Talk:Judeo-Christian

message: One of the problelisted at the top of the article is that it deals with "multiple issues". 
Does this mean that it ought to be split into several different articles, each dealing with a single issue?
Has anyone proposed the way in which it should be split, and given a list of the issues to be dealt with? SteveH (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, by "multiple issues" it meant that the article was deeply flawed. Numerous problems needed to be fixed to bring it up Wikipedia standards. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple issues?

message: There is an article on Creation according to the Book of Genesis that discusses creation. There is a suggestion now to rename it and give it a Biblical name that may overlap with the New Testamant. I think that will mix differing views, but not being an expert on Jewish views, clarifications on that will be helpful here: Talk:Creation_according_to_Genesis#Requested_move_.28as_a_way_to_resolve_every_reasonable_concern.29
Your comments will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewish vs Christian views of Creation

message: Reading some of the above comments, I have the impression that many seem to question the validity of the term. This misses the point: The term itself is valid; individual uses of it may not be. (For instance, I originally landed on this page after reading a blog entry where someone explicitly equated "Judeo-Christian" with "Jewish Zionist", which is a gross misinterpretation of what the term means.)
There is sufficient and significant overlap, as well as a historical connection, which more than justifies the term, just like "Eurasian" or "Anglo-American" are perfectly valid terms.
Attack misuse of meaning, irrelevant use, misleading use---but leave the term it self alone.
Michael Eriksson (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The term is indeed misleading, since it's used to imply that there is some common ground between Judaism and Christ, when in Truth there isn't. You are either a real Christian or a Judaist, can't be both at the same time. Judaism rejects Christ and Christianity, while the NT-text clearly rejects proto-Judaism. I say proto-Judaism, because the Judaism of today is a later development. There is of course variants of and within Christianity and Judaism. And some of those may have some affinity. But Christian's that proclaim stuff like "The Jews are God's Chosen" people actually deny Christ. God's chosen are those *in* Christ and not anyone outside. Now the argument can be made that: Christians believe in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, while Jews believe only in the Old Testament. The later is actually untrue. If they believed in the Old Testament Text, if they really could understand it, they would be Christians. They are not, so they don't believe it... Otherwise Jesus was wrong on this. And to me it seems that the usage of the term got a malicious background as well. It's to prevent Christians from witnessing to Jews, from bringing them the gospel. And of course to garner support for "Israel" and 'Jewish causes'. "Christian"-Zionists are possible what 'Judeo-Christianity' represents. But using 'Judeo-Christianity' as a term to include those in Christ is wrong. 102.66.7.13 (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Validity of the term 

message: The term "Judeo-christian" is a joke(Living Lie) or an oxymoron ,because if one Religion that is "Christianity" praises Jesus Christ as LORD, the other one that is "Judaism" curses Jesus and considering him to be a FALSE (IMPOSTER) Messiah and illegitimate son of a whore. How come then you keep deluding yourself and others by fusing these two contrasting religions into one homogenous false concept/term that is called "Judeo-Christianity" ? JUST LIKE ICE AND FIRE.
Plus if both Christianity and Judaism are Middle Eastern Religions and NOT Western ,(both originated from what you call it Middle East), then how come both " Gentile " Christians west with those Ashkinazi " GOYIM " Jews of Europian and Russian descents, keep claiming these two religions to be western ? ? ! ! ! ! !
Do not you feel shame of yourself that your so call civilization is entirely being founded and enslaved by an alien "mythical traditional lore /Folklores" that belong only to those that you call them sand wogs ? ? ! ! ! ! !
:Basically, most of what you said about the Jewish view of Jesus is wrong. Jews believe in worshiping god in all ways and that Jesus was a great teacher and a shining :example of faith in god, though they don't worship him as god (instead they worship god) they don't consider Jesus an impostor, but instead that he was a very righteous :and holy man that any person would think was the son of god, and that even if he was, it would not excuse worshiping him because god commanded them to worship none but :him. Also, Eastern religions are religions from east Asia (like Budhism, Shinto, and Taoism) western includes the Mediterranean and middle eastern areas.Hoyt596 (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Talmud tells us otherwise: https://archive.org/details/PeterSchferJesusInTheTalmud 105.0.213.249 (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Don't claim to speak for the opinions of Jews on Jesus, especially when you are wrong (though both of you are wrong). Fluxjupyter (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term Judeo-christian is a joke an oxymoron( Living Lie) 

message: Currently, the hatnote to this article reads:
:This article is about the values held in common. For a systematic contrast and widely diverging views between the two religions, see Christianity and Judaism.
But actually (and in my view, correctly), that isn't the scope of this article, as it presently stands.
This article is not really focussed on an analysis of the values Judaism and Christianity hold in common.  Rathe (and in my view appropriately, given its title) it is a discussion of the history and use of the particular phrase Judeo-Christian itself.
At Talk:Christianity and Judaism (section: Hatnote, and focus of this article) I have suggested that that article should be re-focussed, to become the top-level introduction to all aspects of relationships and comparison between Christianity and Judaism -- including, but not necessarily limited to, what may be common ground between the two faiths; where the two faiths may differ, both broadly and in detail; and also the historical nature of relations between the two faiths.  Much the role in fact that the articles Islam and Judaism and Christianity and Islam set themselves.
Further discussion of this proposal is probably best followed up on the Talk:Christianity and Judaism talkpage, to centralise it in one place.
However, I hope editors on this page would agree that it would be a more appropriate way to go forward.  Jheald (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has a standing need to merge Christianity and Judaism into it. This has already pass discussion but has not been done. See the box at the top of this page. As such the hatnote and the article needs to reflect broading the scope to reflect the added content. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 20:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See full response on the talk page at the other article.  The merge was discussed at length, and at length was agreed to be inappropriate after all (archived here).  Interestingly, the view you yourself expressed at the time was: "Do not delete nor merge. --Carlaude (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for finding that. I don't have time to reread the whole discussion right now, but if you think a new WP:Consensus was achieved back then, you should remove the box and note doing so here, etc. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 22:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnote, and scope of this article 

message: The term mostly exists so that closet Dominionists can call for Christian theocracy without calling it Christian theocracy. Instead they claim to be supporting the values held by multiple religions, despite the objective fact that Jewish and Christian moral traditions have many distinct differences. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, not just Dominionists. Christian conservatives in general use the term to make themselves sound more inclusive than they really are. — Red XIV (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: it's also a code word for supporting Israel, which is central to conservative Christians in the US. Rjensen (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I second this question. The source would be interesting to read given historical and modern association of Jewish people *with* communism, not against. Fluxjupyter (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Judeo-Christian" = politically motivated weasel words 

message: The premise that judeo-christian values are the fundamental moral values of the founding fathers is not a neutral premise, but a conclusion slipped in before the definition is addressed. 
I for one think the  founding fathers as a whole shared moral values derived more from the roman and greek classics than the old testament. This is  just one example. I think the article is  pro-religion, and not neutral.
Of course there is the oxymoron aspect as well. indeed the whole christian premise is that Christ brought a new and everlasting covenant based on his newly revealed moral values, and thereby separating permanently from the old values of the (jewish) old testament. Why else did  He come?
All in all, this article is not informative and should be stricken entirely.
::that "definition" turns out to be a letter to the editor from Michael Hethnon (an anti-immigration activist) known for crusading against Islam--not a Reliable Source, and so I deleted it. Rjensen (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutrality? 

message: 1) What Judaism and Christianity call the "Ten Commandments" is not the same.  There is a large (but not total) overlap in the verses for both, but the differences in numbering, inclusion, significance, meaning, scope, and actionability are far greater than the words being the same.  Even the (apparent) Christian view that the "Ten Commandments" are standards of ethics is mismatched to the traditional Jewish views.  Removing the example from the first sentence would probably be good.
2) The organisation of this article is extremely poor.  History and usage of the term is spread throughout several sections.  Political and historical concepts are scattered.  The information presented in several sections, most notably "Culture Wars", lacks coherency.
3) What, exactly, is the focus of this article?  Is the "Judeo-Christian concept" to be defined and discussed, or is the term "Judeo-Christian" defined and discussed?  If the focus is the former, I would vote for removing this article.  However, if the focus is on the term and its usage, it makes sense to keep it.  Most of the problems seem to be from this ambiguity.
Elfwiki (talk) 09:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  a few problems 

message: The article should either be moved to Judeo-Christianity or the first sentence should be changed so that it describes a noun. The article, at the moment, begins:
:"Judeo-Christian is a term used in the United States since the 1940s to refer to standards of ethics said to be held in common by Judaism and Christianity, for example the Ten Commandments."
This clearly refers to the term Judeo-Christian as to an adjective.
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, therefore adjectives should not be used as catchwords. The article Jewish Christian begins with a similar sentence ("Jewish Christians is a term which appears in historical texts..."), also containing the words "is a term", but that refers to a noun, there.Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Judeo-Christian" is a very important concept--it is not at all the same as "Judeo-Christianity", and Wiki has no rules about adjectives. Rjensen (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that You say it I also see it. I hope You would agree that the catchword should normally be perceived to be a nominalized adjective. That would, in German, be something like Das Jüdisch-Christliche, with capitals. The only reason why there is no difference from the spelling of an adjective, in the English, would be that in English also nouns are written with small letters.Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: my German is pretty rusty but I think I agree. The problem in English is that the noun form comes in too many variations: Judeo-Christian tradition/values/concept/morality/ethics etc Rjensen (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic opening sentence 

message: Cut from article:
*It is only since the 1950s that the term "Judeo-Christian" has been applied to it, reflecting the growing use of that term in American political life. By some the term is used casually, simply as a commonplace term, or as an inclusive synonym for the religious.
This is unsourced and its appearance seems designed to make the original point that the whole thing was cooked up in recent decades and/or is merely a political term of art. If there is a reliable source which says so, by all means locate it. Then put the claim back into the article. But it seemed out of place where it was. --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Silk, Mark. "Notes on the Judeo-Christian tradition in America," American Quarterly, (1984) 36:65–85 (which is cited) has lots of evidence the term first came into common use in the 1940s & especially the early 1950s. (in the sense of "J-C ethics") Rjensen (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Claims about the age of the term

message: Well, not only it would have more concordancy if it was either "Judeo-Christianism (also Abrahamism)" or "Judeo-Christian (also Abrahamian)", but wouldn't a real synonym of Abrahamism necessarely be "Judeo-Christo-Mohammedan/Muslim"?  --Extremophile (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia reports how history actually happened not how some people today think it should have been back then. Rjensen (talk) 09:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Judeo-Christian ('''also Abrahamism''')" — what about the Mohammedans? 

message: *Dennis Prager Publishes 19 part Series On Judeo-Christian Values 
link to nothing, is it available somewhere else?
needs to be modified or removed   I am short on time and very busy
T[{}]TVWVT 16:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad link on d Prager 

message: Hi, anyone up to (and able to) create a German article version of this? Perhaps :de:Jüdisch-christliche Werte does it, as there's :de:Christliche Werte already. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  German translation 

message: Judeo-Christian is a simple term for a cultural view. The term originated in the USA. But the concept is generic to all Christian or post-Christian societies. Yet the article is written as if the term is only applicable to the USA. This is misleading and incorrect.122.59.140.215 (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  American focus 

message: The term Judeo-Christian is not specific to the USA, but the article is entirely about the term in the USA. I suggest renaming the article "Judeo-Christianity in the United States".122.59.140.215 (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: The article is on a specific term in use since the 1940s, and is NOT about the history of Christianity in the US before then. So I dropped the useless sections that did not use the term or the concept. Rjensen (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that some of the stuff that you thought was off-focus, mainly this edit, is on-focus... although you're right that it was WP:OR. But if we had a WP:RS that said the same thing, that "Jewish-Christian" had been in use as a proto-Judeo-Christian since 18whatever, I'd be for inclusion, as it's part of this worldview that the J-C term encompasses. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The term can be found in the 18th century referring to a different concept.  This article is about a recent (since about 1940)  ideas regarding 20th century morality that had zero to do with older discussions. (The older literature discussed events 1900 years ago). Rjensen (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  focus 

message: The article has to distinguish between "Judeo-Christian" (its title) and the specific phrase "Judeo-Christian values". The latter may indeed be a hand-waving political term coined by Orwell. The former, which is employed in Orwell's phrase, refers to the completely uncontroversial common origin of Judaism and Christianity in the early centuries CE. 
I am saying the editors have let their opinions cloud their prose. It is not only "scholary" who use the term in reference to the common origin of the two religions, it is also Orwell in his phrase "Judeo-Christian values", and hence anyone using the term at all. --dab (𒁳) 11:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Your claiming that it's just the term "Judeo-Christian values" that is separate form some other big usage of "Judeo-Christian" doesn't hold up -- the same usage that is being wielded for "values" is also being used for "tradition", "beliefs", and other formulations which appear to be the majority of the modern usages of the J-C term. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Nat Gertler here. Rjensen (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: "values"

message: Just to be clear, I reworded material about the 1829 use of Judeo-Christian because it was not at all what had been described in our text. It did not refer to any common roots of the religion. As anyone can check out, it is used specifically for the idea of creating a form of Christian church that uses Jewish traditions so that it will be easier to convert Jews - basically, an earlier concept of Messianic Judaism. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Wolff source 

message: I added the term "Christian" in describing Cilnton when citing him using the term, because it is both what is being discussed in the source and is relevant to our discussion of how the term is used. I'm a bit more unsure with what to do about the Reagan material that was just added; I tried to give it context, but looking at that context - that this is what some now-Christian publisher/conservative PAC head, then first-time-author used in reference to Reagan in 2003 - I'm not sure that this really says anything about Reagan in relation to the term, nor about the time period being discussed, but seems to be just another example of some random Christian conservative using the term. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reagan and Clinton 

message: This article has two very different components. One is a 2000 history of group relations and theology. The other is an American concept of a common "Judeo-Christian ethics". So I spun off that to spin off the ethics sections to Judeo-Christian ethics. Rjensen (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You're pulling apart two things that aren't contiguous, that there was an attempt to build unification that let in claims that it is all one things. This would be better remaining as a single article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: the two parts deal with quite separate topics with little or no overlap. For example the "ethics" part is almost entirely a recent American debate, while the rest deals with 2000 years of history & has little to do with recent decades. Rjensen (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Judeo-Christian" part of "Judeo-Christian ethics" is exactly the adjective use that makes up the bulk of this article. To state otherwise is like claiming that the "chocolate" in "chocolate pudding" is not a reference to what would be covered in the article "chocolate". --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  spin off the ethics sections to "Judeo-Christian ethics" 

message: I can see from this talk page already that much discussion has been had about the 'validity' and scope of the term Judeo-Christian. To add to this dialogue, I will say that the article should really stress that Judeo-Christian as a term is in fact a Christian term that refers to reflecting on the supposed Christian roots of their religion. (Opposed to other Christians who may want to: completely ignore the Old Testament, or a possible relationship with Judaism.) - What isn't being stressed (enough) in the article is that the term doesn't hold any weight in Jewish theology, or outlook (save for say Messianic Judaism, which some have argued isn't Judaism. But has it's own link for disambiguation anyway, so let's leave that be.).
What is most confusing to me, is that section on 'Jewish responses' argues that its reception has been mixed. However the section fails to show that in any way there has been a 'warm' reception. As the 'evidence' is instead examples of interfaith attempts between the religion. The existence of interfaith support between Christianity & Judaism does not provide evidence that Judaism would ever see validity in the term Judeo-Christian. Instead it argues that there have been Jewish AND Christian projects with the aim of peace/cohabitation/multiculturalism/etc. in mind. 
I would argue that the following should be wholly deleted:
:"In the 1930s, "In the face of worldwide antisemitic efforts to stigmatize and destroy Judaism, influential Christians and Jews in America labored to uphold it, pushing Judaism from the margins of American religious life towards its very center."[12] During World War II, Jewish chaplains worked with Catholic priests and Protestant ministers to promote goodwill, addressing servicemen who, "in many cases had never seen, much less heard a Rabbi speak before." At funerals for the unknown soldier, rabbis stood alongside the other chaplains and recited prayers in Hebrew. In a much publicized wartime tragedy, the sinking of the Dorchester, the ship's multi-faith chaplains gave up their lifebelts to evacuating seamen and stood together "arm in arm in prayer" as the ship went down. A 1948 postage stamp commemorated their heroism with the words: "interfaith in action."[7]
:In the 1950s, "a spiritual and cultural revival washed over American Jewry" in response to the trauma of the Holocaust.[7] American Jews became more confident to be identified as different."
As it has no bearing on the term Judeo-Christian, and instead should be saved for an article on Jewish-Christian relations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxiyu (talk • contribs) 23:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Purpose of Judeo-Christian 

message: I moved most of the remaining material in this article related to Judeo-Christian ethics to that article.  That article is improved by having it, but I'm not sure what is left here suffices for a full article.  Perhaps this article should be made a section of Christianity and Judaism.  Person54 (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved material on Judeo-Christian ethics 

message: Is it okay to list or link info anent the term"Judaeo-NWO"?
:That is a) not a parallel term; b) a term that (spelled "Judaeo" or "Judeo") shows up on under 100 web pages. It seems not to be a significant term. So... no. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Judaeo New World Order?! Nat Gertler, you are far too nice. That is an unsigned comment from a lol troll! Sigh... these articles bring them out en mass.--FeralOink (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judaeo-NWO 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :JudæoChristian. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#JudæoChristian until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "JudæoChristian" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I am removing the sentence that says "The observance of Passover by Jews is a tradition closely related to the Christian celebration of Easter." The two sources are a Wall Street Journal essay by R. R. Reno, which I don't have full access to but is an opinion piece that makes it clear from the opening that it is talking about similarities between the two holidays, which is also the topic of the archived other article (although it also covers differences.) Similarities are not a relationship. If one holiday were to have been derived from another, or if both holidays were derived from a third holiday, then yes, they would be related. But particularly in an article where supposed shared heritage is being discussed, we should not confuse similarity to relationship. (Also, even if they were related, the ordering of things so that it sounds like Passover is derived from Easter would be problematic.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Furthermore, that sentence you removed and the remaining sentence "The Jewish Tradition of atonement has been borrowed by Christians and circumcision is a common Jewish tradition among Evangelicals" really don't fit in the opening paragraph of the article. I'd support removing that remaining sentence, possibly into a lower section. Jno.skinner (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be fine with that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, both of you! I am a Wall Street Journal subscriber. I read the essay (as Nat Gertler correctly stated). His inferences are correct. Next, the passage that Nat removed and Jno.skinner suggested be removed (or rephrased and placed in a later section) is probably incorrect without further detailed clarification and is likely to offend religious sensibilities of all involved (Jews, Christians, Evangelical Christians). It requires a citation from a highly reputable source at the very least! I will go have a look at the sentence now. You did the right thing. I appreciate that. This is important to me.--FeralOink (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

text: I made some edits, including to the sentence that Jno.skinner suggested be removed (or rephrased and placed in a later section) about atonement and circumcision. I moved those into the body of the article, and rephrased for greater objectivity. I also consolidated duplicate content about Nietzschean origin and usage.--FeralOink (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The relationship between Easter and Passover 

message: The external link section is currently there to provide a single link to a promo page for what is essentially a self-pubilshed book (published through a "publishing services" business) written by a music therapist. It's hard to see that page as a substantial source for this topic. 
I have retired from article editing, but I request that someone else look at this and appropriately remove the link. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done this. Thank you! Jno.skinner (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

text: I found a more suitable external link, at the website mediacentral.princeton.edu. I will include that. I found another, titled "What does ‘Judeo-Christian’ mean?" written by the person who was the focus of the 2015 Princeton interview. In the interests of accessibility, I will include both, as some will prefer a written article to a video. If anyone feels this is redundant, feel free to replace one or the other links with something better.--FeralOink (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If all we have to offer is Dennis Prager, I think we'd do just as well doing without. I'm not going to be delving through 100+ minutes of him to find out if they actually talk about the term "Judeo-Christian"; merely having a Jew talking to a Christian doesn't qualify. Is there anything of actual relevance in that long discussion? --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I listened to it. Given that "Judeo-Christian" is of interest to American political conservatives and evangelicals, and that the link is from Princeton University, it is less unreasonable to include it as an external link. You point is valid of course. Although I don't really want to spend another 77 minutes of my time listening to it again, I will do it for you, Nat Gertler, and determine if there are significant passages that ARE pertinent to Judeo-Christian. I do think it is important to have a link to a WP:RS such as Princeton. Alternatively, if you and/or anyone else has anything better to suggest, that would be great. I'm going to work on the non-localization part of the article for a bit before listening to the 77 minutes. (I sincerely apologize for re-involving you in Wikipediana, as I know you said on your talk page and elsewhere that you are no longer actively editing. If you choose not to reply, I will do my best to respond to your concerns rather than just ignoring them because you aren't here to remind me.)--FeralOink (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Princeton being a RS just means that we can count on them not to have messed with the video, not that they went through and verified and concurred with each thing said; there is nothing being said in Princeton's voice (one of its professors, yes). I am not asking you to watch it again; I was just uncertain whether you had watched it before (many editors have added things to external links based just on headlines.) As for the relevancy to evangelicals, I will note that neither of the people involved is one; George is a Catholic, Prager is Jewish (but his stances general fall outside that of the general American Jewish populace.) I will admit to having a bias against George, whatever his academic credentials may be, as he founded the anti-LGBT group National Organization for Marriage. If you say there's material of significant relevance to this article, I believe you, but that is still not reason to give Prager two shots in the External Links. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. Prager should NOT appear twice in the External Links. I am going to chop the video and just leave the article. I will try to find a second external link to add for balance. Thank you for replying!--FeralOink (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad External link 

message: The wikilinked term, philo-semitism, appears several times in this article. It is mentioned specifically in the context of the United States. When I navigated to Philosemitism, I found an article that is focused on its manifestation almost exclusively in Europe. (The article seems to have been translated from German Wikipedia, given the tagging. Nothing wrong with that at all but it is another reason why use of the term is misleading in passages of this article that are specific to religious and political trends in the USA, absent any explanation or citation.) 
The only mention of the United States in the philosemitism article is this, which is the very opposite of "philo":
Mark Twain's essay Concerning the Jews has been described as philosemitic. Israeli scholar Bennet Kravitz states that one could just as easily hate Jews for the reasons Twain gives for admiring them. In fact, Twain's essay was cited by Nazi sympathizers in the 1930s. Kravitz concludes, "The flawed logic of 'Concerning the Jews' and all philo-Semitism leads to the anti-Semitic beliefs that the latter seeks to deflate".
I am going to remove those wikilinks and rephrase slightly differently. If anyone objects strongly, revert me. It would be nice to have an explanation as to why as a response here. FeralOink (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing wikilink-ed references to philo-semitism