Talk:Jews for Jesus/Archive 6

message: This  was recently added-I tend to object to it, religions throughout history have proselytized, and I don't think it adds much anyway. Would there be any objections to its removal? Seraphimblade 17:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not by me. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understood where the edit was trying to go, but it wasn't the most precise term. (Proselytization is far more general, evangelism is specific to Christianity) I put in a better sentence that refers to the Great Commission, and used something similiar to that article's wording. Homestarmy 18:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's much clearer, looks good to me. Seraphimblade 19:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable addition

message: I'm not sure it's possible or even to ascertain what constitutes "mainstream Christianity" and apply that as a criterion for not including Jews for Jesus in the template. In fact, I would say that since J4J follows every tenet in the Apostles' Creed, it more easily into Christianity than other denominations I can think of. --Leifern 00:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, including Jews for Jesus in the template itself? Jews for Jesus is certainly nowhere near notable enough to actually be placed on the template itself, there are likely to be hundreds of organizations more notable and important to Christianity as a whole than JfJ.... Homestarmy 00:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mainstream Christianity" 

message: We have a consensus on whether to include the template.  A couple of editors seem to despise J4J and have made no secret of it, nor have they sought to discuss the merits of the template.   This and their other behavior (wikistalking, revert warring, reports to WP:3RR, incivility) calls into question their ability to edit the topic neutrally.   The vast majority of the writing and analysis on this talk page indicates that the template does not belong, interspersed with personal attacks, rudeness, and red herrings.
I've removed the template.   Now lets move onto other things.
Justforasecond 23:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is certainly *no* consensus on this.  And please refrain from projecting onto other editors what you think they think. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 03:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't concensus, but there is a clear majority against it, along with a conspicuous failure of the supporting side to engage the issues.  In case you hadn't noticed. Mackan79 15:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify the situation.  For the template: Jayjg, Mperel, Humus, 6SJ7.  Against the template, Mackan79, Seraphimblade, Homestarmy, Justforasecond, Ramsquire.  That's four for, and five against.  No consensus and slight majority against.  Let's wait until ADR procedures are concluded before making any more edits re: the template.  Can we all agree to that?  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to wait on the template until we can get mediation going. More major issues right now would be, for example, the POV in the text itself and its positioning, and stuff like those inappropriate "see also" links below (which are now removed, and no one's objected thus far to that). Seraphimblade 22:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  ....Spoken by a trusted administrator. Wait a second, that didn't come out quite how I intended....  :D Homestarmy 00:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  consensus on template 

message: In the never ending POV wars of this article, has anyone noticed links to History of Anti-Semitism and Anti-Judaism in the see also section of this article?  I can't think of any purpose for those links to be in this article except to embarass JfJ.  I understand the group is controversial and its actions may be deceptive, but we are still required to use NPOV.  There is nothing about this group stances that further or support anti-semitism.  Of course, I expect that editors here will argue that their attempts to convert Jews to Christianity is anti-semitic.  That position is original research synthesis and not supported by the sources.  Those links should be removed. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we discussed this a short while ago, it should be in the most recent archive. I have to say, JfJ's link with the History of Anti-Semitism seems rather tenuous.... Homestarmy 00:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoaaaaaaa, I had not noticed those. JfJ is not in any NPOV way "anti-Semitic" or "anti-Judaism"-hell, they claim they are Jewish, they'd be speaking against themselves! Removed accordingly. Seraphimblade 00:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, this is way beyond neutral.   Just a side note, the editors persisting in placing "anti semitic" are the same that put the christianity template on the article.    Justforasecond 01:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional Issue

message: Someone has inserted all sorts of non-notable references into the article,  which is bad enough, but they also make the wikitext difficult to read or edit.  Please review the guidelines for notable references.   Justforasecond 00:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-notable references making wikitext unreadable 

message: I've made changes to the article based on JfJ's unambiguous statement that they do not believe one can be both Jewish and Christian in a religious sense.  I also suggest removing the Belief in relation to Judaism section as irrelevant since JfJ does not make the claim they are religiously Jewish. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 01:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of Change

message: I want to nominate this article for Good Article status, but I really don't think most reviewers are going to like how short the lead looks in relation to the rest of the article. Should there be a second paragraph just glossing over some of the beliefs, values, and that kind of stuff, or should it perhaps concern the litigation, because some of those cases may perhaps be highly notable in their own right. Homestarmy 20:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Does anyone think the lead should be longer?

message: Gentlemen - it looks as if this dispute could really make some ground if it proceeded to formal mediation on the MedCom. Similar to the last mediation, I would be willing to mediate the case (I already have the blessing of a current MedCom member); for those of you who have passed by my Mediation Cabal work, you might have noticed a considerable improvement in the quality of my DR work ... at the moment, I've never been better suited for Mediation than now, and I'd cherish the opportunity to work with you guys again.
If you are agreeable, just list a RfM, with all involved parties, and I'll pick up the case. Please understand Wikipedia:Mediation before you sign for the Mediation; feel free to ask me any questions about this MedCom-specific policy.
Kindest regards,anthony[review] 02:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:MEDCOM|Mediation]]?