Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

--YoavD 12:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

< December 30 January 1 >

December 31

[edit]

Template:2008 U.S. presidential election

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep Metros232 04:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - until more than a handful of candidates announce runs, this template is sheer speculation, and should be deleted until, oh, the time of the first debates in Iowa. (Which should be about five or six months, to be fair.) Phil Sandifer 19:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Messianic Judaism

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, lean towards keep. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 03:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Messianic Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ever since this template was redesigned by User:Inigmatus on 25 October 2006 it has become a source of constant Wikipedia:Edit warring between a small number of POV Messianic Judaism editors and a number of Wikipedian editors familiar with the topics relating to Jews and Judaism who continue to be offended by, and dispute the current incarnation of, this template. See Template talk:Messianic Judaism. By "adopting" articles and subjects and twisting the presentation of articles related to Jews and Judaism alone to popularize Messianic Judaism violates Wikipedia is not a battleground. Having articles about Messianic Judaism purely is legitimate, but to artificially create a MJ presence on Wikipedia riding piggyback on Jewish and Judaism-related articles is supersessionism, plagiarism, and violates Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The first basic version of this template [1] was ok, but in it's present form it is absurd. Thank you. IZAK 19:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for above reasons. IZAK 19:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IZAK --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 17:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the reasons in the nomination above doesn't list a single WP:TFD criteria. inigmatus 06:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Counter-comment: This nomination meets at least three of the most important criteria for deletion. See: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#What (and what not) to propose for deletion at Templates for Deletion (TfD): (1) The template is not helpful (in fact it is counter-productive) because it uses information about Judaism (a religion that is against/contra Christianity) and presents it as "Christianity" (a religion that is against/contra Judaism) creating major confusion and offense to both Jews and Christians. (2) The template is redundant (and dishonest), because in any case it merely mimics the style and contents of the {{Judaism}} template (and even of the {{Jews and Judaism sidebar}} template) when in fact Messianic Judaism articles should be relying on {{Christianity}} and {{Jesus}} templates. (3) The template isn't WP:NPOV because it attempts to swing everything to do with Judaism in a Christian direction. This would be akin to creating a template that would re-cast key articles about Christianity in the light of Judaism and make it into a "branch" of Judaism. That would be as absurd as this template is in its present form, which is why it has been nominated for deletion. IZAK 17:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Counter-counter comment. Um... yes, that's what Messianic Judaism is. It's not biased to honestly express what a religion is, even if you don't like it. -Amarkov blahedits 18:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hi Amarkov: I know what MJ is, but it's not (and cannot be) based on a Judaism that denies Jesus and Christianity, thus they need to find articles like Blood libel against Jews, Chrismukkah, Christianity and antisemitism, Day of Atonement (Christian holiday), Feast of Trumpets (Christian holiday), Hebrew Catholics, Jewish Christians, Passover (Christian holiday), Judeo-Christian, Cultural and historical background of Jesus, Early Christianity, Epistle to the Hebrews, Judaism's view of Jesus, Judaizers, Lord's Prayer, Quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament, Supersessionism, Table of books of Judeo-Christian Scripture that will reflect MJ views more accurately since MJ is a Christian movement -- as according to all Jewish denominations (not just according to "me") the logic and premises of MJ cannot be based on Judaism. MJ editors need to find a way to create articles and templates that will honestly reflect a NPOV expression of their new-fangled "religion" in a way that does not hijack articles about Judaism and regurgitate them for their POV purposes. In real life MJ is NOT part of Judaism and so therefore on Wikipedia they cannot fake it that they are "part of Judaism" either. They will have to work much harder to create their own unique brand name so that anyone will be able to see them clearly and not confuse them with actual Jews or Judaism. That is fair enough. IZAK 18:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • They claim to be part of Judaism. It doesn't matter if other branches find that hateful, they still consider themselves Jews. It is biased to say that they aren't allowed to find certain concepts relevant. And I find it rather funny that you think an NPOV version of what they believe goes against what they think they believe. -Amarkov blahedits 19:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Amarkov: You are missing the point. The MJ-types are not hated. People feel sorry for them since they are so obviously confused and confusing. By way of explanation: Let's say that a citizen of the United States maintains a POV that denies the United States Constitution because he believes in and accepts the Confederate States Constitution (and we know this to be true) but nevertheless he declares that he upholds the US constitition -- would he be believed by anyone? Would such an argument pass in a court of law or the rules of logic or of those who adjudicate United States nationality law? Well, not unless, he can come up with detailed legal and constitutional explanations of how that is possible. Merely restating US laws and the US constitution will not be acceptable until such time as he can up with clear, logical, legal, and verifiable ways that a person can be both "loyal and disloyal" to the US Constitution. So, by all means, Messianic Jews are welcome to their views, but they cannot come along and pick and choose articles devoted to Jews and Judaism purely (meaning based on premises that those articles apply and reflect Jews and Judaism -- otherwise what would be their point and purpose) and say "ok, these are now mine to do with as I please." No, they will have to do much better than that. They will either let go of articles devoted to Judaism or create their own versions, but they cannot create "templates" that do NOT reflect Judaism, Messianic Judaism, or reality. So let's be real, ok? IZAK 19:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • It is not our perogative(sp?) to declare that a certain belief is illogical. It is our duty to report what the adherents claim it is, not what we think it must truly be. If there are people who say that the belief can't really be true, then we can note them, by saying "People X, Y, and Z claim that belief A is inconsistent/illogical/whatever". We can not say that they are not allowed to consider Judaism related topics to be important, and that if they do, we aren't going to report that. That is about as biased as you can get. -Amarkov blahedits 19:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Amarkov: Wikipedia articles have a responsibilty to reflect reality, and thus far to posit that articles purely devoted to Judaism should also be used to reflect a Christian group (which is what the MJ's are) is not doing anyone a service. Articles about Judaism are about Judaism, and articles about Messianic Judaism should be about Messianic Judaism, that is not "bias" it's called logic and reality. The MJs are welcome to create articles about their world view and then let them be held up to public scrutiny, but they cannot take articles that everyone agrees are part of Category:Judaism and abscond with them. Thus far, not one editor here familiar with Judaism has said that MJ articles/templates or whatnot should be backed up with Judaism articles. That's a formula for creating mass chaos. Kindly stop harping about "hate" and "bias" because as that may well be a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks against Jews. Thanks for your consideration. IZAK 20:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Argh. Apparently, my long-winded replies are ignored, so I'll try to make it shorter. It is biased to claim that Messianic Jews are not truly Jews. It is biased to say that certain concepts are not allowed to be related to Messianic Judaism. If they believe the concepts are related, it is our duty to report that. -Amarkov blahedits 20:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Amarkov: Noone is saying they are not Jews (since to be Jewish is also an ethnicity, see the Jew article for explanations), but all the Jewish denominations agree that "Messianic Judaism" is NOT Judaism (that is not "bias" and that's why these religions are not equal to each other in reality.) MJs are welcome to their own concepts and they are welcome to CREATE ARTICLES about those concepts, but they cannot base their arguments on articles about Judaism that does not regard them as part of JUDAISM (nothing to do with them being Jews or not.) I think you need to brush up on your knowledge about the differences between the terms "Jew" and "Judaism" in order to understand that while MJs are regarded as Jews in apostasy by the Jewish denominations, they are still classified as Jews ethnically (if born to a Jewish mother, see Who is a Jew? for that) but "Messianic Judaism" is not regarded as "Judaism" by Judaism itself and thus Wikipedia has a serious responsibilty to report and reflect that reality first and foremost. IZAK 20:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • The reality is not that Messianic Judaism is not Judaism. That is an opinion, not a fact. The reality is that it is not considered to be Judaism by all other Jewish denominations. You can note that, but you can't say they have to write new articles on, say, the Torah, even though they agree with other Jewish denominations on that. -Amarkov blahedits 20:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Amarkov: That all the Jewish denominations say it's not "Judaism" then guess what, it's not Judaism, that is reality. It's like that old expression, "if looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's a duck!" Simple as that! Because after all who gets to decide what is Judaism? You? Wikipedia? The MJs? The Catholic Church? You mention the Torah, have you studied it and its 613 mitzvot that specifically say that a false prophet should be put to death?: "But the prophet, that shall speak a word presumptuously in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die." Deuteronomy 18:20 [2] Do the MJ's agree with that? If so let that be put into the template as well, they have to agree that Judaism would be correct in condemning Jesus to death! Do you see how absurd this all becomes? IZAK 21:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                            • MJ Response We do hold to that commandment, but we disagree that Yeshua meets the criteria of a false prophet. This VfD discussion, however, is not the place for a theological debate about this issue. inigmatus 04:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not Wikipedia's place to pass judgement on what is absurd. You're assuming that we must say that it either is truly Judaism or it isn't. We don't; we can just give what different sources say on the subject, without passing judgement ourselves. -Amarkov blahedits 21:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Amarkov: Noone is "Passing judgment" on anything. Wikipedia is here to report what is and is not in a factual, truthful, and realistic way. Judaism does not regard Messianic Judaism as part of itself, that is a fact that you cannot brush off as you seem to be doing. Judaism is a major religion, and it is being misrepresented by the misuse of Judaism articles by MJ editors. Wikipedia and Wikipedians are not in the business of denying reality, that is what being unreasonable and irrational is all about. The removal of this template will remove a POV skewing of reality by a POV group that many even regard as a cult that tries to undermine Judaism in real life as well as in any medium, such as on Wikipedia. Those are violations of Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and Wikipedia is not an anarchy. Thanks. IZAK 21:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • But Messianic Judaism does consder itself part of Judaism. Being mainstream does not mean you get to steamroll other people's opinions. -Amarkov blahedits 21:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Amarkov: So I repeat: They are at perfect liberty to create their own articles. Judaism articles do not support their POV. This is part of a debate about whether one small cult can borrow the key articles about a major religion and misrepresent them as their "own", not "steamrolllering", or am I missing something here? We are going around in circles and I think we have both stated our views a few times over, so I will hold back until something more original is said. IZAK 22:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • They are not misrepresenting them as their own. The fact that Jesus is relevant to Protestantism does not mean that Protestants are trying to misrepresent Jesus as solely theirs. Judaism articles should not support any POV, so I'm not sure why it's relevant that it doesn't support theirs. -Amarkov blahedits 22:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Amarkov: I see that you cannot let go. Judaism articles do not support any point of view, they are about Judaism, and Judaism rejects Messianic Judaism. I don't know where Jesus comes into this, but I sure wish the MJs would talk more about him than about the poor ol' Judaism that rejects them 100% IZAK 22:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category is very misleading. By its nature, traditional Judaism is messianic. The tenets of Judaism hold that we await the redemption of Israel and the coming of the Jewish messiah. Nonetheless, Jesus is not regarded as the messiah in Judaism. Messianic Judaism, is a heterodox syncretic religion, or an early "Judaized" version of Christianity at best. In other words, it is an "other" in its relation to Judaism. There are objective ways to measure what is Judaism and what is not Judaism, just as there are ways to measure basic principles of democracy. Judaism has accepted principles of faith that if violated in theology and principle put what one believes outside the boundries of Judaic practice. There is no relativism involved. For example, the Black Hebrews, or the followers of Sabbatai Zevi may consider themselves followers of Judaism, but by their tenets and actions contravene basic principles of Judaism, even if they believe that they don't. Because followers of Messianic Judaism contravene the most basic tenets of Judaism, such as unitarian monotheism, they cannot be objectively classified as praciticing Jews. Hence, this catagory should be classed with Christianity and its beliefs, and for example focus on pre-Paulite Christianity and its Jewish roots. Guy Montag 03:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • MJ Comment The name "Messianic Judaism" is a name that can not be changed since so many people have already accepted it. It stands in public opinion as an adjective for a group of adherents who believe Yeshua is the Messiah, irregardless if "traditional" Judaism is also "messianic" by nature. I disagree that Messianic Judaism is a syncretic religion, but rather that it is a reform within Judaism. The claims that we don't believe in a unitarian monothiest God are false. Most Messianics I know reject the traditional Christian view of the trinity. Even the Artscroll siddure, commonly used by other Jews in daily prayers, lists "Christianity" as a "sect" of Judaism! How much more so would be then Messianic Judaism which rejects traditional anti-Torah Christianity and embraces Torah-observant Judaism? I personally belong to a sub sect within Messianic Judaism that even teaches that Paul was a Torah-observant Jew to his death, encouraging all believers in Yeshua to follow the Torah! Christianity doesn't follow all the Torah. They pick and choose at best, and reject it outright at worst. Such a religion is a false religion according to Torah, and Messianics will have nothing to do with it. We are Jewish by all intents and purposes, and often in our communities we are doing more Jewish things than even Reconstructionist, or Conservative Jews! We are the one's wearing kippot, and tzitzit in public; we are the one's who are keeping kosher when some others Jews aren't! We are the one's engaging in shacharit, mincha, and maariv, wearing tefillin; observing Torah to the best of our ability - even if so-called "mainstream" Judaism either rejects these things, or feels confused or threatened by what we do. Wikipedia is not a battleground. It's a place to provide the public with valid, well-sourced information that is beneficial to all: to supporters, to the opposition, and to those neutral to the topic! This VfD is POV pushing at best, censorship at worst. inigmatus 05:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I can tell you that in Israel messianic Judaism means something completely different. It actually means the right wing or far right wing supporters of Judaism, especially the "settlement movement" in the West Bank/Judea and Samaria and the building of the Third Temple. Amoruso 20:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - maybe I do not understand. You can be Jew by either being born as Jew or by conversion to Judaism. Wearing kippot and tzitzit in public; keeping kosher or praying does not change you to a Jew. --YoavD 12:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep This deletion request doesn't meet ANY template VfD criteria as listed in WP:TFD. Not a single one. IZAK, I think your nomination already counts as a vote. You don't have to post twice. This template is necessary to the development of Messianic Jewish articles, subsections, and further "presence" which IZAK seems to have a problem with. I'd like to know how a template called "Part of a series of articles related to Messianic Judaism" could violate no original research, especially since the reasons why the current list of articles listed in the template have already been debated and received consensus and WP:3O support. Last I checked, a template doesn't have to violate plagiarism to be deleted. The supersessionism complaint is highly POV. This deletion request is ironically a textbook example of a battleground request. I hope an admin sees this deletion request for what this request really is: an unsupported and unfounded request. Unless the opposition can provide more substance and just some scrap of legitimate logical reasoning, I would ask that the admins consider the slew of "per nom" deletion votes that are sure to come in here, as mere bandwagoning by very the anti Messianic camp that has been involved Messianic Judaism's (and related articles) edit wars. inigmatus 19:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Inigmatus: This is not a "personal" matter so kindly try to stop your efforts at personalizing in the hope of triviliazing a very serious and weighty issue before us. This is no joking matter. IZAK 19:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi IZAK: This has become personal. To see that it has, all anyone has to do is look at your user talk page history. I still hold to good faith that you intend good for this template, but when you post every reason to delete except valid WP:TFD criteria, citing specifics, I begin to wonder. inigmatus 05:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi again Inigmatus: Firstly, I have given you a response to the WP:TFD criteria above. Secondly, why do you insist on this personalization of things? We do not even know each other. Thirdly, you can look at my edit history for over four years, and you'll see that pretty much the only time I get very upset is when blatantly antisemitic editors spout their obvious hate, and you are not one of those people. Finally, stick to the arguments at hand: Why did you insert Judaism articles into the template (the main reason for this vote to delete) when you could have relied upon, or created, MJ versions? IZAK 18:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hi IZAK: Thanks for being patient with this process. I personally didn't create any separate articles on Torah because Torah contains all that someone reading about Messianic Judaism could click over to in order to learn more about it. It didn't make sense to make a separate Messianic Torah because such an article WOULD be redundant. However, it is a future goal of Wikiproject Messianic Judaism to review some of the articles listed in Template:Messianic Judaism to see if Messianic Judaism subsection could be inserted which could be more directly linked to from the template; however the information provided in the articles are relevant to Messianic Judaism as is. Any new information or subsection we would add to them would be only to add content to the article itself, perhaps from Messianic Judaism teachings. Unfortunately as you've noticed, there aren't that many of us online. With only about 50,000 of us in the world, not many are interested in the time-consuming effort to maintain Wikipedia articles regarding Messianic Judaism - and probably more likely - they don't know we have a "presence" on here anyways. I hope we can continue to work together to make Messianic Judaism articles and templates more informative for readers, as I know you have been invaluable in pointing out specific areas that do need addressing and correcting. I just hope you would consider discussing the issues you have with Messianic Judaism articles and templates in their talk pages first, rather than nominating them for deletion and then discussing them. inigmatus 05:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per violations explained above. --Chabuk [ T • C ] 19:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's called a WP:POVFORK - crz crztalk 19:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment you know, just saying it's WP:POVFORK doesn't really communicate WHY it is. Perhaps you have some substance or a specific thing in the template that you'd like to fit into POVFORK? I mean come on, if you're going to say that it violates a wikipolicy, the least you can do for the admin that has to read through all these unsupported votes like this, is to maybe be a little more specific? I mean, a tad more specific - maybe at least a HINT? Do I have to get WP3O involved again in disputes like this? Tell me why its POVFORK? If you can give me supported specfics, then perhaps we can have a real good faith effort here to improve the specific things in the template you disagree with. inigmatus 19:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is WP:FORK because the topic covered in the few articles that exist and there is no need to be making a sep religion out of it and spreading templates all over the place. frummer 19:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Oh that's awesome, so now Messianic Judaism is Judaism? Ok whew, finally glad that dispute's over. Again, I don't see how it's a FORK, even if Messianic Judaism is Judaism. I don't see what the problem is then in continuing to list relevant Jewish articles to a template called "Part of a series of articles on Messianic Judaism" - I mean, the topic list in the template has ALREADY been debated in the template's talk page, AND consensus was achieved on the current list with a neutral observing admin resolving the dispute. Perhaps you didn't mean to imply that Messianic Judaism is a seperate religion from Judaism? Please say that I'm right in understanding you on this issue, and if Messianic Judaism is Judaism, then I will happily change my vote and delete this template myself, and instead simply include Template:Judaism on all Messianic Judaism articles! Oh what progress these VfDs do for all involved! I love Wikipedia! inigmatus 20:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Inigmatus: Try to be serious. Why play games? First you create a MJ template based on 99% of purely Judaism topics, and then, when on technical grounds, it is pointed out that it's a "fork" you use red herring "retroactive reasoning" (also called "backwards logic") to say that the objection on technical grounds implies a legitimation of MJ, which it is not. Please be more careful. And it is outrageous of you to be so offensive as to say "I will happily change my vote and delete this template myself, and instead simply include Template:Judaism on all Messianic Judaism articles!" which is very alarming and highly offensive. Please do not add fuel to the fire and prove that you wish to inflame a colossal edit war. IZAK 20:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I created the template based off Messianic Judaism, and Christianity because having Template:Judaism or Template:Christianity in Category:Messianic Judaism articles did not seem appropriate according to the content of Messianic Judaism articles. Second, the template was modeled after other religious templates which are titled "part of a series of articles on..." - and so fill in the blank. Having a template called "Part of a series of articles related to Messianic Judaism" seemed most appropriate, still is appropriate, and the only real dispute is not over the appropriateness of such a template as this VfD seems to imply, but rather the dispute you have with it is in the CONTENT of the listed articles in the template. Perhaps you could do the template a favor by continuing the discussion in the template's talk page about which items in the list are not relevant to Messianic Judaism. I look up to your expert opinion on the matter, and gladly will take into consideration your input. As for this VfD, please either retract your nomination, or else provide valid WP:TFD criteria, with specifics, listing why this template should be deleted outright. inigmatus 23:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Almost entirely redundant with Template:Judaism. The original form IZAK links to would have been useful; this isn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This would have to be trimmed to articles which are only relevant to Messianic Judaism, which would make it too tiny to be useful. -Amarkov

blahedits 21:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)per comments below -- Avi 14:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per arguments above. -- Avi 21:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete...there is potential for a template of this name, but it would contain almost none of its current content. In its present form it is clearly (as is painfully obvious from User:Inigmatus' arguments above) just the latest tool in abusing Wikipedia as a vehicle for promotion of Messianic "Judaism". Tomertalk 00:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Forgive me if my comments seem quite emotionally charged. I'm the only Messianic so far that has been online to defend this unsubstantiated VfD. So far no one has laid out specifically WHICH article listings in the template that covers a "Part of a series of articles related to Messianic Judaism" is POV pushing, since I've provided sources, and the list was never in dispute after multiple WP:3O commented in favor of the current list. This VfD nomination doesn't lay out a single WP:TFD criteria that the template violates, and so far no one has addressed the substance of my responses. I'm sure the antimissionary community would love it if I would roll over and play dead as they whittle away at the hundreds of hours of work that multiple people have contributed to over the last year. Perhaps I will roll over and play dead. After 4 years of being on Wiki, I'm about to give up since it seems so hard to get people to look objectively at the issues, let alone respond to my inquiries. Perhaps you can help and instead of looking at my emtionally charged comments here, that you instead look at the template, look at the template discussion, and see for yourself that NONE of the articles listed are unsupported as being "related to Messianic Judaism." inigmatus 05:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recreate in a much more limited form - As it currently is, the template is ridiculous. But if there would be a template that solely was used for articles relevant to Messianic Judaism, then I'll be all for it. That is, the concept behind the template seems to be good, but the actual template is horrid. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 02:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks Kirby for your support of some kind of template to list "articles relevant to Messianic Judaism". Now, kindly tell me and others what articles currently listed are NOT relevant to Messianic Judaism. inigmatus 06:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV fork. Jayjg (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteTo an outsider such as myself, this appears as an aggressive POV form, done to assert the relevance to topics that would appear out of scope. User:DGG 04:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks for your input. I would like to know which specific articles currently listed in the template would be "outside the scope of Messianic Judaism". So far no one has laid out ANY specifics. Just saying the template is POV pushing doesn't help when the template seems to me to be quite NPOV in its list. inigmatus 05:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would ask that any admin looking over this VfD nomination to take into consideration that no one has been specific as to which articles listed in the current template are not relevant to Messianic Judaism; and that this request fails to list a single WP:TFD criteria as a reason for deletion. I thought we are here to improve articles, not delete them without discussion - and certainly no discussion here has taken place except generalizations, unspecifics, and thus (dare I say it again) bandwagoning. inigmatus 05:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since when does a reason for deletion have to be listed to be used? And what about Torah? That is most certainly not specific to Messianic Judaism. -Amarkov blahedits 07:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response Um, in most other templates I've checked, exclusivity to a subject is not a rule for article listings in templates. A template can be useful if it links to other articles related to a subject, but may not necessarily be exclusive to the subject. Take Jesus for example and go find out how many templates link to that article that have nothing to do with Christianity. Templates can include links to other articles related to the subject, and Torah is definitely a subject related to Messianic Judaism. This template is a list of relevant articles related to Messianic Judaism, and are a list of common items, words, and concepts that one would face and probably have questions about when attending an orthodox Messianic Jewish synagogue. I have tons of sources proving every item on the list as being something Messianics are quite familiar with and talk about with new commers. Template:Messianic Judaism does not ascribe to everything listed in Template:Judaism, hence the apparent redundancy, but at the core, the templates are quite different in their scope. inigmatus 07:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Semi-related comment. Wow, I didn't actually read the nomination, and it's absurd. If Messianic Jews wish to call themselves Jews, that is perfectly acceptable, and for us to say that they aren't allowed to is absurd. That is just... weird. I hereby retract my !vote. Anyone who finds it can strike it out; I can't find it. -Amarkov blahedits 07:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with crz and Septentrionalis. --Gabi S. 07:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per nom. Ayin/Yud 11:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tomer. Beit Or 15:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - IZAK makes clear in his "reasons" for deletion that this is a content dispute as well as a religious dispute. --64.230.123.128 15:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Perhaps an analogy (l'havdil) to Christianity will help to open Inigmatus's eyes: While Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses both believe in the sovereignty of Jesus, neither Template:Latter-day Saints nor Template:Jehovah's Witnesses have a link to Jesus in them. Why not? Because the templates are meant as a mini-directory for issues relevant specifically to those movements/religions. The same is true here - if the template can be pruned down to one that includes only articles related specifically to Messianic Judaism, than it should stay. If not, then it's an obvious delete. --DLandTALK 15:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tomer gidonb 15:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tomer. There is definitely a use for a MJ template, but this one is inappropriate and probably unsalvagable in its current form. Dbratton 15:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons herein stated.--Lance talk 16:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - none of the given reasons are good for deletion. I hope people don't take this the wrong way (I don't mean to be polemic), but this appears to be more of the Jewish vs. Messianic Judaism war, and a sour attempt by one party to delete a template he believes to be antithetical to his point of view (please don't take this the wrong way!). This is not propaganda; it is a good an infomative template. Patstuarttalk|edits 16:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Patstuart: All the reasons are excellent and they are all based on the following, which I will repeat for the record: This nomination meets at least three of the most important criteria for deletion. See: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#What (and what not) to propose for deletion at Templates for Deletion (TfD): (1) The template is not helpful (in fact it is counter-productive) because it uses information about Judaism (a religion that is against/contra Christianity) and presents it as "Christianity" (a religion that is against/contra Judaism) creating major confusion and offense to both Jews and Christians. (2) The template is redundant (and dishonest), because in any case it merely mimics the style and contents of the {{Judaism}} template (and even of the {{Jews and Judaism sidebar}} template) when in fact Messianic Judaism articles should be relying on {{Christianity}} and {{Jesus}} templates. (3) The template isn't WP:NPOV because it attempts to swing everything to do with Judaism in a Christian direction. This would be akin to creating a template that would re-cast key articles about Christianity in the light of Judaism and make it into a "branch" of Judaism. That would be as absurd as this template is in its present form, which is why it has been nominated for deletion. IZAK 18:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Amoruso 18:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per Tomer. Agree that the original template made sense and there are additional topics, so a template with this name is possible. IZAK has pointed out that a number of additional articles on Messianic Judaism have been added and are available for a template. However, for reasons stated by Tomer and others, the current template doesn't seem to cover its subject very well but instead appears to address mostly a different subject. It appears to mostly cover purely Jewish plus a few Christian articles, but doesn't seem to contain many of, or focus on, the articles Wikipedia actually has on Messianic Judaism. The lack of such articles on a template of this name seems a particular weakness. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed my !vote to Strong keep. Nominator seems to have no reasons for deletion other than "Messianic Jews aren't allowed to consider themselves Jews, so they can't consider Judaism-related topics important. -Amarkov blahedits 20:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amarkov: I have adequately explained the nomination a few times but you refuse to read what I have written. I most strongly object to your mischaracterization of what I am saying, so please do create " " for things I never said! For the record, let me repeat so that you can get this straight: MJ's can think what they want, that is their right. They are also allowed to consider Judaism-related topics important, that is their right. BUT, what they do not have a "right" to do is to MISREPRESENT Judaism on Wikipedia by using articles and templates that relate to Judaism and not to Messianic Judaism. They are free to create articles and templates based on them that will be founded on Messianic Judaism articles and not on JUDAISM articles which were not written and created to support a MJ POV. IZAK 20:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is NOT a POV to say "Messianic Jews consider this, this, and this important". It does not misrepresent mainstream Judaism to say "Hey, we consider these things important too!" -Amarkov blahedits 20:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Amarkov: These are serious articles, one cannot come along and say that I like a bunch of articles to back up my POV. And it is most certainly a POV to say that one religion (in this case Judaism) that defies and negates another one (that is, Christianity and the MJ's are Christians as far as anyone can tell) should provide the "proof" and the "validity" of the religion it opposes. You know, at least template {{Christianity}} does NOT do that even though historically and theologically Christianity grew out of Judaism. They don't dwell on that, they move on with what makes them UNIQUE. You know, that is how Christianity began, by claiming that Jesus came to fulfil the prophecies of the Hebrew Bible, and Judaism was identified by those who denied that claim by the Christians. And that is how anyone knows the difference between the two groups: Christians (like the Messianaic Jews) accept Jesus but Judaism does not. That is not so hard to fathom. Let me repeat: Messianic Judaism is free to have and CREATE its OWN articles about its mixed Christian-Judaic beliefs and practices, and they have every right to create articles that can explain that. But they cannot take over articles that deal with a Judaism that would deny their beliefs all the way. IZAK 21:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is not "taking over" the articles, any more than Catholicism is "taking over" an article on the Resurrection by noting that said article is relevant to Catholocism. If you think that this template includes too many things, you are perfectly free to take that up on the talk page of the template, but simply having too many things is not a reason for deletion if it can be fixed. -Amarkov blahedits 21:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Amarkov: One little problem: The template is bloated with a majority of Judaism articles. The only thing that makes this template "original" is that it uses Judaism articles in it to back up a new/old Christian/Judaic religion that is rejected by Judaism, a feat that defies all logic and reality itself. It needs to go, and no doubt someone devoted to MJ will create a befitting one that does not plagiarize and ride piggyback on Judaism articles that have nothing to do with MJ or any Christian group. IZAK 21:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • But the Torah does have something to do with Messianic Judaism. They treat it in the same way as your "true" Jewish religions do. Oh, and are you aware that almost all Christian groups reject Messianic Judaism as Christianity? -Amarkov blahedits 21:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Now, now, Amarkov, watch yourself, you are getting close to a delicate line here. What do you mean by " 'true' Jewish religions"? There is only one Judaism, but it has a few Jewish denominations (not "religions"). The Torah has "something to say" about everything, so what? But because Christianity comes well over a thousand years after the Torah, there is no mention of it, unless one wants to dig up references against worshiping foreign gods and stuff like that. Similarly, the Torah has absolutely nothing to say about Messianic Judaism, something that was created recently about twenty years ago in order to missionize to assimilated Jews and get them to become Christians. The fact that Christian groups reject the MJs shows how ludicrous the "loyalty" of MJs to Jesus really is -- when Jesus' own followers treat them like garbage. In any case, that goes beyond the scope of this discussion. My question to you at this point is, how would editors dealing with Christianity have responded if the {{Messianic Judaism}} would have borrowed heavily from the {{Christianity}} and {{Jesus}} templates instead of from Judaism subjects, probably all hell would have broken loose. IZAK 21:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And then I would be explaining to them that a majority does not make an opinion neutral. It's not my problem that some of my fellow Christians are idiots. -Amarkov blahedits 22:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Amarkov: I am holding off responding until you can come up with better retorts that include lines like "some of my fellow Christians are idiots" as this does not help the discussion at hand. IZAK 22:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep excellent template. KazakhPol 20:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Kazakh: What makes it "excellent"? Question: Would it make sense to use everything in the {{Islam}} template (or to take Judaism articles) to create a new template in support of Muslim Jews? IZAK 20:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to agree with IZAK here...the template is hideous. Not only does it consist of a complete mishmash which does nothing to bring together articles specifically relevant to messianic "Judaism", but 1/3 of the template is a preposterous image. Beyond that, the formatting that was used in the template from which this one was taken, namely, {{Jews and Judaism sidebar}} (prior to a number of alterations to that template), has been completely obliterated by the addition of a great deal of unrelated material. While it's not a reason for outright deletion, the template also features a number of links that can only be described as "deceptive". Tomertalk 22:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for Amarkov Hi Armakov. It's not only Jewish denominations that think this way, I'd say the majority of mainstream Christians, religious scholars, philosophers of religion, etc., wouldn't regard MJ as legitimate Judaism. So what we have here is largely an intersubjectively verifiable agreement, which WP should respect. The MJ's own self-identification as Jews does not over-rule this fact (from WP's fact: "(a)n honest observation confirmed by widely respected observers.") Their own opinion can be noted, but established large-scale agreement on what Judaism is shouldn't be allowed to be obfuscated or obscured. They're "allowed" to call themselves whatever they want, and WP can note their self-identification, but them calling themselves Jewish doesn't make them Jewish, anymore than me calling myself African American will make me African American, (despite the fact that I'm from Africa, living in America, I'm white-skinned, and so I can't be African American because of large-scale agreement on what the term means.) —Batamtig 21:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's nice. Having a majority still does not make your biases neutral. There is a large majority of people who believe some god exists, but that does not make the statement "There is a God" neutral. And in this particular case, it's even worse, because what it means to be a Jew is subjective. -Amarkov blahedits 21:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Amarkov: What User:Batamtig stated is correct, true, and reliable, so no need to belittle what he had to say, please. Saying that "what it means to be a Jew is subjective" is your POV and does not make it true. I think you must stop globalizing this debate and focus on the specific problem before us, which is that articles that have been arbitrarily plucked and thrown together into the {{Messianic Judaism}} template, basically by one editor (User:Inigmatus) without any evident input or agreement from a wider range of editors familiar with what this subject is and is not about, went ahead and utilized articles relating to Judaism, a religion opposed to Messianic Judaism and thereby misrepresented them to reflect a POV that somehow they support Messianic Judaism, which they do not. No wonder that so many Judaism editors are offended, something you fail to acknowledge and in fact you seem to be doing the opposite by belittling them. That is why this template is in essence dishonest, confusing, offensive, and needs to go, so that hopefully a better template based on articles that will truly reflect the Messianic Judaism position can be its basis. Stop fanning the flames, please. IZAK 22:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it is confusing and dishonest, you should get people to fix it. And offensiveness has never been a reason for deletion. Ever. People are offended by pornography, but that is most certainly not a reason to delete it. -Amarkov blahedits 22:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Amarkov: That's what heppens when you get into a long debate, you start hearing all sorts of additional reasons and other issues get dragged into the discussion -- but that is no reason to invalidate the original points, as I have also heard all sorts of tangential comments from you. Let's keep our eyes on the ball here. The original nomination is thorugh and fine and with the following, which I repost, it is more than sufficient: This nomination meets at least three of the most important criteria for deletion. See: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#What (and what not) to propose for deletion at Templates for Deletion (TfD): (1) The template is not helpful (in fact it is counter-productive) because it uses information about Judaism (a religion that is against/contra Christianity) and presents it as "Christianity" (a religion that is against/contra Judaism) creating major confusion and offense to both Jews and Christians. (2) The template is redundant (and dishonest), because in any case it merely mimics the style and contents of the {{Judaism}} template (and even of the {{Jews and Judaism sidebar}} template) when in fact Messianic Judaism articles should be relying on {{Christianity}} and {{Jesus}} templates. (3) The template isn't WP:NPOV because it attempts to swing everything to do with Judaism in a Christian direction. This would be akin to creating a template that would re-cast key articles about Christianity in the light of Judaism and make it into a "branch" of Judaism. That would be as absurd as this template is in its present form, which is why it has been nominated for deletion. IZAK 22:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • MJ Response 1. The template is helpful. To say it's not seems POV. Also Messianics do not refer to themselves as Christian (because Christians do not observe the Torah in full); and I personally do not consider myself a Christian (because Christians also worship a trinitarian God through traditionally pagan ways), but rather a Messianic Jew. 2. The template is not redundant in presenting a list of articles "related" to Messianic Judaism. Again, articles listed in templates do not have to be exclusive to the template's subject in order to be valid in listing them as "related"! 3. You seem to have not read the Messianic Judaism or the Messianic Jewish theology articles that clearly state that Messianics do not consider themselves as Christian, but rather consider themselves as Torah-observant Jews who also happen to believe Yeshua is the Messiah instead of other candidates for Messiah that other Jews have put forth. Also, even Jewish literature considers Christianity as a sect of Judaism (at least early Christianity), so how much more so Messianic Judaism which claims to be a direct theological descendant of such a "sect of Judaism"? Again, this is the doorway to a theological debate, and I am sure this VfD page is not the place to start one. So sticking the topic, the reasons you've posted for deletion are highly charged POV using a "mainstream" view for weight as its support. Such reasoning is categorized as an Argumentum ad populum - a logical fallacy. Again, we are not here to debate popular opinion. We are here to debate relevancy, and this VfD nomination does not address the relevancy of the currently listed articles as "not being useful" why they are "redundant" or not "NPOV" in their current compilation. If this is an NPOV issue and you want to include articles in the template that would make it more NPOV, then please post your suggestions for adding them in the template's talk page, and don't invent a VfD in order to hold such a conversation. If I remember correctly, the rules for posting a nom state something to the effect that suggestions have already been tried in the templates talk page. So far the issues you've addressed have already been dealt with and the current article list has multiple WP:3O support and even and admin intervened to keep the list that was mutually decided by other (non messianic) contributors. inigmatus 05:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amarkov, I think you misunderstand me. I haven't said anything about my biases, I haven't even stated them. Why do you think you know what they are? I'm making a statement on the nature of intersubjectively verified fact. (Please realize here that the arguments I'm using are different to IZAK's). The way we determine fact in this case is to consult "(a)n honest observation confirmed by widely respected observers." (once again, from WP fact). Your opinion seems to be "there's no such thing as fact here, so anything goes". This borders on the absurd. Any group (Satanists, Buddhists, Anarchist) could claim to be Jewish and nobody could gainsay them, simply because they make the claim. What "Jewish belief" is, might be subjective, but only to an extent. There is something that a wide variety of respected observers will agree upon — Jewish belief excludes a belief in the divinity of Jesus. This is not my bias, once again, it's something that's widely agreed upon.
    • As far as belief in God, you mischaracterize my argument, I said nothing about "the majority of people". I think most respected authorities will agree that the statement "there is a God" is a religious belief. We don't regard it as "fact" because there are a significant number of respected authorities who doubt this statement, so it's not confirmed. In the case of MJ, there's no parallel.
    • Once again, to use my example above, I could claim that the definition of "African American" is biased, and that I think it should apply to me. However, making such claim wouldn't change the common English meaning of the phrase "African American" (which is widely agreed upon). If I tried to publish an article on WP which tried to claim that "African American" means anything other than what the accepted meaning is (see the article), without making it clear that this is a very dubious claim, that article would likely be deleted (and rightly so!). —Batamtig 22:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment There are various views on the relationship of the two religions , and it is not our place to disentangle them. I personally do not agree with Izak's formulism that Judaism & Christianity are necessarily "against/counter" each other. My understanding of the general Christian prediction is that Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, and is in no sense opposed to it, but naturally that can be understood many ways. And certainly many Christians & Jews have seen the relationship as hostile. The principle applicable here is that templates are not ways of evading NPOV or the need for consensus.
      • Orthodox Jews may regard Reform Judaism as a heresy, but I think most of them would agree that it is Judaism, however misunderstood, and such is the consensus among Jews in general, and of the outside world. None of this is the case with MJ. Nobody except themselves consider them Jews. They obviously think that they should be so considered, but it is not a legitimate argument to accomplish this by changing the categories other people use. I understand Alcoholics Anonymous has the principle that everyone is a member who says he/she is, but most groups do not feel this way. Neither Jews nor Christians grant membership on the basis of self-assertion. One is not even an editor of WP by self assertion--not until one performs an edit of the body of text that is commonly regarded as WP. DGG 23:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AND Comment: In my efforts to remain unbiased, I think this template should stay. HOWEVER, we should not merge any of its content with the Judaism templates as the vast majority of "mainstream" Jews would take offense to any association with Messianic Judaism or Jews for Jesus and many do not consider these to be Jewish. I think it prudent to distance Mainstream Judaism and Messianic Judaism, perhaps creating articles from the standpoint of Messianics, ie: "God in Messianic Judaism" instead of including it in something like "God in Judaism". Valley2city 00:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As with Messianic Judaism itself, this template seems to be a POV attempt to co-opt the Judaism template, grafting on some unique content, but largely attempting to create the impression that there is a meaningful overlap between Judaism and Christianity. While some items have been removed and others added, there are still several articles included in the Messianic Judaism template that have no connection whatsoever to Messianic Judaism and that seem to be retained to create confusion. Alansohn 00:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Bandwagoning again? I may sound like a broken record, but again, after multiple requests to which NO ONE seems to respond to: can we try to be a little more specific here? WHICH articles in the list have NO connection "whatsoever" to Messianic Judaism? Care to list a few, and the reasons why? I think I would jump for joy if someone actually posted just one listed article and a reason why it's not relevant to Messianic Judaism. I want to improve the template, but so far, unspecific statements like these is not helping, and only serve to prove my point that this VfD nom is pointless and unsubstantiated. inigmatus 06:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Bandwagoning?!?! This is exactly what's happening, and read the text of the article you referenced. As part of an effort to create a history for a quite modern phenomenon, Messianic Judaism -- as a template, if not much more than that -- is trying to latch on to 3,300 years of genuine Jewish history, jumping on the bandwagon when there is no evidence of a historical connection thereof. While Gartel is probably the most ludicrous inclusion in this template, the claim that any aspect of the Judaism · Denominations section -- including Timeline · Early history · Schisms · Pharisees · Sadducees · Essenes ·Diaspora · Aliyah -- as having any meaningful connection to Messianic Judaism as it exists today, is at best misleading. I would have no objection to a template that distinctly include articles related to Messianic Judaism, but the template cannot be accepted in its current form. Alansohn 06:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • MJ Response The Timeline of Judaism is relevant to Messianic Judaism, especially to the more orthodox branches of Messianic Judaism that follow Talmudic law (such as myself). The development of Jewish literature is also of importance, as well as the persecutions that Jews face throughout the world because many historical Sabbatarian/Messianic believers were absorbed into Jewish communities during the inquistions of the Christian Church, and other persecutions - thus the history of Judaism is included on the template. Schisms in Judaism are also important to MJ's, as the development of the denominations of Judaism play a key role in understanding the different kinds of Messianic Judaism practiced based on which halakhic direction each congregation leans towards - and the greatest schism is Messianic Judaism. Pharisees are important to MJs because the theological decedents are todays Talmudic/Rabbinic/Orthodox Jews. The theological descendents of the Sadducees are the Karaites. Both modern versions of these groups play a divisive role in defining Messianic Jews in regards to halakha. The Essenes are important because the Dead Sea scrolls are used to justify important Torah-observant theology of MJs over and against that of the anti-Torah Christians. Diaspora and Aliya is very important to MJs because to this day MJs are still in the diaspora, and not allowed to make aliya (immigrate to Israel) as Messianics. These topics discussed here are of great relevance to Messianic Judaism. Again, this template should not be deleted, and issues over specific topics like these should be discussed in the talk page in the template. I ask the admin to reject this VfD since obviously the debate over the template's content hasn't even been something brought up in its talk page; and the issues that have been brought up, have been satisfactorily resolved. inigmatus 02:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • First, I think it's pretty "chutzpadik" for you, Inigmatus, to pretend to speak on behalf of all Messianics. Second, and far more importantly, your assertion that the Qara'im are theological descendants of the Tzadoqim is patent nonsense at best, deliberate subterfuge our unqualified ignorance at worst. As a devoted reader of Jesus, you should be very familiar with the fact the the Sadducees repudiated the idea of an afterlife of any sort, and that they categorically dismissed the inspiration of the Prophets (who predated their sect). These two issues were, in fact, the primary recorded causes of friction between them and the Pharisees. The Qara'im not only hold belief in the world to come as a cardinal article of faith, but they also regard the Prophets as divinely inspired. The Qara'im find themselves at odds with Rabbinical Judaism on the dual-pronged issue of whether or not the Torah she-b'al-Pe is permitted to be recorded and redacted, and whether or not that redaction [the Talmud and related and descendant commentaries] is inspired on a level equal to that of Tenakh. Tomertalk 03:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recreate, if necessary, in substantially different form The template is simply unacceptable as it is, since:
  1. It deliberately obscures the nature of Messianic Jewish (MJ) belief, and seeks to downplay the differences between MJ belief and the widely accepted view of mainstream Jewish belief. It does so with the use of weasel words like "Yeshua" instead of "Jesus" (at the very least, it should say "Jesus (Yeshua)" since "Jesus" is the name most people use to refer to that figure) and "Apostolic" instead of "New Testament" (again, the latter is the more common term). These words obscure the fact that these important elements of MJ are regarded by most people as essentially Christian elements.
  2. Obfuscates Jewish and MJ terms. "Prayers and Blessings" is a link to List of Jewish prayers and blessings. "Jewish prayers and blessings" are not the same thing as "MJ prayers and blessings". In contrast to this "Religious practices" links to "Messianic religious practice'. It also lists terms like "Apostolic" (sic) alongside important Jewish texts like "Torah" and "Talmud" as if these belong in the same category.
  3. The template neglects many other important elements of MJ, like Mary (mother of Jesus), Saint Joseph, Virgin birth, John the Baptist, John the Apostle, etc., which most non-MJ people would regard as essentially Christian, but which certainly belong there since they are central figures in the religious belief scheme that MJ ascribe to.
  4. There are many other similar problems with the template, too numerous to mention.
    • It's not just Jewish denominations who regard MJ as non-Jewish, but as I said above, the vast majority of mainstream Christians, religious scholars, philosophers of religion agree upon this. —Batamtig 00:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • MJ Response 1. The nature of Messianic Jewish belief is Jewish and Messianic. The "Weasel" words you describe have valid articles with the same name. 2. Most (if not all) Jewish prayers listed in List of Jewish prayers and blessings are prayers used by Messianics, including myself. Also, Messianics do not call the New Testament by its name, but refers to these writings as the Apostolic Writings, or Apostolic Scriptures, depending on who you ask. This template, which lists articles "relevant" to Messianic Judaism then includes these commonly heard phrases and terms; just like Template:Judaism includes commonly heard phrases and terms that other people have different words for. 3. We have a link already to important figures and people in Messianic Judaism that lists some of those you mentioned, yet link to different articles about the people since we don't call anyone "saint" or regard Mary or Joseph as important as Christians do. inigmatus 06:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Objection Inigmatus, you don't speak for all MJ. Kindly change your labels above to say Inigmatus' response.
          • Response to Inigmatus ("MJ").
  1. Whatever the self-identification of MJ's belief, this template obscures the clear, verifiable and identifiable difference between mainstream Jewish and MJ belief. The template should be NPOV, not MJ POV. The weasel words are misleading, whether they have articles or not, I've responded on this issue at length here.
  2. Not so. Many MJ invoke "Yeshua's" (sic) name in their prayers and blessings, so those are not the same as "Jewish prayers and blessings". In addition, MJ have many prayers which are not even based on "Jewish prayers and blessings". It's irrelevant what the MJ think the New Testament should be called, the effect of not referring to it by its common name is to obscure the fact that MJ believe in is in fact the same NT as the Christians believe in. There's no analogy with Jewish terms here, since Judaism, doesn't invent neologisms to refer to another religion's beliefs which it has adopted. It uses Hebrew terms that have been around since time immemorial, not newly invented ones like "Brit Chadasha" (sic) for NT and "Shimon Kefa" (sic) for "Saint Peter". See my additional comments here.
  3. The link you mention simply has the important Christian figures "hidden" by hebraized terms such as the above, which simply redirect back to their common Christian names. Thus "Mary (mother of Jesus)" is listed as "Miryam" (sic) which simply pipes back to "Mary (mother of Jesus)"! If anything makes my case that these are weasel words, it's this list! If you have a problem with "Joseph" (husband of Mary) being referred to as "Saint Joseph", take that up on the page, but don't create new terms. OK, so apparently MJ have decided that Mary and Joseph aren't that important to them, what about John the Baptist or Saint Peter. These aren't included on the template, but Tefillin is?
—Batamtig 09:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MJ Response1. Your discussion only covers the use of the word "Apostolic" on the template instead of "New Testatement." I told you I can provide sources. I haven't visited the template's talk page yet this evening in order to see what you posted in response, but to say you've "responded to the issue at length", is a bit misleading because it is the newest conversation on the talk page, and I have yet to read your response to come to a resolution on the issue. I believe that I last said I could provide sources for the use of the term "Apostolic" as opposed to "New Testament" due to vehement theological objections. 2. Just because some Messianic Jews insert Yeshua's name in familiar Jewish prayers doesn't mean that all do, and all the more the use of the prayers (however they are said) is more than enough reason for such a link to be "relevant to Messianic Judaism." 3. The list of important figures in Messianic Judaism is still in flux. I disagree with the links that are referred to - but again, the quality of the article as is, is not proof of weasel words, but rather proof that much work is needed in that relatively new article, to form it towards furthering the Messianic Judaism information about each of those people in the articles. The template doesn't list Peter or John the Baptist because they aren't the founders of Messianic Judaism. HaShem, Abraham, Moses, and Yeshua are. Again, this is a conversation best left in the template's talk page, and proof that this VfD nomination should be recindended so that this discussion can continue there. inigmatus 02:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Inigmatus (No, you're still not speaking for all MJ)
  1. So you admit to not reading my comments and then mischaracterize them? Yes, they were at length, and no, they did not just deal with "Apostolic" (sic). You're avoiding the issue. It doesn't matter how many sources you provide for your MJ POV, it's still an MJ POV not NPOV, and the template obscures the clear differences between MJ and Jewish belief as determined by most religious and other relevent (i.e. not only Jewish scholars). You're still using an unfamiliar word and by this hiding the fact that MJ adhere to the scriptures which are identical to those known by the rest of the world as "New Testament".
  2. All you're saying just proves my point, Jewish prayer is not identical to MJ prayer, and you're obscuring the differences by just linking it behind the generic word "Prayer". Also, you fail to make a distinction between mainstream Jewish texts, and those recognized by the rest of the world (again NPOV, no MJ POV) as Christian ones.
  3. So you claim your religion is 2000 years old, but it's still in flux on a basic issue such as this? Again, all you say is MJ POV, not NPOV. Most relevant authorities would agree that Peter and John are very important founders of a belief system which includes the New Testament and Jesus. Your behavior on the talk page, your preaching there about your own personal beliefs, and your ignoring of my arguments there again don't convince one of the sincerity of your quest for "consensus".-Batamtig 21:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in its current form, if for no other reason than the piggybacking. "Messianic Judaism" is not usually recognized as Judaism except by "Messianic Jews". If they're going to have their own template, it should direct people to pages about Messianic Judaism and not try to camouflage it as something commonly regarded as Jewish.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron Solomon Adelman (talk • contribs)
    • Comment The template directs people to pages "relevant" to Messianic Judaism. This includes Torah and the rest of the list. We aren't about to create Messianic Torah because it would include the same information found in Torah! We aren't about to dump tefillin because many orthodox Messianic Jews (such as myself) use tefilling during shacharit. There is no article in the current list that is not relevant to Messianic Judaism; but neither are we about to use Template:Judaism in Messianic Judaism since that would stir up much more of a fight than this VfD has been. So we compromised and created our own template. But now someone wants to delete the template and leave us with nothing to point people to the things currently listed, or to the things I just mentioned above! If other religions can have templates "Part of a series of articles on ..." then it would only be fair and informative to let the articles listed in Category:Messianic Judaism have such a template as well. inigmatus 06:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pinchas, glad to see you here adding your standard "del per nom" vote to yet another Messianic Judaism VfD. After all, I'm sure you are working hard to read through this discussion; and have only the best interests for the template in mind. I can always count on the familiar bandwagoning of the rest of the non messianic Jewish editorial community, but you are exemplary in your addition here. Thanks for your vote, it's very useful I'm sure, for whatever admin decides to resolve this dispute. I only want to see the best happen for the template. Shalom! inigmatus 06:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This template clearly resorts to subterfuge to promote an agenda. There is no other possible reason for its current appearance and contents so obviously mimicking those of the "Judaism" template. —Dfass 04:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment oh, don't forget it also mimic Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar, Template:Buddhism, Template:Bahai, Template:Christianity, and oh, I forgot: Template:Islam. After all the coding, categorizing, and redrafting of the entire list of articles was a lot of work to have to recreate from scratch. Be assured, ideas were taken from several templates, not just Template:Judaism. This is the possible reason. I can attest. I should know. I created it. Perhaps now we can discuss specific content as to why certain listed articles "relevant to Messianic Judaism" is not relevant to Messianic Judaism and thus subterfuge? Let's work on improving the template together! inigmatus 06:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've relentlessly reverted any changes made to the template in line with the objections above. You can't do this while pretending to be interested in consensus. —Batamtig 09:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response I reverted edits that were not discussed in talk first. I continued reverting edits that were still not discussed in talk first after continuing to ask the deleter to post the reason for their deletion of articles from the list. I am interested in consensus, but how can consensus take place without discussion? inigmatus 02:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recreate in a much more limited form - as per Kirby. -- Nahum 09:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment for Inigmatus: If you want to keep this template in good faith, please take out all articles that are common to all of Judaism (Torah, Tefillin etc.) and only leave MJ-specific articles. I don't think I need to be more specific than that. -- Nahum 09:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it is a POV fork. --Chussid 09:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The template is deliberately misleading since it has lifted sections wholesale from Templte:Judaism and includes articles that have no relevance to MJ. Cannot claim NPOV with links which clearly are MJ POV. --Redaktor 10:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response I've lost count of how many times non Messianic Jewish editors accuse Template:Messianic Judaism as containing articles not relevant to Messianic Judaism, yet fail to offer any specifics. Messianic Judaism believes it is a reform within Judaism, thus a little redundancy is to be expected in a separate template. Until the greater Jewish community on Wikipedia can agree to let Template:Judaism be posted in Messianic Judaism, a separate template, no matter how redundant, as long as it's relevant, is necessary. inigmatus 02:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Izak and POV forking. Yossiea 15:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment as per IZAK, the case is not made. See my response. This is not POV forking, because NPOV sources point to the relevancy of currently listed articles in the template, as relevant to Messianic Judaism.
  • Delete. Templates are used for navigation within a specific topic, not to create confusion. `'mikka 17:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Izak or at least rewrite to be honest. --Danny Schoemann 08:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IZAK, Tomer, mikka, and others. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Redaktor. Most of the pages included in the box under the template title are about the religion Judaism (per comment of Nahum, above), and are only "related to" Messianic Judaism by the latter's definition. I find the box is misleading and intellectually dishonest. -- Deborahjay 10:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any reason why people of this religious minority can't have their own template. -- Kendrick7talk 19:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep To deny this religious minority its view, would be nothing more than an exercise demonstrating what a bigoted editor can do. To this reader, this smells of a majority trying to impose its view on a weak minority! It Stinks!!! And if it happens it will just result in a majority enforcing its POV on a weak minority, and wiki is supposed to be NPOV. ~~Seekerofknowledge~~--

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.246.201 (talk • contribs) (three edits)

  • Keep but trim per User:64.230.123.128. Also if you are worried about "edit warring between POV editors", try the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes process, so they have a proper chance to defend themselves. Tinus 23:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the template suffers from a POV battle, it seems many of those wanting it deleted are not exactly disinterested. -Docg 02:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Doc: Please assume good faith. This is not about tit for tat. Rather, the removal of the template in its present form with articles from Judaism, is an honest attempt to abide by rules identical to those in "truth in lending". IZAK 00:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've no idea what that last reference is meant to mean. But your nomination shows that this is a POV campaign because you don't like Messianic Judaism. The fact that some Jews are 'offended' by MJ is not relevant. And I hadn't noticed that supersessionism was against Wikipedian policies. Messianic Jews consider themselves to be Jews, that's a POV, but so is the view that they are not. Wikipedia must be neutral in that particular dispute.--Docg 02:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Doc don't be dense. The point is obvious, the MJs are using deceptive tactics by using Judaism articles and "presenting them" as a "validation" for their beliefs, when they should be creating their own templates. Truth in lending is "designed to protect consumers in credit transactions by requiring clear disclosure of key terms of the lending arrangement and all costs" which in this case means that the MJs are not being open and honest as to why they take Judaism articles and present/utilize them as their own. It's like claiming false parentage. And supersessionism is not against policies, but it's an act of theological parasitism that an intellectually honest person should avoid when writing articles about religion. Do you want honesty or deception? This template is not about popcorn flavors, it's about very weighty matters that deserve to be treated honestly and not with trickery. Now do you get it? IZAK 11:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Firstly, please avoid personal attacks - they are for people who don't have coherent arguments to make. And now, yes, I do 'get it'. Your problem with this template is what it is being used on and the deletion nomination is just a WP:POINT. It is also apparent that you've lost all sense of neutrality and objectivity. Messianic Jews have a different ideology to you. They believe that Messianic Judaism is still Judaism - you (and most Jews) don't. That's OK. But the fact that you hate their ideology and think they are parasitic is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Wikipedia must give attention to the majority POV (that MJ isn't Judaism), but it can't regard it as 'correct', it must remain neutral. Perhaps you should try leaving your biases at the door, or leave this issue to people who are less emotionally involved. Wikipedia isn't your soapbox, or a place to defend your ideology.--Docg 11:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Doc and Tinus. Obviously needs serious trimming and constant watching for POV issues but these are not reasons for deletion. JoshuaZ 03:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Changing my opinion to Delete after thinking about other comments here such as MPerel's. I attempted to make an NPOV version of this template that didn't just piggyback and claim articles about mainstream Judaism. However, the resulting set of articles is too small to reasonably have an entire navigational template. JoshuaZ 22:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Your statement implies that the current article list is POV. Second your reasoning leads one to conclude that all templates that say "a series of articles related to..." and provide article listings that are not exclusive to the template's topic, are in fact not legal. Tell me, what is POV about a template that states the listed articles are related to Messianic Judaism when sources for such article listings can be provided? Are you asking for a source to be provided for every single article listing? If so, just ask and you will receive. And are you saying that other templates that link to articles not exclusive to the template's subject are now in fact not legal as well? What wikipolicy is this that is being made up now? inigmatus 05:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This seems like a POV battle instigated by those wanting it deleted who are not disinterested, and in fact appear to want to impose their point of view on a Jewish minority. Maybe those advocating its deletion would be happier adding Messianic Judaism to the list of Jewish denominations alongside Conservatives and Orthodox instead of having its own template. And then Messianics could just use the Judaism template.. - ~~EaterOfWisdom~~

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.117.77.146 (talk • contribs) (one edit)

  • Keep and modify, trimming only to the articles actually related to the subject. Accusations of the "Messianic Jews trying to co-opt our articles" do little to persuade me that Messianic Judaism is somehow a second class subject that can't have a template for its articles. --tjstrf talk 01:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody is claiming "ownership" of anything here. And nobody is saying that the MJs "can't" have their own templates. The only issue that is driving this vote is that the MJs have used articles relating to Judaism and not to Messianic Judaism to populate this template. Thus the template is a subterfuge effort to utilize articles about a subject that is not only not connected to MJ but is even opposed to it. To illustrate the point: Would it make sense to uses articles from Monotheism to "prove" atheism? Think about it. IZAK 11:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Messianic Jews believe that they are Jews, and that many aspects of Judaism are aspects of their faith. You disagree. Indeed their position is a minority position, but Wikipedia still needs to record it. Most Christians don't regard Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses as Christian. But we've no right to remove 'Christian' articles from navigation templates concerning that belief system. Wikipedia can't say who is a Christian and who is not, neither can it say who is a Jew.--Docg 11:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The presence of an article in the template does not "prove" anything about the subject at all. It merely indicates it as being related. Also, while atheism as a subject does not have its own template, Template:Religion topics contains Secularism, so the idea that a template can link to a related article that is not strictly under the jurisdiction of its subject, or even diametrically opposed to it, is well-founded. --tjstrf talk 11:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - DLand's points above are well taken, but the answer is not to delete this template, it's to trim it down along the lines of the LDS and JW templates. Objectively, the LDS and JW sects stand in much the same relation to mainstream Christianity as Messianic Judaism does to mainstream Judaism. PubliusFL 00:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tony Sidaway 04:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC) While we shouldn't present our opinions on Messianic Judaism as fact, we should record the facts about Messianic Judaism. This template, in listing aspects of judaism that Jews and Messianic Jews have in common, does that. If there is edit warring, it should be stopped.[reply]

Strong Keep As per Doc's comments above; One party in the dispute is claiming ownership of articles linked from the other party's template. Jeff Carr 05:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Industrial-strength Keep IZAK claims this meets the TfD criteria but is applying them in a ridiculous fashion. First, the claim that somehow Judaism and Christianity are against each other is truly much more offensive than the claim that MJ and Judaism are related, which is undeniably true and hardly confusing. He further claims that template is "redundant" and "dishonest" because it's visually styled like {{Jews and Judaism sidebar}} rather than {{Christianity}}, a purely aesthetic complaint that has nothing to do with TfD. Finally, he claims it violates NPOV when the TfD criterion explicitly states that editors wishing to delete "must demonstrate that the template cannot be modified to satisfy this requirement". In his own nomination, IZAK cites a version of the template he finds acceptable, proving that the POV problems can be fixed without deleting the template, if only by reverting to that version. It should be noted as well that voting to "delete and recreate" accomplishes nothing, since "recreating" a "new" template is indistinguishable from keeping the old one and modifying it. –  Anþony  talk  05:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I would have no problem with the existence of a template on Messianic Judaism topics as they pertain to Messianic Judaism, but this is just a POV fork of the Judaism template and commandeers articles that belong to a religion that opposes Messianic Judaism. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 20:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By your own admission you have no problem with the existence of a template on Messianic Judaism topics. The topics listed pertain to Messianic Judaism, but may not be exclusive to it. You or anyone else advocating the deletion of this template have failed to list a single article listing in it that does not pertain to Messianic Judaism. If there is such a specific a dispute of a specific listing, then why don't you or the other tens of other Judaism editors bandwagoning a deletion of this template, simply bring up specific article listings on the template's talk page to dispute them? As such, all those that have been disputed have been explained why they are relevant to Messianic Judaism. If I recall correctly, you should be talking about disputed template stuff on its talk page first, before listing a template for VfD. inigmatus 22:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The template fairly lists the important issues of judaism that Jews and Messianic Jews have in common. The Edit War can not be a criteria for deletion.DoDoBirds 07:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The image in the template seems strange to me, and if I were interested enough I would put my two cents in concerning its design. However, the editors involved in this project should decide what articles to link to. It is absolutely POV for a group to claim that articles on Judaism or any other religion cannot be linked to by others who find them relevant to another topic. If Messianic Judaism really does have a vies in common with Judaism, then they not only have the right to link to the relevant articles, but they have an obligation to do so in order to be factual. Logophile 11:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Evolver of Borg 21:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep If Messianic Jews follow the Torah then the article on the Torah is relevant to Messianic Judaism. Scatterkeir 17:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:HOL

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 03:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HOL (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

One of these external links templates. It points to Hall of Light, an article that was deleted as spam[3][4] With no article, there is no need for this template. -- ReyBrujo 15:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There should be some guideline that linkspam templates can only be used for things which have an article. -Amarkov blahedits 16:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'll go ahead and clean up the transclusions if we get near a delete consensus. --- RockMFR 17:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. -- Selmo (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obviously goes with the article. `'mikka 18:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Shouldn't these spam templates have a speedy category? Their usage has been very much on the rise in the last couple of months as external links sections have become more tightly patrolled - if there was a speedy channel for these things then it would save a drawn out vote every time. SFC9394 19:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as spam (WP:CSD#G11). Note that G11 is a general category, and should apply to templates as much as it does to articles. Xtifr tälk 21:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find HOL links useful. --MindlessXD 06:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although I agree that if the linked site has no notability (as mentioned in the deletion debate for the article), the references do not add much to the encyclopedia, WP:CSD does not apply to the template or its links because it applies to articles, which they are not. Also in my opinion relevant references that appear to be inserted in good faith. are not to be referred to as spam (WP:AGF, WP:NPA). Tinus 23:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: your claim that "WP:CSD does not apply to the template or its links because it applies to articles" is false, the general criteria apply to anything. The article criteria (A1-A7) apply to articles, but G11 (blatant spam) applies to templates or user pages or anything. I also disagree that calling something "spam" is a violation of WP:AGF. Spamming can be (and frequently is) done with the best of intentions. But it's still spam. Xtifr tälk 23:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: The template was made by a user who made a reasonable number of good contributions[5]. The linked webpage does not appear to have any commercial purpose. The links were not irrelevant, nor inserted automatically or in a way that disrupts the encyclopedia any more than any other honest mistake. To call the behaviour of "attempting to improve the encyclopedia" spamming is to call the editor a spammer and if you would call me a spammer, I would take it as a personal attack. If you take any link to a webpage that is perhaps not really contributing to the value of the encyclopedia, but still relevant to the subject at hand, as spam, you are not assuming good faith. If you think this does not apply, because you think spam is something else as I think it is, fine, the definition I use pretty much corresponds with the article on Spam.

        The clause in WP:CSD that is about advertising says: Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group or service as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion. Templates are never encyclopedic, they are tools. They are also barely pages. If you hold this to apply to templates, it would also for instance apply to Template:Imdb name and Template:MapQuest and even Template:Wikinews. It just does not make sense to me.

        Anyway, if the links are held to be unusable as references, the template can go away as it has no point. Tinus 01:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep Patstuarttalk|edits 20:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dablink (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Completely useless template--the entire source code (as transcluded) is as follows: <div class="dablink">{{{1}}}</div>.

I rest my case. We don't need stuff like this adding lag to the servers. This template is unnecessary and should be deleted. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:FOLDOC

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep Patstuarttalk|edits 20:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FOLDOC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I originally posted this on the talk page of the template but received no comments in over a month so I'm reposting here:

From the template:

...which is licensed under the GFDL.

Why should FOLDOC be attributed on the actual page when it's contributions are no different than mine or any other wikipedian? If the content is not attributed in the page's history then it should be, at best, a reference.

Again, why are FOLDOC's GFDL contributions more special than mine to merit this template? --Cburnett 04:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Attribution templates are commonly accepted practice around here. They indicate the original source of the material, and generally go in the reference section to show a source that we can refer to. It gets credit because it's a source and we go on what it says; if we were just going by what wikipedians say, it's original research. We do it even for PD sources, like 1911 Britannica and DANFS so people know where we got our information from. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... for now. I am actually in favour of deprecating this template, but a sudden removal now won't be terribly helpful. FOLDOC's copyleft status makes its text compatible with Wikipedia on a license basis, but a problem common to many FOLDOC articles is the lack of proper referencing and attribution. FOLDOC, like Wikipedia itself, is not a suitable primary source for encyclopedia articles. Few will argue that FOLDOC's information isn't reliable, but an article with no referenced beyond FOLDOC should probably be considered insufficiently sourced. This might actually be a good issue to bring up on the mailing lists, since this is a bigger issue than a simple template. -/- Warren 12:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with this assessment, I also agree with people saying this information should be on the talk pages. Could someone run a bot to move this information to the talk page and then delete the template from the article? Then, we could delete this template because it wasn't used. Wrs1864 14:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd prefer something on the talk page with link to the original page and a link to the article's history where it was first used. However, until that happens it should be kept as is. Koweja 14:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not because they are "more special" but because it indicates that it was widely published elsewhere first and so clears up questions as to references and copyright. This sort of thing should live on talk pages, buts that not a reason to delete it. —Dgiest c 20:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the following points might help deciding:
  • What's the purpose of the template? Attribution is a nice attitude and should be part of our culture, but it looks fair to say that FOLDOC should be acknowledged in the same way all other contributors are: by appearing in the edit history.
  • the text "originally based" is ambiguous and possibly misleading; does it mean that *the first* version of the article was based on FOLDOC? It could be the nine-th, FWIW. And since the article could have changed completely since then this again leans toward edit history attribution mentioned in the previous point. Alternatively the text should indicate which version(s) incorporated material from FOLDOC, which seems much harder to do if they are many, possibly far apart, versions.
—Gennaro Prota•Talk 12:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The tempate was used in early days of wikipedia when original massive infusion was done from various copyright-compatible sources. It is just part of wikipedia history of development, harmless, and indicates source. `'mikka 18:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep If the edit summary happens not to mention that the content derived from FOLDOC, which is certainly possible because the editor thought it better to include that attribution in the page text, it would be a violation of the license not to include the attribution. Tinus 23:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Your name is in the history. The FOLDOC contributors' names aren't. Superm401 - Talk 21:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General reply to above: so wouldn't removing the template and putting the contents of the template in the edit summary achieve this: attribution then exists in the edit history. Source attribution doesn't belong on the article page but in the edit history: regardless of who is being sourced (I'm talking content not references). If this template is intended to be a reference....then it belongs in a references section not as a template but then you have to ask if FOLDOC is a primary source (Warrans, above, say no) and I'm inclined to agree. Cburnett 02:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment attribution is one of wikipedias biggest problems. yes every contributor is credited if you are prepared to dig through thousands of edits many of them vandalism reading all the diffs but nowhere are the main authors of the articles credited directly. Wikipedia contributors implicitly consent to this low level of attribution but external sources do not. The other big problem with using page history for attribution is that there is no way to retroactively add a comment to an edit when it is discovered that the content it introduced was copied from another gfdl source. Plugwash 02:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - the GFDL requires attribution to the original source to remain intact (e.g., when copying from wikipedia one must keep the words "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" in the copied version). This template is necessary to ensure compliance with FOLDOC's license. JulesH 10:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - no reason for deleting. The GFDL states that the authors of the material should be mentioned. Answers.com also does this for Wikipedia, mentioning its name whenever it displays our material. Templates are used to make it easier for us to do this.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Test9

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete, CSD T1. Titoxd(?!?) 09:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Test9 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not a suitable template, created for misuse, more insult than warning or notice, should be nominated for speedy deletion. --Tom the Boffin 03:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Vandlised

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (author request). Renesis (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vandlised (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Duplicate of Template:Vprotected, no uses. Renesis (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Infobox Male Model Bio

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. --Coredesat 21:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Male Model Bio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Patent nonsense --Rifleman 82 19:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_31&oldid=1142564076"