Talk:Jews for Jesus/Archive 3

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 ну? 09:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added "and many other organizations". ←Humus sapiens ну? 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 ну? 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 ну? 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 ну? 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 ну? 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 (talk) 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,[1]Jews and Jewish groups in general,[2] and many others disagree and regard the group as Christian. [3][4][5][6][7]"  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. -- M P er el ( talk 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 ну? 01:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's even better, more specific, and much better than characterizing "Jews" think such and such. -- M P er el ( talk 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 ну? 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 ну? 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 ну? 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 ну? 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 ну? 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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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 (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm pretty sure that anyone born Jewish is considered "Jewish" by the Law, no matter what they do or what other religons they adopt... that said, I am pretty sure that refrence is not supposed to suggest that anyone reverse his circumscions or convert to Islam, Christianity or to be a Jehovah's Witness, etc. V. Joe 16:18, 3 November 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 Wikipedia 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 ну? 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 ну? 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  Grigory Deepdelver  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 ну? 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  Grigory Deepdelver  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 Wikipedia 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:
 * There is a correspondence between the JFJ's beliefs and the entries in the template. I am open to using another template.
 * A better question is, why not?
 * 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 ну? 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. 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 ну? 22:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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 ну? 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 ну? 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 ну? 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..."

-- M P er el ( talk 08:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 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."

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 Wikipedia'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.  -- M P er el ( talk 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 ну? 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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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 ну? 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 ну? 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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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. ←Humus sapiens ну? 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 ну? 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)