Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Jews for Jesus 2/Archive 2

This is an archive; please do not add comments here - instead, follow these simple instructions:
 * Find the content on this page you want to start up discussion about again.
 * Edit the section it is in.
 * (Shortcuts apply to Windows only)


 * Highlight all the content you wish to start discussion about - make sure you get it all.
 * Press CONTROL+C
 * Cancel the "edit this section" window, so you should be back to read mode
 * Open up the current talk page
 * Press the "+" tab at the top of the page
 * Click in the edit box and press CONTROL+V
 * Put an edit summary similar to "bringing back old discussion regarding XYZ"; put a header as similar to the old one as you can - if possible, the same
 * Save the page

Remember to not edit this page - it might be taken as an attempt to alter the appearance of previous discussion.

Important Note from Jews for Jesus
As the mediator is aware, I have contacted the organization in question to find out whether they believe one can be both religiously Jewish and religiously Christian. Here is the copy of the correspondence:


 * My question
 * Does Jews for Jesus believe that one can accept Jesus as Christ, and Deity yet remain an adherent to Judaism? If so, please explain how one can be a follower of both Judaism and Christianity.


 * Their response
 * No, one cannot follow both Judaism and Christianity. Judaism (that is, modern rabbinic Judaism) denies the deity and messiahship of Jesus.


 * In Messiah's service,


 * (Mrs.) Marty Walker
 * Chief Correspondent


 * Jews for Jesus
 * 60 Haight St.
 * San Francisco, CA 94102-5895


 * My e-mail address is jfjcorr@jewsforjesus.org


 * Jews for Jesus' general e-mail address is jfj@jewsforjesus.org


 * On the web: www.jewsforjesus.org

I can forward the full email to all who wish to have a copy of this. But it is clear that JfJ does not maintain that one can be both Jewish and Christian in a religious sense, that JfJ does not consider itself a dissenter group in Judaism, and that JfJ believes that a belief in Jesus as Christ or Deity is incompatible with Judaism or as they call it--modern rabbinic Judaism. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd appreciate it is you forwarded this email onto me; anthony.cfc@gmail.com. I'll post more mediation discussion when I receive it. Regards, Anthony cfc  [ T &bull; C] 17:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh, JfJ was alot better at looking than Judaism than I thought, serves me right for not reading about them carefully, until recently, I thought their definition was based on religion not culture.... Homestarmy 19:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Is their position on this stated publicly anywhere, I wonder? Otherwise it seems like kind of a tricky situation.  We could then make it very clear that they don't claim to follow "modern rabbinic Judaism," but without a source, I guess I don't know how we'd do that.  One of the issues here, of course, is whether they're totally straightforward about what exactly they claim to be. Mackan79 20:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To me this states the same thing as the email I received. Also, "modern rabbinic Judaism" is, for the purpose of this discussion, is in effect "Judaism".  I don't know why the responder put that phrase in the response, as the separation of rabbinic and other groups deals with how to interpret the holy scriptures and not how to interpret Jesus.  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the website makes the point. From reading their material, I think the distinction is simply JfJ' way of protesting the failure of modern Judaism to recognize Jesus as Messiah, since the schism only happened 2000 years ago.  E.g., I think they believe Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, and so they're not willing to completely give up the idea that Christians are the ones who have truly kept the Jewish faith alive.  Not my view, but I think that's where they're coming from. Mackan79 21:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I sure thought so too. (Out of curiosity, Ramsquire, did you get that email I forwarded to you? It seemed to somewhat contradict that, now I'm good and confused.) Seraphimblade 03:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are speaking about the one in early January, yes, I received it. But when I read it, I figured he was speaking of Jews as an ethnicity. In other words he was saying "the most Jewish thing you can do is be Christian".  The problem is that the ethnicity and the religion have the same name, and in my opinion, JfJ uses that ambiguity to assist its conversion of Jews.  That's why in my question, I made it clear that we are only speaking of Judaism and Christianity. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly looks like you're quite correct on that one. Seraphimblade 21:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

(new indent) my apologies for being a little inactive of late - I've been trying to bumb up my activities and contributions to the other projects in Wikimedia space. So - just to clarify the position: everybody has agreed to the Neutrality-Project proposition, where the article will be ran through by an editor from the project who will flag up edits he/she wishes to implement and, with everybody's blessing (or rather, no objections) these edits can be implemented. The same goes for 's proposition - we are all agreed it should remain removed. Note when I say "we" and "everybody so far" I am excluding Jayjg (who has not yet posted his opinion) and MPerel who appears to have left the project (see my above statement, and his/her [|contributions] and blanking of his user and talk pages: (a) and (b).) Regards, Anthony cfc  [ T &bull; C] 01:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. I think we should also make sure they're made aware of the information Ramsquire found, as that might be very helpful in resolution of this. Seraphimblade 05:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Solution Implemented
I have placed a request with Wikiproject Neutrality regarding this article; we now await their response. I would like to thank everybody for their contribution to this mediation - I believe we have managed to come to a resolution that would not otherwise have been achieved without a civil, organised and welcoming Mediation page such as this one. Furthermore, I would like to extend my sincerest thanks to everybody for: firstly, allowing me the pleasure of mediating this case - it has been a (stressful :) pleasure working with you all; secondly, thank you for not providing any problems: everybody acted in a civil manner, and I believe that the level of maturity we as Wikipedians showed was outstanding and is a worthy point for notability.

However, we are not out of the woods yet - the question still remains if the Neutrality Project will develop edits that are (for the most part) acceptable to all of us. Having said that, I have every confidence in the Project and believe that they will make a success of the cleanup.

With your leave, Anthony cfc  [ T &bull; C] 21:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Project Rejection
The neutrality project has rejected out request for assistance; more information will be provided when available. Anthony cfc [ T &bull; C] 00:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For a Wikiproject that looked pretty new, they have quick turnaround time...not that that's very good for us in this case, but meh. Homestarmy 01:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Users should simply be bold and fix it...." Ah, if only it actually worked that way eh? Homestarmy 01:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Or maybe some are trying to "fix" something that's not broken. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The e-mail we got from JfJ makes things seem otherwise to me. Homestarmy 23:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

New Suggestion
Considering the recently discovered information from Jews for Jesus, and the rejection of our request at the Neutrality Project, I've made some edits which accurately reflect the views of JfJ at the article page. I also have one more suggestion which may end this dispute. I suggest we simply delete the "Beliefs in Relation to Judaism" section. Since JfJ does not make the claim that they are followers of Judaism, this sort of discussion is not necessary in the article, and the actual dispute between the Jewish groups and JfJ is noted throughout the article. It is pretty clear that JfJ is a Christian group, and the mentions of Jew and Jewishness in their literature are allusions to ethnicity. If someone wishes to add a section stating that JfJ uses the ambiguity in the meaning of Jew to proselytize, it should be added, provided it is properly sourced of course. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 01:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you like to provide diff's for all of your edits, for quick reference to the others so that they can quickly approve (or disapprove) of the edits? Many thanks, Anthony cfc  [ T &bull; C] 01:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with Ramsquire's suggestion, with the caveat that the arguments from that section could be included below in the Opposition and Criticism section if simply cited. I totally agree, though, that a section citing claims that the group is dishonest is really the appropriate way to deal with that issue.


 * Regarding the minor changes, I made a couple of more to the lead, mostly explained in the edit summary. The one thing regarding denominations was the point I made in talk earlier, that "accross denominations" doesn't mean "by denominations."  In fact it can't, since the source refers to "virtual unanimity," which is impossible among a group of four denominations.  In any case, I'd really hope people could reflect on the fact that "Many Jewish groups and the State of Israel" remains a very powerful statement of opposition, which gets the point across very clearly that Jewish groups don't like JfJ. Mackan79 04:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ramsquire's dif is here:
 * Mackan79's dif is here:


 * I think Mackan's changes work very well, in light of the new information. Seraphimblade 06:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Mackan79's dif 2:  Tried to incorporate "misleading" idea, but also took out "attack" language.  "Deceptive" would be fine also rather than "misleading." "Attack" just seems excessive, but maybe there's something better than "disrespectful." Mackan79 17:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Mackan79, "intentionally misleading" information doesn't belong in the article. Create a sandbox in your user space and play there. So far you presented no evidence for your claims. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As for Ramsquire's suggestion to remove the section "Beliefs in Relation to Judaism", I am strongly against it. JFJ uses confusing language (such as "Rabbinical Judaism", as if the Karaites accept them) so putting their beliefs in perspective and mentioning important historical facts such as the schism is both relevant and encyclopedic. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that JfJ uses confusing language. That is why the section would be replaced with a section that in effect says what you mentioned in your post.   As I read it, under the old understanding the section was important as it presented the other side to JfJ's alleged viewpoint that Christianity and Judaism were somehow compatible.  But since it has been established that JfJ does not believe in this compatibility the article should be changed to reflect this new understanding.  We don't really need to discuss Judaism at all in this article about this Christian organization since a) it is undoubtedly a Christian group, b) they don't deny it, and c) the group officially cites their Jewishness through parentage.  If we clear up the distinction in other parts of the article, and add the use of vague language by JfJ (properly sourced of course) to proselytze Jews, the article would remain relevant to JfJ.  However, we can still incorporate the schism, if it remains relevant to the new section.  I suppose I can present a draft so other can see what I am referring to. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be great. We need to make sure to adequately reflect their (JFJ's) claims because they seem to vary from person to person and from time to time (if this is true, this fact deserves to be reflected in our article as well). ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is my very rough, rough, rough draft of the proposed new section. It is a bare bones outline of what the section should or could contain.  Be merciful, I just did it in the last 20 minutes. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Disputed Points
Would everybody like to browse the article as it is now, and add specific points they wish to see changed, with a link to (a) the relevant policy, and why it is relevant; (b) a link to the section the text is located in. Cheers, Anthony cfc  [ T &bull; C] 17:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Many Jewish groups [4][5][6][7] and the State of Israel [8] reject the group's identification as Jewish, however, due to the Christian beliefs of its members and its evangelical activities. [9] [10] [11]


 * I think this sentence is misleading as written and unverifiable. The sources do not support the position that someone is questioning the ethnicity of the members of Jews for Jesus.  The State of Israel right of return law is a matter of religious faith.  The opinion of the Supreme Court makes it clear that according to the State of Isreal that some members of JfJ are Jews who members of a different faith.  The sources all reject any religious identification of JfJ as Jewish, not ethnic. Finally, I'd like to see if we can replace the Beliefs in relation to Judaism section and replace it with an expanded opposition and criticism section, or some other section.


 * Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that, for the sake of clarity, where "Jewish" might be ambiguous, we use the terms "religiously Jewish" and "ethnically Jewish." This would clear up a lot of problems. Seraphimblade 19:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I vaguely remember someone suggesting that on the Jews for Jesus talk page. But seriously, I agree that we should make this distinction clear in the article.  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Replacement Draft
This is the link to a paragraph I've proposed to replace the current "Beliefs in Relation to Judaism" that is currently in the Jews for Jesus article. It may follow better if we discuss changes here.

Here is the original proposed section (with all the typos).

This is Mackan79's proposed change.

Another proposed change.

My comment to Mackan is that I oppose your insetion of "nearly universally" as it is not supported by any sources. All the sources clearly state that these beliefs are alien to Jewish thought, incompatible with Jewish thought, and delineate a clear dividing line in belief between Christian and Jew. If you wish to add some kind of qualification to this incompatibility in this article, you need to provide a source for it. Otherwise, it is original research. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't the fourth source say it? "There is virtual unanimity across all denominations [of Judaism] that Jews for Jesus are not Jewish." (Kaplan, Dana Evan. The Cambridge Companion to American Judaism, Cambridge University Press, Aug 15, 2005, pp. 139-140)." Mackan79 00:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That statement is about Jews for Jesus specifically. The section you are editing are about the compatibility of Christianity and Judaism generally.  There is no source to attest to what you have written there. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Messianic Jews would seem to put a "nearly" into that equation. We can't use our own article as a source, but I certainly can find some on them if you'd like. Seraphimblade 00:11, 27 Januarya 2007 (UTC)


 * If this were an article about Messianic Jews that would be an appropriate edit since they claim there is a compatibility. JfJ doesn't make this claim, and it is an extraordinarily tiny minority viewpoint, and need not be given undue weight in this article.  For example in the Flat Earth articles we present their claims about the shape of the Earth as plausible but in all other articles the issue is presented accurately-- "The Earth's shape is very close to an oblate spheroid, although the precise shape (the geoid) varies from this by up to 100 meters (327 ft)" we don't say "Many view" or "the Earth is nearly universally held".  We should do the same here. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * How small are the Messianics? And how few others would acknowledge that they're Jewish?  If you add up all the Messianics in the world, and everybody who wouldn't contest their claim to follow Judaism, I think you get something that precludes claiming unanimity, don't you?  Honestly, I'd use the word "generally" in situations like this, because I think it makes the least implications; you can read it as anything from 51% to "Everybody except a couple of kooks in an asylum."  But anyway... Mackan79 00:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There are probably less than 50,000 Messianics globally, but even if we were generous and said there were about 1 million people worlwide to hold to their views, it would still be an infinitesimal minority viewpoint. Those sort of positions should not be mentioned according to WP:NPOV, unless it is in an article about the group that holds that position. I don't want to come across as a troll, and I apologize if I do, but again I have to ask would you change the article in the Earth article to read "the Earth is generally held..."  That situation is directly analogous to this one.  Again if JfJ held to the viewpoint, I'd have no problem presenting it the way you do, but since they don't, I must object to what I see as a violation of the undue weight provision of WP:NPOV. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see the issue here. Personally, I wouldn't even have any trouble stating that the theory of gravity is "almost universally accepted"-there are still a few out there who disagree and have some off-the-wall thing on it. Unfortunately, some people don't do very well with understanding that any scientific theory is "almost universally accepted", and that no theory is ever "true" per se. The very best ones just become a very, very good current working model that explain observed phenomena (old and new) about a million times better then anything else out there. That being said, beliefs tend to be the same way-I would venture a guess that no belief is absolutely universal. (There have been philosophers who have claimed that nothing even really exists!) How about, however, if we frame it explicitly-"this belief is nearly universal among Jews, except for some small groups such as Messianic Judaism"? This would leave no ambiguity at all, on one side or the other-we've clearly stated who disagrees, and it's been left properly to the reader to assess that claim and viewpoint. As to undue weight...after some calculations, presuming Ramsquire's numbers to be correct, I had a look at a similar situation. There are about 2,100,000,000 Christians in the world as of 2005, according to Britannica. There were a little over 500,000 Jehovah's Witnesses at that time (according to the JW's own numbers, and they'd be the ones with a motive to inflate them!) That would make JW's about .023% of Christians. Despite this tiny margin, JW's are mentioned in the main Christianity article, and no one would realistically object. By those same statistics, there are approximately 15,000,000 Jews (Britannica), of which (using Ramsquire's numbers), roughly 50,000 are Messianics. This would make Messianics .33% of total Jews-more than an order of magnitude higher, and we're not even talking about mention in a main article, but in a side one. Finally, I disagree to the phrasing that "The Jewish groups that paid attention to Jews for Jesus, oppose it"-unless one of us has recently developed telepathic abilities, it's pure crystalballery to try to say who has "paid attention" to something-we can't possibly know that. (On a side note, would the use of telepathic ability be considered OR?) Seraphimblade 05:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I missed the Saturday's discussion. Despite what they claim, the Messianics do not represent Judaism. For those who insist otherwise, I suggest you do some serious scholarly reading on Judaism. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What shall I read? In everything I've seen, even Jewish sources refer to it as "Messianic Judaism". Do you have any suggestions as to what I should look at? Seraphimblade 10:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just as JFJ, MJ is intentionally confusing name. Sorry, I don't have time to educate you. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Without getting into an unnecessarily long and drawn out argument re: JW's and Messianics-- let me just say this-- the mention of JW is only to note their dissent from the doctrine of the Trinity. I suppose that if one wished to add a section to the Judaism article about groups claiming to be Jewish, then the Messianics could be added there.  But that is not the issue here with JfJ.  Here, JfJ does not claim one can be both Jewish and Christian religiously, there is no source claiming JfJ is a Jewish group, and the overwhelming number of sources states explicitly that there is no compatibility with the belief in Jesus as Christ and Juduaism.  Please note that although certain views are compatible in both religions (e.g. don't murder, be sexually moral, etc.) the view of Jesus that Christians have is alien to Jewish thought.  It is right in the sources.  Let's cite them accurately. From WP:NPOV:"views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views"Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I think we're still sort of fundamentally at odds with the purpose of an encyclopedia here. Despite our new info, this statement is still being used to contravene something JfJ says. JfJ says "It's not really incompatible," and WP responds, "Well actually, according to Judaism, it is." Isn't this way beyond what WP should do? To me it's a very clear instance where you have to source that statement, not speak on behalf of a religion in refuting JfJ's claim. You have to say "According to this reliable source, Judaism does not allow this." To the extent you're correcting or even clarifying something somebody says, I think this is critical.

At the same time, of course, if we simply want to convey what most members of a religion believe, then we would need a source characterizing what the members of that religion believe. Then we'd quote saying "Jews are unanimous," and cite the source. This is an exception allowed under WP:Weasel. If what we want is to represent a fact, however, which is at odds with information asserted by a group in the article, even if not directly at odds, then I think that's the classic instance where you cite the fact to a reliable source, not where you simply assert it per WP, isn't it? Mackan79 17:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to admit I am getting a little frustrated here. The sentence in my original proposal says "To this end, critics claim that JfJ uses the ambiguity in the defition of "Jew" and "Jewish" to confuse their prospective converts into believeing there is a possibility of one being a follower of both Judaism and Christianity simultaneously.[citation needed] However, belief in Jesus as deity, son of God, or Christ, is usually held as incompatible with Judaism. [1] [2]There is NO reliabile source that belief in Jesus as Christ is compatible with Judaism and JfJ does not believe this.  Why would such a tiny minority viewpoint be given undue weight in this article?  The issue is not a general compatibility between the two religions but whether the central tenet of Christianity is compatible with Judaism.  There is no reliable source stating that it is.  The sources we have say it is not.  ANd the subject of the article makes no claim that it is.  To weasel it, would be to give a minority viewpoint undue weight and violate WP:NPOV.Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for the frutstration. I'm simply saying in that case, we should cite it to a reliable source who says that, not to Judaism as a religion.  We should say "However, according to Rabbi X, Judaism and this belief are not compatible."  Or "According to the four denominations of Judaism, this belief is heresy."  Some reliable source to make that point.  What we can't do, I'm trying to say, is assert it as fact on our own, when it contradicts with the letter or the spirit of what JfJ is saying.  In that situation, I think you have to cite somebody, or it looks like WP is hammering JfJ.  The final alternative would be to say "According to the four denominations, however, this is not compatible with Judaism, and the idea is rejected by Jews almost universally" while citing both statements.  That way you're saying "1. Judaism doesn't allow it, and 2. Jews don't accept it."  That way you're making both points.  My problem, again, is simply with saying Judaism doesn't allow it, without attributing that thought to anybody.  When the idea conflicts with the spirit of what JfJ is saying, I think that's POV, no matter how obvious it may be.  If you then want to get accross that the idea is also held universally, you have to say that specifically: "Also, Jews believe this universally."  Does this make sense?  I'm trying here :P Mackan79 19:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize, the stress is on "little" and its mostly with myself, because I feel like I am just missing your point. I having difficulty seeing where you are coming from.  You state that there isn't a source that belief in Jesus as Christ is incompatible with Judaism, but we have twelve sources explicitly stating that stating there is no compatibility .  OTOH, we have ZERO sources stating that belief in Jesus is compatible with Judaism...and most importantly, it is not a view held by the subject of the article- but yet you wanted represented in the article.  So if you agree with that factual background, why are we still having this discussion? And why is this insignificant minority viewpoint given weight in this article, when the general rule is only significant minority viewpoints are presented? Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the rule is that extreme minority viewpoints aren't expressed, except in articles about those views. I think this qualifies, but that isn't my main point here: I'm simply saying that, yes, we have groups who say Judaism isn't compatible with Jesus, but then we should actually attribute the thought to one or more of those groups, in the text itself.  Literally, we should use the form "According to group X, however, these views aren't compatible."  Or even, "According to several groups, however, including Group X, Group Y and Group Z, Judaism and the belief in Jesus aren't compatible."  I'm simply opposed to the form "According to Judaism, however..." Or "This view is incompatible with Judaism, however," even if you then put a footnote to a group saying that.  Because in the end, even if it's true, it does go against the spirit of JfJ's argument, right?  Thanks for helping me try to iron this out. Mackan79 20:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But this is not a view JfJ holds. JfJ does not make any argument that one can believe in Jesus as Messiah and remain a Jew.  You're combining two issues.  The issue here isn't whether Christianity and Judaism are generally compatible but rather whether belief in Jesus as Deity, a particular Christian belief, is compatible with Judaism. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, that's why I'm saying it conflicts with the spirit of what they're saying, though. After all, why else are we saying it?   We're saying it because otherwise, from their statement, you might get the idea these things are compatible.  So we're correcting that impression.  In a situation like that, I think you need to credit the argument to somebody, just as much as when you're directly refuting an argument, no?


 * The thing is, also, I simply don't see it as an insult to a religion to suggest that a position is held "nearly universally," even if the vast vast majority see it as a necessary belief. In that regard, I think everybody recognizes what "nearly universal" means: not that this is some sort of general controversy, but simply that you're always going to find people who disagree, on anything.  Here, we have a specific group with many thousands of adherents who believe otherwise.  I'm not saying they should get special mention in other articles, but don't many thousand people counts to where you can't call something universal? In the end, that's simply why in this specific instance I think it's better to characterize what the vast majority of people believe, not trying to specifically pronounce the position of Judaism, when it arguably goes against the spirit of what JfJ is saying.


 * Even in general, though, I think WP should really do everything it can to stay away from statingwhat Judaism or Christianity or Islam holds, though. If you have to say it to explain the religion, you have to say it, but I think in any other situation you should try very hard not to. Mackan79 20:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. We are saying it to explain why people criticise JfJ's use of language in their efforts to convert Jews.


 * 2. I am certainly not claiming that your edit is an insult to any religion. However, I am saying that it is original research since the sources show a unanimity that this Christian belief is alien to Judaism.  I am also claiming that it violated WP:NPOV to give the Messianics (not JfJ) undue weight in this article.  Not every minority viewpoint is presented, only significant ones. The burden is on you to show sources supporting your edit, and that such a position is significant.  Without that, it can't go in the article.


 * 3. OK, I think I see where the problem may lie. When you edited my original you combined the last two sentences of the first paragraph.  That should not probably have been done.   We need to source separately whether JfJ uses the ambiguity in the defition of "Jew" and "Jewish" to confuse their prospective converts into believeing there is a possibility of one being a follower of both Judaism and Christianity simultaneously.  If we get that sourced then to be complete, we have to tell the reader why detractors view the use of "vague" language negatively.  In that scenario, in order to add a qualification to the majority opinion in this case, we would need to find a significant and unquestionably Jewish group, who believe a) belief in Jesus Christ, and Deity is compatible with Judaism and b) don't see a problem with JfJ using the ambiguity in the term Jewish to convert Jews.  But the first thing we need to do is find a source supporting the first sentence in my version or the first clause in your version. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, sorry for the delay, I'm just quite caught up. We've talked this to death, but I still think we're getting closer to an understanding, which is good.  I don't know what else is going on here, anyway, I'll try to return soon.  Mackan79 16:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)