Talk:Leopold Cohn (Christian clergyman)

Rabbi or not?

This article's information is suspect. No information is given about who gave his rabbinic ordination. No information is given if he was a Rabbi of a community or not. This is simply a copy-and-paste from a Jews-for-Jesus/Chosen People Ministries pamphlet. No information is given and sources about who he was. It should be deleted if no more information is given. Dannyza1981 (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, if the claim of his orthodoxy and rabbinical status are questionable, this cannot be presented as fact - since it is misleading, especially if no proof of ordination is given. Dannyza1981 (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

He was sued multiple times but no evidence of a judgment against him, indicating they were harassment suits, so questioning claims really have no basis for remaining on the article, except as proof how much the orthodox community opposed his work. Note that many biographies from that time frame have limited reference materials that have survived, and since the organization he founded continues to thrive, their internal records and the publication of those records should be sufficient, especially since he was awarded an honorary degree by a well-known college.

Also, you made two factual errors. First is the fallacious belief that the Messianic movement is recent, since reliable sources show congregations of Jewish people were worshiping in a Messianic style and using the Messianic name in the mid-1800s. The second is more blatant, equating Jews for Jesus and Chosen People as the same organization: CPM has existed (under various names) since being founded by Cohen; J4J began in 1973, and Cohen's name is not on their website.--DeknMike (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Ariel discusses the issue, noting that false rumors against Jewish believerswas a common tactic at the turn of the century, but that the practice was abandoned by the 20s, and it had little effect on Cohn's leadership of the organization. --DeknMike (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you think you're pointing to, but that link goes to snippets from 41 different pages. Perhaps you should review WP:CITE. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

(Why does every comment need to include an accusation?) It's page 33. Got it working finally (I think).--DeknMike (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

? There was no accusation in my comment, and the link still doesn't work. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Leopold Cohn as "Christian clergyman" and not "Messianic clergyman"

I changed the disambiguation tag for this article from "Leopold Cohn (Messianic clergyman)" to "Leopold Cohn (Christian clergyman)" because:

1. The reliable secondary source Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism by Randall Balmer (a Ph.D. from Princeton who is professor of American religious history at Barnard College, Columbia University, an editor for Christianity Today, and an Episcopal priest) says of Cohn: "Shortly after Leopold Cohn arrived in New York City from Hungary in 1892, he forsook his Jewish heritage and converted to Christianity." The source does not mention Cohn being involved in "Messianic Judaism."
2. Cohn himself refers to the people who underwent the same religious transformation he did thus (emphasis mine):

   There was a time when Jewish zealots were absolutely indifferent toward the mission. They said, “Let them alone, they cannot do us any harm. Jews will never accept the Christian religion.” But in the last few years they have begun to rub their eyes and see Jewish converts to Christianity by the hundreds and thousands and they now are awakening from their indifference. They see that the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is a wonderful power and has taken hold of many Jews in Brooklyn and that it is impossible to stem its mighty tide.
   
   (This Cohn quote is in a paper by Mitch Glaser, currently President of Chosen People Ministries, self-described as an organization of "Messianic Judaism".) Cohn refers to himself as Jewish convert to Christianity, not "Messianic Judaism."

3. As has been established at Messianic Judaism, the religious movement of Messianic Judaism arose in the 1960s, many decades after Cohn's death, so it would be an anachronism to refer to Cohn as a "Messianic clergyman."

Hope this clears up any confusion. Zad68 (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I know you are adamant that arose (got up, got larger) = began (started), but I am not confused in knowing that CPM, a Messanic organization, began in 1894.--DeknMike (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

References

---

Zad68, it's heartening to see you are beginning to understand the roots of Messianic Judaism. Cohn's Williamsburg Mission later changed its name (but not it's focus) to the American Board of Missions to Jews, which subsequently changed their name to Chosen People Ministries. Messianism goes back quite a ways. --DeknMike (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked my edits. As far as I can tell from the sources, the organization started by Cohn was a standard evangelical Christian mission from the time Cohn started it up until 10-20 years before it changed its name to Chosen People Ministries. It would be interesting to find a source, even a primary source, that shows the date of its shift in its style of evangelism from being a traditional 'mission to Jews' to being a promoter of 'Messianic Judaism'. Zad68 (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It would be hard to find a change because Messianic Judaism is what was practiced by Rabbi Cohn, although the term wasn't commonly used then. Note that Moishe Rosen left ABMJ because his methods were too much like normative Christian evangelism to be compatible with the organization's aims of planting congregations that maintained Jewish forms of worship.--DeknMike (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

DeknMike, reliable secondary sources disagree with you here. If you have a reliable secondary source to support your claim "Messianic Judaism is what was practiced by Rabbi Cohn", and I mean, real, reliable, sources that would pass WP:RS, I'd like to see it. Zad68 (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

By 'reliable' do you mean shills for the AntiMessianic cabal? No, we can't find the data from there. The weight of dozens of sources say the movement is the same since the early 1800s, and only the name has changed.--DeknMike (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

DeknMike, you really need to review, understand and start applying the Wikipedia policies of civility, assume good faith, and reliable sources. Also you should read the essay on verifiability, not truth. Editors that don't agree with these Wikipedia principles will find contributing to Wikipedia an endless source of frustration. To the topic at hand: If you cannot find acceptable reliable sources that support your ideas then you should not be surprised when your edits along those lines get reverted. Either find reliable sources or stop making such edits. You seem to be admitting that you cannot find reliable sources, so I expect edits along those lines should stop. Zad68 (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I've read them. Although you quote them often, no one within the Wikisphere attacks me personally as often as you. I wasn't aware you were the sole arbitrator of "reliability" - shallow sources that agree with your preconceived notions on the matter are 'respected' and those that disagree are 'unreliable.' There seems to be no other criteria. That is why I have zero respect for your opinion.--DeknMike (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Rest assured that I am wholly unconcerned about obtaining your respect for my opinion when I make my edits. What I am concerned about is making good-quality edits that meet Wikipedia's policies of verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research. You should be, too. I do not believe I make personal attacks against you. If you think that I have, please make me aware of two or three of my worst offenders and give me the opportunity to reflect on them and apologize if necessary. I think the Wikipedia policies of civility and no personal attacks are very important. As far as your concern about what should count for reliable sources, you don't have to believe me or go by my opinion: if you think you have a reliable source that isn't being treated as such for the purposes you are trying to use them for, you should bring them to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and I will agree to the decision reached by the independent third parties there, and you will too. Zad68 (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Cohn.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Cohn.jpeg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have handled this by applying the Public Domain tag to the file, the image appeared at least as early as 1903 in the "MINUTES OF THE FIRST Hebrew-Christian Conference OF THE United States", which makes it old enough for public domain. Zad68 (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Should title 'Reverend' be used?

This seems like a nit, but Steven J. Anderson your edit summary has "(MOS. Cf Martin Luther King. No such title is ever used.)" in removing the title "Reverend". What's funny is if you look through the page Martin Luther King, the title "Reverend" is applied in no less than five separate places to various people, including Dr. King in one place. Also, the primary source http://www.lcje.net/cgi-bin/gsdl/library?e=d-01000-00---off-0jewishmi--00-1--0-10-0---0---0prompt-10---4-------0-1l--11-prs-50---20-about---01-3-1-00-0-0-11-1-0gbk-00&a=d&cl=CL5.3&d=HASH6e9ec8f9ca91b75511d08e refers to Cohn as "Rev. Leopold Cohn, Baptist." So there's support here for using the title Reverend that Cohn earned. Can you please point me to the MOS that says that the title Reverend should NOT be applied? If we have a primary source that uses it, and Wikipedia pages use it (like the MLK article), shouldn't it be used here? Thanks... Zad68 (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Edited to add: For more support, here's a few places where national news sources refer to "Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King", yes it's a mouthful: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-08-27/Prayer-service-pays-tribute-to-Rev-Martin-Luther-King/50159250/1 http://articles.philly.com/2011-08-28/news/29938512_1_national-monument-national-mall-first-monument http://www.bet.com/news/national/2011/08/25/eye-on-unemployment-atlanta.html http://www.app.com/article/20110820/NJNEWS/308200065/Area-pastors-say-work-remains-on-Dr-Martin-Luther-King-Jr-dream Zad68 (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little short of time right now. I can't seem to locate the relevant portion of the MOS, but I can remember this issue coming up in other articles with the King article being used as an example. The article may have changed since then, but you'll note that the title is not used in the opening sentence of the lead, and I believe it's common practice to omit it there. The King article may have changed since I looked in on it, and of course it's possible that my memory is faulty. If you want to restore the title while we discuss further, I won't complain, but I'm fairly certain the MOS says it shouldn't be used in that way. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You have a lot more edits than I do so I'll assume you're right, let me know if you find out otherwise. Zad68 (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe MOS:HONORIFIC is the relevant guideline. Here is a part of that guideline:

"Styles and honorifics related to clergy and royalty, including but not limited to His Holiness and Her Majesty, should not be included in front of the name, but may be discussed in the article. Clergy should be named as described in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy)."

--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Steven thanks, looks good as it is now then. Zad68 (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Eichhorn, Benjamin

DeknMike (talk · contribs) keeps removing the following sentence from the article entirely, or removing Eichhorn's name from it:

David Max Eichhorn writes that "As early as October 13, 1893, Adolph Benjamin wrote in the Hebrew Standard that Cohn's real name was Itsak Leib Joszovics".

Various edit summaries include " ", Eichhorn was quoting. Put his name in the reference., Eichhorn is a modern detractor, and Again, Eichman didn't make the claim.. Since all four edit summaries give different reasons, could DeknMike please pick a specific reason for removing Eichhorn's name from the article, and then provide a rationale for doing so? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

All 4 apply. Eichhorn might be a noted AntiMessianic, but using his name in the article is not relevant. It's in the footnote; that's enough. It's clear to me the accusations were false, but until I find the references, I maintained the text, though the name of the author that quoted the primary source is not relevant to the article.--DeknMike (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea if Eichhorn is a "noted AntiMessianic", and I strongly doubt you do - do you have any evidence for this? Also, WP:V and WP:NPOV indicate that one should cite claims in the name of the person making them, and WP:CITE is also clear that is the case for direct quotations. Do you have any policy-based reasons for removing his name? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Making a direct quote about a discredited accusation is POV in this article; why include his name and not Ariel, who is the source for much of the article text? And I said Eichhorn might be; you keep putting his name back in to support spurious 'evidence' so I made an assumption.--DeknMike (talk) 05:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The accusation has not been "discredited" except, perhaps, in your opinion, and Ariel's name is included too. Also, you basically stated Eichhorn was a "noted AntiMessianic", despite there being no evidence or even implication that he was or is one - please stop playing games. If you remove the explicit reference to Eichhorn the next step will be presenting you for administrative action. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:CITE are quite clear that claims and quotes must be presented in the name of the people making them. Find a policy-based reason for removing it, and then get consensus for doing so. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not just my opinion. You continue to remove the sourced note about James Gray's inquiry into allegations such as these, and subsequent acquittal. It might not fit your POV, but the evidence shows that the accusers were liars trying to discredit a successful missionary.--DeknMike (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

In 1916 a bunch of unofficial, self-appointed, fellow evangelical Protestants (led by James Gray) decided that Cohn was doing honest work. This was no independent judicial inquiry, or anything near it, and makes no statement regarding whether or not he was a rabbi, whether he was convicted in Hungary, what his real name was, etc. You can choose to believe them, or anything else you like about Cohn, but WP:V and WP:NPOV view their opinion as just another claim, no more reliable than any other, and much less reliable than modern WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"Independent investigation"

DeknMike keeps inserting the following sentence, which I've brought here for discussion:

An independent investigation in 1916 concluded that these accusations were not true.

The source used is Ariel, who states:

"Cohn was the most controversial figure in the realm of missions to the Jews, facing accusations that included alleged criminal past and falsifying of his true identity. In 1916 James Gray, a prominent conservative Protestant who later became dean and president of Moody Bible Institute formed a committee into the accusations against the missionary. The group, which was composed of evangelical activists, became convinced that Cohn's activities were honest. Gray published the committee's resolution in the Christian Worker's Magazine, which he edited, and called upon his readers to support the mission's efforts. This acquittal was symptomatic of the position of the Brooklyn-based mission in the evangelical community. It attracted much suspicion and accusation, yet its leaders succeeded in gaining sufficient trust and support to carry out their work and even expand it."

Mike, what makes you think that an "investigation" by "James Gray, a prominent conservative Protestant" and a group of "evangelical activists", who become "convinced that Cohn's activities were honest", and published this in Christian Worker's Magazine, constitutes an "independent investigation" that "concluded that these accusations were not true"? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Lets go through this.

1. Gray was a prominent conservative leader who became president of Moody. P94 of Ariel says Moody was "prestigious and demanding." That's evidence of his honesty/integrity.
2. Gray was Protestant, not Jewish. He wasn't part of the movement.
3. As Ariel says on page 69, "That Jews hated missionaries and would portray them in the worst terms was taken for granted." On p71 he notes "(Leopold) Cohn was also under attack and had enemies in the Protestant Christian community."
4. page 70, "Church bodies took it upon themselves to inquire into the methods and management of missions." As a conservative protestant and a journalist, Gray formed a committee to investigate the charges.
5. p33 The committee "became convinced that Cohn's activities were honest." "Became convinced" means they were not convinced when the inquiry began.
6. p33 - it was an acquittal. That means the investigation (inquiry) found the accusations to be 'not true.'

In summary, "An independent investigation in 1916 concluded that these accusations were not true."--DeknMike (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, let's go through this.

1. The fact that Gray was a prominent conservative Protestant, and that the Institute he later was president of was "prestigious and demanding" says nothing whatsoever about his "honesty/integrity"; they are unrelated concepts.
2. Cohn was a Protestant missionary; he and Gray were from the exact same movement, evangelical Protestantism.
3. That has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not "An independent investigation in 1916 concluded that these accusations were not true".
4. That has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not "An independent investigation in 1916 concluded that these accusations were not true".
5. "Became convinced that Cohn's activities were honest" is not the same as "concluded that these accusations were not true". You are, as usual, mis-representing the source.
6. The source does not say what he was "acquitted" of by his fellow evangelical Protestants. Was it of the charge that he falsified his name? That he abandoned his wife and child? That he was a convicted felon? That he was not a rabbi? That he was guilty of some other malfeasance (e.g. misuse of funds)? We'll never know, because the source does not say.

In summary, the source does not support the claim that "An independent investigation in 1916 concluded that these accusations were not true." Jayjg ^(talk) 02:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, DeknMike, you are not editing honestly. Saying that the group "became convinced that Cohn's activities were honest" is in no way the same as saying that the allegations made against him were not true. If you can't see how one doesn't follow from the other, the problem here is one of WP:COMPETENCE. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. "Bias-based incompetence" could explain why some believe there is a uniformity of opinion among all Christians, even among Evangelicals. There are hundreds of varieties of Christian, even more than 50 variants of Baptist. Personal experience among some Baptists is they have no clue about Jewish customs, and conversation with them takes translation into thier vernacular, even if it missates the literal meaning. Editing from a bias that Hebrew/Messianic missions is the "exact same movement(evangelical Protestantism") as high church Presbyterians, charismatic Wesleyan Holiness, Evangelical Anglican or Cooperative Baptist shows lack of understanding of the movement.--DeknMike (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Cohn asserts he is honest

DeknMike keeps inserting the following sentence, which I've brought here for discussion:

At a time when other Jewish missions were open to scandal because of sloppy or intentionally vague record-keeping, Cohn asserted he carried out all the activities advertised and "could account for every penny it received."

Considering the fact that the quote is not about Leopold Cohn, but rather about his son Joseph, can Mike explain why he keeps inserting this? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)