Talk:False messiah

message: It's a stub, so the no reference tag needn't be used and please state why you feel the article violates NPOV.  I will remove it for now. MarcusGraly 15:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

message: Due to the fact that it is only in Judaism that any and all claimants, including Yeshua, are "false," redirecting "false messiah" to list of messiah claimants acts as a POV link pro-Judaism. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I have removed a see also link to Chabad messianism from the beginning of the False messiah in Judaism section. The reason being that it is already linked in Jewish Messiah claimants, and we do not mention all of those here. Not to mention that there is a difference in Judaism between righteous false messiahs and messiah claimants , like in the case of Bar Kokhba or the case in question of Chabad messianism. Debresser (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chabad messianism 

message: , : Since there's been a merge tag on this article for awhile...  and it was originally started as now-banned user Stevertigo's bizarre ramblings...  is there anything actually *worthwhile* to stick in this article?  I don't think there's any useful general concept of false messiahs to be had that isn't a dictionary definition.  In other words, Jewish Messiah claimants, Antichrist, and Masih ad-Dajjal are all worthy articles, but there isn't anything ACTUALLY connecting them.  No article can sensibly be written on their similarities.  For example, look at the likes of Thunder god, which just redirects to List of thunder gods so that people can see more about Thor, Zeus, etc.  There isn't any article to be written on "thunder gods in general" that assume Thor & Zeus are somehow related.  SnowFire (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it provides a useful cross-religious comparison of false messiahs, but I won't be heart broken if it is decided to merge. I just wanted to make sure it was discussed first. Editor2020, Talk 19:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article status 

message: This page was merged, per discussion here, on 21 December, 
The text was restored this morning, with this edit, and with the edit summary “Undo redirect. This is a discussion of the phenomenon, not a list”.
I have undone the restoration, as there were good reasons to merge this article, and broad agreement to do so. If there are any objections to this, they are invited here.
Also, as one of the issues with the article was it's non-neutral stance and original research, I suggest that even if the title is valid for an examination of the subject, and not just a content fork, it needs to be completely re-written, not merely re-instated as before. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinions are basically the same as above.  I'm in favor of a merger, but I also think the current article is mostly harmless in its current form (as opposed to certain other articles which are actively misleading or inane rambles), so I'm not hugely fussed if someone wants to keep it. SnowFire (talk) 06:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have replied on Moonraker12's talkpage, that his edit wouldn't have been reverted, had he mentioned the merger discussion in the edit summary. His vulgar post on my talkpage I summarily deleted. Debresser (talk) 07:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And if Debresser had bothered to look, or had followed the “Discuss” link any time in the last six months, he'd have found the merge discussion as easily as I did. As for the vulgarity of my post to his talk page I'll leave it for others to decide. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger