Talk:Jews for Jesus/Archive 2

message: Trying to understand what is Jews for Jesus is all about. Jewman 15:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Im personally not entirely certain. On the surface, they seem to be an evangelical organization which concentrates its efforts in the Israel area, specifically concerning trying to evangelize to Jews. (Religiously Jews I mean) There are a few oddities that i've seen however, they seem to be under the impression that modern day Judaism is somehow compatable with Christianity, (It's not, things were re-written hundreds of years ago I think in Rabbinic Judaism specifically to write Jesus out, something about Jesus not fulfilling prophecies in a manner quick enough for people's liking or something) and that Christianity "compleats" this Judaism, which doesn't seem entirely accurate. I'm also uncertain on how exactly they evangelize, of course with any evangelical organization basically you'll get plenty of complainers who want to stir up trouble simply because they don't like evangelism at all, but there's of course been the rather typical accusations of bullying, strong-arm tactics, etc. etc., which may or may not be true. I haven't read into much detail with this organization though, im afraid I can't enlighten you beyond the basics. Homestarmy 00:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh beleive me, its vandalism -- this is clearly not a part of the series on christianity.   None of the editors putting it up have explained how this is a part of the seris on christianity, but they continue to put in text that says "part of the series on christianity". Justforasecond 00:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Several categories can be applied:  christianity, judaism, missionary groups, evangelistic groups.   We don't need just a single category to describe groups.  Justforasecond 00:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Justforasecond, have you even read WP:VANDAL? Because it seriously does only apply to comprimising the integrity of pages, and it specifically mentions at the bottom that POV pushing is not vandalism. Homestarmy 00:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup I read it.   This is not a POV dispute.   It's not a matter of saying "J4J is deceitful" (which is POV) it is saying that "This article is part of the seris on christianity".....it isn't.  It is information that is easily verifiable as untrue (just read the list).   Knowingly inserting false information into an article is vandalism.   The first few times people put this template up there may have been some question as to whether it belonged, but I've said it enough times now that there's little question anymore.  Justforasecond 00:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, "series" links to the general christian category. Often similar templates are used even when they aren't listed on the main template (would you prefer if the template instead said something like "This article is a Christianity related article" or something similar). JoshuaZ 01:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that if they keep inserting it, then they don't think it's wrong. Of course, that doesn't make them right, but "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism". Homestarmy 01:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information 

message: As of July 2006 there is an extensive ad campaign in New York City subways; and the campaign is beginning to advertise on the radio.  This is billed as "Jesus for Jews".
Is there any connection?
:Can you give any links? It certainly sounds related, though there is more than one Messianic Judaism evangelism based organization out there i'd figure. Homestarmy 21:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone added in concerning this same event apparently, they may of been mis-representing a certain person's religious affiliation in an attempt to garner support, which seems sort of deceptive. Can't people just use the Law in evangelism to bring about repentence, instead of putting people's faces on tracts and saying "Look, this guy's Christian (supposedly), why don't you come join him?" Homestarmy 00:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Jews for Jesus. The pamphlet is on their website: . Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 07:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus for Jews

message: Could someone please specify which points specifically they found to be problematic? I am Jewish and I just skimmed the article, and I think this, for the most part, fairly represents this Messianic cult that aims for the elimination of Jews. Also I did not see specific descussion on the talk page about which problems there were with POV. - Abscissa 20:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Elimination of Jews? You know, deciding to no longer be a Jew religion-wise doesn't mean you've been "eliminated", this isn't like one of those laser tag games. (You know, "YOU HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED FROM THE GAME!!!! and whatnot) :D Homestarmy 00:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if I don't understand, but isn't it possible to be Jewish and also believe in Jesus?   I'm not sure about the NPOV issues but there were some paragraphs that were uncited.  Justforasecond 03:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would make you Christian. Jesus was Jewish, not Chrisitan. There is no other way to define it. - Abscissa 04:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So Jesus didn't believe he himself existed?   Did he ever say he wasn't Jewish?   Or was he excommunicated after death?  Justforasecond 04:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say since Jesus was sort of, you know, the Son of God, He was a bit more than simply "Jewish". Besides, it doesn't matter what religion you are, if you're ethnically Jewish, you can't change that really. Homestarmy 12:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality? 

message: this article is not, as far as i can tell, part of the series on christianity.   it isn't in very good condition and doesn't show up on the list of articles in the christianity template.
Justforasecond 03:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This absolutely positively belongs as part of the series on Christianity. Removing this article would be grounds to remove "moromonism" , "anglicanism", "the united church" and virtually every other splinter group that supports Jesus. The fact that they call themselves "Jews" is grounds for absolutely nothing. If there were a group called "Jews for Hitler" the amount of benefit they would get by calling themselves "Jews" is exactly 0%. - Abscissa 04:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mormonism, "Anglicanism", the "United Church" look, are mainstream Chritian Denominations with Millions of Members.  In contrast, look at Navigators, Teen Challenge, Young Life,Youth with a Mission, non those organizations have the "christianity template because the are small fringe missionary organizations, Yet they are all much larger than than Jews for Jesus. this artlcle is about the organization of "Jews for Jesus" which has no public membership, and only and only has about 100 employees, MCohen 08:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I encourage you to work on a template  or . Until we have it, this one is the best we've got. I would oppose attempts to remove it, and I would oppose attempts to paint JFJ as a Jewish or Jewish-Christian group. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Guys, this article can be related to Christianity and not be a part of the series on christianity.    The wikipedia series  are usually collections of high quality articles and the articles that are part of the series are usually linked in the template.   Here's a reality check for anyone that says "It has Jesus in the title, therefore it is part of the sesries on Christianity".   Well is this article a part of the series on judaism because it has "Jews" in the title?   Justforasecond 04:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it is still unclear that (notwithstanding what they call themselves) they are not Jews, then the template is even more needed. I understand the sensitivities and would prefer to avoid bad feelings, so I welcome suggestions for a better template. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here, you are openly stating that your purpose for having  the template has nothing to do with the purpose of the template, but rather to support the assertion that Jews for Jesus is an organization of Gentiles, an assertion that is not only POV, but verifiably false.  The very assertion that this article needs a template, to prevent people from thinking Jews for Jesus are Jews, is proof that your goal is not neutral, and because of yur lack of neutrality on the subject matter,  I request that you recuse yourself from any administrative interventions in this article, and leave such duties to those who are less passionatly opinionated about the subject matter.MCohen 19:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  It seems to me that precedent for the Christianity template to be placed on articles has to do with particular denominations or relatively large groups of people and/or important doctrines in Christianity. Since JfJ seems to have, what, just 100 employees, what's next, does the template go on pages mentioning 50 supposed Christians, 20, 10, or even on every single individual page listed in :Category:Christian people? Also, the "Series on Christianity" sort of thing is supposed to be on important parts and aspects of Christianity. This organization is indeed notable for various reasons on its own, but is it an important part and/or aspect of Christianity, which an encyclopedia should note in a section on Christianity or else risk being incompleate on coverage of Christianity? And, furthermore, the article does now come right out in the first few sentences and say "Their beliefs are not compatible with Judaism", if anyone can read that sentence and still say "No, Wikipedia is compleatly wrong", will the template convince them to think otherwise? Homestarmy 01:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You "logically reversed" logic is wrong. Where did you get the idea that only the articles listed in the template should include it? ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  i never said anything about "listed in the template", I said "merit inclusiuon in the series", which you STILL have not addressed.  MCohen 19:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed "christianity" 

message: One recent citation supposedly proved that Christian groups oppose Jews for Jesus
Here's what the article says:
"Churches are bound by the principle of accepting the self-definition of other religious groups. Those that call themselves Messianic Jews, Hebrew Christians or Jews for Jesus have to be accepted in their own right. However, such groups should not be considered to be representative of the Jewish community nor are they representative of the Christian community. Church-Jewish relationships depend upon direct relations between the Churches and Jewish groups."
It doesn't say anything about Christian groups opposing Jews for Jesus.
The next does not mention Jews for Jesus at all 
The next does not have Christians criticizing Jews for Jesus specifically, just "Many mainstream Christians groups and leaders such as the Presbyterian Church USA, the Roman Catholic Church, and Billy Graham have said that missionary work targeting Jews is at least “theologically invalid” and at worst that it “dishonors G-d.”"
The next doesn't mention *any* Christians that oppose Jews for Jesus. 
I don't think the claim that Christian churches oppose J4J is untrue, but these citations are no good.  I'm going to remove this editor's citations because I don't think its worhwhile to have to determine which are truthful and which aren't.
Please be sure to include only legitimate citations.   
Thanks!
Justforasecond 04:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not how WP works, my friend. You blindly reverted, removing all the new links. In addition you edited out important points such as fundamental difference between Christianity and Judaism, vitally important here. This one time I'll give you a benefit of a doubt and assume good faith. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This sounds like more an issue of how the information in the links is presented rather than the content itself. Are you saying the citations given are invalid, or that how Wikipedia represents the content is incorrect? Homestarmy 12:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The links point to real articles, sometimes even mentioning Jews for Jesus(!) but they were presented inline as if they proved Christian groups opposed Jews for Jesus (they didn't).   After looking into several of them and finding them lacking, I removed all of them.   You can't put 10 citations in an article and expect other editors to look up every single one of them when the first four were illegit.   This is not a blind revert -- it was actually a lot of work (see all the writing above?)   Justforasecond 14:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is the first time I hear that adding 10 citations is bad. "Illegit" is your POV. There is nothing wrong with a quote "missionary work targeting Jews is at least “theologically invalid” and at worst that it “dishonors G-d.”" ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhhh, are you saying there is nothing wrong with the fact that at least some of the citations you passed off as proving Christian groups oppose J4J did not say *anything* about J4J, and others mentioned J4J only in passing?   Hmmmmmm Justforasecond 21:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, hold up here, Justforasecond, if some of the citations don't name the group but instead simply refer to a mission similar to this group, then that doesn't mean the citations get to be deleted, it can also mean the actual content can be re-written to more accuratly reflect the sources, for instance, "So and so directly critizised JfJ personally" can be re-written to read: "So and so notable person says concerning what groups such as JfJ engage in is bad or something". And nextly, since this is the Jews for Jesus article and not the Christian Evangelism for Jews, don't you, Humus, think that if the citations more accuratly reflected the more general trend on opinion concerning evangelism towareds evangelizing to jews instead of actually concerning Jews for Jesus personally, that having so many citations and groups named in such detail is quite a bit more than necessary? Homestarmy 21:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The links are there because the article says "All mainstream Jewish groups..." ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  It appears that Justforasecond is trying to say that some of those citations don't actually name Jews for Jesus itself, which would therefore mean that some citations may not support the statement "...strongly oppose Jews for Jesus". Homestarmy 22:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The list has been reworked since then. Suggestions, improvements, constructive criticism are most welcome. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad citations 

message: its clear there are some anti J4J people here.   i encourage you to put aside your biases and edit in the spirit of wiki.   putting in misleading citations or citations calling J4J "evil" and using generalizations like "all mainstream jewish groups" oppose J4J will not improve the article.   remember, wiki is not a soapbox.
Justforasecond 23:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: oh please. drseudo (t) 00:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Golden words. Change "anti" to "pro" and read it aloud. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I gotta give Just some credit though, possible mis-representation's of WP:V aside, his first sentence does seem accurate. Homestarmy 00:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: A couple of us who are involved are Jews and we seem not to be ashamed as this information is clearly posted on our user information pages. This does not necessarily make us biased. While I cannot speak for my fellow editors, I am an extremely liberal Jew personally and call for the liberation of Palestine, for example, but in any event as a Jew I would say I have an "above average" awareness of this organisation and its goals. I would also say I have an "above average" awareness of Scientology, for example (nothing to do with Judaism). A NPOV description of Scientology might describe them as a religious group of people interested in exploring metaphysical principles blah blah, which is demonstrably false. It is also demonstrably false that "Jews for Jesus" is a bunch of friendly, Torah-loving, humble, Wailing-wall hugging red sea pedestrians who happen to worship Jesus as G-d through happenstance. By traditional definiton, their very acceptance of "Jesus" as anyone other than a nice Jew makes them Christian. - Abscissa 00:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold on a minute, where does the JfJ website say that they either love the Torah or hug the wailing wall? (and how does one even hug the wailing wall anyway, isn't it sort of flat?) And on Scientology, the references for that article pretty much speak for themselves, and the article properly states that Scientology "claims" to be a self-help group and whatnot. (at least it did when I read the intro about 25 seconds ago). Homestarmy 00:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow it seems that all of us are ashamed to identify these people with our religion?!?!? I'm leaving here before Fred Phelps gets involved. - Abscissa 00:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be glad to of supported these guys earlier in our latest conversation because, at face value, their website seems quite reasonable and their mission appears good, except for one slight problem: I can't find any sort of mission or belief statement anywhere on their website. This is very suspicious to me, how am I supposed to know if their website presents the whole story if they won't even show what they believe up front and center besides "evangelizing to Jews"? (which is vauge and can mean several things) I don't like the idea of depending on Religioustolerance.com to tell me what people believe because first of all I don't agree with how it claims I personally believe in things, (thus making me not consider it credible on its own) and secondly because it doesn't specify how it discerned JfJ's beliefs. Who knows if their article found them all? Homestarmy 00:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to summarize their beliefs: .   There is a lot of other info on the website but I had to click on a few things before finding the beliefs.  Justforasecond 02:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, there it is heh. Homestarmy 12:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bias in this article 

message: The introduction now reads:Jews for Jesus is a Christian [1] [2] Evangelical [3] organization based in the United States with the goal of Jewish people as to the divinity of Jesus.This is not an English sentence, so I am reverting the last edit on that basis alone. Other than that, the edits look okay, with the exception of the bizarre insertion of 'discriminatory.' drseudo (t) 18:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest round of revisions 

message: This is regarding this edit: . I don't think this sentence belongs in the intro (or anywhere in this particular article, for that matter). The article talks about irreconcilable differences and an unbridgeable schism. Perhaps we could include Jewish history and History of Christianity as see also. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; it seems to have nothing to do with the topic or the article. Jayjg (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abrahamic religions 

message: I've significantly trimmed the following statement:
:Jews for Jesus, however, has responded on their website to the allegations, stating that "We hope once you read it [the pamphlet] you will agree that we treat Mr. Mason respectfully and that we in no way say that he is a follower of Jesus." and attempts to explain that the pamphlet does not proclaim Mason to be a Christian at all.
The purpose of the litigation section, as far as I can tell, is to list and briefly describe the nature of various legal actions related to JFJ; it is NOT a format to hash out the allegations on behalf of the parties involved. I think noting that JFJ has responded, and referencing that response, is enough for the purposes of this section.Darthmix 18:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, the entire point of mentioning anyone in the first place is to hash out the allegations people are making, so yes, it is indeed a place to hash out allegations. If Mason's claim is described, (accompanied by the assertive "He is, in fact, a Jew") then not describing JfJ's response looks one-sided. Homestarmy 19:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The point of mentioning the lawsuit is NOT to hash out the arguments surrounding the allegations. Noting the allegations of the plaintiff is tantamount to describing the lawsuit; I can't imagine describing the lawsuit without explaining that. Note that when JFJ sues Google, or LAX, we don't devote any space to the defendants' counter-arguments, because this article isn't the format to do that.Darthmix 19:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why does it say that Mason isn't a Christian and that he think JfJ has mis-represented him, that is his allegation after all and the second thing is supporting it. Besides, there doesn't need to be a format to respond, just do it, and anyone is free to add in the arguments of Google or LAX. Homestarmy 21:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I included that because I couldn't see any other way to explain what the lawsuit was about. If the sentence "In fact, Mason is a member of the Jewish faithand not associated with JFJ" is what's bothering you, and you can cut it or trim it in a way that the entry still makes sense, then I'm fine with that. I just think the litigation section is essentially meant to be a list of the different cases with brief explanation of what they're about; it's not meant to be a forum for us to present 'either' sides specific arguments about those allegations. Linking to JFJ's response, which I'm okay with, is more than we do for the defendents in any of the other cases; if we allow both sides to respond to each other's arguments in each case, this article could go on forever.Darthmix 21:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, we only have to have a single sentence or two to show the rebuttle. Homestarmy 02:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jackie Mason lawsuit

message: Surely somewhere we should mention that this statement is agreed with by Christians, and also by Jews for Jesus, although other Jews apparrently don't consider their interpretation acceptable. DJ Clayworth 18:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure in what context you would want to say that, or what exactly it would be adding to the article. Can you explain? Jayjg (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The point being that JFJ would say that they do believe in only one God, but that other Jews think they don't. DJ Clayworth 20:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's a fundamental difference between Judaism and Christianity; Judaism says you can only worship one God, Christianity (including J4J) says you must worship a Trinity.  Doesn't the lead cover that? Jayjg (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it just says "This position is Christian and is incompatible with Judaism", the body is where the article tries to explain. (A bit too succintly in my opinion). Homestarmy 21:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One God and One God Only

message: This page was horribly POV; I am an atheist and have no vested interest in either doctrine (Christianity or Judaism); it was objectively obvious that this article was rhetorically skewed towards those who claim Judaism and a belief in a divine Christ are incompatible.  And that is, of course, begging the question.  I deleted the Christianity tag for that reason, cleaned up some of the more egregious dogmatic attacks, and removed "citations" which referred to clearly prejudiced sites.
Whether or not Judaism is compatible with a belief in Christ is not a syntactic question with an unambiguous answer.  And indeed, it's irrelevant to this page, which should be only an empirical discussion of this specific religious group.  It suffices to say something like: 'Jews for Jesus believe one can be both Jewish and believe in a divine Christ; most Jewish groups disagree'.ParadoxTom 20:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop removing properly sourced information from the article, and please read WP:NPOV. NPOV means you quote various authoritative sources on a position, not that you find some mythical "neutral" middle ground. Jayjg (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored Jayjg's post above that I see was deleted.  ParadoxTom, it doesn't matter what your personal beliefs are (atheist, Jew, Christian).  As editors, we merely present extant viewpoints from  reliable sources.  Please don't delete sourced material.  Thanks. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MPerel, those "references" are not properly sourced.  They do not represent an empirically accurate viewpoint, but instead seek to advance a prejudiced ideology.  This article should not be a theological discussion but an empirical description of JfJParadoxTom 01:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I at least think that the Christianity tag is okay because JFJ doesn't deny being a Christian organization; their status as one is not among the (many) points of controversey in this article. Whether or not they are also a Jewish organization is a more complicated question, but they definitely belong to the category of Christianity.Darthmix 21:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the Christianity template is not the same as the "Christianity" category at the bottom, the template is supposed to be on articles which are, simply put, fairly important and/or instrumental to Christianity and the development of Christianity. Jews for Jesus has not influenced Christianity as a whole really much at all, and if an encyclopedia had a section on Christianity but did not mention Jews for Jesus, the encyclopedia would not be insufficiently broad. If, as some editors propose, that any organization that claims to be Christian should have the template, I can think of several law organizations in the U.S., (Alliance Defense Fund, ACLJ, Thomas More Law center, Trinity Broadcasting Network (if I spelled all that right)) and a very long list of persons, John Hagee who runs Cornerstone ministries, D. James Kennedy who founded the Center for Reclaiming America and Knox theological seimnary, The Way of the Master which is the evangelistic program which I basically learned how to evangelize good from, and an increadible list of other articles which should have the Christianity template spammed on them like mad. This is not how the Christianity template has been used in the past, and there is absolutly no reason to use it here that makes sense now that the intro says "This position is Christianity, considered incompatible with Judaism". Homestarmy 21:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I guess that seems fair with regard to the tag. But the article should continue to indentify JFJ as a Christian Evangelical oganization, since that point isn't really in dispute.Darthmix 22:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My first edit ever

message: Twenty seconds after the thoughtful changes I had spent thirty minutes on were included, someone apparently simply repasted the original, POV text.  Is this the typical modus operandi on Wikipedia?  Is there any point to making contributions?  Again, this was my first edit, and I must say I'm slightly confused.  I would appreciate an e-mail addressing whether or not "contributing" here is worth my time.
MPerel asked why the "sourced material" was removed: it was removed because (1) it was factually incorrect, and (2) it was being used as a POV instantiation of a NPOV remark.
:It's not the typical method of editing, but this article is currently in a rather heated dispute, and therefore, sudden changes (The vast majority of which were deletions) are bound to cause people to revert you. With situations like this, you've really gotta do a step by step thing. Homestarmy 21:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it; done.ParadoxTom 01:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I don't get it

message: Removed the 'Christianity' label; that is begging the quesion as an issue of subjective interpretation.  Some would consider JfJ a Christian organziation; others would not--and there are no objective decision criteria because the predicate 'is Christian' is not testable as an empirical matter.  Consequently, any assignation is by definition POV.
Second, the opening statement was wildly POV, "sourced" by reference to clearly POV sites.  That a website exists that claims JfJ is Christian does not make it so, just as the existence of a website that claims JfJ is Jewish does not make it so.  NPOV requires an unprejudiced description.ParadoxTom 01:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ParadoxTom, you are a new user. You seem to misunderstand how WP works. I suggest you get familiar with our policies and guidelines, in particular WP:NOR and WP:RS. Thx. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those have been read and complied with.  It is POV for you to include material referenced from websites containing prejudicial information that happen to align with your personal religious views.  I have no vested interest in either Christianity or Judaism and seek only an honest, NPOV characterization of JfJ for peoples' informational purposes.ParadoxTom 01:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't care about your religious views and you do not know and should not attack what you perceive as others' personal beliefs. You already broke WP:3RR, please refrain from WP:NPA. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we know: clearly, you only care about your own religious views. The point is that this is not the forum to field them. This is supposed to be a dispassionate article about the empirical status of Jews for Jesus--not your own assessment of whether or not they qualify as 'Christian'ParadoxTom 01:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the topic, what "empirical matter" are you talking about? Who, other than you, questions that they are Christian evangelicals? ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, me, for example: presumably them as well.  The point is that with semantic predicates like 'is a Christian', the assignation of atomic entities--viz. 'Jews for Jesus' is an ultimately subjective matter.  It could be discussed elsewhere, and I might very well end up agreeing with you that JfJ are evangelical Christians, but that's not a prima facie fact which should be featured in an encyclopedia.ParadoxTom 01:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  See WP:NOR and check the refs listed in the article. Please assume good faith towards others and do not abuse GF for yourself. It goes only so far. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:NOR is the entire point.  This article needs to be factual and dispassionate.  I do not doubt your motives; only your execution.  It is not in good faith to revert an article which I worked hard to make NPOV to fit your own personal beliefs.ParadoxTom 01:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You do not know nor should you attack personal beliefs of others. I strongly advise you to stop ad hominem. On your "hard work", Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability  calls them both "Christian" and "evangelists". They call them also "Jewish" but that's not up to ECFA to decide. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's exactly the point.  It would be POV of me to state that they are a Jewish organization simply because an entity exists that believes so.  And that citation is appropriate because the sentence merely states a factual claim about JfJ's finances; nothing about their theology.  EFCA is indisputibly correct about JfJ's financial status.  They are very likely wrong about JfJ's doctrinal status.ParadoxTom 02:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  LOL. What do you expect, a certificate from the Pope? You worked hard to remove reliable sources, that is a no-no. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is "LOL"?  I do not understand the Papal reference, also.  The sources I removed were grossly unreliable, grossly POV.  Again, personal theological commentary has no place here.ParadoxTom 02:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is very true that there is absolutely a certain amount of subjectivity in many elements of religion. For example, many Jews choose to follow Kosher. Or some Muslims may be twelvers, others believe in only seven prophets. None of them is "Right" or "wrong". However, other elements contradict the most basic tenents of the religon. No matter who claims it, or why, a logical contradiction creates an impossibility. I **cannot** be a Christian, for e.g., and deny that Jesus ever existed, and that there is no such person as Jesus, etc. Even if some website agrees with me... No matter that these should be my subjective beliefs. - Abscissa 02:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's true, you can't claim it and be a Christian, but some Unitarian Universalists I think believe that and claim to be Christian, and you wouldn't see Wikipedia say "They aren't Christian" most likely. (Unless it was a very out of the way article and we got to it before the NPOV squad did). Homestarmy 02:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I only know about UU what I just read (and I specialised in philosophy and claim to know a lot about religion) but they do not seem to be Christians. Notwithstanding we should stay on topic-- "UU" cannot be linked to the council of Nicea in the same way, for e.g., that orthodox Judaism can be linked to Judaism. - Abscissa 02:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I reverted. This is a lovely organization -- I have attended its services -- but it is a Christian one, a fact somewhat submerged in the article. I do believe Monsignor John M. Oesterreicher wrote an article on evangelicals, including this org, that should be referenced in this article if it is not already. I shall try to track it down. Actually I was thinking of something else. However, I added a couple of paragraphs on the Catholic Church's position on the issue of prosletyzing aimed at Jews, as it seems germane and represents a Christian view different than the one taken by J4J.--Mantanmoreland 03:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor changes

message: Well, I came into Wikipedia with high hopes; they have been dashed.  This site is not a admirable place for the free exchange of information, but a forum for bigoted, unfair, prejudiced polemic.  Instead of a factual article about an empirical matter, JfJ has descended into vacuous blather about whose religion is right.  I spend an hour working on an article in a good-faith, objective effort to make it fair, readable, and informative, and since my description is not in perfect accord with some people's personal religious views, you revert it in an instant and all my work is lost.
So, bye: Encyclopedia Britannica is right and Wikipedia is fatally flawed because it has no standards.  What a waste of time this site is.ParadoxTom 03:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've only been editing one article over an increadibly controversial subject, it's hardly exibitive of all of Wikipedia. Homestarmy 02:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adios

message: Could the anon IP <removed personal info. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No i didn't add these tags, I reverted there removal because the issues that the people who originally added the have not been addressed, if you read the whole discussion you will find the answers to all the questions you jut asked. MCohen 19:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: covers it all, so I took the liberty to remove the rest. Still it needs to be justified. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   as do all of you POV edit, I agree that totally disputed covers most of what peole are concered with. however having a "rainbow of tags" serves the purpose of making it clear that this is a problematic aricle that should not be considered a valid source of information in its present form MCohen 19:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   There is, however, something to be said for being concise. Having three or so templates saying the same thing over and over isn't helpful. Homestarmy 20:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes of course, My comment was a sarcastic response to Humus Sapiens insistence in using the "Series on Christianity" template to "warn" people that this is a Christian organization. MCohen 20:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "that this is a Christian organization" is what JFJ proponents (including you) want to hide, whereas serious encyclopedias should make information accessible and systematize it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  if you really believed that you would be as insistent on including, the template on EVERY other christian article, I don't see you putting it on the Navigators, Young Life or Youth With a Mission articles. so you aren't trying to be systematic or encyclopedic MCohen03:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For whatever this is worth, the reference to these three groups is a red herring.  I had never heard of any of them before, so I looked at the articles, which is difficult for the third group because it has no article.  As for the first two, it is clear from their articles that they are self-avowed Christian organizations, there is no dispute about that on either of their talk pages, the first sentence of each article states their Christian affiliation and they are each in Christianity-related categories.  I think the proponents of either of these groups would be more than happy to see a "Christianity" template on those pages.  I'm guessing that the reason it isn't there is that nobody has gotten around to putting it there.  So there is no analogy to what this discussion is about.  6SJ7 05:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or it might be because the template isn't supposed to be used for articles which are so un-important relatively to Christianity.... Homestarmy 05:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think that falls into the category of "anything is possible."  Because there is no decision-making authority in Wikipedia deciding things like what articles are important or unimportant enough to warrant a particular tag, it is left to the collective actions, inactions and interactions of the users who know about particular articles, templates etc. and do or don't do particular things with them.  As a result, when you wonder why something is or isn't the case with a particular article, especially an article that has not been highly controversial (like the three mentioned above, one of which is so quiet that it doesn't even exist), I think the answer is as likely to be sheer happenstance, as any logical or rational explanation.  That's why I often have to laugh when someone says that so-and-so should or shouldn't happen with "this" article because it did or didn't happen with "that" or "those" articles.  Such a statement assumes, among other things, that everybody who edits a particular article is aware of every other article that someone might think is analogous in some way to every editing controversy that may come up regarding the subject article, and has made a conscious decision to act or not act in certain ways regarding those other articles.  In other words, it assumes a state of facts that, more often than not, does not exist.  Quite often, things happen on Wikipedia just because they happen.  6SJ7 18:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whether anything is possible or not isn't my concern, my concern is that the only reason i've seen for the template to be on the article are for redundant and pointless reasons, plus it sends the ridiculous message that Jews for Jesus is somehow an instrumental Wikipedia article concerning Christianity. Homestarmy 19:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not usually get too concerned over things like templates, categories and things like that, as I think the disputes they cause are often more trouble than any benefit they confer (like in this case, for example.)  However, the facts are that there is a template for a "series on Christianity"; as far as anything I have seen, there is no limitation in the use of this template to articles that are "instrumental" to the subject at hand (in this case, Christianity), so there is no reason why this template cannot be placed on any article that concerns Christianity, without having to get into a debate about whether the article is "instrumental" to Christianity; this article is about a Christian group; and therefore if someone wants to place the "Christianity" template on this article, there is no basis for removing it.  My point about the other three articles named is that the presence or absence of the template there is irrelevant to the presence or absence of it here. 6SJ7 20:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's part of a series, and the template lists categories and articles that fit inside the series, then can you please kindly point out which category on the template JfJ fits in? Because I sure don't see it, it's not a movement on it's own by the definition of that article, it's not a denomination, it's not part of the History of Christianity, it's certainly not part of the Bible, it doesn't make any new theology, I don't see the point. Just because there is no rule doesn't mean that it is not a bad thing to put this template on every Christianity-related article, it will likely be very confusing to readers who look at the template and try to think about how this article fits inside the series. Not having a spoken limit doesn't mean it can go anywhere, anytime.  Homestarmy 21:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Thank you for warm invitation. I have no idea about those. Back to the topic: the more you and other JFJ proponents insist on hiding that JFJ is a Christian org., the more there is a need to expose it as such. I saw your attempts to turn this into a personal vendetta, don't. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You continue making personal attacks against me while accusing me of making attacks against you, I am neither a proponent of Jews for Jesus nor am I trying to Hide that they are a Christian organization. If you look at my earlier comments I favor the creation of an template which would be appropriate for this article. what I oppose is the miss use of templates, and the violation NPOV rules in order to appease anyones persecution complex.  I also opposes using a mass of non authoritative sources to create a definition of who is a Jew that is in direct contradiction to Jewish Law.  If you look also I made comments in favor of the NPOV edits proposed by Shirahadasha, do you accuse her of being a proponent of JFJ too?  MCohen 3:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your edits to this article evidence otherwise: it is as much Jewish as it is christian..., removed the entire criticism section and your contribs to this talk page are for all to see. 
Now, shall we talk about your incitement: 
 . ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You call those incitments?????  Encouraging a user to learn how wikipedia works and asking an objective administrator to intervene when san other administrator is violating policy are not incitments .   Well don't bother answering because I'm not going to be back to this page for who knows how long because, I am becomming busy, and have better things to do with my time than respond to your fantasies and try to balance your blantent distortions.  So your brute force method of distortion wins, like lenin said "a lie told enough becomes the truth", so  I hope you enjoy the feelings of superiority you feel from making your distorteds POV version prevail, but  my leaving have nothing to do with conceding any point to you, this article just isn't important enough to argue over . I will not be back to view your maningless reply so don't bother.  MCohen 02:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: This section Jews_for_Jesus#Incompatibility_with_Judaism says that it is incompatible with Judaism, but in the inro it refers to a site that says that it is Messianic Judaism. What the heck? So it's Christian, but it's Judaic but it can't be Judaic because it's imcompatible with Judaism. Whiskey Rebellion 21:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Messianic Judaism is not ordinary Judaism. Homestarmy 21:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not Judaism at all. It accepts Jesus, which makes it a Christian movement. Acceptance of Jesus puts one outside Judaism.--Mantanmoreland 21:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction 2

message: Brickner is not Jewish according to Reform Judaism either, for several reasons:
# Reform's "bilineal descent" policy was only brought in in 1983, long after Brickner was born, and many decades after Brickner's mother was born.
# Reform's "bilineal descent" policy only applies to people who are born with a Jewish parent and raised Jewish; Brickner was born in a household that worshipped Jesus as Lord and Messiah.  
# The Reform movement states For us in the Jewish community anyone who claims that Jesus is their savior is no longer a Jew and is an apostate. (Contemporary American Reform Responsa, #68). 
I hope this helps make things clear. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I tried to recover from edit conflict and didn't mean to reintrodiuce this confusion. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I had thought it was a lot more liberal than that. --Mantanmoreland 23:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  It doesn't matter what reform Jews think anyway, because Jewish law is not determined by majority rule and Reform "Jews" with gentile mothers are every gentile as David Brickner. The issue is not wether any deviant anti-torah group says about whether David Brickner or Jews for Jesus are Jews, it's what does Jewish Law say MCohen 02:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reform, Jewish mothers, and Brickner. 

message: For anyone interested, the infamous Jackie Mason pamphlet and a bunch of other J4J pamphlets :
http://www.jesusforjews.org/broadsides/more/
Turns out theres a Steve Jobs pamphlet too.
And turns out that cnn.com considers J4J a Jewish group: "Founded in the 1970s, Jews for Jesus practices Judaism but regards Jesus as the Messiah."
Justforasecond 16:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you think CNN got their info from? I'll give you three guesses... --Eliyak T·C 18:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eli seems to have a good point there heh. Homestarmy 18:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: cnn meets WP:RS.  It's at least as reliable as the sites denouncing j4j.  Justforasecond 19:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: And, of course, the kicker is also in that it seems cnn got it's source straight from JfJ.... Homestarmy 20:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The New York Times referred to J4J in its Jackie Mason article as a "Christian evangelical group." --Mantanmoreland 14:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no! It's CNN vs. the New York Times! Is there no truth in the world anymore? --Eliyak T·C 18:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, was there one? If so, then there might need to be a section on it in the legal action section. Homestarmy 18:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It happened in 2001. They had a pamphlets featuring cartoons with Curious George, used totally without permission () (the late author H. A. Rey was Jewish). When the CG publishers sued them, j4j tried to claim that stealing the character was legitimate "parody". Judge didn't buy it. The Curious George article references it, but the only source listed there is The Daily Show, which might make people think it's a joke. Fan-1967 19:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The diff you have there seems sufficient to at least start a new section. Homestarmy 02:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jackie Mason 

message: Let's reverse one of the above arguments for a moment. Can anyone come up with known, scientifically verifiable numbers of people who have come forward who can be 100% exactly classified as dyed-in-the-wool true-believing "Jews for Jesus" especially the exact numbers of people who were born Jews and then subseqquently became heart and soul full-fledged members of the Jews for Jesus movement? After all this is a Johny-come-lately missionary effort headed by this organization, and all of a sudden they want to be regarded as a "denomination" of Jews no less than those that have been around for centuries and millenia. So, pray, anyone, please tell the world exactly how many PROVEN and known Jews for Jesus there are out there so that any rational person can decide if they are fit to be a "denomination" of anything rather than the simple missionaries that they are viewed as by everyone. 500? 1000? 10,000? 50,000? 100,000? What do respected sociologists and demographers say? For example, the highly regarded National Jewish Population Survey of 2000 and 1990 has estimated statistics for "Jews" who have become Christians or more broadly "those who practice other faiths", but at no point do the secular academicians themselves call Jews who have become Christians as a "denomination" of Judaism which is a notion (more a "leap of faith" not based on hard logic but more on blind faith) that the Jews for Jesus seem to be hell-bent on foisting on the world for the very obvious legitimization they seek but which simple logic will always deny them. IZAK 09:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the real numbers of Jews for Jesus out there? 

message: FYI, the J4J forums has a topic on this article.. It's fairly mild.--Mantanmoreland 14:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those forums are moderated post by post, despite a seemly open section saying "For those who disagree" or whatever. They only seem to accept critical posts with weak and/or nonexistant arguements, so that their supporters look better refuting them. Masterhomer  20:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm mentioning it because of the danger of meatpuppets.--Mantanmoreland 20:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moderated post by post? I've never heard of anything like that before actually turning into a really worthwhile endeavor...... Homestarmy 02:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: What're meatpuppets, again? Are they the same as sockpuppets? Darthmix 17:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly, meatpuppets are actually different people, it's just the meatpuppet master is telling his friends/acquaintences/what-have-you to basically support him in everything. Homestarmy 17:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OT, you seem well informed in these matters, Home. Can you take a look at my last comment in the POV section. Are you familiar with the essay to which I refer? There are many and I can't recall which one. --Mantanmoreland 18:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunently, i'm not familiar with the particular person you were talking about, I don't know of any essays by him :/ Homestarmy 21:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh he's the guru, pardon the expression, of Catholic-Jewish reconcilation. His writings are quite brilliant and I recommend them, if such things are your cup of tea. Ironically he was mistrusted by Jews for his active postwar missionary work.--Mantanmoreland 22:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That could be part of the problem, i'm a non-denominational protestant heh. What is this particular essay about, just reconciliation in general? Homestarmy 22:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then you may have less interest in the subject matter than some of us more directly involved. He wrote exclusively on reconciliation, and I do recall his touching on the hostility that he received from Jews in his postwar missionary work. Damned if I can recall where I saw it. Might have been in one of his books. I am just an "Oesterreicher missionary," so don't mind me.--Mantanmoreland 22:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: So if it was in a book, do you think we could find it on the internet somewhere or would it only be inside his book? Homestarmy 22:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not many of his writings are on the Internet. I tried Google book search but no luck. Oh well. I have read his books but do not own any.--Mantanmoreland 22:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: J4J forums 

message: # Jews oppose Jews for Jesus
# Jews oppose Jews for Jesus
Compare the two. Should we italicize every occurrence of JFJ in the article to reduce confusion? ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can't hurt. Homestarmy 12:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is better.ParadoxTom 22:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italicize? 

message: Paradox, I'm glad you found the compromise acceptable. One question: you say nearly all the major denominations regard it as Christian. Can you say which one doesn't? SlimVirgin (talk) 11:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not right--I only claim that not "all" denominations of Judaism regard JfJ as not Jewish; viz. JfJ.  You cannot claim 'well, JfJ is not Jewish' because 'is Jewish' is not a logically unambiguous predicate, and so you're begging the question.  As long as you spell out exactly who you mean by 'mainstream (e.g. Reform Jews, Orthodox Jews, etc.), it's fine.ParadoxTom 22:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise