Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Jews for Jesus

Concerns

I have a few concerns about this case.

I am listed alone against three users who often took an opposing position. This makes it look like I am alone against the consensus, which is untrue. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see that there are "sides" in this debate; Homestarmy has certainly agreed with you on many of the involved issues. I simply included those of us who have been involved in the dispute of late. We can certainly add others.ParadoxTom 02:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issue #1. There has been a vote Talk:Jews_for_Jesus/Archive2#straw_poll and even though I find such votes silly, the outcome may give some impression. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do not see the relevance, though.ParadoxTom 02:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance is, the side that insisted that the Chrisitianity tag does not belong in the article describing this Christian organization has lost the vote. Instead of accepting that and moving on, that side goes to mediation. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't look at me, as far as I know, this mediation case was all Paradox's idea :/. Homestarmy 00:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I never voted, so I'm not sure who that "side" is. But it's pretty clear to any objective observer (i.e. someone without a vested interest in either a pro- or anti-JfJ position) that the template serves solely as propaganda--a 'warning' for Jews to beware of this Christian groups. And that propaganda--while true and perhaps warranted in some cases--is inappropriate in an encyclopedia.ParadoxTom 02:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issue #2. I find it inappropriate and offensive to even suggest that some group, other than religious leaders of mainstream Judaism, can redefine the basic principles of Judaism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. And indeed, that is at issue; whether you, or anyone here, can make a blanket claim about Judaism that may not be in accord with the views of some of its members.ParadoxTom 02:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement of religious leadership of mainstream Judaism on the subject is quoted in the article. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an argument.ParadoxTom 02:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issue #3. I thought we have already found a compromise and resolved it. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too was wondering about the somewhat small group of participants, even though several of them haven't edited or talked on the article heavily recently, users such as User:Mantanmoreland, User:Abscissa, User:Jayjg, and User:Eliyak might have something to say. (Whatever happened to User:Justforasecond, did he really quit I suppose?) Homestarmy 01:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think these issues are far from "resolved". Hence, the mediation.ParadoxTom 02:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's appropriate for the actual dispute to carry over onto this page. There's enough of that going on on the talk page. I would be happy with encouraging more people to look at the article. As far as I am concerned issue #2 is the only significant one. DJ Clayworth 01:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add the question of where the "incompatibility with Judaism" section goes to the issues to be mediated. Is that OK? DJ Clayworth 19:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me.ParadoxTom 22:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't listed....?

The notice on the page seems to say that some bot would automatically list all new mediation requests every 30 minutes or something, yet this wasn't added yet....? Homestarmy 20:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this too, and sent an e-mail to that effect to the chair of the mediation committee a few days ago. I have not yet received a response.ParadoxTom 22:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like this, it seems to me this request has somehow slipped through the cracks of the system. Homestarmy 17:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something tells me this has been derailed, it still was never listed, which is really weird, as it all seems to of been filled out correctly. Homestarmy 22:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I investigated the state of the mediation committee. The chairperson appears to be on an extended Wikibreak, and the committee lists only five active members. I don't think we arae likely to get a response to this.

The Wikipedia:Requests for mediation page recommends that we go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment and Wikipedia:Mediation cabal before this approach. If everyone is agreeable I propose that we try one of these. DJ Clayworth 22:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weird timing, our case just got accepted. Homestarmy 00:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I suspect that was because I put a note on User talk:^demon yesterday. DJ Clayworth 15:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]