Talk:Jews for Jesus/Archive 4

Disputes

I added the 'totallydisputed' tag. This article remains an objective mess; subjectively, it appears to me not more than religious propaganda. Here are the problems:

(1) The 'christianity' tag. First, it is possibly question-begging--and at the very least disputed--that JfJ is a Christian organization. Now, I think that it is. But there is by no means consensus on this issue. However, let us grant that it is. It must still obtain that JfJ is 'sufficiently' Christian to warrant the tag. And clearly it is not. I have remarked before that the standard by which articles receive that tag is much higher than what is being employed here. Thomas Aquinas, one of the intellectual founders of Christianity, does not have the tag. JfJ are vastly less important to Christianity than Thomas. Consequently, the tag is unwarranted.

(2) Stylistically, the article is awful. The footnotes are in many places redundant and out-of-control. 62 footnotes for a few hundred words is unprecedented. Also, the writing is very sloppy at points. I would fix it, but past attempts to do so have been meet with immediate reversion and calls for banning me.

(3) "Jews for Jesus is a Christian evangelical organization". There needs to be qualification here. The whole point of the dispute is that some people believe it is possible to be both Jewish and believe in a divine Christ. We all disagree with them. But to make the assertion out-of-hand is question-begging. Moreover, for reasons I have previously outlined and will only recapitulate here, as a formal semantic matter we may easily see that the current statement is false--ambiguous predicates like 'is Christian' (i.e. predicates without formal truth-conditions) cannot be put in a one-to-one correspondence with atomic entities. Better would be 'Jews for Jesus is an evangelical organization widely regarded as Christian'.

(4) "all Jewish denominations". For the reasons given in (3), above: just add a 'nearly' and it's fine.

(5) You are citing the 'beliefs' of JfJ by referring to an article by "Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance", an organization most of us have never heard of and which, for obvious reasons, have a POV--albeit, in my view, a very good one. We should cite the beliefs explicitly stated by JfJ and not rely on secondary sources. And that should be obvious to everyone--this is an encyclopedia, after all. Again, this section smacks of POV dogma.

(6) "Incompatiblility with Judaism"--"all" to 'nearly all', for the reasons in (4).

(7) "Messianic Judaism is not Christianity:A Loving Call to Unity" is obviously not a NPOV source. Please, guys.

(8) The quotation from Emil Fackenheim is nonsensical.

(9) What is the basis for the claim that "the Pope spoke out against targeting Jews for conversion in 1996"?

(10) Why is "Jews for Jesus is a member of numerous evangelical Christian groups" cited under "Support"? That's a veiled attempt at criticism by someone.

(11) What are the grounds for having a "Litigation" section? JfJ is not noteworthily litigous.

These are just the obvious errors that are evident at first blush; but their correction will, I think, do much to improve the article.

Also, please do not ban me.ParadoxTom 20:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A lot of what you say seems pretty sensible to me. And don't worry, you won't be blocked for disputing an article. DJ Clayworth 23:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to comment on the last one, its not JfJ itself that makes the cases notworthy, its because several of them got in the news, and one concerned a rather famous policy of the state of Israel and how it would possibly effect Messianic Jews. The cases often had quite a bit of notability to them. Homestarmy

If the case regarding the state of Israel is indeed notable (I have not heard of it), then it certainly may be included in the article. If there are no objections to removal of the others, then, I will do so.ParadoxTom 19:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well it's just it involved a rather famous policy of Israel to basically help Jews across the world get into the country, but two JfJ people were denied this because the Supreme Court of Israel decided that recognizing Jesus as the Messiah was incompatible with Judaism. The other cases are all notable though as well, there was that visit to the New York supreme court there, and the actual US Supreme court visit, and the last one got in the news making it notable. The fourth one is the only one you might make a case for because I don't think it got an amazingly high amount of news coverage, but alot of people in the internet community took note of it because of the involvement of google I think, and it certainly involves the history of JfJ as an organization since they use the domain they won as a website now I think. Homestarmy 20:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I think the U.S. Supreme Court case is indeed okey; that's sufficiently interesting to be in the article. The case that went to the NY Supreme Court is trivial; it must go (in NY, the Supreme Court is the lowest court in the state). The one about Israel is fine. The "cybersquatting" thing is a trifle; it must go. As for Jackie Mason, it's kind of culturally relevant and funny, so it can stay. However, there is an insidious little bit of POV in that paragraph (to wit: "Mason is a member of the Jewish faith and not associated with Jews for Jesus") that must be replaced. How about "Mason is not associated with Jews for Jesus"?ParadoxTom 21:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Responding to ParadoxTom:

I broke this mutli-threaded talk into subsections. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Christianity tag

1 Christianity tag: you are entitled to your POV. Read above discussions for more.

The above discussions demonstrate clearly that there are no reasonable grounds for including the template.ParadoxTom 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No, they do not, and every attempt to hide JFJ's deceptive methods justifies its presence even more. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Here you reveal your own bias; you want to bring light to "JFJ's deceptive methods" through the use of the Christianity template, whether it is warranted or not. That is unacceptable. The tag should go. If you have arguments for its inclusion that are based on fact and not desire, make them.ParadoxTom 23:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Humus, I think its safe to say that throughout the fight we had previously over this article, there is very little chance that any "attempts to hide JFJ's deceptive methods" (Which I take to mean the actions of people who kept blanking much of the article, who were blocked mostly) actually got through or will get through in the future. Besides, the article doesn't even assert as fact that JfJ has done anything deceptive at all, which it really shouldn't anyway. Homestarmy 23:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This has been talked to death, an we even voted. JFJ is a Christian ministry and Ch-ty tag belongs here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you gave a specific reason which I felt compelled to oppose :/. (Plus, I don't think you ever before stated that the mere attempts to edit the article in a pro-JfJ fashion warrent using a template as, quite frankly, spam for the other side of the argument) Homestarmy 01:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. If there are serious grounds for including the template, cite them. Remember that it is a necessary but insufficient condition that JfJ is Christian for the template to be included.ParadoxTom 01:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, to Humus's credit, he seems to believe in some very serious reasons for including the template, it's just I personally think their wrong is all :/. Homestarmy 01:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Those who demand to remove the Christianity tag from an article on a Christian group (against the logic and against the vote) should explain their insistence. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have done so. If you wish to include the template, you must prove two things: (1) that JfJ is Christian, and (2) that JfJ is sufficiently Christian to warrant the template. You have done neither. All you have done is state that you desire the template as a warning to Jews who might be 'swayed' by JfJ. And that is obviously unacceptable.ParadoxTom 04:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You stated your POV. We talked about this and we voted. Unless you have something new to say, accept that other editors may disagree with you. Oh, and yes, JFJ is Christian. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course they're Christian. You're missing the point very badly.ParadoxTom 02:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that everyone and their mom considers it Christian based on the wealth of references in the lead section saying as much. Grandmasterka 09:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not the point. The POV of everyone here, including me, is that JfJ is Christian. There are people who disagree. But that's not relevant. The relevant question is: 'Is JfJ sufficiently Christian to warrant the Christianity template, given the template inclusion standard?' And it seems clear to me--and many others--that it is not. Again, if Thomas Aquinas does not get the template, JfJ certainly doesn't.ParadoxTom 02:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

If Christian Wicca, Jewish Christians, Shakers and Antichrist are "sufficiently Christian", then JFJ are as well. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Christian Wicca represents a distinct and separate movement of beliefs, (And the paragraph where the template is in discusses Christology and important concepts to Christianity like that), Jewish Christians are, as the article notes, often used to describe the earliest converts to Christianity since they mostly were ethnically Jewish and thus is important to early Christianity, the Shakers were even in my history book last year and were quite a notable group in the days of the American colonies, and the Antichrist is an extremely notable figure in Christian end-times theology. Jews for Jesus does not even come close to comparison importance or signifigance-wise to any of these articles. Homestarmy 20:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

JFJ tries to revive (or align with) these early Jewish Christian movements, and therefore Christianity tag belongs. JFJ's beliefs strongly correlate with those in the template, and therefore Christianity tag belongs. Articles on other Christian movements proudly carry the tag, and this one deserves it as well. And we talked about it, and we voted, and so far no good reason to remove the tag was presented ("sufficiently Christian to warrant" is comical, try harder). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean the Jewish Christians article alone, right? Because neither Shakers nor "Christian" Wiccan's have much to do with JfJ. The Jewish Christians article, in the last section I think, even points out that Messianic Judaism and Jewish Christian movements are not exactly the same, and while the analogy given might be OR, JfJ seems far more related to Messianic Judaism than trying to reform itself around the principles of Jewish members of the early church. JfJ is not its own Christian movement, they are a singular organization (of, as I think we agreed, around 100 full time members) advocating opinions similar to Messianic Jewish movements, they certainly aren't their own special denomination or classification like either Jewish Christians or Messianic Jews are. JfJ certainly isn't trying to revive any movements which were once gone, somehow, I don't think the early church went around handing out pamphlets and DVD's and trying to draw parallels between Jewish celebrations and Christianity to get people to convert. It doesn't matter how much the subject of an article has beliefs conforming with Christianity, the template has never gone on every tiny little Christian organization article, or on every single biography of Christians, and the same follows for all other religious templates. I also don't care if you don't think my reasons which I gave very extensively earlier in the discussion were good or not, I will continue to hold onto them until somebody can explain when exactly templates were mandated to be spammed (and yes, spam would be required, unless you want to take years compleating the task) on every single article related to any religion or concept mentioned in said article, irregardless of how important the subject is to the subject of the template. Homestarmy 17:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's crucial "how much the subject of an article has beliefs conforming with Christianity". OTOH, the number of full time members is not important, and the rest of argument is even less convincing to me. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree and move on. Any Christian organization would be proud to carry a Christianity tag. I don't think it qualifies as spam. If you don't like that particular tag, let's try another one. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you've just gotten to the heart of the issue, by saying that a Christian organization would be "proud" to have a tag of Christianity. The Christianity template is not a stamp of approval on an article's subject for being "Christian" or not, and neither are any other templates, the goal of this template and hopefully all others is to improve the encyclopedia by giving links to relevant issues, not say to the world "Don't worry folks, they try to say that their not just Christian, but we know you, the reader, are too easily influenced by deceptive Judaism exterminaters (I'm using your sides language here Humus) to read the ton of references we have at the bottom, so look at the pretty stamp of approval and be convinced of Wikipedia's ability to slam you with the facts, after all, verifiability is so over-rated!" Homestarmy 14:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

And since the Christianity template has links to the topics relevant to beliefs of this Christian group, we include it in the Beliefs section - rather than a template on Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Shamanism or Satanism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would we need an entire template for the beliefs section of Jews for Jesus , when simply wikilinking terms would be much more space efficient and wouldn't lead the reader to clicking on articles not pertinent to JfJ? Homestarmy 00:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Because the role of an encyclopedia is to systematize information. The template has it all in one place, rather than scattered links. As for space, it doesn't take much and WP is not a paper. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Systems are generally implemented to be as efficient as possible, and the beliefs section is hardly a scattered collections of words with a few blue ones thrown randomly around. What's the reader going to be looking at primarily, the template or the text? Probably a combination of both, since one would assume the template would have articles pertinent to the beliefs of Jews for Jesus. But, surprise surprise, none of the articles describe the topic in the context of Jews for Jesus! Most of them simply describe their topics and make no attempt to compare them with the beliefs of Jews for Jesus. Maybe it's because Jews for Jesus's choice of beliefs aren't really notable for every bit of Christian theology and history there is.... Homestarmy 02:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I see on my screen: Trinity, salvation, virgin birth, Jesus as the messiah/god, his resurrection, New Testament, and to top it all, Supersessionism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The template appears to be having topic changes, i'm not involved in the discussion their having, it is possible they may change the template in a way that will invalidate my arguments. Homestarmy 20:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Too many footnotes

2 Do you seriously complain that we have too many footnotes, or that they do not reflect your POV?

I "serious complain" that there are too many footnotes, and that it is stylistically very weak.ParadoxTom 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I gotta point out here, number of references is never a bad thing, but rather, quality. the ref=name format can be used to lower the amount of purple next to each sentence however. Homestarmy 20:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"number of references" can be a bad thing, when they are redundant--as is the case frequently within this article. When a statement needs external grounding, a single footnote must suffice. When there are multiple citations, find the best one and excise the rest.ParadoxTom 21:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It has been established practice to give singular facts extensive verification when they could be controversial, as this article certainly is. As another good example, look at the Christianity article, we had a large feud over whether it should present Christianity as a monotheistic religion, which pretty much ground to a halt when it was extensively referenced in the first citation. Homestarmy 21:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fine: let's do that here. You will notice in that case that there is a single citation.ParadoxTom 21:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, its about 8 or 9 citations, using the ref=name thing I mentioned above. You can group several citations concerning one fact into one number by copying all citations into one set of ref tags. Homestarmy 21:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that's one citation. That in the footnote text area you reference multiple sources is irrelevant. But I think you and I agree, anyway: let's do it that way.ParadoxTom 21:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Humus might of been reading this, he already seems to of started consolidating :/. Homestarmy 22:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Great, let's do what we can. There are also stylistic problems which I can enumerate, though they are minor relative to my other concerns.ParadoxTom 23:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

3. Incompatibility of Judaism with a belief in a divine Christ

3 "some people believe it is possible to be both Jewish and believe in a divine Christ." - I suggest you don't repeat this outlandish assertion without good evidence. We are talking about religious Jews here, i.e. mainstream Judaism.

JfJ believe that it is possible to be both Jewish and believe in a divine Christ. You clearly do not. I do not either. But some do. Hence, "some people believe it is possible to be both Jewish and believe in a divine Christ" is not an "outlandish assertion"; merely a trivially true one.ParadoxTom 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

A person who was born Jewish may believe in anything. But mainstream Judaism and belief in a divine Christ are incompatible. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You're making a minor error here. Let us suppose that tomorrow all Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Jews declare that 'mainstream Judaism is compatible with a belief in a divine Christ'. Then mainstream Judaism would be compatible with a belief in a divine Christ; so your assertion is a posteriori. Therefore it cannot be asserted out of hand as a logical truth. So we need to make the contigent claim: 'Nearly all mainstream Jews maintain that it is impossible to be both Jewish and believe in a divine Christ.' That is a matter of (modal) logic.ParadoxTom 23:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

A totally ridiculous and insensitive suggestion. That would go against all the basic principles of Judaism. Grasping for straws, Tom? Imagine that Christianity embraces Satanism. Imagine that Islam embraces paganism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Imagine that Atheism embraced Theism....Hey, that'd actually be great! :D (I had to type it) Homestarmy 01:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's "Imagine that Christianity embraces Satanism". Then would it be possible to say that one could be both a Christian and endorse Satan? It would be. That is the modal nature of contingent predicates like 'is Christian'. This is not "Grasping for straws" but rather citing basic principles of logic.ParadoxTom 01:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah right, embellish that silly WP:OR with long words. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not an argument; merely polemic. I have provided a rigorous argument grounded in logic for my views. Resorting to name-calling and polemic will be regarded as concession.ParadoxTom 04:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

What you "regard" means little. The article cites reliable sources, while you choose to engage in WP:OR. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually Humus I believe the burdern of proof lies with the writer. Whoever wrote that 'all Jews' believe in the incompatibility needs to back this up. "some people believe it is possible to be both Jewish and believe in a divine Christ." is not an outlandish assertion. JFJ obviously holds it. Tom did not even write "some Jews...". DJ Clayworth 18:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

What part of "Judaism is incompatible with a belief in a divine Christ" you don't understand? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Humus, I understand the statement. I understand that a huge majority of Jews believe it, and a large number of others do too. The point here is that not everyone in the entire universe believes it. That's all I'm saying. DJ Clayworth 22:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you show some basic tolerance towards another religion and leave it alone without trying to redefine according to your own (or someone else's) views? Do you think the Jews are incompetent to define what Judaism's main principles of faith really are, so they need your "help"? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Humus sapiens, you have no right to question DJ Clayworth's committment to religious tolerance. You have engaged in ad hominem attacks against him and me. Please do not. No one is trying to "redefine" the Jewish faith. I am not going to repeat what has been stated ad nauseum. Please re-read our positions in an intellectually dispassionate and honest manner.ParadoxTom 02:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"Religious toleration is the condition of accepting or permitting others' religious beliefs and practices which disagree with one's own." Waht JFJ do is exact opposite, and it seems they found a few enthusiastic supporters among WP editors. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is you who want to forbid JFJ to hold their beliefs, or at least forbid Wikipedia from reporting on those beliefs.

Remember that nobody has suggested we write "Judaism is compatible with Jesus" in the article. All we want to report is that JFJ believe this, though almost all other Jews disagree. However you seem to be insisting that we make the definitive statement that what JFJ believes is wrong. DJ Clayworth 18:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I almost don't want to say it because I know people will want to take it the negative way, but the very definition of religious tolerance basically excludes any and all types of Christian evangelism, whether its a friendly kind or not, because it implicitly suggests a lack of faith in, well, another person's faith. Why do you think so many fundamentalist Christian organizations oppose it? :D It is compleatly antithecal to Christ's command to seek and save the lost, since it explicitly labels such an activity as "intolerant", whether done nicely or not. The point is, while JfJ certainly doesn't practice religious tolerance, in a way, (annoyingly enough) neither does any other group that is opposed to anyone's beliefs anywhere in the world, including, ironically enough, groups which disagree with JfJ's beliefs. In summary, i'm not sure that wanting people to be religiously tolerant here is such a great idea. Homestarmy 20:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Response to DJC. Fact: Judaism is incompatible with a belief in a divine Christ. You'll have to live with this objective reality that has been true for the last 2 millennia - whether you like it or not. Judaism doesn't need anyone's permission to define their belief system. Similarly, other faiths are free to believe whatever they want. The JFJ's problem is that they attempt to hijack the name and redefine the basic priniciples of another faith.

I reject accusations that I was "insisting that we make the definitive statement that what JFJ believes is wrong" and that I "forbid Wikipedia from reporting on those beliefs" - proof please. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we've really got down to the crunch here. You clearly believe that this is a 'fact', and will not let up on that. Unfortunately Wikipedia does not operate on that principle. We don't report such things as 'facts', if there is even the tiniest disagreement. Since JFJ obviously disagrees, Wikipedia should not report these views as facts. Instead we report the undisputed fact that nearly all Jewish denominations believe this. DJ Clayworth 13:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually if the disagreement comes from a group of people that are so insignifigant that they would be considered a fringe then I would say that we shouldn't put their belief on equal footing with the vast majority of people who have an opinion on the matter.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 15:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be a valid point if the article were not about that group of people. Wikipedia doesn't take sides like that. Flat Earth Society is a fringe view, and doesn't get (or deserve) a mention in Geology. But in the article about them we don't say "they are wrong". We do what we always do on Wikipedia - record the fact that almost everyone else disagrees with them; which is what we should do here. DJ Clayworth 16:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is ironic that you would point out that article since that really demonstrates my point as even though it doesn't outright say they are wron,g it does give clear indication that all but the craziest people understand they they are wrong.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I've been saying we should do all along! We don't state 'they are wrong' as a fact, we report on exactly who it is who agrees or disagrees. Are we on the same page then? DJ Clayworth 19:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The wording 'they are wrong' is unencyclopedic. Why are we talking about it? Who proposes to use it?

The phrase in the title of this section is a fact and not an opinion. Since JFJ do not represent Judaism, they cannot speak for it, and it is certainly not up to them to redefine its beliefs. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It is also unencyclopedic to make statements which are the equivalent of 'they are wrong'. If JFJ believe that a divine Jesus is compatible with Judaism, and Wikipedia says "a divine Jesus is incompatible with Judaism", then that is the equivalent of "they are wrong" and just as unencyclopedic. Let me say this again - it is longstanding Wikipedia policy - that when there are disagreements like this you record who believes what. Statements like "virtually all other Jewish organisations believe that a divine Jesus is incompatible with Judaism" are entirely encyclopedic and correct. And that's what we should be saying here. DJ Clayworth 22:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

JFJ may believe anything they want but they do not represent views of Judaism. As I wrote elsewhere, I find it inappropriate and offensive to even suggest that some group, other than religious leaders of mainstream Judaism, can redefine the basic principles of Judaism. The incompatibility has been a fact for 2 millenia. This is not a mere "disagreement", you confuse (intentionally or not) fact and opinion. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I would go one step further and say that even Jewish religious leaders can't really redefine Judaism, which is rather rare in organized religions, so it is especially ironic when this group tries to that very thing. DJ clay keeps commenting on how we are not allowed to outright say they are wrong, but the article really doesn't even do that, in fact it quite carefully follows wikipedia precedents of how to convey the viewpoints of fringe groups and cranks.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right Moshe, as it stands right now the article doesn't say that. Humus, however keeps wanting to change this article to say, as a statement of fact, "Judaism is incompatible with a divine Jesus". This is of course the view of the huge majority or Jews - but not all. Messianic Judaism, including Jews for Jesus, obviously disagrees with this, and this is what the argument here is about. We have a long standing policy at Wikipedia of not taking sides in a disagreement, but of factually reporting who says what in the disagreement. We don't say "Judaism is incompatible with a divine Jesus", we say "Virtually all Jewish groups consider that Judaism is incompatible with a divine Jesus". That's how I'm trying ton make the article read. DJ Clayworth 15:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You've said absolutely nothing original in quite a while now. You keep referring to the npov policy but you neglect to mention that it is equally important to not give every single person who has a viewpoint equal influence. I must say that I almost find it offensive how you continually refer to Messanic Judaism as if it is just a sect that other Jews happen to disagree with out of their ignorance of their own religion. It is really becoming impossible to assume good faith here.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 15:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

4. all Jewish denominations - just add a 'nearly'

4 "all Jewish denominations... just add a 'nearly'" - on what grounds? Evidence please.

This has been answered.ParadoxTom 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

See the rationale for (3). Underneath all of this is the fact that some of you want to hold that it is a logical truth that you cannot be both Jewish and believe in a divine Christ. And while you are certainly right about the actual world, the statement must be qualified.ParadoxTom 23:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"Nonsense" is not an argument; just easy polemic. Absence of argument will be assumed as concession.ParadoxTom 01:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Reliable refs are provided. See WP:OR. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That is not a valid response. I have given a rigorous argument for adding the qualification "nearly". Do you, or do you not, have grounds to dispute it?ParadoxTom 04:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The sources say "There is virtual unanimity across all denominations [of Judaism] that Jews for Jesus are not Jewish." Where did you get the idea of inserting "nearly", why not insert "half", or a "nearly none"? WP:RS please. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Humus, read your own writing. Your source says "virtual unanimity". If it had meant "unanimity" it would have written it. "virtual unanimity" means "nearly all believe this". DJ Clayworth 19:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem using the same word as the source, "virtual". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with that also. DJ Clayworth 22:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As am I.ParadoxTom 02:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

5. JFJ's beliefs

5 beliefs - you must've missed the ref to their Doctrinal statement.

Right, fine; then I will remove all the business about that organization and say something like 'here are JfJ's stated beliefs: . . .'.ParadoxTom 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

6. Incompatiblility with Judaism - just add a 'nearly'

6 "Incompatiblility with Judaism"--"all" to 'nearly all' - Evidence please.

Has been given.ParadoxTom 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

See (3), (4).ParadoxTom 23:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense repeated stays nonsense. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ibid.ParadoxTom 01:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Reliable refs are provided. See WP:OR. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ibid.: That is not a valid response. I have given a rigorous argument for adding the qualification "nearly". Do you, or do you not, have grounds to dispute it?ParadoxTom 04:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

See #3. Incompatibility of Judaism with a belief in a divine Christ & #4. all Jewish denominations - just add a 'nearly'. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Those fail to address the salient question.ParadoxTom 02:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

7. Messianics

7 "Messianic Judaism is not Christianity: A Loving Call to Unity" is obviously not a NPOV source. - don't know about that one.

Well, let's get rid of it, then.ParadoxTom 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

8. Emil Fackenheim

8 The quotation from Emil Fackenheim is nonsensical. - LOL. Unlike you, he's a WP:RS.

That I do not dispute. I dispute the sensibility of his remark. I find it unintelligible.ParadoxTom 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Your POV. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but not in the way "POV" is construed on Wikipedia. Is it just me, or his statement more or less nonsensical?ParadoxTom 23:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I tend to think that Christian-Jewish dialogue, Christian missions to the Jews, and framing Jesus as a Jewish issue are very relevant here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You are not answering the question. Again: "Is it just me, or his statement more or less nonsensical?"ParadoxTom 08:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize I am being interrogated. See the answer above, it begins with "I tend to think...". It really doesn't matter whether Fackenheim makes sense to user:ParadoxTom. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

9. the Pope spoke out against

9 What is the basis for the claim that "the Pope spoke out against targeting Jews for conversion in 1996"? - good question.

If you cannot find grounding, let us remove it.ParadoxTom 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

HRH JPII did in fact say such a thing, but outside of that statement, which was certainly not ex-cathedra, there are several "Catholic Jews" who have obtained all positions of the church, including the very highest (Pope!), and even presently, and IN 1996, there is an active, voting, member of the College of Cardinals, Jean-Marie Cardinal Lustiger, who was born a French Jew, of which neither ethnicity disqualfys him as either a Cardinal or as a future Pope. All of which matters not at all to the subject matter, so even if true, I think it ought to be removed, since the "Jews for Jesus" claims to be both a Christian AND a Jewish organization, but in no ways qualifys or claims to be a Catholic organization. V. Joe 17:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

10. Funding

10 Why is "Jews for Jesus is a member of numerous evangelical Christian groups" cited under "Support"? - I guess because these evangelicals finance JFJ.

Do you have evidence that that's the case? Typically it works the other way: an single entity (JfJ) would join a larger 'group' and fund it--not the other way around. Unless you have evidence that JfJ is receiving funds in an unusual way, let us remove it.ParadoxTom 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Look for "funding". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

A number of us have looked, but have not found any. Unless this can be demonstrated, it must be removed.ParadoxTom 04:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

11. Litigations

11 What are the grounds for having a "Litigation" section? - To the answer by Homestarmy (above) I'll add that we have such data for many orgs.

Answered above.ParadoxTom 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Attack on Judaism

Tom, your repeated attempts to hide/whitewash any info that JFJ may consider damaging, as well as your attacks on mainstream Judaism are duly noted. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You will immediately apologize for this opprobrious remark. Not that it is your business, but I have, in the past, served in wars whose partial purpose was to protect the Zionist cause and the state of Israel. At no point here--or anywhere--did I ever attack "mainstream Judiasm". Because I want this article to be factual and not a statement of theological dogma does not make me an anti-Semite. That is base slander, and you should be ashamed of yourself.ParadoxTom 19:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your service, but I don't see how it is relevant here. If you are trying to use that to justify your attacks on mainstream Judaism, you are mistaken. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

First, when did I ever attack mainstream Judaism? I have asked you this question at least thrice now, and you have failed to provide an answer. Second, and as far as I know unlike you, I have put my life on the line for the right of Israel to exist and the Jewish people to enjoy peace there. If you're going to be intolerant: fine; but I've earned the right not to be falsely labelled an anti-Semite. End of story. I have also reported you for personal attacks; attacks which are of the basest, falsest, and most opprobrious and unfounded sort.ParadoxTom 23:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Please focus on the arguments and leave your personal information out of this, it does not grant you immunity. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It is I and not you that am focusing on the arugments; above, I have given rigorous argumentation to support my views--you have responded only with polemic. And I may certainly cite my personal character while fending off your personal attacks.ParadoxTom 01:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please leave your "personal character" out, nobody cares. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave my character out when you leave out the slander and insult. That is not, I think, too much to ask.ParadoxTom 04:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about your attempts to misrepresent Judaism's basic principles of faith, views of its denominations, and this. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have done no such thing. Those are horribly slanderous comments. You should be ashamed of yourself.ParadoxTom 02:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

When I answered Tom above that he would not be blocked from Wikipedia for criticising this article I nearly added a comment that I could virtually guarantee that he would be called an anti-semite. Then I decided not to add that comment, thinking it flippant, and that Wikipedians were really better than that. Now I wish I had done. I also do not see what it is that he has written that constitutes an attack on Judaism. All he said was that there were people with different opinions regarding Judaism and Jesus. I do not believe that constitutes an attack. If so then everyone who holds a different opinion from you is attacking you. DJ Clayworth 18:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, Paradox has been blocked for another week, he reverted about 3 hours too early and went over 3RR :( Homestarmy 19:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that's unfortunate, and I think a week's block is overlong for a clearly accidental 3RR violation. However I'm not going to undo it.

What I will say, since ParadoxTom is not in a position to defend himself, that that I think Humus sapiens has behaved very badly here. Looking at the edits above, Tom's points are pretty valid. Humus responded by accusing him of anti-semitism, basicly for daring to suggest that other people might hold different views from him. At the very least Humus raised the level of invective to a completely unwarrented level. DJ Clayworth 19:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

While I welcome and appreciate constructive criticism, I don't see how you DJ may claim impartiality here - based on your comments like this one: "If anyone who makes a statement implying that Judaism is wrong is 'anti-Judaistic', then by definition Judaism itself is 'anti-Christian', with all that that implies. DJ Clayworth 21:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)" (see above) ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to disavow what I said there. I said it in a discussion very like this one. In the discussion, if I recall correctly, someone had implied that the word 'anti-Judaistic' could be applied to anyone who disagreed with Judaism for whatever reason. Since Christianity and Judaism do disagree over certain things that would imply that all Christians were 'anti-Judaistic'. But since Judaism also disagrees with Christianity then if we apply the same definition then we must label Judaism 'anti-Christian'. I personally don't think that use of either term is helpful in this context; I was merely pointing out the natural conclusion of another Wikipedian's logic.

Incidentally, if you, Humus, regard 'anti-semitic' as a word meaning simply 'disagrees with Judaism' then I suggest you tell ParadoxTom that. He took it as in insult, and in my opinion understandably. DJ Clayworth 22:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that it is Judaism is under attack here. A good example of psychological projection, when the attacker tries to play a victim. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think Judaism is under attack? All I have seen is some people disagreeing with Judaism. Does that constitute an attack? DJ Clayworth 15:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

To insist - against reliable evidence - that "a belief in divine Jesus is compatible with Judaism" is an attack on its belief system. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has either said or implied that "anti-semitic as a word meaning simply 'disagrees with Judaism", furthermore I really can't see how you would interpret anything that anyone has said in that way, its just a rather simplistic straw man.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what I think too. However Humus accused ParadoxTom of anti-Judaism when as far as I can tell all he had done was disagree with him. I agree that the word shouldn't be used that way. DJ Clayworth 15:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You may believe whatever you wish, alien abduction or flat earth, but it is not up to you, or ParadoxTom or even JFJ to redefine the principles of another faith. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No one is trying to do such a thing. This thing smacks of insecure paranoia.ParadoxTom 02:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hijacking the name of another religion, misrepresenting its beliefs and targeting its members for proselytizing surely constitutes an attack. As is well documented, JFJ actively engage in all three.

Sidenote: Don't expect to continue personal attacks without being held responsible for your words. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What personal attacks? Really, what is the matter with you?ParadoxTom 08:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

To focus on your opponent (such as inquire "Really, what is the matter with you?" or diagnose him with "insecure paranoia") instead of the arguments is a personal attack. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the basis for this phrase?

In the intro: "It also promotes awareness of the Jewish roots and heritage of the Christian faith to non-Jewish Christians." Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I had thought I was the only one that didn't understand that sentence, so I didn't say anything.  :) 6SJ7 12:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there's several articles on the JfJ site talking about this, we could find them, but the sentence should then probably be worded to "JfJ has created many articles trying to show a common heritage and Jewish roots concerning Christianity" or something like that. Homestarmy 12:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is a good place to start with JFJ's articles on the Jewish heritage of Christianity. 'trying to show a common heritage' is unnecessarily obtuse. Christianity and Judaism clearly share some heritage (they share some scriptures if nothing else). DJ Clayworth 19:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In particular, I am curiious where "to non-Jewish Christians" came from. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume their dividing Messianic Jews and plain old Christians into separate categories :/. Homestarmy 12:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:LEAD, "If something is not mentioned after the lead it should not be mentioned in the lead." Unless there is a reliable source for this claim, the phrase should either be changed or go. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like DJ has a link to a good example right above :/. Homestarmy 22:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please elaborate. That is a link to several articles. The question still stands. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to present itself as an informative lists of articles from the JfJ website presented to a generalized "You", which admittedly, doesn't really seem to support the idea it is primarily meant for ""non-Jewish Christians", but I guess they want it meant for, well, anyone.... Homestarmy 23:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can understand the point of those articles is to give Christians without a Jewish background an idea of Jewish heritage, culture and belief. That includes how (in their opinion) it relates to Christianity. Presumably it is assumed that Jewish Christians already know about this heritage. It seems to be a significant 9though minor) part of their work. DJ Clayworth 13:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any basis for these assumptions. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Location of 'incompatibility' section

Humus Sapiens has placed the section entitled 'Incompatibility with Judaism' in the 'beliefs' section. I don't believe that this is the best place for it, since it implies that the 'incompatibility' of Judaism with faith in Jesus is one of JFJ's beliefs. That is obviously not the case (they believe exactly the opposite). Most of the section is in fact devoted to arguing that JFJ's beliefs are false in this regard. I propose one of two solutions:

1. In the 'beliefs' section the position of JFJ is described without (detailed) rebuttal. This is probably useful to out readers, who may want to know what JFJ think, and may or may not be interested in anything else. The criticisms of JFJ's beliefs would then be placed in the criticisms section.
2. The entire section could be moved to the criticisms section. I think this would be a less-preferable solution but it would be easy.

What do others think? DJ Clayworth 22:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

DJC wrote: it implies that the 'incompatibility' of Judaism with faith in Jesus is one of JFJ's beliefs - no, that is not what it implies. The section plainly states that JFJ's beliefs are incompatible with Judaism and explains why. This is not some critic's opinion: we present facts. PC is incompatible with Mac. Where is criticism? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually Humus, a PC is not necessarily incompatible with a mac, through enough file conversions you can change files in between systems, and some folks finally made it so Windows can be installed on a Mac :) . Things aren't always how they appear on the surface....But anyway, on the real topic, most of the references given for this section do indeed appear to be the opinions of critics, or neutral sources relaying critic's opinions, specifically concerning the idea that a Jew cannot believe in Jesus. Which, technically they can, its just that they'll stop being religiously a Jew by today's standards....emphasis on the today part though. I'd prefer to move the section to the criticism section compleatly since its such a major part of the reason people don't like JfJ however. Homestarmy 12:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's incompatible by today's standards, and by the standards of 1000 years ago, and by the standards of 2000 years ago; that's why the followers of Jesus left Judaism to form their own, new faith - Christianity. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking in terms of technicalities, not in terms of whether people physically left a faith or not :/. Homestarmy 18:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking in terms of technicalities as well; people simply could not practice both faiths simultaneously, so they had to choose between worshipping the God Jesus worshipped, or worshipping Jesus himself. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well obviously, since one was adding and subtracting from the other they certainly couldn't be identical, but just because two religions are different doesn't mean they aren't necessarily compatible to an extent. And I assume I don't have to get into the discussion about how worshipping Jesus is the same as worshipping God, or shall we fight over the Trinity? Because it seems to me the simple request of moving a section to a more relevant position shouldn't require that much of an argument....Homestarmy 22:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's analyze that section: we explain the nature of incompatibility of JFJ beliefs the with Judaism, mention the relevant schism and bring a few arguments both pro and contra. What makes it criticism, that JFJ may not like it? On the same token they could argue that a good part of this article belongs to criticism: why not the part where we talk about Mr. Brickner?, or their controversial methods of evangelizing, etc. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What makes it criticism is that it gives various references statements which challenge JfJ's viewpoint, whether attacking the premise on which JfJ claims to operate or attacking JfJ personally. Homestarmy 23:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Is JFJ a person? And you used the word "attacking", that's just horrible! What happened to mere "disagreement"? And now you want to put the information you don't like into Criticism section just because it contains "statements which challenge JfJ's viewpoint".

Providing neutral encyclopedic information and explain historical facts is what encyclopedias should do. If JFJ may not like that, too bad. The Criticism section should contain just that: criticism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Humus, I don't know how you would handle it, but if I felt one of my faith's main premises were under attack, i'd attack right back, and assume merely disagreeing would just be a step too low. After all, disgreeing doesn't necessarily imply actually trying to underme the opposition's argument, it could just mean saying "I disagree" and leaving it there; if the massive google results for people critical of JfJ are any indication, nobody opposed to JfJ seems content to just start a rebuttal and not even give it substance. When someone attacks a premise, i'd hardly call that horrible. But hey, if you think that people advocating the idea that JfJ's main premise is a compleate fallacy, then I suppose our definitions of the word "criticism" just plain aren't the same. But I don't think trying to discuss shifting a paragraph downward is worth all the accusations, trust me, if I was with JfJ's publicity board or council or whatever they have, this is pretty much where all my edits would be, and me using the word "attacking" in reference to people critical of JfJ would probably be the least of your concerns. Homestarmy 00:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"statements which challenge JfJ's viewpoint": that sounds exactly like criticism to me.

And when you say using the word 'attacking' is horrible, was that being sarcastic? If not, would you mind going back and apologising to User:ParadoxTom, who you accused of 'attacking Judaism'. DJ Clayworth 14:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was being sarcastic. JFJ does indeed attack Judaism: they hijack its name and misrepresent its beliefs. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If you were not being sarcastic then you should realise that Homestarmy's point was that if the statements are 'attacking', or 'criticising' or 'against' then they belong in the 'criticism' section. Or do you think that articles should now have the views of their opponents presented as fact? DJ Clayworth 17:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

To get back to the subject of this section, so far I see two people in favour of moving the 'incompatibility' section into criticism, one against. I suggest we move it; if the consensus changes we can always move it back. DJ Clayworth 14:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The subject of that section is JFJ's beliefs. Neutrally presenting historical facts and giving both sides a chance to describe their positions on the schism (hence incompatibility) that oocurred 2 millennia ago is not criticism. Also, I don't think I am alone against this proposed move and anyway, this is not a numbers game. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Been over this. 2 for the move, one against. I'll move it for now. The discussion can continue if you like. DJ Clayworth 16:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Two users expressed their support for the move, big deal. Let me try again. It is totally wrong to divide the article into two POV parts: one containing only support of JfJ and another containing only "statements which challenge JfJ's viewpoint". Each of this article's sections is dedicated to a certain topic: Aims and organization, Beliefs, Leadership, funding and outreach, etc. It would be wrong to express only JFJ's position in these and segregate historical facts (such as the schism) or views that JFJ may dislike into Criticism section. This is basic WP:NPOV. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

So far, the support sections seems little more than a list of organizations JfJ is a part of or associated with, and I think its fairly NPOV anyway.... Homestarmy 17:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see my point refuted, therefore I am planning to move the Incompatibility section from under Criticism. As a compomise, I wouldn't mind leaving it on its own, outside Beliefs. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Humus, many articles are divided up like this. Frequently there is a section about the organisation itself and then another section which lists all the criticisms and disagreements. In my opinion, and that of many others, it makes the article read better. Some readers may only be interested in finding out what the organisation believes; others may already know what the organisation believes and wants to know what others think about it. Remember again, no-one is arguing that we don't describe the opposition and disgreement - we just want it organised well. DJ Clayworth 13:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That other article have problems is not an excuse. Historical facts are not criticism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well you are free to disagree over what constitutes good article organisation, but I think you will be in the minority. As for 'historical facts are not criticism', you are getting increasingly isolated over this issue. DJ Clayworth 21:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Again you mix up facts and opinions. By definition, criticism is an opinion. Facts are not criticism. In this case, we neutrally describe the 2-millenia schism (a historical fact) based on reliable sources.

Your arguments may be applied to move, for example, the section on leadership and funding to Criticism. And that would be similarly wrong. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm astonished that a long-standing Wikipedia editor has such a blind-spot over facts and opinions. You should re-read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, especially the section headed "A simple formulation". It talks about facts and opinions. A fact (I quote) is something only over which there is no serious dispute. In this case there is serious dispute - the very organisation we are writing about disputes the statement that you are putting forward. In fact the dispute is a key part of the organisations belief. For Wikipedia to take a position that says that denies a core of the subject's belief would be hugely contrary to its policy.

Let me repeat again. The best way to report this is to describe what JFJ believe, and then to say "Virtually all Jewish organisations consider a belief in a divine Jesus to be incompatible with Judaism". That's what we do in all other cases. DJ Clayworth 01:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Not only you are confused on facts and opinions, but also on what we are talking about. Please reread the title of this talk section. We are not talking about what "Virtually all Jewish organisations consider..." but about the location of Incompatibility with Judaism subsection. In the case of the Flat Earth Society, "a key part of the organisations belief" doesn't change the fact that the Earth is not flat, and similarly the historical facts cannot change. It would be POV to move historical facts about the schism of 2 millennia ago as criticism of 20th century sect. JFJ, a Christian group, does not represent Judaism. Again, I have to ask you to leave Judaism alone and show some tolerance towards another faith. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Incompatibility and criticism are not the same thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That is true. However the section in question is about the assertion by mainstream Jewish groups that what Jews for Jesus believes is incompatible with Judaism. Therefore it is criticism. The section is in fact almost entirely about why mainstream jews consider JFJ's beliefs to be wrong. It is entirely inappropriate to include it with the sections where we are describing what JFJ believes. It gives the impression that "incompatibility with Judaism" is something that JFJ believes. Now we could rename the section to "compatibility with judaism", but the last time that was tried it was angrily reverted. So we move it to the criticism and opposition section. DJ Clayworth 19:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

DJC: "However the section in question is about the assertion by mainstream Jewish groups that what Jews for Jesus believes is incompatible with Judaism." - as opposed to Hindu or Muslim groups? Just as Hinduism and Islam do not define Judaism's beliefs, nor does Christianity. The schism between these two belief systems is a 2000 year old historical fact and that's what the section describes. Please stop repeating the same ridiculous and offensive argument. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus is certainly not Christianity, it is merely a single organization which appears Christian. If Jews for Jesus was Christianity, that'd be pretty weird, I seriously doubt the Christian world would of expanded very far since it would of almost always of evangelized only to Jewish people. Homestarmy 21:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Who says they represent the entire Christianity? Surely JFJ is a Christian sect and the fact that they evangelize among ethnic Jews doesn't make them any less Christian.

I retitled the section to "Incompatibility of Jews for Jesus' beliefs with Judaism" in hope to alleviate DJC's concerns.

Does Paul Johnson criticizes JFJ? I thought he talks about the schism. Perhaps Catherine Damato of JFJ criticizes JFJ? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What sources say JfJ is a whole new sect of Christianity? Their focus on who to evangelize to is unique, but I don't know of a single denomination or group of Christians who are considered different than others based solely on a particular emphasis on who they evangelize to. Their beliefs seem to hardly differ from a fairly mainstream Christian viewpoint, groups do not just become new "Christian sects" by concentrating on a particular group of people for evangelism. Homestarmy 22:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that "Their beliefs seem to hardly differ from a fairly mainstream Christian viewpoint". About the rest, could we please keep on subject? Who claims that JFJ is "a whole new sect" and why does it even matter for the location of the section in question? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You just claimed it by saying JFJ is "a Christian sect", and it matters because you're saying Christianity is re-defining Judaism's beliefs, when if anything, the debate should be whether or not Jews for Jesus itself is re-defining Judaism's beliefs. Homestarmy 03:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

JFJ (an evangelical Christian sect/group/ministry led by Baptist ministers) attempts to re-define Judaism's beliefs. Still, we are talking about their beliefs and the elephantine in the room: the schism of almost 2000 yrs ago. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This thing is a huge circular argument. If you start from the position that Jesus as Messiah is incompatible with Judaism then obviously that excludes JFJ as Jews, along with all other Messianic Jews. Then it is easy to show that JFJ are not Jews and shouldn't be allowed to influence Judaism at all, and then Jesus as Messiah is unanimously incompatible with Judaism. But that's because you started from that position.

If you don't a priori consider all Messianic Jews as non-Jews, then all you can say is that the vast majority of Jews consider Jesus and Judaism to be incompatible. DJ Clayworth 19:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

What I've asked before - and I'm still curious to get an answer to this - is the identity of any Jewish group that considers Jesus and Judaism to be compatible.--Mantanmoreland 07:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you read Messianic Judaism? 47,000 followers and 280 congregations worldwide as of 2006. DJ Clayworth 15:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

DJ - sorry, just saw your response. Actually you've proved my point, as Messianic Judaism is a branch of Christianity and not Judaism.--Mantanmoreland 04:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now you are at the heart of the matter. Messianic Jews say that they are Jews (hence the name!). Other Jews disagree with them. As per Wikipedia policy we should not be taking sides in this dispute - we just report the dispute, and who says what. For Wikipedia to say "Messianic Jews are not Jewish", either explicitly or by implication, would be a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. DJ Clayworth 19:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

As I think has been demonstrated already, any "Jewish" group which considers Jesus and Judaism compatible is immedietly booted out of Judaism so to speak. The funny thing is, this is somewhat similar to the situation in Christianity and many Christianity-related articles, except the opposite result happened. Generally due to the large amount of editors from the various groups which most Christians consider to not be Christian, all articles related to Christianity are forced not to attempt to label any groups which are clearly not Christian as, in fact, not Christian. (I believe the main excuse is something about NPOV) Now, personally, my main concern in this article isn't so much about whether it gets to label JfJ as incompatible with Judaism or not, (Especially because due to things in the Responsa, it isn't compatible with modern day Rabbinic Judaism, something I don't think JfJ has noticed) but the point is, whether people consider JfJ (or Messianic Judaism as a whole) a Jewish group or not, it is rather inconsistant for one religion's set of articles to behave one way POV-wise and other religion's sets of articles to behave in quite another way. (Though, personally, I wouldn't be opposed to all the Christianity articles following the example of the JfJ article rather than the JfJ article following the example of other religion articles, but then, i'm hardly the ideal example of a Wikipedian)Homestarmy 15:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's get back to the question in point. It is massively against Wikipedia policy for the article here to contain statements that amount to a declaration that JFJ is wrong. Let's stick with neutrally reporting who it is who disagrees with them. DJ Clayworth 16:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

DJC, I don't see a circular argument here, but what I do see is that you mix up a fact with an opinion. Here's a variation on your post: If you start from the position that the Earth is not flat then obviously that excludes the Flat Earth Society... etc. Fact: the schism took place about 2 millennia ago, hence incompatibility. End of story. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, and again, by Wikipedia standards a fact is reported as a fact only if it is not in serious dispute. That is stated in WP:NPOV. It's core to the way Wikipedia works. The 'fact' that you want reported clearly is in serious dispute. The very organisation that we are writing about disputes it. You cannot report this as a fact. What you do is what we always do in situations like this - report who says what in the dispute. That's very easy - JFJ says one thing, virtually all other Jewish organisations say something else. Incidentally your 'historical fact' is covered the same way "for two thousand years virtually all Jews have considered belief in a divine Jesus to be incompatible with Judaism". That's a fact, and we are allowed to report it that way. That's all I'm asking here - follow Wikipedia policy.

The circular argument comes in if you try to argue that 'All Jews say JFJ is not Jewish'. JFJ obviously think they are Jewish. So the only way you can say 'All Jews say JFJ is not Jewish' is to use a definition of Jews that excludes JFJ. Which means you have to start from the position of saying JFJ is not Jewish. Hence the circularity.

Have a look at what Homestarmy says above. There are many organisations that consider themselves to be Christian, despite the fact that virtually all other Christians say that they are not. Yet Wikipedia reports them as Christian, for exactly that reason. If you want to try to reverse this policy then you've got a lot of work to do, and a lot of articles to get changed. DJ Clayworth 14:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Fact: the Earth is not flat, even though the Flat Earth society disputes this. Similarly, the schism is a historical fact, not an opinion and not under "serious dispute". And please stay on topic: we are not talking about "definition of Jews" but about a basic principle of Judaism as a belief system. So I am asking you again: stop pushing divine Jesus down the throat of Judaism.

If there are some problems with Christianity coverage, I suggest they should be dealt with at the corresponding articles. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Humus, somehow, I don't think the Jews for Jesus article is the most appropriate place to be focusing on the schism between Christianity and Judaism. This article is not really supposed to cover the basic principles of Judaism at all, it is supposed to cover Jews for Jesus, and although I really don't think its much to worry about right now as the article is, should the article ever expand into something really nice, the "facts" of Judaism will quickly cause the article to appear off-topic real fast. Also, the Christianity articles are not really a "problem" for most editors as far as I can tell, due to what appears to be a majority against stating as fact that certain groups are not Christian, just because they claim to be Christian anyway. (And yes, there's often a speal about historical ties and whatnot, but I've never really been convinced by any of it.) Homestarmy 22:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Humus: you are entitled to believe that the Earth is round. I believe it too. But in Wikipedia we do not say 'the Earth is round' in the article on the Flat Earth Society. That is the principle I am trying to illustrate. It is what we mean by 'Neutral point of view'.

You talk about a basic principle of Judaism, but who gets to define that principle? Does Jews for Jesus get a say? If not why not? DJ Clayworth 22:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't "focus" on it, we mention it because it is highly relevant here. And no, JFJ does not "get a say". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Even in the article which is supposed to be about them? Homestarmy 14:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

A serious encyclopedia would not support an extremist POV that a Christian ministry (or anyone else for that matter) can negate a core principle of Judaism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Who said anything about support? (Besides all those new users who kept messing up the article awhile ago) Noting a POV isn't necessarily support. A serious encyclopedia does not leave out content merely because it can be construed as extremist. Homestarmy 01:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess you missed the repeated attempts to remove the refs and to rewrite the article from JFJ POV. Now who advocates to "leave out content"? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, when you put it that way, I guess that together taking into account your perspective, neither of us want any content at all in the article. I suppose we can start AfD proceedings now? No, seriously, unless I'm under mind control from JfJ, I wasn't running all those single-purpose page blanker accounts. Oh, but wait, don't some sites say JfJ actually does practice mind control? Hmm, I guess its too late for me then, oh well. Homestarmy 02:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not following. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Assuming DJ's perspective is correct, and assuming that your perspective is also correct, together, we apparently advocate enough removal of content together that the article will be compleatly empty. Also, I assumed since you were apparently trying to lump me in with single purpose vandalism accounts, that you assumed I was trying to remove content too. Since i'm fairly certain I wasn't, I remembered how there are several Jewish sites out there accusing JfJ of unscrupulous mind control techniques, so I went with the sarcasm. Homestarmy 13:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Not to break up this discussion, but to respond to what Humus said above. Humus, you think that regarding whether Jesus and Judaism are compatible, JFJ should not "get a say". You didn't answer the second part, which is 'why'? Is it because you consider JFJ not to be Jewish? And do you consider them not Jewish because they believe in Jesus? DJ Clayworth 14:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

(Yawn) DJC, may I suggest you first learn a little about the subject you are attempting to discuss for so long, instead of making a nuisance and wasting time. Read any credible source if you don't trust WP: "Judaism in all its variations has remained tightly bound to a number of religious principles, the most important of which is the belief that there is a single, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, transcendent God..." ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This is called Socratic method. I know the answer, I want to make sure that you know it. Taking the above as a 'yes', I am now in a position to point out to you why your argument is circular. You have defined JFJ as non-Jewish because they believe in Jesus, but your exclusion presupposes the result. You say that no Jews believe in Jesus, but only by defining all people who believe in Jesus as non-Jews. DJ Clayworth 21:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course it should also be said that Christians also believe that there is a single, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, transcendent God. DJ Clayworth 21:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

See Trinity#God exists in three persons. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely! Christians believe in one God in three persons. If you don't understand that then you should read the Trinity article. DJ Clayworth 18:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

See Jewish principles of faith#God is One. The "three persons" is an important part of the schism between Christianity and Judaism. I find it revealing that you choose to ignore it - just like JFJ do. You do this because...? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that 'three persons' is an important part of the schism. But whatever Jews think about it, (Trinitarian) Christians believe that there is a single, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, transcendent God. DJ Clayworth 20:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact is, Judaism flatly rejects Trinity, hypostases, god-father/god-son/etc. To proceed, you need to face such facts. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello DJ, I think you are conflating ethnicity and religion into the term "Jewish". This is perfectly acceptable when applied to an individual since an ethnic Jew who does not follow Judaism remains Jewish due to the binding nature of the Covenant made with the children of Israel upon which Judaism is based. When applied to an organization, however, particularly a religious organization incompatible with the religion of the Jewish people, this conflation does not work. The term "Jewish" when applied to a religious organization refers to the religious aspect of the term, not the ethnic aspect, and so a Christian organization cannot be a Jewish organization since Christianity is not Judaism, even though some of the members of the religious organization may be ethnic Jews. They may be "Jews" for Jesus (some of them anyway), some of the members may be "Jewish" but the religious organization they belong to is not a Jewish organization. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution MPerel. However if you read the above debate, and the article, you will find that Jews for Jesus is not simply a Christian organisation for ethnic Jews. One of their central beliefs is that Jesus of Nazareth is in fact the Jewish Messiah, and that therefore to believe in him is to fulfil Jewishness, not only ethnically but also religiously. We're not arguing that this is a widespread or popular view, but it is the view of this organisation. DJ Clayworth 21:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You neglect to mention that they also follow a number of exclusively christian principles. I really do not think that we are getting anywhere as you consistently refuse to either pay attention or or seem to care about other peoples arguments, you just assume you are intrinsicly correct in your assertions.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for DJ because I don't quite care as much as he does about what he's saying, but it seems to me that he has indeed been paying attention to other people's arguments, he just keeps rejecting them for various reasons. Just because you or Humus or anyone else can't agree with DJ does not mean DJ is an arrogant editor who believes he is right no matter what the other side says and will not agree with you out of willfull ignorance. (We even just learned about this in English class with politics and whatnot, i'd know :D ). Homestarmy 22:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Homestarmy. I am indeed paying attention to what everyone says. As for whether I agree with what they say, that is in fact largely irrelevant. The point is that Jews for Jesus do not agree with the arguments put forward on this talk page. All I'm suggesting here is that we don't record Wikipedians opinions about whether they were wrong or not as if it were fact. We don't do that with other organisations, why should we do it here?

To Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg. Yes you are right that JFJ adhere to many Christian principles. They happen to believe that these principles are not contradictory, or incompatible with Jewishness. I'm not saying that they are right; nor am I saying that Wikipedia should say they are right. We should do what we do with every other organisation where there is disagreement - we report the disagreement and report who says what about it. Why is anybody trying to argue anything different? DJ Clayworth 18:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, "fulfil Jewishness" means: 1) hijack the name of Judaism, 2) misrepresent its core principles, and 3) encourage religious conversion of Jews to Christianity. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion there, Humus. As long as you are clear that it is your opinion, and not one that Wikipedia necessarily holds to. DJ Clayworth 18:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

See Jews for Jesus#Jewish opposition and follow the refs. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

made up of descendants of Abraham

What does this even mean? How is this information encyclopedic? What exactly is it trying to say that isn't already said in the intro.--Andrew c 22:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree, this is very confusing. According to some sources, Ishmael is a descendant of Abraham. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted this phrase from the intro. It is misleading, because J4J is made up both of people of Jewish ancestry (which I assume is intended to be equivalent to "descendants of Abraham") and those who are not. Their web site says that their missionaries are Jewish people or their spouses, which pretty much says that some of the other people involved in the organization are not Jewish at all. 6SJ7 23:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Odd, I never noticed that phrase in the introduction, I guess it sneaked itself in :/. Homestarmy 01:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It was added by Kdbuffalo. Unsurprising, if you're familiar with him. I support its removal. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

From the Founder of Jews for Jesus

When I looked up the article on Jews for Jesus in Wikipedia I wasn't shocked to see that almost everything said was written in such a way as to create an impression that would dispute the validity of our existence. Last June I tried to edit the article but not a word I wrote was accepted. CTSWyneken said it did not meet standards. There is factual information that might be valuable such as how we are governed (by a board of directors, a field council, and an executive director) or others might want to know the educational standards for being a staff missionary, some might even want to know the associations to which we belong and why. The presumption of the disputors is that we are deceptive but that presumes we do not believe what we say we believe and/or that we are not forthright in identifying what we are and what we believe. But I guess that when everybody/anybody has the right to edit an article, those who shout the loudest and the most will have their view published no matter how prejudiced.

67.188.123.113 01:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Moishe Rosen October 18,200667.188.123.113 01:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Can I sugest you try again. One thing we lack for sure is a concise summary of JFJ's core beliefs. For some reason we are quoting Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance (who?) on the subject. You could try adding statements here and I'll try and get them into the article. DJ Clayworth 16:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Although at times your "analysis" of wikipedia can actually be somewhat on target, this article actually demonstrates the opposite, the "people shouting the loudest" have a viewpoint that is rather similar to yours. Luckily however, wikipedia policy is preventing this article from turning into a clone of your organization's website.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think the loudest people share Moishe's viewpoint? Humus certainly doesn't. DJ Clayworth 16:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, Wikipedia is running and interesting double-whammy here. The argument made in this article is that "JFJ can't be Jewish because almost all other Jews say they are not". But if you go to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints it is described as Christian because it says it is Christian, depite the fact that almost every other Christian organisation says it is not. 16:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

To Moishe: So far, the article mostly seems to just be saying that many groups see JfJ as deceptive, unfortunently, because google searches are flooded with anti-JfJ sites and commentary, finding notable responses to the accusations is very difficult, if not impossible. (Trust me, i've tried) Homestarmy 17:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I should also say that we would need references to back up anything you say, even if you are the leader of JFJ. The internet is an anonymous medium, and we have to be careful. DJ Clayworth 19:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement of Beliefs

Currently the one thing this article is lacking is JFJ's own statement of their beliefs. Even if we quote other organisations on this matter, we should at least say what JFJ say they believe. Even the Flat Earth society gets that. DJ Clayworth 17:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The link is inside the belief section, but the Religioustolerance interpretation gives slightly more information and allows us to avoid OR with the generalization in that section. Homestarmy 17:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I see several statements in the article that represent what J4J say they believe. 6SJ7 18:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added a couple of sentences just now, but I think it could do with being longer. DJ Clayworth 19:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Any objections to 2, 5, 7-11?

Regarding my concerns above? There have been no comments. Unless anyone has a problem with those issues, I'll make the relevant changes.ParadoxTom 02:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Please check again. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I took out the pope one myself, I figured out when it was added, and it seems to of never been sourced from the start. Homestarmy 20:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Humus, I don't know what "Please check again" means. If you have a problem with any of the cited issues, let me know; otherwise, I will make the necessary changes.ParadoxTom 23:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It means read the corresponding discussion first. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually Tom I also think that more discussion is required here. Those items just got swamped in the rest of the stuff. Here are some points:

• The relevance of JFJ being a member of various evangelical organisations is that they - and others - see themselves as part of Christianity in general. I think way too many are listed, but it's certainly significant that it is a member of some. I do agree that it is very unlikely that JFJ acquires funds through being a member of such organisations.
• I think the Pope's statement deserves mention as an example of the fact that some Christians do indeed think that evangelising Jews is not good.
• A lot of our articles have a section on lawsuits. I think it's arguable that we may have too many, and some are borderline relevant, but some are probably relevant.
• The footnotes are indeed way out of hand. This often happens in a heavily disputed article where everyone cites every single sentence in order to demonstrate that what they write is factual. We should reduce them, but carefully, and ideally starting in places where there isn't much dispute.
• I do agree that JFJs own statements of belief deserve more weight. I'm hoping we can bolster that section.

DJ Clayworth 23:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

To restate in a more limited form, can we agree that the list of footnotes/references needs to be reduced? DJ Clayworth 18:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I am against the removal of references. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

For it, strongly.ParadoxTom 08:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The notion that one should remove references is absurd at best. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That is not an argument. We have elucidated our reasons for removing them. If you disagree, make a case.ParadoxTom 22:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes support a point made. More is always better, not fewer. There's not really a logical argument to be made regarding removal of citations. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:CITE citatons are especially necessary for disputed topics: "Text that is, or is likely to be, disputed. Think ahead. Try to imagine whether people might doubt what you wrote, or need more information about it. Supporting what is written in Wikipedia by referring to a clear and reliable source will add stability to your contribution. When in doubt about whether something might be disputed, provide a specific citation.". I think this supports keeping, rather than trimming, cites and footnotes. Elizmr 23:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Check

"Jews for Jesus states that it promotes awareness of the Jewish heritage of the Christian faith". Do we need the 'states that'? Is there any doubt that that is one of the things they do? They have materials that do exactly that on their website. DJ Clayworth 02:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

IMO the "states that" needs to stay. "Jews for Jesus it promotes awareness of the Jewish heritage of the Christian faith" sounds suspicious and there are several editors on here who, my guess is, would deny that such a thing is even possible. - Abscissa 13:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone can claim that Jews and Christians have no common heritage - they share at least some of the same scriptures. However, even if that were the case, a better sentence would be "Jews for Jesus promotes awareness of what they believe to be the Jewish heritage of the Christian faith". The doubt is in whether there is a shared heritage, not whether they promote it. DJ Clayworth 18:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

J4J and the Pope

Here is the quote if someone wants to reinsert it.

"Several Christian denominations have issued statements criticizing evangelism of Jews, including the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the United Church of Christ and the PCUSA, which said in 1988 that Jews have their own covenant with God. In 1996, Pope John Paul II said Jews shouldn't be targeted for conversion." [1] - Abscissa 14:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for finding that :) . Homestarmy 17:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I investigated the state of the mediation committee. The chairperson appears to be on an extended Wikibreak, and the committee lists only five active members. I don't think we are likely to get a response to this.

The Wikipedia:Requests for mediation page recommends that we go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment and Wikipedia:Mediation cabal before this approach. If everyone involved is agreeable I propose that we try one of these. DJ Clayworth 22:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems the person you contacted accepted the case for us, maybe the bot just wasn't running? Homestarmy 00:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Jayjg please don't remove the disputed tag from the section. The mediation on this is still ongoing. DJ Clayworth 21:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove the disputed tag from the section 'incompatibility with Judaism'. There is still an ongoing mediation on it, and a discussion on this talk page. Just because it is currently a relatively polite dispute does not mean it isn't a dispute. DJ Clayworth 18:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is not going anywhere, if we included such a tag on every article where there is still an editor who does not agree with something, we would have that annoying tag everywhere. I'm removing the tag once again.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because a dispute is currently going nowhere doesn't mean we can just stop telling that to readers, it would be like saying "Well world, there's a fight in the background over this article, but its just been going on for so long, we're sure y'all wouldn't care at this point. " This is not merely a situation of "an editor" not agreeing with "something", rather, it is several editors (Well, now just two again :( ) disagreeing with many things. Homestarmy 19:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't mean to sound rude, but if we included a tag on every article that shared the same conditions that you have just stated, we would probably have them on 40% of the articles on wikipedia.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

In my experience, most disputes of this nature end with some acceptable comprimise on most of the issues, which as far as I can tell, has not yet been reached here. While it rarely makes both sides agree compleatly with what's there and probably does comprise of the number of articles you refer to, it stops the dispute. Homestarmy 19:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Additionally this article (including the section tagged) is the subject of an ongoing mediation. Follow the link at the top of this page. Until very recently the 'one editor who does not agree with something' was Humus. We didn't assume there was no dispute just because he was the only person on one side. DJ Clayworth 19:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Am I missing something "ongoing"? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You agreed to the mediation and it hacn't finished yet. I assume it's ongoing. DJ Clayworth 21:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears Essjay closed our mediation case as "stale" :( Homestarmy 17:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is the Aims section disuputed again?

I can't remember, why is there the POV template on the aims section, I don't recall that being a part of our recent discussion.... Homestarmy 19:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No idea. DJ Clayworth 19:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It reads like a promo pamphlet for JFJ. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

How exactly? The favorable adjectives mostly come straight from the references, and it already says that JfJ just claims to be doing whatever their stated goals are. Homestarmy 02:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I second that question. It's now more than a week later and I see no specfic areas where this section is inaccurate or biased. DJ Clayworth 21:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Since it is now ten days since an explanation was asked for here. I've removed the tag. I imagine it will get reverted, but this way at least we might get an explanation. DJ Clayworth 18:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The scope of the opposition is getting off-topic :/

This is a problem that's occured in Criticism of Christianity as well, where the actual criticism doesn't really refer to the subject, but just some action that the subject may be participating in. Right now, almost all of the "Christian opposition" section here doesn't actually refer to JfJ personally at all, but rather, attempting to evangelize to Jews in general. Now, I would agree that this type of general opposition in this case is probably warrented to discuss somewhat, since it illustrates an important trend which would be relevant to refer to when actual, specific opposition is presented. But right now, almost all of the Christian criticism has nothing to do specifically with JfJ, just evangelism to Jews in general, and this seems rather off-topic to me. Isn't there some other article with a subject similar to Evangelism to Jews or something that could take most of this, and then just have it as a see also Evangelism to Jews or whatever at the top of the appropriate section? Homestarmy 19:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Since JFJ's official mission is evangelism to Jews, I don't see how that constitutes an OT. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Although their mission revolves around it, they aren't actually "Evangelism to Jews", they are merely an organization which evangelizes to Jews. For instance, in the Criticism of Christianity article there was a long section which was removed which had things against religion. However, it didn't say which religion, so while it was criticism of religion in general, it had nothing to do with criticism of Christianity itself. I think the situation is somewhat analogous here, evangelizing to Jews is criticized, but it mostly doesn't specify JfJ as a particular organization to be criticized. But like I said, removing all of it that doesn't have to do with JfJ probably would be a bad idea because the information can be useful to build some background on the atmosphere of opposition, but right now its mostly not centered on JfJ itself. Homestarmy 03:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

JFJ core value #1: "Direct Jewish evangelism as our priority". May I ask you (all) to please restrict your comments on topic. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"On topic" or what you consider to be on topic? As a matter of personal belief, I have no vested interest in doing whatever can be done to make JfJ look as badly opposed and reviled as NPOVly as possible. JfJ's core value is important, and mentioning the trend that many Christian organizations oppose this value is also important, but not nearly as important as actually having criticism from Christian organizations which oppose JfJ itself. Most of the content doesn't have to do with JfJ itself, but rather a related yet distinct subject which would rightly belong in its own article, I consider this to be an issue of at least Undue Weight. Homestarmy 23:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not see how WP:NPOV#Undue weight applies here. Are we giving undue weight to some fringe views? To make clear what that section is about I have retitled it to ===Christian opposition to Jews for Jesus and to efforts to evangelize Jews===. Hope you (all) will find this satisfactory. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's undue weight because it is giving so much space to a subject which would be better treated in a different article. (Yes, I know undue weight is most frequently called to rail against Pseudoscience and fringe views and all that jazz, but there's more to it than that.) Homestarmy 01:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind the idea of another article (Counter-Missionary?) but I don't see how this content is unrelated here (much of it is about JFJ). What does mysterious "there's more to it than that" mean? If there is more to Christian opposition to Jews for Jesus and to efforts to evangelize Jews, I'd like to know it. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I meant more to the Undue Weight policy than simply stopping overly fringe views, not something more with the article content. Homestarmy 02:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If the article is in dispute, please list here EXACTLY what is in dispute.

Come on people, quit tagging the article as disputed without leaving anything detailed in Talk. Just to say that the article is in dispute is not enough. Saying that the entire article is in dispute is not enough. Such unhelpful reasoning is not fair to the rest of the editors trying to make this article NPOV and factually accurate. If you want to see the article improved talk about it here. Otherwise, don't post nonsensical dispute tags on the article. If you aren't going to post in talk after immediately posting a dispute tag, don't bother posting the dispute tag. I will be removing the current one unless the disputer wishes to list EXACTLY what items in the article are in dispute as to neutrality or factual accuracy. Tell us here what's not neutral. Tell us here what's not factually accurate. At the very least, update the current dispute list. Let's get this article improved. inigmatus 15:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In all fairness, the article is pretty much at the end of where it can be right now, there's so much negative material on JfJ blocking any searches, what we have here is basically it as far as i've seen. The problem was Paradox had been blocked for yet another week, so he couldn't continue the dispute we had earlier. Homestarmy 15:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The group deliberately chose to put itself in this position. Even the Messianics (!) don't want to be associated with JFJ. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 18:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably, but still, the fact remains that it is not a simple task to expand this article. Maybe go into more detail on events JfJ does, but then that would probably all be from the JfJ website, and I dunno about having that kind of thing all coming from a single source.... Homestarmy 20:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In all fairness to JfJ, as a Messianic I support their efforts to raise discussion among Jews about Jesus - for that is what I believe any people group should be willing to discuss. I am not here to make sure they don't get a fair voice in this article, and I do support the effort by some to at least claim there are disputes and inaccuracies. I encourage the disputers that if they dispute the entire article, that they propose a new one from scratch. I did for Messianic Judaism and after some consensus, the redraft not only help ended the previous edit wars, it also ballooned the article into a good quality article and spawned a project that is now managing Messianic Judaism information in Wikipedia. I encourage those who dispute the JfJ article to consider doing the same. Make a /temp page and propose it here for consensus. Let us see what YOU have in mind. To the other editors, no matter what is proposed, if the opposition wants a redraft, we can always work on NPOV later. I think we can work towards a common goal here for all of us if we participate in this process. I can volunteer to help mediate it.inigmatus 01:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine, inigmatus. The official mediation seems to be at a standstill before it started. Feel free to help in any way you see fit. DJ Clayworth 17:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Since someone is taking a lack of reply to this question as license to remove dispute tags, here is a brief summary of the dispute. More details on the mediation page, linked at the top of this one.

1. Whether it is appropriate and neutral to say that "All jews believe that a divine Jesus is incompatible with Judaism".
2. Whether the section "Incompatibility with Judaism" is neutral.
3. Whether the Christianity tag is appropriate to this article.

DJ Clayworth 23:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

1. I can argue that to say "all Jews" believe that a divine Jesus is incompatible with Judaism is a misnomer. I figure if Jews can be athiest, bhuddist, or member some other relgion and still be called "Jews" then I don't see why a Jew believing in Christianity is all of a sudden accorded special status and lose their claim to being a "Jew." Thus, I would add to the discussion that regardless of rabbinic, or State of Israel definitions of who is a Jew, to say "all Jews believe that a divine Jesus is incompatible with Judaism" would be a POV statement in and of itself - especially when a Jew can be a member of any other religion, or even athiest. Sounds like a double standard to me if there are any exceptions to that rule. If we really want NPOV on this matter, we won't write "all Jews," but instead write for example "Jews from all the major sects of Judaism" - clarifying at least which Jews say such. This is truly NPOV.

2. The "Incompatibility with Judaism" section doesn't have to be NPOV. By nature, it's a discussion of views from the major sects of Judaism, and such a discussion will start and end with POV from those sects. I don't see a problem with it. In Messianic Judaism some sections have to be POV by very nature of the topic involved.

3. If Christians claim Jews for Jesus as one of their own (which I am not sure they were the ones who put the template on in the first place), I don't see why a "Christianity" tag would be inappropriate - but if it's going to have the Christian template, then where is JfJ in the template? I would assume a template claiming to include this page as a "series of articles on Christianity" would at least have JfJ listed in the "series." As such, I don't see one now. If this is the case, then I suggest removing the template until a template can be found that includes JfJ as part of its "series." In the Messianic Judaism template there is a link to JfJ, but we relegate it to the Christian section of the template. Messianic Jews will outright dismiss the idea that JfJ is Messianic, but if JfJ wants that claim, then so be it. I would think the JfJs would be the ones to decide their religion affiliation. If they claim to be Jewish, then a "Judaism" tag would fit, even if such a distinction is in dispute; but a template claiming to include the page in a "series of articles," in my opinion would require the article to be listed in the template to qualify in the first place! If Christians dont want JfJ listed in the template, then don't put the Christian template on the JfJ page! Use categories instead. If we must, to stay NPOV, include JfJ in Judaism, Christian, and Messianic Judaism categories - they are all relevant.

Do these arguments make sense? Is my reasoning flawed anywhere? If these are the only issues, and if you agree with the conclusions of my statements above, then please let everyone know by responding below. inigmatus 18:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

One issue may be resolved

Rereading this article after a break I find that one of our contended statements now reads "...all mainstream Jewish organizations and denominations therefore consider it impossible to profess Judaism and also believe in the divinity of Jesus". The word 'mainstream' makes this acceptable to me, and unless anyone else objects I suggest we cross it off the list of things we disagree about. DJ Clayworth 17:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well that's just great User:Jayjg. Absolutely peachy. Someone (not me) makes a change that sits there for a couple of weeks without any complaints. I say on the talk page that I think it's a good compromise (partly in an attempt to get some sort of agreement here) and you immediately go and undo it. Without any explanation. Are you just undoing any changes I like on principle now? DJ Clayworth 15:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the upper change still works, because it only says "Jewish organizations", and that's true. It doesn't say "all" anymore. Homestarmy 16:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That's an iffy call, I think. Many people would take "Jewish organisations" to mean "all Jewish organisations". It certainly sets up a contrast between "Jewish organisations" which believe this and "Jews for Jesus" which doesn't, implying that JFJ is not Jewish (a statement that Wikipedia should not be making). I would be much happier with a "most" or "mainstream" inserted in there. DJ Clayworth 18:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The "According to Judaism" thing is compleatly wrong however, and not just because it says all of this or all of that, "Judaism" is a religion, it can't "consider" anything (including whether something is mistranslated or not) as a religion itself doesn't have a brain to consider with, only adherants can consider something. It should correctly read "According to Jews/Jewish authorities/Jewish scholars" or whatever. Homestarmy 16:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. DJ Clayworth 18:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The claim that is only "mainstream" denominations and organizations that feel this way is original research; you have no source for it. I'm removing it again until you can find a source. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The sentence did not say "only" mainstream denominations and organizations. Homestarmy 01:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg. You are obviously new to editing this page. Welcome. I hope you have fun here, but I doubt it. It's not a good page for having fun.

Just to clarify the debate that has been going on for a while, and is currently subject to official mediation, the dispute is almost exactly the one you are wading into. Some editors on this page want it stated as a fact that Judaism is incompatible with a belief in a divine Jesus. I quick check of WP:NPOV should explain why this is a problem. The organization discussed here, Jews for Jesus, obviously does not believe this, so for Wikipedia to state it as fact is a pretty big violation of it's own principles. To state that "all Jewish organizations believe this" is also a violation of NPOV. JFJ consider themselves Jewish, so for Wikipedia to say "all Jews..." would be to state as fact that JFJ are wrong. This is not something Wikipedia does.

This is where this particular dispute over wording came up. Someone quietly changed the bald and disputed "All Jewish organizations believe" to "All mainstream Jewish organizations believe", which I personally considered a good compromise. It's certainly factually true. The edit stood for a couple of weeks with nobody objecting until I came to this talk page and said it was a good edit. Within hours the edit was reverted. That tells you something about how heated the debate has got on this page.

It is not 'original research' to say that all mainstream Jewish organisations believe this. (We don't say only mainstream). There are plenty of people on this page who will supply you with references to point out that a huge majority of Jewish groups do believe this (and older version of this article had many references). If it is OR, then it is even more OR to say that all Jewish organisations believe it.

The plain facts are this: a huge majority of Jewish organisations believe in the incompatibility; a very few don't (including the subject of this article). We are still looking for wording that will keep people happy, but until you came along 'mainstream' was our best compromise. DJ Clayworth 01:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Please find a source for the claim that it is only mainstream Jewish organizations that feel this way. JFJ doesn't count, because, as the well-sourced intro notes, it is a Christian organization. We need a proper source for this "mainstream" claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

DJ, every time this issue has come up I've asked the same question, "what are the Jewish organizations that don't consider it impossible" etc. etc. The answer I always get is "messianic Jewish organizations." And that brings us back to the fundamental point that messianic groups are not Jewish, in the sense that Judaism, by definition, does not recognize Jesus Christ as the messiah. Thus this "mainstream" word contradicts this definition, by implying that there are Jewish groups that take that position. That is the sticking point here. --Mantanmoreland 21:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, i'd like to pose a somewhat related question of my own concerning this mainstream Jewish group business, what exactly would be the definition of a non-mainstream Jewish groups? Would that be like Karaite Judaism, Or are these just simply not allowed to be considered as part of Judaism? Homestarmy 21:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting subject but I am not sure you need to explore it to resolve this issue. My question has been what are the Jewish groups that don't "consider it impossible" etc etc. My understanding is that there are no groups, mainstream (except Messianic) or not.--Mantanmoreland 21:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I asked this question to see if I could make a point, and it appears that I can. If the debate exists in one area of division in Judaism, yet doesn't exist in another, how exactly is this line of Jewish/Non-Jewish being drawn, and why do some criteria for absolute exclusion seem to be taken for granted while I presume criteria for excluding Karaite Judaism aren't? Building on this theme, Messianic Judaism merely holds that Jesus was the Messiah. Since the only principle reason I can get about the Jewish objection to this is that Christians believe Jesus to be God, well, what about those people who do believe Jesus to be the Messiah, but don't believe Him to be God? There have been several of those types of denominations already who claim to be Christians, and many times the argument centers on this idea that they can get away with this belief by saying that none of the prophecies in the Old Testament explicitly stated that He would be God. So lets say you have a Messianic Jew, and you're all ready to be dead-set against letting him think you accepted him as a Jew, but then he tells you he believes Jesus to be the Messiah, but yet not God? How does the line get drawn in this situation? The Messianic Judaism article makes it sound like the mere acknowadgment of Christ as the Messiah in any form is enough for ostracization, and yet here in the JfJ article, it sounds like you have to believe in Jesus as God to not be considered a Jew. So which standard is it that's been presented as so very "Self-evident"? Is the problem acknowladging Christ as God, or acknowadging Christ at all? And, since there seems to be an internal debate on Wikipedia about the issue, it would seem to be a form of "interesting subject" which ought to be explored. So then, if everyone here agrees that any form of Messianic Judaism is not Jewish, but then apepars ready to enforce it is because of this idea that God cannot also be Christ, then how precisely is all of Messianic Judaism so self-evidently excluded, when Wikipedia presents two competing criteria to demonstrate how Messianic Judaism is not Jewish? And since the same level of denial for Messianic Judaism seems to exist around here as it does for JfJ, what does that say about how self-evident JfJ's status as non-Jewish is? Homestarmy 22:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not particularly relevant, but Messianics generally believe Jesus to be God. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I can believe that, but then what about Messianics who don't, are they still outside Judaism, or are they now outside Messianic Judaism and also out of Judaism, or something entirley different? Homestarmy 01:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Even besides that major issue (equating Jesus as God), all flavors of Messianics still have a completely different outlook than Judaism, for one thing their concept of messiah is foreign to Judaism, the idea that messiah is a human (divine or not) whose death somehow atones for the sins of others is more akin to the Greek idea (Mithras and many others for example) that Christians adopted. It's not Judaism. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Then why does the JfJ article say that the primary objection is that Jews view God as one and only one with no sort of separation of conceptualization whatsoever, when the actual primary objection is merely the acknowladgment of Jesus as the messiah in any form? Homestarmy 05:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that *is* the primary objection, the teaching that Jesus is God (J4Jesus indeed teaches this). I was only saying that even without that (per your question in reference to other messianic groups in general that might not hold that Jesus is God), there are other additional problems, for example the messianic/Christian concept of messiah is something other than the Jewish concept of messiah. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

So why is the Messanic Judaism article not reflecting that as the primary argument, but rather the mere notion that Jesus is the messiah? My point is that there is clearly no consistancy here, and this makes the claim that Judaism's objection to JfJ and all other semi-Messianic Judaism type organizations is obviously self-evident look faulty. At least, to me anyway. Homestarmy 15:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Homes, I guess I'm not understanding the point you're trying to make :-( The objection to these groups is that they claim to be Judaism but everything they try to represent as Judaism (scanning over Messianic Jewish theology) is actually antithetical to Judaism (a human deity, trinity, a messiah whose death "atones" for other people, just for starters) and in fact coincides with the outlook of Christianity not Judaism. The fact that JFJ not only claims to *be* Judaism but is particularly focused on proselytizing Jews away from Judaism does seem self-evidently illogical and yes, deceptive. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 16:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the Messianic Judaism article, and then look at the JfJ article, you should find that the Messianic Judaism articles first mention of mainstream Jewish rejection simply says "Indeed, Rabbinic Jews deem any Jew who believes Jesus is Messiah is no longer a Jew". Yet here in the JfJ article, it starts with the premise that anyone who believes Jesus to be the messiah and God is not a Jew. So where exactly is the line supposed to be drawn? Homestarmy 16:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

(re-starting indent here) Hmmm, (sidenote: "Rabbinic" Jew is a strange term), that article needs to be changed because a Jew's status as a Jew isn't changed just because s/he believes something heretical to Judaism. Both articles should reflect (with reliable sources of course) that belief in Jesus as God and/or messiah is not Judaism, however this does not mean that a Jew who holds beliefs heretical to Judaism is no longer Jewish, they are simply Jewish apostates with nonJewish beliefs. A Jew who believes Jesus, Zeus, or the family dog is God or messiah is still Jewish, but their beliefs are not. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi to User:Jayjg and Mantanmoreland. You've both cut to the heart of the question, but not quite grasped its full implications. You ask "who are these organisations who think you can be Jewish and believe in Jesus?" The answer is: Jews for Jesus, and other Messianic Jews. You may reasonably say "these organisations aren't Jewish"; but that is exactly the dispute! Those organisations say they are Jewish, even though other Jews don't. Because it's a dispute, Wikipedia shouldn't take sides in it. We are looking for language that will enable us to report the facts accurately, without us having to come down on one side or the other. Unfortunately some other editors haven't grasped this and keep insisting we side with the majority. The article Messianic Judaism has managed to avoid this trap, but the current wording here hasn't. DJ Clayworth 04:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV#Undue weight. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think i've ever seen Undue Weight invoked before concerning just a single word..... Homestarmy 15:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what you mean here, Humus. Are you saying that in an article about Jews for Jesus we should not be considering the views of Jews for Jesus? DJ Clayworth 17:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

We should show their POV but we should not adhere to it. We should reflect facts in an encyclopedic manner according to NPOV and that means not giving undue weight to fringe minority or a breakaway sect. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

There may be some misunderstanding here. I am not arguing that we should present the views of JFJ as if they were fact. I am saying that we should do exactly what NPOV recommends we do reporting disputed issues - we state who takes what position in the dispute. All I'm asking for is that we do exactly the same in this article as we do in every other.

Now if you agree with that Humus we have a way forward. We report who believes what about the case. On one side we have JFJ and some other Messianic groups; on the other pretty much every other Jewish organisation. Shall we simply report that this is the case? If we do so I'm happy. I'm not asking for undue weight to be given to JFJ, just some weight. DJ Clayworth 18:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

We give JFJ plenty of weight. Undue weight is exactly what you are pushing, and with every push you lose good faith and credibility because you either don't know what you are talking about or intentionally misrepresent facts. Sorry that your "happiness" depends on pushing Jesus onto Judaism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I find it somewhat disconcerting when we have to discuss Undue Weight concerning the viewpoints of the subject the article is actually about. Besides, what's so bad about pushing things every once in awhile, I daresay there's alot of things on Wikipedia that wouldn't be as good as they are today if there wasn't a little bit of pushing by people along the way :/. Homestarmy 01:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you think my happiness is involved at all here. What I'm trying to do here is make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia by keeping to the Neutral Point of View. And let's remember - what I am saying is that we should record both sides of the argument in a neutral fashion. You, Humus, are the one wants to include in the article a statement saying that "Jews for Jesus is wrong". DJ Clayworth 22:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand NPOV and you misunderstand that Judaism and the belief in divinity of Jesus are absolutely, positively incompatible. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If you think I misunderstand NPOV, then explain in what way I misunderstand it. Just stating that some has misunderstood something not any kind of argument. My understanding seems to me to be fine - Wikipedia does not take sides in a dispute. As for the second part of you statement, all you are doing is restating your belief. I already know about your belief. But just because you believe something does not make it a fact. There are people who believe differently from you, and Wikipedia needs to record their beliefs just as much as it needs to record yours.

I think that the only possible way that someone could argue that people who state that they are Jewish yet believe Jesus is the Messiah are really Jews would if one argued that Christianity and Judaism are actually the same religion. Since no one here seems to be going that far, the implication is that they are contradicting themselves since since at a basic level, what seperates Jews and Christians if it is not the belief of Jesus being the Messiah? Sure we could bring up the trinity and the belief in the divinity of Jesus but we all know that not all christians hold this belief (such as those that rejected the Nicene Creed, they do exist) in fact almost all of the beliefs that are generally held as central tenets of Christianity actually came about as a result of a council within the first 500 years AD. Everyone of these councils resulted in a breakway sect that for the most part exists to this day (see Arianism, Assyrian Church of the East, Nestorianism, Monothelitism, Oriental Orthodox, monophysitism). I think that anyone with any real knowledge of the schisms of early christianity has to admit that you must either state that Judaism and christianity are the same religion on all levels or you have to acknowledge that Jews just do not belief that Jesus is the Messiah.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

So why does an article on Jews for Jesus have to be the battleground for Judaism vs. Christianity, shouldn't that sort of be in another article, like maybe Judaism and Christianity? I admit, there isn't a huge amount of in-depth material from reliable sources to add to the article, but so far, it seems like this article has become just as much of a speech on the values of Judaism than it is anything to do with JfJ. Homestarmy 19:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Homestarmy, that it's a pity this article, or Wikipedia in general, has to become a battleground. Moshe, I appreciate your point of view. Many people would probably agree with it. However the subject of this article, Jews for Jesus, does not agree. This talk page isn't the place for a detailed re-exposition of their views; the article has more information, and JFJ's website even more. However just because we disagree with a subject we are writing about doesn't mean Wikipedia should contradict their views. That's not what encyclopedias do. What we do in these cases is something described in the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view article: we turn opinion into fact by recording what people think about the case. In the article Flat Earth Society for example the key statement is this:"No modern scientists or religious groups have published support for this belief.". It sums up the situation very exactly for the reader without having to actually take sides in the argument. This neutrality is a key policy of Wikipedia, and if we can stick to it for Flat Earthers surely we can stick to it here. DJ Clayworth 03:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

We should report cold hard facts. That is what encyclopedias are for. If facts contradict some misinformed or deceptive views, we should report that without weaseling. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ordinarily, i'm a fan of facts first myself, but do I really need to point out the part in WP:V explicitly stating that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"? (oh, wait, I just did x_x). Other encyclopedias probably don't have much in common with Wikipedia's policies, but then, we are hardly in the same situation as other encyclopedias, what with the open source deal and all. Homestarmy 04:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a huge fan of reporting the facts myself, when the facts are beyond dispute. When there is a dispute, then we convert opinions to facts by reporting what different sides believe, in a neutral fashion. That's what Wikipedia has always done. DJ Clayworth 04:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that we are not trying to add anything, while you are trying to add "virtually" without any source.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It is precisely because the version you wish to add is not neutral that the word 'virtually' is inserted. If you prefer we could remove the entire sentence, saying nothing about non-JFJ beliefs at all, but Wikipedia would be the poorer for it. DJ Clayworth 15:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Trying to clarify another issue

"belief in one God and one God only (see Devarim 6:4) with no partnership of any kind". The scripture reference backs up the first part of the statement. Is there meant to be a reference for the second part? Is it intended to be a statement that follows on logically from the first, or is it an additional statement? I know there used to be more references and we may have got rid of the relevant one in some previous edit. DJ Clayworth 22:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A week later, and nobody has given a reference for the second part of this statement. DJ Clayworth 19:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Dispute Tag

I am not even going to recapitulate my disputes on this issue. They are listed here, on my Talk page, on our mediation page, on other editors' pages, and so on. This article is totally disputed. Because mediation is apparently failing to obtain, I am going to file a request for arbritration. Please leave the template on in the mean time. Thank you.ParadoxTom 22:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Can I suggest instead looking for less formal input rather than more formal? The normal procedure is to go to Request for Comment, then informal mediation and then formal mediation before arbitration. Let's try RFC or the mediation cabal first. DJ Clayworth 23:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. But in the meantime, the tag needs to be there. However, how long have we been waiting for mediation? Well over a month, I imagine.ParadoxTom 03:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Since Essjay is gone, it seems the Mediation system has fallen apart, apparently only he ran the bot to automate alot of things :/. Homestarmy 03:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Essjay is back so mediation should be up and running again shortly (someone may want to poke him about it). JoshuaZ 04:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I still think we'd get better mileage out of RFC or the Cabal. I guess we'd better let it progress now that formal mediation has started. But for goodness' sake let's not escalate this to arbitration until we've got some outside input. DJ Clayworth 01:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism

Can anyone tell me why it is that appropriate compromise language has been reached at Messianic Judaism and we seem to be unable to reach the same compromise here? That article is a model of neutrality and factual accuracy, despite the dispute seeming to be absolutely identical. Why can't we do the same thing at this article? DJ Clayworth 01:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly, not only do almost all Jewish organizations which care about the issue reject JfJ, but all the Messianic Judaism ones do too x_x. JfJ just can't get a break can it.....but anyway, it seems the Messianics problem is that they still want to follow the law, and JfJ doesn't. Homestarmy 03:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Messianics are a variety of groups/beliefs. JFJ belongs to the wing indistinguishable from Christianity in their beliefs. Moreover, this is not Christianity tolerant to other faiths and engaged in ecumencical dialogue, but extremist one, attacking core principles of Judaism and proselytizing among its members. Why would some WP editors choose to join such attacks? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Humus, since you are here, would you mind reading the article Messianic Judaism and seeing if you agree with the way it deals with the issue? If you do, or at least find it acceptable, how would you go about changing this article to make it more like that one? If we can make this article as neutral as that one I for one would be very happy. DJ Clayworth 04:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is that the language used in Messianic Judaism is much more neutral than the language in this article, and more neutral than the language you seem to think appropriate here. Let me give you an example: "While Messianic Judaism identifies itself as a branch of Judaism rather than a branch of Christianity, this classification is rejected by all major Jewish denominations (Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism), as well as national Jewish organizations, the State of Israel and others.". In my view this is an appropriate and neutral way of describing the dispute, and if we could get similar language put into this article I would be very happy. So my question is: Why should the language that is appropriate at Messianic Judaism not be appropriate here? DJ Clayworth 17:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait, hasn't about that same wording been in the introduction for awhile now here? Homestarmy 19:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the issue here is in the "Incompatibility" section, where some editors are arguing we should have "all Jewish organizations and denominations therefore consider it impossible to profess Judaism and also believe in the divinity of Jesus", or a wording that is (in my opinion) more neutral, like "all mainstream Jewish organizations" or "virtually all Jewish organizations". Messianic Judaism does a much better job of this with phrases like "all major Jewish denominations" , "virtually all Jewish denominations" and such like. DJ Clayworth 19:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No weaseling. Some editors still don't seem to get that Judaism and divine Jesus are incompatible. Read some reputable book or at least Judaism's view of Jesus. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 13:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Humus, we all understand that you believe that. And we all agree that a huge majority of Jews believe that. But to say "all Jews believe this" when Jews for Jesus (and some other groups) do not is implicitly to define Jews for Jesus as "not Jewish", which is taking sides in the dispute; something that WP:NPOV won't allow us to do. 'Virtually all' is not much of a weasel word. It means 'nearly all but not quite all', which sums up the situation very clearly. You remember that for a long time you were insisting that the intro should say "all Jewish groups believe that Judaism and divine Jesus are incompatible", but even the best source you could find said "virtually all...". That's the phrase we ended up using in the intro, and if we use it again further down I'm happy. DJ Clayworth 18:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The Intro is talking about something else. See refs and please back your claims with WP:RS. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The intro is indeed talking about something slightly different. However the references used to 'back up' the statement that 'all Jews believe...' simply supports nothing of the kind. One even uses 'most' and 'majority'. I've given a detailed explanation of why the references don't back up the statement at the bottom of the page. DJ Clayworth 04:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who other than you (and trolls this page seems to attract) says 'all Jews believe...' Until you show exactly which Jewish organizations or denominations consider Judaism compatible with belief in the divinity of Jesus, you cannot be taken seriously. Don't try to create a circular argument by involving JFJ or the Messianics in this. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Great, you're finally getting to understand that a circular argument may be involved. Whether or not Messianic Jews are Jews is something that is disputed. Since Wikipedia doesn't take sides in such disputes, Wikipedia cannot say categorically that they are not. Hence it cannot make the definitive statement that "all Jewish organizations and denominations therefore consider it impossible to profess Judaism and also believe in the divinity of Jesus.", because Messianics don't. So Wikipedia has to go with other wording. "virtually all" or "a vast majority" would all be acceptable. You can suggest other wording if you like. DJ Clayworth 05:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It might be simpler to follow the MJ example and just state which groups and organizations within Judaism believe their faith is incompatible with a divine Messiah - it would be informative, and specific; and it would also therefore put the burden on the reader to determine the obverse: which "Jewish" groups do? This keeps the printed statement NPOV and hands over responsibility to the reader to decide for themselves what the answer is to the unasked question: "Which groups do consider Messiah to be divine, and still consider themselves 'Jewish'?" Non Mormons who claim to be Christians for example, will never allow Mormons to be classified as "Christian" - but the Mormons do claim such. Disputes like these can be avoided by being specific as to which relevant groups object to the status of who. Doing so ends POV disputes and provides the reader with even more specific information about certain groups' stances toward others - stances they can further research elsewhere. In Wikipedia, generalistic and stereotypical statements are usually the cause, rather than the solution, to disputed POV statements. I think "all Jews" is one such unsupported generalization - in that though a reference to the statement maybe available hyperlinked and provided off site, the article itself though implies that it is a standalone and undisputed truth when it doesn't say who says it, but if there is a dispute, then to keep such a standalone statement unchanged without an accompanying clarifier, is wrong. Even a reference provided for this generalization would itself then could only be of one particular group who claims Jewish identity, publishing a statement what they think "all Jews" believe, but in reality it's only that group's opinion of what "all Jews" believe. Therefore when a generalization is in dispute, it is POV to simply keep the such a statement stand-alone without providing an accompanying statement as to who makes the generalization. We would do well in these kinds of disputes to avoid making unsupported generalizations when we do not make specific reference to who is making the generalization in the first place. When a generalization is not in dispute, this isn't an issue, but when a generalization is in dispute, I posit that specific references must be offered and clarified to support whatever generalization is being made. Doing so only serves the public interest by providing more information about specifically who says what. This is just my two cents. inigmatus 06:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No need to write long paragraphs. If a group considers it possible to profess Judaism and also believe in the divinity of Jesus, it is not Jewish. See refs. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

...Says the references. Attribution is rather important in controversial articles like this, and I don't think that all Jewish organizations really care at all about JfJ as they probably haven't come in contact with them. Homestarmy 15:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The references simply don't back the statement up. DJ Clayworth 17:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Redraft the JfJ article from scratch. If you rebuild it, NPOV will come. inigmatus 05:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Inigma's KeYs to Acheiving nPOv Organically (IKYPOO): 1. Have the subject editor which supports the POV of the subject, draft the article from scratch. (The best articles are those drafted by those who support the article's subject). 2. The subject editor must plan the article to include opposition statements if he/she doesn't include them to begin with (This forces the subject editor to be mindful of the opposition's influence in the final version of the article, and provide room for the oppositions voice to be "contained" from taking over the whole article, and thus also see the importance of having the opposition's statements grow into something useful for the subject. Inigma's Rule of Article ContEnt Manipulation (IRAC'em!): if YOU voluntarily put in the opposition's statements, you stand a better chance of controlling where they will ultimately appear!) 3. Let the opposition have a free ride (and let them know! It makes them think you want to be on their side! - they will be more than happy to mark where you need to provide sources, or change wording to be less POV. Even more useful: they will add their own comments to the article, and mostly in the sections (if you created them) where they can actually voice their opposition - congrats, you've stayed in control!) 4. Work on the opposition's suggestions for improvement (The more you provide sources and answer their objections the more in control YOU will be). IKYPOO is based on inigma's Wiki article theory that suggest that he who responds to the most valid complaints, controls the article's content. If you want true NPOV, then get your POV in first before the opposition, let em butcher it, sell 'em back the pieces, and pretend to be everyone's friend. If you follow IKYPOO and IRAC'em, in the end, you WILL be out of the poo you first started in, and in control of an Featured Article that has your name written all over it's history. inigmatus 06:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing of it is, I don't really support the POV of the subject much, its just so hard to find anything from non-JfJ related neutral sources that I have misgivings about trying to defend them too much. (Plus, I don't like how the attitude against JfJ seems to be based on trying to get the reader to accept the idea that JfJ is implicitly deceptive and wrong.) Homestarmy 16:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree Homestarmy. DJ Clayworth 20:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, is anyone here a JfJ supporter? If so, I invite them to redraft the article from scratch. inigmatus 07:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think all the out and out JfJ supporters that have passed by have all either been blocked or left after finding too much oppostion.... Homestarmy 13:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

References

Let's have a look at the references being used to back up the statement "all Jewish organizations and denominations therefore consider it impossible to profess Judaism and also believe in the divinity of Jesus". The first reference, reference 5, says this: "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". Notice the word most at the start and majority at the end. This reference backs up precisely what all of us have always known - that a majority of Jews think Judaism and Jesus are incompatible. But a majority is not all. The second reference, reference 14, contains four references in one. Each one is a statement that, essentially, Jews for Jesus is not Jewish. I totally accept that each one of the websites conclusively proves that its author believes that. But not one of the websites can claim to speak for all Jews. Without a referenced statement from someone who can reasonably claim to speak for all Jews, or from a neutral source saying "all Jews believe this" then the references simply don't support the statement. DJ Clayworth 04:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Strawman again: we don't say "all Jews believe this". What we do say is "all Jewish organizations and denominations therefore consider it impossible to profess Judaism and also believe in the divinity of Jesus". IOW, if an organization consider it possible to profess Judaism and also believe in the divinity of Jesus, it is not Jewish. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary was not long enough: I reverted yet another attempt to push Jesus onto Judaism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Humus, The sentence you are quoting is exactly the one that I am talking about. I simply don't want to quote it exactly every time I talk about it. If you absolutely insist I will copy and paste the entire sentence every time I make a post, but for simplicity I'd rather just say "All Jews believe..." or if you prefer "All Jews consider...". I also understand your restatement ("IOW, if an organisation..."). I realise they mean the same thing, and your restatement is just as musch a violation of NPOV. DJ Clayworth 15:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm reposting this in Talk to get someone to respond to it BEFORE another helpful addition to this article is reverted without debate. I am curious as to why some are reverting my addition - for since when is being specific ever considered "deceptive" in an encyclopedia? Last I checked, the definition of deceptive includes the lack of presentation of true information, rather than the addition of true information - perhaps somehow the laws of the universe have changed on this, and now being specific is considered "deceptive"? Please respond to this argument before reverting my helpful additions again. Let's improve the article, not handicap it.:

Respectfully humus, that's POV. But this POV is in dispute. Readers deserve to know the full picture of WHO exactly believes what. The generalization is in dispute by JfJ and others - and since the generalization is on the JfJ page, I think the page merits a clarifier as to WHO makes the generalization. Who is "we" that says "all Jewish organizations and denominations consider it impossible to profess Judaism and also believe in the divinity of Jesus?" Also, the edit summary of my addition did in fact refer to the talk page. Specifically I think this paragraph is a long enough comment (I just couldn't fit it in the edit comments):

It might be simpler to follow the MJ example and just state which groups and organizations within Judaism believe their faith is incompatible with a divine Messiah - it would be informative, and specific; and it would also therefore put the burden on the reader to determine the obverse: which "Jewish" groups do? This keeps the printed statement NPOV and hands over responsibility to the reader to decide for themselves what the answer is to the unasked question: "Which groups do consider Messiah to be divine, and still consider themselves 'Jewish'?" Non Mormons who claim to be Christians for example, will never allow Mormons to be classified as "Christian" - but the Mormons do claim such. Disputes like these can be avoided by being specific as to which relevant groups object to the status of who. Doing so ends POV disputes and provides the reader with even more specific information about certain groups' stances toward others - stances they can further research elsewhere. In Wikipedia, generalistic and stereotypical statements are usually the cause, rather than the solution, to disputed POV statements. I think "all Jews" is one such unsupported generalization - in that though a reference to the statement maybe available hyperlinked and provided off site, the article itself though implies that it is a standalone and undisputed truth when it doesn't say who says it, but if there is a dispute, then to keep such a standalone statement unchanged without an accompanying clarifier, is wrong. Even a reference provided for this generalization would itself then could only be of one particular group who claims Jewish identity, publishing a statement what they think "all Jews" believe, but in reality it's only that group's opinion of what "all Jews" believe. Therefore when a generalization is in dispute, it is POV to simply keep the such a statement stand-alone without providing an accompanying statement as to who makes the generalization. We would do well in these kinds of disputes to avoid making unsupported generalizations when we do not make specific reference to who is making the generalization in the first place. When a generalization is not in dispute, this isn't an issue, but when a generalization is in dispute, I posit that specific references must be offered and clarified to support whatever generalization is being made. Doing so only serves the public interest by providing more information about specifically who says what. This is just my two cents.

Please don't revert my additions which are based on this argument, BEFORE responding here why you disagree with this argument. Otherwise until then I have a legitimate excuse to keep reverting the revert! I really want to help make this article NPOV without having to redraft it myself. Thanks! inigmatus 08:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears the other side has grown tired of discussion -___- Homestarmy 19:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that we've seen that the references are not adequate supporting the phrase "all Jewish organizations and denominations therefore consider..." , let's have a look at the support for the other wording. This is the same phrase with the words "virtually all" or "a majority of" in place of "all". There are two good references which we already have in the article supporting this wording.

The first is reference 4. It was used to resolve the dispute about the wording in the intro, where it was considered a neutral and reliable source by people on both sides of the argument. It says "There is virtual unanimity across all denominations [of Judaism] that Jews for Jesus are not Jewish.". The important word is virtual. Not all: but virtually all. The source is a good solid academic publisher - about the only genuine academic source we have here.

Reference 5 is from the same book. What it actually says is: "Messianic Jewish groups are thus seen as antithetical to Judaism and are completely rejected by the majority of Jews". Note the key word again: Majority. It supports exactly the phrasing above. And the source is a good solid academic publisher.

So the actual situation is the reverse of what some editors are claiming. "All Jewish organizations..." is original research. "Virtually all..." is well-sourced. DJ Clayworth 22:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

When a Jew attends a Christian church for years and ultimately decides to be baptized and become a Christian, as has happened innumerable times, that completely disproves the assertion that "no Jew can believe in the divinity of Jesus." Edison 06:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

How is this strawman argument relevant? Jews believe a million different things. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag conflict

It appears that the NPOV tag on the Incompatability section is what's causing that huge white space instead of the Christianity template, now that i've checked to see the result when you remove it. Is there a way to format that tag so that it doesn't shove the body of the section below the template? Homestarmy 14:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"Majority" and other original research being re-added

Unfortunately, it appears that original research regarding the "majority" of Jewish organizations and "Orthodox, Conservative, Reformed, Reconstructionist)" is being re-added to the article. There are no sources for this claim; rather, the sources say that belief in Jesus is incompatible with Judaism, not with the "majority" of denominations, or with specific denominations. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think those are just trying to be added as examples, though as it was, it was a bit ambiguous. After all, this is not the Judaism article, why should a reader be expected to be familiar with denominations in Judaism? Homestarmy 20:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact, they're being re-added in order to limit the scope of the opposition. Regardless, they're original research - please don't add them again. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I can understand that, I was going to add something like (....for example), but then I couldn't find the line again :/. Homestarmy 20:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually the "majority" words are not original research. They are in fact better sourced than the "All Jewish organisations..." wording. I've given details in the "references" section above. DJ Clayworth 22:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

• Jay, I think if one looks at the references themselves, they don't say "all Jewish..." or "no Jewish..." So technically, the "all Jewish" or "no Jewish..." (whichever one happens to be the most popular at the moment) phrases used in the JfJ article are currently unfounded, even by the references provided next to the phrases. Please let me know where I am wrong in this. If not, at the end of 24 hours from my last revert, I will gladly readd my information, this time with more valid references that specify who says exactly what. inigmatus 05:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Who disputes the phrase "no Jewish organizations or denominations consider it possible to profess Judaism and also believe in the divinity of Jesus"? WP:RS please. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because something isn't disputed doesn't make it true, take the Pseudoscience debacle going on at Arbcom right now for example, a category had to be made for some theories certain editors considered Pseudoscience called "Subjects lacking critical scientific analysis" or something like that, because no scientists could be found which cared to criticize various ideas. (Many of which include certain Creationist arguments, among other things) Does that mean all those are articles should be represented as delivering compleatly scientific theories, simply because nobody notable has disputed them? Homestarmy 01:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A dispute either exists or it doesn't. If there is no dispute, let's move on. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There IS a dispute. We can move on when you provide a source that says what the article implies - that "no Jewish organizations or denominations hold to..." - this statement is taken as an implied fact. This implied fact is disputed. Currently listed sources do NOT support this statement as it is currently constructed. Please quote a source that either says such, or provide information as to who exactly in Judaism makes this claim. This current statement lacks verifiability. Please see WP:Verifiability for help. inigmatus 02:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless you can produce an evidence of a dispute within Judaism, it is your POV. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one making the claim on a Jews for Jesus article that "no Jewish organizations and denominations..." According to WP:Verifiability, the onus of providing the requested citation rests with one making the disputed claim in the article. Please provide a reference supporting the phrase "no Jewish organizations and denominations...", or change the statement to one that is supported by a verified source. Thanks. If you disagree, perhaps we should ask for an unbiased WP:3 - preferably someone who isn't Jewish, Messianic, Christian, or JfJ. What do you think? I've requested one. inigmatus 03:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

See refs provided, among others:

• Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because: 1) Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies. 2) Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah. 3) Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations. 4) Jewish belief is based on national revelation. ([2])
• Jews believe that "Jews for Jesus," "Messianic Jews," and "Hebrew Christians" are no longer Jews, even if they were once Jews. ([3])
• 1. No Jew accepts Jesus as the Messiah. When someone makes that faith commitment, they become Christian. It is not possible for someone to be both Christian and Jewish. 2. Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah because he didn't fulfill Jewish expectations of the Messiah. 3. The Hebrew Bible (called the Old Testament by the non-Jewish world) is not proof for anything in the New Testament regarding a Messiah. [4]
• Yet there are limits to pluralism, beyond which a group is schismatic to the point where it is no longer considered Jewish. For example, everyone considers Messianic Judaism and belief in Buddah as outside of the Jewish sphere. ([5])
• Can a Jew believe in Jesus? Now what's the evidence otherwise? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting Humus. You cite this reference as definitive proof that no Jew can believe in Jesus. But the website is just one guy's opinion! It doesn't even seem to be run ay any kind of official group. If you don't believe me, read this page from the same website. I don't believe that what's written there is the view of all Jews! DJ Clayworth 23:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The source he gave is from the official website of Chabad-Lubavitch, one of the largest branches of Orthodox Judaism. Both the page HS gave and the one you cited are articles in an ask-the-rabbi Q&A article section. The one HS cites is by Rabbi Aron Moss who has written over a hundred articles for Chabad. The page you cite is by another Chabad rabbi, Rabbi Tzvi Freeman who has written several books popular in Jewish circles including these and has written over 500 articles for Chabad. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected: it turns out that this is an important and popular guy, and an acknowledged leader. However the fact still remains that he does not speak for all' Jews. Remember that nobody has any quarrel with the fact that the vast majority of Jews believe that Judaism and Jesus are incompatible. This reference does not go any way to establishing that all Jews believe that. DJ Clayworth 22:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• • The dispute is over the phrase "no Jewish organizations or denominations" not over "Jews believe". Although technically a source saying Jews don't believe Jesus is Messiah can qualify the "no Jewish" part of the disputed phrase, but only if it's a direct quote and is stated as such in the JfJ article; however, there is still no support in any of the references provided to bring support to the second assertion that those references prove they agree that no Jewish "organizations and denominations" don't believe it's possible to be Jewish and believe in Jesus as Messiah. All I am asking for is a qualifier as to specifically who is saying specifically what - since the references provided do not currently support the phrase "no Jewish organizations and denominations" explicity. I am asking for an explicit reference to the statement that is being made in this article. inigmatus 04:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Humus, I find this astonishing! You write large contributions here saying "Now what's the evidence otherwise?" and "Unless you can produce an evidence of a dispute...". Now three sections up from here I wrote a lengthy contribution which gave you exactly the evidence and sources you wanted. Did you read it? I quoted two sources in particular, from academic books on the subject, saying:"Jews for Jesus ... are completely rejected by the majority of Jews" and "There is virtual unanimity ... that Jews for Jesus are not Jewish". Note carefully the words: majority and virtual unanimity. This being an academic source, if there was total unanimity they would have said so. And if the rejection was from all Jews they would have said so. I also discussed the quality of the other references. Please read before you say "there is no dispute". DJ Clayworth 04:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"No Jew accepts Jesus as the Messiah. When someone makes that faith commitment, they become Christian" A masterpiece of sophistry, if they claim to be still Jews as well. Edison 06:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to make a proposel

A good way I can think of to resolve this whole messy situation with this article is to get people who have nothing much to do with this subject to take a look at it. Now, in terms of quality, this article is probably one of the most well referenced articles in all of Wikipedia, (Seeing as we nearly have a line-by-line series of citations) is about as broad as its ever going to get since we've gathered a little of everything from sides who report on JfJ, and it is more or less well-written prose wise and fairly logically ordered. I think it would be a good idea to nominate this for Good Article status, where a reviewer who must not be heavily involved with the article will likely be able to indicate, compleatly impartially, whether or not the article is actually written and constructed with a neutral point of view in mind. The reason I have to discuss this first is that in the GA criteria, stability is a requirement as well and the article can't be in the middle of an edit war, which we are. Therefore, i'd like some cooperation, in that everyone stop reverting right now, and since it seems the "side" i'm on is outnumbered, we just leave it as "all", since of course part of our problem is arguing over whether that is neutral or not. It will take time for a Good Article nomination to go through, perhaps almost a month, but it would seem to me that if it is made a GA then it would mostly settle the issue of whether the article is neutral by the communities standards or not, in addition to maybe getting some uninvolved suggestions on how to improve the article other ways. (Of course, if somebody gives a review that's way too short and doesn't show signs of even reading most of the article i'd probably put it up for review). So what does everyone think, can we put down the revert cannons for a bit and see if this is, in fact, a Good Article, as by all rights it should be, assuming that it actually is neutral? Homestarmy 18:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently not.... Homestarmy 13:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't turn this into a battleground

This article is being turned into another battleground, now between Judaism (or as some call it [6], "mainstream Judaism") and "Messianic Judaism". It is a POV that Messianics are a part of Judaism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes you're right! It is POV to say that Messianics are a part of Judaism. It is also POV to say that they are not. Do you understand that? Wikipedia shoulnd't be doing either. DJ Clayworth 04:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Humus, hasn't it been a battle ground ever since this article first started heating up months ago and those new users kept coming in and blanking everything? :/ Homestarmy 01:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This is wiki, so new users are welcome. Blanking is vandalism, trolling is bad and Wikipedia is not a battleground. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that kind of battleground, I thought you meant in a broader sense. So, is it true Humus, am I really that intimidating to make this a battleground? :D I haven't even been trying honestly :/Homestarmy 01:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Humus, have you considered the ways in which you are contributing to making this a battleground? If you can think of ways of making it less of a battleground I'm certainly willing to listen. (Incidentally I find 'blanking is vandalism' very ironic - you're the one taking words out) DJ Clayworth 04:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Location of 'incompatibility' section revisited

How about an alternative? Instead of putting this in the Beliefs section or in the Criticism section, how about putting it in a separate factual section that addresses the schism and the unbridgeable chasm? Thoughts? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd support that as a compromise. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I support that too. I'm all for maintaining a clear and logical flow to articles, and keeping opposition statements to an opposition section is good article-making. inigmatus 04:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If that's what it takes to get a compromise here, then OK. For myself I think that the schism is covered adequately elsewhere in Wikipedia, but if the alternative is a never-ending edit war then yes, we should re-iterate it here. DJ Clayworth 21:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:3O reply

This is in reply to the WP:3O request. (I'm not disclosing my religious beliefs, if any, so you'll have to assume good faith or ask someone else.) It's true that WP:V says that the burden of sourcing is on those to wishing to keep content. But since you can't ever prove a negative like "no Jewish organizations or denominations therefore consider it possible to profess Judaism and also believe in the divinity of Jesus", and especially because there are references that seem to make a good prima facie case for the truth of this statement, it's my opinion that those who contest this statement now have the burden of proof to make their case - e.g. by finding a non-minute Jewish organization that does consider it possible to believe this - before changing the statement. Sandstein 05:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you accept a reliable neutral source who also said that 'virtually no Jewish organisations" (rather than no Jewish organisations) believed this? DJ Clayworth 23:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, as noted below, it now appears clear to me that any such statement should in some way reflect that there is this one organisation that identifies itself as Jewish and that does believe this. If sourced, the qualifier you propose would probably do well, but there may be more precise ways to express this - I've not really followed the discussion of today. Jayig's change noted by MPerel below may also be a valid approach to the issue. Sandstein 17:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, not to point out the obvious, but isn't "Jews for Jesus" a not-so-minute organization that claims to be Jews who uh... believe that Jesus is divine? And would you say then that the reasoning for challenging the statement "no Jewish organization...believes in the divinity of Jesus" is found in the very existence of the article on such an organization that claims otherwise? Therefore the burden of proof then rests on the one who makes such a claim in said article, that "no Jewish organization...believes in the divinity of Jesus"? inigmatus 06:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point, but the issue whether this organisation is "Jewish" or not seems also to be in dispute, and it's also obvious from the logic of the article that "Jews from Jesus" is not in disagreement with itself. That said, a clarificatory qualifier is maybe in order, like: "no other organization or denomination that identifies as Jewish ...", if this doesn't get too unwieldy. Sandstein 06:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it again. Most of us who have taken issue with this statement also believe a qualifer is not only in order, but it would be proper and more NPOV, especially in light of the very subject of the article. Humus, in the spirit of good faith, I leave you to come up with a qualifier, unless you don't mind any of the ones already proposed in the edit history. inigmatus 06:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This has been pointed out many times, but just because someone calls themselves something does not necessarily mean that they are entitled to that label. I could call myself the reincarnate of Buddha, but it would obviously be inappropriate to change the description of the precepts of Buddhism just to accommodate my beliefs (and yes, even in my own article assuming I was notable enough). Sure you could point out that there are almost 50,000 or so people that refer to themselves as Messianic Jews, however even this number is rather minute, and it is certainly not enough to change the basis of the religion of 33.22% of the human population of the plant Earth (I'm including both Christianity and Judaism). As I have pointed out previously, with all the schisms that have occured in christianity (especially within the first five centuries after its founding) the only thing that all christians have in common is that they believe Jesus is the son of God. So it doesn't really matter how many Jewish traditions JFJ follow, all that matters is that one aforementioned big one, and because of it they can not be referred to as "Jewish" according to any mainstream theologian from any religion.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You said, "they can not be referred to as "Jewish" according to any mainstream theologian from any religion." - Why cant you use that qualifier in the the very article that by its mere existence would deny that "they can not be referred to as Jewish"? Why not use "according to any mainstream theologian from any religion" as the qualifer to the statement in dispute - obviously you used it here!? The logic of this article's existence as a description of an "organization of Jews", demands that such statements as "no Jewish organizations...", when not qualified or verifiably sourced, are unsupported POV. Even by your argument you use a qualifier. Thanks for proving the point! Now who's going to make the qualifier, or should I? inigmatus 07:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the discussion page not the article, and I obviously did not say the same thing here as was said in the article anyways. Your request and increasingly your entire argument really does not make any sense.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually there are no good sources supporting the unqualified version of the statement ("no Jewish organizations..."). The two sources that have been most frequently quoted actually have qualifiers in them. Details in the section header 'References' above').

The other point is that if we have the unqualified version of the statement, that is Wikipedia taking sides in the dispute, stating in effect that JFJ is not Jewish. Now the qualified version does not have this problem. "virtually no Jewish organisations..." is not a statement that JFJ is Jewish. Not only is the qualified version better supported by references, it's more neutral. DJ Clayworth 23:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm requesting another WP:3. Perhaps with more comments from people not involved in Judaism or Christianity, or Messianic Judaism, we can truly see if our arguments make sense in support of this NPOV dispte that the unqualified statement "no Jewish organization...believes in the divinity of Jesus" if not qualified as to who is saying it, is a POV statement then in an article about such an organization that believes in the divinity of Jesus, and also claims to be Jewish. To me, it amounts to nothing short of a violation of a principle found in Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. For to me at least, it seems that to say "no Jewish organizations believe in the divinity of Jesus" is a disclaimer on an article about such an organization that claims to be one! inigmatus 16:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you see Jayjg's latest change? He reworded it so that it was framed in terms of Judaism and not organizations, which fixed this "no" and "all" controversy. Its a good improvement that much more directly says precisely what sources say. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Jayjg's change is worse because it states as fact something that is in contradiction to JFJ's beliefs, and is thus obviously non-neutral. DJ Clayworth 21:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)