Talk:Jews for Jesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jews for Jesus article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] A Jew who converts to Christianity is no longer a Jew?

I was a little surprised to hear that this is the main-stream position taken by Judaism, as the article seems to be saying. It seems to me that we can no longer say that Karl Marx was Jewish. Not that this would be a big loss. Steve Dufour 17:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are the same Steve Dufour from Usenet, you know better than this. Jewish law is concise on this point: a Jew is a Jew, no matter how he sins (or, in this case, no matter what non-Jewish beliefs s/he may come to hold). It is NOT complex (as has been stated below) it's very simple: if you are born a Jew (of a Jewish mother), or you convert, you are a Jew. I'm not going to discuss conversion disagreements, because they don't apply here. When people say "Jews for Jesus aren't Jewish", they are saying a) "Most of those people were never Jews to begin with; they have a history of lying about this" and/or b) ""Jews for Jesus" is a Xian organization" - which, I am relieved to see, Wikipedia accepts. There are Jews who will say that Jews who profess a belief in Jesus are no longer Jews, but these beliefs are outside mainstream Jewish law.FlaviaR 21:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"Jew" is a complex term as referenced by the article Who is a Jew?. It encompasses, cultural, religious, social, political and ethnic factors. If Marx converted to Christianity then he is a Christian, who is ethnically Jewish. I believe, the article is referring to the religious definition. However, if you show me the exact sentence, it can be cleared up if it is confusing. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference. I will check out that article. Please forgive me for not wanting to get involved in the debate here. Blessings. Steve Dufour 21:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I've got news for you, Steve Dufour, you will find point of view pushing gibberish at that article (Who is a Jew?). Bus stop 21:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
p.s. Marx's parents converted to Christianity; it's said to help the father's career. Marx himself in his early writings advocated some form of Christianity to help solve the world's problems. His WP article downplays this a little. Again this is a complex issue and both Christians and communists have problems with it. Steve Dufour 21:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Jew is no more a "complex" a term than Christian or Muslim. "Cultural, religious, social, political and ethnic factors" apply no more to Jews than to Christians and Muslims. Please make a note of this fact for your erudition. Bus stop 17:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Ramsquire -- You've wisely removed your response because it contains incorrect statements. In point of fact Christianity has the "cultural" components that you say Judaism has. In point of fact Christianity has the "religious" components that you say Judaism has. In point of fact Christianity has the "social" components that you say Judaism has. In point of fact Christianity has the "political" components that you say Judaism has. In point of fact Christianity has the "ethnic" components that you say Judaism has. Please make a note of this fact for your erudition. Bus stop 19:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually I removed my response because this topic seems to be an ax you have to grind (including an indefinite block not too long ago for disruptive editing) and I don't want to play this game with a potential troll. Needless to say you are reading way too much into my original explanation to Durfour and I don't agree with anything you have wrote. Now go find someone else to play with. Have a good day. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Who is "grinding an ax," you or I? Please don't call names. Bus stop 19:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

We kind of went through this a while back. As Ramsquire said, "Jewish" can refer to following the religion of Judaism, or to being ethnically Jewish, or both. The conclusion we came to when this last went through mediation was (in a nutshell) that one can be ethnically Jewish even if one practices a different religion, and that where that distinction would be important, the article should be careful to state "ethnically Jewish" or "religiously Jewish". Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade -- And the identical situation applies to Christianity and Christians. A Christian can ethnically Christian even if a Christian practices a different religion. The fact of the matter is that there is no distinction that can be made in this regard between Christians and Jews. Why are you bothering to point it out in regard to Jews when it is equally applicable to Christians? Are we going to now start referring to "ethnic Christians?" Why not drop the whole nonsensical thing and use one word to refer to a person? Why not refer to them as Christian if they are Christian? And why not refer to them as Jewish if they are Jewish? Would that be too difficult? Bus stop 22:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
"Ethnically Christian"? There is no separate ethnicity for Christians, the first Christians were likely Jewish ethnically. Homestarmy 22:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Homestarmy -- If there is no such thing as "ethnically Christian" then there is no such thing as "ethnically Jewish." Bus stop 22:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
A Jew who converted to Christianity would not be buried in a Jewish cemetery, no matter of his ethnic ancestry. Make your conclusions. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
This is untrue. It is legally permitted, just not a popular decision. FlaviaR 21:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
We're getting a bit away from the original point of the post. Dufour posted his surprise that it would be wrong to say Karl Marx was Jewish. All my post in reply meant to say is 1) that whether he would be considered a Jew is a subject of dispute (or in other words a controversial topic--and I refuse to take a side in that dispute) and 2) requesting the exact line he was referencing so I could clear it up if needed. Despite the effort of some (or one) we need not revisit this dispute here. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Ramsquire -- It is not necessarily a "subject of dispute." You are disputing with yourself when you utilize speech like "ethnic Jew." If he is Jewish, call him Jewish. If he is not Jewish, say he is not Jewish. If you don't know, say I don't know. Bus stop 22:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify my earlier point: There are some people born to a Jewish mother (which, if I am correct and I apologize if I'm not, under traditional Jewish practice would make them Jewish) who come to practice other faiths. When asked, said person may still say he is a Jew, while others would disagree. I have no idea how the positions split. That is ALL my response meant to transmit. Now this idea that Christianity has an ethnic component outside its religious one is just flat out wrong. Has anyone ever heard anyone refer to themselves as "Christian- Muslim" or "Christian-Hindu"? However I have heard several people refer to themselves as "Jewish-Christian", like the subjects of this article. If you want to say those people are wrong, well that's a discussion between them and Jews (or other Jews, or however I can phrase it without being insensitive). As there are two sides to this-- for WP purposes we have to be neutral. If it were a casual conversation, I may have a different take. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I think here is another point where confusion seems to be arising. It is true that Judaism has some characteristics of ethnicity - it can be handed down from a parent to child. HOWEVER, since the only one who can do so is the mother (I will address any difference later), any similarity to ethnicity stops here. Judaism is also like a culture: we have rules for everything (like you wouldn't believe!). But, the fact that you cannot simply start following the rules & say "Hey, I'm Jewish", is where the similarity to a culture ends (Unless you are following the rules that say you have to convert to join). Now, some Reform Jews will say that the child of a Jewish man can be considered Jewish, but, they also say that said child has to follow & believe Judaism in order to be considered a Jew. So, even with all the components/similarities to ethnicity & culture, it comes down to the fact that Judaism is a religion, but one that does not follow the rules other religions lay out - the key one for this discussion being "being able to leave." I hope this clears everything up, but I bet not...FlaviaR 04:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Bus stop, I think you're missing something here. "Christian" refers only to a religious belief, as does Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, and other such. One can be a Caucasian Muslim, an Arabic Christian, a black Wiccan, or any other such ethnic/religious combination, but one cannot be a "Wiccan Muslim". "Jewish", on the other hand, can refer to an ethnic background as well as a religious belief. With the term being ambiguous that way, it is possible for someone who is ethnically Jewish to be a "Jewish Christian", or even a "Jewish atheist" (on that last, I know someone who is, and he still certainly considers himself ethnically though not religiously Jewish), with "Jewish" being used in the ethnic sense. It's unfortunate that in this case, the ambiguity of the term's different uses causes so much trouble, but both the ethnic and religious definitions are real, recognized meanings for the word "Jewish". However, the fact that the ambiguity exists for that word does not mean it exists for all such words—most words used to describe religious conviction are not also used to describe ethnicity. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Now I see where the confusion is coming in. You are confusing Jewish law, which does not recognize conversions out, with "ethnicity". Jewishness is defined by Jewish law, not science nor social conventions nor public mores. One can be, for example, a Wiccan Jew - by Jewish law. Most people, even Jews who are either ignorant of, or who do not hold to, Jewish law, would say that this person is no longer Jewish - most likely the person him/herself among them. I can see where it is confusing to someone used to thinking in other ways, but it really is straightforward.FlaviaR 21:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Seraphimblade -- You are incorrect about that. Christian does not only refer to religious belief, any more than Jewish only refers to religious belief. A Christian can have no religious belief just as a Jew can have no religious belief. In either case they may refer to themselves, and others may refer to them, by the term of the religion. The belief part may absent from their lives, but they may still be referred to by the religion's name. This is equally applicable to Christians as Jews. Thus a non-believing Jew may be a Jew, and a non-believing Christian may be a Christian. Bus stop 23:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
By the way, a "Jewish Christian" is a Christian. Bus stop 23:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I've never heard of "ethnic Christians" and I do not think "a non-believing Christian may be a Christian". What sources are you basing on when making such claims? ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

In practice, a person born into a family with a Christian heritage, and baptized, will not be subject to close inquiry if they self-identify as a Christian. Only if they make a point of denouncing a significant aspect of the faith would an issue arise. 66.243.196.131 01:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Look at Who is a Jew?#Non-religious ethnic and cultural definitions. I am a very religious Christian, although I consider myself ethnically Jewish. Nyttend 01:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
(To the IP) That's true, and a huge reason for so many false converts in today's world, but that doesn't make them Christian. Popular society may wish to ignore the possibility that someone who identifies as Christian may not be Christian at all, but sheer force of will doesn't make everyone who identifies as Christian actually Christian. Homestarmy 01:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, the debate over whether one's religion is determined by self-identification or by other factors has been around for some time. Of course, that could lead to some real oddities (a claimed Christian claiming not to believe in Jesus, a claimed atheist claiming to believe in angels, etc.), but certainly there's a lot of latitude in interpretation of religion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I can dream that someone will agree with me eventually, can't I? :/ Homestarmy 01:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, look. It hardly matters what article's Talk page this is discussed on. The "ethnic Jew" thing is spread all over Wikipedia. It attempts to separate Jewish identity from Christian identity in some fundamental way. A Jew is supposed to believe in a religion. He/she sometimes does not. A Christian is supposed to believe in a religion. He/she sometimes does not. Yes, there are other components to religious identity. But it is to be understood that they are all present to some degree in all people. It becomes a bit facile to pigeonhole someone according to one component of their religious (or non-religious) identity. Ethnic-anything represents just such a pigeonholing, and it should be avoided. Use more words if necessary, to flesh out the exact situation you are referring to, as applicable to the exact individual under discussion. Resorting to simplified (simplistic) language is not the best way to describe people, especially when it comes to religious matters. Bus stop 02:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to all be missing the point. This is what happens when statements are taken out of context. The mainstream Jewish organizations that have made statements denying the "Jewishness" of converts to this organization were doing so in direct response to this organization's dishonest and misleading proselitization campaigns, which use Jewish imagery and misrepresent Jewish beliefs. Strong statements have been made to combat the misrepresentations being made by the Christian Evangelists in order to "trick" Jews into converting. If you read what the Anti Defamation League has to say on the subject Jews for Jesus: Targeting Jews for Conversion with Subterfuge and Deception the context becomes clearer. One should not take statements made in a particular context and broadly apply them to all situations. In other words, I believe, Karl Marx can still be referred to as Jewish. MegaMom 03:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

So, what you are saying seems to be that the Jews for Jesus are bad people who should be punished by being told that they are not really Jewish? Steve Dufour 04:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be jumping to conclusions. Again, please, read the Anti Defamation League's website. Among other tactics this group is telling Jews they'll be "more Jewish" by "joining up", downplaying the notion of Christian conversion. This is what Jewish organizations are responding to. MegaMom 05:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The question asked is if they convert to christianity. If they are a Jew for Jesus, they are still Jewish by their own definition. By whos definition are they asking as different groups will believe different things and I sincerly doubt that a unilateral definition will be reached by all groups.10max01 04:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to take the position that the mainstream of Jewish society says that Jews who believe in Christianity are no longer Jewish. I am not an expert on this kind of thing and I was a little surprised to hear that. (This has nothing to do with the question of the character of the Jews for Jesus, they still might be bad people after all.) Steve Dufour 04:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
That is the problem with the article. Statements have been taken out of context and it is misleading. It seems that any discussion of whether or not Jewish organizations consider them Jews belong in another section, not the opening. There is a valid argument to be made for the fact that they identify themselves as Jewish. MegaMom 05:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I am a Conservative Jew, and we were actually taught that those who are Jews for Jesus are not Jewish. I can not speak for any other branch, although I do know that the country of Israel does not consider a Jew for Jesus a Jew. Also, how could somebody be a Christian and a Jew? 10max01 04:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Why should holding the opinion that Jesus died for your sins (all that is needed to be a Christian in the opinion of most Protestants at least) instantly change a Jew into an non-Jew? Steve Dufour 04:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
A Jew holding a belief contrary to Judaism doesn't make said person not a Jew anymore. It makes said person a sinning Jew, or an apostate. Or an ignoramus (said in the factual tone, not the flaming one: ignorant as in "does not know any better".). FlaviaR 04:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Because a core belief of Judiasm is that the messiah has not come. If you are saying that a person just believes that Jesus believes he was dying for the sins of you as well as others, no that does not make you lose your Judiasm, but that is not what Jews for Jesus is only about.10max01 05:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to use the first sentence in the article: Jews for Jesus is a Christian [1] evangelical organization based in San Francisco, California, whose goal is to convince Jews that Jesus is the Messiah and God. To be a Jew for Jesus one must believe that Jesus is the messiah, therefore, under the beliefs of the majority of Jewish denominations, the person is no longer a Jew. 10max01 05:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Since Judaism is not compatible in any way with the belief that Jesus is the son of god, or the messiah, a Jew who converts to Christianity would not be considered Jewish in a religious sense. However, if Karl Marx was Jewish at some point in his life, than it would be accurate to say that "Karl Marx was Jewish," because at some point he was.Enegue 23:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Marx's Jewish parents converted to Christianity. I am not sure if this was before he was born. If so they would no longer be Jewish so he would not have been born Jewish. Unless I missed something. (The case might be a little more complex since their conversion seems to be for the sake of the father's career, and maybe not for sincere religious reasons.) Steve Dufour 00:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
It does not matter whether or not Marx's parents converted. They were of Jewish blood, therefore he was of Jewish blood. He is, therefore, Jewish. The only question is whether or not he was a practicing Jew. MegaMom 01:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see how Mrs. Marx, a Christian and therefore not a Jew, could give birth to a Jewish son. Steve Dufour 03:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Because, by Jewish law, the only real determinant of anyone's Judaism, says she was still a Jew, although an apostate.FlaviaR 04:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That is true, although I thought that was an example and not part of the article. Was I missing something?10max01 23:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Benjamin Disraeli is another example of a person often thought to be Jewish who maybe isn't really. Steve Dufour 01:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, Steve Dufour, I find much of your commentary somewhat troubling. It would appear that you are attempting to develop some sort of argument whereby well known Jewish figures can be robbed of their Jewish identities. What is this all about? MegaMom 01:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I was just making some examples to question the assumption, which this article seems to be making, that a Jew who becomes Christian ceases to be a Jew. Steve Dufour 02:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, perhaps the best course of action is to focus on fixing this article, that contains statements that have been taken out of their proper context. Applying the same flawed logic to the subjects of other biographies is a slippery slope. Besides the point, the one sentence to which you refer, is NOT the focus of this article and should probably not be included in the opening paragraph. MegaMom 02:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if there was any misunderstanding. Steve Dufour 02:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

To say that Jews for Jesus is not a "Jewish" organization (ie one that practices Judaism) is not necessarily the same as saying that Jewish people who belong to that organization are no longer Jewish.

Jews who convert to other religions may be considered Jewish:

a) from a religious standpoint

Orthodox Judaism, for one, generally considers Jews who change their faith to be believers in mistaken ideologies, but still "Jewish."

b) ethnically

Judaism was originally the national religion of the Israelites, i.e. the Hebrews, later called Judeans (from where comes "Jew"). After the exile from Judea, Judaism, as a religion and ethnicity, continued to define itself as being hereditary. Jews often identify with a "Jewish nation." Especially when in a foreign environment, Jews consider each other not merely to be practitioners of the same religion, but distant relatives (often they are closer relatives, see Jewish geography).

--Eliyak T·C 03:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to be asserting in several places that a person of Jewish ancestry who is a Christian is not a Jew in the opinion of mainstream Judaism and by the policies of the nation of Israel. Steve Dufour 03:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Then the article needs to make clear that the "Law of return" is NOT a replication/application of straight Jewish law. I'll go see to it. FlaviaR 21:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I did it but I think not elegantly. Feedback is appreciated.FlaviaR 04:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with those who say Jew is no more complex a title than Christian. Is Judaism an ethnicity? One would have a hard time explaining how a black man from Ethipoia and a blond Finnish Jew are the same ethnicity. Even among Jews of the same country, there are different ethnicities. Like Holland where there are Yeki and Portugese communities side by side for hundreds of years. On the other hand, in certain areas, Jewishness is certainly treated as an ethnicity. The same however is true of Christianity. A Korean Presbyterian and a Anglican from London are obviously not the same ethnicity, but a Croation and a Serbian are seperate ethnic identies only because one group of indistinguishable Slavs is Orthodox and the other Catholic. Really I don't see what that has to do with this particular article. More important to the article is the obvious truth that at least one of J4J claims is congruent with Jewish law: A Jew remains a Jew even if he becomes a Christian. As to the remark that he cannot be burried in a Jewish cemetary so he is not a Jew, neither can anyone publicly mumar on a commandment. Are we going to write an article how all the self identifying Orthodox Israeli youth who make out at the Jerusalem central buss stop are not Jews? Now you might say, but obviously they are burried in Jewish cemetaries. That's true. But that is the practice of Jews, not the law of Judaism. It is much easier to deny someone else's child burial than one's own, so all kinds of qoolahs are found with regard to the mumar. Nevertheless, iker halakhah is they stay outside. Basejumper2 09:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disraeli again

It seems to me that Benjamin Disraeli was much more important than the Jews for Jesus ever could be in encouraging Jews to assimilate and even convert. Yet this issue is not even mentioned in his article. In this article the controversy takes up most of the space. I've put neutrality tags on both articles. Steve Dufour 11:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless a connection between Disraeli and JFJ is provided based on WP:RS, that tag won't stay for a long time. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
This article is unbalanced because it is 10% about the subject of the article and 90% about how other people feel the subject is evil. Steve Dufour 00:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
That's not true at all. I haven't counted lines, but it is much closer to 50-50. The first few sections are almost entirely from the organization's own web site. 6SJ7 17:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
And if it were true that the article looked that way, it might very well be because 90% of people DO think it's evil.FlaviaR 17:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attack Articles

There is a WP policy against articles whose purpose is to attack individuals or groups. Steve Dufour 20:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that this article attacks JFJ? It seems that on the contrary - JFJ makes attacks on Jews and Judaism - this is nothing new, and given history of antisemitism, surely it would be wrong for WP to support that. Please review talk archives and the mediation. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I have publicly spoken out against attacks against Jews, for instance the bombing of a synagogue in Turkey a few years ago on the Usenet group soc.culture.jewish. (BTW Steve Dufour is my real name.) However, the fact that you are attacked doesn't give you the right to have an attack article on WP against someone you don't like. Steve Dufour 00:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Let's not make this personal. Your real name and your activism elsewhere is your own business. Please elaborate what "attack" are you talking about? ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is the link to WP's policy on attack articles: [1] It says: "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity." I think that is pretty much the purpose of this article. Steve Dufour 01:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that practitioners of the faith have been singularly unable to provide any content sourced to reliable sources, even though they've edited and re-edited and re-edited it. Indeed, they seem singularly unable to produce any sources for their claims. It's hard for non-practitioners to write about a faith they don't share. Jayjg (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
If there are no reliable sources giving the basic facts about the organization maybe there should not be a WP article about them at all. Or not such a long one anyway. Steve Dufour 14:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to Humus sapien's question, here is the opening section of the article:

Jews for Jesus is a Christian [1] evangelical organization based in San Francisco, California, whose goal is to convince Jews that Jesus is the Messiah and God. Viewing its followers as "living out their Jewishness," [2] Jews for Jesus defines "Jewish" in terms of parentage and as a birthright, regardless of religious belief.[3] Identification of Jews for Jesus as "Jewish" is overwhelmingly rejected by Jewish religious denominations,[4][5] secular groups[6][7] and the State of Israel[8] due to the Christian beliefs of its members. The group's evangelism related activities are opposed also by some Christian organizations and scholars.[9][10]

In my opinion: The first 8 words are fine, although a footnote is not really needed - the fact that they are Christian can be cited later in the article. The information on where they are based is not that important and should be moved down the page. The next part "...whose goal is to convice Jews that Jesus is the Messiah and God." has a couple of problems. That Jesus is the Messiah and God are what all Christians believe (with a few exceptions who don't think he is literally God). This seems to be said for "shock value", rather than just saying they want Jews to become Christians. The word "convince" is also a problem. Christians believe that a person's becoming Christian is a matter of God's will, not human will. Therefore saying that their goal is to "convince" is certainly wrong. I would say: "Their goal is that Jews become Christian." The next sentence about how they indentify a person as Jewish is an important point but I don't think it really belongs in the opening section. The last half of the opening section is about how the Jews for Jesus are scorned and rejected by the Jewish and main-stream Christian religious establishments as well as by the government of Israel and unnamed "secular groups". This is also important information, but it doesn't belong in the opening section - certainly it shouldn't take up half of the opening remarks.

I hope that gives a little information on why I feel that this article's purpose seems to be to attack the group. Steve Dufour 14:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

On the Christian thing, crazily enough, some people apparently trying to edit from JfJ's point of view wouldn't stop trying to replace it with "jewish" if i'm not mistaken, mis-capitalization and all. So apparently, it is contentious to some people, though I have absolutly no idea how they can possibly maintain a rational argument saying that JfJ is Jewish instead of Christian. Also, as an evangelical organization who's main focus is evangelism, I think their main goal really is to evangelize to Jews, conversion only occurs by God's will, but Christians are commanded to spread the Gospel so that people might actually want to become converted. When talking with Jews, JfJ does seem to focus particularily on trying to show them how Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecy. Though your sentence works too, in a less specific way. Homestarmy 18:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Steve, J4J does try to convince Jewish people that Christ is the Messiah. That is the point of every piece of literature that it hands out. Here's the first item on its website FAQ:

One thing is certain; after two thousand years, Jesus of Nazareth is still as controversial in the Jewish community as he was in the first century. Still, most hold to the traditional bottom line that whatever he was, he wasn't the expected Messiah.

Jews for Jesus begs to differ. We believe that Jesus was, and still is, who he claimed to be-the Messiah of Israel and of all nations. In this section, we present you with arguments for his Messiahship and respond to objections that you may have heard or raised. In this way, we join with those first-century Jews and Gentiles who found Jesus-in Hebrew, Y'shua-to be "the way, the truth, and the life."[2]

--Mantanmoreland 18:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. My problem there is with the word "convince." It seems to have a kind of negative feel, like they go around arguing with people. I would like to see this whole article deleted and replaced with a short neutral article that gives the facts about the group, of course including the views of mainstream Jews and Christians in criticism. And then locked so no further edit warring can go on. By the way, how important is Jews for Jesus anyway? It seems to me that most of the notice they have gotten is because of their catchy name. How many Jews have converted through their efforts? And don't you think some of them would have done so anyway? Steve Dufour 18:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh if you can only permanently lock articles, outside of special circumstances! But alas this is a wiki and that would go against the nature of this project. There has been a mediation on this article in the past, and the current version is largely a compromise between the two camps. However, the article probably can be made shorter. As for the importance of JfJ, well that's a subjective thing depending on how the group impacts certain persons, communities and groups. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
You are probably right. Steve Dufour 18:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve, they DO go around argueing with people. They stand outside of Jewish events and pass out flyers, try to convince Jews to convert, and very actively try to convince Jews to convert. I think your change to the first sentences of this article are taking away the main point of the existance of the organization. Negative sounding or not, the goal of this organization IS to convert Jews. I think your edit should be undone.Enegue 20:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But from their point of view (I'm assuming that they are Christians.) it is God that is convincing and converting. To say that they are is not NPOV. Their activities should be described of course. Besides that, often times a simple statement of fact is much more powerful because it lets the readers make up their own minds rather than being told what to think and feel. Steve Dufour 21:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Our core policy is NPOV. We do not write from JFJ's POV or anti-JFJ POV. We describe facts. In this light, I think "convince" is a too good sounding verb for their activities. But if this is the consensus, I'll let it be. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
But the sentence in question talks about their goal. It seems to me that their own goal should be expressed in their own "language". Steve Dufour 21:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes to the opening sentence after bringing up some issues. I thought my changes were fair. However, they were totally reverted. Why is the fact that they are based in San Francisco important enough for the opening sentence? Steve Dufour 21:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Then their own "language" will have to be explained/counterbalanced with WP:RS. Please see WP:LEAD. It should be a NPOV summary of the entire article. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree 100%. I would be happy if the article was 50% about the JfJ and 50% criticising them, rather than the 10%/90% ratio now. I am a Universalist who believes that all religions are good. Am I excluded from working on this article? Steve Dufour 21:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not a matter of %%, but rather of facts and of what notable verifiable reliable sources say on the subject. I for one think that JFJ are given too much leeway and credibility here, but this is a result of compromises and a stable version. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I think I was a little unclear in my comment. I don't think the article should be 50% pro and 50% con about the group. I think the main part (at least 50%) should be about the group. The rest of the article can be about other people's opinions about them. Steve Dufour 13:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Humus here. This is not a perfect article by any means, but it is the result of a hard fought compromise that has managed to keep the article stable for months now. Now I am not saying that no one should propose changes, or that I have any problems with your suggestions. I'm just informing you that any edit may have the unwanted effect of negating the "uneasy peace" attained a few months ago. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. This is a bad article. It should be deleted as an attack article. WP would get along fine without it and people looking for information can look elsewhere. This is the case even if Jews for Jesus is an evil organization that deserves nothing but unrelenting hatred and attacks. WP is not the place for that. Steve Dufour 22:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you know what google results for JfJ look for? It's not better than this. Basically, what you've got is a few links to JfJ, this article, and a bazillion pages of sites attacking JfJ. The mere existance of criticism of an article's subject and a few debatably weaselly sentences is not a speedy deletion criterion. Homestarmy 22:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not trying to defend them or help them. I am trying to get a bad article off of WP, since there seems to be no interest in making it anything but an attack article. Steve Dufour 22:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This is article may have problems but it is NOT a candidate for speedy deletion nor is this an attack page. The group is notable, so the article is proper. It would be best for you to remove the speedy deletion tag as I don't believe the community would support your interpretation. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
WP defines attack pages as "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity." However I will take the tag off and the neurtality tags as well in the hope that the article will be improved. I'm going to take a break from it myself. Wishing everyone well. Steve Dufour 22:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This article fails the NPOV smell test. Just by reading the intro, I get the impression that the writer of the article despises the organization. We would serve our readers better by revising the article, so that they cannot detect whether we like or dislike the group. --Uncle Ed 13:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. Steve Dufour 13:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ed. Don't delete the article again please. Feel free to add balancing material; the current material, however, is properly sourced, and highly relevant, so it needs to stay. Jayjg (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Unless it's changed substantially from when UncleEd first read it, I say it fails the NPOV from the other end of the spectrum: looks to me as though the writer was trying to be as polite and approving as s/he could, without actually being called a Jew-hater.FlaviaR 17:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't "delete" the article; I started over, because it was hopelessly mired in an edit war. And I wish you would not issue orders to me like that: you have no editorial authority over me.
I invite you to join me in crafting a consensus version, rather than imposing your own will upon the article. --Uncle Ed 20:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


I think a couple of you are only focusing on the criticism of the group in this article and ignoring the fact that the majority of the article is non-critical information about Jews for Jesus. I agree with Jayjg that the material is sourced, relevant, and important in this article; there is absolutely no need to delete it. It's not the job of Wikipedia editors to "sugar-coat" the description of an organization to their liking. I don't think it fails the NPOV smell test at all. It gives the J4J POV and then says that this group is not recognized as Jewish by any other Jews, which is of significant importance since the group claims to be Jewish, but they are not. This is not POV, but fact. It's a fact that "Jews for Jesus is a Christian evangelical organization whose goal is to convince Jews that Jesus is the Messiah and God. Viewing its followers as 'living out their Jewishness,' Jews for Jesus defines "Jewish" in terms of parentage and as a birthright, regardless of religious belief. Identification of Jews for Jesus as "Jewish" is overwhelmingly rejected by Jewish religious denominations, secular groups and the State of Israel due to the Christian beliefs of its members. The group's evangelism related activities are opposed also by some Christian organizations and scholars." There is nothing wrong with that summary because the it's all objective information, not the writer's POV.Enegue 19:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If I make an article about myself and claim that I am a Martian from Mars, and the scientific community disagrees with me and says that I am human, I think it would be just fine for the article to say that I claim to be a Martian, but all scientific groups who decide who is Martian or not, reject that claim. The same goes for this article.Enegue 19:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If you were to become notable as a person who believes he is from Mars then your WP article should be about you, what motivates you, what have you done, what impact you have had on others, etc. There should also be one sentence or so saying that mainstream science does not believe that there are any people from Mars. Steve Dufour 20:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to become involved in a speculative discussion about what an article would say if it existed, but let's go with your hypothetical for the moment. You say the person is "notable as a person who believes he is from Mars." If you mean that the person is notable because he claims he is from Mars, then I think we'd want to spend more than a sentence or so making sure that people understand that there are no people from Mars. In fact, the only reason I can think of why he would be notable is that we know there are no people from Mars, so that fact would be a fairly important component of the article. However, this isn't really a great example anyway, because people generally know that nobody is from Mars, without a lot of explanation. As a comparison, I checked the article on the Heaven's Gate cult, and it doesn't really spend much time establishing that the leaders of the cult were not, in fact, from a higher dimension, nor does it really explore the question of whether their deaths freed them to take up residence on Comet Hale-Bopp. I guess we generally assume that people understand that these things were not the case. However, with "Jews for Jesus", I think a lot of people do assume certain things from their name, and it is necessary to explore in depth the fact that many people contest these assumptions. Additionally, this is a group that is notable mainly because of their controversial tactics, so the controversy is an important element of the article. 6SJ7 18:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
If the main purpose of the article is to warn people against them (and I am not saying this is a bad thing to do) then, it seems to me, you are admitting that it is an attack article after all. Steve Dufour 00:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
No one said "warn" but you. S/he said "assumptions" and "controversy". Are you saying "acknowledging controversy" is an "attack"?FlaviaR 18:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Presenting the controversy as the main thrust of the article, when the fact of a publishing house, music group, news letter, charitable operations, etc are not mentioned is POV. I'm not understanding the thrust of this martian argument. If a Jew is part of Jews for Jesus there is no question as to the accuracy of what he calls himself. He is a Jew. Evidently he is for Jesus. Where's the question? Basejumper2 09:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Convince again

Sorry, I couldn't resist one more comment. If it was true that they are trying to convince people that Jesus is God that would be good evidence that they are not Christians after all. Because the Bible says that you can not do that. p.s. Even if a person was "convinced" that Jesus was God that would not make him a Christian. "The demons believe and tremble", it says. Steve Dufour 04:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What if the article on Hamas started off with: "Hamas is an Islamofascist group whose goal is to force everyone in the world to bow down to their god: Muhammad."? I don't think intelligent people would take the article very seriously. Steve Dufour 10:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Why not? Is it because their real goal is to kill all Jews? Yes, this is sarcasm, but my point is that you are making a very false analogy.FlaviaR 18:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The goal of Christian missonaries is to convert people of different faiths to Christianity. Your opinion is clearly not the consensus among the major Christian groups that support missionaries. In fact, missionaries refer to the Bible as evidence that God wants them to convince non-believers that Christianity is what they should believe.Enegue 19:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a very famous passage from the Christian Bible, Paul's first letter to the Corinthians:
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
This is often quoted by Christians to show that you can not make another person a Christian by the force of your will or by arguements. Missionaries are sent out, yes. But that is to tell people about Christianity, not to "convince" them. The opening sentence as it now stands begins by saying that the JfJ are Christians and ends by saying that they are not. Steve Dufour 20:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not necessary to argue with someone or use cheaptastic psycological tricks to force someone to feel like they should become a Christian. The 'foolishness of preaching' is quite capable of convincing people to seek eternal salvation through repentance and faith in Jesus, what do you think Paul meant by "it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe", that by merely hearing the Gospel, listeners were saved, irregardless of whether they had faith in Christ or believed that the Gospel was accurate? Jews for Jesus does indeed focus on demonstrating to Jews that Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecies, but they don't just do that, like other evangelical organizations, they actually evangelize to people too. (Or try to anyway, i'm not very familiar with the specifics of what they do beyond handing out certain material about Judaism or something.) Yes, their website demonstrates that they probably don't do it very well, indeed, I cannot seem to find any articles which are just for telling people why they need a savior and how they can be saved, (But plenty of front-and-center articles with arguments about various things) but having a bad evangelical strategy isn't heresy. Homestarmy 20:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to criticise them or defend them. I was just pointing out that the opening sentence expresses their "goal" in very unchristian terms. Steve Dufour 21:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Steve, sorry I had to revert your last edit. The wording "that Jews come to believe that Jesus..." looks very POV to me - as if this is the truth that they indeed should eventually "come to believe". ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve, it seems like the issue here might be the definition of the word "convince." It doesn't matter what the Bible says in this case, what does matter, however, is what Jews for Jesus is really doing. Certainly, most people identify the actions of Jews for Jesus, such as passing out flyers and their "outreach programs" to be a very active attempt to convert people. This action is accurately described as "convincing" since that's what their volunteers walk around doing. I should mention that "convince" is a nice way of describing what they do as it would also be accurate to say they attempt to mislead people into converting by claiming that they are a Jewish organization, intentionally ignoring the fact that there is an overwhelming consensus in the real Jewish community that the belief that Jesus Christ is the Messiah or the son of God is incompatible with Judaism. Enegue 10:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The sentence is about their goal. As I tried to explain convincing people that Jesus is the Messiah and God is not the same as that they convert to Christianity. No Christian group would express their goal that way. Steve Dufour 12:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, it doesn't matter if a Christian group would express their goal that way or not. This is not a place for Jews for Jesus members to describe their goal in their own way only. Just because a group may say they don't "convince," that doesn't mean it is reality. Wikipedia articles are not written from the POV of the group or person in the article, right? Enegue 22:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

But the sentence was about their goal, not their actions. Steve Dufour 00:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the latest version of the sentence better than what it was before, at least it gets rid of the "goal" problem. Even if "target" has a negative feel. Steve Dufour 00:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Overall I am really impressed by the improvements to the article. Thanks everyone. Steve Dufour 01:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. The thing is J4J can says their goal is one thing, but judging from their actions, their goal could be something different. So it's just a matter of who's POV you're looking at their goal from. Either way, I'm fine with it saying "target" if you are. Seems like a reasonable compromise to me. Enegue 09:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but judging by their actions is called original research. Basejumper2 09:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point, and although Enegue correctly points out this article is not a place for JfJ's goal to be presented exclusive of other views, it is precisely the article where readers would expect to find a clear statement of how JfJ do, in fact, describe their own goals. It is the one view that most certainly cannot be excluded. Also, valid critism starts with understanding what one is criticising.
This article has the potential to raise many useful issues, that have good arguments both ways. Please keep this article on your watchlist Basejumper, I appreciate the clarity of your perspective on discussion. Mind you, I'm a bit worried about your nick, perhaps you won't be with us much longer. ;0 Alastair Haines 14:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of members

Here is one section of the article:

Membership
Statistics of membership numbers for the Jews for Jesus movement are not known. Since those born as gentiles are active in the movement, having established it and continuing to fund it, the true number of people who are known to have been born Jewish and have become full-fledged members of the movement is unknown.

Should there be a section whose only content is: "Nothing is known."? What does "full-fledged" mean anyway? They are not birds. Steve Dufour 10:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that the article says elsewhere that they have 150 employees. Can I go ahead and take the "Membership" section out? Steve Dufour 20:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The question of membership often comes up, so it is important to say what we know about it, even all we know is "the number is unknown". Maybe they hide it, or maybe some (potential) editor will see this and fill this out. Please restore this info. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I checked out their website and they seem to have full-time employees (150 the article says), but mainly rely on volunteers. There did not seem to be anything about "full-fledged" members. I'm sorry but I don't see that there is any real information in the two sentences I removed. Steve Dufour 03:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we should state what info they do disclose and what they do not. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What harm does it do to simply say that the number of members is unknown? I don't see the problem with what was written before. The number of members of a group is a major detail that should not be left out. Enegue 10:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems a little silly to have a section that has no information. I also have a problem with the undefined word "full-fledged". What does that mean in terms of the JfJ? Steve Dufour 12:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I did add the info on the volunteers to the article. Steve Dufour 00:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] seeks recruits?

The "new" article says that they are seeking recruits. Is this their main focus? Or do they just want Jews to become Christian regardless of what church they would then join? The criticism needs to be mentioned too. Steve Dufour 15:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

um, I believe that is their main goal. And I am no expert on Christianity, but judging byall the Roman Catholic and protestant htey believe less towards each other then towards jews.10max01 04:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ?

Could someone explain what this sentence means?

In a 1992 lawsuit brought by Jews for Jesus against the JCRCNY, a United States Court of Appeals ruled that the efforts of the JCRCNY urging Jewish organizations not to patronize a New York country club because it allowed Jews for Jesus to hold its annual convention on its premises were not protected as an exercise of the JCRC's First Amendment rights.

Thanks. Steve Dufour 03:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


I dont know exact - you could google it, thereby saying that it should be spelled out, but it seems to be some Jewish group of new york. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 10max01 (talk • contribs) 04:07, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Litigations section

This covers 4 or 5 court cases that the organization or its members have been involved in. Considering that they have been around for 30 years, have a budget of $17 million, and keep a very high profile, I don't think this is a remarkable number at all. I am just a private person and have been involved in 2 myself, once as a defendant in a small claims case and once as a plaintif in a class action suit. (Net outcome: -$650.) The only JfJ case that seems interesting is the Jackie Mason suit. How about taking the whole section out and mentioning the one case in a single sentence? Steve Dufour 16:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

How about: "In 2006 the Jews for Jesus apologized to Jewish comedian Jackie Mason after using his picture on some of their literature without his permission."? I think that gives the important information about the incident. Steve Dufour 17:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. As long as the litigation has something to do with their tactics or the reaction to their tactics, it belongs in the article. The part about Jackie Mason should remain somewhat detailed, because it is a good illustration of their tactics. The part about Israel refusing citizenship to the couple "affiliated with Jews for Jesus" (whatever that means) definitely belongs in the article, in fact it should be higher up in the article. (It is not really about litigation involving the organization anyway, rather it is about how Israeli law views people who have converted to Christianity in terms of the Jewish "right of return", but that is directly relevant to a discussion of this organization.) The fact that they sued a whistleblower seems relevant, as it relates to their tactics; the fact that they sued a cybersquatter does not, because that is something that could happen to any organization. The fact that they sued L.A. Airport to be able to hand out leaflets probably could be removed as it involves an issue common to many organizations, although I suspect that if someone removed it, they would be accused of removing something positive about the group! So it isn't going to be me. The part about their suit against the "umbrella group" is a pretty close call, but I think close calls stay in the article. 6SJ7 18:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Most of the litigation seems highly notable, I really don't see why it should be removed, these aren't small claims court cases. Homestarmy 20:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say leave the cases in. Some are more important than others, especially the 1st Amendmend suit where Jews for Jesus wins. I've seen this case in law books, so this is a perfect example of one editor who wants to delete something simply because he/she may be lacking in knowledge about the subject. Enegue 22:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you imagine what the article on McDonald's would look like if every suit they filed or was filed against them was listed? Steve Dufour 00:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


I agree with you, and if Jews for Jesus racks up a lot more lawsuits, then it would be a good idea to create a seperate article on those (just like McDonald's), but the way it is right now, I don't think it's too much. Enegue 09:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet the number of lawsuits McDonald's INITIATES is far less, "pound for pound (as it were)" than those started by the J4Js. In fact, using the same ratio (how big the organizations are vs how many lawsuits), I'm sure the ones they get are also higher in number - it all goes to motives on both sides, perception also on both sides) of the group, its goals and its actions. it's extremely relevant to any discussion of the group. But I suppose there would be a direct link to it under a section in the article, so removal wouldn't really be sweeping it under the rug.FlaviaR 19:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Controversy over motives: Are there competing versions of what the group's goals are? If so, we should describe fairly how each side views the group's motives.
Perhaps the group sees itself is fulfilling some Old Testament prophecies or dictums. And likely many Jewish (and some Christian) groups see it as violating the religious rights of Jewish people. If there is a clash over viewpoints, both POV's should be described fairly - that is, if we are truly planning to abide by this web site's neutrality policy. --Uncle Ed 12:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont believe that for McDonalds lawsuits matter. But any key lawsuits that could change a person's opinion on the group should be put in. For example, the coffee incident at McDonalds is not going to make me not want to go to McDonalds, specifically for that. But a lawsuit against some famous jew might make people not agree with their message because they would wonder why a prominent jew wishes to oppose it.10max01 03:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Steve Dufour. A disproportionate percent of the article is devoted to litigation. In fact, when you consider that "Opposition and Criticism" coupled with "Litigation" account for over 50% of the article, an extremely unfavourable impression is given regarding Jews for Jesus. The article seems less informative of the group and more focused on negative controversy. There is a place for negative criticism, but when over 50% of the article is focused on controversy (including the opening paragraph)the sense of objectivity of information is overshadowed by controversy. In sum, a larger proportion of the article should be focused on objective information about JFJ (30 year history, founders, goals, membership,) a smaller portion to its detractors. The overall "sour" attitude of this article towards for JFJ is similarly demonstrated in the "Further Reading" Section. All of the "Further Reading" is negative. This doesn't present an objective message. Similarly, 11/12 of the "External Links" present negative points of view toward JFJ. When you consider these points, it becomes clear that this article is disroportionately negative. Does this seem to be a fair assessment? Paul

[edit] New version

Sometimes an article becomes hopelessly stuck in editing disputes. It's therefore better to start over, with a shorter version everyone can agree on.

Then we can go back in the article history and pull out various disputed passages, talk them over, and come to consensus on how to address the ideas they bring up.

Simply reverting the new work on the ground that the old one was "well-referenced" misses the point. We need to give our readers something they can readily see is neutral. --Uncle Ed 20:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

When I reverted you, I was almost wondering whether or not you had made some horrible mistake, you even deleted the first note. Your version is barely even a stub, the vast majority of the article really doesn't seem that amazingly horrible that it needs to be deleted. I don't even see any sign that your version makes a case for the organizations notability at all, in fact, if I saw that article version under a different organizations name, i'd be inclined to support any AfD proceedings launched on it. Homestarmy 20:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, well I came here in response to an AFD, so there seems to be something to that.
Anyway, this article is obviously a battlefield. If we as writers can't agree to work together on it, then I'll have to bow out.
I'd like to see a gentler, less one-sided introduction however.
Clearly the group is Christian. I've studied Christian theology, and I've read the tracts, talked with the members (not to mention looked at their web site). They are not only Christian (in the sense which includes Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox) but specifically Evangelicals.
My impression of the group has always been that they are Jewish (or "formerly Jewish" if you prefer ;-)
And this is precisely what they want you to believeFlaviaR 19:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Christians who accept the mainstream Western doctrine of the Trinity. That, in addition to asserting that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.
What this brings up, of course, is the intractable conflict best stated by Jackie Mason (You're either a Jew or a gentile).
Which is, at best, a poor way of stating the facts (Aside: since he was a cantor at one point, I am appalled that he doesn;t know the facts), which are "One cannot practice Judaism and XIanity at the same time." You can, indeed, be a Jew and still believe things inimical to Judaism. Thisis one the best tactics the J4Js use.FlaviaR 19:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
For most Jews, becoming a Christian negates one's membership in Judaism and is thus anathema.
It depends on how you define "most Jews." I suppose if you;re going on the idea that there are plenty of people out there who don;t even know they are Jewish, and therefore couldnt be expected to know anything about being Jewish, then I'd have to agree. But for any Jew who actually knows anything about Judaism, most Jews know you can't stop being Jewish, even if you sin. FlaviaR
There is too much in the article which sidesteps this issue. It's better to bring it out in the introduction. JFJ seems to think (or hope, or at worst pretend) that it's easy and natural to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time. The vast majority of Jews, and a considerable proportion of Christians, disagree strongly.
Well, that's my 2 cents, and if these ideas can be incorporated into the article, all well and good. If not, at least I tried. --Uncle Ed 20:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
In this morning's edits, I have tried to recast the article (particularly the into) in terms of two opposing POV's about the group: (1) the group's own ideas about itself and (2) the ideas of the group's opponents.
Is there a consensus amoung contributors to this article, that it is worthwhile to include both of these viewpoints? --Uncle Ed 13:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course we should properly reflect JFJ POV, but the conflict involves more than simply 2 competing POVs. Followers of one religion do not get to [re]define beliefs of other religions. In addition to POVs, we should present historical perspective and describe relevant facts. One such historical fact is a schism that took place between the two classic religions, Christianity and Judaism, almost 2 millennia ago. This article deals with a group that is trying to ignore/misrepresent/undo this schism and was widely denounced for both its methods and goals. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps what we need to say is that the group believes (or maintains, anyway) that Judaism and Christianity are compatible. So that would be the group's viewpoint, which puts it at odds with its opponents. I wonder if that is the big sore point. I'll have to do a bit more digging, but they almost sound like the Unification Church in their theological pronouncements about Jesus being the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy and all. (Don't add this yet, I gotta go do a few hours of reading first!) --Uncle Ed 20:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
All Christians believe Jesus is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. But since you mentioned the UC, check out Rabbi Greenberg's interview where he talks about Jesus being a failed messiah: [3]. Steve Dufour 00:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
JfJ explicitly and unequivocally states that it does not believe that Judaism and Christianity are compatible. The proof of this was presented in the mediation but I can't find the link to it anymore :(. Their position is that they were born Jews, and that although they now practice Christianity, they remain Jews with regard to their ethnicity, ancestry, and parantage (not as an adherent to Judaism). In other words, they believe that becoming a Christian does not automatically make one a Gentile. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of sourced details were taken out or moved. I don't agree with this new version at all. I don't think it's accurate or nearly as detailed as the previous one, therefore I am going to revert it to the previous version. All those important details should be in the summary.Enegue 01:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No Ed, removing sourced material in favor of unsourced "chatty" opinion, is not acceptable. Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organized opposition

"Organized opposition" suggests that there is a centralized entity organized specifically to oppose JFJ. While there is a lot of unanimity in opposing JFJ, this opposition is rather disorganized and grassroots: many groups and individuals oppose it for various reasons. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, I hadn't thought that through. The word organized is out of place, as it implies something which isn't so. I prefer grassroots. Come to think of it, even "widespread" might be even better, since there seems to be so much of it all over the place. --Uncle Ed 20:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There are specific groups directly against Jews for Jesus - the group that took its homepage for a while was an organized group against it. I have no objection to widespread though. 10max01 03:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to object to removing "organized", because Jews for Judaism is specifically organized to counter J4Js.FlaviaR 19:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Poor's edits

It seems like everyday there are edits without any kind of discussion. Right now, there are sections with only 1 sentence in them. I don't think it looks very professional, and the summary has been changed drastically. If you're going to completely change the whole article everyday, at least say why and let's discuss it and try to reach a compromise. Enegue 21:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your revert. However there is one thing in the intro that need to be cleaned up, and I'd like some ideas. "Evangelism" is a call to all Christrian groups through the Great Commission, so therefore all Christian groups including JfJ, are "evangelical" to some extent. However "Evangelicals" in the US are a conservative Christian pseudo-political movement which is a bit different from other Christian groups. Evangelicals have no known relationship with JfJ. Therefore I propose the removal of "evangelical" in the introduction lest the reader be confused, and that if necessary, the difference is fleshed out in the body.Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, but don't you think it would be too much to remove the word altogether? Jews for Jesus identifies themselves as Evangelicals and virtually all other groups and newspapers identify them as Evangelicals also. I know that (and you know) they don't mean to connect Jews for Jesus to the religious right-wing political movement, but only to say they travel around to "save" people and spread their ideas. I'm not sure the rest of the population would be confused. It seems like the other major organizations which printed stories about Jews for Jesus and mentioned that they were Evangelicals are not worried about readers being confused. So, I think it would be going over-board to take the word "evangelical" completely out of the summary. What do you think of writing in a short sentence right after the 1st sentence saying something like "Although they are not affiliated with the right-wing evangelical political movement"? That would solve the confusion issue. What do you think? Enegue 22:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been throwing around in my head substituting evangelist for evangelical, but then the sentence seems stilted (e.g. "organization of evangelists"). Perhaps if we changed the wiki-link from Evangelism to The Great Commission or maybe the disambiguation page that could clear up any confusion. Then again, maybe I'm nitpicking, if no one thinks the sentence as is runs the risk of confusing readers, it can stay the way it is. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there are quite a few highly liberal movements within certain Christian denominations which do not, in fact, like the idea of evangelism at all, or are at least fairly cool on the idea on actually daring to try and challenge someone else's beliefs long enough to try and get them to believe in Christ and save their eternal soul from damnation. (How could all us right-wing bigots possibly think all that stuff about God being an infinitly just judge is true?) But if my memory serves me correctly, many articles solve this "Evangelical" verses "evangelical" problem exactly in the same way i've written this sentence, "evangelical" merely refers to the state of actively trying to spread the Gospel, and "Evangelical" often refers to the U.S. political bloc. It seems rather unnecessarily U.S. centric to strike "evangelical" compleatly just because some people might (incorrectly) assume that the word first and foremost refers to the political group. Homestarmy 23:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Sloppy talk page writing on my part. When I say "all...to some extent" I'm trying to speak in umbrella terms so that JfJ doesn't appear as some fringe group because they evangelize (if they are a fringe group it would be because of who they target). As for the sentence, after mulling it over the weekend, I guess it's fine the way it is. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Background

I removed the section mysteriously labeled, "Background," because it was simply dueling soapboxes. a nice suggestion would be simply to describe the organization rather than trying to use wikipedia to say why you do or don't like it. Basejumper 23:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe it was an attempt to provide information in a balanced fashion and provide context for the opposition to the group. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Basejumper, thank you for your good faith edit. I am restoring the section you blanked because it contains encyclopedic, referenced and relevant information. An article describing a controversial group would be incomplete without historical and factual perspective, whether some readers or editors "do or don't like it". ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any problems with having such a section. The group is indeed highly controversial, I don't think it's a bit harmful to have a section that helps to show why. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The article right now is an attack piece, but that's easily fixed. The info in "Background" is criticism based on Orthodox Jewish Theology, not the background of anything - except the criticism. As such, it should be moved down to the criticism section. Background should be the back ground of the organizatio: its founder, his motives, the organizations beginnings, etc.

Also the lead piece above has a list of entities including the State of Israel (nation-states have official positions on the names of private organizations?) which have problems with the organization, but none that support it. Personally I don't think there needs to be discussion of support or none support of an organization in the lead, but if there does, it should be balanced. Basejumper2 06:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone is right. JfJ are controversial. That means there are notable positions for and against. Positions against must be represented. However, positions for must also be represented. At the very least, the group's own positions need to be represented. Criticism is so much more effective if the position being criticised is presented as accurately, clearly, fully and sympathetically as possible. After that, they've got nothing left to say!
As a positive concerning the lead-in, at least it does say JfJ see themselves as assisting Jews to live out their Jewishness (obviously according to their own definition). At least that sentence shows the work of a fair-minded opponent who carefully worked the sentence to be NPOV.
In the absence of a JfJ member here, someone needs to research the JfJ angle on things. Anyone up to it? Alastair Haines 16:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I added this suggestion below, but I thought I'd include it here for convenience's sake. We should advertize on wikiproject: Christianity and wikiproject:MessianicJudasim fr some editors to take a look at the article, that way it loses some of the inadvertant biases that have krept in because of disproportionate wikiproject:Judaism presence here. Basejumper2 20:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I just removed the bit about the pope. It's not really relevant. He didn't mention J4J by name, and his statements are only for Catholic clergy. J4J isn't catholic. Might as well add a statement, "the Pope also criticized them for not being in communion with Rome and rejecting the magistarium." Basejumper2 21:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I am putting back the part about the pope. It seems at least marginally relevant. It indicates a disagreement among Christians about whether Christians should be targeting Jews for conversion, which is J4J's sole mission (so to speak.) The statement about non-Catholics not being in communion with Rome would not be relevant to this article, but it would be relevant to an article about the distinctions/disagreements between Catholics and Protestants, or more generally, among different Christian churches/denominations/tendencies, if there is such an article. 6SJ7 02:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
But it doesn't really have anything to do with JfJ specifically. Wouldn't it be appropriate for a general Jewish/Christian relations article instead? Homestarmy 02:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me sit on the fence again. I can see good arguments for and against. If the Catholic view is put. I think we need to put the Protestant view, which is definitely in favour of evangelising any non-Christian, it doesn't discriminate by excluding Jews. Additionally, historically Catholicism is offically committed to Jews being outside God's people unless they join the Catholic church (see Supersessionism). So the statement from the pope suffers from WP:UNDUE -- it gives undue weight to a minority opinion. However, I still think it is notable (Pope's words usually are) and relevant (JfJ are all about evangelising Jews).

Regarding seeking Christian and Messianic Jewish input, I agree, MJ in particular understand the issues. However, I'm never negative about anyone's involvement. WikiProject Judaism have to be at this page in force, imo, because JfJ is fundamentally a critism of contemporary Judaism, it claims they're overlooking their Messiah. Judaism is also equally foundational to how JfJ represent themselves -- they claim to be Jewish ethnically (and legally) as well as Christian. Three essential ingredients make JfJ: 1. Jewish heritage, 2. Christian belief, 3. Evangelistic purpose. At least that's the theory, what they say and what they do are likely to show some inconsistancies, as with all groups. Finally, I am not Jewish, but I've found Jewish editors I've met at Wiki to be extremely knowledgable and polite, but more importantly, they have been skilled at being objective. On this page though, we must remember, the Jewish POV actually must be expressed without weasels. It is a key part of understanding the subject JfJ.

I'm busy on other projects atm, but I'm watching work here and I'm thrilled by robust, respectful discussion and editing. Remember Wiki says "be bold". Also, don't worry too much about getting "expert" editors involved, that leads to WP:OR dangers. Google up some sources, they're relatively easy to find for controversial subjects, especially with highly technical vocabulary. Non-specialists also tend to explain terminology for readers, who normally are not experts either.

Sorry about teaching grandmothers to suck eggs. Really I just want to say, "looking good, keep it up!" Alastair Haines 06:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice 6SJ7 has returned the papal statement. I stand by what I said above and support it, however, please note that means brief sourced notes regarding official Catholic doctrine (google Catechism of the Catholic Church for a reliable source) and Protestant POV (see any number of protestant mission statements) are now admissible also, in fact they are ultimately necessary to avoid WP:UNDUE or WP:POV. But the solution is not deletion (easy way out), there's still space in the article, and Christians disagreeing with one-another takes the pressure of the Jewish (and wannabe Jewish, meant light-heartedly) community for a few sentences. Alastair Haines 14:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go drum up some editors from the other two wikiprojects to contribute. Basejumper2 16:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I went over there and left messages, maybe some folks will drop by. My real concern right now is that the disporportionate number of wikiproject:Judaism editors leads to an article that is a bit off balance. Arguably, editors of that project now the least about the organization, but the most about why they don't like it. Inevitably the article ends up being about the aspect of the organization they know the most about. After reading the article, I'm concerned that we could change the name of the article to Why Jews for Jesus is Not Liked without changing the text, and the article would still match the title without a single edit. Can we kn ow about the various programs, newspapers or publications, the publishing house, prominant staff members, organization, etc? Basejumper2 16:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiprojects

I deleted the edits where someone added the Wikiproject:Judaism banner to this article. No, because this is not Judaism. I thought this was decided above someplace. Well, if I'm being obstinate (and I know I can be), let's discuss. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The way people act so harshly against JfJ, I can understand how someone might think this article is related to Judaism simply because of the outrage it causes. Homestarmy 01:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
If there is a project for the Jews as a people rather than Judaism as a religion it might work as part of that. Steve Dufour 00:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus is a Christian [1] evangelical organization which targets Jews for conversion to Christianity. The first sentence states that it is not a Jewish organization. 10max01 00:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I know at one point we discussed the Christianity article series and Judaism article series banners on the main article, the conclusion was to use neither because it seemed to be "taking a side" (is Jewish/isn't Jewish). Talk pages aren't really subject to NPOV though, if Wikiproject Judaism wants to help out with the article, rate it, etc., I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to do so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess they could, but I believe it would confuse the reader into assuming it is a Jewish organization, which it itself admits it isnt. I know the first sentence is clear, but is there a way to show that it is under juristidiction of Wiki project judiasm without being a Jewish group itself? As you said I see no problem with it, besides that it might confuse the reader. 10max01 01:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an incredibly good point. I would definitely support putting this under Xian misisonary groups or something more clear as towhat they actually are. FlaviaR 15:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Two cents from me. I would guess most people at WikiProject Judaism are Jewish, but not necessarily all. I'm not Jewish but I created little articles Tanakh at Qumran and Discoveries in the Judaean Desert. I also contribute at several other pages within WikiProject Judaism. If I were a communist, I'd keep an eye on the capitalism page. Not everyone is biased or emotional. Family fight one another more than they fight strangers, and the wounds are deeper. But in an academic kind of setting, there's a ton of common ground and issues and links that cross over between the people on opposite sides of an issue, they probably should be visiting one another's pages, and respecting one another enough to report their differences neutrally. Academically speaking, JfJ does fall within Judaism. Politically speaking, it's hard to say that without it being interpreted as support, which it's not.
It'd be way sad if some well intentioned, academically motivated editor from WikiProject Judaism dropped the project tag here, only to have it deleted as if they'd done the wrong thing or weren't welcome.
A good way forward at Wiki is to try to write up criticisms fairly, and ask someone who is a critic to review it and improve it if necessary. It is possible to disagree politely and understand the logic of alternative positions, without actually adopting them. Best wishes to everyone here, from what I've read you've already achieved a lot of this here. Alastair Haines 16:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
PS "targets Jews" is possibly not the most felicitous verb to use in the first sentence.
Consider: "is dedicated to", "focusses on", "has primary concern to", "mission is" -- neutral
Not: "liberates, rescues, saves Jews from, ..." -- POV in favour
Or: "attacks, targets, divisively, ..." -- POV against Alastair Haines 16:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Very late post scriptum: the tagger who placed the WikiProject Judaism header on this page is an outstanding Wiki contributor of Jewish background. If the Nation of Israel have a published opinion about JfJ, I think there's just a tiny chance that the article falls within the scope of WPJ, anyone disagree? Alastair Haines (talk 16:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem, I think is like one of the first commentators said, there is not a wikiproject for Jewish people seperate from wikiproject:Judaism. The gentleman above me summed up the problem with this. POF, the State of Israel is a secular project that has nothing to do with Judaism the religion, yet it is covered extensively by wikiproject:Judaism as well as wikiproject:Israel. I think we have to surrender to the fact that wikiproject:Judaism is the project that deals with things related to Jews as a people as well as things related to the religion of Judaism. In that regard, as Jews for Jesus was founded by a Jewish person for the purpose of affecting other Jewish persons, it should be part of wikiproject:Judaism. If pagan Judaism is, this should be. Basejumper2 16:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Great minds think alike! :) We also need to remember Wiki is a volunteer project. Generally speaking, anyone with interest and willing to provide good sources is welcome. Alastair Haines 22:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality tag

The tagged section is not only neutral, it is primary verification of what JfJ claim to believe. It would be very odd indeed if the communism article did not reference communist sources for what communists believe. The section states what JfJ believe, it makes no claims about what Wiki believes, nor what the editor who put it there believes, nor what a reader should believe. It is therefore an verifiable NPOV reporting of a group that is itself obviously not neutral. My reading of this article is that although technically neutral in its presentation, it starts by presenting all the negative views of JfJ. That does not seem logical. A neutral reader wants to know firstly what JfJ believe, then what others say, neutral, pro and con. Example:

  • Jane Doe's netball team's mission statement says, "Play quality netball ..."
  • The Netball League recently described the team as "dedicated, but lacking experience"
  • The Fan Club web-site features team captain Jane, praising her creative and inspiring ...
  • Their main rivals have claimed that the team uses unsporting methods, like sledging ...

I'm sure people understand the point. Alastair Haines 04:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


I'm new to this, but you could try putting the whole quotation in a quotation box or something. --Silverscaledsalmon (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three changes

  1. The word needed in the first sentence is "evangelistic". Any of endless reliable sources will note that this word refers to the activity of prosletizing (however you spell that), i.e. seeking the conversion of people to Christianity. The word evangelical is also correctly applied to JfJ, but it is a technical word refering to doctrinal position, specifically the truth of the Bible. It is normally used to classify denominations. Many individual Christians also describe themselves as evangelical, which means they are typically relaxed about which specific denomination they belong to, as long as that denomination is one of the doctrinally evangelical ones.
  2. The word target disturbs me. I don't want to take sides at this page. I care about the POVs of both critics and JfJ. I understand both positions a bit, and don't understand them both a lot. But target seems to me like fighting words. I'm not totally satisfied by what I've replaced it with, there are lots of neutral ways of doing it. Anyone, please put up something even better.
  3. Finally, a term (or better, terms) that acknowledges the ethnicity of JfJ members, without claiming orthodoxy, is important. It is on the basis of their ethnicity that they select their focus. I suspect merely using a qualifier is insufficient in this case, and can confuse the issue, hence I've trialed ethnically Semitic. It's not a very good term, but at least it's something. Ethnically Jewish would be more precise, but sadly its too painful for some readers, and possibly confusing for others. Would ethnic Hebrew be better? In some ways that is more precise than ethnic Jew. The word Jew is actually from Judah, but many Jews are from Benjamin, some from Levi, some are Kohenim; but all are Hebrews, ethnically, if not linguistically.

A final word. I'm an ignorant Australian, who doesn't know the American or Israeli scene. I'm a goy, and a Christian. What place do I have here? Well, I just happen to believe that disagreeing is inevitable, and the costs are much less if people can think about the disagreement clearly. Encyclopedias can help by setting an example. At Wiki, if you are reading these words, you are part of writing that encyclopedia, even by remaining silent. If you are at this page, the topic is sufficiently important to you to actually read the talk page! Please think about getting involved if you think something can be improved. Alastair Haines 12:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 2nd sentence

Firstly, I want to state as strongly as possible that I admire, appreciate & am very thankful for the care and effort that went into trying to make this as inoffensive to Jews as possible - I could tell that the editor was trying very hard. But, unfortunately, it has made the sentence very awkward, and even meaningless - and not just to a Jewish POV; a Xian one as well. I refer specifically to the phrase: "Viewing its ethnically Semitic followers as "living out their Jewishness,". I realize someone was trying NOT to say "ethically Jewish", being aware that Judaism isn't exactly an ethnicity. This was a lovely gesture on that editor's part, BUT: it now makes no sense - and not just because all Jews are not Semitic, and all Semites are not Jews. The best substitute that would keep the meaning is "born Jewish" - but this then distorts some of the facts. Most of the J4Js are not and never were Jewish (this was a major scandal when they first arrived on the scene, as it were), *&*, FWIU, J4Js hold that *all* the members are "living out their Jewishness." (Because if you can find where they only single out "born Jewish" members as "living out their Jewishness," you will have hit on a major deception by them that has eluded even tose of us on the look-out for those sorts of things). So while this phrasing should be reworded, I am not 100% what to put in its place. Everyone, please watch that space for what I may say instead, and tell me what you think.FlaviaR 22:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You sound like you are just the sort of person the article could use. As it stands, the lead sounds like JfJ are an internationally condemned group, which I'm sure they are. However, this is not defining of the group, even it is fair characterization of them, which I'm in no position to judge, but am certainly interested in learning about.
I would have thought "JfJ is a Christian organization, founded 19xx in Shangri La, by Jane Doe. Their mission statement says they, xxx" would be a fairly average way to approach the article from a neutral POV.
The ambiguity of terms used for ethnic groups (e.g. Chinese people), their language (Chinese language), their locale (Chinese geography), their culture (Chinese collar) and their religions (when applicable) needs to be addressed early in the article to avoid confusion. Jew and Jewish need disambiguation in a way Judaism does not. Dealing with usage of Semitic probably doesn't need treatment. It is ironic that Saddam Hussein claimed Babylonian (a Semitic culture) antecedents, and yet was anti-Semitic in the sense of being anti-Israel. Even more ironic is anti-Semitism expressed in Arabic — a Semitic language! Or in the Latin alphabet — ultimately the Semitic aleph beth. If only people knew the first known empire in history was that of the Semitic Sargon of Akkad. Such choice irony, tempting as it is to share with readers, is distracting from the goal of the article.
I'm watching this space — go, go, go! Be bold! Alastair Haines 00:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
One of the reasons "anti-Semitic" causes so many problems, linguistically, is that it is a made-up word; it is from a German Jew-hater (I use the term on purpose, to avoid using the term "anti-Semitic") who made up the word in order to make his prejudice sound scientific. It really does mean just Jew-hatred, which is extremely odd, given that, as I said above, not all Jews are Semitic, and certainly all Semites are not Jewish. But your problems with defining the group are exactly the sort of problems they would like you to have. They want to be thought of as a Jewish group, and they are condemned by not just Jews for this deception (as I think is mentioned in the very 1st paragraph of the article). "Jew/ish" only needs disambiguation because a lot of people don;t understand excatly what makes a person Jewish, because Judaism doesn't follow the rules of other mainstream religions - this is another fact the J4J's lean on, heavily, when tricking Jews (yeah, I'm saying it here, but not in the article!). But, to get to the real heart of the matter, yeah, I am going to take a stab at it - lemme know what you think.FlaviaR 03:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I did it. And I think I actually managed to cover all possibilities of membership without even being offensive! (Yeah, sure.... (-: ) FlaviaR 03:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Nice work! At least imo. Even used evangelistic, evangelical and evangelism all in one paragraph and all refering to the right things. The commenting and referencing in the source text is way confusing. You did well to put text into the right places. ;) Alastair Haines 03:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
PS in Australia we have an expression, "call a spade a bloody shovel". With regard to anti-Semitism, I totally agree it's a weasle word, a neutral, common language term would be Jew-hating. I'm not Jewish, I'm just a Jew-admirer, everywhere I look I find great ideas published by writers of Jewish heritage. Need I mention someone with first name Albert? A world without Jews would be a world without a brain, but that's just my opinion.
Thanks for your directness and boldness FlaviaR, of the august Roman nom de plume. Alastair Haines 04:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I cannot take credit for any use of "evangelical" or any permutation thereof - I only fixed the one phrase about "ethnic Semites". And the name is actually from "Prisoner of Zenda" - my husband's and my movie (the way some people have a song, we also have a movie).FlaviaR 04:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I read and enjoyed the book, I'll have to watch the film. The book suited itself to dramatization if I remember correctly. Quaint and romantic. :) Alastair Haines 14:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Count me as supporting the new second sentence. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I was rather nervous, because it really is a touchy situation.FlaviaR 18:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Systamatic NPOVing

Anyone up for advertizing for a peer review by members of wikiproject:Christianity and wikiproject:Messianic Judaism. Right now this page is heavily wikiproject:Judaism represented. Could be causing some bias. Basejumper2 20:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

GregorB's reordering really helps, imo. But, yes, go do it! :) Alastair Haines 23:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Opposition to Jews for Jesus

Hi, The paragraph, "Christian Opposition to Jews for Jesus" is highly misleading. The overall tone depicts Jews for Jesus as being in conflict with other Christian churches.

"The Interfaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington, an umbrella organization that includes Muslims, Jews, and church groups from the Roman Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran and Presbyterian churches, has condemned Jews for Jesus as promoting activities "harmful to the spirit of interreligious respect and tolerance."

The Wikipedia article on "The Interfaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington" states that its members generally oppose the evangelism of Jews but state also that,

"This opinion voiced in this statement is generally rejected by Evangelical and Pentecostal Christians, as well as by Messianic Jews." Furthermore, the Wikipedia article on "Evangelical" or "Evangelicalism" states that evangelicals comprise 28.6% of the US population while Mainline denominations comprise 13.9%. (2007 stats) Therefore the vast majority of Protestant Christians support Jews for Jesus.

To be fair, it must be stated that "evangelical churches, which comprise the largest block of Protestant Churches in the U.S., support the mission, goals and theology of Jews for Jesus." Without making mention of this fact, readers will assume Christians in the U.S. are by and large in opposition to Jews for Jesus,which is factually incorrect and definitely misleading. The following paragraph does not explicitly mention that most Protestant Christians in the US support it, only it is a member of various evangelical groups. Paul

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.223.10 (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that section makes sufficiently clear that it is "some" Christian churches that oppose J4J, which is accurate. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
There are a couple of "across the board" Wiki standards for this kind of thing.
  1. if a view is held by only a tiny minority, it cannot be represented as a mainstream view WP:UNDUE
  2. Wikipedia articles cannot be cited as a reliable sources in themselves, only the sources they cite WP:RS
In this particular case, I think we need a citation (other than Wiki) for the fact that Evangelical and Pentecostal Christians are in broad support of Messianic Judaism in general, and Jews for Jesus in particular.
If a reliable source can be found that suggests there is a significant Christian point of view that differs with Evangelicals and Protestants, this should be noted.
To the best of my knowledge, Catholicism officially rejects claims of Christianity by organizations other than itself. This is a notable, verifiable Christian point of view that disagrees with Evangelicals and Pentacostals. It is also, even more importantly, a different view to Jewish groups, because official Catholicism can not accept J4J as Christian.
If, in addition, a reliable source can be found that states the Interfaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington is actually a Christian Conference, so long as it exemplifies a notable Christian point of view, it can be cited in support of that view. I doubt that the Interfaith Conference is comprised of Baptists, Catholics, Episcopals, Presbyterians and Pentecostals, more likely it is more widely ecumenical than that — Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.
As a view of non-Jewish, non-Christian, but still "religious" group, it may still be notable, as it would not surprise me if other international, multi-faith movements expressed similar opinions. It kind of fits, doesn't it? Multi-faith groups don't exist for members to take it in turns evangelising one another, or they might not last very long. ;) But they are certainly a notable POV outside established religions. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information regarding the use of sources. The point remains, in my mind, that this article gives the impression that Jews for Jesus is an organization that is rejected by both Christian and Jew alike. It simply states the obvious that "some" Christians do not support Jews for Jesus. "Some" has no significance unless it is defined. The impression the article gives is that "most" protestant Christians, Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian etc. do not support the evangelism of Jews. This impression is inaccurate. Since most "Baptists" "Lutherans" (ie Protestant Christians) are evangelicals, most would tend to support Jews for Jesus since Jews for Jesus is a straightforward evangelical organization. Of course, all evangelicals support the evangelism of all people, hence their name.

Furthermore, it goes without saying, as you mentioned that, interfaith communities are not going to be evangelical or they would tend to implode. Again the article gives a distorted impression that Christians as a whole do not support Jews for Jesus. I do not believe the facts support the insinuation. Here is the citation re. evangelicals in the US: Kosmin, Barry A.; Egon Mayer, Ariela Keysar (2001). American Religious Identification Survey. City University of New York.; Graduate School and University Center. Retrieved on 2007-04-04. (This citation shows the percent of Christians that are evangelical compared to mainline)

"This point is also stated at the opening paragraph: The group's evangelism related activities are opposed also by some Christian organizations and scholars." I think the above statement should read: The group's evangelism related activities are opposed also by some Christian [mainline] organizations and scholars, [however, most evangelical Christians support the group.][9][10]

This above comments may appear frivolous, but it needs to be stated that most US Protestant Christians are NOT opposed to Jews for Jesus. The article definitely leaves an alternate view. Remember that evangelical Christians by definition support the evangelism of Jews as well as all other non Christian faiths. Thus evangelical support of Jews for Jesus is fairly obvious since as the article states, JFJ beliefs are identical to other evangelical creeds.

It should be noted also that JFJ is not a church. All of its members go to evangelical churches. It is a member of every major evangelical organization which is included in the JFJ article: "Jews for Jesus is a member of numerous evangelical Christian groups, including The World Evangelical Alliance,[65][66] the National Association of Evangelicals,[65][67] the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability,[65][28] the World Evangelical Fellowship, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada,[68] the Canadian Council for Christian Charities, the Evangelical Alliance of Great Britain, the Evangelical Alliance of South Africa, the Fédération Evangélique de France, (Evangelical Federation of France), the Lausanne Consultation on Jewish Evangelism.[69]"

Anyway...I think there is enough evidence that JFJ is supported by evangelicals in general. Next evangelicals form the majority of Protestant America and hence JFJ is not out of line with evangelicals and hence Protestant America. There are a minority of protestant Christians who think otherwise. As far as Catholics are concerned...this is another story altogether, since currently all non Catholics are once again outside of the grace of the church.

Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.46.239 (talk) 05:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I honestly cannot see why Christian groups would denounce J4J. Jesus preached to the Jews, rather than to the gentiles. The apostles preached to the Jews prior to Jesus's death and continued to do so afterwards. The earliest Christians were, in fact, Jews who practiced Judaism, despite their faith in Jesus. Several books in the New Testament attempts to rationalize and reconcile the faith in Jesus in the context of Jewish faith. It's then inconceivable that the majority of the church would denounce a practice that has been going on since the beginning of church history.

Just as most Christians consider Jews condemned according their faith, so do Jews consider Christians misled according to THEIR faith. It's impossible to conduct a serious theological exchange between the two faiths without going into significant conflict. Therefore, it may be culturally or religiously insensitive, as most Christian preachers tend to be, but it cannot possibly have deviated from mainstream Christianity enough to invite theologically legitimate criticism. Nor is it rational to considered evangelism targetted at Jews anti-semitism (unless you want to classify the conversion of Shintoists anti-Japanism, or the conversion of Hindus anti-Indianism). 157.229.111.19 (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV in section on Beliefs

Considering the tumultuous history this article has had, I thought it to be better to discuss this here before making any change - shouldn't it not read 'we' in that section? It doesn't seem very uncyclopaedic. I'm changing it, and people are welcome to change it back if they disagree, as long as they can state reasons for the same. Thanks.--Carboxy's moron (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outreach Judaism

This section reads like an ad. Could somebody fix it up? 68.174.190.12 (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Secular groups

The article states that secular groups reject the Jewishness of JfJ. However the references quoted are all either religious organizations, or individuals (overwhelmingly Jewish individuals) or in a few cases references works which state that Jews reject the Jewishness of JfJ. Can I remove this statement? The references can stay and be added to support the statement about rejection by Jews. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)