Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Jews for Jesus 2/Archive 3

This is an archive; please do not add comments here - instead, follow these simple instructions:

• Find the content on this page you want to start up discussion about again.
• Edit the section it is in.

(Shortcuts apply to Windows only)

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

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

Invitation

I invite all editors involved with the dispute to begin listing edits they wish to make in a simple format, alongside the relevant policies the edit is being made in order to cause the content to conform to. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 17:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Example

1 -- (line 35) "JfJ is classed by most people...XYZ" --> "JfJ is widely regarded by persons such as XYZ<ref>reference</ref>..." in order to conform to WP:WEASEL. ~~~~

I don't see the text "JfJ is classed by most people". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an example; there is no such line - it's a neutral, made-up line to demonstrate the format of how you should lay out your proposed edit. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 01:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what my "proposed edit" you are talking about here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling that this about the same line as discussed in #4: The Jewish groups that paid attention to Jews for Jesus, oppose it, seeing its proselytizing activities as intentionally misleading and disrespectful of Judaism. If this is correct, I think a compromise was offered in #4 (Jewish groups that have taken a position on JfJ) is very sensible.

In any case, "widely regarded by persons such as..." is unacceptable because JFJ's Christian beliefs violate the core beliefs of Judaism and were rejected not only by a number of 20th century Judaic scholars (who cared to comment), but by the entire body of Jewish religious tradition and its authoritative texts. Where would you like to start, with Rabbi Akiva (1st century), Rabbi Nathan (2c.), Maimonides (12c) or Nahmanides (13c)? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about anybody who wishes to propose an edit; it is simply an example - a display of correct format, to try to keep a uniform style throughout. Once again, it is an example, and is simply demonstrating how you might go about demonstrating any edits you might propose, if any. That is all. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 23:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 1 - Line 3

2 -- (line 3) "Jewish groups[4][5][6][7] and the State of Israel [8] reject the group's identification as Jewish, however, due to the Christian beliefs of its members and its evangelical activities. [9] [10] [11]" --> "Jewish groups[4][5][6][7] and the State of Israel [8] reject any identification of the group as religiously Jewish, however, due to the Christian beliefs of its members and its evangelical activities. [9] [10] [11]..." in order to comply with WP:V as there is no source challenging the ethnicity of any of its members. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit implemented - Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 23:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 2 -- Beliefs as subsection

3 --incorporating the "Beliefs in relation to Judaism" section into an expanded opposition section using the proposed lead section. in order to comply with WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR.Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is any objections, I'll implement these edits; if objections are raised, I will revert actions pending discussion. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 20:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I object to moving the section "Beliefs in relation to Judaism" under the section Opposition. The section brings relevant historical facts such as the schism, etc. Opposition/criticism is someone's opinion. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The religious schism sure, but as I think has been demonstrated now, its pretty clear JfJ isn't arguing so much that they are religiously Christian and religiously Jewish at the same time as they are arguing for being religiously Christian and ethnically Jewish, and I don't remember any ethnic splits in Jewish history around that time period..... Homestarmy 00:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me just say that Jewish identity is complex and ancient, it predates modern concepts of religion, ethnicity or nationalism. As with any other topic, I don't think it is appropriate for people who don't know much about it to try to redefine it according to their taste or "understanding". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fine, but if JfJ I presume doesn't know much about it either, then shouldn't the primary section about Judaism's point of view focus on Judaism's view on the identity of Jews in a more broad sense instead of a primarily religion-focused sense? Homestarmy 01:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles dedicated to this are Jewish identity and Who is a Jew?. Here we mention only relevant facts, and it is not per se opposition to a late-20th-century Evangelical group. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

So how is Judaism as a religion relevant enough for its own special section when its not the religion JfJ claims to be fusing with Christianity? Homestarmy 03:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The article does not delve into intricacies of Judaic beliefs. We mention a relevant historical fact from the Jewish history (the schism) and we explain why JFJ's beliefs are incompatible with the core principles of Judaism (BTW, they do make radical claims regarding Judaism such as "there are indications of the plurality of the Godhead in the Hebrew Scriptures" and more here by their founder: Judaism Teaches …or Does It? by Moishe Rosen). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Humus I ask that you take a look at the original proposed edit in my workspace (if you haven't already). I am not asking for a complete removal of the beliefs in relation to Judaism section, but a refactoring of the format to have it placed in an opposition and criticism section. Right now the opposition section has Opposition by Jewish groups, Christian groups, etc. This paragraph would either go into the lead or it can go under a completely different subheading. Maybe something called "JfJ's interpretation's of Judaism". Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, Ramsquire. Given the confused/confusing/self-contradicting claims by JFJ, I think the current section is encyclopedic and adequate. IMHO it is important to explain briefly the nature of the historic schism - we can put Johnson's quote as a ref. And what is wrong with quoting a relevant line from America's Religions. An Educator's Guide to Beliefs and Practices? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If you remember, I've never had a problem with the content of the current "Beliefs in Relation to Judaism" section. It's just that since we have on record JfJ claiming that they are Jews by birth and not belief, I am not sure it is as relevant as it used to be. MPerel may be right that it belongs in a background section. I'd have no problem changing it into a general background section of why there is opposition to JfJ, which would include the schism. The proposal was a very rough skeletal draft, so I have no problem with additions or edits provided they comply with NPOV, and are verifiable. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree w/Humus that the history of the schism is necessary and doesn't belong in the Opposition section. It's really more of a background section. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 08:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you support a change to the article where we created a "Controversy section", provide the background as it relates to JfJ's interpretations of Judaism (which would include discussion of the schism) and then created subheadings or maybe another section directly following detailing the opposition? Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) I wouldn't be so much concerned with the history section's placement as with its wording, but that depends on where it's placed. I also am not entirely sure of the need for it-it seems to give the idea that JfJ is claiming to be religiously Jewish, which I thought we'd established they're not, so wouldn't a section on what makes one ethnically Jewish be more relevant anyway? By addressing a claim that's not made, we kind of make it seem as though such a claim is made. Seraphimblade 11:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The basis of the opposition to JfJ seems to be based on its interpretation of certain Jewish texts, and its ambiguous use of the term Jew and Jewish. So in this limited context some mention of the schism is necessary as a background to the current controversy. However, the issue, as always, is how much mention. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

1. I won't object if we retitle that section "Background".
2. I think it is safe to say that JFJ is not after ethnic Jews only. They do make objectionable religious claims, Judaism Teaches …or Does It? by Moishe Rosen is just one example. BTW, note the difference between a message targeting potential converts and their response to an official inquiry. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made a new proposed section based on MPerel's and your comments. The new draft can be found here. I have no problem titling the section "Background" but I would suggest that it either directly precedes the "Methods of Evangelism" section or comes right after it. Of course any thoughts or suggestions by all editors regarding the new proposal are welcome. However, I think the diff's should be presented here so that everyone can be involved in the discussion if they so choose. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I am confused. I thought we were discussing the Beliefs in relation to Judaism section. The proposed text, while factually correct, looks more like it belongs to the Opposition section. IMHO, the Beliefs in rel... section (potentially to be retitled Background) would give brief perspective on conceptual incompatibilities such as Trinity, strict monotheism, JC's divinity, and explain the nature of the schism. I also find the quote from the Educator's Guide especially informative. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I was thinking it would serve as the background to the controversy/opposition section regarding JfJ. Obviously you were speaking of a more general background section. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps your text could be merged/reconciled with what's now "Opposition and criticism" section. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If there is no opposition, I'd have no problem with the suggestion being implemented. As for your suggestion, I think it may be a good idea to place JfJ with other Hebrew-Christian organizations throughout history, a brief description of the schism, and a {{See also|Schisms among the Jews|Jewish principles of faith}} tag in the section. This way readers will have a better idea that these kind of groups are not new, and that their views have been considered and rejected. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I support Humus suggestion to use my proposed paragraph as a lead to the opposition section. In addition to that I also support a general background section being added to discuss the historical nature of other Jewish-Christian groups with a brief discussion of the schism. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Implementation deferred - would you like to present a final draft of the edit I'm to implement to JfJ. The conversation above is quite long-winded, and I'd rather cover all my bases that be told an edit I drew from above and implemented is actually not what you agreed on. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 00:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 2-- Final Draft

I believe this is where the discussion left off.

1. -- Adopt these paragraphs as a lead to the Opposition and Criticism section.

2. The current "Beliefs in Relation to Judaism" section is to be re-named "Background", where there will be a brief discussion of the history of Hebrew-Christian groups and their relation to the great schism.

Implentation should probably be deferred until there is a proposal for the Background section. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

 Additional information needed - please state the policies that the above change is relevant to. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 19:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The same policies I pointed to when I first made the suggestion -- to comply with WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR. Since JfJ isn't officially making the claims that one can be both Christian and Jewish, it may violate NPOV to debunk the claim. Also, it may be original research to act as though JfJ is making such a claim, since they deny it. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• I would support the addition of Ramsquire's paragraphs as a lead to the Opposition and Criticism section, with one exception as follows. Take "usually" out of the following sentence: "However, belief in Jesus as deity, son of God, or Christ, is usually held as incompatible with Judaism." The sources given make it clear that belief in Jesus as a deity etc is not just *usually* held as incompatible, but *is* incompatible, so the sentence should accurately reflect the sources. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The "usually" was in the original "Beliefs in Relation..." section. I figured it was made as some sort of compromise, so I didn't want to take it out unilaterally. But the sources are pretty explicit, so I don't have a problem with its removal. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit implemented - Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 21:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but don't forgot to take out the "usually" that was agreed upon. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

For Anthony... still need to take out the "usually" as per agreement. Thanks! --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 2b-- "Background" Section

To comply with the policies above, as well as to avoid duplication, I propose renaming the section currently titled "Beliefs in Relation to Judaism" "Background". I also propose adopting this text into the new section. (please note: it is a rough draft and I will provide the citations over the next few days. Feel free to suggest improvements, changes or objections on this page howver). Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 01:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I support the concept, with the content to be ironed out. I'm offline Wed & Thu so I won't be able to provide further feedback till Fri. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit partially implemented - header renamed; awaiting further instruction (please see immediately below). Yours, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 23:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

 Additional information needed - please provide the complete draft for section content changes, including sources. Header rename complete. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 23:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the proposal, and request that it be implemented into the background section, pending agreement of course. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Question for Ramsquire, just for clarification, did you envision it as being added to the beginning, or ending of the existing text in the existing Background section? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

At the beginning. But I think the last sentence of my proposal should be the last sentence of the section. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 04:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I just saw the new content, sorry I didn't get to it earlier. I think the first paragraph is good. A few points:

1. Do we really want to go this deeply into the Jewish-Christian relations here? We have other articles for that.
2. I would caution against using MJ sources. E.g. what "led to a more general awareness of ... Christianity with a Jewish background" was really the Reform movement (Abraham Geiger, who is not covered well in WP), and not Messianic sects as IMJA claims. I can quote Susannah Heschel on this.
3. It used to be that a Jew that accepted Jesus Christ as Messiah would have to leave the synagogue and join a gentile (a non-jewish) church. - and still is. They won't be allowed to be buried in a Jewish cemetery either.
4. Although these groups continue to retain their Jewish traditions and practices... - most of them are not even ethnically Jewish.
5. ...its Protestant Christian theology and evangelical emphasis separates it from other Messianic groups. - may I ask who considers the "other Messianic groups" Jewish? BTW, the ref for that is a WP clone, which is not a RS.
6. I do think it is a good idea to link to MJ, but I dont think it is a good idea to qo through MJ's history in this article. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 13:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Fair point. I was trying to be brief, but yet thorough enough so that readers can get a good background that Hebrew-Christian groups are a) not new and b) have been determined to be outside of Judaism. But I can always accept some snipping of the text.

3. That is inartful writing on my part, I just took it from the MJ article on WP, and didn't clarify that MJ's call their churces synagogue. It does give the appearance that MJ's attend Jewish synagogue, which it shouldn't. I should make it more clear that the MJ synagogue is not the same thing as a Jewish synagogue.

5. No one, but this sentence leads to the other section where they discuss that JfJ is not a Messianic group. I'm drawing a line between MJs and JfJ in the sense one would draw a line between Shia and Sunni. I can attempt to make that distinction more clear also. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I propose to include the first para (until the Nicene schism of 325) as the Background section. The next would go JFJ own history. All the rest is either far enough from the primary subject so we can link it in See also, or not supported by reliable sources. I hope I did not sound discouraging. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. My only concern is that if we are too brief, editors may be encouraged to continue to add even more superflous information to give it a sense of "completeness". But we can deal with that, if it occurs, later. So I'd support Humus proposal to move this thing along. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 3 - Opposition and Criticism

First line under "Opposition and criticism" section:

"The Jewish groups that paid attention to Jews for Jesus, oppose it, seeing its proselytizing activities as intentionally misleading and disrespectful of Judaism. [14] [32] [33]"

Should be removed-the line is rather redundant, as the following sections provide analysis of which groups oppose and why. It is WP:OR to state "all groups which have paid attention", as there is no possible way to know who has or has not "paid attention" to anything. Seraphimblade 01:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That was a compromise. If it is unacceptable, just remove "that paid attention to". It's been weeks (or months?) since I challenged my opponents to show a single Jewish group that paid attention to JFJ and did not oppose it. There's been more than plenty of time to look for evidence. Let's see it, enough WP:OR. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If some group knows of JfJ but took no action, how could anyone possibly show that? The WP:OR is to say "all groups which have paid attention"-how could we possibly know the level of attentiveness every Jewish group in the world has toward JfJ? You're asking to "prove a negative"-the burden of proof is, in this case, not to "prove a negative"-that is impossible. Rather, it is to show that you know (and can source) how much attention every group in the world has paid, and that absolutely every last group which knows of JfJ has opposed it. This is probably an impossible proposition, which would mean the sentence would be based on extrapolation. Certainly, the rest of that section explains in great detail the opposition, so why is that sentence necessary anyway? (Also, in reply to your previous comments, our personal knowledge of "Jewish identity" or anything else matters not one bit. "Experts-only" editing is two doors down and take a right at Citizendium.) Seraphimblade 01:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

All you need is one. Surely JFJ would announce in big letters that they have support. Don't expect others to play along with your empty posturing and wikilawyering and don't expect edits based on OR to stick. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not stating that any support it. Even had one group paid attention and ignored it, neither supporting nor opposing, that would negate the claim that "All groups which have paid attention...". This being the case, if someone has noticed JfJ, and ignored them, how could this be found? Again, the burden of sourcing is on the edit-in this case, to show that every Jewish group which ever noticed JfJ has opposed it (not failed to support it, opposed it.) I would be open to stating "All Jewish groups which have taken a position on JfJ oppose the organization"-I think that's well-established enough? Seraphimblade 03:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

OK with me. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not a good compromise. We don't have any idea what all groups have done; the whole statement is OR, which is the problem. This isn't wikilawyering, I think it's about as fundamental as it gets that you can't speak on behalf of all members of a group simply because no editor can come up with a counterexample. Seriously, I think we need to give up on this idea that we can speak on behalf of all people; it goes against everything WP:Weasel and WP:OR say. If you're making an argument, you have to source it, end of story. That's really the wall we keep banging up against. Mackan79 08:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

My first choice would still be removal of the whole sentence, realistically. I think the following section makes that case quite clearly enough anyway, and presents the opposition quite clearly, so I'm unsure what the need for it is. Seraphimblade 08:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It is actually pretty easy to source all the groups who have taken a position on JfJ. This is not original research at all. If a group has remained neutral, then they haven't taken a position. So, I have no problem with stating it that way. Another way to state it, would be to say "Jewish groups who have taken a position of JfJ oppose the organization" which is just as sourced as the earlier sentence. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

How about "Among those Jewish groups which have taken a position on JfJ, response has been overwhelmingly negative?" This would not attempt to speak for "all", but I believe it would properly frame the debate-certainly, the reaction among Jewish groups to JfJ has not been a very positive one. Seraphimblade 17:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Also fine by me. BTW-- we are in effect saying the same thing three different ways, so I'm fine with any of the three formulations. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ramsquire's formula, "Jewish groups who have taken a position on JfJ oppose the organization" is fine with me, as it accurately reflects what the sources say. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit not implemented - are you definetly agreed on the above proposal being implemented; since there's been some chopping and changing, if the agreed version is different from the original Proposal 4, would you like to present a final draft? Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 23:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 3-- Final Draft

(Line 176): change sentence to read: "...Jewish groups that have taken a position on Jews for Jesus oppose the organization. These groups see its proselytizing activities as intentionally misleading and disrespectful of Judaism..." to accord it with the sources given in the article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Agree. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus assumed as accepting edit. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 23:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit implemented. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 23:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 4 - Introduction

Add "and others" to the list of those who reject any identification of the group as religiously Jewish. Of course this should be referenced and the ref would include:

• Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance ([1])
• Benjamin Hubbard; John Hatfield, James Santucci (1997). America's Religions. An Educator's Guide to Beliefs and Practices. Teacher Ideas Press, a Division of Libraries Unlimited, p.100. ISBN 1-56308-469-4.
• Balmer, Randall. Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism, Baylor University Press, Nov 2004, p. 448
• See also Jews for Jesus#Christian opposition to ''Jews for Jesus'' and to efforts to evangelize Jews

←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of references, no objections to that. Though the self-reference to the article itself might be a bit overkill, outside references are much better then self-references anyway. Seraphimblade 13:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I brought "Christian opposition" here only to demonstrate that there are indeed many others. That section already has many references. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit implemented. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 23:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this implementation is not exactly what I meant. I proposed to add "and others" to the intro, so the text would be something like: "Jewish(refs) and other(refs) groups, the State of Israel(refs) reject ..." Sorry if I did not make myself clear earlier. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies - I'll try to mend that now; sorry - I suffer from reading problems, especially without my glasses, and I just sort of skimmed through. Please accept my humblest apologies; Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 00:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit implemented - properly this time ;). Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 00:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm in a hurry as well. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 5 - Introduction

Add "many" before "Jewish groups", per WP:Weasel and WP:NOR.

Many Jewish groups[4][5][6][7] the State of Israel [8] and others[9][10][11][12] reject any identification of the group as religiously Jewish, however, due to the Christian beliefs of its members and its evangelical activities. [13] [14] [15]

As explained above, speaking categorically on behalf of all Jewish groups is not sourced, and thus constitutes original research. Also, WP:Weasel specifically states an exception for "[w]hen the belief or opinion is actually the topic of discussion." Since that's what we're doing here, we should make something accurate and sourced, not try to omit any qualifiers. "Many" is accurate and sourced. We're talking about the opinion of groups here, not the position of Judaism, so I'd hope this would be agreeable.

Also, I object to the removal of the word "however,"[2] because it does remain contradictory. It's like saying "The Yankees say they're the best ever. Some people say it won't last forever, however, unless they get their act together." The statements oppose, whether or not they're actually directly inconsistent. Mackan79 16:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on both of those. Seraphimblade 16:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Question: Is the "however" portion pending further comment, or did you just miss it? Thanks, Mackan79 20:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit implemented - Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 19:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Anthony, please revert this change. We talked about the proposed inclusion of the word "many" a number of times. It implies that there are some Jewish groups that accept JFJ as Jewish. Until we see some proof of this, this word doesn't belong. WP should not participate in a deception, even if the subject of the article does. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Any identification of Jews for Jesus as "Jewish" is overwhelmingly rejected by Jewish religious denominations, secular groups and the State of Israel due to the Christian beliefs of its members. The group's proselytizing activities are opposed also by some Christian organizations and scholars. (Humus sapiens)

ol_merge_vote.svg|20 px]] Edit reverted - pending general consensus. Please reach an agreement on this matter. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 22:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Seraphim and Mackan: we already talked about all this, including JFJ's claims re: Judaism. You chose to resort to wikilawyering again, and provided no evidence so far. Enough of your OR. If you are unhappy with the current wording, please suggest a way to improve it without losing the fact that no Jewish group accepts JFJ as Jewish. As I said earlier, the word "many" makes wrong implications, and the more you try to push it, the more you leave the impression that you promote the deception. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely reject the addition of "many". It makes the sentence mean opposite what the sources say ("unanimous"); as Humus says, it impies there are "some" Jewish groups who accept J4J as Jewish, when there are no sources brought forth (and none will be found since there simply are none). My example I've given before is that we would not say "Most scientists reject the notion that the earth is flat", as it implies "some" scientists believe it is flat, which is incorrect. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There are three possible solutions to this issue. We can either delete the sentence in its entirety since it is discussed further in the article, we can use the same formulation in proposal 3, or perhaps state it in the following manner Jews for Jesus is widely opposed by both Jewish groups (secular and religious) and Christians who oppose attempting to convert Jews. These groups, [4][5][6][7] the State of Israel [8] and others[9][10][11][12] reject any identification of the group as religiously Jewish, due to the Christian beliefs of its members and its evangelical activities. [13] [14] [15] Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ramsquire - I'd like to bring to your attention Proposal 2 which is awaiting your attention. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 00:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would certainly go with "widely opposed", it's very clear that this is the case. Humus, please quit using the straw man that anyone is claiming a Jewish group supports JfJ. "Supports" and "does not oppose" are two totally separate things. For example, they've got a ballot proposal for the next ballot to expand the state lottery. I couldn't care less if it passes or not. It would be incorrect to say I support the proposal, but it would also be incorrect to say I oppose it. By extension, then, it would be incorrect to say that everyone in this state supports the proposal or everyone opposes it, even if that were true of everyone but me. You could say there is overwhelming majority support (or opposition), but not "everyone" or "all". The same is true here-my assertion is not that there are Jewish groups who support JfJ, only that there are Jewish groups who do not oppose them. If any group out there has not issued a statement on JfJ (and if you want me to find you a Jewish group that hasn't, I suppose I can do so, but are you honestly doubting that at least one such group exists?) we cannot "speak for them" by stating that all Jewish groups oppose JfJ. MPerel, for this same reason, the support is not unanimous. Firstly, we still must accept JfJ's claim of Jewishness as plausible. This is not "wikilawyering", it is a critical part of WP:NPOV. If we state that "no Jewish group" agrees with them, we implicitly editorialize that JfJ is not Jewish. This is not our place-that is for the reader to decide, not the article editors. Please respond to the arguments which are being made, not arguments which have not been. We can say there is significant opposition. We can say that a large number of Jewish groups have come out in opposition. We can say that Jewish reaction is overwhelmingly negative. What we cannot do is speak for those who have not spoken for themselves-and many Jewish groups have taken no position whatsoever on JfJ. We cannot presume to speak on their behalf. Seraphimblade 00:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ramsquire. Deletion is out of the question because the previous sentence states that J4J identifies themselves as "Jewish", and NPOV requires stating the sourced view that this is rejected by Jewish groups (and others). The extra clause, that the group is widely opposed by both Jewish groups (secular and religious) and Christians who oppose attempting to convert Jews, can be in the intro, but the rejection of the group's identification as "Jewish" should come first since the group's identification, not the group's existence in general, is what is discussed in the previous sentence. Also the qualifier "religiously" Jewish should be removed. That qualification is not in the sources, and most J4J members are not even ethnically Jewish. There is no evidence given that the members are ethnically Jewish, and the director is not even Jewish according to Jewish law. The sources say the group is rejected as being Jewish (with no qualification about religion or ethnicity, they are rejected on both counts). --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a quibble with your response. Although, the sources do not make the distinction between ethnicity and religion, it is apparent from reading them that they are referring to religion. For example, the case cited for the State of Israel, states that the members of JfJ who wanted protection under the right of return law were "Jews" of "another faith". It is implied that the objection is not to their parentage but to their belief. I really don't see any source that challenges their birthright or parentage. Sure not every member of JfJ is Jewish by birth, but some members (most of the front-line missionaries) are. Also note source #5, where the ethnic distinction is again made. So although the sources do not outright make this distinction, it is implied. I think it is best to make this distinction clear to the readers, the opposition to JfJ is not that "they lie about their parents" but rather "they mislead potential converts." Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well one of the sources cited says, "a movement of people *often* of Jewish background", so even the Jewish ethnic designation is questionable, and there are more sources that could be supplied that more explicitly question the ethic designation. But my main concern is that the rejection of the group in general is a separate idea and should be treated separately from the rejection of the group's identification as Jewish. When it comes to the group's identification as "Jewish", the sources characterize the rejection as "unanimous". --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I also approve of Ramsquire's "widely rejected" formulation. I'm not sure what MPerel would like to change. I'd emphasize again, though, that the word "many" doesn't actually imply what Humus seems to think it implies. Saying "many groups reject" is in fact an extremely strong statement for an encyclopedia, which basically says the position is so weak that it couldn't get one darned person worth mentioning to support it. The fact of rejection by "many groups," plus the state of Israel, plus others, is an extraordinary statement of opposition in an introductory paragraph. Consider this paragraph:

Michael Jordan is a basketball player. He played in the NBA and won 6 championship rings. He also considers himself a baseball player. Many baseball groups,[1] Major League Baseball,[2] and others[3] reject any claim of Michael Jordan's to being a baseball player, however, due to his failure to make it out of the minor leagues.

Placed in another context, can you see what a strong statement this is? Would anybody actually read this and say "Oh, I guess some baseball groups actually support him then"? I really don't think they would. Mackan79 00:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that you would likely find sources of "some" baseball groups that *don't* reject Michael Jordan being a baseball player. And in fact, if you actually couldn't find a source, and you had reliable sources that stated baseball groups were unanimous in their rejection of Michael Jordan being a baseball player, "many" would be inappropriate.

Here's a more parallel scenario... Michael Jordan believes basketball is baseball. You wouldn't say "many baseball groups reject this characterization" since it would imply that some baseball groups agree that basketball is baseball. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply asking you to read it as a normal person would read the sentence. A normal person reading that sentence would not say "Huh, so some people think Jordan is a baseball player." He'd think "Huh, so Jordan thinks he's a baseball player, and apparently baseball players really can't stand the guy." We're not trying to rule out logical possibilities here; we're trying to report facts, which "Many Jewish groups" does.

I have to say again, I think you're largely just missing the effect of encyclopedic understatement. If the encyclopedia said "Many Baseball groups, MLB, and others have rejected Jordan's view that a basketball is a baseball," people would not assume it meant some baseball groups supported it. It would be an incorrect, unsupported, baseless, and bizarre assumption. I wish you could rest assured that people simply wouldn't make it.Mackan79 05:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It might be incorrect and unsupported for your hypothetical baseball scenario, but in the case we're actually mediating here, it would be "incorrect, unsupported, baseless and bizarre" to say something opposite what the sources say, namely to say "many" which implies "some" when the reliable sources clearly reflect unanimity. Your so-called "understatement" would actually state something opposite what the sources say. Let's stick with the sources please. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

SB and M79, I must say that both of you are losing the last remains of my good faith. We should reflect the evidence, rather than OR fantasies. Here I tried to reword the text:

Any identification of Jews for Jesus as "Jewish" is overwhelmingly rejected by Jewish religious denominations, secular groups and the State of Israel due to the Christian beliefs of its members. The group's proselytizing activities are opposed also by some Christian organizations and scholars. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I support HS' version. With the sources included of course. "Overwhelmingly" is a good compromise that has the spirit of "unanimous" (which is the word the sources use) but leaves room for an as-yet-unproduced Jewish source that agrees w/J4J without implying there is *certainly* some or any Jewish groups that agree w/J4J. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The irony is that "Overwhelmingly," by making a judgment call, actually just draws attention to the matter, affirming the idea that there's a debate at the same time as making clear which side WP is on. Mackan79 05:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are you so keen to *hide* and understate what the sources say, just because the sources don't match your personal opinion? If "overwhelmingly" bothers you then let's just quote the sources directly and use the word "unanimous". --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd ask both you and Humus to please be WP:Civil. You have both repeatedly made this personal, which is inappropriate. I'm not trying to push anything, other than that I don't think an encyclopedia can speak unanimously about one group of people rejecting another group of people without a source making this statement. You say the sources say this, but which source?

I also think the reference to "Jewish groups, the State of Israel, and others," is already overboard. From what I saw, there were cases in Israel in which Christian Jews were not recognized under the Law of Return. Does that mean Israel has rejected any claim of the group to being Jewish? If this article were truly neutral, I really don't think that would be in the first paragraph. As far as "others," I also don't know why it's relevant in the first paragraph that certain other groups have opposed them, while failing to mention that certain other groups have also supported them. Of course, no support is mentioned at all. In the end, I can only say again that I think you're missing the overwhelming negativity of the first paragraph, which basically whacks the group this way, that way, and the other way. I'm not even trying to change that, but simply trying to give it the semblance of encyclopedicy.

Can I ask what your thought was on the "widely" formulation? If not, it seems the only other option might be to restructure the first paragraph to avoid the issue. Please consider that the addition of "Israel" and "others," already adds significant weight to the statement. Mackan79 15:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I support Humus sentence as well. The only thing I would change is to wiki-link "Jewish" with the article Who is a Jew? so readers can understand the complexities of the phrase. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so we're currently looking at two versions: The proposal from Ramsquire, and the proposal from Humus (which Ramsquire also supports).

Ramsquire's:

Jews for Jesus is widely opposed by both Jewish groups (secular and religious) and Christians who oppose attempting to convert Jews. These groups, [4][5][6][7] the State of Israel [8] and others[9][10][11][12] reject any identification of the group as religiously Jewish, due to the Christian beliefs of its members and its evangelical activities. [13] [14] [15]

Humus':

Any identification of Jews for Jesus as "Jewish" is overwhelmingly rejected by Jewish religious denominations, secular groups and the State of Israel due to the Christian beliefs of its members. The group's proselytizing activities are opposed also by some Christian organizations and scholars.

With respect to all opinions here, I think Ramsquire's is better for a number of reasons. 1. It avoids characterizing exactly how many people oppose the group. 2. It nevertheless states the opposition very clearly and strongly. 3. It avoids judgmental phrases. Thoughts? Mackan79 18:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any substantive difference between the two versions. The reason I put in "widely" was to encompass Christian groups in the first sentence. Humus's version puts the Christian opposition at the end, and therefore ties the opposition into mainly the denominations and secular groups. Either way works for me. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, yours averts the need for the word "overwhelmingly," which I believe is unencyclopedic in the lead paragraph whether true or not. It also simply uses less provocative language, by not starting a sentence with "Any identification of Jews for Jesus...," and other minor but significant differences. Also, it omits the citation to Jewish Denominations, which was incorrectly sourced.

Of course, an alternative to all of this would be to say that the group lacks any documented support in the Jewish community in addition to being widely opposed by Jewish and some Christian groups. I'd also support that statement. I just have a very hard time going along with phrases like "overwhelmingly rejected" in a lead paragraph. Mackan79 20:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The main problem I have with Ramsquire's version is that it conflates general opposition to the group with rejection of the group's identity as "Jewish". The "widely opposed" applies to the general opposition, but the group's identity as "Jewish" is universally rejected by the Jewish community, per the sources. Either Humus's version, or the way the intro exists currently using *no* qualifiers, is preferable: Je'wish groups[4][5][6][7] the State of Israel [8] and others[9][10][11][12] reject any identification of the group as religiously Jewish, due to the Christian beliefs of its members and its evangelical activities. [13] [14] [15]. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Implementation not undertaken - please reach a decision: if you don't get somewhere, I will take the decision to not implement at all. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 21:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 5 - Introduction (cont)

Of course after I presented my version I cannot be considered neutral. Here are a few points I tried to make:

1. Christians do not define who is a Jew.
2. IMHO, "overwhelmingly" is stronger than "widely" and we have more than enough evidence to justify using it.
3. Christian beliefs are relevant to identification.
4. evangelical activities are relevant to opposition to attempts to convert Jews.

Now to M79's objections:

1. characterizing exactly how many people oppose the group - I've no idea where is this coming from.
2. "overwhelmingly" is unencyclopedic - I respectfully disagree.
3. it omits the citation to Jewish Denominations, which was incorrectly sourced. - no idea what is this about, but the ref #4states: "There is virtual unanimity across all denominations [of Judaism] that Jews for Jesus are not Jewish." (Kaplan, Dana Evan. The Cambridge Companion to American Judaism, Cambridge University Press, Aug 15, 2005, pp. 139-140). Let me know if you need more information.

←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments here have been removed on the grounds of civility. Please immediately consult my statement at the bottom of the page for justification; furthermore, please understand that civility is essential to a successful mediation. My advice is to refrain from objecting from the removal of any potentially uncivil comments - it will not contribute to the outcome of the case. Respectfully yours, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 01:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Anthony, I'd appreciate your evaluation of whether Humus' statements above are civil, and in keeping with your guidelines for this discussion. Thanks, Mackan79 00:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the encylopedic-ness of "overwhelmingly"... A simple search reveals that it is used in thousands of articles in Wikipedia, overwhelmingly demonstrating it is an acceptable encyclopedic adjective. Here are just a few I grabbed as examples:

Outside of Germany, Melle's views were overwhelmingly rejected by most Methodists.

He declared the churches united after the Council of Florence in 1452, but the union was overwhelmingly rejected by his subjects...

Altaf Hussain Bhojani, younger brother of Shaheed Hamid Ali Bhojani was overwhelmingly elected as Joint Secretary of the Khoja Jamaat in 1997.

This $1.5 million issue was overwhelmingly approved by the voters of the Fire Protection District...

Critical Analysis of Evolution has not been well received by the scientific community, who has overwhelmingly rejected the Discovery Institute's premise, that evolution is a flawed and disputed theory...

The Rhineland is an overwhelmingly Roman Catholic region.

The medical community overwhelmingly supports vaccination as an effective and safe way to prevent the spread and reduce the impact of infectious illnesses.

He is a Republican, and holds the distinction of never having lost an election over his three decades in elected office in overwhelmingly Democratic Massachusetts.

As a result, many religious groups (overwhelmingly Roman Catholic) created their own leagues...

The Greek side overwhelmingly rejected the Annan Plan, and the Turkish side voted in favour.

--MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is in using the word contentiously, not in historical or other contexts. In any case, if others like it, I won't hold out. Mackan79 00:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the weasel word argument is actually backward. Normally, Wikipedia does not support the inclusion of weasel words, unless it falls into one of three general categories. Here, Mackan wishes to add a weasel word but does not explain under which exception it would fit under. If the sentence is to refer to general opposition to JfJ, then yes a weasel word would be appropriate. If it is to refer to the identification as Jewish, then it would not because although the holders of the view are numerous, they are NOT diverse. In the same vein, there is no original research because the sentence is in accord with the supporting references. One may not like a sentence cosmetically, but that doesn't mean it isn't accurate.

I prefer Humus's formulation over the current version because an introduction should state all opposition in a general sense. The current version omits the Christian opposition, however Humus's includes it. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The exception is when you're speaking of what a group actually believes. In that case, it's necessary to say how many believe it, since that's the whole point you're making. If 10% of Democrats believe something, and you need to make that point, then you have to say "Some Democrats believe..." You can't just say "Democrats believe," or cite a source "John Kerry believes," as the Weasel policy generally requires. In the case here, we're talking about what Jewish groups believe. We're making the point: Jewish groups don't believe this group is Jewish. We're not citing the groups to positively state as fact that JfJ isn't Jewish, which is where the weasel policy would come in. We're citing them for the actual content of their beliefs. In that situation, WP:Weasel doesn't apply, because the only result would be to prohibit qualifiers.Mackan79 00:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm entirely willing to go with the "overwhelmingly" formulation, this does not presume to speak for all. Certainly, there's plenty of sourcing to indicate that reaction has been overwhelmingly negative-I don't think this is unencyclopedic, it properly frames the debate. My only problem was with the lead appearing to speak for everyone, something we clearly can't source. However, I think the lead could be tweaked-how about something like this?

Jews for Jesus has been rejected as a Jewish organization by...

This would eliminate the "any identification of", which seems to be problematic, and still clearly frame the issue. What are anyone's thoughts on that? Seraphimblade 23:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That works for me. Any of the following formulations work for me, w/preference for either of the first two (oh yeah, also including Ramsquire's addition of linking "Jewish" to Who is a Jew?):

1. Seraphimblade + HS 2nd sentence: Jews for Jesus has been rejected as a Jewish organization by Jewish groups[4][5][6][7] the State of Israel [8] and others[9][10][11][12], due to the Christian beliefs of its members and its evangelical activities. [13] [14] [15] The group's proselytizing activities are opposed also by some Christian organizations and scholars.
2. Humus sapiens: Any identification of Jews for Jesus as "Jewish" is overwhelmingly rejected by Jewish religious denominations, secular groups and the State of Israel due to the Christian beliefs of its members. The group's proselytizing activities are opposed also by some Christian organizations and scholars.
3. Humus sapiens w/o "any" qualifier: Identification of Jews for Jesus as "Jewish" is overwhelmingly rejected by Jewish religious denominations, secular groups and the State of Israel due to the Christian beliefs of its members. The group's proselytizing activities are opposed also by some Christian organizations and scholars.
4. Humus sapiens w/o "any or "overwhelmingly" qualifiers: Identification of Jews for Jesus as "Jewish" is rejected by Jewish religious denominations, secular groups and the State of Israel due to the Christian beliefs of its members. The group's proselytizing activities are opposed also by some Christian organizations and scholars.
5. Current: Jewish groups[4][5][6][7] the State of Israel [8] and others[9][10][11][12] reject any identification of the group as religiously Jewish, due to the Christian beliefs of its members and its evangelical activities. [13] [14] [15]

--MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm fine with all five proposals. I do prefer numbers 2,3 and 4 (in that order) over 1 and 5 since it separates out denominations from secular groups. Although if 1 also did that, I would go in that direction. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

My vote is #2, 3 in this order. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The one being attributed to me is still problematic, as it still states "Jewish groups" as a monolithic, undifferentiated whole. I would be willing to go with 3, however, and I would urge everyone to support that-I think it's reasonable and it's likely the one with the best chance of reaching consensus. Seraphimblade 14:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Since MPerel, has already stated his support. Three seems to be the way to. I believe we're waiting for a response from Mackan before we can implement it though. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I'd also accept 3 at this point, with the one caveat that the word "however" should be reinserted, since it is now directly at odds with JfJ's statement ("...overwhelmingly rejected by Jewish religious denominations, secular groups and the State of Israel, however, due to..."). Mackan79 19:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"However" is WP:WTA. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a WTA, according to the policy, when it expresses a preference for the latter statement. In the case here, that doesn't seem to be a problem. I'd suggest simple readability requires it in this instance, but there's also a more fundamental problem with stating a fact and not even acknowledging the fact that the group you're talking about just said the opposite. I could explain this in more detail, but I'd hope we could simply agree that some form of recognition is generally required when you represent one thing and in the next sentence represent the opposite.Mackan79 21:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Quoting WP:WTA#However, although, whereas: In general, "A asserts Y. However, according to B, Z." can suggest that the latter assertion is truer or better than the former one. Avoid this construction in favor of simply stating: "A asserts Y. Others, including B, believe Z." This is exactly what is being proposed. If you insist that the following applies: Acceptable use: "Before <event> <this>. After <event>, however, <that>.", please kindly show us what event are you talking about. Note that I prefer to follow WP guidelines rather than convey my alleged antagonism towards JFJ. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is simply that we've already chosen to preference the latter statement through its repetition and its position concluding the lead. Using the word "however" at this point would simply clarify that the latter statement is indeed contradicting what JfJ just said.

You might have noticed the lead of WP:WTA: "There is probably no word that should never be used in a Wikipedia article. However, there is always an appropriate word and an inappropriate word, and, depending on the article, some words may mark tendentious or unclear presentation." You might even have noticed that the second sentence starts with "However," in a way that does not discount the previous sentence. In that regard, I'd suggest the "tendentious and unclear" presentation in this case wouldn't involve the word "however," but would be to disregard the placement of two directly contradictory sentences in a row, wouldn't it?

If you look at the examples, also, you'll see that the answer isn't just to remove the word "however." Ex.: "Some people think Bin Laden is a terrorist. However, others state he is just a misunderstood freedom fighter" is not improved by removing "however." Again, we could beat this into the ground, but it seems unnecessary. 6SJ7 removed it because the sentences were at that time no longer directly contradictory.[3] Now, again, they are. That requires either the word "however" or a larger change, which would be fine, but I think we're trying to avoid. Mackan79 15:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need the "however". If we add however it give appearance that the clause preceding it is wrong or not as strong as the second clause. Isn't this what we've been trying to avoid? Let's just state the two sides. With the wiki-link to the article, if the reader is confused or wants to research the debate more thoroughly he can go to the "Who is a Jew?" article. Also, the previous version of this sentence had the however removed because one part was speaking ethnically and the other religiously. This version is in regard to whether JfJ is a part of the larger "Jewish" community. They believe they are by birth, others disagree because of their beliefs. Note how I didn't use however in the last sentence. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There are ways to present opposing statements without it, I simply don't think this is one of them. Acceptable, similar to your example, would be something like: "There are various positions on who is the best baseball team. Some say the Yankees. Some say the Dodgers. No agreement exists." Improper is to say "John says he's a great baseball player. He has no training, and his local baseball team has rejected him 7 times. [(Moving on...)]" The second version, of course, is extremely tendentious, similar to the Bin Laden example with the word "however" removed, and really seems indistinguishable to to me from what we have here. That's why I'm saying it's necessary here, even though it does indeed favor the critical position: at least it acknowledges that JfJ thinks otherwise.

I'm sorry to quibble over a word, but I think it's actually critical to the tone of the opening, which is what I've been trying to fix, so it sounds at least vaguely neutral. Without the word "however," I think the opening remains highly tendentious, by talking about JfJ as if they're not there.

The alternative to the hypo, of course, ("John says he's a great baseball player. He has no training, however, and has been rejected... 7 times.") still favors the second half of the sentence, but at least doesn't talk about him as if he is mentally incompetent. In that regard, I think it would simply be odd to remove the word "however" on the ground that it favors the second half of the sentence. Mackan79 20:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've read and re-read the intro several times, and I just don't see how it is biased. I'm sorry but we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. To me the second sentence is simply stating the groups who disagree with JfJ's position that they are part of the larger Jewish community. The first sentence states JfJ claims to the community, and it is wiki-linked to the article about the general controversy. I don't see it taking any sides or even implying one side is right or wrong. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Guys: I can't actually see an end in sight to this sub-dispute regarding "However..."; are any editors on any of the stance (keep "However.." or remove "However...") willing to compromise? Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 00:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, maybe I'm being paranoid. I'll accept version 3. Mackan79 00:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Is everyone in general agreement on 3, then? I think it's just fine. Seraphimblade 03:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like 3 is the winner : ) I'm going to add the sources into it (next edit here) and paste it below so Andrew can just cut and paste it and others can look it over before it goes into the article. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 5 Choice #3 (consensus version)

The following seems to be the agreed upon text, and includes references 4-15 currently in article (some are consolidated into one reference):

Identification of Jews for Jesus as "Jewish" is overwhelmingly rejected by Jewish religious denominations, secular groups and the State of Israel due to the Christian beliefs of its members. The group's proselytizing activities are opposed also by some Christian organizations and scholars.

--MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to clean up the refs a bit. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm going to add a section directly below for the references in the proposal 5 choice #3 to show up, so people can see how it will come out with the sources. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Implementation deferred - are all agreed upon option #3? Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 18:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Good by me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 04:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Me too. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Below are the references attached to the Proposal 5 Choice #3

Quick Straw Poll

On an informal basis, I'd like a quick straw poll below on the inclusion of the word "However" per above. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 19:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The following are example votes; please follow their format exactly. Once the first vote has been cast, remove the two examples. No comments please.

Could I please ask for no more votes at this time, pending Ramsquire's request. Note that votes already cast have been hidden immediately after this post, and can be viewed by editing this section; however, I ask for no editors to restore it pending further notice. Yours, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 23:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Proceedings

I have concluded the following in response to Mackan79's request for my evaluation over the user's civility: I do not believe that "...The rest does not deserve a polite response..." is a civil response, in line with the Official Wikipedia Policy Wikipedia:Remain Civil. Therefore, I have removed the comment from this version of the page. I do believe that Humus' comments were - with exception to "The rest...polite response..." - entirely civil. I hope that this is satisfactory to all editors; please do not hesitate to contact me immediately if you believe I have acted unfair in anyway, shape or form. Yours, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 01:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Mackan79 03:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it Orwellian that misrepresentation of Judaism (after seeing dozens of refs, how else would one interpret a proposal "Of course, an alternative to all of this would be to say that the group lacks any documented support in the Jewish community in addition to being widely opposed by Jewish and some Christian groups.") is not considered uncivil, but saying that this does not deserve a polite response is. I am leaving this comment here for the record. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The point you've been making through all of this is that no one has uncovered a Jewish group which supports JfJ. My suggestion was that we state that directly, that no known support exists. I then added, for your benefit, the statement that in addition to the lack of support, it is also widely opposed by both Jewish and Christian groups. Essentially, I took the "widely" formulation which was already here, and made it stronger, by providing additionally that no known support exists. I'm not sure what you found offensive. Mackan79 14:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - both Humus and Mackan - for your clear maturity shown in this sub-dispute; the fact that you are both fine with the outcome shows that you are both mature wikipedians here for the good of the encyclopedia, rather than for selfish aims. You are both to be commended. Yours, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 14:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Archive

For the purposes of slow dial-up connections that any readers may have, as well as the hog on Wikimedia servers, I'm going to archive the upper 2/3rds of this page. If there is anything under discussion that I remove, please simply cut and paste it over. Cheers, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 00:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Progress?

I take it things are going well? -Ste|vertigo 04:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)