Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:47, 24 October 2006

Template:RFMF

Template:TrollWarning Archive1 Archive2

The intro

"all major Jewish denominations disagree and regard the group as Christian" - and not only Jewish: Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance , Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability , World Evangelical Alliance, Canadian Council for Christian Charities, Evangelical Alliance of Great Britain, National Association of Evangelicals, Internet Evangelism Coalition, World Evangelical Fellowship, etc. The intro needs some fixing. ←Humus sapiens 09:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added "and many other organizations". ←Humus sapiens 11:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"Many" is POV Humus. There are millions of organizations out there. Some folks wouldn't consider six organizations to be "many" in that context. Justforasecond 15:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Several of them are also ones which supposedly accept JfJ as a member, I removed the Nation assocation from the list because it's article didn't list JfJ as a member, but how many of these actually have JfJ as a member in some capacity? Homestarmy 15:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually it does .--Mantanmoreland 15:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

NAE mission statement: "The mission of the National Association of Evangelicals is to extend the kingdom of God through a fellowship of member denominations, churches, organizations, and individuals, demonstrating the unity of the body of Christ by standing for biblical truth, speaking with a representative voice, and serving the evangelical community through united action, cooperative ministry, and strategic planning." You know, some of us would consider that something worth associating with, not running away from. (not referring to you, Home).--Mantanmoreland 15:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I read the intro and I have a serious problem with the claim "All maintream Jewish groups...". Even if there were supporting evidence for the claim (which there isn't), the line in this context is reminiscent of the old cliche "All right-thinking people...". Even if the vast majority of Jewish groups consider J4J to be a Christian organization, it isn't the place of wikipedia to define that subset as "mainsteam". That's a clear case of inappropriate editorial commentary. Now, if one of the sources claimed that "All maintream Jewish groups...", then the fact that the claim was made and who made it can be reported without being POV. So if someone wants to wade through the sources and dig out the quote, then feel free. Oh, wait, that's already the case. So there shouldn't be any objection to removing the offending comment. Also, for what it is worth, my personal opinion is that J4J is a Christian organization, so while I don't disagree with the claim being made, I don't think it is appropriate that wikipedia be the source for that claim. --SpinyNorman 17:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you're having "a serious problem with the claim "All maintream Jewish groups..."." because you don't know what it means. Your edits only confirm this impression. ←Humus sapiens 03:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you're having a problem understanding the point I made in my previous paragraph. I'll reiterate the point. Even if there were supporting evidence for this claim (which there isn't), how it is wikipedia's place to unilaterally define the arbitrary subset of Jewish groups as "mainstream"? Wouldn't that be considered "original research"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpinyNorman (talk • contribs)

You don't have a point and you don't have a clue what you are talking about. See . ←Humus sapiens 05:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

(reset margin)

The intro is a disaster. It is filled with blatantly deceptive statements. First of all, it states as fact, the opinion of its critics that J4J is a "Christian, evangelical organization". This is my opinion, and it is the opinion of many other people, but it isn't a fact. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is simply wrong. Second, it makes the blatantly deceptive claim that "all Jewish denominations" claim it is a Christian group when even the author of the original claim states qualified the claim with the word "virtually". In case there is some confusion about this, "virtually all" is another way of saying "not all" or "many" or "most". Again, anyone who tries to claim that "virtually all" is the same thing as saying "all", needs to learn to use a dictionary. --SpinyNorman 05:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

For once, I agree with Spiny: "The intro is a disaster. It is filled with blatantly deceptive statements." - after his edits, that is. ←Humus sapiens 05:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we dispense with your incivility? --SpinyNorman 06:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

To get rid of "blatantly deceptive statements", SpinyNorman replaced "Christian" & "evangelical" with "Jewish". Well, at least he did it against his own opinion. ←Humus sapiens 11:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

POV-pushing edits

Two types of POV-pushing are being attempted concerning this article. One involves the intro. J4J has not received the support of a single Jewish organization, not just the "four majors." I've asked for any exceptions repeatedly and no one has come up with one. So please stop narrowing the intro to just the "four major denominations."

We're also getting edits like this taking a direct quote, removing it, generalizing it and essentially misquoting the source, to again push the POV that this organization is not an evangelical Christian group. I cannot fathom why there is such resistance to what is plain for all the world to see, and to many people would be considered a good thing.--Mantanmoreland 16:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to explain to you problems with statements like "all mainstream jewish groups oppose jews for jesus". If you can't understand this I'm not sure where else this can go. Perhaps you might benefit from visiting the talk page off WP:NPOV and some other editor can explain why this is not permissibile at wiki. Their are indeed many pov-pushing elements to this page. Things like the gigantic "Christianity" template used to "warn" people abot this group.

As far as the blockquote, the combination of footnotes and poor writing seemed to indicate it wasn't a quote. It isn't appropriate to insert footnotes into someone else's quote -- if he wants he'll create his own footnotes. Cleaning up someone else's writing isn't POV. The citation itself is a rewriting of the j4j belief statement. And in this case, it is necessary: no self-respecting professional would use a phrase like "basically indistibuishable". Justforasecond 16:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no problem with the "all mainstream" statement because it is not only true, but it is an understatement. Point out here the groups, mainstream or otherwise, that do not oppose J4J. Otherwise, don't revert.

Again, this is basic wiki stuff. I'd encourage you to visit the WP:NPOV and WP:V pages and ask for an explanation. If you are uninterested in learning about these policies I'm not sure why you're here. You might also notice that there are no other editors that claim this is a neutral, verifiable statement at this point. Justforasecond 17:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You didn't "clean up the writing." You removed a direct quote and pushed your POV. Look at the source before you engage in such unhelpful edits.--Mantanmoreland 16:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You might visit the WP:AGF page as well. I was cleaning up the writing of what I thought was not a quote. "basically indistinguishable" is amateurish language. Justforasecond 17:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

No one is under an obligation to assume good faith when an editor is removing items in direct quotes, pushing a POV consistently, and refusing to provide the factual basis for a significant edit. I repeat: if you can't justify your edit of the intro by mentioning a single Jewish organization that has not opposed J4J, do not revert. That is considered edit-warring.--Mantanmoreland 17:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

a single jewish organization that has not opposed j4j? alrighty: http://www.ghjcc.org/ the greater harford jewish community center has not opposed j4j. phew, glad that's overwith. Justforasecond 20:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If that wasn't an example of a tendentious comment I don't know what was (and actually they had an anti-missonary seminar a while ago which did mention J4J somewhat prominently anyways). You know full well that what was meant by organization was a much larger scale than minor community centers. Please don't act obtuse. JoshuaZ 20:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The line is "all jewish groups (secular and religious) oppose jews for jesus". He asked for one that has not opposed j4j -- and I provided it. I can't find any info about the GHJCC opposing jews for jesus anywhere. Justforasecond 20:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you are playing games and are not interested in responding seriously. I'm done here.--Mantanmoreland 21:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The reliable source says "all Jewish denominations". Not "most". Not "major". Not "Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist". It says "all". We just cite the sources, we don't make stuff up. Jayjg 18:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You may be confused. There are two sentences in question here -- the intro and later on down. In any case you are wrong about both.

The "reliable source" does not say "all Jewish denominations" as is stated in the intro. It says "There is virtual unanimity across all denominations that Jews for Jesus are not Jewish". "Virtually all" is not the same as "all"

The second line gets even worse, dragging in all jewish "groups" -- even the secular. While there may be a small number of acknowledged denominations (putting aside the question of who gets to decide this question), there is certainly no published list of all Jewish groups. You can certainly see the flaw in this. Justforasecond 00:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the source does explicitly say "all denominations". The "virtual" modifies the word "unanimity" not "all". As for the second part, I suggest "Jews and Jewish groups in general", so that the line reads, "While Jews for Jesus describes itself as a Jewish group, all Jewish denominations,Jews and Jewish groups in general, and many others disagree and regard the group as Christian. " only because "Jews and Jewish groups" is very broad and the positioning of "Jews" after "all Jewish denominations" implies "all Jews" and I agree it would be erroneous to characterize "all Jews" as being unanimously monolithic about anything. --MPerel 00:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I would replace "Jews and Jewish groups" with "as well as national Jewish organizations", per (added after edit conflict) plus mention the State of Israel. ←Humus sapiens 01:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That's even better, more specific, and much better than characterizing "Jews" think such and such. --MPerel 01:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Good with me. JoshuaZ 01:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Judaism see-also

Just to see if I understand this, I assume this see also is at the bottom due to the pronouncement in the Anti-Judaism article that "Christian anti-Judaism" could basically mean any sort of Christianity-based attitude that Judaism is not valid for some reason, and thusly by certain arguments, a "denigration"? I'm just asking because that article seems very unclear on what exactly "Denigration" means, and if it means any position which remotely challenges Judaism, then i'd like to know, because I was contemplating removing it from the see also section. Homestarmy 19:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "any position which remotely challenges Judaism" is a diplomatic way to express "Nineteen centuries of Christian love". Since JFJ is just another attempt in a long history of attempts to destroy Judaism, Anti-Judaism link belongs here. ←Humus sapiens 20:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, i'm sorry, but I just don't see the overt hatred of Judaism here that you'd see from, say, Martin Luther's On the Jews and their Lies. I mean sure, people might say that their actions are hateful, but JfJ sure doesn't seem to think it's hateful towared Judaism, and most people I can think of that were anti-Judaism in the hate-based sort of sense sort of, well, meant to be anti-semites, has this sort of thing ever happened by accident? Homestarmy 22:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Who says hatred? It's love, 19 centuries of pure love. ←Humus sapiens 23:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Har har -___-. Homestarmy 23:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There's an important point here. 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)

I don't know what this label implies, but IMHO it is a non-sequitur. First, even if we ignore for a moment the long and sorry history of deicide accusations, blood libels, forced conversions (note: always one way), inquisitions, etc., are you saying that Judaism is actively attacking Christianity? Second, are JFJ genuinely engaged in a dispute with Judaism? From what I've seen, they are only interested in replacing it with their version (which doesn't differ from Christianity, but the JFJ insist that the two are somehow compatible). What is so different from Luther's "We ought... not to treat the Jews in so unkindly a spirit, for there are future Christians among them."? ←Humus sapiens 10:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus has nothing to do with any of those things. At least, i'm fairly certain it doesn't.....Homestarmy 13:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobody implies that JFJ are responsible for "those things". But I would understand if someone says that they are a link in the same chain. ←Humus sapiens 00:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

are you saying that Judaism is actively attacking Christianity? Well, if *all* Jewish groups strongly oppose what they call a Christian group, then....yeah. Justforasecond 15:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. It is Judaism that is under attack here. What can be more natural than all Jewish groups strongly opposing attempts to destroy it? I bet you would resist too if you were in their place. ←Humus sapiens 00:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

What?

"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." As I understand this, you can be a Buddhist, pantheist, Wiccan or even Muslim and still be considered a Jew, but as soon as you express any degree of Christian belief you are an outcast. Is that right? If so does it strike anyone else as odd? DJ Clayworth 18:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but I would agree that elements of even Islam (e.g. Sufism) are infinitely more compatible with Judaism than Christianity. - Abscissa 19:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Some degree of foreign spiritual elements" is not the same as converting to Islam. Anyway, what is your objection; is the quote inaccurate? Jayjg 20:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think DJ is trying to point out that the sentence is not very clear on what "to blend some degree of foreign spiritual elements" actually amounts to. Like what, celebrating a few holidays from other religions, or worshipping towared Mecca, or where does the line get drawn here? Homestarmy 20:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's been stated clearly; what's the difference? Jayjg 20:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If you mean the difference in my statement between celebrating other holidays and worshipping towareds mecca, the first can be done in a "well, hmm, this other practice is sort of fun" sort of sense, while worshipping specifically towared's mecca is a change in how one directly honors God. (Or so i'd think). Perhaps this would be better, does the line get drawn at, say, using a meditation garden, or hosting statues of paganism all throughout one's home and venerating them? Homestarmy 20:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I meant, does it relate to article content in any way? Jayjg 20:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean DJ's quote? Well, I assume it's part of the article somewhere, and once again, it's apparently a part of the article which is rather vauge. It also makes me wonder who determines what is "acceptable" for American Jews; some universal American Jewish synagogue type thing, or popular consensus, or are there some statistics on this? And then of course, does the next line refer to Christianity as a whole, or going along with the above to mean "some degree of Christian beliefs"? Homestarmy 20:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I see. So you haven't read it. Jayjg 20:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, it's right there where DJ quoted it. You know, "For most American Jews, it is acceptable to blend some degree of foreign spritual elements...."and so on and so forth. What, am I missing something in between the lines there? Homestarmy 21:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh wait, no wonder I couldn't find it in the article just now, it's given as a reference at the bottom. Well, it's a really lousy reference then, whether it's from someone at Cambridge or not :/. Homestarmy 21:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a good reference for the purpose for which it is used. Jayjg 21:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Christianity Template

I submit that the question of the appropriateness of the Christianity template would be best decided at WikiProject Christianity, the group which, of course, deals with all things Christian on Misplaced Pages and knows something of the template's general use. --Eliyak T·C 19:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

A religious war is what we desperately need. JFJ is a Christian group that uses deception to convert Jews to Christianity. Why would a serious encyclopedia participate in a deception and not identify them as a Christian group? ←Humus sapiens 20:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, what confirmation do you have that, should the people involved in Wikiproject Christianity start debating this, a "religious war" will break out here? I seriously doubt most editors there would care to become passionetly involved over the fate of an article concerning, what is it now, like 100 full-time employees. Besides, the article already "confirms" that this group is Christian, striking the template won't change that. Homestarmy 20:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice one Humus. Using neutral words like 'deception' is just what we need to calm the temperature down. Frankly I would imagine that nobody, even JFJ themselves would have an objection to being labelled Christian. This article would seem to imply that they don't have a trouble with it. DJ Clayworth 20:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that there is not as much problem with deceptive practice as with calling it "deceptive". Instead of plainly calling their group a Christian group, they talk about "fulfilled Judaism" and "living out their Jewishness". Like it or not, it is impossible to profess Christianity and Judaism at the same time, and to say otherwise is a deception. ←Humus sapiens 21:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well Humus, you'll have to excuse those of us who are not part of mainstream Judaism if we are not necessarily 100 percent convinced by the argument that it is compleatly deceptive to say that Christianity "fulfill"s judaism in a sense; not all of us hold the vews of various top rabbi's of Judaism in extremely high esteem. Personally, I know that it technically isn't compatible, but mostly because of that responsa stuff, and from what I know about it, it's not something I would personally hold as the end-all-be-all of what Judaism can be. But this strays from the subject, this topic is over the template, not all the many, many sentences professing that this group is not compatible with Judaism and is Christian. How does removing the Christianity template (and ONLY removing the Christianity template, touching nothing else in the article) push the POV that the group is somehow not Christian, and also compleatly Jewish? Homestarmy 22:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. A Christian group does not require the Christianity template. I believe that the template simply does not belong on an article that is, to Christians, pretty unimportant. Placing it here does make a strong statement that the group is Christian (and not Jewish), but that should be adressed in the article itself. I don't think the people over at Wikiproject Christianity will fail to recognize that the group is Christian and not Jewish. The question is: "Is this the type of Christianity-related article that gets the template?" Let's take the question over there after a little more discussion, in case there are any more comments. --Eliyak T·C 23:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There's also WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion if that is prefered. --Eliyak T·C 23:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Arch O. La 04:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at the edit history of this article and this talk: there is a lot of confusion about their identity, and attempts to confuse the matter continue. The template helps to alleviate this confusion. What is so biased about having Christianity template in an article about a Christian group? ←Humus sapiens 23:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus as opposed to, say, Evangelical Lutheran Synod? The ELS is definitely Christian, but I don't see the template there ;) Eliyak has it exactly right: "A Christian group does not require the Christianity template.

For that matter, Muslim Jew doesn't have the Islam template in it. Just something to think about. Arch O. La 04:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, there's confusion about their identity, and there still is in the article, a great amount of space is given to detailing critical views of the organization, whereas actual details seem to really only scratch the surface; for instance, when JfJ goes to evangelize, what are their preferred methods behind evangelism? Pure tract usage? Hell-fire preaching? the Prosperity gospel? A pure appeal to, as they often say, "Fulfilling Judaism"? The basic details are here, who leads them, some court cases they've been in, their basic beliefs they claim to adhere to, but besides the court cases, the article doesn't go into much detail about what JfJ actually does and has done out in the field....except, of course, from the eyes of critics, who universally seem to agree that whatever JfJ does, (and they are rarely specific) it is bad one way or another. I came across several articles detailing particular events JfJ has done when I was looking for some citations for things, but the authors detailing these events themselves went into only a few specifics from the JfJ side, preferring to spend much of their time quoting critic after critic hating on JfJ's every move, no matter what it was, and always in the same general vein as every other critic listed on this page, so its not like very new information or original criticism was really being presented. If there is confusion over their identity, at this point, the first words of the article saying "This Christian Evangelical whatever...." will have to suffice, because trawling through google search, all I have seen so far is basically wall after wall of pretty much the same critical vein over and over, Jews for Jesus sites themselves, or unhelpful links having nothing to do with the topic.

I even tried to look up citations for groups which support JfJ. The first page was some group ranting about how awful and hateful evangelism is or something, the next two pages were Misplaced Pages itself, (At least that's good, it shows we have high visibility, so if we can improve the article, we'll have done something important) and page after page after page I came across were endless rants by rabbi's, Jewish groups, Anti-everything-against-Judaism leagues, and all sorts of other people, basically recycling the same general comments again and again and again and again and again and, you guessed it, yet again about Jews for Jesus and anybody who tries to make a Jew become a Christian. (Not just, as you say, people who seek to do it "Deceptively" either) I even saw one ridiculous page about how to be wary of fundamentalists, because by wanting Revelations to be fulfilled, it was secretly because we want to see 2/3rds of all Jews be killed in the Tribulation. So really, this stuff about how horribly un-informed people are about JfJ really is not editor's faults at this point, you basically can't get anything that is good for citation purposes which is specific about JfJ that isn't either from their own website, is just a tiny little mention of them which barely goes into details, or consists of endless and mind-bogglingly long pages hating on Jews for Jesus. It doesn't matter who on this page tries to "confuse" readers on what exactly Jews for Jesus is; whether they try or not, readers won't get a huge amount of specifics here, and will only get either extremely pro, con, or disinterested and/or basic results from google or really anywhere else.

And the template? Unless it has code which parses google searches to like the 1,000th page and finds actual, reliable sources on the topic at hand, i'm afraid it doesn't alleviate any confusion the reader may have at all. If a reader reads "Jews for Jesus ia Christian Evangelical organization...." And cannot understand that Jews for Jesus is, indeed, a Christian Evangelical organization, the template will not build their vocabulary up so that they can understand this simple series of words strung together in the first sentence. It was not designed to give readers a vocabulary lesson, it was designed to give readers links to topics concerning important aspects of Christianity, of which Jews for Jesus most certainly does not. I don't want to any more of this "Ah, but Homestarmy, those articles you were seeing on Google merely represent our reaction to 1900 years of Christian love" stuff either, i'd like a real reply please which answers the following questions:

How does the Christianity template tell readers more about Jews for Jesus specifically?

Why, after the article comes straight out and says this is a Christian organization, is the template necessary to, I presume, attempt to pound into readers as much as possible the notion that this organization is indeed Christian?

How does using a template, which does not refer to the article specifically at all, in order to slam the point home as much as possible to readers that this is a Christian organization, comply with a neutral point of view, and why should this be necessary? Is it impossible to find adequate citations and references to "prove" to readers that this organization is Christian? If so, will the mere existance of the template on this page change that? Homestarmy 00:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You can write more but in the end JFJ is a Christian evangelical organization that uses deception to "save" Jews from the faith of their fathers. You are welcome to add more details on their goals, members, methods, ets. To your Q's:

1. There is a correspondence between the JFJ's beliefs and the entries in the template. I am open to using another template.
2. A better question is, why not?
3. WP should not be used to spread propaganda or promote some religious agenda. Encyclopedias should systematize and classify information and clear up confusion, not add to it. ←Humus sapiens 03:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Humus, you write: "Like it or not, it is impossible to profess Christianity and Judaism at the same time.". Well, that's your opinion, and of course the opinion of most Jews too, but it's just an opinion and it's not the opinion of JFJ. The fact that they profess something that you disagree with does not make them 'deceptive'. It just means that they disagree with you. DJ Clayworth 12:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The names "Jews for Jesus" and "Messianic Judaism" (formerly "Hebrew Christianity") were intentionally chosen to convey the message that these are Jewish groups, whereas they are of Christian evangelical origin. This is not merely a difference of opinion – the Jews for Jesus stance was intentionally crafted to confuse Jews and convince them to convert to Christianity. In that sense, the organization is malicious and deceptive. --Eliyak T·C 17:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You are claiming 'deception' simply because the organisation does not agree with your viewpoint. You think it is impossible to believe in Jesus as Messiah and still be a Jew. You are entitled to that viewpoint, and so are the other (majority) Jews that hold it. But JFJ holds a different point of view, and they proclaim this view honestly. That is not deception. DJ Clayworth 17:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and all Jews thought so too before the Hebrew Christian → Messianic Judaism movement came along. I don't claim to have the right to define Christianity, not being part of that religion. If I were to start a group such as "Christians for the Greek Pantheon," I assume this would not be a Christian group, irregardless of how long it was around for, or how much I claimed that it was supported by various verses in the Bible. --Eliyak T·C 17:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

DJ, it seems that you are readily giving a fringe WP:NPOV#Undue weight. BTW, you don't know what my viewpoint is (and it doesn't matter). In this case, the viewpoint of mainstream Judaism is what is important because today they are official representatives of the Jewish community and they define questions like who is a Jew. Please have some respect toward other religion and their authorities in their own affairs. ←Humus sapiens 22:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

1. The JfJ's beliefs could be more adequatly linked by actually wikilinking the parts of their belief section to the actual articles, rather than hoping readers will click through the template long enough until they hit the right articles.
2. Because it gives the reader the impression, after reading this talk page, that the reason the template is there is because editors do not feel they can actually defend the statement "This is a Christian Evangelical organization", so editors hope that by putting up the template it will dissuade readers from noticing a lack of references, which is pointless anyway, because we have plenty of references. If readers aren't convinced JfJ is a Christian evangelical organization after all we've done, the template will not serve as some super-power last-ditch reference which changes readers minds.
3. So using a template which has nothing to do with JfJ causes less confusion, striking the template will immedietly fill the article with propaganda, and the lack of the template would promote an agenda? Jews for Jesus is not classified as an important aspect of Christianity. Homestarmy 14:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy, I understand your concerns, but frankly I do not think these are the reasons behind the attempts to remove the template. ←Humus sapiens 22:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I can understand why you'd be really suspicious at this point of the reasons people have presented against the template, because often their, well, wrong, (Putting it in isn't vandalism) and other times people against it sometimes edited this page in a manner which, well, is sort of disruptive in terms of all the blanking and re-writing and ORing that goes on, but the only thing that is absolutly needed in this article to show, once and for all, that Jews for Jesus is indeed a Christian Evangelical organization and that basically all mainstream (or often otherwise) Jewish type organizations reject JfJ's assertion that they can be Jewish, are adequate references. And well, we have plenty of those, and if we don't now, there's like an endless goldmine of other places to get those references. I can't speak for all editors who aren't in favor of the template, but as for me, I know this organization is clearly Christian, blatantly evangelical, and as far as I know, is not compatible with Judaism as far as i've read. (I like JfJ's argument about how much of Judaism sort of acts weird when concerning mainstream beliefs, but I don't think they've managed to prove that this makes them Jewish) So I for one am not on some white-washing campaign to take out all negative references and replace them with positive ones. (Which pretty much don't exist as far as i've seen anyway) Besides, it looks like nobody is trying to force the template down now, because they either got blocked or something else. While removing the template may be the beginning of a means to an end for some editors in terms of somehow getting pro-JfJ stuff monopolizing this article, it sure doens't look like an end I want much part of. I'm still really curious about some of the more specific things JfJ does, their website isn't amazingly specific at a ground-level sort of thing, and i'm curious of the evidence for this whole "brainwashing" thing many sites accuse JfJ of, but as long as we can't trust each other because one side is convinced the other side's every move is part of some elaborate plot, i'm concerned we won't get much more done than we have now. This article is already like one of the top entries on JfJ in a google search, and I think it'd be pretty special if we had an article that people could read and could trust as an informative, comphrehensive look at Jews for Jesus, because what's out there now is, well, pretty heated and probably hard for many people to trust. Homestarmy 23:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy, I do not believe that you are acting (or have ever acted) in a bad faith. Everyone is entitled to their POV and I sincerely respect yours. Call me stubborn, but I still fail to see a problem with using this template here. If/when a better-suited one becomes available, I would welcome it. ←Humus sapiens 00:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well then, if I may ask, what are the reasons you think are behind the attempts to remove the template? Because so far all i've seen that wasn't one of my arguments was that keeping it in is somehow vandalism, and that the template is only supposed to be on pages which the template lists itself, both of which really aren't good arguments in my opinion. Homestarmy 00:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for believing in my analytic abilities, but I am not going to guess motivations of others, at least not here & now. ←Humus sapiens 00:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Christian evangelical organization

If there is any doubt that JFJ is "Christian" or "evangelical" there are plenty of sources to back it up. Here are a couple, and there's many more if this isn't enough:

• Washington Times: "Dozens of evangelists with Jews for Jesus will hit the streets of Washington starting next week for a monthlong campaign at Metro stops, downtown areas and college campuses aimed at the Washington area's 215,000 Jews....More than 600 people took an evangelism-training course last month at the 10,000-member McLean Bible Church to prepare for the "Behold Your God" campaign....It also will be the largest evangelistic effort in Washington in the 31-year history of the San Francisco-based Jews for Jesus, targeting the nation's sixth-largest Jewish community....McLean Bible Church, home to 150 to 200 Jews who have converted to Christianity, will be the hub of the evangelistic effort. Seventy-five of these converted Jews attended an evangelistic workshop in the spring to prepare for the campaign"....'I love doing this,' said Mr. Solomon, the former chaplain of Jews for Jesus' yearly evangelism campaigns in New York and a veteran street evangelist...."

• Arutz Sheva: "The Christian evangelical group, Jews for Jesus, which aims to convince Jews that the Christian faith does not conflict with Judaism..."

• Christianity Today: "Jews for Jesus (JFJ) recently finished a 66-month evangelistic campaign with a month-long New York finale....For follow-up, Jews for Jesus is working with a number of local evangelical churches, including Calvary Baptist Church, Brooklyn Tabernacle, and Christ Lutheran church....San Francisco–based Jews for Jesus visited 55 cities around the world during its $18 million Behold Your God campaign. The group is forming plans to evangelize in Israel in 2007."

--MPerel 08:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Guys you are all missing the point. As believers in Jesus of Nazareth JFJ obviously falls within the broadest categories of 'Christian'. The point is whether or not JFJ can be both Christian and Jewish. Obviously your regular Jews think not. JFJ and many other Christians think so. The references above says it: "...aims to convince Jews that the Christian faith does not conflict with Judaism". DJ Clayworth 12:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

So would the Black Hebrews be considered Jews because they claim to be, even though "obviously your regular Jews think not"? Just wondering how far you want to carry this argument.--Mantanmoreland 14:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not Misplaced Pages's place to make such judgements. We record the facts. It is a fact that Black Hebrews claim to be Jewish and we record that. The same approach should be taken here. DJ Clayworth 15:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The same approach is taken here. J4J's claim and the criticism and antagonism that has caused. NPOV does not require hiding unpleasant facts.--Mantanmoreland 16:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Plus, since JFJ via Christian churches embark on massive campaigns to "convert" Jews who follow every branch of Judaism, just why exactly do they need to convert Jews from Judaism, if they are so compatible with Judaism? They play a lot of semantic games and this is why there are so many sources that point out JFJ's deceptiveness at their pretending to be both Christian and Jewish. --MPerel 17:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point, MPerel. A part of this dishonest semantic game is to avoid advertizing it as a religious conversion. Hey, embrace Jesus, it's the most Jewish thing after all! ←Humus sapiens 00:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not J4J is a "Christian" organization is a matter of opinion, not a fact to be objectively stated in the introduction. The organization itself describes itself as Jewish. Its critics call it "Christian". These are facts that can be objectively reported. But it isn't appropriate to say in the introduction that J4J is either Christian or Jewish. --SpinyNorman 00:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Not even looking at whether it's a fact or not, the criteria for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is Verifiability, not truth. The people who seem to hate them agree their evangelizing and are Christian mostly, JfJ does not deny that they are Christian, I think there was even some page somebody found on their website calling themselves Christian, and their entire point they are trying to make is that one can "Believe in Jesus and be a Jew", in other words, basically to be a Christian and a Jew at the same time. Validity of this perspective aside, they don't claim that they are just Jewish, merely that they are Jewish. If we couldn't state this sort of basic thing in an introduction, Misplaced Pages would be a very large collection of blank pages. Homestarmy 00:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a good question: why don't the JFJ state clearly that they are a Christian group? But once in a while, and not to the Jews, they do admit it. Here is what Brickner said in 2002 press release in response to American Catholic bishops statement that "Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God," and that "campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church": "This is an attack on Jews for Jesus and other Christian groups who hold to the uniqueness of Christ." The highlight's mine. ←Humus sapiens 03:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic Church has every right to express their opinion, and that statement should probably be reported in this article... not to state as an objective fact that J4J is an "unacceptable organization" or whatever, but that the Catholic Church expressed their opinion. --SpinyNorman 04:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is amusing to see that after seeing an evidence that even JFJ admit being another Christian group, SpinyNorman removed both "Christian" and "evangelical" from the intro and replaced it with "Jewish". ←Humus sapiens 10:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal

Someone removed a statement about Christianity being monotheistic, claiming it was 'original research'. I put it back. I hope I don't really have to provide references to show that Christianity is monotheistic. DJ Clayworth 17:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see below. Jayjg 17:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Revert of original research

DJClayworth, you have actually used admin revert to revert my removal of some original research you placed in the article, specifically this:

Jews for Jesus, and most Christians, would disagree with this viewpoint. Christianity considers itself a Monotheistic religion and enitrely compatible with the view of God presented in Jewish scriptures.

This unsourced argument is clearly meant to refute the material directly above it, wherein Paul Johnson (a Christian!) states that the split between Judaism and Christianity was inevitable as a result of Christianity's insistence that Jesus was both God and man. Not only does the material you have inserted not directly address Johnson's claims (that the split was inevitable), but even worse, it introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position. This is explicity forbidden in the original research policy. In light of this, would you mind removing your original research? Thanks. Jayjg 17:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't intended to refute Johnson's statement directly. Johnson may not have meant that a split was a theological necessity, nor that the Jews of 70CE were right (it's unlikely he meant that). What it was intended to counter was the statement above it that Judaism cannot admit of a Trinitarian God. It is a fundamental tenet of Christianity that the Christian God is the same God that is described in the Jewish scriptures (specifically those that make up the Christian Old Testament). Therefore it cannot be incompatible with the Judaism described therein. Again, I'm hoping I don't have to spend time finding references for these fundamental, well-known facts about Christianity. DJ Clayworth 18:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I saw a problem myself with your edit DJ, it said that "Christianity considers itself...." when actually, Christianity doesn't "consider" anything, it's people who consider things :/. I hope you don't mind that I changed it. However, although it isn't really sourced now, it could certainly hypothetically be sourced, but so far I really can't find anything that isn't from JfJ itself backing up JfJ's exact viewpoint on things; there's too many critical sites hogging all the google search results :/. Homestarmy 18:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You have a good point, and I would have no objection to a change like "Christians believe...". DJ Clayworth 18:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly intended to refute something, and that is not allowed under the original research policy. You need to find someone else who makes this argument, in the context of Jews for Jesus. This is an article about Jews for Jesus, not Christian theology vs. Jewish theology. As such, it needs to cite what Jews for Jesus (not the generic "Christianity") specifically says on topics, and then it needs to quote what critics of Jews for Jesus say (or vice versa). Jayjg 18:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If refutation is not allowed, then all of the statements trying to refute JFJ's claim to be Jewish have to be removed. Nor should there be any need for this to be in the context of JFJ. That would be like having to prove that Republicans don't believe in a flat earth by finding specific references in the context of the Republican party. JFJ clerly believes in a Trinitarian God, and asserts that this is compatible with Judaism. You might like to start with this and this. DJ Clayworth 18:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Refutation is allowed if the argument is sourced and specific to the topic, which (in this case), is Jews for Jesus. The statements about Jews for Jesus not being Jewish are specifically about Jews for Jesus. In other words, these are arguments that others have made about Jews for Jesus, not arguments that specific editors here have made about them. This is the essential difference between original research and cited arguments. Jayjg 18:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If the claim that "One of the most important Jewish principles of faith is the belief in one God and one God only with no partnership of any kind", is relevant ot JFJ then surely it is relevant to point out that JFJ disagree with it. DJ Clayworth 18:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The claim is relevant because the quoted sources refer to it in relation to Jews for Jesus. If you want to cite (not invent) a counter-argument made in relation to this claim and Jews for Jesus, please do so. Jayjg 15:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is true that, as with any content in this article, this sentence should have some citation and therefore be clearly attributed to a source, but you can say things concerning opposing sides without the article actually taking a side one way or another. However, I gotta admit, i'm not entirely certain the point this sentence is trying to make actually is a real response to the sentence above it, Johnson isn't even trying to say Christianity is polytheistic or soemthing, is he? Homestarmy 18:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree and I have removed the whole "what most Christians think" business, as it is totally gratuitous and is definitely OR. --Mantanmoreland 18:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with what is there now. DJ Clayworth 16:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

History

Where's the history on this organization? Seems like it would be helpful to know; would be nice if someone who did know could add it.

-Abdul Muhib 27/9/06

I think JfJ has a very condensed version of a history on their site, but alot of it in reality may concern the reactions people had to events JfJ held, and that could take some time to reaserch because JfJ doesn't seem to be good at being openly specific about their history :/. Not that I think their trying to blank it all out, I just think they don't really record it. Homestarmy

Homestar's compromise version

Seems reasonable to me. May I ask why anyone objects to it? The only issue there is that it is arguably too weak a statement, presumably if everyone calls a group Christian and the members themselves do it isn't clear to me why we can't call them that. But if this will stop the edit warring... JoshuaZ 21:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This editor has edit warred on this page before however, and most editors who were part of the discussion objected to this of course. (Plus, I think paradox has been blocked several times already....) Homestarmy 21:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

To User:ParadoxTom: First, you must realize that 'vastly, overwhelmingly, hugely' is not encyclopedic languange in any context. And second, what on earth do you mean by 'consensus'? That term usually means, at minimum, that the proposed changes have been discussed on the talk page. Clearly that is not the case here. Knock it off. drseudo (t) 21:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. It seems that the consensus is that JFJ is indeed a Christian org. Those few who deny this should be dealt with according to WP:NPOV#Undue weight. ←Humus sapiens 23:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What is still under dispute?

Not to imply that the article is perfect: surely it could and should be improved, but I don't see any open dispute that was not addressed. Shall we untag it? ←Humus sapiens 11:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the tag because all the edit warring seems to have died down and I think that there isn't anything left under dispute. - Abscissa 13:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages'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 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 10:11, 24 October 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages from reporting on those beliefs" - proof please. ←Humus sapiens 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages - 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 22:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Reliable refs are provided. See WP:OR. ←Humus sapiens 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 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 22:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but not in the way "POV" is construed on Misplaced Pages. 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 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)

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)

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 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 05:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What personal attacks? Really, what is the matter with you?ParadoxTom 08:35, 24 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm astonished that a long-standing Misplaced Pages editor has such a blind-spot over facts and opinions. You should re-read Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 02:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Incompatibility and criticism are not the same thing. Jayjg 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 "mainstream Hindu groups that what Jews for Jesus believes is incompatible with Judaism." or "mainstream Muslim groups that what Jews for Jesus believes is incompatible with Judaism."? 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 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's beliefs with Judaism" in hope to alleviate DJC's concerns.

Does Paul Johnson criticizes JFJ? But I thought he talks about the schism. Perhaps Catherine Damato of JFJ criticizes JFJ? ←Humus sapiens 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)

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 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 03:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

From the Founder of Jews for Jesus

When I looked up the article on Jews for Jesus in Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 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)

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." - Abscissa 14:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

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