Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish Christianity/Memorandum of Understanding

Above all, WP:CIVIL!!!

purpose and intent (i.e. what this page is for)
Allow me to vent first... I really hate the acrimonious debates between MJ editors and J editors. MJ articles/templates being deleted, any mention of messianic topics being reverted from articles, personal attacks or attacks against a religion...it's terribly nasty. WP should not be this nasty. I've seen other contentious topics be resolved in a much more civil fashion, and cannot understand why this one isn't handled in the same way.

To address this, I think we need a MoU to specify what kind of treatment messianic topics should receive from non-messianic Jews here on WP. (And vice versa.) I think it's pretty clear that normal WP policies, procedures, and guidelines fail us—there's simply too much emotional investment in the issue for many people to keep their objectivity about them. Such a MoU doesn't rise to the level of a WP guideline, because I don't think WP should be issuing guidelines that treat specific situations. But I think it can be a "gentlemen's agreement" that both sides can reference, and honorably try to work out differences. Think of it as a way of looking at the general WP guidelines applied to this specific interfaith situation, so that we don't have to reinterpret and rehash the same debates time after time after time. Basically, we should be able to outline a set of expectations, backed by referenced WP guidelines, that will be consistently applied. Can that be so hard?

Will this idea succeed? To be honest, I don't have real high hopes for it, given what I've already seen. But I'm an optimist, and I believe that G-d can work miracles even today. ☺ So let's try. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I applaud and support this effort. Reason will always win out if reason is heard. inigmatus 20:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Some points in response to those in front
My comments to yours


 * Messianic Judaism asserts that it is as a type of Judaism. It is not within the scope of WP to determine whether the assertion is true
 * I rephrased this slightly to be more precise, but I don't think you'll find a change in meaning.


 * MJ is a distinct minority within Judaism. Most of mainstream Judaism believes (rightly or not, which again is not a matter for WP debate) MJ to be "non Jewish" or even heretical.
 * I have problems here, because it's a matter of contention whether MJ exists within Judaism or is something separate. More on this below.


 * Regardless, MJ is a viewpoint/philosophy/movement/"thing" that WP can document. MJ exists; it is real.
 * Yes, and for that reason it is notable in WP.


 * As MJ claims to be a branch of Jewish culture, many MJ articles will reference articles of general Jewish interest. This is perfectly valid.
 * Careful with the way you phrase this. I would say that MJ articles reference topics that are also of interest for Judaism. That is valid, of course, but some caveats apply - see below.


 * Likewise, those articles may be expanded with information pertinent to Messianic views. This is also perfectly valid.
 * I think it might make sense to reference articles on religious topics that more than one religious group cares about, e.g., differences in interpretation by Catholic and Protestant Christians, to take an example. We should not need to reinvent this here.


 * Granted the intent is not to give undue weight to a minority viewpoint or to soapbox, of course. But to give a viewpoint no weight at all (by censoring it altogether) is just as bad.
 * I think that "weight" is a red herring. I think the issue is that nobody should be misled into thinking that one view is commonplace when it isn't.


 * It is also legitimate to note, in these cases, that mainstream Judaism does not consider the Messianic views to be valid expressions of Judaism.
 * Yes, but here's the dilemma. For example, I don't have a problem respecting the beliefs of MJ adherents, just as I respect the beliefs of any other religious group. What I do have a problem with is the lack of respect I feel some MJ folks demonstrate for Judaism when they try to conflate the two. From the points you've raised, it seems like you agree with this principle.


 * But these disclaimers should not be posed as denigration of the MJ view, either. No soapboxing from the other side—fair is fair.
 * Again, I think we should confer how other religious topics are treated.


 * MJ views in articles relating to Judaica should be accorded the same treatment as other minority Jewish views, commensurate with relevance and significance.
 * Here's where I think we're bumping up against a premise problem. Karaites and Samaritans, to take an example, are considered related to Judaism, but every care is made to distinguish between the two. Likewise, Christianity is considered a separate religion by (pretty much) everyone involved.


 * MJ should not pass itself off as mainstream Jewish thought/practice. That's verifiably inaccurate.  It may think itself to be perfectly acceptable (and it may be, but again that is not a matter for WP debate) but the fact remains that it is a small sect that is outside the boundaries of every major Jewish group.
 * MJ should not be censored simply because it is unpopular.

OK, so here are some thoughts: --Leifern 20:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There are lots of disagreements within Judaism, and through history there have been numerous schisms. But I think those schisms have invariably turned out to be permanent when one group has rejected a fundamental premise of the group they came from. I'd say that's especially the case when the departing group has accepted the major tenets of another religion. Imagine a group that proclaims Mohamad to be a prophet and the Quran to be part of the canon. Wouldn't we simply say, "well, they're Moslems?"
 * I can certainly appreciate that MJ has a sincere conviction that their beliefs are valid within Judaism, but I have to point out, so do Christians. Whether they're Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Gnostic, etc., they sincerely believe that their interpretation of the Hebrew Bible is superior to that of Jews; and that the Greek Bible supersedes it. They're nice about it; and respectful toward those who differ, but their faith has no meaning unless they sincerely believe those things.
 * So, we're left with two seemingly irreconcilable views of what MJ is. I would say MJ is Christianity, adapted in many forms to conform to Jewish religious traditions; you'd say it's Judaism, adapted to the premise that Jesus of Nazareth is/was the Messiah.
 * Within Judaism, these views are reconciled in the following way: those who believe that Jesus is/was the Messiah have a choice between leaving Judaism or being branded heretics. The sanctions involved in the latter are debatable, but I can tell you that anyone who stands up in a synagogue - whether it's Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist, or Reform - and pronounces such a belief would be asked to either keep that view to himself/herself, or take it elsewhere. They might stand up and say that they think pork is kosher, or that there should be patrilineal descent, and they'd be met with strong opposition, but that would be another type of disagreement.
 * This dilemma is not unheard of in Wikipedia. Without checking, I imagine there are many such differing views within articles about Christianity and Islam, to be sure. But from what I have seen, the editors for those articles make distinctions carefully and more often than not write new articles to explain differences or give different accounts.


 * Wow, that was certainly a bigger response than I'd expected. &#9786;  Great to see some dialog.  For now I'll focus on the next-to-last point, that those who choose to believe in Jesus are essentially "excommunicated".  I have never quite understood this.  Judaism awaits a messiah.  Someone comes along and claims to be the messiah, and gains a following.  Now, either it he truly is the messiah, in which case it's a very Jewish thing to believe that he is—or he's not, in which case the truth will eventually out, and his followers are still Jews (albeit Jews that made a mistake).  Now, if this "messiah" were to say something like, "What we've been doing is all wrong, we really ought to be practicing just like Hindus", then I could understand labelling this a non-Judaism religion.  But if there's very little to differentiate this messianic sect from any other (other than that messianic belief) then isn't it still "Judaism"?  (What I'm saying is that if a messiah is promised, you can't throw people out for believing that!)  So what about MJ truly conflicts with Judaism, other than the belief that Jesus is the promised messiah?  (Like I said, that alone isn't really a valid reason for rejection.)  Jesus specifically said he did not come to do away with torah, and MJs still follow it.  A few interpretations have changed in light of some of his teachings, but there are big differences in interpretation between Orthodox and Reform as well, but they are both considered valid expressions of Judaism.  (Well, unless you ask certain Orthodox groups.)  The rejection of non-tanakh authority by the Karaites must lead to some significant differences, but that group is still part of Judaism, too.
 * I ask the question somewhat rhetorically, because I am pretty familiar with most of the objections to Jesus. What I'm really asking is what pushes this particular belief system (MJ) over the line from "a form of Judaism, albeit one I don't agree with" to "some kind of non-Judaic belief, apparently Christian, that happens to use Jewish formats and symbology"? Really, honestly, introspectively think about that.  Is it truly a religious objection based on the best intellectual understanding, or is it a cultural one?  Is it possible that certain passages of scripture are open to other valid interpretations than the one you choose to believe?  I question my understanding of scripture a lot—it keeps me honest to myself and to G-d.
 * The Christian-Mormon relationship is somewhat similar to what we are discussing here. Mormons claim to be a Christian denomination, yet they are rejected by most other Christians as heretical.  Yet to deny them mention in anything "Christian" is to deny knowledge to someone coming in uninformed.  ("Hey, I've been told Mormons are Christians, why can't I find any mention of them here?")  Much better, from the NPOV perspective, to mention (albeit briefly) the Mormon view of whatever it is, while also conveying the understanding that this is not a mainstream view.  Will Mormons have their own articles to illustrate their distinctives in greater detail?  Most definitely.  Should Mormons be barred from mentioning Mormon perspectives in Christian articles altogether?  Definitely not.  Should those references make the context (minority, out-of-mainstream view) clear?  Definitely so.  Why can't such a thing happen here?  It's not that great a thing to ask.
 * Historically speaking, Christianity is an outgrowth of Judaism. The first followers of Jesus were all Jewish.  The Roman authorities (and even Jewish leaders of the time) considered it a Jewish sect.  You can believe that those early followers followed a Jewish lifestyle, in accordance with torah—with the small addition that they believed the messiah had now come.  Christianity didn't diverge into something non-Jewish overnight.  The messianic monotheistic religious beliefs of Judaism simply overlaid non-Jewish cultural expressions.  When you overlay messianic religious beliefs on Jewish cultural expressions, you get MJ.  It's not really that large a leap.  It's not like the concept of messiah is borrowed from elsewhere and bolted on; it's Jewish to begin with. &hArr; ChristTrekker 23:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's been my observation that it takes a lot of time and effort and arguments and sometimes much worse events to reconcile religious convictions with history, and we certainly can't expect to do it here.


 * If you look at the various Messianic movements within Judaism throughout the millennia, you'll see, I think, that they quickly fell out of favor with the Jewish establishment. Messianism is indeed a central tenet in Jewish theology, but Rambam pretty much put an end to the debate as to whether we have seen a Messiah; and all movements within Judaism (though they may disagree on everything else) agree on this point. So, it's not a very Jewish thing to believe there is a Messiah.


 * All this is kind of irrelevant for what we're trying to work out, though. Which is how we can reconcile the way Messianic Jews identify themselves on the one hand; with what conventional (but diverse) rabbinic Judaism accepts on the other. I should point out that rabbinic Judaism differs from MJ in many other ways, as well. --Leifern 11:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course—I hope I was clear that I did not expect nor intend to reconcile all divisions through this discourse! But that is not necessary within Wikipedia.  All we need, and what should be expected, is that editors respect the fact that there are different points of view.  None should be arbitrarily excluded.  I hope that we can, together, come to a consensus regarding that in the context of J/MJ overlapping interests.  One does not have to be so open to different ideas that one would consider adopting them for oneself—no one should be here to convert anyone else.  But one should be tolerant of mentioning and including differing interpretations—that does not equate to endorsement.  WP is a collaborative effort; it's silly to think that just because you've edited an article that also contains something you disagree with, that others will think you do agree with it.  Yet that's exactly how I see some J editors acting whenever MJ references show up in "their" articles, as if it's been contaminated or something. &hArr; ChristTrekker 15:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Specifically about expanding Jewish articles with MJ opinions, I feel that IS a violation of Undue Weight. MJ, in comparison with the other branches of Judaism, is so small (for better or for worse) that outside of their own specific articles to consider them a branch of Judaism is to give them undue weight in the face of the remining, most likely, 98% of Judaism. In their own articles, of course, the discussion about their identifying as Jews MUST exist. Which is why I strongly feel that MJ-specific changes/interpretations of Jewish topics should have their own sub-articles and not sub-topics. -- Avi 16:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But, Avi, you know you've seen even links to MJ articles removed. (See recent history of Jewish Publication Society of America Version for just one example of a footnote in a See Also section being denied.  A simple footnote!)  It may be true that there are Jews in RL would just as soon that all MJews just conveniently "went away" so they didn't have to deal with the issue, but that attitude won't fly here on WP.  It's not like MJ expects to get an equal space in the main J article to air a countervailing idea—just enough mention to include a link in context would often be sufficient.  Complete banishment/dissociation of MJ from J articles is a disservice to objective WP readers.  J editors might prefer it, but that's too bad.  Plain and simple, it is RL anti-MJ bias creeping into WP when you can't even mention alternative views.  WP readers deserve to know that there exist differing viewpoints, but how can that happen if all references between the two parties are removed?  Without knowledge aforehand of both sides, the reader would never learn of it.  As I said above, it's not acceptance of the view for yourself, it's mere tolerance for its existence.  That's not much to ask.  It's not tolerance as long as you're only OK with it as long as it remains "over there" by itself—that's the kind of thinking that gave us "colored" drinking fountains and food counters. &hArr; ChristTrekker 16:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Can something with "Christ" in it be Jewish or speak for Judaism?
Just a basic question: Shouldn't a user who self-identifies as a "CHRIST-Trekker" recuse himself from a serious discussion that wishes to assert that "Messianic (read: Christian) Jews/Judaism" is/are "also Jews/Judaism"? Would one assume the neutrality of someone who chose provocative user names such as a Muhammad-Trekker could be neutral about Islam vs Judaism or a Buddha-Trekker about Buddhism vs Judaism issues??? User:ChristTrekker should immediately withdraw from this discussion until such time as he can demonstrate that he is not an agent for WikiProject Christianity. IZAK 10:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Christ" offends you so much that you can't even see the printed word in a discussion? Good grief.  Word: yeah, I've got a POV, but so do you.  I'm all about fairly representing that on WP.  WP:AGF—ad hominems because of my choice of nick are rather childish, don't you think?  "An agent for Wikiproject Christianity"...uff-da, do you think there's some kind of black hat conspiracy going on???  Are you serious??? &hArr; ChristTrekker 17:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi ChristTrekker: Point of order: I am not offended by the neutral use of the word "Christ" when used in a clear, unconfused and non-deceptive manner. In any case, the way Christians use and understand the word "Christ" is not NPOV and on Wikipedia it should NOT be used at all, but rather the name Jesus should be used to denote when a reference is being made to the one whom Christians have accepted to be as their "Christ"/"Messiah"/"Annointed One" and whom they regard as a part of God through the Trinity, (have you studied this stuff by the way?) By using the word "Christ" as you do,(translation from the Greek meaning "annointed" referring to Jesus only according to Christianity) and which by definition would mean that one accepts that Jesus was Christ which is a POV since not everyone agrees that Jesus was indeed "christ" and indeed most people on Earth do not accept him the way Christians do, such as Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists or Atheists. So please let's stay on track here and face the fact that it is you that has chosen a name that is bound to evoke and create tension as it indicates that you want to impose the CHRISTian view of CHRIST, which is not acceptable in a discussion where you claim to want to create an "understanding" with non-Christians. What have I not made clear? IZAK 12:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My nick is an identifier for who I am. Yes, I am an unabashed follower of Jesus Christ.  You make the assumption that because of this, I am incapable of editing and contributing to WP in an unbiased way.  My nick is not part of the WP article space, is it?  Were my nick anything else, I would still hold the same views and still edit in the same way, but you'd have nothing to comment on.  Therefore, all your comment here has done is make evident your own bias. &hArr; ChristTrekker 20:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree.
from the Points section:
 * Messianic Judaism characterizes itself as a type of Judaism. Whether or not that is "true" is not a matter for WP debate.
 * MJ is a distinct minority within Judaism. Most of mainstream Judaism believes (rightly or not, which again is not a matter for WP debate) MJ to be "non Jewish" or even heretical.

It is a fact that Messianic Judaism considers itself a type of Judaism. I have no problem with that Messianic view being presented. It is also a fact that all mainstream denominations of Judaism disagree. That is also a fact and can be presented as such. Now here is the tricky part. While it shouldn't be "not a matter of WP debate" to decide whether MJ is a type of Judaism or not, it is forced to decide. If a MJ is presented as a minority view in an article about Judaism, even only one line, or a single footnote, that article is presenting the MJ view that it is a type of Judaism. On the other hand, if it is not presented at all, the article is presenting the view of all mainstream forms of Judaism that MJ is not part of Judaism. Jon513 14:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Other than MJ itself, there is not a single branch of Judaism of which I am aware that considers MJ to be Judaism. In this situation, I believe the "undue weight" clause of NPOV requires that MJ is not mentioned in Judaism. -- Avi 15:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Undue weight" if one line out of a 1000-line article mentions MJ so that a link to a relevant article can be presented? I think this demonstrates your bias, Avi.  You can't have discussions about "who is a jew", "what do jews believe", etc, without mentioning differing viewpoints.  Sure, you say those views are outside the mainsteam, but this is practically textbook NPOV. &hArr; ChristTrekker 16:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, perhaps not. I never claimed to be without a point of view, just as you have your point of view. What is important here is how WIKIPEDIA defines how we handle various points-of-view; not how you or I feel. I did not make up th epolicies, just as you did not, but we are both bound by them. In your own webspace, place whatever you will; in my own webspace, I do. But here in wiki, we must conform to ITS policies, and I contend that Messianic Judaism is the only religious sect that belives itself to be a Judaism. All other branches of Judaism and Christianity that I know of differ. So in ITS own article—to wit, Messianic Judaism—it must be mentioned that MJ holds itself Jewish; but it should not be mentioned in the mainstream article per:.
 * This has nothing to do with your or my POV, but a decision of wikipedia policy. I hope you understand that. -- Avi 16:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My contention is that your proposal goes much further than that quote requires. Your intrepretation seems to say that we can't even mention that some people hold different views; that those views can't even be linked for fear of giving undue weight.  And I believe you are wrong.  No one is saying that MJ should have its own section each/every Judaism-related article when relevant!  (How have you gotten that impression?  I've said exactly the opposite several times now.)  By removing every link and every reference to different views, you are effectively silencing and censoring a minority.  If no one can find you unless they look specifically for you, you have to have prior knowledge.  How would you ever discover MJ on Wikipedia?  Effectively withholding this knowledge (and that's exactly what your interpretation would do) is a disservice.  This issue in particular is a major reason why I wanted to create this MoU in the first place.  The undue weight clause of NPOV cannot be used to silence critical, or even merely "alternative", views from the minority. &hArr; ChristTrekker 17:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

A Memorandum of Understanding between Christtrekker and himself
...is not a Memorandum of Understanding of anything. Adherents of Messianic Judaism can believe whatever they want, but Judaism certainly doesn't consider their beliefs to have any validity. More importantly, two TFDs made is quite clear that the Messianic Judaism template could not exist as a POV fork of the Judaism template. This is the third time people have attempted to do an end-run around very clear TFD results; the only thing saving the Messianic Judaism template from another speedy deletion is the fact that it contains material that is unique to Messianic Judaism. If there are further attempts to include material that is pertinent to Judaism, not Messianic Judaism, as in the previous templates, it will be deleted again. Jayjg (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet again, you obviously completely miss the point that many parts of Judaism are completely relevant to MJ too. I don't see any reason why a topically-oriented navigational aid should not be allowed to link to them—that's what this type of template is for, linking to related/relevant articles!  The religion of Judaism, and WP editors who are adherents to it, do not own Wikipedia.  Judaism does not have greater authority within WP to dictate to other groups what they may or may not link to.  The only question should be whether it is relevant in the context of MJ, since it is a MJ template.  The MJ community has bent over backwards to accomodate pressure from the Judaism camp, fighting marginalization at every turn, including making a good faith effort to redesign the template to be less  similar/confusing to readers.  However, it is clear that Jayjg and his ilk will not stop until MJ editors give up and go home so that MJ articles go unmaintained and MJ fades to obscurity in WP, just as they'd prefer happen in RL. &hArr; ChristTrekker 15:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you miss the point. There was a TFD on this, and the decision was to delete. The Template you created was almost identical to the Template that was deleted. An agreement was made after the deletion that if you wanted to create a different template, then you could try, but the Template you were trying to re-create was speedily deletable under CSD G4. You should be greatful I didn't take your obvious bad faith at face value and delete it. Now, please respect the results of the TFD, and create a template that is suitable for Messianic Judaism, not a POV-fork of the Judaism template, per the TfD results. Jayjg (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's where you are, quite simply, wrong. The formatting has been substantially changed (from the appearance borrowed from Template:Judaism in the initial version) by offsetting the logo and by eliminating the alternating bands of color.  I do not think the two could be confused in an honest comparison now.  The simple fact is that MJ is a POV of Judaism in RL, with thousands of adherents across the globe.  It should come as no surprise that a summary listing (such as a WP nav template) bears commonalities.  There is no way to avoid that—many of the same things are central to both.  The fact that a WP article or template reflects reality is not indicative of bias or soapboxing in such a case.  I believe that the MJ community here has been very accomodating by hiding commonalities behind a collapsed section (in the new version) as an additional measure to help prevent confusion between J and MJ articles (in addition to the aforementioned cosmetics).  It shouldn't be necessary—any nav template ought to be allowed to freely link to any article that is centrally pertinent to its topic—but it was done as a concession when the TfD was bandwagoned and forced the issue.  These measures ought to meet the recreation criteria satisfactorily. &hArr; ChristTrekker 20:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdenting), CT, I have to disagree with you. Firstly, MJ is NOT a POV of Judaism; MJ is a religious sect that based itself on Judaism. Completely different. No one, not CHristian, not Jewish, outside of MJ believes MJ is Jewish, so the commonalities are specifically meant to PUSH MJ's own point of view. That point of view is PROPER to be discussed in the article, but NOT PROPER to be considered "authoritrative" in other areas of wikispace, including templatespace. Secondly, Thousands of adherents is still a fringe group compared to millions of Jews and hundreds of millions of Christians. This makes the "undue weight" clause of WP:NPOV extremely relevant. -- Avi 21:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Eliminating those commonalities promotes the anti-MJ POV. As others before me have said, I fail to see how the presence of a link to something, especially when clearly represented as a navigational aid, can be construed as giving undue weight to the linker!  The linked article is pertinent and topical to MJ.  I do not understand why it must be excluded.  To exclude it, one must assume that the reader is familiar with the basics of Judaism first and is only reading MJ stuff as a supplement—which I think would lend to the understanding that MJ is some kind of refinement/type of Judaism, which is the view that I thought you wanted to discourage.  Or, if MJ should be treated as a distinct religion, then it's nav template ought to be self-contained.  It seems to me that you are trying to have it both ways.  You do not want J articles linking to MJ articles (undue weight to the minority MJ position) nor do you want MJ articles linking to J articles (I fail to see how undue weight applies in this case).  Quite simply, you're marginalizing MJ and cutting it off from some of the articles that are very central to explaining what it's about.  That may not be your intent, but that's the practical effect. &hArr; ChristTrekker 22:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

CT, You changed the formatting and colors a little bit; however, the contents were essentially identical. The TFD was not about formatting and colors, but rather about content, and it is disingenuous to suggest that a little bit of cosmetic work turned the template into something entirely new. Jayjg (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My understanding was that the primary issue was the confusion potentially caused by the similarity in the templates. The changes made are a good faith effort to resolve that problem—creating a new visual identity, promoting the MJ-specific links over others.  But the non-MJ-specific links cannot simply be removed altogether—that would yield an incomplete picture of MJ.  As I (and others) have said several times, how do you think you can dictate how someone's belief system is represented on WP?  I don't really care if Torah is an article under the auspices of WP:JUDAISM, that's fine by me, but if it is central to understanding MJ, then it also belongs on Template:MJ.  How can that be disputed?  No one is demanding that Template:MJ be placed on Torah—that would be an undue weight argument I could understand.
 * But I see this devolving into an argument about one specific template instead of addressing the larger issues the MoU was supposed to deal with. The fact is that the content of MJ itself (not the template) is too similar to J for your liking.  I think you see MJ as a ripoff or hijacking of Judaism, and that bothers you.  (I can certainly understand that, if so.)  Whether it is, or not...it is what it is, and that means it does share many concepts with Judaism (and Christianity) and I really don't see why it should be prohibited from linking to them.  You see it as using WP as a soapbox, but it's just an accurate portrayal of what MJ does stand for and what it is about.  Maybe MJ does step on J's toes a bit in RL—is it our goal in WP to decide whether that's right or wrong, or to accurately depict it?  I think it's up to the reader to decide. &hArr; ChristTrekker 22:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

CT, it's not about me, it's about the TfD. The TfD was quite clear that the issue was content, not form. Please re-read the comments: Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_5. Jayjg (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Would there be any way for the MJ template to contain within it links to mainstream Judaism articles while at the same time having the template itself only included in those articles which have are of either a disproportionate interest to Messianic Jews and/or basically unique to them? John Carter 18:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's precisely what this entire page, a similar one at WP:Judaism, two TfDs , and a deletion review  have been about. In a word, no - but that's still what's being proposed here again. More details can be found in the links. :) Daniel C/T+ 23:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Those being of course sources which prove a clear example of Wikilawyering and bandwagoning at its best; and not a single source listed provides any logical reasoning as to why CERTAIN items should NOT be put on the template list, other than someone's POV that it shouldn't. The concept of articles "relating to a topic" as a criteria for acceptable template content, is never in dispute. What is in dispute is what is "acceptable articles relating to a topic" - a highly subjective enterprise in which the TfDs and other sources you provided totally fail to address in any reasonable manner other than Wikilawyering and bandwagoning. Specific line items were not addressed with any clear logical or reasonable disputation. In the end, these issues were resolved by a vote of the majority (non Messianic) opinion based on a perfect example of those who ignore WP:OWN and feel Jewish articles should not be linked to in any way with any template used on Messianic Judaism pages. These are sources proving that these decisions were not based on any actual subtance or argumentation per specific items, but rather were generalistic POV assertions by non-Messianic Jewish editors. No Messianic ever disputed the individially listed articles' relevance to Messianic Judaism, and neither did any third parties who came to investigate the matter and who voiced their opinion in the disputes. With some administrators for the TfDs who closed the TfDs having an affiliation with the majority opinion (non Messianic Jewish editors) should have raised questions as to the legitimacy of their rulings as well. Unfortunately, a "clear consensus" is reaffirmed both in TfDs and in Delation Reviews as over and over again to mean "the majority opinion" of which the Messianic "minority" has no chance to stand up against on equal terms, in those sources you have so freely shared, Daniel. I hope now that others can see the need for this MOU between Messianic and non Messianic Jewish editors. inigmatus 17:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh hello Inig: so you're back, what are you up to now? Anything original to say or are you still interested in "hijacking" all of Judaism for the Messianics? IZAK 19:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You keep claiming this "hijacking" even when we repeatedly stress this is not what is happening. You completely miss the whole point of what we are trying to do here because of your bias. &hArr; ChristTrekker 18:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

New project proposal
There is a new WikiProject task force proposal at WikiProject Council/Proposals that is being proposed to deal specifically with articles whose content relates to several religious traditions. Any editors interested in joining such a group would be more than welcome to indicate their interest there. John Carter 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

requested move
WikiProject Messianic Judaism/Memorandum of Understanding → WikiProject Jewish Christianity/Memorandum of Understanding – Per Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 10. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Moved Noncontroversial move. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  02:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)