Talk:Jews for Jesus/Archive 5

message: WP:3O is not for filing for several opinions-you're looking for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy. Given that, however (and I've no qualms disclosing my religious beliefs or lack thereof, I'm an atheist), the existence of a Jewish organization claiming Jesus' divinity (which is exactly what this article is about), clearly proves that the disclaimer/assertion is false. So long as this organization continues to exist, that claim is factually incorrect and should be removed. Seraphimblade 17:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly, they are an organization having Jews in it is not the same as the organization being compatible with Judaism. Part of the issue here might also be the many meanings of the word "Jewish" (ethnic or cultural as opposed to religious sense). JoshuaZ 17:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and that can be a bit slippery. However, so long as any organization which self-identifies as "Jews" or "Jewish" advocates a position, it is not correct to state that "No Jewish organization states that..." It would, of course, be correct to specify such a view as a small-minority viewpoint among Jews. Seraphimblade 17:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  JoshuaZ is correct. The text has been adjusted so this is moot. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not-so-third opinion

message: The more I think about this the less reason I see to have the template. The only point to it seems to be to add emphasis on the Christian nature of J4J. This is a) slightly redundant since the article intro makes the situation clear and b) arguably not NPOV since it is placing undue emphasis by strategic template usage.JoshuaZ 16:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concurr. Neither should it have Template:Messianic Judaism because JfJ does not claim to support Messianic Judaism, nor do those who hold to Messianic Judaism see JfJ as Jewish, but rather Christian. (Boy, add THAT as my comment to the Dispute section above!) inigmatus 19:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also like to note that User:Osgoodelawyer has now moved the template to the top of the page, now apparently trying to signify that the entire subject of JfJ, not just their beliefs, are somehow an instrumental aspect of the coverage of the religion of Christianity.  Homestarmy 20:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I moved it back to Beliefs. This was discussed earlier at length, pls. see #Christianity tag. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity template 

message: I think the paragraph about the many Christian umbrella orgs that J4J is in should probably be moved elsewhere possibly to one of the sections discussing the reasons why it is seen as a Christian organization. JoshuaZ 17:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support section 

message: As there are several parties on both sides, and we seem unlikely to achieve consensus at the current rate, I suggest that we file for a request for comment on the matter. Are there any objections, or proposed wordings for the RfC? Seraphimblade 21:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections as all. I was thinking it was about that time. I would suggest we focus on the neutrality of the most contentions statement: "belief in Jesus as the son of God, or in Jesus as Christ, is incompatible with Judaism.". If we can get a simple opinion on whether that is a neutral statement then we would be a long way towards resolving this. DJ Clayworth 21:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Seraphimblade 22:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The issue has nothing to do with what "most Jews believe", nor do the sources in question discuss that; why have you brought it up? Jayjg (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Judaism does not have a definitive theological authority these days that can make definitive announcements.  (The Sanhedrin hasn't met for centuries.)  (Well, except God, but scriptural interpretation is not Wikipedia's core competency.)  In the lack of a definitive authority, what most Jews believe is the test that Wikipedia can use.  GRBerry 02:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The various movements have authoritative bodies, and Judaism in general has authoritative works and authors. Jayjg (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC suggestion

message: The policy that is relevant is obvious; WP:NPOV.  The portion that I believe applies is (emphasis changed} "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."  Accordingly, it is wrong for Wikipedia to state as our own statement that the belief is incompatible with Judaism.
In the next paragraph, the policy says that "Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better."  If a quotation from a reliable authority on what most Jews believe is available, use that quotation instead of a statement in the Wikipedia voice.  I don't think it would be contentious to state that the majority of those who consider themselves Jewish are of the opinion that the two are incompatible, but it would be best to have a source for such a statement in case it is challenged.  The relevant detailed article is Judaism's view of Jesus, so instead of evaluating each viewpoint in this article we should direct readers to that article.
On an unrelated note, the section "Leadership, funding and outreach" states that the founder of the organization was born Jewish, yet the "Membership" section states that those born as gentiles established the movement.  This is a contradiction within the article that should be resolved.  GRBerry 08:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue has nothing to do with what "most Jews believe", nor do the sources in question discuss that; why have you brought it up? Jayjg (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Judaism does not have a definitive theological authority these days that can make definitive announcements.  (The Sanhedrin hasn't met for centuries.)  (Well, except God, but scriptural interpretation is not Wikipedia's core competency.)  In the lack of a definitive authority, what most Jews believe is the test that Wikipedia can use.  GRBerry 02:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The various movements have authoritative bodies, and Judaism in general has authoritative works and authors. Jayjg (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC Response

message: Is an ethnic Jewish person, who is an "Atheist" or Communist, still Jewish?
Anyone?
Can this person gain Israeli citizenship based on the Law of Return?  Rockette 08:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The two questions are different. The question of whether one can get citizenship based on the Law of Return is separate from the question of whether one is regarded as Jewish by a particular Jewish denomination. An apostate, one who has actively embraced another religion, is not eligible under the Law of Return. However, a person who has not actively expressed allegiance to another faith, is a Jew under the law of return regardeless of belief or practice, and many secular Israeli Jews are atheists. Political beliefs and ideologies are totally  irrelevant. Traditional Orthodox belief is that an opostate is still a Jew, while some Orthodox opinion, and most non-Orthodox opinion, holds that it makes one a non-Jew. A community in Belmonte, Portugal whose ancestors were forcibly converted to Christianity half a millenium but secretly retained a Jewish identity and practices, came out of the closet a few years ago -- and they are Jews. See Marrano.  --Shirahadasha 10:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The Law of Return is not relevant to Judaism; it's a civil law of the State of Israel, not a religious doctrine, and non-Jews can gain citizenship under the law too. Jayjg (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am agnostic, an unrepentant capitalist, a liberal Democrat, and I am Jewish.  I keep a Kosher household.  My children have learned Hebrew.  I am Jewish to the core, even though I do not follow any particular religious doctrine.  It's whatever is in your heart that counts.  And my friendly Conservative Rabbi considers me Jewish.  My Christian friends consider me Jewish.  My family considers me Jewish.  The State of Israel considers me Jewish.  That about does it for me.  OrangeMarlin 20:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnic Jews

message: I've taken a shot at NPOV'ing this, it was one of the big issues. Any feedback would be appreciated-the aim here, as indicated by the RfC, is to properly frame the debate, make it clear that JfJ's belief is small-minority, and yet stop that step short of editorializing or "picking a side". Accordingly, was moved to the "Criticism" section, the section header was changed as it provided a statement of fact, and some of the wording's been changed. Seraphimblade 17:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The placement of this section has been debated at length, above, the title is nonsense, as the text doesn't claim that "JfJ are non-Jews in mainstream Judaism", nor deal with that issue, and the "authorities of Judaism" wording is a neoplasm. Please be very careful of the WP:3RR. Jayjg (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me ask this then-what would you agree to changing, to solve the concerns regarding editorializing/taking a side? Surely you're aware that articles are not owned, and the discussion I've seen above comes to nothing like a consensus. On the other hand, the RfC responses were clear-editorializing and presenting any stance as fact must be avoided, proper framing of the debate is what is in order. "Incompatibility of..." is indeed editorializing-it is using Wikipedia's voice to state "The incompatibility does exist." Let's instead let the cited sources speak for themselves-any reader should quickly realize that JfJ's position is a minority one, and not very popular at all, without us having to take sides in the conflict. The debate over calling Hitler "evil" is very instructive here-there are certainly a million sources which mention Hitler in connection with evil, and it can hardly be denied. Yet, even so, the eventual decision was that we should avoid editorializing, and simply let the -actual- facts speak for themselves. In this case, the facts are that JfJ says something-and pretty near the rest of the world disagrees. Let's frame that properly, but let's not choose sides. So, back to my initial question-what do you suggest? Seraphimblade 21:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: To add, I disagree with your edit summary that I violated WP:3RR-I see , , . I would request that you link to the fourth revert (which isn't there), or please retract this. Seraphimblade 22:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is obvious that your first edit was so similar to previous reverts that it would be considered  a violation of the 3RR. You could dispute it if you want but keep in mind that it is unlikely to work.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unsure what to "dispute"-it looks like most of the edits for at least the past week were mainly housekeeping type stuff and tended to be relatively uncontroversial. I'm trying to understand your meaning here, but I'm failing to see which "previous revert" my first edit was similar to. Now, 3RR stuff aside. How about we go over changes we can all agree on, regarding the concerns of editorializing? Seraphimblade 23:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Incompatibility with Christianity" section

message: The 3RR and unpleasantries like that being settled, why don't we discuss how to improve the article? I would like to hear what would be some acceptable changes, so that we can resolve this in a more constructive way. Seraphimblade 18:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From reading the article again, plus outside knowledge; it seems clear to me that the JfJ organization is using an ethnic or racial definition of who is a Jew is their claim to be Jewish.  I think the article could be improved by 1) making this more clear 2) distinguishing between ethnic and religious Judiasm and 3) pointing to other articles like Who is a Jew? that go into this subject a lot more fully than this article can or should.  GRBerry 18:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that just might work! I'll have a look for something clarifying that JfJ's distinction is ethnic, that would clear things up greatly. Do you happen to remember where you found that? Seraphimblade 21:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't find it in a usable source; I used my personal knowledge (friends with a couple of their missionaries) and our Wikipedia articles (all front line missionaries are Jews or their spouses, the theology here, and the Who is a Jew article) then did a little interpretation.  So I can't help you with finding a source to cite in the article.  But my interpretation is not a reliable source by our standards.  However, a little digging produces the first question at this official site, which seems to serve the purpose. GRBerry 21:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just found that myself Googling around. Thanks very much, I think that will quite solve the dilemma. Seraphimblade 21:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excellent. Good work guys. JoshuaZ 21:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I myself was not aware that JfJ's definition was ethnic as well, I was under the impression it was primarily religion based. But if the ethnicity factor is true, (Which, reading that FAQ, it appears to be) it does change things quite a bit, and a JfJ article should be a reliable source for it. Homestarmy 22:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  I repeatedly mentioned this above, about the problem with conflating ethnicity and religion into the term "Jewish".  And others have been saying it over and over as well.  Jews for Jesus has some ethnically Jewish members, but they do not represent Judaism and they are not a "Jewish" organization.  When "Jewish" is associated with a religious organization it implies adherence to Judaism (it seems clear they like the ambiguity).  Anyway, I'm glad it's finally sinking in. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I thought I had a decent understanding of their beliefs and I didn't know this (although it is funny-knowing that their def is  ethnic actually makes me like them less not more- it is one thing when I disagree with them theologically, but this seems to be pretty close to just racism). JoshuaZ 22:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not so certain that they outright ignore Judaism altogether, for instance, their thing on holidays seems based on trying to tie in the traditions of Judaism to Christianity. Although it does seem possible one could argue that's an ethnic relation too....however, in their evangelistic materials, the impression i've gotten from them is that they try to tie in the Judaism of 2,000 years ago or so with Christianity :/. I could be wrong of course, maybe I give detractors too much credit.... Homestarmy 00:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I didn't say "ignore" in the article, only on here.  As for their trying to tie in the traditions of Judaism to Christianity, that has nothing to do with beliefs... that is just a marketing ploy.  6SJ7 00:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Though we can all conclude that many individuals find the evangelical tactics of Jews for Jesus offensive, is it reasonable to assume that this constitutes Anti-Semitism?  The citations used to support this assertion all refer Jewish perceptions on inconsistencies in the JfJ theology, not to actual anti-semitism.  
As such, I recommend that we remove History of Anti-Semitism and possibly Anti-Judaism from the "See Also" section.  Any thoughts? Djma12 02:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I started a discussion concerning Anti-Judaism awhile ago, but I was shot down, however, at the time, the Anti-Judaism article defined Anti-Judaism very differently. (I believe it was something along the lines of anything which implied any sort of decifiency of Judaism, similar to the annoyingly vauge definition of Anti-Catholicism.) As it stands now, I agree that Jews for Jesus at the very least no longer fits under the definition of Anti-Judaism, as they would have to have a clearly evident hostility towards Judaism and Jews which is non-controversial in nature, if I understand category policy right. I don't think we've ever discussed the History of Anti-Semitism category, however, since Jews for Jesus is never mentioned in that article, I don't think that category is useful either. Homestarmy 02:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does any one else agree?  If you disagree, could we please include relevant citations to the article to back this up?  I have no problem with the internal links being there -- they just seem non apropos in the context of the article.  I will remove them in 24 hrs unless I hear otherwise. Djma12 03:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree with the proposed removal of those entries from the ==See also== section. We do not take a position that JFJ is or is not an antisemitic group, but - as the refs & quotes show - these links are relevant to the discourse. This is not the first effort to convert Jews and/or undermine Judaism. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops, I thought this was categories, I guess I wasn't paying enough attention.... Homestarmy 13:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Fair enough.  Thanks for the input! Djma12 18:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links with Anti-Semitism 

message: Also, this article is in some major need for clean-up.  For example, while a litigation section concerning JFJ is completely appropriate, the section occupies upwards to 1/4th the article. Furthermore, the citations are often block quotes that only confuse the reader.  The article, as it stands, is disorienting and patchwork. Djma12 03:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, I think many editors are quite supportive of showing the whole quotes, even though they are very large, because the thing is, each citation often has just a little bit of it pertaining to the exact fact being mentioned and so the particular paragraph is just copied here :/. Homestarmy 03:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP is full of blockquotes. I don't see anything wrong with them. What exactly do you find "disorienting" and how do you propose to knit together the "patchwork"? ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be for cutting the "excerpts" for any sources that are available online, just keeping the source cite and link, and excerpting only offline sources. If the reader wants to read the stuff, that's what a link is for, it does currently seem excessive and not really in keeping with the style of other articles. Seraphimblade 05:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since when references are a problem in an encyclopedic article? It is hard to find anything in the article that has not been challenged, hence the refs. See WP:CITE. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of references is great, and the more the better! The big problem is the lengths of the excerpts. I wouldn't take away a single reference at all, we just should replace excerpts with links for material available online. (For offline references, the excerpts are probably a good idea.) That would keep the reference section from getting overly long, while still making sure the material to verify is available to readers. I'd suggest replacing the online ones with some standard form of "summary" citation (I use MLA myself generally, but I think anything really would work). Seraphimblade 17:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Online references can go offline without notice, so it makes little sense to remove a quote simply because it is online. Jayjg (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about archiving the excerpts on this page, for sources which are currently online? That would preserve them in case a source goes offline, but would still help to declutter the article. Seraphimblade 21:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give me an example of something you consider to be an "excerpt" that needs to be "decluttered"? Jayjg (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: References 29 and 14 are excellent examples. While some of the sources cited are offline, and those excerpts should be kept, many of them are online. They add quite a bit of length to the article as a whole, especially to the reference section (which is supposed to be brief), and also add a -lot- of text inline with the article while editing, leading to a much greater risk of editing/formatting errors. Taking 14 as an example, I would suggest keeping the three book excerpts at the top (which presumably are unavailable online), and simply linking to the other articles which are available online, while preserving those excerpts in an archive here-that way, if one of those sources goes offline at a later date, it's easy to simply pull out and reinsert the excerpt. Also, standard format tends to have one citation per footnote, so each citation of a different publication should be its own footnote-currently, a lot of the footnotes, including the ones listed, cram quite a few publications into a single note. Some quotes also might be fitting as direct, attributed quotes within the article body itself-so long as we properly attribute and mark the direct quotations, that would be fine if they'd be fitting as well. Seraphimblade 22:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was afraid that was what you were talking about, so I had to be sure. I'm astonished you'd even suggest removing them. These kinds of quotations are exactly where ref system excels, and exactly what a good article does - brings copious proof for points made. They were brought in the first place because people kept insisting that obvious facts were not facts. They hardly "clutter" the article, since they are footnotes; they are kept at the bottom of the article precisely so that they don't clutter it. I can see why one might want to take a quotation from the body of an article and move it to a footnote, but I can't imagine any rational reason for removing relevant quotations in footnotes. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If they are important enough to be cited as large sections of block text, I propose that they should be included in the article, not buried in a reference section.  If that makes the article too bulky, I propose that the article should be split.  Best regards, Djma12 01:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not understanding your point. They are not "cited as large sections of block text", but rather are a number of individual quotes brought as footnotes to support summarized statements made in the text. The whole point of footnotes is to bring support (including greater detail) to points made in the main article, but which are not crucial for understanding the main article. A list of references which support a main point are not readable as a narrative, but ideal for footnotes, and this is exactly how footnotes are used in academic works. In addition, footnotes do not make "sub-articles". I'm having a great deal of difficulty understanding the point of any of these suggestions, as they don't seem to improve the article in any way, but instead seemed designed to either make it less well referenced, or, alternatively, unreadable. Jayjg (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There aren't any "lengthy excerpts" in the article; rather, there are brief quotes in footnotes supporting the various points made in the article. As for "cramming" cites under one reference, this is regularly done to make articles more readable; rather than having a sentence with [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] after it, one simply has a sentence with [9] after it. As for "editability", it is a problem with the ref system in general, which is being worked on, but it's no better or worse with multiple cites. Jayjg (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What would you suggest to shorten the section, then? Certainly you would agree the referencing there doesn't fit any standard formats in MOS or WP:CITE (all of these suggest only footnotes from which references can be located, rather than excerpting, which is standard). I think some of those quotes could actually be integrated into the article itself, either paraphrased or quoted directly. I think this would make the article read a whole lot more easily, and also not make the references section so long-it needs to be somewhat long, given that apparently a lot of the information is challenged and requires sourcing, but no need to be more then it has to! Seraphimblade 19:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason to shorten it at all, nor anything in MOS or WP:CITE that would suggest removing the quotes. Indeed, the better articles are filled with these kinds of informative footnotes, as are most peer-reviewed articles. See Rudolf Vrba for an example. We could make the footnotes into two columns, which would make the section appear shorter; what do you think of that? Jayjg (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The two columns just might do it, how is that done? I've not formatted one like that before. Seraphimblade 03:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  2-column refs section per request. I am not a big fan of that style so I won't insist on keeping it. I do feel strongly about keeping the refs and quotes, though. They are here only because of the amount of denial, trolling, and attempts to distort facts. I wish all WP articles were as well referenced as this one. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Is this fine looking now, is the cleanup tag still needed? Homestarmy 16:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume that since Humus changed the refs section and Djma hasn't said anything, that no more cleanup is needed for references, so i'm removing the template. Homestarmy 21:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up 

message: I just noticed the following pair of edits: , an edit by Mnikoldz, followed by a revert (), marked as minor by Jayjg marked as a minor vandalism reversion. The only other intervening edit is , a minor disambiguation fix. I would ask that everyone involved uses true edit summaries, and refrains from calling non-vandal edits vandalism. I believe the edit here was evidently not vandalism-it may have been disagreeable, but it certainly is no random insertion of profanity or page-blanking. Seraphimblade 09:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see now, that was reversal of a banned user. Still, a summary such as "reverse banned user's edits" would've probably been clearer for an otherwise alright-looking edit. Seraphimblade 09:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading edit summaries

message: Once again, I ask that reverts not be performed without discussion. My rationale for changing the "Christian" bit is clear-the cited sources do not (and cannot) establish as "fact" that JfJ is Christian, only that many believe that they are. I have accordingly restored the edit (or will shortly anyway). If you must revert, please at minimum discuss why you did so, and why you disagree with the rationale of those making the edits. Seraphimblade 21:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jews for Jesus doesn't deny they are a Christian organization, plenty of sources confirm that they are indeed Christian, this is not even an issue. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a debate, however, as to whether they are solely Christian. The lead effectively "takes a side" and effectively says "Yes, they are in fact solely Christian." We also should not take a side and say that they are "both Christian and Jewish"-this too is highly disputed. What there is no debate over is that they advocate Christian principles to Jews, and I believe that as this is clearly correct it should be used to describe the organization. Seraphimblade 22:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro already addresses it fine, it says Jews for Jesus is Christian (no one argues that they are not), and that the organization members also identify themselves as living out their "Jewishness".  It then further explains that this notion is rejected by Jewish denominations and other organizations. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that those parts are fine, they're not under dispute to my knowledge. However, in putting (in Wikipedia's voice) only that they are "Christian", we are in effect "taking a side" as to who is correct in the dispute. Why not simply use something which is obviously and undisputedly correct, instead of something that is the core of the dispute? Seraphimblade 22:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed. I'm not sure why we must constantly repeat these things, they've been stated again and again on the Talk: page for weeks now. Jayjg (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And are still and yet in dispute. It is not just I who disagree, Jayjg-the tone of this article has repeatedly attracted criticism from quite a few editors. Don't you believe that this does indeed indicate there are issues? Seraphimblade 22:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they may be in dispute, but the arguments around them haven't changed, to it's rather misleading to claim that reverts of your edits have been "un-discussed", when they have been discussed over and over, at great length. Just because you go away for a couple of weeks, then come back and do the same reverts you've done time and again before, it doesn't mean that someone who reverts you is "not discussing". Jayjg (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The header may have been discussed before, but I don't recall having ever changed it, and I know I have not to any such version as I did there. I would appreciate if you would state why you disagree that my changes represent a less-neutral tone. Additionally, I believe that any revert in a content dispute should always be discussed. Seraphimblade 22:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not it should be described as "Christian" has been discussed at great, great length - reversion of changes to the consensus description can, in no way, be described as "undiscussed". Your changes introduced unnecessary circumlocution designed to weasel word around simple facts confirmed by J4J themselves. Jayjg (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And, by the way, in the future, if I revert any changes to the simple, factual, description of the group as "Christian", the discussion of that revert can be found right here, and in the many previous discussions. I won't be repeating myself. Jayjg (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I was not here when the last round of arguments were made. These are my edits which you are reverting, which are not based on prior disputes. If you don't have time to respond, you should not be editing this page. You did not explain your reversions of my edits. If you have explained before why the Jewish opposition is artificially divided into 5 elements in the first paragraph, please simply copy and paste your previous explanation.Mackan79 22:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, there is not a consensus here. Quite a few editors have disagreed to the current wording. (Quite a few have agreed to it as well, leading to the lack of consensus.) I think, however, that continued discussion is more productive than threats to edit war-I'll freely admit I've not been perfect on that myself, but I think it's important to note that this is not a case of violating any consensus. Seraphimblade 22:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Jewish opposition" consists of all sorts of groups which are not normally lumped together, nor do they normally act together. Any edit which removes valid references without giving reasons for, and getting agreement to, remove specific references, will be instantly reverted. Jayjg (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My complaint against the division is that it is inappropriate to speak of five kinds of opposition in the introduction, even if 5 kinds of opposition exist, which they don't.  Some of the distinctions are ridiculously transparent (groups vs. organizations).  To the extent there are real differences, however, they are irrelevant.  The reason each of these groups is included is because they're Jewish, not because they are "organizations" or "groups" or "denominations" or "states."  The distinctions serve no purpose other than to give undue weight to the proposition that Jewish groups oppose JfJ.  Particularly in an introduction, this is highly inappropriate.  Your repeated declarations of intent to edit war are also another clear violation of Wikipedia policy which I'd appreciate if you would stop making. Mackan79 19:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There certainly is a difference between "Jewish groups" and "Jewish denominations"; the other distinction doesn't seem particularly important. However, the real point was that you didn't consolidate references, you eliminated them. Had you simply consolidated them, especially after proposing the edit here first, I doubt it would have been so contentious. And I have declared no intent to edit war; I have simply stated that this article, like all articles, must follow Wikipedia's content policies. Jayjg (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't say that was your objection until after several reverts.  When you refer to Jewish groups this would implicitly include groups, organizations and denominations.  Again, though, the point is simply that many authoritative Jewish people oppose this.  That's the point that needs to be made, without driving it into the ground.  I removed certain links which did not fit the format, while leaving dozens of sources for this single assertion.  There is such a thing as source over-kill, you know, relating to undue weight.  It's a common persuasive tactic to throw up 50 references on a particular point to make it seem like it's extremely important.  It looks like now somebody has changed it without removing any sources, though, so I guess that makes the point moot for now.  Mackan79 21:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Undiscussed reverts

message: Any edits which contain unattributed weasel words such as "Many", "Most", "Some", "Almost all", etc. will be reverted, per policy. Jayjg (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg, it is not policy that one may revert or edit war at will, nor is it policy that such words may never be used. The words are already sourced by the existing sources-there is plenty of evidence that almost all Jewish organizations oppose JfJ. There is not, however, evidence that all do, for two reasons. Firstly, there is not a source in the article for every Jewish organization in existence, and I would think this would be rather an impossible project-I'm sure there are millions of such organizations. Therefore, per WP:V, the statement is inadequately sourced and may be challenged. Secondly, even if in theory it were possible to find such millions of sources, and affirm that they represented every known organization, we must still, per WP:NPOV, treat as plausible JfJ's claim that it is a Jewish organization-and it would be unlikely to oppose itself! Therefore, "almost all" or the like is the proper and sourced wording. Seraphimblade 17:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I would, conversely, assert that it constitutes original research to jump from a well-sourced assertion that many organizations oppose JfJ to a novel conclusion that all of them do. I would also disagree that I have engaged in edit warring-each edit I have made has been to a different section of the article, and once each edit was disputed I came here to discuss them, having reverted back to none. Conversely, you have reverted every attempt to edit the article. I would also assert that any "all" assertion is still inadequately sourced unless every Jewish organization on the planet can be sourced as having come out against JfJ-and even then we have the plausibility requirement from WP:NPOV, which you have not addressed. Seraphimblade 18:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Jayjg, I think you and others here should reread WP:WEASEL. "Many" is not a weasel word when several groups are sourced. From WP:WEASEL, "Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources." Here, the opinions are attributed to several sources. This is exactly what's supposed to happen. Additionally, the solution to a weasel word is to have the source speak for itself, not to assert unsourced unanimity, as you must know. Please respond if you think I am misinterpreting the policy.Mackan79 18:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are dozens of sources all saying the same thing, so we certainly can't list them all. "Many" is always a weasel word, unless you have a reliable source that explicitly states "Many Jewish groups etc." Jayjg (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Here is the edit in question, true that it does not use those exact words . However, by simply stating that it "is rejected", we are stating that as a fact rather than a position (though a definite majority position). This is problematic, as there are some organizations, such as :Messianic Judaism and, well, JfJ, which do reject this position. It is also inadequately sourced due to this implication of "entirely rejected"-we'd have to show that everyone on the planet rejects it, which is certainly not the case. Seraphimblade 18:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you add something about what you believe "almost all Jewish organizations" believe to a section on the beliefs of Judaism? Judaism is a religion, with specific beliefs and practices. Many (most?) "Jewish organizations" are not even religious. Are B'nai Brith's beliefs about the Trinity (if they have any) relevant to what Judaism believes? How about the views of the Atlanta Jewish Bowling League? It looks like you inserted a weasel worded strawman claim. Jayjg (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The last link is relevant to this article, since I presume it is a Jewish organization which has no position on JfJ, (I mean, its not like JfJ can contact every Jewish organization there is) and thusly, likely does not have a stated opinion one way or another on whether JfJ is or is not Jewish. But I guess if original reaserch doesn't have weasel wording in it its ok, right? Homestarmy 22:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? What original research? Jayjg (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words