Comments

Please place your vote as above, followed by your comments, below.

The article is intended to provide a summary of terms used in various articles about Christianity and Judaism, similar to Glossary of poker terms, therefore should not be deleted. The dispute arises because Messianic Jews are composed of some ethnic Jews recognized by Jewish law as still Jewish, claiming to practice Judaism with Christian components. They are a notable religious group, more than any other, for reason of this blending of Judaism and Christianity.
Therefore NPOV requires that they still be recognized as Jewish, and not entirely Christian though not entirely Judaism either. The compromise was to give them their own column, so that they aren't pigeonholed into either religion by any one party, since their views span both religions. It is that column and insistence to only refer to their views as Christian ones, even though they don't categorize themselves as that, leading to this AfD.
A comparable scenario would be for a party to claim that Mormonism is a fringe cult and attempting to remove them from Category:Christian_denominations. -Bikinibomb (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The analogy fails, because Mormons consider themselves a separate religion. MJ is not a notable group in this context. They do not consider themselves a separate religion, and should not be treated as one. A comparison of Jewish and Christian terminology would be legitimate as a help for understanding the Christianity and Judaism article, but promoting MJ in this way is misleading at best.
NPOV does not require recognizing them as Jewish for the purposes of describing the similarities and differences between Judaism and Christianity. In fact, that's how this whole discussion got started. Statements were made on the Judaism and Christianity page about how Judaism views things, and certain editors, for reasons that seem patently POV, tried to argue, claiming that MJ is part of Judaism, and that therefore, worshipping Jesus is acceptable according to some forms of Judaism. I say again, this is misleading, and if not for the principle of good faith, I would suspect intentionally so.
A distinction needs to be made between Judaism, the religion, and Jews, the people. What a Jew does is not necessarily Judaism. Many Jews belong to the Democratic Party (and many to the Republican Party), but this does not make those parties "Jewish groups", nor their principles those of Judaism. There are Jews who are atheists, and there are Jews who are Wiccans and there are Jews who are Buddhists, and yes, some Jews have adopted Christian beliefs. But such people, while they may be Jews in a national or ethnic or tribal sense, are not practicing Judaism, the religion.
The Christianity and Judaism page is clearly discussing religions, and not nations or ethnic groups. By its terms, MJ is very clearly a Christian group, and not a Jewish one. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:LisaLiel: The analogy fails, because Mormons consider themselves a separate religion. Could you provide cites from LDS or a prominent Mormon like Mitt Romney to that effect, I don't believe I've ever heard a Mormon claim not to be Christian or not part of Christianity. If this is accurate do you propose removing Category:Mormonism from Category:Christian denominations? As for other comments, ethnic Jews don't usually claim to be practicing Judaism while performing tasks for the Democratic party, etc. but they do in Messianic Judaism. Also since I am Muslim if I was here to transparently attempt to boost a religion I would be pushing for things like removing Christianity and Judaism from Category:Abrahamic religions since of course it is our personal POV that Islam is the only true one. However since my actual intent is to help maintain NPOV in articles where it is prone to be lacking, I'll exclude myself from that comment. -Bikinibomb (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]



1) First, it's simply false. The person who initiated the page (myself) is an Orthodox Jew and not a Messianic promoter by any means. The page developed after extensive discussions on the Christianity and Judaism page revealed that term switching on the part of the Messianic movement (i.e. using Jewish terms with Christian meaning) was causing confusion among the editors who were doing our earnest best to keep everything straight.

2) Second -- and this is the puzzling aspect -- Lisa knows that this is false. She was there in the discussions, and this point has been repeatedly raised and answered. Perhaps she thinks I'm a closet Messianic, but my Rabbi, wife, and disappointed mother can all vouch for the fact that this is simply not so.

3) Third -- this glossary is properly categorized. It was initially given the category of Messianic Judaism, and regardless of whether Messianic Judaism is true, false, or insignificant to the rest of the planet it certainly is not insignificant to itself (hence the categorization justification) and it certainly isn't insignificant to people bothered by its existence (both Lisa and myself).

And finally -- personal preference has no place in nominating a glossary for deletion. Lisa is not opposed to glossaries, and I both approved and initiated her idea for a similar Christian, Jewish, and Muslim terms page. That page belongs strictly in the larger interfaith arena and this page deserves at the very minimum a place in the Messianic one. Lisa has been an excellent contributor here (and by transmission to the C, J, and Muslim glossary), and I would hate to see her own efforts, and the efforts of Christians, Jews, Messianics, and a Muslim all disappear because she doesn't like one of the participating groups. Tim (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like to quote something Tim recently posted on the talk page of the article.

Lisa -- I do not misunderstand Judaism's view of shittuf. Jews "justify" the Trinity by saying that worship of the stars is allotted to Gentiles in Deuteronomy. Jews believe that Christians hold to multiple powers. I understand and appreciate that this is a valid description of Judaism's view. I also understand as a former Christian pastor and seminary professor that this is a valid example of Judaism's failure to understand this Christian doctrine. Do I agree with the Christian doctrine? Certainly not. However, I insist that we as Jews do ourselves and Christians a disservice by misrepresenting their view even to ourselves. Telushkin is merely one of many who are coming to understand that this traditional view is not applicable to real Christianity (in contrast to fantasy world Christianity). The question, then, is how to present it. First, I think that we MUST say that Shittuf is the traditional Jewish understanding of the Trinity. Second, in all fairness we MUST say that this has no resemblance to the actual doctrine. It's the same as mitzvot. My mother is convinced that I don't eat pork (or any meat around her) as an attempt to earn my way into heaven. We MUST say that this is the Christian view of our observance. At the same time we MUST say that this does not resemble what we are actually doing. That's the whole purpose of an interfaith glossary -- to enable people to understand terms and each other in a neutral context. It is a fact that the Jewish understanding of the Trinity is "Shittuf." It is also a fact that "Shittuf" bears no resemblance to the Christian idea. Tim (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

In other words, Tim is using this page not merely to present various views, but to "correct" them, according to his views. He claims, as a matter of "fact", that the Jewish perception of a term is a "fantasy". If this page is intended to present the Christian view of the Jewish view, he should state that up front. But whether he states it or not, it is clear that this is his intent. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The only thing that is clear is that Lisa is so bent on her POV that she doesn't want a glossary page. It's clear even from her own citation of my words that I gave two examples of misunderstanding between the religions of Christianity and Judaism: Christians think that Jews do mitzvot to get to heaven and Jews think that the Christian idea of the Trinity represents multiple powers in partnership. Further, I stated that a glossary page of multiple views "MUST" state both views. It must state that Christians think that Jews are trying to earn their way into heaven and Jews do NOT think they are trying to earn their way into heaven. It must state that Jews think the Trinity represents multiple powers and that Christians think worship of multiple powers is polytheistic. How on earth can Lisa possibly think that my insistence on stating both sides of both issues to be biased? Simple -- she's being biased. I think that Lisa has had very good improvements to this glossary. I think that her votes in favor of a Christian, Jewish, and Muslim glossary were "spot on." I also think that she's biased in this respect -- but the presence of other editors and the rule-set of Wikipedia are a proper counter balance for all of our blind spots. However, I think that trying to get this page deleted for the reasons she is giving is trying to do an end run around the natural growth and usefulness of this page on Wikipedia. Most of the entries do not raise any eyebrows, and the ones that do get improved -- by Lisa, Egfrank, Bikinibomb, Alastair, Pilot, and a growing host of excellent editors who find sources and make changes when challenges come. The page does not represent my views, or Lisa's (which are the same, although our methodologies differ). Tim (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Subject Material. I don't think it matters wither this article is helpful or useful, certainly this information is useful, but not all useful facts are appropriate for Wikipedia, and this is subject material that it better suited for a book, when the author can present whatever information with whatever POV they desire. If it is important to distinguish how Messianic Judaism is different from the other Abrahamic religions, then this should be dealt with on the Messianic Judaism page, not on a page like this. --NickPenguin(contribs) 18:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What's the difference between Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms and this, Glossary of spirituality-related terms (G-L), they are all spiritual terms. The only difference I see is that views of one religion are complaining to have it removed. Is there a hierarchy on Wikipedia regarding which religious views carry the most weight regarding editorial decisions? Squeaky wheel gets the grease? I haven't seen one good reason to delete it yet, there are other spiritual glossaries, pages like Judaism with a ton of unsourced references, etc.
What makes this one so special, other than maybe for bowing to one set of religious POVs asking for it to go away? -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nick, BB is right. Specific issues are getting resolved at a furious pace. Whenever a cell is challenged, it's corrected and sourced so fast that half of us don't have time to get our references together before the other half has put in a better fix than we originally had in mind. We've had a Muslim add Jewish sources, a Jew add Christian sources, etc. And the best part of it is that it is working -- except for one biased POV under the cloak of neutrality (who honestly sees me as a biased POV under the cloak of neutrality). But what I hear from you is, "Hey, someone complained and it's not perfect, so let's throw the whole thing out while you guys are in the middle of editing." Again, I'd suggest that you give this page some time. Write down what you would like provided, and I'm sure that the editors here will provide more than you expect. More than you ask for? Maybe not. But I'll bet you an ice cream sundae that they'll provide more than you expect. They've certainly done more in short order than I could have ever guessed when I originally threw out some unsourced references. BOOM! Suddenly the sources (and needed corrections) came in such a flood that my head was spinning. The last thing Wiki needs is a bunch of unsourced opinion. But that's not what I'm seeing formed here. There are four religious paradigms eyeballing this page, and no unsourced opinion is surviving for very long.Tim (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a good reason to justify keeping this article, and I think I've made my views clear in my other comments about why this specific article should be deleted (see above). Although I can sympathize with the reasons to keep, when it comes down to it, I just don't think this is appropriate content for Wikipedia; existing articles on the subject do a good job of explaining the respective worldviews of the different faiths, and where those articles are deficient, they can be improved. Again, I think this type of content would be much better suited for some sort of book on the topic of how Messianic Judaism differs from other traditional Abrahamic religions, and I would encourage contributors to this article to get together and produce such a work. And, at this point, I see no further need to dominate this AFD discussion, and I would welcome others to vote and share their opinions on the matter. Cheers, --NickPenguin(contribs) 21:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm using WP:IAR to ignore WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to ask if you think God as unity or trinity, God in Abrahamic religions, and any other place where beliefs are compared, including right in Messianic_Judaism#Jewish_objections, should be deleted and gathered to publish in a book by editors here?
Comment: You can point to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS if you want, but it's not going very far to support that idea as a valid reason, at least in my mind. Especially if someone who holds that view doesn't also say "hey I better go AfD those articles too since they belong in a book not on Wikipedia." -Bikinibomb (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is not "Tim's page" so you or other editors are free to counter his contributions. Every article may have editors who want to impose POV, that's not a reason to delete the articles. If it was, Wikipedia would be reasonably empty. -Bikinibomb (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The reason I posted that quote was that it illustrated a POV bias that I see in the article as a whole. The reason I am proposing that this article be deleted is, as I've stated, that (a) MJ is not notable in the context of describing differences and similarities between Christianity and Judaism, and (b) that this page comes across as a PR campaign for MJ, attempting to raise it up in public view as something it is not.
Either this article should be deleted in its entirety, or it should be renamed to "Glossary of Christian and Jewish terms", and the "Messianic" column removed. The mere existence of an article entitled "Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms" is highly POV. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Lisa, again you are showing your bias. Both my quote and my response to you gave two examples: one in which Christians and Jews understood a Jewish practice differently, and one in which Christians and Jews understood a Christian doctrine differently. In both cases I said that the Christian and Jewish views should BOTH be stated in order to provide a neutral point of view. By labelling neutrality "bias" you are only showing evidence of your own bias. This page was initially put in the Messianic category on Wikipedia. Are you now trying to convince everyone that a Messianic column is completely irrelevant in a Messianic category on Wikipedia? Do you really expect Wikipedia to follow a policy in which only OTHER groups can speak about a religious group? Although I didn't put this page in the Messianic category, I didn't object to it either. But your logic here would dictate that Wikipedia eliminate all references to Messianics on the entire site. Tim (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I did and do object to it being in the "Messianic" category. I have no objection to the existence of the article Messianic Judaism, as it is informative, and not out of place.
The table that eventually became the Glossary page was started in the talk page of Christianity and Judaism. The inclusion of "Messianic perceptions" there was the first mistake. It was due to the tendentious argument that it was somehow inappropriate to speak of a Jewish position on Christianity and Christian concepts without taking this fringe group into account.
But it is a fringe group, and no more deserves to be singled out as an exception to Jewish views than geocentrism deserves to be singled out as a view of astronomy. Mentioned in talk pages, perhaps. Given a subsection on the Christianity and Judaism page, perhaps. Given equal status with Christianity and Judaism and presented as though it is a major player, absolutely not. That is undue weight and POV in a big way.
Forgive me if this gets a little personal, but I know many people who've converted to Judaism under Orthodox auspices. Almost all of them are Orthodox Jews who give short shrift to their Christian origins. But my strongest experience with a convert who spent inordinate amounts of time trying to justify Christianity in Jewish terms was a close friend of mine in Israel who eventually drifted back to Christianity. I don't think that Wikipedia is here for you to use as a means of working out your personal issues. If people want to know about Christianity and Judaism and their similarities and differences, they can read the article on Christianity and Judaism, and if they need to know about differences in terminology, they can read the Glossary of Christian and Jewish terms article. Adding in MJ muddies the water and makes things less understandable to the casual reader: not more understandable. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is nothing to forgive because your "personal" comment does not apply to me. What we have are methodological differences, not motivational ones. I'm not trying to work out any personal issues, but it appears that you are -- perhaps because of your friend. We already have a Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim terms and making one for just Jews and Christians is redundant. However, one for Messianic terminology is not redundant because we have a Christian group trying to co-opt Jewish terms. It confuses the heck out of a TON of Christians. Perhaps they don't confuse a lot of Jews, but they do confuse a lot of Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teclontz (talk • contribs) 16:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is responsible in that it's objective is to be an aid in the use of terms found in the Abrahamic faith groups which are common yet have sometimes different and alternative perceptions .. Pilotwingz (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Very good point Nick - the article does need more citations - lots more - but please note that the page is under active construction. Egfrank (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I realize this is a relatively new page and it is under construction, but are these even sourcable claims? Somehow I am not so sure. Every individual Christian/Jew/whatever has a different perception of what a particular religious term refers to, and unless there's people out there who publish papers about the specific issue of how these groups use the words differently, I have no interest in keeping a page that makes broad generalizations about what members of a particular religion might think. --NickPenguin(contribs) 05:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: First the word "perception" should probably be understood in a Wittgensteinian sense - a set of cultural or communal associations with a word (Wittgenstein would also include the personal associations but that is beyond the scope of this article). There might be alternative headings (e.g. meaning) - I seem to recall some debate about the headers. Details might be available in Archive5 mentioned above. Otherwise scan the talk page.
Second, sourcing. There are many reliable sources that describe how each Christian denomination defines terms and many note both commonalities and differences. The same is true of Judaism. And material is available from both the religious and academic perspective. There is also a literature on Jewish Christian dialog that discusses different understandings of words. All of this can be sourced.
We've also run into debates about whether association X is even notable for a community. That, can be handled via the usual Wikipedia methods (google hits, reviewing survey books by noted experts, etc), and sometimes that issue is specifically addressed in interreligious dialog. For example, Jurgen Moltmann and Pinchas Lapide(both highly respected theologians and religious philosophers) wrote a book together (Jewish Monotheism and Christian Trinitarianism) discussing the relative importance of various God concepts in their respective faith communities. Samuel Sandmel has also written several books explaining how Jews view various Christian concepts among them: We Jews and Jesus : Exploring Theological Differences for Mutual Understanding (2006), We Jews and You Christians: An inquiry into attitudes (1968).
If you would like to see the sourcing process in action take a look on the talk page at how the contents of the Jewish Holy Spirit cell developed.
As for internal differences within Judaism or Christianity - these can be handled either in cell or via footnotes. For an example of that kind of debate, scan the talk page for the discussion of Apostasy. Currently there is a statement in the cell with two extensive footnotes explaining alternate views of the issue. I think in the main we are quite conscious of the potential WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV issues involved. Egfrank (talk) 08:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If there are difference of opinion about what these terms mean, then these should be explained in the individual articles or in a book you've published, not on a stand-alone page pushing a POV agenda. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: NickPenguin: Every individual Christian/Jew/whatever has a different perception of what a particular religious term refers to, and unless there's people out there who publish papers about the specific issue of how these groups use the words differently, I have no interest in keeping a page that makes broad generalizations about what members of a particular religion might think.
Is there a Wikipedia precedent or rule that such papers must be cited before defining the same term used in different ways by different groups? For example, in American there is no paper cited discussing how different groups use that same term three different ways, it just says that they do, then they link off to articles where each way is discussed. All we are doing with the glossary is taking that similar type of information from different articles and putting it into a convenient table form, not really creating anything new.
I think cites from resources like [3] and [4] should be sufficient to describe use of the same terms in different contexts, depending on religions. -Bikinibomb (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Comment: If this article linked to a bunch of different articles, each with the different religious perspective on each individual the word, then absolutely, I would agree with you 100% with your American comparison. However, it does not, because this page is a list of different dictonary type definitions from different religious schools of thought. If there is a scholarly/religious difference opinion about these terms, they should be discussed on the individual articles themselves, not in some NPOV minefield. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, this article does link to a bunch of articles. In any case, Nick, do you ALSO object to the Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim terms for the same reasons? If not, please explain the difference.Tim (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (sorry to jump in line, I would like to address this specifically) The American page acts like a disambiguation page. This is not a disambiguation page. And actually, I do object to Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim terms for the very same reasons, and I was in the process of reading Wikipedia:Deletion_policy to make sure I know how to properly nominate an article for deletion. However, with regards to Glossary of spirituality-related terms, this article is acceptable, because it does not try and define the terms with clear POV issues; in general, it looks like it copies the content from the opening paragraphs of those articles, which gives the reader some information about the topic in a neutral way. Neither this article nor the other article are capable of presenting information in a neutral way and thus should be deleted. --NickPenguin(contribs) 18:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nick -- at least you're consistent. But in this respect I would suggest you give the pages some time. I've been tied up getting a galley proof together for a book and haven't been able to add sources. I intend to go through each term and add sources (and corrections) as I go, and others on here have done tremendous work doing the same. The glossary grew so fast and was such a moving target that by the time one person had found a source, three others had changed (and vastly improved) the wording. I expect that the page should start solidifying in a couple of weeks. I plan to add a few sources a week, and to compare it to the linked articles to make sure it's consistent. I think that by that time it should answer any remaining objections I think you are stating here.Tim (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Check this out too, in Glossary of spirituality-related terms (G-L):
Despite this, Judaism in all its variations has remained tightly bound to a number of religious principles, the most important of which is the belief in a single, omniscient, transcendent God who created the universe, and continues to be involved in its governance.
But over the years I've seen about a billion (maybe not that many but a lot) sources saying the most important principle in Judaism is practice, not belief. Editors right here have said the same thing. So by that reasoning, since I have a disagreement over what is stated in Glossary of spirituality-related terms (G-L), should that article also be deleted until differences are resolved in the main Judaism article?
Anyway, why does it really matter where differences are discussed, since if we resolve them we can go make edits to related articles reflecting improved information? At least glossary discussions are consolidated so we can see everything we are working with, rather than fragmented all over the place. So yeah, this effort to delete is pretty disruptive rather than helpful to the editing process. -Bikinibomb (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The issue is that introducing MJ does not add to an understanding of Judaism and Christianity. It blurs that understanding, and it does so because MJ has as its basic intent blurring that understanding. This article is pure promotion of a fringe group, and should be deleted, since that fringe group already has its own entry. Having a glossary of astronomical terms with a column for Flat Earth and Hollow Earth views would be deleted immediately, and there's no reason this one shouldn't be as well. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Jews also say Christianity tries to blur Judaism. Christians say Islam tries to blur Christianity. So what. It's still a good idea to see how each group uses the same terms. The only problem here is that you don't want to give them any press at all except maybe under the banner of "Fake Jew." I'm sympathetic to it, I know Jews feel threatened by Messianics and want to silence them. But that kind of emotional attitude can't fly here on Wikipedia as long as there are neutral editors, you have to find another way to counter that group. -Bikinibomb (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, Lisa -- let's look at your metaphor. Would a glossary of real science and flat earth terms be helpful in the flat earth section of Wikipedia? Absolutely! In order to show how scientific the flat earth is? No -- but in order to put it up against real science and let people see it against the real thing. Such a glossary is good for comparing large established religions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism) as well as little religions (Judaism). Bear in mind that Christianity was originally a Jewish heretical cult and grew a life of its own. A similar table would also be helpful in comparing Nicene Christian terms and Watchtower (in the Jehovah's Witness section) and Latter Day Saint (in the Mormon section) terms. Some of the terms are the same, but with different meanings. While I agree with you that the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim table belongs in interfaith, I do not agree that this table is irrelevant to Messianic Judaism. The whole point of Messianic Judaism is to use Jewish terms with Christian meanings. This table is the best way to untangle what everyone is talking about in that context. If you agree with Messianic Judaism, at least you have an idea of what you are agreeing with. If you disagree, it's nice to have the correct target in mind before firing off. Whenever people are using the same terms in different ways, comparison is the only way to clarify. Simply telling the "cult" to shut up doesn't help at all. Tim (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Through a Glass, Darkly. Lisa -- you wrote "The issue is that introducing MJ does not add to an understanding of Judaism and Christianity". Since this table is now in the Messianic section, that's not the issue. So let's turn it around: "The issue is that introducing Christanity and authentic Judaism does not add to an understanding of MJ". Well, I'd say that's not correct. The only way to show the flaw of a flat earth is to show the real thing. Well -- here's your chance. Tim (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nick, above you state that If there are difference of opinion about what these terms mean, then these should be explained in the individual articles or in a book you've published, not on a stand-alone page pushing a POV agenda. On what basis are we assuming that the article is pushing a POV agenda?
To keep this discussion on track, I'll quote from Wikipedia:POV pushing.

POV pushing refers to the act (or attempt or intent) to evade, circumvent, and undermine Wikipedia's neutrality policy (Wikipedia:NPOV) by creating and editing articles so that they disproportionately show one point of view.

Since the very existence of the article is the topic under debated, to make a charge of POV pushing we need to identify the "pushed" point of view implied by the article's creation. The only point of view implied by the article's existance is (a) there exist three notable entities Judaism, Christianity, and Messianic Judaism (b) they can be compared (c) the comparison is notable
There is no doubt that the three religions listed are in fact notable. I sincerely doubt that an attempt to delete any of those three articles would succeed.
There is no doubt that they can be compared using reliable sources.
There is no doubt that the comparison is itself notable. There are at least two contexts in which its notability can be demonstrated:
Best, Egfrank (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting! I agree that this column is particularly problematic. The remaining three columns however can be reliably sourced - see below for discussions of this matter and also the article talk page for evolving discussions on how to source the three definitional columns.
There are some reliable third party sources for neutral terms although they pertain only to the Jewish/Christian columns. For example, discussions over the use of OT/Hebrew bible can probably be documented in academic journals. Also there are have been some very high level discussions between Jews and the Vatican about the significance of terminology. Finally Jews have published articles on terminology in interfaith journals and Christians have written numerous articles and even books self-critically examining their own use of terminology.
That being said, most interfaith dialog sources I have found so far treat the Messianic usage of terms and symbols as highly problematic, viewing them as a deception that creates bad will between mainline Jews and Christians involved in interfaith dialog. Thus I would expect it highly unlikely to find a source that tried to find a 3-way neutral term.
In light of this, I have just added a note on the article talk page raising your OR issue, my sourcing concerns, and suggesting that the neutrality column be removed.
If the neutral term column were to be removed, what then would be your conclusion? Egfrank (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At present, the Messianic column is also unsourced, and I think that would probe to be the controversial one. Based on prior debates here, the terms are used in different meanings in different groups. Probably the Jewish and Christian ones also are somewhat disputable about the exact meaning also--what is attempted here is a quick summary of very complicated issues. A source has been found of each definition, but I sure somewhat different ones could be found as well. so I think it's still OR. that is a shame, because I recognize the good intentions , good purpose, and neutral intent of the article. I don';t know how to address it, short of an article for each making the comparisons and giving a number of representative definitions. I wish I could figure out a way to keep it. DGG (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I've moved this exchange to the proper place at the end of the discussion--my apology for inserting my comment at the top by accident)DGG (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly that column is under-cited. However, there are also sources for the Messianic column, so this is a solvable problem. Have prior disputes been (a) between different Messianic groups (b) source based or opinion based? The Messianic column does not purport to display anyone's perception other than the Messianic perception so Christian and Jewish critique of the Messianic view would be out of the scope of the Messianic column contents. Among the sources available:
  • Several congregations have organized into a union, The Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations, that contains a doctrinal statement and several other educational resources for their community. It also has a formal training program Messianic Jewish Theological Institute. This program appears to be supported by the Fuller Theological Seminary[6], a seminary accredited by the Association of Theological Schools and so would, I presume, qualify as an academic religious training program.
  • There is a rather long bibliography on the Wikipedia article Messianic Judaism article that could be used as a starting point in the search for sources. One particularly well cited book seems to be David H Stern's Messianic Jewish Manifesto - source appears to be cited by Messianic information sites, e.g. messianicjewish.net, Messianic congregation website. Stern has a MDiv from Fuller Theological Seminary.
  • Organizations like Chosen People Ministries are active in providing training programs to churches. Many of these programs train people in something called "contextualization" (the Jewish community has a slightly less complementary term) wherein one presents the Christian message in a "culturally appropriate" way. This training includes explanations on how to translate Christian concepts into Jewish terminology and could obviously be source material, provided one of our editors has access to the training materials.
  • Chosen People Ministries also sponsors an academically acredited MDiv in Messianic Jewish Studies through the Charles L. Feinberg center and Talbot School of Theology. Clearly, there would be no course materials for such a program if there were no reliable sources suitable for Wikipedia articles.
Best, Egfrank (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be no AfD tag on Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms. There also seems to be an article on Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim terms which seems open to similar objections. In fact, this article seems to have been constructed by deleting the "Moslem" column from there and replacing it by the "Messianic" I'd appreciate a comment on the intended relationship of the articles. DGG (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
History -- The page grew out of a discussion on the Christianity and Judaism page in which it appeared that Messianic term switching was causing massive problems trying to create a coherently worded article. Since Messianic terms was the problem and neutral terms was the need, both columns were added in order to keep POV from accidentally intruding in that article and others. The "neutral" column indicates words that have the same meaning to Christians and Jews, whether or not it is popular. But if several terms could serve that purpose, the least offensive one would apply. For instance: Tanakh, Old Testament, Hebrew Bible. The first is not understood by Christians, and the second is offensive to Jews. However, BOTH groups understand "Hebrew Bible." The page with the Muslim column came afterwards when some editors suggested term confusion between Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Since the dynamics between the terms used in those groups are different, and since the scope of the groups is different, it became a separate page. Finally, this AfD was created because one of the editors doesn't like Messianics. The reason this is a "strange" AfD is because Wikipedia AfD is being used to promote a POV, instead of to solve one. Tim (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, perhaps the nominator did not follow all the steps which I will now look into, and will look into the other one. Thanks DGG. IZAK (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Placed the ((afd1)) on the page. IZAK (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim terms for the other issue. IZAK (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. There was no AfD tag on the page.
2. There is an "Under Construction" tag in place, thus not allowing an AfD (unless it was placed after, which it might have been, there is a flurry of edits done to that page).
3. There appears to be sock-puppetry, or at least an alliance of wikipedians who do not know how to say Keep or Delete that wish to Keep.
4. The article has issues in tone. The tag doesn't do it justice.
5. The article appears to be almost completely original research, and given the information, I don't think the sources could be found to back up everything within the time limit for an AfD.
6. I wouldn't be surprised if trolls are around who just want this gone for troll-sake.
7. The person proposing for deletion is a key contributor to the article.
But that's all just what I've noticed. --EnhancedDownloadBird (Upload) - 11:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request, be briefer in your AfD comments

The following request was made of those above who are writing essay-length responses to each other's comments, using this page more like a talk page and it is therefore losing the decorum usually associated with AfDs:

Hi: Pardon my advice. Regarding what is happening now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms. Normally, Wikipedia AfD pages are not the place to conduct massive debates between parties. You did a good job presenting your views. You should not be writing essay-length responses and retorts to others as that just clogs up the page, makes the whole process messy and hard to follow, and is over-all counter-productive and very annoying to most editors who do not do such things when coming to vote and give their views (usually not more than a few sentences, if that.) I know it is not easy for a writer, but try to be consise and to limit yourself to paragraph-length responses at the most. People coming onto the page can go to the article's talk page to see and join detailed debates. Thanks for giving this your attention. I am placing a similar message on the others who are creating havoc on that page with full-blown essay-length responses rather than more focused replies that would be much more helpful to all concerned. IZAK (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time Limit

Forgive the placement of this question -- but what is the time frame involved? There are at least four editors from three different religions (Muslim, Jewish, and Christian) adding sourced information to cells. But, since none of this is OR the updates are taking time and research. The irony is that if this were OR it would be a quick fix. But since it isn't OR it is taking time to document everything. But how much time do we have? Days? Weeks? Hours? Some of us are trying to have a life here. Tim (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standard AfD rules are that an admin will judge the community consensus five days after its listing. Currently there is a five day backlog in admins judging consensus, so in reality this will probably be closed somewhere between Dec 11 and Dec 15. If you disagree with the admin's judgement of consensus, that would be addressed at WP:DRV. Mbisanz (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I just need warning if it gets deleted so I can back all of it up. The collaboration of Muslim, Christian, and Jewish effort is too too rare to lose. I can't believe we can't even neutrally work together on Wikipedia!Tim (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't promise a closing admin would notify you before hand. You'd be better off finding an admin who will provide you a copy of a deleted page. Off hand, User:DGG, User:David Gerard, User:Moonriddengirl, User:Lar are people I'd think to ask. Moving to bottom to clear up pages Mbisanz (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to urge that the time limit be extended by a couple of weeks in this case. I was involved with this article earlier and I have serious reservations about it, particularly regarding OR and NOPV. Nonetheless, this seems to be a serious effort by well intentioned editors from different backgrounds and I think they deserve a chance to turn things around. Some possible directions I see include restructuring the article to make it NPOV and well sourced, not just in terms of individual statements but as to synthesis. Second, I could see this article merged with Messianic Jewish theology. Third, it could be move to Wikibooks [7] as the beginnings of a text on Interfaith dialog. The editors should be given a chance to develop a consensus on how they wish to move forward.--agr (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-admin, I have no idea how to implement such a request. I guess if the nominating editor User:LisaLiel agreed to withdraw the nom, that might be possible. I'd be willing to watch this article for her and re-nominate around new years if there are still problems. Also, I'm sure very few if any users would object to the article being copied to the userspace, improved, and then submitted for a WP:DRV to re-create it. Mbisanz (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Mbisanz (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of that, but it's not feasable if there's no consistent goal to reach. Right now the solutions are 1) we don't like a table, kill it; 2) we don't like neutrality, eliminate its column; 3) we don't like Messianics, pretend they don't exist. The only way to satisy 1 is to go away and never come back again. The only way to satisfy 2 is to eliminate NPOV in the name of NPOV (which is impossible to logically do). The only way to eliminate 3 is to eliminate all references on Wikipedia to Messianics and pretend the term switching isn't causing trouble on other Christian or other Jewish pages. We need something consistent and rational to shoot for or there is no way to satisfy it even offline. Any suggestions? Right now we're shooting in the dark, and the more I look at the objections the more obscured it gets.Tim (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that is the entire reason this is being proposed for deletion; it is (for lack of a better word) unfixable. I realize the effort put forth by the editors to this article, and how much information would be lost, but the article seems to have problems being justified in it's very existence. This article is based on very controversial distinctions that more than border on original research. All I can suggest is for somebody to put it in their sandbox and provide the link to other editors. Then I don't know what to tell you. --EnhancedDownloadBird (Upload) - 20:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you read the initial paragraphs of the article to check the social significance of the table. How did they fail to make the case for notability of a side-by-side comparison of terms used by Christians, Jews, and Messianic groups? Egfrank (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not the issue. As the intro to the current article makes clear, the article is trying to solve a problem: dealing with term switching by contrasting similar terms used by different groups. That is a laudable goal, but it is not what Wikipedia articles are for. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. There might be a case for something like this in WP:MOS, but I suspect it would be hard to reach a suitable consensus that editors on working all religions would accept. One place for this material might be Messianic Jewish theology, another might be Wikibooks. Those are my suggestions.--agr (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - that is helpful, but are you referring to the original intro or the revised intro - the intro has changed quite a bit even within the last 12 hours.Egfrank (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are sourcing the term usage. If there were three separate glossaries there would be no issue. The only "originality" was putting them side by side.Tim (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not willing to withdraw the nomination. I was remiss in trying to put band-aids on what was a bad idea for an article to begin with. I recognize that it's strange to have a major participant in an article suggest that it be deleted, but in this case, I simply hadn't thought it through before I started correcting things.
I can agree with the proposal to move this table into Messianic Jewish theology. In fact, it's fairly clear that if it belongs anywhere, that's the place. But I disagree strongly with it being an article itself, for reasons I've already stated. And I agree that there is nothing that can be done to salvage it as a separate article. It never should have been one. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That, Lisa, IMHO is the last place it belongs. The term switching is notable only from the Jewish and interfaith perspective. I can find cites documenting Jewish and interfaith concern about this, but none from the Messianic perspective. As near as I can tell the messianics think they are using the "true" meaning of the words and are completely oblivious to the non-Jewish way they are using traditional Jewish words and terminology. So this isn't about the Messianic theology at all.
But a further puzzle - if something is OR it is OR - it isn't going to be any less OR if it is embedded in another article. So aren't you implicitly acknowledging that this article is not OR?
This is the type of borderline dishonest argumentation that started the whole discussion of MJ's misuse of terms. I didn't say it belongs in another article. I said "if it belongs anywhere, that's the place". And OR is far from the only problem with it, so that even if the OR issue were to be resolved, I would still be strong favor of deleting this article. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also the size of this is too big to stick into another article - it would violate WP:LENGTH and so would be instantly spun out. So you would be back to a separate article. It seems to me that you aren't objecting to the article at all, but rather that you want to find a way to quarentine it in some Messianic ghetto. That might be a reason for a content or article naming or categorizing dispute. It isn't the basis for an AfD. Egfrank (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem very POV about the whole "ghetto" issue. It seems that if MJ isn't given undeserved and inappropriate prominance, you consider that to be "ghettoizing" it. I'll let your POV speak for itself. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've claimed this a lot, other voters have stated it, yet I've yet to see one valid outside source saying that Messianic Judaism is NOT a notable entity in the views of Christians and Jews. I think it's time to strongly ask for that now and see it before this claim is made again. On the other hand, I can point to the entire website of Jews For Judaism for just one source giving weight to the Messianic influence on Judaism. -Bikinibomb (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Related, WP:NOT#DIR "Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon." Messianic Judaism a phenomenon. -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, too big. It should be its own article in an Interfaith category or not exist at all. As long as it is all sourced, to insist that statements of "Jews believe this and Christian believe that" within a sentence, within paragraphs, within sections, within an Interfaith article is ok to do, but not say it in a table format, is much a lame and BS disruption to making pertinent information easily available to readers. But if that's how it is, then scrap the table format and use headings and regular sentence formats to make comparisons same as already done in existing Interfaith articles, then let's hear the objections to that. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article update - Neutral terms column removed

As per concerns of User:DGG, the neutral terms/overlapping terms column in in the process of being has been removed. That leaves three columns that are completely sourcable. Or rather, if the columns are not sourceable, then neither are any of the wikipedia articles associated with each of the terms. Are we prepared to delete those articles as well? Egfrank (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per concerns of sourced material, I've updated roughly a third of the Messianic cells with reference citations (and corrections based on those citations). It's impossible to continue for the evening, however, and because of my schedule it may take as long as 1 to 2 weeks to complete those cells. Again, I urge that this article be treated 1) as any other glossary, 2) as any other sourced article regarding a religious group, and 3) as any other article under active construction. Those in favor of this article are working very hard to reduce or eliminate the concerns of those who are not in favor. I invite those with concerns to offer either constructive assistance, or at least constructive patience. Right now there is a lot of goodwill going in one direction -- and this is a request for it going in both directions. After all, if an AfD page can't demonstrate NPOV, who can?Tim (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I remain unconvinced that the views of "Christians" or "Jews" on these topics can be summed up in a single line. one can source a single view, but it will always be that of a particular perspective within the religion. I am unfamiliar whether there is a similar range in "Messianic Judaism," but I would expect there to be. I recognize the possible utility of such a list, but I do not see how it can be done except with the sort of synthesis not permitted by OR. In articles about the individual terms, on the other hand, there is space to give examples of the range of views and definitions. If kept, i will have suggestions about some of the items, but that is not relevant now. But I do not see this as representing a POV towards or against "Messianic Judaism", and I think that was the force of some of the strongest objections. There's an interesting general discussion at the new essay Wikipedia:Comparison Articles and Original Research. I am undecided on the issue. DGG (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bias from the article's creator[edit]

The creator of the article, Tim (talk), has a background in Christian theology. He disagrees with the Orthodox Jewish view of the nature of Christian worship. Because of his disagreement, he is attempting to prevent other editors from stating that view. On the talk page of the Glossary article, he wrote:

Is Kaplan a valid source for the Jewish view? Absolutely. He absolutely is a valid, verifiable source to demonstrate that Judaism does not understand Christianity, and doesn’t even care to try. He is also a valid source to use in communicating terminology problems across paradigms.

He is referring here to Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, a highly esteemed Orthodox rabbi, who cited sources in Orthodox Jewish religious literature for all of the points he made. Tim, however, disagrees with him (and his antecendants), based on his knowledge as a one-time Christian pastor.

This has resulted in something tantamount to an edit war, where Tim has repeatedly attempted to substitute the personal views of an Orthodox rabbi named Joseph Telushkin for the sourced views of Aryeh Kaplan.

I would like to push for this deletion to go forward as quickly as possible so as to prevent Tim from further distortions and POV without having to ban him. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Lisa ,I am trying to understand the matter of this repeated theme that has been the central focus of the so called edit war you state ..... I am not absent of full consideration as I have consistently and repeatedly stayed up with the reading of "everything" to date with-in the Talk page(s) discussions , and at times engaged them myself ( to verify that , see I am the first post on the original ( 1st ) Talk page ...... now , regarding the repeated theme, you state that the references given for Rabbi Joseph Telushkin are only his personal views , and seem to make the claim that the views of Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan are other than personal views because they are "sourced" ...... I feel it imparitive that you qualify your statement with something other than the term sourced to validate it ........ I can only understand an inference that Kaplan is superior to Telushkin , but have yet to see any qualification for validity in that inference ......... please qualify it , or stand down on it ...... Pilotwingz (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One other point -- what Lisa is neglecting to say here (and anyone can go through the history to verify) is that I was arguing to the effect that Kaplan is no more an authority on Christian theology than Martin Luther is on Jewish theology. They don't define the reality of the other group, but they do define their own group's relationship with that other group based on their judgments. Even if their theoretical judgments could be invalid, their judgments are valid statements regarding their own understandings and the decisions of their own groups are valid for themselves. The rest of the discussion today regarded terminology (Gentile does not equal Christian). This, dear public, is the sordid bias Lisa is exposing -- my bias insisting on a neutral POV.Tim (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While everyone is human and not 100% neutral I'm not seeing that to an excessive level from Tim. However it's clear that you are just too personally close to the issue to maintain NPOV, especially when you imply in Talk that Jewish theology can't really be discussed except by a qualified Jew who knows Hebrew and has gone to school for it -- so since you can't you personally dictate everything reported, it just needs to be killed. If you can correct that, it would go a long way to show good intention. If not maybe you should kind of bow out of it for a while.
Like I said in Talk, the article is going to exist in some form since it is a notable Interfaith issue involving all three religions, maybe better in standard sections/paragraphs and not termed a glossary. So keep this one or delete it, doesn't matter, but if you really want to be involved productively, I suggest that focus now be on the best way to present this information since the topic isn't going to just go bye-bye. -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just try to ban me, Lisa. The only POV pushing is your own. I argue that Judaism defines Judaism and Christianity defines Christianity by Wikipedia standards and that's POV??? Try the ban. Any unbiased third party will see it for what it is -- Wikilawyering at it's worst. Anyone here can look at the context and see that my only argument is that Christianity does NOT define Judaism and Judaism does NOT define Christianity. You, on the other hand, insist that Christianity defines nothing and Judaism defines everything. Although I am just as observant as you in Judaism, I do not endorse your need to silence everything but only your selected sources. There are other sources, other viewpoints, and other religions to be fairly treated, and not trampled upon by the edit war you created. Again, I invite anyone here to look at the history of this debacle of a day in which I gave Lisa far too much credit for good faith.Tim (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one posting personal attacks in a Vote section. And you're not telling the truth here, Tim. You have tried over and over to alter the statement of the Jewish perception by adding in your personal "corrections" of that view, based on your knowledge of Christianity. Judaism defines Judaism's perceptions of Christianity, but you want to let Christianity define Judaism's perceptions of Christianity.
I kept your quotes and added another quote from a Rabbi. It's time for you to tell the truth -- anyone here can look for themselves.Tim (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fairly clear that you're going on the offensive as strongly as you are because you see that there are more than twice as many delete votes as there are keep votes.
Lisa, it's been my experience that negativity is four times as powerful as constructiveness. Which side has more votes? Sorry -- this is Wikipedia. Which side has more merit. It's time for merit to be seen.Tim (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for you, Bikinibomb, if you recreate some of the content in this article in an appropriate format, fine. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bias from the article's detractor[edit]

Lisa writes "I understand that you have a fixation on the fringe group MJ. I don't understand why, but it's pretty clear that you have the hots for the subject. It's a nutty and minor little sect, and while it is something to be fought (as Jews for Judaism does), it is not a major phenomenon".

She didn't write that to me, an Orthodox Jew, but BikiniBomb, a Muslim. Somehow both Jewish and Muslim editors are conspiring together to promote some "nutty...little sect."

Come on, everyone. It is this AfD which needs to go away, not the page. We have Muslim, Jewish, and Christians all working peacefully together except for one individual who is accusing everyone else of having some irrational fixation.

Sorry -- but this has gone on long enough. Kill the AfD. Treat it for what it is -- a titanic waster of everyone's time.Tim (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, the nominator may have a personal agenda, but it would appear that this goes both ways. Whether the AfD has been put up for invalid reasons on her part, which has been a primary argument of late, is absolutely irrelevant. You should instead be focusing on what other editors have found as valid reasons. WP:EFFORT does not mean the page should stay. You need to address all the problems editors have put forth as valid reasons to remove the page.
  • WP:WEIGHT: The article gives undue weight to Messianic Judaism by placing it on the same level as Judaism and Christianity.
  • WP:NPOV: The violation of the above actually crosses into making an unbiased point of view. Especially in religious cases, which are sometimes quite controversial, sources can be found for exactly what an author wants it to be and not necessarily express a majority of view points.
  • WP:VERIFIABILITY: In keeping with finding sources that the author/editors may want;
Sources are required: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source. . ."
but your sources may be questionable: "Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."
  • WP:OR: Thus, the article may seem to use biased sources to make claims of original research. This leads naturally into...
  • WP:COATRACK (not policy): While coatracking--especially in this case--may not necessarily be put in place, it certainly can be--especially in this case--very easily. Are you sure that this article is unbiased? It defines words across Christianity, Judaism, and Messianic Judaism, and until recently, barely had any sources for it. I can imagine some sources were skipped over because they did not agree with what was put down. An author cannot control this. But all-in-all, this leads back to keeping a NPOV. My personal point, and the concern of several other editors that have voted for a delete, is that the article is inherently flawed and will violate at least 1 crucial policy.
All in all, this is a WP:PROBLEM: "With that said, if an article is so bad that it is harmful in its current state, then deleting now, and possibly recreating it later, remains an option. If the subject is notable, but the current article is so blatantly biased that it's an embarrassment, or a blatant hoax where all the statements are wrong, then Wikipedia may indeed be better off without the article."
Simply put, don't try to discredit the AfD by trying to discredit the person who put it up there. The article has inherent problems that cannot be fixed by a couple of lines in an introductory paragraph.--EnhancedDownloadBird (Upload) - 16:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, if you can show me where I wrote that trinitarianism is idolatry for Jews but not necessarily for Christians, I will correct it myself. I will also issue a public apology to you. Trinitarianism is idolatry for Jews -- even if they self-identify as Christian or Messianic --, but not necessarily for non-Jews (or Gentiles; I have no axe to grind with either term). If that's the issue that's bothering you, we can resolve it now, and be done with this dispute.
However, just to be clear, I still think the article should be deleted. Both for the reasons I original gave, and for all of the reasons that have been added by various people on the deletion page. I don't want you to come later and say that my willingness to resolve our dispute on the idolatry issue included a willingness to close the AfD, and that I reneged. I'm trying to be completely clear about this. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(This was deleted right after I posted it) Lisa, [8] shows the wording I created in that cell "Orthodox Jewish authorities hold that it is indeed idolatry, and therefore forbidden for Jews, even if they profess themselves to be Christian". Now, after reviewing the links, it appears that I did delete your vandalism of Egfrank's hours of work. I didn't realize that this quote was part of your vandalism of his work. Again, I have no problem with Kaplan (but I am coming to understand Egfrank's concern with its applicability in that cell). My problem has been, and still is, your own use of quotations that say something to the effect that trinitarianism "is idolatry for Jews, but not for Christians." That's just unintelligle to anyone who isn't Jewish, because by everyone else's understanding of the word "Christian" it means something like "anyone of any ethnic group who believes in Jesus." Well, Jews are one ethnic group. Although you do not intend a non-sequitor there, you are creating one by using the term that way without some kind of explaination. What you meant is that it is "idolatry for Jews, but not for Gentiles." Not everyone who reads this page is Jewish, and they'll read something entirely different from what you mean. What SOME of them will read is something like "trinitarianism is idolatry in Judaism, but it is not in Christianity". Although that is a true statement, this is NOT what the quotes are saying and it is far below the significant point you are trying to make. I spent hours the other day trying to help you say EXACTLY what you intended to say in a way that everyone else on the planet would understand it. And the wording in your cell needs to relate to the wording of the cited source in such a way that EVERYONE has a chance to make the connection you are trying to convey. Instead, you resort to further vandalism.Tim (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your latest query -- LOOK AT THE WORDING in the sources you cited. You have to clarify something when it is worded in a way that people will misunderstand, or they'll read something different than what the source meant, and what you meant in citing it.Tim (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


all this is a question for editing. As in all other subjects, one give the accepted view, with proportional space to fringe viewpoints. The difficulties raised would otherwise prevent the discussion of any religious subject upon which there were different views,--which approximately equals every one of them. DGG (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I pretty much addressed all of them before, but I can recap.

It's a great argument against Wikipedia but not against this article. -Bikinibomb (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe the most important point, which I already strongly asked for -- all this accusation of WEIGHT/OR but I've yet to see one outside source from anyone defining how much mention Messianic Judaism should be getting in relation to other religious views. If you think OR is a big concern, let's see some sources. On the other hand I've provided a cite from a rabbi saying it is a phenomenon, pointed to the whole website Jews for Judaism, etc. And if nothing else, this entire AfD proves that they are at least notable here on Wikipedia for purposes of controversy and discussion. In other words I'm saying let's see some put up or shut up about OR. -Bikinibomb (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this isn't WP:GAME, I'm not sure what is. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is regarding all reasons for deletion, one of the main gripes being that editors might choose biased sources. Newsflash, that is an issue all over Wikipedia, in all the percussion and 12-step program articles I contribute to, in the Catholic Purgatory article I help with -- everywhere. That's a problem with Wikipedia, if it is really a problem. The solution here seems to be taking a hot issue and shitcanning it as a way to control personal POV -- if the article isn't there then opposing views can be censored that way. Damn right, WP:GAME. -Bikinibomb (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lisa -- this AfD, your edit warring, the phony protection tags this morning... yes -- "game" is a good word for it.Tim (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More