Talk:Jews for Jesus/Archive 6

Using the word "Many" in the introductory paragraph

Regarding objections above, I think we need to decide whether a reference to "many Jewish organizations" in the intro is an appropriate way of summarizing the sources, or if it violates WP:WEASEL. In an intro paragraph, I think it's necessary to summarize the sources as "many Jewish groups" or "Jewish groups generally" since we can't list each by name. At the same time, simply referring to opposition from "Jewish groups" is over-broad and original research, while also clearly contravening JfJ's primary claim in violation of WP:NPOV. I think reference to "many Jewish groups" or "Jewish groups generally" solves each of these problems, while remaining entirely consistent with the WP:WEASEL rule, its spirit, and its exceptions. Thoughts? Mackan79 00:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Many" or "some" are both OK to me in the intro. The enumeration of different sorts of groups adds nothing to the article. Justforasecond 01:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I would agree to this as well. The enumerations seem rather like a pile-on, and "many" would get across the point that Jewish groups in general disagree. Seraphimblade 01:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:Weasel discourages weasel words like "Some/many/most/all/few" and states, "Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague or indirect syntax.". We wouldn't say "many scientists hold that the earth is not flat" since it would imply that there are certainly some scientists who hold that it is flat. And one especially wouldn't add the WP:OR "many" qualification if there was a source that explicitly stated "scientists are virtually unanimous in rejecting the notion that the earth is flat. In fact WP:Weasel recommends not to use "some/many/most/all/few" but instead to explicitly state who says what is being said, which is why the intro is the way it is, meticulously sourced and specific. It is necessary to explicitly detail Jewish denominations, groups, organizations and the State of Israel and not lump them all together as one vague "Jewish groups". --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't necessary to enumerate a long list of different sorts of jewish groups, especially not in the intro. The intro needs to be concise. Justforasecond 01:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

MPerel, your description of the policy is wildly innaccurate. For one thing, you completely ignore the exceptions: "As with any rule of thumb, this guideline should be balanced against other needs for the text, especially the need for brevity and clarity." So can you name any instance where brevity and clarity are more important than stating opposition to a group in its introductory paragraph?

The main problem, though, is that your actual offer here is simply a much worse use of weasel words than the word "many." What you're doing is taking "Some people believe" and claiming to fix it by simply saying "People believe." How is this a resolution of the problem?Mackan79 02:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

To be fair here, I think this is rather a minor issue-the list is at least correct per WP:NPOV, even if it's stylistically rather lacking. I would much prefer to concentrate on the real POV issues first. Seraphimblade 01:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I don't think it's correct, but I'll happily focus on the main issue if others are currently responding. Mackan79 02:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, reading MPerel's comment, I have to take that back. The problem is this is all the same issue, how to address the opposition from mainstream Jewish groups. I think it should be addressed as coming from Jewish groups generally or from many Jewish groups. I don't think it should be described as coming from Judaism directly, for reasons discussed above, as this is original research, unsourced, and fails to treat the group's claims as plausible. Thus, I think the only acceptable way is to describe it by who it comes from. Is that not the issue here? Mackan79 02:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the main intro paragraph, it already enumerates several groups that oppose JfJ. While that does make the intro a little long, I do like seeing it done that way-if the whole article could be done as such (stating who says the beliefs are incompatible etc.), I think we'd be in a lot better shape here. Though I would prefer to see it cut just to "many" in the intro, and perhaps expanded upon more in the criticism section (and I think in the main there's too much criticism outside that section), it's more of a stylistic issue as I see it. Seraphimblade 02:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Trying again: It seems clear to me that opposition to the phrase "Many Jewish groups" as "weasel words" is disingenuous, since the very sentence goes on to refer to "many others" and since removing the word "many" simply makes it a more flagrant violation of WP:WEASEL. I see two options here: reference the groups as "many" or "most" or "Jewish groups generally," or to list the groups specifically by name. Saying simply that "Jewish groups oppose JfJ" is to falsely speak for all Jewish groups without stating who they are, in direct violation of WP:WEASEL.Mackan79 04:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I do see your point there. With that, I would agree. Thanks for clarifying though, I didn't see that bit initially. Seraphimblade 04:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed that weasel word as well. You can't claim that having the word "many" makes something weasel worded, and removing it makes it even more weasel worded; that's just illogical. We really can't have any weasel claims in the article. Also, it makes little sense to say that we can't list all the different types of Jewish organizations and groups that object to J4J because the lead is "too long" that way, but then insist we have to name every single one (20 or more???), which would make it look even longer, and would look stupid as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ Jayjg, as it would certainly be possible to have "weasel claims" in this article. The question, however, is whether any "weasel claims" are actually valid to be included. But instead of trying to list every single Jewish organization that opposes JfJ in order to try and attempt to prove that all Jewish organizations oppose JfJ, (Which would be rather impossible, since many are so small and have nothing to do with the issue that they haven't made any statement at all opposing JfJ) it would seem to me that an easy way to avoid trying to make such a large list would be to use the "weasel claim" of something like "Almost all Jewish organizations....". Homestarmy 04:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The second you insert the words "almost all", I'll have to slap a "fact" tag on it, and then what will you be able to quote as your source? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing, that's why as MPeral quoted above, WP:WEASEL merely discourages their use, because generally, they are difficult to explain or justify. However, in this case, I think the justification for many readers would be self-evident, as I would hope most readers would realize it would be hard for anyone to poll every single Jewish organization on the planet. Now, if you're looking for perfection in that we cite every single Jewish organization on the planet and discuss whether they explicitly oppose JfJ or not, i'm afraid we will be here for a very long time. Now, as a possible workaround, we could just say "almost all", and support it with a new sentence, such as "Some organizations which do not explicitly oppose JfJ include the Atlanta Jewish Bowling League....." though I think that's sort of getting silly. Homestarmy 05:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, inaccurate. We have no idea if the Atlanta Jewish Bowling League opposes J4J or not, since they have not published any opinion on it. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the point! However, by saying that "Jewish groups" (by implication, all Jewish groups) oppose JfJ, we are, by inclusion, implying that the Atlanta Jewish Bowling League (and the Podunk, North Dakota Jewish Youth Organization, and...) oppose JfJ-and what we are saying here is, "Can you source that? Can you provide a source that really says every Jewish group has come out against JfJ?". On the other hand, saying "many prominent Jewish groups" or "almost every Jewish group which has stated a position on the matter", we are providing well-sourced, factual information-those things are easily proven. Seraphimblade 13:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The "implication" you refer to does not exist in reality. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And again Homes, your suggestion would be akin to saying "Almost all scientists hold that the earth is not flat" giving the impression that scientists exist who think the earth is indeed flat. You'd be as hard pressed to find a source supporting that as you would finding a Jewish organization that supports the notion that J4J qualifies as "Jewish". --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the page for Astrology, you'll see it refers to the opposition of "the Scientific Community generally." It does not assert what science groups believe. The same as the Judaism and Christianity pages referring to what "many" of those groups believe. The fact is that in some instance, these qualifiers are necessary purely for the sake of accuracy. Mackan79 05:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's worse for the same reason changing "Many people say" to "People say" makes the problem worse. It's not true, also, that "we can't have weasel words in the article." Introductions, which require brevity, are the classic instance where they would be used. I didn't say we should list every group by name either, but simply that this would be the solution to the weasel problem.

Putting a "fact" tag would be silly in front of 20 sources. They're guidelines and rules of thumb, not absolute edicts. The question is how best to deal with the situation. Mackan79 05:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Why would the Earth article even need that sentence, its so obvious that its not flat, including such a sentence at all in and of itself gives undue weight to flat-earthers by framing the existance of a debate when there is none. (See, i've learned a few things from Talk:Evolution after all....) But anyway, even if the Atlanta Jewish Bowling League's stance is unknown, why does that automatically mean the article assumes that they not only already have published it, but already oppose JfJ? And, once again, as Humus I believe has already determined, any organization which supports JfJ's viewpoint is not Jewish automatically. So therefore, the question isn't about finding organizations which support JfJ and are Jewish, but organizations which have said nothing or have an unclear stance and are Jewish. If the Atlanta Jewish Bowling League has no published statement on the issue, I think it would be quite Crystalline indeed for the article to assume they already oppose JfJ when such information has yet to be published. Homestarmy 05:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't comment on the Atlanta Jewish Bowling league's stance. Strawman arguments get tiresome after a while. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, if you're accusing of strawman, you were the first to bring up our friendly bowling league from the South. Any statement we make about "Jewish groups" would by extension cover all Jewish groups, including our example bowlers, even if they are not mentioned specifically by name. If I refer to "every human being on the planet" or even simply "humankind", I am by extension referring to you, even if I don't mention you by name and even if I don't even know you exist. Let's say I make an assertion about "humankind". If a person can show me that there's even one case in which I am wrong, my assertion is false. Now, on the other hand, let's say I refer to "most of humankind". In this case, a few edge cases do not prove me wrong. However, if I know those edge cases exist, and I still refer to "humankind", I am deliberately speaking falsely-the proper and precise wording is "most of humankind". That is not "weasel wording", it's framing a term properly when there are too many of something to list individually and when there are no better, more precise statistics (we don't have anything indicating "85% of Jewish organizations" or "98% of Jewish organizations", and so far as I've found no such poll has ever been conducted.) But as long as there are organizations which have not stated their stance, it is crystal ballery to simply decide that they would oppose JfJ if they stated a position, and therefore it is improper to simply state that "Jewish organizations oppose JfJ" in a light which makes it appear that all of them do. Seraphimblade 13:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The assumption that "Jewish groups" implies "all Jewish groups" is unwarranted. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried a compromise, though I think the Astrology approach is better for both sides ("Jewish groups generally reject the group's claims." Simple, not overwrought, but makes the point that they're not accepted by Jewish groups.) "Demoninations" is clearly not supported by the source, which refers to opposition "accross denominations," not by them. So I combined orgs and groups, and added religious, since that's where the real opposition comes from, and got rid of "many others," which is unnecessary and weasely according to prevailing theory. Mackan79 05:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That was absolutely no compromise but the same old thing. AND you removed an explicit academic source that stated ""There is virtual unanimity across all denominations [of Judaism] that Jews for Jesus are not Jewish." --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That was the strangest edit yet; he removed the academic source stating there was virtual unanimity across denominations regarding J4J, then claimed in his edit summary that opposition from denominations was "not sourced". Well, yeah, I guess, once you remove the sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

MPerel, why do you insist on this belligerent style of editing? I removed the statement that Jewish denominations reject JfJ's claims, because the source does not say that Jewish denominations reject JfJ's claims. It said there was opposition "across" all denominations. Do you not see the difference? The statement is a false representation of the source. Would you please undo your reversion so I don't have to, or state what else your opposition is? This edit was not the same as any previous edit. It did not include "many" or "most" or "generally" and it left in the State of Israel. It combined orgs and groups, which Jayjg has said is an unnecessary distinction. Have you read Wikipedia's policies? Are you aware that this is not how it's supposed to operate? Mackan79 06:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Neither the article nor the source said what you claim. The article actually said "Jewish denominations... reject the group's self-identification as Jewish", and the source stated "There is virtual unanimity across all denominations [of Judaism] that Jews for Jesus are not Jewish." Far from misrepresenting the source, it's almost a direct quote of it, yet you deleted it anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Virtual unanimity across denominations does not mean a position by those denominations themselves. The former is a statement about individuals within the denominations. Otherwise the statement would be "among denominations." Why are you so combative? If you wonder why I go on at such length, it's because you force me to explain the most ridiculously obvious things. Are you aware that this is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work? Mackan79 06:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Your original research about the source is contradicted by the source itself, which also talks about how Jews feel, separate from how denominations feel. When the source states that there is virtual unanimity across all denominations, it's not up to you to decide it really means something else. As for a "belligerent style of editing", that's projection; you insist on stuffing in edits that you know have no consensus, then complain about that others are "combative" when they remove them again. And re-interpreting sources to mean something else from what they have said, and then removing on those grounds, is, indeed, "not how Wikipedia is supposed to work". Jayjg ^(talk) 06:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No Jayjg, our article as it stands states that "Jewish denominations...reject the group's self-identification as Jewish due to the Christian beliefs of its members and its evangelical activities." This is not what the source says. The source says there is virtual unanimity across denominations, not by denominations. Is there not a difference? Mackan79 06:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Of course not. They mean the exact same thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

However, even the source is careful to qualify its statement with "virtual". If we're following sources, why should we not be doing the same? Seraphimblade 13:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Our current version says that the denominations themselves have taken this position. The sources says that this is a position held widely within the denominations. It is the difference between Catholics believing something and the Catholic church saying something. Please note that the source does not say "among denominations" but "across denominations." Can you please address this? For instance, can you please clarify whether you think the source is asserting that the denominations, as entities, have officially taken this position? Mackan79 14:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Across denominations" merely means "Across the spectrum of denominations", i.e. from Reform Judaism on the left to Haredi Judaism on the right. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at Jewish principles of faith to see how it used the word "believe." Down the list: "Orthodox Jews believe in the omnipotent, omniscient God of the Bible..." "Haredi Jews generally believe that the Torah today is no different..." "Conservative Jews tend to believe that much of the Oral law is divinely inspired, while Reform and Reconstructionist Jews tend to view all of the Oral law as an entirely human creation." "In contrast, philosophical rationalists such as Maimonides believed that God did not actually mete out rewards and punishments as such." "Some Jews felt that Judaism should accept modern secular thought and change in response to these ideas. Others, however, believed that the divine nature of Judaism precluded changing any fundamental beliefs." Not once does the article simply refer to what Jews believe. Are all of these WP:WEASEL?Mackan79 16:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

None of those are WP:WEASEL, and none of either the proposed or actual uses (which have been removed) were either. WP:WEASEL discourages the use of those words to introduce unsourced opinion (e.g., "A lot of people think Jack Crack is the best jazz musician ever.") It discourages use only in a very narrow range of situations, and what we've got here is a situation where such words are appropriate-it is well-sourced that many Jewish organizations oppose JfJ, it is not (and really cannot be) sourced that all of them do. In the other article you referenced, the same is true-"tend to", "many", and the like, so long as that article uses proper sources to back those assertions, simply properly frame the statement. WP:WEASEL is not a list of banned words, it covers a very narrow situation which doesn't apply here whatsoever. Seraphimblade 16:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify one thing. I don't have a problem with saying "most Jews oppose JfJ views" if you are speaking in terms of organizations or a group of people. Nor do I have an objection with phrasing some of the interpretations of the Torah in terms of "most", "many" or "some" in relation to this article. But when you get to the core pillars or tenets, we should not present a controversy where there is none. My objection lies with phrasing "Most Jews believe that belief in Jesus as Christ is incompatible with Judaism" because a core tenet of the faith is that Jesus was not the Messiah (not to mention that JfJ says explicitly that once you decide to follow Jesus, you become Christian). It is akin to saying that "Most Christians believe that Jesus was the Messiah". Anyone who does not believe Jesus is the Messiah is necessarily not Christian. I hope this clears up my position at least. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Questionable addition

This [1] was recently added-I tend to object to it, religions throughout history have proselytized, and I don't think it adds much anyway. Would there be any objections to its removal? Seraphimblade 17:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not by me. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I understood where the edit was trying to go, but it wasn't the most precise term. (Proselytization is far more general, evangelism is specific to Christianity) I put in a better sentence that refers to the Great Commission, and used something similiar to that article's wording. Homestarmy 18:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's much clearer, looks good to me. Seraphimblade 19:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion

As we seem to be at a pretty good deadlock as it stands, and RfC thus far has not established a strong consensus one way or the other, I would like to suggest that we file for mediation on this. I've seen mediation work before, and I think it may be very helpful here as well, in helping both sides to understand the other's position, and perhaps coming to a consensus version both sides can agree to. What are everyone's thoughts on this? Seraphimblade 17:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Mackan has suggested simply using quotes from both sides and removing the narrative. I would support that to attempt to reach a consensus. I'd wait to see what others think, but mediation would be a good idea, and I'd participate. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that the Mediation system is working again with User:Essjays return, the case might actually move forward if its filed again; an earlier one was filed, but it was cancelled when no mediators picked it up :/. Homestarmy 18:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking this might be a good candidate, though I know very little about the system. Would it simply be regarding one specific issue? Main ones I see: 1. Whether WP can assert or argue that JfJ's statements are inconsistent with Judaism in an article about JfJ? 2. Whether WP should make statements in an article about JfJ which bluntly contravene the group's claims, or if it should treat such matters more delicately? 3. Whether the validity of JfJ's views is properly considered controversial? 4. Whether WP permits reference to what "Jewish groups" believe, with no qualification, and no source saying all Jewish groups believe this? 5. Whether WP should state Jewish groups "oppose" JfJ without a reference suggesting unanimity? 6. Whether refering to what "many Jewish groups" believe while citing several examples violates WP:WEASEL, even in an introduction? 7. Whether all references to opposition, including in the intro, should simply be reduced to statements from the organizations themselves? 8. If so, how many of these groups and their statements should be listed in the intro?

Naturally I assume we could only present one or a couple of questions, but I thought I'd start by throwing some issues out there. Mackan79 19:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The last time, it concerned three things, the Christianity template and whether or not it should be in the article, the "All Jewish Organizations" thing, and I think something else we resolved. The case was accepted, but since the mediation system wasn't running I guess nobody could actually mediate :/. What normally happens is that the people who are involved decide on the issues to be mediated about, and everyone has to agree to the mediation, otherwise the mediation request is rejected. Homestarmy 19:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Homestarmy sums it up pretty well. I'd suggest the following:

1. Are qualifiers such as "many" or "most" appropriate to use when these assertions are sourced, or do they constitute an unacceptable use of weasel words?
2. Is the making of blanket statements such as "Jewish organizations oppose..." when only the positions of some such organizations are sourced appropriate, should each individual organization be named, or should a qualifier such as "several", "many", or "most" be used?
3. Is it appropriate to make statements which present the majority side of a debate as correct when the opposing side is clearly in the minority?

Would these be alright, and would anyone have anything they would add or change? Seraphimblade 20:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

On the third one, I would just clarify "when the article subject is the holder of an extreme minority viewpoint". Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I still want to bring up the template thing, such as "Is using the Christianity template here helpful for readers for them to learn about more topics related to JfJ, or is the motive simply to make sure the reader "gets" that JfJ is Christian?" Or something like that. Homestarmy 20:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, in reply to Ramsquire) Works for me. I wish I did have some decent numbers on JfJ's membership, but thus far I've not been successful at all in finding any, on their site or anywhere else.

(in reply to Homestarmy) I forgot entirely about the template, but yes that should be brought up too. I'd propose: "Is it acceptable to include a "Christianity" template on the article, or does this imply that we consider them a solely Christian organization?" Seraphimblade 20:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm just afraid to raise too many issues. Frankly, I think it's extremely clear that this is not "Part of a series on Christianity," and thus that the template is inappropriate. Is there no hope of resolving this issue through discussion here? I was holding off on that issue. Either way I'm fine, though. Mackan79 20:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect one of the problems was when we first started debating the template, I was alone except for User:ParadoxTom who kept getting blocked for 3RR again and again for removing the template among other things, User:Justforasecond who apparently believes that the template's existance on this page is vandalism and got in trouble for reverting it himself, and a rather large number of vandals and single-purpose accounts who kept basically white-washing the page with mass reversions :/. I think it made everyone who's against JfJ here highly suspicious of further attempts to change the article against their wishes, and in a way, I can sort of understand that. Homestarmy 20:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's good. Suggestions:

1. Are qualifiers such as "many" or "most" appropriate to use when a number of examples are sourced, or do they constitute an unacceptable use of weasel words?
2. Is the making of blanket statements such as "Jewish organizations oppose..." appropriate when only the positions of some such organizations are sourced, should each individual organization be named, or should a qualifier such as "several", "many", or "most" be used?
3. Is it appropriate to make statements which present the majority side of a debate as correct when the opposing side is clearly in the minority, on a page devoted to the minority group?

I'd like to make the first one clearer to people who have no idea what we're talking about, but maybe it's as clear as is feasible. Thoughts?Mackan79 20:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The mediator who takes the case will familiarize h(im|er)self with the dispute in more detail during the mediation process, so the issues we raise when we place it up for mediation can be pretty general. Seraphimblade 20:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That is, if the case is accepted, so far only you, me, Mackan, and Ramsquire have discussed this, and if everyone else doesn't agree that we need to even try to mediate on certain issues, someone might not agree to the mediation, and then it won't matter whether a possible mediator would familiarize themself with the issue or not :/. Homestarmy 20:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

True, which is why I asked here before filing-no use wasting everyone's time if someone's unwilling to participate. Still, no harm in discussing it, if nothing else, this is bringing out a decent summation of what the contentious issues are. That in itself can't hurt. Seraphimblade 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Humus and Jayjg, would you be willing to participate in mediation? The inability to reach concensus here seems pretty clear, longstanding and insurmountable. Also, should the issue of the banner be included? It doesn't seem that debate on that issue is working either. Thanks, Mackan79 00:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Filed the request with the issues as decided. Seraphimblade 03:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to file, and for filing. Should the banner issue be added as an additional issue? It seems unlikely to get concensus otherwise. Is it too late now? Mackan79 03:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You can add that under "Additional issues to be mediated" if you'd like. Seraphimblade 03:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Template Re-visited

I change my mind on the Christianity banner. I just reviewed articles on the ADL, PTL, Chabad-Lubavitch, and B'nai B'rith. None of these organizations have a religous banner on their pages. In order to seek continuity on religious organizations, I now support removing it. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, because the article is not "Part of a series on Christianity," as the banner indicates. It is an article on a specific controversial group whose Christianity is ultimately disputed. In addition to the inaccuracy, this makes the banner appear POV. It is also somewhat disrespectful to Christianity, by suggesting that this is an important article on Christanity, which it is not. I see no good reason for its inclusion, and my understanding is that where banners are controversial, they should be omitted.Mackan79 21:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed as well. Regardless of what one's position is on JfJ itself being Christian, it is not part of the Christianity series, and is certainly not listed on the template (and I would imagine any effort to do so would meet strong opposition, it's really not part of the series). Seraphimblade 21:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the template was applied inappropriately. Good to see we're building consensus here. Justforasecond 21:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No deal. The template shows parallels between JFJ and Christian beliefs and therefore is completely appropriate. If you have a better fitting template, let's see it. I wouldn't mind if articles for some of the orgs. mentioned above carry corresponding templates, but it should be discussed on their corresponding talk pages, not here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Why would we be trying to show parallels between JfJ's and Christian beliefs? Mackan79 23:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well because JfJ is a Christian group. But I do find it interesting that the editors who rightly wish to have Judaism define itself is seeking to add importance to a Christian group to Christianity by arguing for that tag. Even in Christianity JfJ is controversial and they certainly do not represent any mainstream view of the religion. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't WP be more straight-forward, though, than trying to show parallels in that way? Subtle display of parallels starts to look a lot like POV. My problem is understanding how this is of central importance to JfJ that people understand its parallels to Christianity. If I'm trying to explain to somebody what Jews for Jesus is, my first thought isn't to get into the theology of Christianity any more than it is to get into the theology of Judaism. The problem, again, is that all of this looks so strongly like WP going out of its way to dispute JfJ. In my view, WP should be going out of its way NOT to dispute their claims, but to place them in as neutral a manner as possible. If their is dispute of their claims, it should be placed in a dispute section. I think many people are objecting to this banner because it looks like an attempt to use a supposedly neutral banner as a means for disputing JfJ's claims. It's also insulting to Christianity, as you well note. Mackan79 23:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The ADL is not a Jewish organization, and the B'nai B'rith is not a religious organization. The Christianity template is found on the Christian and Missionary Alliance, Bible Study Fellowship (BSF), Missionary Church of the Disciples of Jesus Christ articles, among many many others. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is how other pseudo-religious and religious groups are handled. The ADL and B'nai B'rith are there as Jewish- secular organization (because of the ancestry issue) and the other's were chosen because they are religious groups. I don't see how JfJ fits in with the "Chrisitan" organizations listed above. One is a denomination, the other a sect which deals with how to study the bible (which is of course related to Christianity) and the Missionary Church shouldn't have the tag at all (and probably wouldn't if it didn't say JC in it's title; however the Missionary Church, Inc., article doesn't have a tag although it should have one before this article. Go figure). Jews for Jesus is neither a sect nor denomination in the common sense. It is much more similar to the PTL or other parachurch organizations. As such should it have a tag? Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The B'nai Brith is a secular organization of Jews. The ADL is not a "Jewish" organization in the secular or religious sense. I don't see which the Missionary Church shouldn't have the template as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me if I am being dense but I don't see the difference between B'nai B'rith and ADL. Sure, the missions are different but are they not both catering to the Jewish community. The ADL mission is to defend against and stop Anti-Semitism. Is that not bigotry against Jewish persons?Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(Err, I edit conflicted, but I might as well say this anyway) The first is a full blown Christian denomination, the second is a very large, old, highly notable, international in scope organization and arguably could be counted as a part of notable History of Christianity, and although the last has by far the weakest case, it seems to be saying that finding out information on what this church does is difficult, in a way, its almost like a borderline denomination. The article is relatively poor looking and of new quality, I think trying to justify the template being on that article or not being on that article would be dependent on improving the article first to see what exactly this organization is like. (Though i'd think it would be safer to leave it off for now) Homestarmy 23:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I just looked through the banner and JfJ doesn't fit in with any of the links there. The closest ones to cover JfJ is "Evangelicalism", but JfJ is not considered an evangelical group. Perhaps if there was a link to Evangelism, then the template would be appropriate. The other possible link is "Movement", but there is no movement in Christianity to convert Jews specifically (and is frowned upon in increasingly popular circles). Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Erm, actually, "Jews for Jesus is a Christian evangelical....". However, JfJ is not notable enough to warrent really any inclusion in the Evangelicalism article in my opinion anyway. Homestarmy 23:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes "e"vangelical, not "E"vangelical (typo... E should be capitalized in my original post). As I understand it, "E"vangelicals are the conservative Christian groups represented by Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Robertson, etc. They have no affiliation with Jews for Jesus and their activities, as far as I know. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody know where there's a policy on when to include banners? I've heard it's not supposed to happen where it's controversial, but I don't know where the policy is. Thanks, Mackan79 23:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a policy on templates, only categories at WP:CAT, which is where the no controversial categories thing is. (Though that is ignored very often when it involves Category:Pseudoscience in my opinion....) I've just been going by precedent this whole time and trying to show that the ultimate possible purposes of the template are either pointless or self-defeating when used on this article as it is... Homestarmy 00:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I have added {{Judaism}} to Chabad-Lubavitch - thanks for the suggestion, it does belong there - and hope no one takes it as WP:POINT. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's WP:POINT, I think the addition there would be pretty uncontroversial. Seems fine to me. (Though, I still disagree on the template's use here.) Seraphimblade 02:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So my continuing objections:

1. It's not an article in a series on Christianity
2. It's not an article about a type of Christianity
3. If it's included merely as relating to Christianity, the article also relates to Judaism, and actually says more about Jewish beliefs than it does about Christian beliefs.
4. It's an article about an interfaith group, and the Christianity banner inappropriately asserts the importance of one part over the other.
5. The banner and the cross image are insulting to JfJ, and therefore come across as POV.
6. The banner is insulting to Christianity by suggesting that a controversial group is an important aspect of Christianity.
7. Christian theology is not an important topic to explain in an article about JfJ, and in fact is not explained other than by this banner.
8. Including the banner because it shows parallels between JfJ and Christianity is original research and POV.
9. Merely because a group or individual professes Christian views does not make it an appropriate article for the use of the banner, which states that it is a series on Christianity, not a series on Christians.
10. Maybe someone can come up with a tenth.

So far the reasons for inclusion appear to be:

1. JfJ is Christian
2. The banner alerts people to parallels between JfJ and Christianity
3. All groups that profess beliefs which place them in a religious category should be labeled with a banner for that religion. Mackan79 04:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

J4J is an evangelical Christian group. They are connected to other evangelical groups, I believe the article says that. They are within the mainstream of evangelical Christianity, I think that is pretty clear from their web site. As for Mackan's "continuing objections": 2, sure it is; 3, the article actually says nothing about Jewish religious beliefs; 4, J4J is absolutely not an "interfaith" group, in fact I am almost certain their web site has some negative comments about "interfaith" groups; 5, they are a Christian group and I suspect they have no problem with the "cross" image, but they don't use it in their materials because it doesn't help win Jewish converts;6, they identify themselves as Christian (and also "Jewish" though they only mean that as a matter of heritage), and there are many things about many religions that are controversial; 7, Christian theology is their entire basis, so I don't see the conflict; 8, there is no original research or POV, their beliefs are Christian, they say so on their web site; 10, don't stop me now, I'm on a roll... Seriously though, items 1 and 9 point out what is perhaps a problem with the template, not its placement on this article. I have noticed several templates on Wikipedia that talk about the article being part of a series, when there really is no series. So that should be fixed, but otherwise the template is appropriate here. 6SJ7 06:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Correction. through the Great Commission, all Christians are empowered to go into all the earth and spread the news, in other words...evangelize. Evangelism IS in the mainstream of the religions. Evangelicalism refers to the social and political beliefs and practices of certain Christians across several denominations and churches. So while all Christian groups are evangelists in some sense (including JfJ) there is no link to them and Evangelicals, their groups and leaders like Charles Dobson, Pat Robertson, etc. There is a difference between an Evangelical, and an evangelists. I know of no link between JfJ with the Evangelical movement in the country. The two ideas are different. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)}

Actually, they also assert that they are religiously Jewish, not just ethnically. I was able to find references for this, check 3, 4, and 5 within the article. Seraphimblade 06:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misreading the sources and making conclusions not shown in the source. Christians believe that those verses are prophesies of Jesus contained in the Old Testament-- it is almost unanimous through all denominations and churches. So, to me, in no way does those citations show a group claiming Judaism and Christianity. In fact, to say that those citations are proof of their belief in Judaism, flies in the face where they say they are Christian religiously. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe so at all-they're stating that Christianity and Judaism are compatible. The very title of source 3, "The Jewishness of the New Testament", is a clear assertion of this, as is the writing following it. Might you clarify how I'm "misinterpreting" the following excerpt?

"We see nothing in the New Testament that is non-Jewish or anti-Jewish....We believe that careful investigation will verify its Jewishness."

That looks, to me, a pretty unambiguous assertion that Judaism and Christianity are compatible, and that one can indeed be both-indeed, it asserts that one should be both. Seraphimblade 18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In short, they do believe that the teachings of Christianity are compatible with Judaism. However, I see nothing showing the other two conclusions you make when one considers their other explanations. We simply have different understandings of the sources. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, you're really telling me JfJ is a type of Christianity? "What religion are you?" "I'm a JfJ." This is silly; it's an agenda-driven group, not a sect. 4. The article has a whole section on JfJ and Judaism, did you not see it? 5. They object to Christian imagery. We may not like their reason, but it's still a clear slap in the face to the group. 6. They're a group, not a religion. Do you put the banner on a religious terrorist organization? Controversiality matters. 7. Any religious group can be said to be based in theology; that's not normally a reason to go off on a tangent about it. 8. It's OR to take it upon ourselves to show parallels between JfJ and Christianity by use of a banner. 9. No response.

My problems are not with the banner itself. On an article about Christianity, it's fine. On a controversial group that claims to be Jewish and believe in Jesus, it's not. It's inconsistent with the group's claim to be Jewish and Christian at the same time. Why is it there? What purpose does it serve other than to create this inconsistency? Mackan79 06:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Mackan79, I find it telling that you go an extra mile expressing concerns about "insulting to JFJ" (that is Jesus's cross!) and that this Christian group is being "insulting to Christianity" but not about the subject of JFJ's attack. The JFJ attacks Judaism by 1) hijacking its name, 2) misrepresenting its core beliefs, and 3) attemting to convert its members to another religion. Calling this radical org. an "interfaith group" is a strange claim: compare e.g. with Interfaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington and International Council of Christians and Jews. When it is convenient for you, you call them a "controversial group", but when it is not, you insist to take "the group's claim to be Jewish and Christian at the same time" as truth, despite all the evidence that it's impossible. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Humus, I wish you wouldn't try to read my comments through a political lens. Am I not entitled to ask for neutral articles on WP? This sounds silly, but you really seem not to think so. Repeatedly, your comments suggest you just dislike JfJ so much you have no intention of allowing a neutral article about them. Isn't this true, that you also kind of want to make sure WP lets the reader know JfJ is wrong? This, and only this, is what I am trying to counter. I think attempts to undermine their message should be placed as arguments, not as bias in the article. Is anyone even questioning the placement of the neutrality dispute banner at the top of the article at this point?

I'm not even reading your comments through a political lens here; you simply keep making political comments. Regarding your question, I see two important principles: 1. When discussing a subject on WP, if WP is to have any credibility, it has to discusss it respectfully and neutrally, taking all claims seriously. BUT 2. If the group is in fact highly controversial, you don't take this respect so far as to associate the group with others where it's dubious and offensive. The main point, though, is the first: you don't use a banner as a means for disputing a group's claims, which you have clearly said is why you want it, so readers will be aware of the parallels between JfJ and Christianity. This is using the banner to make a negative statement about the group's claims, which is not what banners are for. Isn't it true that the main reason you want this Christianity banner is because JfJ tries to impy that it's not? I can see why you see this as tactical, but that's not supposed to influence how we write the article.Mackan79 15:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

For whatever it is worth, I re-read the article and I see nothing about J4J objecting to Christian imagery. I imagine that some "Messianic Jews" do not use Christian symbols and would object to being associated with at least some of them, but this is not the article on them, this is about J4J. As for interfaith groups, they do not seem to fit the description in Interreligious organisation. They do not seek to encourage dialogue among different religions, they seek to convert people of one religion to another. On a more general note, there are some very serious problems with this article as it stands now, but I do not have time to pick and choose among the various recent edits to see which ones have value. I was thinking of reverting back to a certain point and letting people start over, but I know what would happen. There has to be a better way. 6SJ7 13:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

We're currently seeking mediation, so hopefully that will prove to be that "better way" and lead to an amicable solution. As to the template-the problem here is that JfJ claims that it is both Christian and Jewish, and that there is no tension between the two. Per WP:NPOV, we must treat that claim as plausible but not as correct. If we used both the Christianity and Judaism templates, we would effectively be taking a position-"Yes, they're right, they're both Christian and Jewish." Similarly, to use only the Christianity template, we are editorializing toward the other side-"No, they're wrong, they're solely Christian." Since their religious status is controversial, the correct choice is to abstain altogether from use of such templates, and to let the reader decide. Seraphimblade 15:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

We're trying to tackle the same issues at Wikipedia:WikiProject Messianic Judaism/Memorandum of Understanding. I honestly don't know why so many WPns find it so hard to apply WP principles and guidelines to MJ-related topics. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't call them interfaith as a compliment. The point is that they claim to consistently follow both Judaism and Christianity, as Seraphim notes. Did you check that out? Your view that they seek to convert individuals is highly POV. This is you telling me that they're being dishonest. How is that neutral? In my view, the article should do basically two things: 1. Explain neutrally what the group is and does, and 2. Explain controversy which surrounds the group. It shouldn't be trying to show the group's dishonesty. Mackan79 18:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia and should reflect facts and views in NPOV manner. We reflect JFJ claims and we reflect claims of others. Do JFJ have an insurance against "being dishonest"? BTW, note that we (WP editors) do not call them dishonest. If a reliable source verifiably criticizes their strategies/methods/views, there is no reason for such criticism to be suppressed. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct-to a degree. However, we should present such a disagreement as the source's viewpoint, not in such a context as to indicate that we agree or disagree. If Organization X has stated a position on the controversy, we should state that as a position (e.g., "The Catholic Church says that abortion is wrong"(footnote), NOT "Abortion is wrong."(footnote citing the Catholic Church)). This distinction is critical-when an assertion is controversial or in dispute, per WP:NPOV, we cannot "take a side" as to who is right or wrong. We can, of course, accurately report criticism, properly attribute it to who voices it, and make clear the extent and scope of it, but we must not state or imply "in Wikipedia's voice" that we agree or disagree. Similar to our previous example, we can easily and correctly state that "The State of Israel, Jews for Judaism, and many other Jewish groups oppose Jews for Judaism on the grounds that (reasons)." What we cannot do, however, is state or imply that the critics are right-only present their arguments and properly frame the debate. Seraphimblade 01:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The major problem is that this isn't even a fact. It's not an article about Christianity any more than an article about Ted Haggard is an article about Christianity. The banner isn't for articles about Christians, but those about Christianity. All of the POV problems here stem from this inaccuracy.Mackan79 02:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Just remove the template. There is a consensus to do so. The comments above go on for along time about whether JfJ "is dishonest", which is not only POV, but also a poor reason for applying the "Christianity" template.

Don't fall for the trap of getting into overly-long discussions when a small group of editors aren't really interesting in neutrality. A couple of the very same editors that insist on this template previously insisted that the article say "ALL jewish groups oppose jfj". Why waste keystrokes trying to "discuss" like this? Justforasecond 20:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I don't mind wasting a few keystrokes, so I've been trying to at least clarify the issues in the hope of avoiding a revert war. Also, I'm hoping for amicable solutions to other problems on the page, so I didn't want to screw that up. Mostly, though, I'd just like to see a much more cooperative effort on these contentious pages in general, which is why I'm trying to be part of the solution to any extent possible, even if it does start to feel a little silly. Mackan79 21:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length, there's been a poll. There is nothing wrong to have Christianity TL in an article about a Christian group. To say that JFJ represent Judaism is either ignorant or malicious. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Poll results can change over time, there have been many people who have left this article, and many who have joined discussing it. To be more correct, your comment could more properly say "There is nothing wrong to have Christianity TL in an article about a Christian group in my opinion." Homestarmy 22:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the issue more whether calling this group representative of Christianity is either ignorant or malicious? In any case, please read WP:Consensus can change. If you feel strongly about this issue, I think you owe it to be more topical than that. Mackan79 22:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I would remove the template but feel that it if I do so, it will immediately re-added. Let's go through the ADR process first, and then we can make any necessary changes. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mackan79, reality check: in this case a Christian group attacks Judaism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop attempting to change the issue from whether a Christianity template is appropriate to whether this is a Christian group that attacks Judaism, whether this is a "dishonest" group, or whether a Judaism template is appropriate. Also, please steer clear of personal attacks and incivility. Your words could be construed as an attempt to provoke Mackan79. Justforasecond 23:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many people attack whom, the template is not a badge of war to be used to label battlefields of ideology. Homestarmy 23:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course the attacks matter, starmy. It's not OK to personally attack, as was done to ParadoxTom repeatedly (he was even called a bigot) and as is being done to Mackan right now. Justforasecond 00:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant the supposed attack on Judaism represented by JfJ. Homestarmy 00:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Humus, I've never asked you to like the group; I'm simply asking you to stay on topic. However, if you think its attacks on Judaism are a reason to put the Christianity banner on them, then I'm pretty sure that makes you hypocritical.Mackan79 03:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The group itself says it is Christian. It is funded by Christian groups. It is a member of many Christian bodies. It was founded by a Baptist minister. Its doctrines are orthodox Christian beliefs, of the evangelical variety. To insist that it should not have the Christianity template seems bizarre. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem-no matter what we do with the templates, we're "editorializing by image". The group claims it's both Christian and Jewish. If we include both Christianity and Judaism templates, we're taking their side, saying "Yes, they're right, they're both." If we include only Christianity, we're taking the other side, saying "No, they're wrong, they're only one." Since we should never editorialize in an article, the only good way to avoid this is to include neither, and thereby not visually indicate that we are in agreement with either position. That would allow the text (which is better-suited to it) to properly frame the debate and controversy for the reader, and ultimately leave the reader to evaluate what (s)he has read, instead of trying to state who in our opinion is correct. Seraphimblade 19:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

But no-one disputes that they are Christian, even they don't, so the inclusion of the Christianity template is entirely uncontroversial. On the other hand, their claim to be Jewish is hugely disputed, and at best an extreme minority opinion, so the inclusion of that template would not be reasonable. This article wouldn't be taking sides, just following policy; the claims that J4J is Jewish is not comparable to the claim that it is Christian. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Moishe Rosen graduated from Northeastern Bible College, Western Conservative Baptist Seminary and is an ordained Baptist minister. David Brickner graduated from Moody Bible Institute, Fuller School of World Mission, and was ordained through the Baptist General Conference. These are credentials that are purely Christian and have nothing to do with Judaism. While there is plenty of credible evidence that the organization has credentials to call themselves a Christian organization, there is no credible evidence that the organization has any credentials to claim they are an organization that falls within the realm of Judaism. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff, if we can source that (for Moishe Rosen, looks already done), let's put it into the article! However, let's remember that we can't say "They are wrong", no matter how much it appears so-we can only say "Here is the debate, here are those who participate in it, here is the clear majority, here is why they say what they say, here's the credentials of who runs JfJ." And we let that speak for itself by presenting it neutrally, we don't draw a conclusion ourselves. If they claim they are Jewish, and that Judaism and Christianity are compatible (and they do), we must treat that claim as plausible. Note that doesn't mean we must treat it as correct (in fact, we must not do so, that would be an NPOV violation just the same.) What we do, is present each side's arguments, make it clear who's on what side, and present factual information (those credentials are a great example of relevant facts). We must not, however, state or imply "They are wrong" in Wikipedia's voice-and that's exactly what the Christianity banner does. Let me be clear-I will not agree that the banner is appropriate no matter how much evidence can be presented, because it is a fundamental NPOV violation. It is a shorthand way of saying "They are wrong", and no matter how probably-correct that is, we can't write editorials. We present the debate, present the participants, present the evidence, and ultimately leave the decision to the reader. I'm sure readers discount the Flat-Earth Society quickly enough without putting a template on their article which indicates they are wrong, and I imagine most readers will have similar reactions to yours-"How could their claim possibly be true? It seems ridiculous!" Indeed, my own reaction tends toward that. But ridiculous or not, we are tasked with presenting it neutrally, and the Christianity template is fundamentally non-neutral in this context. Seraphimblade 20:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If you ask me, the banner doesn't so much as say "JfJ is wrong" as it does confuse the reader, I mean, we already say in the intro that they are Christian, the banner indicates Christianity, yet the banner itself doesn't lead to a single topic which educates anyone about JfJ specifically, nor does it (or the rest of the article for that matter) explain how exactly JfJ is so important to Christianity that it is certainly part of Wikipedia's super special collection of Christianity articles. Homestarmy 23:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Jay, it shouldn't seem bizarre after several people have explained it at length, and the only thing you can point out is that the group is Christian. But the banner is for articles about Christianity, not Christians. The thing is, this article explains virtually nothing about Christian beliefs. To the extent it discusses religion at all, it discusses Jewish beliefs, and whether they are compatible with believing Jesus was the Messiah. But of course, it's not an article about Judaism either. It's an article about a controversial group, JfJ.

Here are other groups I'd guess would be characterized as having Christian beliefs, but don't have the banner. Promise Keepers Adventist Health System Gideons International Back to the Bible Baptist Missionary Society Affinity (Christian organisation) Campus Outreach Norwegian Christian Student and School Association Campus Bible StudyJesus Freaks (youth movement) Here is a whole list of "Evangelical Parachurch Organizations", if you can find any with the banner. [2] Maybe you could clarify your position by explaining whether all Christian groups should have the Christianity banner, or why you think JfJ especially needs it. Mackan79 01:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. No individual group is central to Christianity itself. Why should the template be in one article if it's not in all of them? ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Beliefs" sections lists the beliefs of J4J, which are all orthodox Christian beliefs, many of which are specifically referred to in the template. I don't see why those other articles couldn't have the template as well; what are the rules for that? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just because something isn't disallowed doesn't mean you should do it. Adding the template to any of the articles listed above would be unhelpful, it would not guide readers to topics relevant to the subject as none of the organizations have any obligation to conform with all doctrines of Christianity at any given time, only the Gideons International one might be called slightly related to history, (Though, of course, its not notable enough for the subject really.) and all in all, nobody is helped. The reader gets a healthy dose of confusion by not learning more about the organization their reading about, the articles would get a healthy dose of bad formatting because the template is longer or just as long as some of the articles themselves, and whoever takes the task of spamming the template on all those probably hundreds of pages for specious reasoning at best most of the time gets a healthy dose of a wasted afternoon, assuming they use some semi-automated script, otherwise, there goes the whole day. Jews for Jesus, as a particular organization not under the control of any other parent organization, has no obligation to maintain alignment with orthodox Christian beliefs, if a reader clicks on the article about Christian beliefs they'll learn about Christian beliefs for sure, but there's no reason JfJ has to comply with them forever or believe exactly the same thing that our Wikipedia article says that orthodox Christian doctrine is.Homestarmy 03:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As I look at it more, I'd even be willing to go with the template staying if NPOV work could be done on the rest of the article. As it is now, though, the article has a very definite slant toward "JfJ is solely Christian"-and with that leaning already in the text, the banner adds effect. If the article were more neutral, the banner would probably be hardly noticeable. I would think the banner's presence or absence on any of those other articles would be a question for those individual articles and their editors, but the de facto usage seems to be only on major parts of a religion-Catholicism certainly has it, but Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church does not. JfJ's probably not that minor, but it's certainly not a huge part of Christianity either. Seraphimblade 03:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There don't appear to be specific rules for inclusion. Personally, however, I think including a Christianity banner on every group with Christian beliefs (definition: do you think Jesus is some sort of God figure?) is a terrible idea. A few reasons:

1. The banner says it's for articles on Christianity, not articles on Christians. It's fundamentally wrong. This is not an article about Christianity or an aspect of Christianity, but about a particular narrow independent group with no influence on the Christian community.
2. What about individuals? Should it go on individuals too?
3. This will lead to a mass proliferation of the banner.
4. Placing a banner like this on groups will inevitably cause repeated and extensive controversy. Do you put it on a terrorist organization? Do you put it on Westboro Baptist Church, the God Hates Fags people? Do you put it on groups which claim to be multi-faith groups, but where this claim is disputed? In every instance, this controversy will degrade the encyclopedia.
5. With banners generally, there is a substantial risk of causing controversy and violating NPOV, as Wikipedia goes around pigeon-holing topics into a number of factual characterizations which were not tailored to that group. There should not be a presumption in favor of them.
6. Why?

Problems specific to this group:

1. People don't come to this page to learn about Christianity; they come to learn about Jews for Jesus. (This is likely to be similarly true for the other groups).
2. The page does not explain Christianity, but explains Judaism. It notes views we know are Christian; hardly the same thing. Incidentally, the beliefs section appears to have been cherry-picked from the source to exclude references to Jewish law and Israel, another problem.
3. With the editors here, the primary reason for inclusion appears to be to show that the group's claims of being Jewish are inaccurate. We know in general that categories are often included for POV reasons.
4. This group claims to be Jewish and believe in Jesus as Messiah. If we place only the Christian banner, we are saying they are wrong. Indeed, this seems to be the entire point. If editors were deciding on neutral considerations which groups might have a Christianity banner, this group would be one of the clearest possible examples where such a banner would be inappropriate.

I wouldn't be against including the banner on certain large and influential groups in the Christian community where there was no controversy involved. Here, there is obvious controversy with including the banner. The group is not influential. Even if we're including the banner all over the place, which I think is a very bad idea, those are reasons not to include it on this page in particular. Mackan79 14:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Christian Identity claims that they (and not the Jews) are the real descendants of the Israelites, so what? The template shows JFJ's views in perspective to Christianity. As I said many times, if you have a better suitable template, let's see it. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need any religion's template on a group like this. I don't suggest a different one. I suggest that templates should only be used when their applicability is very clear and uncontroversial, and that including it on minor independent groups like this one is generally inappropriate, and particularly inappropriate when the group claims to follow two religious traditions.Mackan79 23:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The views in the template are the views of the religion of Christianity first, and may happen to correspond to JfJ's beliefs only as long as it is JfJ's whim. JfJ is, of course, intrinsically tied with Christianity by holding Christian beliefs and doing their stuff in, I presume, the goal of furthering Christianity one way or another, but the converse is not true; Christianity is not intrinsically tied with JfJ. If JfJ's beliefs change, most of Christendom will not change with them. (Unless JfJ becomes some super huge billion member group or something.) Homestarmy 23:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Mackan79: Show me anything related to Jews that is "uncontroversial".

Homestarmy: let's revisit this issue when JfJ's beliefs change. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I would hope that, should JfJ suddenly turn into a non-Christian organization, a discussion over usage of the Christianity template wouldn't be necessary. Homestarmy 23:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Mackan79 has, however, driven to an excellent point-should we put this template on John Kerry? He's certainly stated he's Catholic, and no one disputes that. George W. Bush? Same thing. Westboro Baptist Church? It's my guess that people would raise holy hell-those articles are not about Christianity, they are about organizations or people who state they're Christian. On the other hand, if it is to become our policy to place that template anywhere a person or group claims a religion, both the Christianity and Judaism templates belong here. I would oppose that, however-that would be us basically "editorializing" that JfJ is right. We should treat it like a category-when it's controversial, err on the side of leaving out. The series of articles on Christianity would be articles on subjects like the Bible, Jesus, the Apostles, and Catholicism. The Protestant Reformation would also be an excellent example. Martin Luther? Well, that'd probably not be appropriate-unlike Jesus, he was a member of the religion, and a fairly influential one, but he is not part of the religion. The ones I mentioned above (John Kerry, Fred Phelps, etc.)? Even though they're known to identify as Christians, they are not a fundamental part of Christianity. Same applies here-this article is about a Christian (and, according to them, Jewish) organization, not about a critical part of Christianity. Seraphimblade 00:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, minor point on Luther, although he would probably fit under History of Christianity, the Lutheranism template is more specific to him. Homestarmy 00:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Lutheranism one works for him, he was rather important to that particular denomination if I recall. :) Point remains though-the template isn't for every person or group who is/was a member of a given denomination. In application to people, it should probably stay restricted to those the religion reveres or worships as gods or prophets, and historical figures with an extremely critical part played in the religion's formation (we're not even talking Constantine I in terms of Christianity, despite his pivotal role in Christianity taking off, more like Jesus or the Apostle Paul, and I'd even be against including it on individual Popes, although that would be much more of an edge case.) Same type of thing with organizations-sure, the 12 Apostles, major denominations (Catholicism, Protestantism, the Mormons, etc.) should have it, but not every individual group-even if they are primarily Christian. Seraphimblade 00:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Humus, you seem to keep forgetting that this is a discussion about whether to apply the Christianity banner, not whether to apply the Judaism banner. 1. I do not think the banner should be applied to Christian groups as a general matter. 2. If it is to be applied, it should be a group with well-recognized significance to the Christian community or some other powerful reason which justifies calling it an article about Christianity. 3. Surely a strong candidate for the banner would not be the one group you can find that also claims to be another religion and doesn't want to be called Christian.Mackan79 04:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) are you guys at it again? ;) anthony^[review] 20:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"Mainstream Christianity"

I'm not sure it's possible or even to ascertain what constitutes "mainstream Christianity" and apply that as a criterion for not including Jews for Jesus in the template. In fact, I would say that since J4J follows every tenet in the Apostles' Creed, it more easily into Christianity than other denominations I can think of. --Leifern 00:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait, including Jews for Jesus in the template itself? Jews for Jesus is certainly nowhere near notable enough to actually be placed on the template itself, there are likely to be hundreds of organizations more notable and important to Christianity as a whole than JfJ.... Homestarmy 00:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

consensus on template

We have a consensus on whether to include the template. A couple of editors seem to despise J4J and have made no secret of it, nor have they sought to discuss the merits of the template. This and their other behavior (wikistalking, revert warring, reports to WP:3RR, incivility) calls into question their ability to edit the topic neutrally. The vast majority of the writing and analysis on this talk page indicates that the template does not belong, interspersed with personal attacks, rudeness, and red herrings.

I've removed the template. Now lets move onto other things.

Justforasecond 23:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There is certainly *no* consensus on this. And please refrain from projecting onto other editors what you think they think. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There isn't concensus, but there is a clear majority against it, along with a conspicuous failure of the supporting side to engage the issues. In case you hadn't noticed. Mackan79 15:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

To clarify the situation. For the template: Jayjg, Mperel, Humus, 6SJ7. Against the template, Mackan79, Seraphimblade, Homestarmy, Justforasecond, Ramsquire. That's four for, and five against. No consensus and slight majority against. Let's wait until ADR procedures are concluded before making any more edits re: the template. Can we all agree to that? Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to wait on the template until we can get mediation going. More major issues right now would be, for example, the POV in the text itself and its positioning, and stuff like those inappropriate "see also" links below (which are now removed, and no one's objected thus far to that). Seraphimblade 22:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, at least some of the template supporters are inserting things POV propoganda categories such as "anti semitism" on the article and have made it pretty clear that they despise JfJ. Editors that blatantly disregard policies are not counted in consensus votes. Justforasecond 00:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

one more personal attack removedHumus sapiens ^ну? 00:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

....Spoken by a trusted administrator. Wait a second, that didn't come out quite how I intended.... :D Homestarmy 00:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Additional Issue

In the never ending POV wars of this article, has anyone noticed links to History of Anti-Semitism and Anti-Judaism in the see also section of this article? I can't think of any purpose for those links to be in this article except to embarass JfJ. I understand the group is controversial and its actions may be deceptive, but we are still required to use NPOV. There is nothing about this group stances that further or support anti-semitism. Of course, I expect that editors here will argue that their attempts to convert Jews to Christianity is anti-semitic. That position is original research synthesis and not supported by the sources. Those links should be removed. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we discussed this a short while ago, it should be in the most recent archive. I have to say, JfJ's link with the History of Anti-Semitism seems rather tenuous.... Homestarmy 00:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoaaaaaaa, I had not noticed those. JfJ is not in any NPOV way "anti-Semitic" or "anti-Judaism"-hell, they claim they are Jewish, they'd be speaking against themselves! Removed accordingly. Seraphimblade 00:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is way beyond neutral. Just a side note, the editors persisting in placing "anti semitic" are the same that put the christianity template on the article. Justforasecond 01:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

non-notable references making wikitext unreadable

Someone has inserted all sorts of non-notable references into the article, which is bad enough, but they also make the wikitext difficult to read or edit. Please review the guidelines for notable references. Justforasecond 00:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of Change

I've made changes to the article based on JfJ's unambiguous statement that they do not believe one can be both Jewish and Christian in a religious sense. I also suggest removing the Belief in relation to Judaism section as irrelevant since JfJ does not make the claim they are religiously Jewish. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 01:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone think the lead should be longer?

I want to nominate this article for Good Article status, but I really don't think most reviewers are going to like how short the lead looks in relation to the rest of the article. Should there be a second paragraph just glossing over some of the beliefs, values, and that kind of stuff, or should it perhaps concern the litigation, because some of those cases may perhaps be highly notable in their own right. Homestarmy 20:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation?

Gentlemen - it looks as if this dispute could really make some ground if it proceeded to formal mediation on the MedCom. Similar to the last mediation, I would be willing to mediate the case (I already have the blessing of a current MedCom member); for those of you who have passed by my Mediation Cabal work, you might have noticed a considerable improvement in the quality of my DR work ... at the moment, I've never been better suited for Mediation than now, and I'd cherish the opportunity to work with you guys again.

If you are agreeable, just list a RfM, with all involved parties, and I'll pick up the case. Please understand Wikipedia:Mediation before you sign for the Mediation; feel free to ask me any questions about this MedCom-specific policy.

Kindest regards,
anthony^[review] 02:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)