Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Jews for Jesus 2/Archive 1

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.

Blanket Ban Proposal

This proposal is for the attention of all users involved with this case: I propose a "blanket ban" on all users, where they refrain from editing the article Jews for Jesus. This way, we can concentrate on the matter as it was accepted by the mediation committee, rather than an article that is constantly being edited, reverted, fixed, gnomed, and re-reverted again. I invite all users to agree or disagree immediately below this proposal, in the same format as we agreed (with the option to disagree) to the mediation. Regards, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 18:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Disagree Homestarmy 18:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC) (Err, I assume we aren't allowed to make comments again with the vote? I was about to justify myself....)
2. Agree based on the discussions below. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Disagree ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Blanket Ban Proposal Comments

Do we need to protect the article then, to prevent newcomers from editing, or is this just for the people in mediation? I'm inclined to agree; I'm just curious why Homestarmy disagreed.Mackan79 20:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I had made a long comment justifying it, but since Anthony says its a vote like the preliminary accept ones, I assumed he'd delete my comment.... Homestarmy 23:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not following you at all. Please clarify. Kind regards, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 01:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think what Homestarmy and Mackan (and me too) are wondering-would this be a prohibition which applies solely to users in this mediation (which would just require our consensus and for everyone to honor it), or would it really be a ban on all users, even those outside this mediation (which would require protection or some other kind of admin intervention?) Seraphimblade 01:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's not what I was wondering. It's just the last revert I made to someone's change over one of the issues in question was a revert that I think anyone should be allowed to make any time, I mean, the person I reverted (who I don't think i've ever seen before) changed "Jews for Jesus is a Christian...." to "Jews for Jesus is a jewish...." without captializing, without replacing the old references with superior ones that demonstrated that the previous ones were wrong, without talking, and as far as I can tell without any real prior participation in the article at all. This sort of thing happens often in the history of the page, and the article quality would probably go downhill fast if people couldn't revert in time. Homestarmy 02:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You have a point there too-although I think that's one everyone involved would have agreed on, I looked through the history and saw that, and I can't imagine any of us would've argued not to revert that. Maybe a better agreement would be not to make any changes that have previously been made and challenged? Seraphimblade 03:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The most effective method would be not to "ban" (indicating repercussions similar to arb com's such as banning in the event of defiance) but to "request that users involved in the mediation refrain from editing a) any edits of any other users involved in the mediation, and b) anything more than simple spelling, grammar or gnoming edits to the article." This means that we are mediating the article and therefore dispute as it was registered, rather than one that no longer exists as the article has been edited so much since the case was accepted. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 17:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I would agree to it at that, and I'd suggest someone should put a copy of the article in userspace in case anyone wants to do any "demonstration" edits. (Of course, I don't think anyone would have any objection to the removal of blatant vandalism or that type of thing from the main copy.) That way, it can be done like Mackan did earlier ("Hey, I suggest this, what does everyone think?") but not disrupt the main article. What does everyone think of this? Seraphimblade 00:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The Blanket Ban Proposal is not to be implemented, per the Final Draft (I) at bottom. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 01:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Editor's Summaries

Seraphimblade

To me, the dispute centers over the proper interpretation of WP:NPOV. I believe the article, as it stands, has an "editorial" tone-that we are stating in Wikipedia's voice that JfJ is "wrong" about being Jewish. While we should present the criticism and arguments of those who say so, I believe we ourselves need to avoid "taking a side", per the NPOV guideline of treating all views, where they do merit a mention, as plausible. Seraphimblade 21:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In order to build as clear a picture as possible of every editor's opinion, would you care to provide some specific examples from the article, and the relevant section of WP:NPOV that you are believe the given quote violates? Regards, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 00:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

One main example is the {{Christianity}} template being included in the article, stating that it is "part of a series of articles on Christianity." It is not customary to use this template in articles about individual Christian organizations (short of major denominations), and the use of such a template appears to take the side "Yes, they are solely Christian." Use of both the Christianity and Judaism templates, if it were done, would be editorializing the other direction-"Yes, we agree they are both Christian and Jewish." The template is currently removed, and I believe it should stay that way.

Similarly, in the opening paragraph, JfJ is characterized as "a Christian organization", despite the fact that they claim to be both Christian and Jewish. This violates NPOV in several ways-"Let the facts speak for themselves", we should include their claim to being Jewish even if we find it unlikely (and, of course, include the objections to this claim and the reasons behind them), and "Fairness of tone" for the same reason-this specifies that we must present their position as a plausible one, and not "editorialize" that they are wrong.

Further, statements such as this:

"According to Judaism, these "indications" are based on mistranslations [21] [22] [23] and Jesus did not fulfill the qualifications for Jewish Messiah. The vision of God as a trinity is seen by Judaism as a deviation from monotheism and therefore is rejected. [24]"

are not properly attributed-there is no single group called "Judaism", and that's an editorial as to what Judaism says. Rather, we should state that "many" or "most" Jewish groups disagree, or cite specific examples of those groups which agree. It's editorializing to state that all of Judaism disagrees-JfJ claims to be part of Judaism and disagrees with such an interpretation, and by stating that "Judaism disagrees", we are by implication stating in Wikipedia's voice that this claim is false. (We are also by extension editorializing on Messianic Judaism, which also would seem to disagree with this statement.) This statement is not in the current version of the article (as of this writing anyway!), but has been defended and reverted to in previous versions. This violates "Attributing and substantiating biased statements" from WP:NPOV-just as we certainly should not state JfJ's position as factual or the final authority on what Judaism says, neither should this be accorded to those who oppose them. We should simply state who the participants actually are, and their positions.

I'm afraid this is a bit longer than 100 words, but anything but the short summary you earlier requested is going to require that. Seraphimblade 00:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Mackan79

(Apologies for the length, but I think it’s necessary to lay out the issues. Along with my statement, I made my proposed edits here,[1] (Difs here[2]) for easy reference.)

In my view, statements like "Jewish groups oppose JfJ and many see its proselytizing activities as a veiled attack on Judaism" need to be qualified, either by a.) naming the opposing groups, or b.) reference to "many" or "most" Jewish groups, with sources cited. If not, WP is improperly speaking for all Jewish groups, when no sources support this. Such unqualified statements are especially problematic when speaking of opposition to JfJ (considering many Jewish groups have never even commented on JfJ), but also when talking about theological positions which JfJ disputes, in the article about JfJ. ("According to Judaism, these 'indications' are based on mistranslations.")

Opposing editors misconstrue Weasel, which doesn't prohibit qualifiers, but prohibits crediting beliefs to large groups without citation. Essentially, they get the policy backwards, trying to fix a sentence, "Many people believe the Yankees are the best ever," with simply "People believe the Yankees are the best ever." Clearly, removing "many" does not improve any weasel problem, but only makes it worse.

Ultimately, statements of what "many" or "most" Jewish groups believe are necessary, however, since listing each group is infeasible. Thus, referencing "many Jewish groups" and then citing several, is entirely appropriate. See Weasel ("As with any rule of thumb, this guideline should be balanced against other needs for the text, especially the need for brevity and clarity," and stating as an exception to the rule situations "When the belief or opinion is actually the topic of discussion," as it is here.)

This summary of what many Jewish groups say would be especially appropriate in the Lead, rather than listing "Jewish denominations," "Jewish groups" and "The State of Israel" separately.

Finally, IMO, minority views should not be presented as wrong in articles about the minority, nor can JfJ's views re: Judaism simply be disregarded in an article about JfJ. Per NPOV, "Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better," and "[V]iews that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views."(Emphasis added). This doesn't mean presenting JfJ as authentically Jewish, but it does mean not disputing JfJ's claims except by reference to the disputants. (See section on JfJ and Judaism, which is essentially an extended argument against JfJ)

Other issue: I oppose the Christianity banner for several reasons. 1. The banner says this is part of a series on Christianity, which is incorrect. It’s an article about a controversial group, not about Christianity. 2. To the extent the article is "related" to Christianity, it's also related to Judaism. 3. That the group espouses Christian views does not make it an article about Christianity. The banner is not placed, for instance, on any evangelical organizations I can find, nor evangelical individuals. In sum, the banner should be for articles on Christianity, not any group alleged to be Christian, particularly where the label is controversial and potentially insulting both to the group itself and to Christianity generally. Many thanks, Mackan79 00:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It does appear that your proposed edits implement WP:NPOV in the most efficient manner; however, no edits are to be implemented until everyone has had the opportunity to make their statement. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 14:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I was just finding it very difficult to describe the changes I think are necessary. I tried to fix the problem. Thanks, Mackan79 16:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, it wasn't a telling off :P I'll revert it, unless you've managed to fix it. Regards, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 17:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Homestarmy

The thing about all this is, i'm not actually as concerned about the primary issues as most other editors I think. I recognize that NPOV is clearly in dispute much of the time, and i've certainly thrown my 2 cents in several times over probably all of these issues, but my main problem is the Christianity template. Most of what i've seen about motivations about using the template aren't really good, as much of it seems to be that some editors feel that without it, readers might somehow get the impression that Jews for Jesus is Jewish. How they would get this impression despite the plethora of references against this, the entire section dedicated to espousing the fundamental principles of Judaism, and the long list in the intro of authorities denouncing JfJ's claim is something I don't quite understand. Irregardless, the template is still there, and any attempts at removal have resulted in edit wars. It didn't help that many of the attempts at removal were by single-purpose accounts or frequent 3RR violaters though.... Homestarmy 02:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Humus sapiens

Practically every sentence in the article has been disputed at some point or another, that explains the amount of refs. The essence of the dispute is whether JFJ may represent Jews and Judaism. My positions are based on reliable sources. Unfortunately, despite all the evidence, some editors still seem to be unable to believe that there is no "minority" in Judaism that accepts Jesus as son of God and the Messiah. There is no such minority because it would contradict one of Judaism's core beliefs. This was the nature of the historical schism between two belief systems that occurred about 2 millennia ago. When someone claims to adopt or follow some religion, it would be wrong for him to contradict or misrepresent its core beliefs. Now to Issues to be mediated:

• Attempts to add "many", "most", "in general" when addressing the position of Judaism in regards to JFJ's beliefs effectively mean there is the minority... - see above.
• "Jewish organizations oppose..." ... should a qualifier such as "several", "many", or "most" be used? - same question, same answer.
• "majority side of a debate as correct when the opposing side is clearly a very small minority, on a page devoted to the minority group?" - same question, same answer.
• IMO, the {{Christianity}} template does belong in the beliefs section because it shows how JFJ beliefs correspond to Christian beliefs: trinity, etc. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ramsquire

I have positions on this issue which puts me in both camps of the mediation. The first one is a simple one for me. The Christianity banner in the article is inappropriate. Jews for Jesus is a fringe group in Christianity with limited influence on the religion as a whole. To place this banner in the article is to mislead readers as to the nature of this organization and it's relationship to the rest of Christianity. To wit, Jews for Jesus does not even fit into any of the links of the banner as it is not a denomination but rather a parachurch organization. I will not assume bad faith of the users who originally placed the banner in the article, but as it is, it appears to be used in a manner to embarass Jews for Jesus. There were also links to Anti-Semitism, and anti-Judaism in the article that seemed to serve the same purpose.

On the other hand however, Jews for Jesus is a Christian organization. They explicitly claim that the Jews in their title relate to their ethnicity.[3] They also unambiguously state:

“ In the Jewish worldview, non-Jews are referred to as "Gentiles." Gentile" is the non-Jewish ethnic category. Yet not all Gentiles are Christians. The term "Christian" refers to anyone, of any ethnicity, who believes in Jesus Christ. The word "Christ" is Greek for "Messiah." Any follower of Jesus the Messiah, therefore, is a Christian (a messianic believer). That believer might be Jewish or of any other lineage.

Thus, "Jewish" refers to who we are. "Christian" is a designation for who we follow.

”

Seraphim believes that they claim to be of both religions. We disagree on that point. I believe their actual position is that the teachings of Jesus, (i.e. the New Testament) is compatible with Judaism. They do not claim that belief in him as Messiah, or as Deity, is compatible with Judaism. In fact, it is not. One of the 13 pillars of Judaism states "I Believe With Complete Faith In The Coming Of The Messiah....". Therefore any ethnic Jew who takes a Messiah ceases to be religiously Jewish. To couch this incompatibility in terms of "Most", "Many" or "Virtual All" is misleading and unnecessarily inaccurate. In addition, as Jews for Jesus believe in the Trinity, this is also incompatible with Judaism. The first two pillars of Judaism is: 1)I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, blessed be His Name, is the Creator and Guide of everything that has been created; He alone has made, does make, and will make all things; and 2) I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, blessed be His Name, is One, and that there is no unity in any manner like His, and that He alone is our God, who was, and is, and will be.

However, all this discussion of what Jews for Jesus is, and whether one can be of both faiths is irrelevant, as the subject of the article does not make this claim in my opinion. Sorry for the length. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Mackan79

Hey, just returned after getting kicked out for the last couple days. Question: is Mperel on a wikibreak? This is moving pretty quickly, and that's good, but it seems we kind of need everybody's input.

In truth, I would almost wonder if we couldn't talk through some of the specific examples -- I'm not sure there are more than three or four, particularly after we replace certain ones with specific sources. The examples I could find were these:

1.)

According to Judaism, these "indications" are based on mistranslations.

For which I suggested this:

According to Rabbi Shraga Simmons and others, these "indications" are based on mistranslations.

2.)

Jewish groups oppose Jews for Jesus and many see its proselytizing activities as a veiled attack on Judaism.

vs. this:

Many Jewish groups oppose Jews for Jesus, seeing its proselytizing activities as a veiled attack on Judaism.

3.)

One of the most important Jewish principles of faith is the belief in one God and one God only with no partnership of any kind (see Devarim 6:4), and belief in Jesus as deity, son of God, or Christ, is usually held as incompatible with Judaism.

Which I think should be changed to this:

Religious Jewish groups widely contest Jews for Jesus' identification with Judaism. These groups commonly say/suggest/argue that one of the most important Jewish principles of faith is the belief in one God and one God only with no partnership of any kind (see Devarim 6:4), and thus that belief in Jesus as deity, son of God, or Christ, is incompatible with Judaism.

4.)

The vision of God as a trinity is seen by Judaism as a deviation from monotheism and therefore is rejected.

Which I think should be removed, since it's clearly stated above.

5.)

Jewish denominations,[6] Jewish groups, [7][8][9] and the State of Israel [10] reject the group's self-identification as Jewish due to the Christian beliefs of its members and its evangelical activities. [11] [12] [13]

For which I suggest this:

Jewish groups generally reject the group's identification as Jewish, however, due to the Christian beliefs of its members and its evangelical activities.

My reasons, for now: 1.) Naming sources. 2.) All Jewish groups can't oppose JfJ. "Many" here seems to work pretty well. 3.) This section has been presented as an explanation from WP of why JfJ's beliefs aren't actually Jewish. I think a discussion format would be better and more conventional. 4.) Self-explanatory. 5.) The point here is that Jewish groups don't think they're Jewish, not that the world opposes JfJ. It's like if you wanted to say Christians opposed Communism, you wouldn't break it down into Christian denominations, Christian churches, Christian organizations, etc. In a lead, I think conciseness is key. A compromise would be to say Jewish groups and the State of Israel though, which would solve a sourcing problem for "denominations" as well.

Would this sort of discussion work? Maybe we could get somewhere. My fear simply being that the lot of us are probably going to have to agree in the end anyway. Sorry if I'm jumping out of line. Thanks, Mackan79 15:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

1.Switching one set of weasel words for another. In addition, the notability of the named rabbi may be questioned in the future--leading to another type of edit war. Since the holders of this opinion is numerous and diverse I believe this is one of the cases where the weasel words of the original is sufficient.

2. No problem.

3. To me it is original research to say JfJ identifies itself with Judaism. Especially when it explicitly states that followers of Jesus as Messiah are Christian. One of the principles of faith of Judaism is one God and one God only, there is no argument, suggestion or debate on that among Jews. As you present it, it appears that there is a significant minority viewpoint on this issue. There is none, so I must disagree with this suggestion in its entirety.

4.No two different ideas, one is the idea of Jesus as Deity, the other is Trinity. The sentence should stay.

5. Fine by me.

Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Mackan (and Ramsquire's read):

1. Stating "according to Judaism" is taking a side, but simply stating one rabbi's name "and others" might not properly frame the debate either. We should make it clear that this is a very widely-held position in Judaism-we just shouldn't state "Judaism says..." ourselves.

2. Looks good.

3. JfJ can be positively shown to say that they identify with Judaism. Its name aside, tons of stuff on its website clearly makes that claim. It is not for us to say "They're wrong, they're really not Jews." We frame the debate and let the reader decide.

4. I agree that the ideas of trinity and deity are different, so we should mention that too. However, JfJ clearly claims that belief in trinity is compatible with Judaism. The original sentence does not follow WP:NPOV in treating all sides as plausible. (I'll be happy to find the page where I found that again and point you to it if you'd like, but they very unambiguously make that claim.)

5. Looks good, although we still should keep those citations with the new statement.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by User: Seraphimblade (talk • contribs)

Mackan's point #3 is in effect the crux of the debate for me. Obviously Seraphim and I are reading the same words in very different ways. So if a neutral party, armed only with the sources were to draw up a draft without any input from us, I'd be interested in seeing what they see. I'm all for it. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

One more question: are there any more issues in the article, or are these the five? I have other minor issues (I disagree with the lead using the word Christian as many times as possible), but simply don't see the need to get them involved in mediation. If these are the only five major textual issues, though, that would be good to know, or if on the other hand there's another big one in there that I missed. Mackan79 15:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mackan79's 5 proposals:

1. To say "According to Rabbi Shraga Simmons and others..." would be misleading because this is a common view in Judaism. Even this article lists a number of extensive sources, including a medieval Karaite tractate.
2. Compare "Vegetarians don't eat meat" with "Many vegetarians don't eat meat"
3. "Religious Jewish groups ... commonly say/suggest/argue that one of the most important Jewish principles of faith..." - as opposed to whom: Islamic waqf, Buddhist monks, or the Pope?
4. "Trinity... should be removed" - no, it should not.
5. Compare "Vegetarians don't eat meat" with "Generally, vegetarians don't eat meat". Also, you keep removing the position of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel that they do not consider JFJ Jewish. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is the point Mackan is trying to make. It may be better to look at this comparison as being more analogous with Mackan's suggestion: "Vegetarian groups do not support the eating of meat" with "Many vegetarian groups do not support the eating of meat." Because I am sure that some of these groups take no official position on what others do with their food, likewise some Jewish groups have no position of JfJ, even if they are suspicious of their activities.Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Unlike this imperfect example, Jewish groups do not try to impose their beliefs on others, but merely defend the most basic principles of Judaism, i.e. their own beliefs. As I said many times, Mackan's version implies that there is some "minority" in Judaism sides with JFJ. This is unacceptable. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Messianic Jews would seem to agree with them to some degree at least. However, more importantly, JfJ claims to be such a minority, and per WP:NPOV, we must treat their claim as plausible where it is worth mentioning. Also, I think that Ramsquire's point is a valid one. We're not even saying "Some Jewish groups agree", we're just saying "Some Jewish groups don't oppose." Certainly, there must be tons of Jewish organizations, ranging from large and important to small, informal ones with only a few members. I doubt that every last one of these groups has even issued an official position on JfJ, let alone that we could ever source such a thing. Seraphimblade 10:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The above is an example of misrepresentation of Judaism I was talking about. If such nonsense stands for a "compromise" around here, I don't want to be a part of this farce. As if there is not enough evidence, here's another quote from another book:

"Excluded, then, (from Jewish views) are views about Jesus that may have been held by his Jewish followers, by Paul, and by any Gospel writer who might have been Jewish; also views of modern-day Christians who fancy themselves Jews (i.e. self-styled "Hebrew-Christians," "Jews-for-Jesus," and "Messianic Jews")." (Evolving Jewish Views of Jesus by Michael J. Cook, in Jesus Through Jewish Eyes: Rabbis and Scholars Engage an Ancient Brother in a New Conversation by Beatrice Bruteau (Editor). Orbis Books, NY, 2001, p.3n)

←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Humus, although I wish you didn't feel the need to lash out. To your points:

1. On WP, common views are often sourced rather than trying to characterize how many people believe them. This is the heart of Weasel. Here, we're talking about a claim of "mistranslation." Can you really say Judaism calls something a mistranslation? Don't get me wrong, I know you think it's very very obvious that this is inherent to Judaism, and I don't disagree. The question is, if a person claimed that a proper Biblical reading shows Jesus wasn't God, and the Catholic Church had called it a mistranslation, would WP respond by saying "Christianity calls this a mistranslation," (obviously Christians believe Jesus is God, after all) or would it source the Catholic church or somebody else?
2. The correct analogy would be "Vegetarians oppose McDonalds." You can't assume people of a group oppose somebody simply because their views diverge. If you look again, you'll see I make sure not to characterize what most Jews feel theologically.
3. I don't understand. I'm attributing an argument to the group who makes it, rather than having WP insert its own tutorial on Jewish theology and its inconsistencies with JfJ. This seems like the right approach.
4. You're right, my mistake. I think this statement should then be sourced, though, rather than attributed to "Judaism," for the above reasons.
5. Again, to point 2. We're talking about rejecting JfJ here, not whether Jewish groups agree with them. Could you say "Vegetarians reject meat eaters?" Could you even say "Vegetarians reject eating meat"? I'd submit the most you could say would be "Vegetarians don't eat meat," nothing about what they reject. Is this not a more accurate treatment of the analogy?

I'd very much appreciate your continued dialogue in the hope of working this out. Thanks, Mackan79 15:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

1. A common view in Judaism is that this a mistranslation.
2. Of course vegetarians are not an organized religion, but a better analogy would be "Vegetarians oppose the group that calls itself Vegetarians for Meat". As long as our language reflects the fact that every Jewish group that paid attention to JFJ rejected its views, I'll accept that.
3. Judaism is an ancient belief system whose basic principles stand unchanged for millennia. It is misleading to attribute them to a 21st century rabbi. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the respose. With respsect, I think each of these simply misses the aim of an encyclopedia. If there were a group "VfM," it would clearly be OR to say all Vegetarians opposed them. At the very most, WP could then say, "Vegetarians, as generally defined, reject VfM's idea that you can eat meat and still be a vegetarian." You couldn't say "Vegetarians oppose VfM." You couldn't say "Vegetarians reject VfM." These would be OR, taking sides, or both. Of course, you can describe how groups feel about VfM in every way, but you can't say VfM aren't Vegetarians, if they say they are. That's the essence of taking sides. See Astrology ("Astrology has been criticized as being unscientific both by scientific bodies and by individual scientists.[22][23] and has been labeled as a pseudoscience.[24]") Not "Scientists reject astrology," or "Nature refutes astrology."

If we wanted to talk about opposition, we'd have to say "Many vegetarian groups oppose VfM for these reasons," and cite them. This would be a very natural way of dealing with the issue. Nobody would read this and say "Ah, if only many groups oppose them, then many other groups must also support them!" I don't think we'd ever even say "most" in that situation, simply because this isn't the job of WP to characterize what most people think. Incidentally, if we ARE simply characterizing what most people think, then that would be a complete exception to Weasel, in which case our sole aim would be to make the characterization accurate.Mackan79 18:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Instead of clarifying the matter, you keep muddling it. Sorry, it is not my idea of making an encyclopedia.

Fact: Every Jewish group that paid attention to JFJ, rejected its views.

Fact: Divinity of Jesus is incompatible with Judaism. There is more than enough evidence of this. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the first fact? Unfortunately, I think it's OR, although it's still better than what we have now. Regarding the second, I think it's equally clear that overwhelming evidence still doesn't allow presenting a group's position as objectively wrong in the article about that group. That's why you say "Astrology has been criticized as being unscientific both by scientific bodies and by individual scientists," instead of "In truth, Astrology is a superstition with no scientific validity," despite the overwhelming evidence for the second statement. Mackan79 15:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

1. The refs are overwhelmingly against you. All you need to prove your point is to bring evidence of at least one such group, something you failed to do for weeks now.
2. Again, you make an attempt to misrepresent a basic principle of an ancient religion. Either you do it out of ignorance or malice, this is uncivil, ridiculous and offensive. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if you mistook me; my comparison was between JfJ and those who believe in astrology. The implication was that both positions are absurd, but yet, that an Encyclopedia may not say that. I'm not disputing anything regarding what's true or not true about Judaism. Regarding the first point, I'm also not saying you're wrong, but that it's original research. OR also may indeed be correct. You keep changing the subject to what's true or not true about Judaism, but I'm trying to say that WP isn't simply about truth; it's also about NPOV and verifiability. It's not just a slogan. The fact that every Jewish group who knows about JfJ opposes them may be true, but to my knowledge it's not verifiable. You must disagree, but I don't think you can call that uncivil. Mackan79 22:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User:MPerel's absense

In response to the above, I believe that User:MPerel has halted contributions; he/she has also blanked the page User:MPerel. I invite all users to draw their own conclusions on the matter; however, I believe that we can, at the moment, not expect a summary from him or her.

Regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 19:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I was on a little wikibreak. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I (wrongly) assumed that you had no intention of making edits, etc.. because there was no "I'm on a Wikibreak until XYZ" template on the page. Cheers, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 17:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Draft Compromises

Draft 1

I have drawn an overview of the dispute from Seraphimblade's summary, Mackan79's summary, Homestarmy's summary and Humus sapiens's summary. From this overview, I have drew up this draft compromise which I believe is the most efficient way to satisfy the concerns of all the above users; of course, this will change as (hopefully) the other users post their case summaries.

• The weasel words in the article, such as "many" and "in general", are to be removed replaced with specific terms that cite their sources.
• The {{Christianity}} template is to be removed and any attempts to place it back on the article - particularly by anonymous users or frequent 3RR violators - are to be removed unless discussed and gained consensus on Talk:Jews for Jesus.
• The article is to be cleaned out by a neutral third party, possibly from CUTF, in accordance with WP:NPOV.

Your feedback on this is appreciated. Regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 17:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC
See #Draft 2 for rewritten version.

I would go for having a neutral third party look at the article, so long as it's someone we can all agree on and we can all have feedback in the matter. I do object, however, to the invocation of "weasel words" here. WP:WEASEL is meant to address one specific problem-use of weasel words to "sneak in" unsourced opinion (e.g. "Most people think that the Beatles were the best band ever."). However, it is not weasel-wording to say "Many critics state that the Beatles were the best band ever", when one has right there source cites from eight different critics saying exactly that. In this case, however, it would be misleading to simply say "Critics state that the Beatles were the best band ever" without the qualifier-that's leading the reader to believe that all critics say so. The second scenario is more what we have here-we have ample evidence that most Jewish groups oppose JfJ, but we can't possibly source every last one of them. In a case like that, the use of "many" or "most" or "several" isn't weaseling-it's sourced and accurate. Seraphimblade 21:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Draft 2

I have drawn an overview of the dispute from Seraphimblade's summary, Mackan79's summary, Homestarmy's summary and Humus sapiens's summary. From this overview, I have drew up this draft compromise which I believe is the most efficient way to satisfy the concerns of all the above users; of course, this will change as (hopefully) the other users post their case summaries.

• The {{Christianity}} template is to be removed and any attempts to place it back on the article - particularly by anonymous users or frequent 3RR violators - are to be removed unless discussed and gained consensus on Talk:Jews for Jesus.
• The article is to be cleaned out by a neutral third party, possibly from CUTF, in accordance with WP:NPOV
  • Said third party should attempt to cleanup the article in accordance with WP:WEASEL.

Your feedback on this is appreciated.

Regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 21:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Anthony, you have expressed your POV (it seems you have taken one side without explanation) and suggested that the article should be entrusted to someone most likely lacking knowledge of the subjects involved. I don't see where is a "compromise" here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I must disagree here; I am simply drawing conclusions together from the various summaries above; I would appreciate if you refrained from calling into question my neutrality - it is probably my most valued quality. As you can see, if you are of the opinion that the above draft does not benefit everyone, all it takes is to state what you think should be changed and I will implement accordingly. My apologies if I seem a little irritated, but we are not here to brandish POV claims - we are here to civilly resolve this dispute which I see as very important, and I am anxious to have the compromise/solution benefit everyone. Therefore, I invite you to post your opinion on what you wish to see changed, and as I have said I will implement is accordingly as much as possible. Kindest regards, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 18:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Humus, what would you think of having a neutral third-party come in and working on a "draft" copy of the article in userspace, as I suggested earlier? That way, we'd all have a chance for feedback on the changes before they hit the main copy, but we'd also have the advantage that we'd know they were made by someone not involved in the argument. Anthony (and anyone else) please throw in your thoughts as well. (To add to previous) I think someone "without knowledge" might be valuable-we should be writing articles from sources, not from our own knowledge. If anything, lack of personal knowledge makes that easier. Seraphimblade 19:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think that 'someone "without knowledge"' about the subject should read encyclopedias rather than write them. If I have to commit to accept unknown changes by a mysterious "neutral third-party", then the answer is no. If not, then anyone can start a draft in the userspace at any time, we don't need a mediation for that. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Antony, this comment seems one-sided, especially without hearing other parts. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you be willing to address my numbered suggestions below? I'd guess Anthony is waiting to see what the reception to that method will be from the other side. Thanks, Mackan79 22:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Humus and Mackan. I think that according to Draft 3, the neutral party will perform the change blindly (without our input), and then we'll have an opportunity to comment on any changes, so no Humus you will not have to accept anything. To Mackan--I see you suggestions, and disagree with some but we should either accept or refuse to have the 3rd party do his draft before making any suggestions. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I mostly intended to provide this as another option. I'll agree to a neutral arbiter if it looks feasible, as in if it won't take months or years. I think we'd have to decide at the end of everything if we all agree, no matter what, right? My suggestions are simply a plan B. Mackan79 23:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be willing to have a neutral party look at the article. Of course, in the end, the new version wouldn't be binding per se, but I certainly think it would be wise for all of us to agree to think hard before changing such a version, or rejecting it. Seraphimblade 23:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

(Humus sapiens) the comment was made because I am on his side - just like I am on your side, and Ramsquire's side, and every editor's side; I am a neutral third party, and I do not hold a particular stance in the matter. I was simply commenting that the proposed change does sucessfully implement WP:NPOV. Please - there is no need to hound me; I am striving to maintain neutrality in all circumstances. Regarding the case, you are not willing to have another editor draw up a draft, and you (and all the other editors) approve or decline it as you see fit? If this is the case, I would be most grateful for you to perhaps suggest an alternative? Kindest regards, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 00:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

An alternative would be to base on evidence and not on original research. I am not trying to be difficult: let's use WP policies like WP:RS, WP:NOR, etc. and not invent new rules on the spot. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologise, but where exactly are we "making up policies"? Regards, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 21:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Draft 3

• The {{Christianity}} template is to be removed and any attempts to place it back on the article - particularly by anonymous users or frequent 3RR violators - are to be removed unless discussed and gained consensus on Talk:Jews for Jesus.
• The article is to be cleaned out by a neutral third party, possibly from CUTF, in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL; however the third party should indicate his/her planned edits in a clearly marked subpage of Jews for Jesus, for example Jews for Jesus/Draft. draw up a draft of the changes they wish to implement. All users involved in the mediation will have an opportunity to object to any planned edits that they believe fall foul of more specific guidelines on what the disputing users wish to have changed, which will be drawn up at a later date if all parties are agreeable. Any edits objected to will not be implemented by the cleanup editor; any edits not stated clearly in the cleanup guidelines and that have not been posted beforehand are to be blank-reverted. (My main worry is that this may result in a technical edit war if the editor wishes to edit the article as a neutral party and normal editor, and any edits are henceforth reverted in accordance with the above; perhaps it should therefore be necessary for the cleanup editor to indicate that he/she is acting upon this case in the edit summary.)

Your feedback on this is appreciated.

Regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 21:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Will the third party be allowed to engage (i.e. argue his position) editors who disagree with his proposed edits? I am concerned that if consensus is clearly one way, but there is one holdout editor, then said editor can block a consensus change. But if the 3rd party is allowed to debate, then he may sway other editors to whatever POV he may have. I think it may be best to just have said editor simply present his draft with changes and then have the editors discuss any disagreements amongst ourselves. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 01:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have implemented your change to Draft 3; other editors' input on the fix would be great. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Are there even actually third parties which help with Mediation cases like this, I thought there were large backlogs in many of these projects like the Cleanup Taskforce, I see their banners on some talk pages from time to time dated from months ago... Homestarmy 01:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There may or may not be a backlog - however, this is a priority case and I am sure we could locate one or two editors from the CUTF (or otherwise) without going via the main requests page. Other than this, are you happy with the new compromise? Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Further Discussion

Final Compromise

1. -- a fourth party will be appointed (nominations will be voted on a user-by-user basis until all are in agreement) to draft his/her new version of the article.

2. -- said new version will then be discussed and/or voted on, and issues that an editor desires to be included in the new version will be discussed at a Jews for Jesus subpage; each new draft will follow the same principle as I have employed here - headings such as "draft 1, draft 2, etc..".

3. -- no changes are to be implemented until all users are in agreement.

4. -- the fourth party will be completely neutral and will preferably not have edited this article recently. All editors are invited to post possible fourth parties they deem to be fit to cleanup the article.

5. -- disputing editors are asked not to edit Jews for Jesus until the drafts are well underway; perhaps we can move on to one of the other 6,917,660 articles around Wikipedia?

5.a) -- delineate certain disputed passages of text that should not be edited by editors here (unless of course, said passages are vandalized, deleted, or otherwise improperly edited) while allowing editors to continue to edit the article.

Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 01:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree/Disagree: Final Compromise 1

If you have some qualms about the Compromise immediately above (Final 1) please don't outright disagree - instead go to the comments section and raise your issues. Obviously, if you refuse to accept the above then disagree below.

Your attention is directed to Final Compromise 2 at the bottom of this page.

1. Support -- Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 01:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support per Anthony's clarification below. Seraphimblade 01:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support Mackan79 04:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Please see below. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
   • Defer, because the proposal is a deferral. More details below. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Support Homestarmy 22:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments: Final Compromise 1

• I think unanimous agreement may be asking for too much. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 01:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not sure it's asking for too much-anything less than unanimous consent might get us right back where we started, no one agreeing at all etc. I certainly don't think it can hurt to have someone neutral draw up a potential compromise version. At best, that person would find something we can all agree to, at worst, we reject it and we're no worse off then where we are now. I do think that editors should be able to do a limited amount of editing to the JfJ article (Humus and I both did today, but we weren't going against one another, we were addressing concerns introduced by others). I would agree, however, not to insert or remove any disputed material during the mediation process, and to make any edits done as an example on a draft or userspace copy. Would this be acceptable? Seraphimblade 01:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That is, admittedly, a good idea. However, I do have faith in these editors to act like mature Wikipedians and sensibly and thoroughly consider the above compromise. Let's just see how this one goes first; I now invite you to go along with this proposal and post your consent/disagreement above...if we don't get at least maximum majority, we will revert to "plan B" - doing it anyway, on an informal basis. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 01:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I still don't like being asked to not edit the JfJ article, bad edits happen at weird times and we haven't been furiously edit warring over it for a little bit. (I think) Homestarmy 01:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to spoil the idyllic mood: I don't see any compromise here. Anyone can start an alternative version any time, we don't need a mediation for that. I don't think voting is a good idea: so far some users showed complete immunity to reason & evidence. Despite the number of sources given, the amount of time, the repeated explanations (even on this page), some users continue to make outlandish claims in the name of Judaism and misrepresent the most basic concepts of this classic ancient belief system. A qualifier like "many" or "generally" would be misleading, and this proposed WP:WEASEL is not supported by any evidence. Voting seems to be another opportunity to elbow it in. Further, I don't see why a knowledgeable editor should give up his right to edit the article. That said, there is always a room for improvement and some sentences could be reworded to make them more clear. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Humus, can you please explain how you would like to see the process move forward? Any change to the article would have to be approved unanimously. So although I understand your opposition to voting (as you are in a numerical minority here), I don't think it should stop the process from moving forward. What can it hurt to have someone not as involved in the subject take a look at the article and make their suggestions? As to your last statement, anyone should be able to make changes to the article, but in reality the reason we are here is that new editors changes were constantly being reverted and added back in due to the edit war. Let's get this over with so that the editors here can move on to editting other articles. I ask you to please reconsider your opposition vote or make alternative suggestions. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you specify what "outlandish claims" are being made "in the name of Judaism"? And what changes/clarifications you'd suggest? Seraphimblade 11:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think the problem is the assesment that "The essence of the dispute is whether JFJ may represent Jews and Judaism." In fact, I'm fairly positive this isn't how anyone else perceives the issue, but much more about whether it's for WP to decide what JfJ may represent, or to contest its representations, in keeping with WP:NPOV. Indeed, from the very start, we've all agreed that WP should not represent JfJ as Jewish.

In any case, my proposal goes out of its way not to speak about what many or most Jews believe on Judaism. Rather, it states that many groups oppose JfJ. This avoids any implication that some Jews might actually believe in Jesus, since no matter how absurd or ridiculous JfJ's claims are, nobody would presume that every Jewish group in the world could actually oppose them. In this regard, I think it simply hasn't been established why WP should, on its own, offer explanations of why JfJ is incompatible with Judaism as a religion. Mackan79 15:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, can we simply remove point 5, for Homestarmy's sake? It's a fair notion, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary, and currently it's simply pushing away Homestarmy. I think all the current agreers would agree to it's removal, no? In fact, Humus and possibly Jayjg seem to oppose it as well. Mackan79 14:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Added, otherwise we could go to plan B. I'm not really sure. The edit warring seems to be quelled at the moment on its own though, perhaps a reason not to fix what's not broken. Mackan79 14:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

How about we delineate certain disputed passages of text that should not be edited by editors here (unless of course, said passages are vandalized, deleted, or otherwise improperly edited) while allowing editors to continue to edit the article? Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Or we could simply agree not to change the article from its current form, while remaining free to undo bad edits by newcomers, and with assurances of good faith not to abuse this. Would that be simpler, or not good enough? (Added: Is there anything you'd prefer, Homestarmy?) Mackan79 18:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Humus - please consider your position; as it stands, every editor involved seems to agree (at different levels) with the above compromise except yourself. Would you not be willing to at least give the compromise a try? Awaiting your response, which I hope will be maturely considered, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 21:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, I am not preventing anyone from writing anything in their user space. Let them write, and let's see what comes out. I don't care who will write it: if it is adequate I will accept it and if not I won't. But I am not making any commitment now for something unknown, especially if it results in voting and peer pressure. So far it is a deferral, not a compromise. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Humus - I respect your opinion; thank you for posting it. Please have no fears about peer pressure; I would not allow it. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion; also, the permitting of draft changes to be implemented is based on concensus, not voting, and it is important to bear this in mind. Ergo, are you willing to allow the final draft (I) to be passed, or do you have another resolution in mind? Regards, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 19:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Would all be agreed with a fix to the compromise regarding relaxing the rules regarding disputing editors not editing the article? Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 21:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

--> I have removed point 5; I trust this is to your liking, Homestarmy, Jayjg and Humus? Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 21:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to agree with the revised version if it would address the objections raised. Seraphimblade 01:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

For readability and clarification, would you like to list the objections raised as you recognise them? Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 02:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean all the objections in general, or just to this specific proposal? Seraphimblade 02:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Which objections are you talking about that you want addressed, Seraphim? I think this is what Anthony was trying to get you to list. I can't say I'm 100% sure what either of you are saying :P Can we be a little clearer in what we're asking? Mackan79 03:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I see where I was unclear now. I have no objections to either the original or new version, I was just saying I would be happy to agree to the revisions if it would address the objections others have raised. Hopefully that's a bit clearer. Seraphimblade 05:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion from Seraphimblade

There's apparently a Wikiproject which is set up specifically to handle NPOV issues. Would anyone object to filing a request with them to look over the article? Seraphimblade 01:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to make this part of the solution - rather than asking the CUTF to cleanup the article, place a request with WikiProject NPOV? Regards, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 01:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If there would be no objections from you or the other participants, they might be better-suited, since that's people who specifically deal with neutrality and that's the main issue of debate here. Seraphimblade 01:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully, everybody is in agreement to this. Disputing editors are invited to respond below; cheers, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 01:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick question, sorry: so is this just that we're turning it over to them and hoping for the best, and then deal with it on our own after that? Will we have any opportunity to discuss with those editors? I'll agree either way, but a little more info might be helpful. Mackan79 02:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

My intentions are to set up a JfD/subpage collaboration between editors on the NPOV project and yourselves; it would be similar to the first final draft, where edits are to be shown and approved, and any disputed edits are to be discussed and debated by all the users involved in the mediation. Hope this clears things up. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 03:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As it seems everyone is in agreement, shall we go ahead and make the request? Anthony, I think maybe it's best if you make the request, to avoid any possible appearance of partisanship in its wording? Seraphimblade 11:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Final Compromise (2)

1. -- the article is listed at the Neutrality Project's #new requests section.

This may appear simple, but it seems like both the most efficient and the most effective way of resolving this dispute.

Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 01:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree/Disagree: Final Compromise (2)

Please place agree/disagree below:

1. Agree. Seraphimblade 01:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Agree. Homestarmy 01:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Agree. Mackan79 02:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Defer. See below. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Tentative Agree.Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Agree. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments: Final Compromise (2)

Feel free to read my Defer votes as Agree. As I said earlier, I will accept any revision that is based on evidence and WP policies. So far I see just another deferral. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so I am clear, is this the first step of implementing final compromise 1? If so, you can change my tentative agreement to full agreement. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My pet hate is disambiguous answers, but I'll need to swallow my pride: yes, and no. Although it is a step to implementing compromise 1, it is completely independent, and compromise 1 has been archived. However, all the key points from C1 that were agreed upon are above and below ({{Christianity}} discussion) and therefore this could be considered a step towards implementing C1. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 17:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you meant by "disambiguous answers". I do believe I am entitled to have an explanation of what I am being asked to vote on. I have been given that explanation and have changed my vote accordingly. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm agreeing to defer, although to my mind this is no resolution, just passing the buck. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

{{Christianity}}

1. -- the above template will be entirely removed from the article.

Agree/Disagree: {{Christianity}} Proposal

1. Agree. Seraphimblade 01:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Agree. Homestarmy
3. Agree. Mackan79 02:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Agree. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Agree.Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Agree. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments: {{Christianity}} Proposal

1. Though it [the template] is gone now, it seems I didn't notice it, but when I was trying to revert someone I was doing it manually so the page wouldn't waste so much time loading, and it seems I left it removed when I didn't notice the editor had removed it :/.) Homestarmy
2. I am not convinced, but I'll make a compromise here to demonstrate good faith. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• As long as the first sentence in the intro describes the organization as Christian (which is how J4J describes itself and many sources affirm), I can compromise. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This mediation

This dispute increasingly resembles a medieval disputation: compare the issues we discuss today and Disputation of Barcelona#Proceedings of 1263. Welcome to 2007: it seems that attacks on the most basic principles of Judaism are not regarded uncivil. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Who do you believe has made such an attack, and how? Seraphimblade 22:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that article, I was able to fix a rather unusual mistake, it seems the original author wrote a sentence I have now changed that implicitly suggested that Christianity is comprised of only, if not mostly by, Oneness Pentecostals alone. Homestarmy 23:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you wrote it Humus, well, now I feel stupid. Eh, I helped you out anyway, the article I wikilinked explains it all. Homestarmy 23:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That content (copied from PD source) is yet to be reworked. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)