Motör Militia

Judaism Objections - State of Israel

Since the State of Israel no longer objects to Messianic Jews, I propose moving the State of Israel subsection to the Identity section of the article. inigmatus (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This would be misleading. This information, though very important, pertains not to Judaism and religion, but to state definition. It basically says that anyone, regardless of religion, is considered for Law of Return purposes - whatever they believe - as long as they have a Jewish parent. This is not a religious decision, and does not impact upon Judaism's branches and does not make one 'a Jew'. This actually really isn't 'news' - go to Google News, do a search of 'Israel', 'Law of Return' and 'Messianic' and you'll find almost nothing. Respectfully, A Sniper (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also note that there are no independent sources that confirm any of what you've written (try a simple Google or the Israeli Supreme Court site) - only Messianic/Christian sites. Why? Because, in fact, nothing has really changed: a 'Messianic Jew' is of course allowed to return to Israel if they have a Jewish parent or grandparent, but they are still not considered Jews by the religion. A Sniper (talk)

The April 16 ruling does not mean that the State of Israel accepts Messianic Jews as part of Judaism. See the section below. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Father's side only?

Our reference for the April 16th ruling says "being a Messianic Jew does not prevent one from receiving citizenship in Israel under the Law of Return or the Law of Citizenship, if one is a descendent of Jews on one's father's side (and thus not Jewish according to halacha).". I've seen other sources saying that it also meant that being a Messianic Jew does not now prevent you from being considered a Jew if you are descended on your mother's side. I'm a little confused here - did Israel always consider you Jewish you were Messianic and descended on your mother's side (this article didn't seem to say that prior to April 16th) or are you for some reason still not considered a Jew if you are Messianic and descended on your mother's side? The latter would seem strange to me. Any more info, anyone? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The laws related to aliyah can be found at the Who is a Jew? article:

The "Law of Return" distinguishes between two categories of subjects:

• A Jew (One who has been born to a Jewish mother or converted)
• A non-Jew, who is "a son/daughter or a grandson/granddaughter of a Jew, and the spouse thereof"
• - this person remains non-Jewish, but nevertheless "is granted equal right of Aliyah and absorption" -
• - this is the paragraph 4A of the law.

There is therefore a distinction between being an Isreali and being Jewish. A Sniper (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I understand it. I don't understand the impact of the recent Supreme court decision.

1. As I understood it until April 16th a person was not granted Aliyah by Israel if they were a Messianic Jew, even if they qualified as a Jew on the basis of ancestry (according to halaca).
2. Also as I understand it a person was not granted Aliyah if they were a Messianic Jew, even if they otherwise qualified for it under paragraph 4A.

My understanding is that the April 16th decision reversed this, but our sources only say "if their father was Jewish", presumably meaning the second of the cases I describe above. My question is this: Did the April 16th decision reverse both cases 1 and 2 above, or just case 2? The latter seems unlikely, yet it is what our sources seem to say. If the former then we need to make some changes, both here and in related articles. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My qyestion is this: find ONE, SINGLE reliable source to verify that ANYTHING notworthy occurred on April 16. Only CBN and other Messianic/Christian sites have been given as credible references. I would submit that nothing has occurred that has changed what I've written above re: return to Israel - if a person has a Jewish parent (mother or father) or grandparent (male or famele), Israel recognizes them as having the right to return, and this remains the same as it has been. However, it does not mean that Israel or the established Jewish religion recognizes that person as being 'Jewish'. A Sniper (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that this case, whose appellants are Messianic Jews, is relevant to an article on Messianic Judaism, even if it is not really relevant to "who is a Jew". Also mentions of the original decision were not put in by me. I'm just trying to make sure that they are accurate and up-to-date.

I really would welcome clarification of what the April 16th decision means. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems I was right. According to the Jerusalem Post the ruling does apply effectively only to those who had Jewish fathers but not mothers (plus some other cases involving grandparents). A person is barred from Aliyah if they were Jewish but converted to another religion. Someone with a Jewish father but not a mother is eligible for Aliyah but is technically not a Jew. Therefore such a person who is a Messianic Jew is not excluded by reason of having converted, because they were never (technically) a Jew to start with. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Kudos to User:Inigmatus for finding the Jerusalem Post reference that explained this properly. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know of any other articles which discussed this decision and which we should update? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeshua

User:Jayjg, what is the objection to the phrase "Jesus of Nazareth, whom they call by the Hebrew name Yeshua"? DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Cohn-Sherbok reference

The article states that Cohn-Sherbok says that the movement may be viewed as legitimate Judaism. May we please have a page number for verification? Based on what I could read in the GoogleBook source, he does not make that point per se; rather, he discussed three models, the Orthodox exclusive, the Non-Orthodox exclusive, and the pluralistic view. He says that proponents of the last school of though, like Harris-Shapiro, would say it is legitimate. Does he argue for one of the three views over the other two? If we cannot provide a direct quotation that he does so, the statement in the article would suffer from being original research. Has anyone read the entire book? -- Avi (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, Avi. The wording is now precisely accurate to that of the publisher, defining the thesis. It does not take away from the intended tone, but is accurate and NPOV. I also inserted more info re: C-S and his post as a theology scholar. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Tag

I placed a tag in the intro concerning the sentence:

"However, Jews[6] of all denominations[7] and many Christians[8] do not consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Judaism[citation needed], but a form of Christianity."

It is clear that "Jews of all denominations ... do not consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Judaism, but a form of Christianity."

It is also clear (based on the references given) that "many Christians do ... consider Messianic Judaism to be ... a form of Christianity."

What however is not included in the references is that "many Christians do not consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Judaism".

Some people might argue that one implies the other but a) that is an opinion and would be POV to endorse, b) is not mentioned by the Christian references given.

Str1977 ^(talk) 09:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

excellent catch. inigmatus (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've cleared this ambiguity up and removed the tag. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Self-identification

Somewhere in the editing of the intro we seem to have lost the simple statement that Messianic Jews consider themselves to be Jews. "Torah-observant and culturally Jewish" isn't the same, and we need to make it clear that these people do believe that. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that it was a person sympathetic to the group who made that edit, and it was never challenged. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll wait a while and see if anyone else objects, otherwise I'll put it back. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that this is clean and simple. -- Avi (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems good to me. I'm going to add some more of the above references. This is usually contentious, and rock solid references will help. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As each of your references was only used once throughout the entire article, to maintain consistency with the other reference lists, I have combined all three into one footnote. This prevents having five or ten footnote references in a row. -- Avi (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Further reading and external links sections

These two sections seem to have become overly bloated. Can we do something to pare them down to reasonable levels? Per Wikipedia:External links, such links should be kept to a minimum. -- Avi (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent additons re:Trinity

The following was recently added to the article:

Because Messianic Jews fail to recognize the [[Holy Trinity]], they are not recognized as Christians by the two main Christian Churches, ie the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.<ref>[http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm Mormon baptism held to be invalid]</ref> Belief in [[Nicean creed]] is held as a prerequisite by most Christian bodies. <ref>[http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:-XOPg8Q8QvkJ:www.hebrew-streams.org/works/hazak/af-answer.pdf+shilush+trinity&hl=fr&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=ca Hebrew streams]</ref> However, many Messianics use the kabbalistic concept of [[Shilush]] to carry the same meaning <ref>[http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Yeshua_and_Kabbalah Yeshua and Kabbalah]</ref>.

The problem with this is that the first reference does not discuss Messianic Judaism but Mormonism. To make any assumptions or connections from the one to the other, no matter how logical, is a violation of the wikipedia prohibition against original research and synthesis. Wikibooks, or any wiki project, should never be used as a reliable source, as they are all open to public editing. The middle reference is an essay by Paul Sumner. Who is he and why is he a reliable source about anything other than his own opinion? -- Avi (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

lively discussions

I was asked enter dialogue here-- over what and with who I am not sure since I had 2 or 3 edits undone without dialog or reason.

Removing a POV flag is exactly the sort of thing that shows you are POV. It is also totally inappropriate for other reasons.

I will repeat my comment so that other my dialoge-- anti-Messianic Judaism slant to article.

Is there anyone here claiming to not be anti-Messianic Judaism?--Carlaude 22:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedia editor and I strive for neutrality. I know, from dialogue (and their user pages), who the regular editors are that come from a MJ background. We do not always agree, but we work things out. Your edits, on the other hand, appeared to slant things towards POV - even if the explanation is that this was to counter what you characterize as an anti-MJ slant to the whole article. I disagree and hope others will jump in. My main objective is to create an encyclopedia. Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's place to say that Messianic Judaism is or is not part of Judaism-- implicitly or explicitly. It is a notable view that they are even if it is not a mainstream view among this or that group. But the edits/undos are POV because they take sides on the issue.--Carlaude 22:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Per-WP:BRD, if you disagree, you need to dialogue with me. Not just revert.

I'll wait another day for dialogue.--Carlaude 13:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think one of the things you have to do Carlaude is explain exactly what it is that you think gives the article its "anti-MJ POV". No I'm not disagreeing with you, and no I'm not anti- MJ. But we need to talk about specifics or the dialogue will simply degenerate. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I find the article to be neutrally balanced, however some sections I specifically find POV, but thats the point of some of the sections. If you can provide specifics of what is not NPOV, then we all have something to work with. And yes, I'm an chasidic Messianic Jew. inigmatus (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, Clayworth.

It is not Wikipedia's place to say that Messianic Judaism is or is not part of Judaism-- implicitly or explicitly. It is a notable view that they are even if it is not a mainstream view among this or that group.

My (minor) edits to the article remove POV statement that implicitly consider Messianic Judaism not part of Judaism were removed-- several times-- without reason or dialogue. This was done by A Sniper and another as I recall.

For example (my edits in bold):

• All other denominations of Judaism, as well as national Jewish organizations reject Messianic Judaism as a form of Judaism.

• However, Jews of all other denominations do not consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Judaism...

The trouble here is that while "Jews of all denominations" carries the implication that MJs are not Jews, "other Jews..." carries the implication that they are. We need a neutral way of saying this. Not sure what that is. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

However, with all due respect, the addition of the word other creates a fringe POV. Leaving the word out makes a factual, mainstream, non-fringe statement that Jews (Jewry, Judaism, Jewish denominations, the contemporary Jewish establishment) do not consider MJ to be Judaism but another religion, Christianity. It is perfectly valid to document that MJs believe themselves to be a part of Judaism, but equally valid to cite that this is not an accepted reality for Jews/Judaism. Adding the word other immediately spins the sentence to imply rather boldly that MJ is Judaism. Forget ones personal bias and please try and see that the only way to maintain overall neutrality is to a) allow users on the one hand to carefully and clearly document the beliefs of MJ, while at the same time b) noting without ambiguity, and with authoritative references, that Judaism as an establishment simply doesn't agree. Maybe one day it will agree (as Cohn-Sherbok maintains). This is why I feel that we have some kind of consensus at the moment among the various contributors of all persuasions. Edit warring has ceased and I would be so bold myself to state that we've actually assisted each other here. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sniper, you are right. But Carlaude is right too. Neither is a neutral statement.

Let me explain what will happen here, because I've had this discussion before. Some editors will (very vociferously) insist that we say "all Jews believe that MJ are not Jews". This is because those editors do not consider MJ to be Jews, so from their perspective the statement is correct. Other editors will want to say that "other Jews consider MJ are not Jews" because they consider MJ are Jews (or at least don't want to difinitively say that they are not). Each set of editors will insist that their view is the neutral one . DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

In these situations, I believe the operative words are in bold in the following quotation:

This page in a nutshell: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias.

— WP:NPOV

Another quote:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

— WP:NPOV#Undue weight

The majority opinion of people who are associated with Judaism, as demonstrated in the article, is that Messianic Judaism is not Judaism, so the addition of "other" would be greater WP:NPOV violation than not having it. -- Avi (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said I've been here before. The subject of the article is Messianic Judaism, not Judaism. Proportionately means proportionate to the subject. If that were not the case then we could say in the article Judaism that Judaism is untrue, which is certainly the majority view of the human race as a whole. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't accept that argument, DJ Clayworth - the very nature of MJ is to assert its place within Judaism; to embrace and joyfully celebrate all aspects of Judaica, from ethnicity to ritual. To a casual reader, this infers that MJ is therefore Judaism and its adherents Jewish. However, the reader needs to also be referred to the fact that Judaism itself, as an established, historical entity and reality, identifies MJ as being another faith. It is therefore difficult to separate MJ from the wider issue of Jews and Judaism due to the very nature of MJ and its beliefs and assertions. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course we should say clearly that Jews, apart from MJ, do not consider MJ Jewish. Yet, for a parallel, Mormonism is a sect that self-identifies as Christian, yet is not considered Christian by a huge majority of (other) Christians. Wikipedia always refers to "other Christians" when talking about those outside the sect. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The Roman Catholics decision not to accept Mormon baptisms dates to 2001. The Jewish faith's decision not to accept Messianic Judaism dates back to Jesus and the formation of Christianity itself. -- Avi (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Similarly with other branches of Christianity that recently changed their decision. Mormonism was considered as Christianity, by Christians, for hundreds of years. Mesiannism was never considered Judaism by Jews. The analogy is thereby flawed in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

More simply put, one of the things that all branches of Judaism agree on is that MJ is not a branch of Judaism. On this point one finds rare unanimity. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Small corrections, Avi: 1) Mormonism has only been around since the middle of the 19th century, 2) Pharisaism, Nazarenes, and The Way were all considered sects by 1st-century Jews. (Luke 5:30, Acts 24:5, Acts 24:14) ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

DJ Clayworth, it is not my belief that MJs are Jews or are not Jews - but it is the Jews belief, or at least the verifiable references point to this fact. Groups have the right to self-identify, therefore MJs have the right to consider themselves Jewish, and to promote that belief, just as Jews as a contemporary establishment have the right to consider those who have accepted another religion as not being within Judaism. Wikipedia is about the verifiable. Re-placing the POV tag is to assert that all of us have not been balanced, which is a shame considering the work that has gone into keeping the edit warring down and the overall neutrality obvious. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to insult anyone. However removal of the tag can also be seen as an insult, essentially saying to the person who placed it "your criticism is not valid and is not even worth of consideration". Let's try to reach a consensus on whether it's a valid point or not - then the tag can be removed if appropriate. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments DJ Clayworth, and I know you were not insulting anyone. Steven J. Anderson's comments below are indeed useful for this current situation. Carlaude placed the tag, called edits 'vandalism', sought the assistance of admin, and stated that they weren't going to 'stand for this'. I would suggest that removal of the tag, coupled with continued consensus-building and compromise, will not be misinterpreted as rejection of their criticism. However, I would wager the majority view is that the article is not 'anti-MJ' and POV-leaning, and that the tag is inappropriate. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• However, Jews of all other denominations do not consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Judaism...

The trouble here is that while "Jews of all denominations" carries the implication that MJs are not Jews, "other Jews..." carries the implication that they are. We need a neutral way of saying this. Not sure what that is. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

However, with all due respect, the addition of the word other creates a fringe POV. Leaving the word out makes a factual, mainstream, non-fringe statement that Jews (Jewry, Judaism, Jewish denominations, the contemporary Jewish establishment) do not consider MJ to be Judaism but another religion, Christianity. It is perfectly valid to document that MJs believe themselves to be a part of Judaism, but equally valid to cite that this is not an accepted reality for Jews/Judaism. Adding the word other immediately spins the sentence to imply rather boldly that MJ is Judaism. Forget ones personal bias and please try and see that the only way to maintain overall neutrality is to a) allow users on the one hand to carefully and clearly document the beliefs of MJ, while at the same time b) noting without ambiguity, and with authoritative references, that Judaism as an establishment simply doesn't agree. Maybe one day it will agree (as Cohn-Sherbok maintains). This is why I feel that we have some kind of consensus at the moment among the various contributors of all persuasions. Edit warring has ceased and I would be so bold myself to state that we've actually assisted each other here. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made an edit for this debate.

I believe "Rabbinical Jews of all denominations do not consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Judaism." is NPOV.

As far as I can tell... neither carries the implication that MJs are Jews... nor carries the implication that MJs are not Jews. --Carlaude 13:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

What about Karaite Jews? The addition of the word Rabbinical is what spins this article into POV. MJ supporter inigmatus has already explained the way the entire article works: by balancing sections overall. MJs believe themselves to be Jews; the entire Jewish establishment dating back to Christ do not. These are both correct statements, supported by citations. Your edit is not suppoorted by references. If you go through the history of the page, you'll see that we grappled with the header 100 different ways to strike the balance - certainly not just me. Best, A Sniper (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You do not need to write so condescendingly Mr "Neutral".

I am already aware that MJs believe themselves to be Jews and the Jewish establishment do not.

Hence the discussion-- nay-- hence that very sentence.

Other that leaving out Karaite Jews you give no information on why you think the edit is POV or "spins this article into POV."

The intro needs balance on its own, no matter how long you though it was great before.

Lets try again-- what is wrong with "Rabbinical and Karaite Jews of all denominations do not consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Judaism."? --Carlaude 14:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't figure why you take editing Wikipedia so personally. I am not writing condescendingly to you or anyone else. In fact, I'm not sure you have read all of the posts since you started what one user characterized as perhaps Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Nevermind. The overwhelming references state that all Jews (established Jewry and Judaism) consider MJs to not be Jewish. Period. Not some, not most - all...and back 2000 years, too. This is historical, and this is supported by the references. All the goodwill on earth cannot change that. Even the MJ supporters at this article aren't considering this POV when balanced with the article as a whole. Adding the word others or Rabbinical is what creates the POV because it flies in the face of fact. MJs consider themselves Jews - fine - Jews consider MJs as not being within Judaism - fine. There have been groups throughout history that claimed to be Jewish and were not accepted as such, and history has reflected this. MJs are no different - and this isn't meant to be POV...it is merely a reflection of the references. Best, A Sniper (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I would familiarize yourself with WP:NPA. A Sniper (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I am working in good faith-- that you just miss the issue-- maybe this will be more productive if you address my question and not just your issues.

You are trying to say that because the "Jewish establishment" find Messianic Judaism to be not a form of Judaism this is "a fact."

It is not a fact -- it is the point of view of the Jewish establishment -- hence "Messianic Jews are not Jews" would also be POV.

To say "all Jews think X" is POV, if Messianic Judaism "think not-X" -- because "Messianic Jews are not Jews" would also be POV.

You might think "adding the word Rabbinical" unnecessary but "adding the word Rabbinical" does not fly "in the face of fact".

I challenge you to add references that any branch of Judaism accepts MJ as a form of Judaism. That is what Wikipedia is all about - not your opinion or my opinion - but information that can be verified. Jews self-identify and have set parameters for what constitutes a Jew or something within the fold of Judaism - even MJs accept this, even if they don't agree. I'm sorry that you don't. Adding the word "Rabbinical" is spinning what is currently NPOV into POV. Your rationale for solid world Jewish opinion for the last 2000 years being merely POV is a circular argument that goes nowhere. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

So since you have no answer for me you will just "defy" me make the article NPOV? That is really good.

Oh, I think we have already verified that Rabbinical Jews do not consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Judaism.

"Jewish opinion" => "opinion" is a straightforward argument-- not circular.

Here is a circular argument...

1. "All" Jews agree Messianic Judaism is not part of Judaism.
2. Hence adherents to Messianic Judaism are not Jews.
3. Hence adherents to Messianic Judaism are not part of "All" Jews.
4. Hence "all" Jews agree Messianic Judaism is not part of Judaism.

So does anyone else have an objection that has a reason behind it?--Carlaude 18:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please focus on the editing and not the editor. Use of the word "defy" denotes you taking this all too personally. I have now answered you, as have other users - you simply do not agree with what you read. In any event, how about this: Messianic Jews consider themselves to be Jewish. However, Jews of all denominations do not consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Judaism. Many Christians consider Messianic Judaism a form of Christianity. This is the wording that came about after lots and lots of back & forth edits by many users. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

POV

This has been very clearly demonstrated. You cannot make word mean what you want them to mean.

The POV flag is an indicator that "The neutrality of this article is disputed." -- I dispute it. "Period."

The POV flag is not an indicator that that there is of consensus of POV or anything else. --Carlaude 13:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you appear to have a chip on your shoulder. It doesn't appear that there are many users who share your problems with this article, including MJs. A Sniper (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Main Discussion in other section -- Avi (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing POV Tag

By the way, I see that A Sniper-- despite a claim of neutrality-- has started trying recruiting others to remove the POV flag for him. I will not stand for this. --Carlaude 23:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I observe the revert rules. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with having others follow what is obvious: your flag and POV tone, which appears angry, isn't warranted. At some points this article has appeared like a tract, but we've worked together to make it neutral. You "will not stand for this"? I suggest you get an admin to assist. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I am going to try again to stimulate discussion again, per-WP:BRD.

The POV flag cannot be reserved for people who see a page every day. It is people who see it new who can see notice POV. The POV flag is not an indicator of consensus of POV-- it is an indicator that "The neutrality of this article is disputed." by someone-- the person who put it there. --Carlaude 13:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRD is an essay, not policy, but here you are...as DJ Clayworth has asked, can you explain the reason that you have placed the POV and why in your opinion the article is 'anti-MJ'? Best, A Sniper (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If I may, please point out in talk what specifics are POV. Some sections were created to be POV on purpose in order to balance the article as a whole. We need specifics if we hope to have a constructive re-editing of the article. inigmatus (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with inigmatus - we do not always agree with each other, but we strive to keep the article balanced. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

See above for reasons again.

So WP:BRD is an essay not "policy." What is your point, that your word is policy? Or maybe you think the whole Messianic Judaism article has you have it is somehow "policy"? Or are you just trying to defend your disregard for it?

--Carlaude 15:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Carlaude, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing is a guideline, too. While being bold is good, this article has been the subject of intense debate and careful scrutiny for over a year now, and it is carefully laid out to achieve NPOV in the whole. Being bold is one thing, being over-bold is another. Please use the talk pages to discuss any issues you have; thanks! -- Avi (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that Inigmatus and I both have over 200 edits to this article, so we both have a pretty good handle as to the past discussions. We are not trying to derail anything you do; rather, all of us who are interested in keeping this article NPOV want to forestall the huge edit wars of the past, now that ther actually is a really good article on the topic. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is disregarding anything,Carlaude - you have placed the tag and need to now document precisely why the article is 'anti-MJ', as is your contention. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sniper and Inigmatus. An editor who places a POV tag is expected to come to the talk page and explain what he thinks is POV about the article and how he thinks it should be improved. If he doesn't do this, it's correct to remove the tag. So far, all Carlaude has done is insist the tag belongs without explaining what he thinks is wrong with the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If you go up a section you will find he has explained it. We have a divided discussion here, let's try to bring it to one place. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

new edits

I notice that there have been a group of edits by someone who appears to be involved with one segment of the MJ community - I see this by chatter on that user's talk page. It would probably be good if an editor with direct knowledge of the different groups or organizations and their positions could scrutinize the edits to make sure that information remains balanced and not slanted towards one group or the other. I placed some citation notices, for example. Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on it. I'm not always here, but for the record, feel free to know that I was the one who submitted the article for FA review because I believed the current content to be NPOV. And that, I hope, says a lot for the efforts of all involved to create a very balanced article. inigmatus (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

MJ as 'Christian'

A user is making an edit to the header re: many Christians considering MJ to be Christian. I have maintained that the majority MJ opinion is that they do not like to identify as 'Christian' but instead identify as Jews practicing Judaism in which they accept the Messiah as being 'Yeshua'. Is this not correct to MJ belief? To allow the new edit by the user is actually to blur the issues into something entirely different to what is there now. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the edits you're talking about. All Jewish groups view MJ as a form of Christianity, rather than as a form of Judaism, and many Christians agree with this. Isn't that what it says in the header? -LisaLiel (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi LisaLiel. We had consensus that the header is as correct as all of the regular users could agree upon - namely that MJs see themselves as Jews, but every Jewish denomination does not. In addition, that many Christians view MJs as 'Christian'. The editor Carlaude is wanting to change this so that it is ambiguous. The user also seeks to add the word other to Jews to give the impression that MJ is a denomination of Judaism, which some of us believe to be a POV edit lacking any references. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No consensus.

A Sniper undid edit before anyone else-- say an MJ-- could see it and comment.

The editor Carlaude is wanting to change this so that it not ambiguous.

A Sniper is going to great efforts again (here-- for no reason) to disstort my effort and views and then claims I am taking this personally.

If MJ's consider themselves not Christian it should say so unambiguously-- or at least not imply that they do.

All MJ's I have met with admit to being Christian BUT genrally but do not bring it up that way.

If you think "MJ opinion is that they are not Christian" cite a source. In the mean time let someone else talk without alway trying to get the last word. --Carlaude 21:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The sources are already in the header. The header was written by various users with as possible a consensus that could be achieved. As you are the user who believes there is POV and an 'anti-MJ' slant to the article, state your reasons with citations to refute what is currently there. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest a compromise?. "Jews consider MJ to be not Jewish" has certainly been interpreted as POV, implying (at the least) that the opinion of non-MJ Jews should be taken as factual in the matter, and those of MJ ignored. "Other Jews consider..." has the same problem the other way. Is there another way of working this that reduces the offence on both sides? For example:

• Non-Messianic Jews consider...
• Jews (other than Messianic Jews) consider...
• Jews not associated with the Messianic movement consider...

Other suggestions welcome. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No way. Look, the article is entitled "Messianic Judaism", reflecting MJ's self-identification. That's enough. Wikipedia is not here to accept that as true; it's here to reflect the documented facts. And the documented facts are that all of Judaism considers the J in MJ to be a misnomer. At best, a mistake, and at worst a deliberate fraud.

To refer to Jews as "other Jews" or "non-Messianics" or anything of the sort that you're suggesting is giving the MJ view far too much undue weight. An informative header needs to balance the suggestion (created by the name of the article) that MJ is indeed a form of Judaism.

The problem here is that advocates of MJ have taken the middle ground and decided to use it as an opposing position. It's a sort of "give them an inch and they'll ask for another inch" kind of thing. The consensus is as it stands, and there's no reason to change it. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

How can reporting the views of the subjects of the article be considered "undue weight". By that logic we can report in the Judaism article that "Judaism is a false religion" since that is the opinion of non-Jews, and they far outnumber Jews. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That the Jewish establishment find Messianic Judaism to be not a form of Judaism is a "documented fact" only in that it is a "documented fact" of Jewish establishment opinion.

That they find Messianic Judaism to be not a form of Judaism is still an opinion and not "documented fact."

The compromises would state "documented fact."

• "All Jews, not associated with the Messianic movement, consider it not a form of Judaism."
• "All Rabbtical Jews, consider it not a form of Judaism."
• Etc..--Carlaude (talk) (circa) 7:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

LisaLiel said it all. Amen. The opening header has been worked out by users to reflect as much a compromise position as was possible. To change it to any of the (unsigned) suggestions above is to give one slant undue weight. A Sniper (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

So are you willing to enter WP:DR-- or anything thing else to resolve this?--Carlaude (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Right now there appears to be other fish to fry. You'll note that in the last few days there have been some major edits by MJs of at least a couple of different factions changing considerable doctrinal/organizational sections. As for the issue of the header, I would suggest it is a Wikipedia:DEADHORSE that only you keep bringing up. However, if you actually think there is a dispute, go ahead with WP:DR. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

But just as a caveat, Carlaude, if you want to subject a consensus to DR, I'm going to bring back up the issue of whether it's appropriate to use the name "Messianic Judaism", since the only reason I (and others) dropped that issue was as part of the current consensus. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You are taking this too personally again.

Despite your efforts to declare victory from the start, misrepresent me at every chance, and efforts to avoid dialog, I will ask you again-- So are you willing to enter WP:Dispute resolution?

As you seem to not know, dispute resolution is only possible if you agree to take part-- so you have to agree or not agree. This is the first step so don't tell me again to go do Dispute resolution on my own.--Carlaude (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a real dispute that needs to be resolved. There was one, but it's long since been resolved. I'm sorry you weren't here for it, but I don't think there's any need to bring things up again every time someone new drops in.

I'm sorry if that seems unfriendly. I'm not trying to be; I just don't understand what the purpose is of raising dead issues like this one. If you need an agreement to enter dispute resolution, well, you don't have it from me. It seems like a waste of time. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Carlaude, thanks for bringing this up. I encourage you to keep this in the talk before making an edit to the article header though, since Lisa and Sniper are correct in that the current header reflects consensus. I posted on your talk page. inigmatus (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Intro "all Jewish denominations do not consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Judaism"

I find changing the conclusion of the source to be that all Jewish denominations view MJ as Christianity, skews the intent of the paragraph concerning the MJ position on their Jewish status. Changing the conclusion that MJ is not seen as Jewish by other Jewish denominations, to a DIFFERENT conclusion that MJ is seen by other Jewish denomns as "Christian" seem to me to be POV pushing in the form that the reader is led to believe as "fact" that "if one groups considers MJ to be Christian, then OF COURSE it's certainly not Jewish." Instead the intent of the paragraph is communicated just fine in that the Jewish status of MJ is disputed by all Jewish denomns (the removal of "other" Jewish denoms being the compromise). Now someone wants to take it a step further beyond this concession and now wants to post that all Jewish denoms consider MJ to be Christianity... skewing the original intent of the paragraph, forcing an unwritten conclusion (that if one is Christian that one is not Jewish), and almost smacks of being a disclaimer. To keep balance, I highly suggest not changing this intro without consensus, or else put that information in the appropriate Jewish objections section of the article. inigmatus (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

While I find it interesting that you weren't concerned about modifications to the header by Carlaude, I'm willing to stick with this wording. But consensus works in both directions, Inigmatus. Not just the one that suits MJs. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Sorry Lisa, I haven't been more active. I just saw the recent change only, and not the ones from before. I had posted far above concerning the tags, that they arent necessary. I didn't realize some POV pushing has been engaged in. I certainly value your guys input as well as MJs. This article needs it. I'll see what I can do to help clean up the article and talk to some of the other editors. :) inigmatus (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think what the three of us agree on is that the header, as it has stood (Messianic Jews consider themselves to be Jewish. However, Jews of all denominations do not consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Judaism. Many Christians consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Christianity.), is indeed one of consensus. This I have tried to state clearly to Carlaude, who started this ball rolling again. I made the mistake of trying to re-word Carlaude's recent edit, instead of simply reverting (again). I hope we can keep the header as is and that there is no need for dispute resolution, etc., which is what Carlaude seeks. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree here. "All Jewish denominations..." carries the clear implication that Wikipedia considers as a matter of fact that MJ is not Jewish. That's not a position Wikipedia should be endorsing. There are good alternative wordings that I suggested above. I think dispute resolution might be a good idea. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You've missed the point of our consensus - which is 'balance', and that includes the input of MJ inigmatus. If you feel you must go to DR, you might be there alone. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to push the point about DR, but I still thing there are less-biased versions than what we have now. See what I suggested on May 9th. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I mean this with all due respect, DJ Clayworth - I believe the other users did have a chance to review your options. However, what users such as LisaLiel and inigmatus pointed out is that a lot of work and back & forth editing went into finding a balance in the overall article. To change the wording now would be to tip that in one direction of POV over another. inigmatus, a professed MJ, did the bulk of writing and editing of the article and he was satisfied with the balance created by all of us without a single user resorting to an 'edit war'. You might recall there was one user who came aboard with the POV notice, all guns blazing, and then he/she ceased - and calm came once again. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it accepted that the statement "All Jewish denominations..." is biased towards the view of non-Messianic Jews, but that this is balanced by other statements which are biased in favour of MJ? If so, then I think that's aiming too low for Wikipedia. We should be aiming to be neutral throughout. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What is fact is that a) MJs consider themselves Jewish and b) all Jewish denominations (all of established Judaism, from the most liberal to the most traditional) does not consider MJs as being a part of Judaism because, for 2000 years, believers in Christ are considered members of another religion. Some users were complaining that the very use of the word 'Judaism' in the title of MJ was itself misleading and false, but compromises from either side avoided this. The MJs understand, even if they don't themselves agree, that they are not considered a part of Judaism by Jewish people or established Jewish religion - even the yellow pages. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I see above the subtle assumption that the view of MJ as "not Jewish" is the correct and factual one, not as the opinion of of a group of people. You write "What is fact is that...all Jewish denominations ... does not consider MJs as being a part of Judaism". That is true only if you already consider it a fact that MJ is not a Jewish denomination, and that it's views on the subject don't therefore count.

I understand that some people believe MJ to be anti-semitic and deceitful and I have no problem with recording the fact of that belief. But should we really shift the factual balance of this article to accommodate those views? I don't think so. Some people consider Judaism itself to be demonic and evil - should we change what is recorded as fact in the Judaism article in the spirit of compromise with those people? I would say strongly no. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You're reading far more into my posting than is there, DJ Clayworth. I'm not stating whether MJ is Christian, Jewish or antisemitic - I am pointing to the references which state that all Jewish denominations do not consider Messianic Judaism to be 'Judaism'. The explanations at these references are clear that believers in Jesus are members of another religion, not Judaism. The views of MJ do count, which is why they are able to self-identify, and this is reflected in the article. Your comparison of all of contemporary Judaism on the one hand with some people consider Judaism itself to be demonic and evil on the other, I can't find the words to address... A Sniper (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If MJ is Jewish then it is not true that all Jewish denominations consider MJ to be Christian - because MJ consider themselves to be Jewish. By saying "all Jewish denominations..." you are implying that MJ is not one of them. My apologies for the comparison; it was intended to show what can happen if you try to change what is reported as fact to accommodate the views of those who seem to be opposed to a group. If we can agree that is a bad idea then I'll say no more. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, maybe the time has come to stop this conversation. I think the current wording is the best that is likely to be achieved at the current time, and it's already better than the last time I had this conversation, several years ago. Maybe in a few years we'll be able to improve it again. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't believe that anyone is being difficult because it appears there are editors with different views and mindsets, working together. We're doing what we can to keep the article as correct and neutral as possible. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

New Intro

Recommend the following intro -- it's more clear and specific:

Messianic Judaism is a Christian movement that emphasizes the Jewish roots of the Christian religion. Accordingly they continue many Jewish religious and cultural practices, use Jewish names and expressions, and call Jesus by the more Hebraic form of the name -- Yeshua.

The movement is accepted by Christian denominations, and often holds services in Christian churches on Friday nights or Saturday mornings. Larger Messianic congregations build their own synagogues.

Although many members of the movement are halakhically Jewish, the various streams of Judaism are unanimous in their rejection of MJ as a form of Judaism.

As of 1993 there were 160,000 adherents of Messianic Judaism in the United States and 350,000 worldwide. As of 2003, there were at least 150 Messianic synagogues in the U.S. and over 400 worldwide. By 2008, the number of Messianics in the United States was around a quarter million. The number of Messianic Jews in Israel is reported to be anywhere between 6,000 and 15,000 members.

What was wrong or lacking in the previous intro that warrants the necessity for a new one? This new wording almost smacks of a POV disclaimer. Simply posting a source's defintion for MJ that favors one viewpoint that it is Christian funded is totally ignorant of the fact that much of the MJ I am familiar with is serious NOT funded by any Christian organizations. In fact, J4J may be Christian funded, but certain not all of Messianic Judaism which could only be the acceptable criteria for inclusion of such a ridiculous statement, no matter how sourced. inigmatus (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

Transcluded from Talk:Messianic_Judaism/GA1

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Messianic Judaism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I believe this article should receive Good Article status. It has taken over three years to get it to where it is now, and most disputes seem to be resolved in its presentation. inigmatus (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Fixed a nested quotes issue. The Law and Grace section seems to use weasel words. Suggest that be fixed, too.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Some sections need better citations--e.g., scriptural commentary, eschatology

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Several things seem redundant or handled in two places, e.g, People of God and Messianic Jewish Conversion

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   It is remarkable, and a credit to the editors, that such a controversial topic is presented so amicably.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   Still seems to be fairly actively edited.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   There is room for another image or two in an article of this size.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Despite the issues, I call this a pass. It's GA, but needs work for FA. Jclemens (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources, and such

I'm not married to the version that's there -- but it's more specific than the one J is trying to put in. MJs do not just think they are Jewish, but many of them actually are (even though their religion is Christian). Also, it is not just many Christians who accept them, but there aren't any that reject them on doctrinal grounds (although some "Compound Unity" MJs SHOULD be rejected by Christians as a heresy). Also, they aren't just funded by Christians, but actually worship in their churches unless they are large enough to fund their own building. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I know of a Church that meets in a synagogue, and a synagogue that meets in a church. This doesn't mean one is funded by the other. Furthermore stating that Messianic Judaism is a Christian funded organization (what organization? we're the most splintered group of people I know!) is akin to the former debates of adding a disclaimer. Is it me, or is saying "Messianic Judaism is a Christian funded organized religion" a thinly veiled POV disclaimer? I can find sources for both yes and no on this question, thus it is better to be left out of the intro and hashed in the appropriate subsections - as was originally designed to help keep this article from reverting to an edit war. I am a Messianic Jew. I have many many Messianic Jewish friends that will readily attest to our LACK of support by the Christian Church. Do you want examples? I've got tons. The only congregations getting support from churches are those that aren't keeping Torah, and most likely could fit into the category of a Christian church meeting on Saturday - perhaps this better describes J4J than orthodox Torah observant Messianic Judaism. If we were so "funded" by Christians as you claim, then tell me why Messianic Jewish synagogues are a rareity? My rabbi and our congregation would LOVE to get our hands on just a sliver of the "millions" being spent by Christians to fund the movement to build OUR synagogue. As if. Sorry for my rant, but I find this idea of being funded by Christian churches not only deeply inaccurate by deeply offensive as well.inigmatus (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I don't know who inserted that line - it wasn't there during all of the consensus-building between the various users working diligently for NPOV during the last year. Sorry it wasn't noticed. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I now see that Jayjg mentioned that it was from a source. If so, then at the least it should be noted that way in the text, not just the reference. Blah blah has referred to MJ as ".....". A Sniper (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

A quote like that would best be in a subsection, or else to maintain POV balance the intro would have to have a counter-source also so quoted - and I don't want to bloat the intro since it's already pretty concise and agreed to consensus without modification - and passed when it was considered for Good Article. It has stood the test of time and consensus, and I see no reason to modify a Good Article intro, as the new additions such as that one proposed, would unnecessarily skew the POV of it. In fact the only reason I could see for including that new phraseology would be to simply introduce yet another attempt at a "Christian" disclaimer phrase for the article, which has been debunked before since the consensus was no disclaimer in favor of removing "other Jewish denominations." Unless other parties want "other" Jewish denominations included in the intro, I suggest keeping the intro as-is since that was the compromise. inigmatus (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Also -- on consensus -- J just reverted a consensus version. At least today, two editors created the version that one editor reverted. The consensus -- at least at present -- is in favor of mine and Lisa's SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Great points, but you didn't actually provide any sources for them, and you removed other material that was sourced. The version of the lede that currently exists was worked out via painful consensus that lasted many months, not just a complete re-write with one editor's quick modifications. Why not propose a new version here, and we'll work on it together? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You've seen my proposed version, and reverted it. I'd like to include Lisa's clarifications as well. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Please bring your version here so we can discuss it. As a simple example of issues with it, the entire second paragraph:

The movement is accepted by Christian denominations, and often holds services in Christian churches on Friday nights or Saturday mornings. Larger Messianic congregations build their own synagogues.

is unsourced. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand you correctly -- Christians fund them but do not accept them? In any case, I can find sources for that paragraph, and will take the time to do so if you are open to improving the header. If you aren't, there's not much point. Please state what you will include with sourcing, and I'll find sourcing. Anything you won't include with sourcing, I won't bother. Fair? SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps to save you some trouble: the lede doesn't say anywhere that "Christians do not accept" MJs. The lede clearly states that some Christians consider MJs to be Christians, and this is sourced. A Sniper (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The lead actually says -- "Many Christians consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Christianity.[10]" Many is an unnecessary weasel word, and so is form of. Messianic Judaism is a Christian movement, much as Charismatics are. A movement crosses denominational lines, and so Messianics worship in many different denomination buildings until they are large enough to fund their own building. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Your point being taken, regardless of what you've described as weasel words, the point of the line is that a percentage of representatives of Christian denominations consider MJ to be Christian, whether a sect, denomination or line-blurring group. This was a line that was agreed upon after much wrangling by all camps - please check the history of the article, as well as this very talk page - the MJs didn't see a problem with the line per se and the Jewish editors supported its inclusion as it further identified the group as being Christian. A Sniper (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Specifically WHICH Christian groups did you source as NOT accepting Messianic Judaism as a Christian movement? The "many" involves an exception that is blatantly missing from the article. At least document the exception. If not, then remove the weasel word. That's fair, isn't it? SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I would stress that the entire lede was written over a period of time with the assistance of a group of editors, at least two of whom identified as being from the MJ community. Through a series of back & forth edits we came to a compromise on issues, all backed by sources. The latest tinkering seems unnecessary and to drift away from the consensus. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I reverted it since it does not meet with consensus, and that intro was stable for a very very very long time with multiple parties on all sides in agreement on it after much debate and compromise. inigmatus (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat my offer -- I'll source anything that you'll accept if sourced. I won't bother if there is something other than sourcing as a priority here. If the weasle wording is required by some previous consensus in which one side was demanding the weasle wording, then I won't waste your time, or mine, improving the article. So, please tell me what part of my intro you will not accept if it is sourced, and I'll forget about it. However, if you don't, then per Wikipedia standards I'll provide the sources and remove the current weasel wording. It's a fair offer. Just tell me what is prohibited regardless of how well it is sourced, and I'll forget about it. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

All editor suggestions and support is encouraged. However, this article has a history including lots of struggles and, after a period of edit warring and problems, consensus among editors (of various backgrounds and mindsets) who remained involved after the dust settled. You can see on this talk page the back & forth involved with rectifying POV. On a personal level I would state that the best way forward is to bring ideas to the talk page - the edit, revert & discuss route will just lead back to here anyway. You're right in figuring that, due to the consensus, particular wording was agreed in exchange for inclusion of other parts - as long as everything was sourced to allow for balance overall. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I repeat my request -- please state which aspects are immune to Wikipedia standards and sourcing because of political arangements from previous editors. It's a fair request. I will not push Wikipedia standards on the aspects of my intro that you explicitly state are immune. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the relevance is of your question. All the elements in the consensus lead were sourced, and complied with all Wikipedia standards. On the other hand, your changes were unsourced, and did not comply with Wikipedia standards. If you would like to propose changes to the lead, then please do so here. Please ensure that your comments explicitly state which parts of the lead you think do not follow Wikipedia standards, and why you think they do not. Nothing is "prohibited", so long as all proposals comply with Wikipedia standards. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And Jayjg, you of all people should realize this article was not designed per standard wikipolicy, or else we'd wikilawyer all day until the admins were involved (which includes you) and at that point there would be no fair representation by any MJ view. This article tends to follow the wikistandard that there are no standards - in that one should edit an article as best possible to reach consensus, not POV. In actuality, this article has only survived without major edit wars due to POV balancing, not NPOV voicing. That is why there are subsections for presenting various viewpoints. The intro needs to stay truly neutral, without POV, even if you can find "neutral" sources. The phrase "is a Christian funded" is totally false, meaning your source is false, not that it's sourced. For consensus sake the intro was just fine without the addition. Please move that "clarification" to the appropriate subsection in the article. Please. inigmatus (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, Harris-Shapiro, the person who literally "wrote the book" on the movement, and one of the most sympathetic ears the movement has had in Judaism, says explicitly that they are "Christian funded"; it's right in the quote included in the reference. Please review WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." If you have other similarly reliable sources that say the movement is not Christian funded, please bring them forward. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg - First, it's impossible to absolutely disprove a negative. If anything the onus of proof is on one to prove that "Christian funded" is an accurate statement applicable to the general (and for purpose of consensus I would demanding it be applicable to even the orthodox Torah-observant since in my view those are the only Messianic Jews that can rightfully claim the label). Second, I would like to know what exactly is funded - the missionary activities (like what), the buildings, the Torah scrolls, the Artscroll siddurim, the salaries of rabbis who denounce the Church's way of life and its pagan practices? My "tons" of sources are the clear statements that churches will not financially support the "judaizing" of Christianity:

Christians Should Not Give To Those Teaching The Doctrine Of The Judaizers.

But Gal. 6:6-17, read in context with other verses in the Galatian epistle, suggest that Paul was teaching something else as well. As we will see, these verses, read in context, provide evidence that Paul was teaching that Christians should not give to anyone who was teaching the doctrine of the Judaizers, a doctrine which included the teaching that Christians were under obligation to the law of Moses. Three facts provide evidence of this.

from: http://christianitywithoutcompromise.com/essays/webessay3_galatians_.pdf on page 5.

or

"You cannot give money to help build Satan's kingdom," I explained, "and in doing so, please our Lord God. If the Zionist Jews are doggedly determined to mock and disrespect the truth, why should you, a Christian, help make that come to fruition?"

from: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/scofield.htm

and many others. inigmatus (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you said you could bring sources stating the opposite, and now you can't? Please don't use your original research based on New Testament verses to "disprove" what reliable sources have said on the matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Many

I've reviewed the history, and I see no support for "many" in the place I made a fact tag. It looks like there was indeed a lot of work back and forth here, there are a lot of citations. One almost implies the "many", and another uses "many" in a different way than is meant in the sentence. My recommendation is to either find an explicit citation of a denomination that officially states Messianic Judaism is NOT Christian, or take out the word "many." I'd be satisfied to stop being a nudge if you two do one of those two things. I don't care which. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

All right -- now this is ridiculous. I asked you to cite the exception, or remove the weasel word. Instead you removed my tag. This is stretching good faith. First, you refuse to cite WHO the exception is. Second, you refuse to state WHAT part of my intro will not be accepted regardless of sourcing. Now you won't support EITHER option I gave you when I boiled my objection down to a single word. I think you need to go back and look up the word, "consensus." Completely ignoring any and all requests for reason is not consensus, but rather edit warring. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, I have no objection to "many" being in there as long as the exception is cited. That's extremely fair. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Again: where does it say in the lede that some Christians DO NOT consider MJs Christian? The reference is to support that, at the very least, most Christians DO consider MJ Christian. If you can find a reference that ALL Christian denominations consider MJs as Christian, go right ahead and put that in...but it is a tall order. You'd have to find a reference that is all-inclusive. That is why your argument that MOST is a weasel word falls flat. It was a fair way of stating that it is nearly impossible to prove that every, single Christian denomination considers MJ as being within the Christian fold. So, the onus is on you to produce a source that MJs are considered Christian by all of Christendom. A Sniper (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not -- for the simple reason that this would require explicit statements from every existing denomination and group, which numbers in the tens of thousands. They do not do that even for each other, which is tens of thousands multiplied by tens of thousands. Instead, they state a negative for some groups. Your demand for tens of thousands of explicit statements instead of accepting my request that you state ONE that holds an exception -- is on the face of it absurd. I'm asking for one exception. Just one. It's not a tall order. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If you believe that 'Christians believe that MJs are a form of Christianity', and you don't want to find a source that states that, fine - let's let that stand! I have just edited it so that it reads that 'Christians agree with Jews that MJs are a form of Christianity'. So now everyone agress that MJs are Christian. Phew! Buddu-bum (drum roll, cymbal crash). Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Cynicism is unhelpful

Christians do not agree with Jews here. They state a similar conclusion, yes, but they do not do this for the sake of Jews, and they do not care whether they agree or not. As such your cynical edit violates SYNTH. Please remove the cyncism and find a simple exception. Hint: you MAY find something from Reformed (i.e. Calvinistic) groups who object to "Judaizing." I've not seen such a source, but you could possibly find one. I'll even try to look with you. Surely you agree that finding such a source would add some color while supporting the word "Many" in the sentence. This is my final attempt to compromise with you -- and even to HELP you. Please accept it. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This is your issue. You are the one who has a problem with what has stood the test of time - at least by Wikipedia standards. It is you who want to state that Christians (not some, not most - just 'Christians') think that MJs are a part of Christianity. I have no problem with that. Whether or not one is trying to appease the other, as it now stands Christians and Jews BOTH believe MJs to be within Christianity. That's cool with me. Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine -- I'm worn out. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Blessed be the peacemakers ;) A Sniper (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I'm in that very chapter right now in my third New Testament translation. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the way these things work out sometimes. Have a nice Sunday. A Sniper (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Missing the point

I notice that up in the "Sources" section, there's a lot of argument going on about whether MJ is considered a form of Christianity by Christians or not. I think the problem is really one of terminology. Some people read "Christianity" as synonymous with "Christianity and not Judaism". Others read "Christianity" as being consistent with "both Christianity and Judaism".

So what are we saying when we say that "Christians view MJ as a form of Christianity"? Those who see Christianity and Judaism as mutually exclusive will read that as "Christians view MJ as a form of Christianity, and not a form of Judaism". Those who do not can read it as "Christians view MJ as a form of Christianity" without excluding the possibility that they also view it as a form of Judaism.

Obviously, I think they're mutually exclusive. But my view isn't the point here (unfortunately). Still, I think it's incontroverably true that Christians (all of them) would view MJ as a form of Christianity, at least to the extent that they'd view any denomination they don't happen to belong to as being a form of Christianity. Thus Tim's edit is correct. But Ignatius seems to be assuming, ironically enough, the Jewish view as dominant, and is therefore objecting to the statement on the grounds that it implies MJ to be not-Judaism.

I think it's fair to say that:

• Most, if not all Christian groups view MJ as Christian
• Some Christian groups view MJ as Jewish
• All Jewish groups view MJ as Christian and not Jewish

If there are no objections to this, the question would then be how to phrase this in a clearly understandable way. If there are objections... well, I guess I'll see them Thursday night. Chag Sameach to those who are Jewish and non-MJ. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This was already taken care of with a 'final' edit (after the back & forth with Tim) to how it reads now: that Christians and Jews consider MJ to be a form of Christianity - Tim did not register a problem with this, and (of course) I certainly like it. Hag Sameach. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

New Intro "Christian funded?"

Why modify a GA Consensus-built intro, BEFORE bringing such a change here to the talk page, for an article that is hotly contested as this? Please explain. And please explain why a wiki admin would do this too, knowing full well the history of this article? What was lacking for months on end when the intro stood just fine without dispute? I do not support the current intro as modified, as it is patently false in its generalistic application to anyone claiming to be a Messianic Jew. My shul is certainly not supported by Christians, nor are those of many many others. If you're going to add a "Christian" disclaimer (sourced of course) to the intro, then please modify the phrase "various groups of Judaism to say " all other groups of Judaism..." and Ill happily provide that "source" too. If you want compromise, that's what's been agreed to for months. We remove "all other" you remove "Christian" since both are technically accurate with sources, and both are technically wrong with sources. Please keep the intro as-is. If it's not broke, don't fix it. And Chag Sameach to all. inigmatus (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty, Inigmatus, I don't know why this edit bothers you. Surely you'll admit that the MJ movement receives funds from Christian organizations, even if individual congregations don't. If MJ is a movement, then it's relevant that the movement is Christian funded. If it isn't a movement, but only a scattered collection of individual congregations, then MJ shouldn't be called a movement, and possibly shouldn't have a Wikipedia article at all. Do you see the difference? -LisaLiel (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Inigmatus, to begin with, the version of the intro you keep reverting to isn't the "GA Consensus-built intro" either,[6] so I'm not sure why you keep making this claim. In addition, as pointed out above, the reliable source which makes this statement explicitly is, well, reliable, and quoted in the first footnote. Also, the claim that you are arguing against is a straw man; the source doesn't say that your particular congregation receives funds from Christian organizations, but rather that the movement as a whole does. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)