Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Jews for Jesus 2/Archive 3

message: 2 -- (line 3) "Jewish groups[4][5][6][7] and the State of Israel [8] reject the group's identification as Jewish, however, due to the Christian beliefs of its members and its evangelical activities. [9] [10] [11]" --> "Jewish groups[4][5][6][7] and the State of Israel [8] reject any identification of the group as religiously Jewish, however, due to the Christian beliefs of its members and its evangelical activities. [9] [10] [11]..." in order to comply with WP:V as there is no source challenging the ethnicity of any of its members. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit implemented - Anthonycfc [T • C] 23:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 1 - Line 3

message: I believe this is where the discussion left off.
:1. -- Adopt these paragraphs as a lead to the Opposition and Criticism section.
:2. The current "Beliefs in Relation to Judaism" section is to be re-named "Background", where there will be a brief discussion of the history of Hebrew-Christian groups and their relation to the great schism. 
Implentation should probably be deferred until there is a proposal for the Background section. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: - please state the policies that the above change is relevant to. Anthonycfc [T • C] 19:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same policies I pointed to when I first made the suggestion -- to comply with WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR. Since JfJ isn't officially making the claims that one can be both Christian and Jewish, it may violate NPOV to debunk the claim.  Also, it may be original research to act as though JfJ is making such a claim, since they deny it.  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The "usually" was in the original "Beliefs in Relation..." section.  I figured it was made as some sort of compromise, so I didn't want to take it out unilaterally.  But the sources are pretty explicit, so I don't have a problem with its removal. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, but don't forgot to take out the "usually" that was agreed upon. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For Anthony... still need to take out the "usually" as per agreement.  Thanks! --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 2-- Final Draft

message: First line under "Opposition and criticism" section:
"The Jewish groups that paid attention to Jews for Jesus, oppose it, seeing its proselytizing activities as intentionally misleading and disrespectful of Judaism. [14] [32] [33]"
Should be removed-the line is rather redundant, as the following sections provide analysis of which groups oppose and why. It is WP:OR to state "all groups which have paid attention", as there is no possible way to know who has or has not "paid attention" to anything. Seraphimblade 01:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a compromise. If it is unacceptable, just remove "that paid attention to". It's been weeks (or months?) since I challenged my opponents to show a single Jewish group that paid attention to JFJ and did not oppose it. There's been more than plenty of time to look for evidence. Let's see it, enough WP:OR. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If some group knows of JfJ but took no action, how could anyone possibly show that? The WP:OR is to say "all groups which have paid attention"-how could we possibly know the level of attentiveness every Jewish group in the world has toward JfJ? You're asking to "prove a negative"-the burden of proof is, in this case, not to "prove a negative"-that is impossible. Rather, it is to show that you know (and can source) how much attention every group in the world has paid, and that absolutely every last group which knows of JfJ has opposed it. This is probably an impossible proposition, which would mean the sentence would be based on extrapolation. Certainly, the rest of that section explains in great detail the opposition, so why is that sentence necessary anyway? (Also, in reply to your previous comments, our personal knowledge of "Jewish identity" or anything else matters not one bit. "Experts-only" editing is two doors down and take a right at Citizendium.) Seraphimblade 01:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  All you need is one. Surely JFJ would announce in big letters that they have support. Don't expect others to play along with your empty posturing and wikilawyering and don't expect edits based on OR to stick. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not stating that any support it. Even had one group paid attention and ignored it, neither supporting nor opposing, that would negate the claim that "All groups which have paid attention...". This being the case, if someone has noticed JfJ, and ignored them, how could this be found? Again, the burden of sourcing is on the edit-in this case, to show that every Jewish group which ever noticed JfJ has opposed it (not failed to support it, opposed it.) I would be open to stating "All Jewish groups which have taken a position on JfJ oppose the organization"-I think that's well-established enough? Seraphimblade 03:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK with me. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but that's not a good compromise.  We don't have any idea what all groups have done; the whole statement is OR, which is the problem.  This isn't wikilawyering, I think it's about as fundamental as it gets that you can't speak on behalf of all members of a group simply because no editor can come up with a counterexample.  Seriously, I think we need to give up on this idea that we can speak on behalf of all people; it goes against everything WP:Weasel and WP:OR say.  If you're making an argument, you have to source it, end of story.  That's really the wall we keep banging up against. Mackan79 08:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My first choice would still be removal of the whole sentence, realistically. I think the following section makes that case quite clearly enough anyway, and presents the opposition quite clearly, so I'm unsure what the need for it is. Seraphimblade 08:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is actually pretty easy to source all the groups who have taken a position on JfJ.  This is not original research at all. If a group has remained neutral, then they haven't taken a position.  So, I have no problem with stating it that way.  Another way to state it, would be to say "Jewish groups who have taken a position of JfJ oppose the organization" which is just as sourced as the earlier sentence. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Among those Jewish groups which have taken a position on JfJ, response has been overwhelmingly negative?" This would not attempt to speak for "all", but I believe it would properly frame the debate-certainly, the reaction among Jewish groups to JfJ has not been a very positive one. Seraphimblade 17:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also fine by me.  BTW-- we are in effect saying the same thing three different ways, so I'm fine with any of the three formulations. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Edit not implemented - are you definetly agreed on the above proposal being implemented; since there's been some chopping and changing, if the agreed version is different from the original Proposal 4, would you like to present a final draft? Anthonycfc [T • C] 23:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Edit implemented. Anthonycfc [T • C] 23:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 3 - Opposition and Criticism

message: (Line 176): change sentence to read: "...Jewish groups that have taken a position on Jews for Jesus oppose the organization.  These groups see its proselytizing activities as intentionally misleading and disrespectful of Judaism..." to accord it with the sources given in the article. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit implemented. Anthonycfc [T • C] 23:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 3-- Final Draft 

message: Add "and others" to the list of those who reject any identification of the group as religiously Jewish. Of course this should be referenced and the ref would include: 
* Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance ()
* Benjamin Hubbard; John Hatfield, James Santucci (1997). America's Religions. An Educator's Guide to Beliefs and Practices. Teacher Ideas Press, a Division of Libraries Unlimited, p.100. . 
* Balmer, Randall. Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism, Baylor University Press, Nov 2004, p. 448
* See also Jews for Jesus#Christian opposition to Jews for Jesus and to efforts to evangelize Jews
←Humus sapiens ну? 04:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plenty of references, no objections to that. Though the self-reference to the article itself might be a bit overkill, outside references are much better then self-references anyway. Seraphimblade 13:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I brought "Christian opposition" here only to demonstrate that there are indeed many others. That section already has many references. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Edit implemented. Anthonycfc [T • C] 23:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, but this implementation is not exactly what I meant. I proposed to add "and others" to the intro, so the text would be something like: "Jewish(refs) and other(refs) groups, the State of Israel(refs) reject ..." Sorry if I did not make myself clear earlier. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My apologies - I'll try to mend that now; sorry - I suffer from reading problems, especially without my glasses, and I just sort of skimmed through. Please accept my humblest apologies; Anthonycfc [T • C] 00:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Edit implemented - properly this time . Anthonycfc [T • C] 00:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. I'm in a hurry as well. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 4 - Introduction

message: The following seems to be the agreed upon text, and includes references 4-15 currently in article (some are consolidated into one reference):
:Identification of Jews for Jesus as "Jewish" is overwhelmingly rejected by Jewish religious denominations,"There is virtual unanimity across all denominations [of Judaism] that Jews for Jesus are not Jewish." (Kaplan, Dana Evan. The Cambridge Companion to American Judaism, Cambridge University Press, Aug 15, 2005, pp. 139-140)."For most American Jews, it is acceptable to blend some degree of foreign spiritual elements with Judaism. The one exception is Christianity, which is perceived to be incompatible with any form of Jewishness. Jews for Jesus and other Messianic Jewish groups are thus seen as antithetical to Judaism and are completely rejected by the majority of Jews". (Kaplan, Dana Evan. The Cambridge Companion to American Judaism, Cambridge University Press, Aug 15, 2005, p. 9). secular groupsJewish groups:
*"To make the record clear, Jews for Jesus is a Christian missionary organization – period." Jews for Jesus:  Jewish or Christian?  You Decide, Jews for Judaism website, retrieved September 11, 2006.
*"Messianic Jewish organizations, such as Jews for Jesus, often refer to their faith as fulfilled Judaism, in that they believe Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophecies. Although Messianic Judaism claims to be Jewish, and many adherents observe Jewish holidays, most Jews regard Messianic Judaism as deceptive at best, fraudulent at worst. They charge that Messianic Judaism is actually Christianity presenting itself as Judaism." (Balmer, Randall. Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism, Baylor University Press, Nov 2004, p. 448).
*"I do not seek, of course, covertly (as sometimes Jews for Jesus do) or overtly, to convert myself, or any other Jew to Christianity..." (Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity, University of Pennsylvania Press, Jul 2004, p. xii).
*"Certain Christian missionary groups have now set up a front organization called "Jews for Jesus," through which they entice naive Jews to Christianity..." (Stolper, Pinchas. "Was Jesus The Messiah? Let's Examine The Facts", in Kaplan, Aryeh. Aryeh Kaplan Anthology: Volume 1, Mesorah Publications, Aug 1991, p. 293).
*"Even as I write, I fear that Christian missionaries or, even more insidiously, Jews for Jesus—people who (unlike the redeeming avante-garde of Christianity) believe that Judaism is superseded, and Jewish have no right to exist as Jews any more—will misuse my words. These people, who believe that Christianity has taken over Judaism like some succubus that must now govern the behavior of its host body, seek to abolish the Jewish religion." (Greenberg, Irving. For the Sake of Heaven and Earth: The New Encounter Between Judaism and Christianity, The Jewish Publication Society, Oct 2004, p. 97).
*"It should now be clear to you why Jews have such a problem with 'Jews for Jesus' or other presentations of Messianic Judaism. I have no difficulty with Christianity. I even accept those Christians who would want me to convert to Christianity so long as they don't use coercion or duplicity and are willing to listen in good faith to my reasons for being Jewish. I do have a major problem with those Christians who would try to mislead me and other Jews into believing that one can be both Jewish and Christian." (Lotker, Michael. A Christian's Guide to Judaism, Paulist Press, Mar 2004, p. 35).
*"Evangelical Christians are engaged in aggressive and extensive missionary activity among Jews. Among other results, this has given rise to groups of 'messianic Jews', of which 'Jews for Jesus' is the most outstanding example. These are actually Jews who have adopted the evangelical Protestant faith and its precepts." (Wistrich, Robert, Terms of Survival, Routledge (UK), Mar 1995, p. 343).
*"Messianic Judaism is a Christian movement that began in the 1970s combining a mixture of Jewish ritual and Christianity. There are a vast and growing numbers of these groups, and they differ in how much Jewish ritual is mixed with conventional Christian belief. One end of the spectrum is represented by Jews For Jesus, who simply target Jews for conversion to Christianity using imitations of Jewish ritual solely as a ruse for attracting the potential Jewish converts. On the other end are those who don't stress the divinity of Jesus, but present him as the 'Messiah.'"  by Lawrence H. Schiffman  and the State of IsraelLegal Cases Involving Jews for Jesus (ADL) due to the Christian beliefs of its members.  The group's proselytizing activities are opposed also by some Christian organizations and scholars.Others who oppose the proselytizing activities of Jews for Jesus:
*Benjamin Hubbard; John Hatfield, James Santucci (1997). America's Religions. An Educator's Guide to Beliefs and Practices. Teacher Ideas Press, a Division of Libraries Unlimited, p.100. .
*Balmer, Randall. Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism, Baylor University Press, Nov 2004, p. 448
*"Today, many evangelical Christian-Protestant groups are spending between 100,000,000 and 150,000,000 dollars a year to transform Jews into Christians. The best known of these organization is Jews for Jesus...". (Berkley, E. George. Jews, Branden Books, Feb 1997, p. 129).
*"Thirdly, there is Jews for Jesus or, more generally, Messianic Judaism. This is a movement of people often of Jewish background who have come to believe Jesus is the expected Jewish messiah... They often have congregations independent of other churches and specifically target Jews for conversion to their form of Christianity." (Harries, Richard. After the Evil: Christianity and Judaism in the Shadow of the Holocaust, Oxford University Press, Aug 2003, p. 119.)
*"...Jews for Jesus (Jews converted to 'born again' Christianity who are seeking to make more such converts...". (Marty, Martin E. When Faiths Collide, Blackwell Publishing, Jan 2005, p. 35).
*"Jews for Jesus, the leading organization dedicated to converting Jews to Christianity, has long been a concern because of its aggressive proselytizing with a deceptive message: that Jews who accept Jesus as the son of God and their savior remain Jewish." Jews for Jesus: Targeting Jews for Conversion with Subterfuge and Deception, Anti-Defamation League, August 27, 2004, retrieved September 11, 2006.
*"Jews for Jesus is a sect of a very different nature. This group... has a sole motivational goal of converting Jews to Christianity." Fogel, Keith and Marian E. Conversos of the Americas, Xlibris Corporation, Apr 2004, p. 169). 
*"Jews for Jesus is an evangelical Christian organization ..." Who are the Jews for Jesus? (exjewsforjesus.org)
*"... its doctrine is strictly Christian in the fundamentalist/evangelical understanding of Christian faith" Is Jews for Jesus a Christian organization, or is it a Jewish organization? (exjewsforjesus.org)Robinson, B. Messianic Judaism. Jews for Jesus, Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, October 29, 2001.
--MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made an attempt to clean up the refs a bit. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  I'm going to add a section directly below for the references in the proposal 5 choice #3 to show up, so people can see how it will come out with the sources. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 09:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Implementation deferred - are all agreed upon option #3? Anthonycfc [T • C] 18:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good by me. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 04:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Me too. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 04:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 5 Choice #3 (consensus version)

message: On an informal basis, I'd like a quick straw poll below on the inclusion of the word "However" per above. Anthonycfc [T • C] 19:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick Straw Poll

message: I have concluded the following in response to Mackan79's request for my evaluation over the user's civility: I do not believe that "...The rest does not deserve a polite response..." is a civil response, in line with the Official Wikipedia Policy Wikipedia:Remain Civil. Therefore, I have removed the comment from this version of the page. I do believe that Humus' comments were - with exception to "The rest...polite response..." - entirely civil. I hope that this is satisfactory to all editors; please do not hesitate to contact me immediately if you believe I have acted unfair in anyway, shape or form. Yours, Anthonycfc [T • C] 01:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much appreciated, Mackan79 03:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find it Orwellian that misrepresentation of Judaism (after seeing dozens of refs, how else would one interpret a  proposal "Of course, an alternative to all of this would be to say that the group lacks any documented support in the Jewish community in addition to being widely opposed by Jewish and some Christian groups.") is not considered uncivil, but saying that this does not deserve a polite response is. I am leaving this comment here for the record. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point you've been making through all of this is that no one has uncovered a Jewish group which supports JfJ.  My suggestion was that we state that directly, that no known support exists.  I then added, for your benefit, the statement that in addition to the lack of support, it is also widely opposed by both Jewish and Christian groups.  Essentially, I took the "widely" formulation which was already here, and made it stronger, by providing additionally that no known support exists.  I'm not sure what you found offensive. Mackan79 14:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proceedings 

message: For the purposes of slow dial-up connections that any readers may have, as well as the hog on Wikimedia servers, I'm going to archive the upper 2/3rds of this page. If there is anything under discussion that I remove, please simply cut and paste it over. Cheers, Anthonycfc [T • C] 00:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: I take it things are going well? -Ste|vertigo 04:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress?