblade 19:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tend to think that 'someone "without knowledge"' about the subject should read encyclopedias rather than write them. If I have to commit to accept unknown changes by a mysterious "neutral third-party", then the answer is no. If not, then anyone can start a draft in the userspace at any time, we don't need a mediation for that. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Antony, this comment seems one-sided, especially without hearing other parts. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would you be willing to address my numbered suggestions below?  I'd guess Anthony is waiting to see what the reception to that method will be from the other side.  Thanks, Mackan79 22:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, Humus and Mackan.  I think that according to Draft 3, the neutral party will perform the change blindly (without our input), and then we'll have an opportunity to comment on any changes, so no Humus you will not have to accept anything.  To Mackan--I see you suggestions, and disagree with some but we should either accept or refuse to have the 3rd party do his draft before making any suggestions. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree, I mostly intended to provide this as another option.  I'll agree to a neutral arbiter if it looks feasible, as in if it won't take months or years.  I think we'd have to decide at the end of everything if we all agree, no matter what, right?  My suggestions are simply a plan B.  Mackan79 23:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be willing to have a neutral party look at the article. Of course, in the end, the new version wouldn't be binding per se, but I certainly think it would be wise for all of us to agree to think hard before changing such a version, or rejecting it. Seraphimblade 23:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: (Humus sapiens) the comment was made because I am on his side - just like I am on your side, and Ramsquire's side, and every editor's side; I am a neutral third party, and I do not hold a particular stance in the matter. I was simply commenting that the proposed change does sucessfully implement WP:NPOV. Please - there is no need to hound me; I am striving to maintain neutrality in all circumstances. Regarding the case, you are not willing to have another editor draw up a draft, and you (and all the other editors) approve or decline it as you see fit? If this is the case, I would be most grateful for you to perhaps suggest an alternative? Kindest regards, Anthonycfc [T • C] 00:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  An alternative would be to base on evidence and not on original research. I am not trying to be difficult: let's use WP policies like WP:RS, WP:NOR, etc. and not invent new rules on the spot. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I apologise, but where exactly are we "making up policies"? Regards, Anthonycfc [T • C] 21:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Will the third party be allowed to engage (i.e. argue his position) editors who disagree with his proposed edits?  I am concerned that if consensus is clearly one way, but there is one holdout editor, then said editor can block a consensus change.  But if the 3rd party is allowed to debate, then he may sway other editors to whatever POV he may have.  I think it may be best to just have said editor simply present his draft with changes and then have the editors discuss any disagreements amongst ourselves. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 01:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have implemented your change to Draft 3; other editors' input on the fix would be great. Anthonycfc [T • C] 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Are there even actually third parties which help with Mediation cases like this, I thought there were large backlogs in many of these projects like the Cleanup Taskforce, I see their banners on some talk pages from time to time dated from months ago... Homestarmy 01:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There may or may not be a backlog - however, this is a priority case and I am sure we could locate one or two editors from the CUTF (or otherwise) without going via the main requests page. Other than this, are you happy with the new compromise? Anthonycfc [T • C] 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft Compromises 

message: I have drawn an overview of the dispute from Seraphimblade's summary, Mackan79's summary, Homestarmy's summary and Humus sapiens's summary. From this overview, I have drew up this draft compromise which I believe is the most efficient way to satisfy the concerns of all the above users; of course, this will change as (hopefully) the other users post their case summaries.
*The weasel words in the article, such as "many" and "in general", are to be removed replaced with specific terms that cite their sources.
*The  template is to be removed and any attempts to place it back on the article - particularly by anonymous users or frequent 3RR violators - are to be removed unless discussed and gained consensus on Talk:Jews for Jesus.
*The article is to be cleaned out by a neutral third party, possibly from CUTF, in accordance with WP:NPOV.
Your feedback on this is appreciated. Regards,Anthonycfc [T • C] 17:58, 15 January 2007 (UTCSee #Draft 2 for rewritten version.
:I would go for having a neutral third party look at the article, so long as it's someone we can all agree on and we can all have feedback in the matter. I do object, however, to the invocation of "weasel words" here. WP:WEASEL is meant to address one specific problem-use of weasel words to "sneak in" unsourced opinion (e.g. "Most people think that the Beatles were the best band ever."). However, it is not weasel-wording to say "Many critics state that the Beatles were the best band ever", when one has right there source cites from eight different critics saying exactly that. In this case, however, it would be misleading to simply say "Critics state that the Beatles were the best band ever" without the qualifier-that's leading the reader to believe that all critics say so. The second scenario is more what we have here-we have ample evidence that most Jewish groups oppose JfJ, but we can't possibly source every last one of them. In a case like that, the use of "many" or "most" or "several" isn't weaseling-it's sourced and accurate. Seraphimblade 21:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft 1 

message: I have drawn an overview of the dispute from Seraphimblade's summary, Mackan79's summary, Homestarmy's summary and Humus sapiens's summary. From this overview, I have drew up this draft compromise which I believe is the most efficient way to satisfy the concerns of all the above users; of course, this will change as (hopefully) the other users post their case summaries.
*The  template is to be removed and any attempts to place it back on the article - particularly by anonymous users or frequent 3RR violators - are to be removed unless discussed and gained consensus on Talk:Jews for Jesus.
*The article is to be cleaned out by a neutral third party, possibly from CUTF, in accordance with WP:NPOV
**Said third party should attempt to cleanup the article in accordance with WP:WEASEL.
Your feedback on this is appreciated.
Regards,Anthonycfc [T • C] 21:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anthony, you have expressed your POV (it seems you have taken one side without explanation) and suggested that the article should be entrusted to someone most likely lacking knowledge of the subjects involved. I don't see where is a "compromise" here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must disagree here; I am simply drawing conclusions together from the various summaries above; I would appreciate if you refrained from calling into question my neutrality - it is probably my most valued quality. As you can see, if you are of the opinion that the above draft does not benefit everyone, all it takes is to state what you think should be changed and I will implement accordingly. My apologies if I seem a little irritated, but we are not here to brandish POV claims - we are here to civilly resolve this dispute which I see as very important, and I am anxious to have the compromise/solution benefit everyone. Therefore, I invite you to post your opinion on what you wish to see changed, and as I have said I will implement is accordingly as much as possible. Kindest regards, Anthonycfc [T • C] 18:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Humus, what would you think of having a neutral third-party come in and working on a "draft" copy of the article in userspace, as I suggested earlier? That way, we'd all have a chance for feedback on the changes before they hit the main copy, but we'd also have the advantage that we'd know they were made by someone not involved in the argument. Anthony (and anyone else) please throw in your thoughts as well. (To add to previous) I think someone "without knowledge" might be valuable-we should be writing articles from sources, not from our own knowledge. If anything, lack of personal knowledge makes that easier. Seraphimblade 19:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tend to think that 'someone "without knowledge"' about the subject should read encyclopedias rather than write them. If I have to commit to accept unknown changes by a mysterious "neutral third-party", then the answer is no. If not, then anyone can start a draft in the userspace at any time, we don't need a mediation for that. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Antony, this comment seems one-sided, especially without hearing other parts. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would you be willing to address my numbered suggestions below?  I'd guess Anthony is waiting to see what the reception to that method will be from the other side.  Thanks, Mackan79 22:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, Humus and Mackan.  I think that according to Draft 3, the neutral party will perform the change blindly (without our input), and then we'll have an opportunity to comment on any changes, so no Humus you will not have to accept anything.  To Mackan--I see you suggestions, and disagree with some but we should either accept or refuse to have the 3rd party do his draft before making any suggestions. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree, I mostly intended to provide this as another option.  I'll agree to a neutral arbiter if it looks feasible, as in if it won't take months or years.  I think we'd have to decide at the end of everything if we all agree, no matter what, right?  My suggestions are simply a plan B.  Mackan79 23:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be willing to have a neutral party look at the article. Of course, in the end, the new version wouldn't be binding per se, but I certainly think it would be wise for all of us to agree to think hard before changing such a version, or rejecting it. Seraphimblade 23:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: (Humus sapiens) the comment was made because I am on his side - just like I am on your side, and Ramsquire's side, and every editor's side; I am a neutral third party, and I do not hold a particular stance in the matter. I was simply commenting that the proposed change does sucessfully implement WP:NPOV. Please - there is no need to hound me; I am striving to maintain neutrality in all circumstances. Regarding the case, you are not willing to have another editor draw up a draft, and you (and all the other editors) approve or decline it as you see fit? If this is the case, I would be most grateful for you to perhaps suggest an alternative? Kindest regards, Anthonycfc [T • C] 00:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  An alternative would be to base on evidence and not on original research. I am not trying to be difficult: let's use WP policies like WP:RS, WP:NOR, etc. and not invent new rules on the spot. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I apologise, but where exactly are we "making up policies"? Regards, Anthonycfc [T • C] 21:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft 2

message: *The  template is to be removed and any attempts to place it back on the article - particularly by anonymous users or frequent 3RR violators - are to be removed unless discussed and gained consensus on Talk:Jews for Jesus.

*The article is to be cleaned out by a neutral third party, possibly from CUTF, in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL; however the third party should indicate his/her planned edits in a clearly marked subpage of Jews for Jesus, for example Jews for Jesus/Draft. draw up a draft of the changes they wish to implement. All users involved in the mediation will have an opportunity to object to any planned edits that they believe fall foul of more specific guidelines on what the disputing users wish to have changed, which will be drawn up at a later date if all parties are agreeable. Any edits objected to will not be implemented by the cleanup editor; any edits not stated clearly in the cleanup guidelines and that have not been posted beforehand are to be blank-reverted. (My main worry is that this may result in a technical edit war if the editor wishes to edit the article as a neutral party and normal editor, and any edits are henceforth reverted in accordance with the above; perhaps it should therefore be necessary for the cleanup editor to indicate that he/she is acting upon this case in the edit summary.)
Your feedback on this is appreciated.
Regards,Anthonycfc [T • C] 21:44, 16 January 2007 
(UTC)
:Will the third party be allowed to engage (i.e. argue his position) editors who disagree with his proposed edits?  I am concerned that if consensus is clearly one way, but there is one holdout editor, then said editor can block a consensus change.  But if the 3rd party is allowed to debate, then he may sway other editors to whatever POV he may have.  I think it may be best to just have said editor simply present his draft with changes and then have the editors discuss any disagreements amongst ourselves. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 01:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have implemented your change to Draft 3; other editors' input on the fix would be great. Anthonycfc [T • C] 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there even actually third parties which help with Mediation cases like this, I thought there were large backlogs in many of these projects like the Cleanup Taskforce, I see their banners on some talk pages from time to time dated from months ago... Homestarmy 01:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There may or may not be a backlog - however, this is a priority case and I am sure we could locate one or two editors from the CUTF (or otherwise) without going via the main requests page. Other than this, are you happy with the new compromise? Anthonycfc [T • C] 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft 3

message: If you have some qualms about the Compromise immediately above (Final 1) please don't outright disagree - instead go to the comments section and raise your issues. Obviously, if you refuse to accept the above then disagree below.
Your attention is directed to Final Compromise 2 at the bottom of this page.
#Support -- Ramsquire (throw me a line) 01:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Agree/Disagree: Final Compromise 1

message: There's apparently a Wikiproject which is set up specifically to handle NPOV issues. Would anyone object to filing a request with them to look over the article? Seraphimblade 01:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you like to make this part of the solution - rather than asking the CUTF to cleanup the article, place a request with WikiProject NPOV? Regards, Anthonycfc [T • C] 01:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there would be no objections from you or the other participants, they might be better-suited, since that's people who specifically deal with neutrality and that's the main issue of debate here. Seraphimblade 01:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully, everybody is in agreement to this. Disputing editors are invited to respond below; cheers, Anthonycfc [T • C] 01:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick question, sorry: so is this just that we're turning it over to them and hoping for the best, and then deal with it on our own after that?  Will we have any opportunity to discuss with those editors?  I'll agree either way, but a little more info might be helpful. Mackan79 02:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My intentions are to set up a JfD/subpage collaboration between editors on the NPOV project and yourselves; it would be similar to the first final draft, where edits are to be shown and approved, and any disputed edits are to be discussed and debated by all the users involved in the mediation. Hope this clears things up. Anthonycfc [T • C] 03:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it seems everyone is in agreement, shall we go ahead and make the request? Anthony, I think maybe it's best if you make the request, to avoid any possible appearance of partisanship in its wording? Seraphimblade 11:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion from [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]]

message: 1. -- the article is listed at the Neutrality Project's #new requests section.
This may appear simple, but it seems like both the most efficient and the most effective way of resolving this dispute. 
Anthonycfc [T • C] 01:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My pet hate is disambiguous answers, but I'll need to swallow my pride: yes, and no. Although it is a step to implementing compromise 1, it is completely independent, and compromise 1 has been archived. However, all the key points from C1 that were agreed upon are above and below ( discussion) and therefore this could be considered a step towards implementing C1. Anthonycfc [T • C] 17:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what you meant by "disambiguous answers".  I do believe I am entitled to have an explanation of what I am being asked to vote on.  I have been given that explanation and have changed my vote accordingly.  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Final Compromise (2)

message: Please place agree/disagree below:
#Agree. Seraphimblade 01:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Agree/Disagree: Final Compromise (2)

message: Feel free to read my Defer votes as Agree. As I said earlier, I will accept any revision that is based on evidence and WP policies. So far I see just another deferral. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My pet hate is disambiguous answers, but I'll need to swallow my pride: yes, and no. Although it is a step to implementing compromise 1, it is completely independent, and compromise 1 has been archived. However, all the key points from C1 that were agreed upon are above and below ( discussion) and therefore this could be considered a step towards implementing C1. Anthonycfc [T • C] 17:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what you meant by "disambiguous answers".  I do believe I am entitled to have an explanation of what I am being asked to vote on.  I have been given that explanation and have changed my vote accordingly.  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments: Final Compromise (2)

message: 1. -- the above template will be entirely removed from the article.
===Agree/Disagree:  Proposal===
#Agree. Seraphimblade 01:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{[[Template:Christianity|Christianity]]}}

message: #Agree. Seraphimblade 01:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Agree/Disagree: {{[[Template:Christianity|Christianity]]}} Proposal

message: #Though it [the template] is gone now, it seems I didn't notice it, but when I was trying to revert someone I was doing it manually so the page wouldn't waste so much time loading, and it seems I left it removed when I didn't notice the editor had removed it :/.) Homestarmy
#I am not convinced, but I'll make a compromise here to demonstrate good faith. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments: {{[[Template:Christianity|Christianity]]}} Proposal

message: This dispute increasingly resembles a medieval disputation: compare the issues we discuss today and Disputation of Barcelona#Proceedings of 1263. Welcome to 2007: it seems that attacks on the most basic principles of Judaism are not regarded uncivil. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who do you believe has made such an attack, and how? Seraphimblade 22:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing out that article, I was able to fix a rather unusual mistake, it seems the original author wrote a sentence I have now changed that implicitly suggested that Christianity is comprised of only, if not mostly by, Oneness Pentecostals alone. Homestarmy 23:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, you wrote it Humus, well, now I feel stupid. Eh, I helped you out anyway, the article I wikilinked explains it all. Homestarmy 23:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. That content (copied from PD source) is yet to be reworked. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This mediation