Template talk:Messianic Judaism

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Jewish This template is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles This template is supported by WikiProject Jewish Christianity. Judaism This template is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles

In yet another grand effort to achieve consensus, instead of POV pushing (on either the Jewish or Messianic Jewish side) I wish to discuss the primary goal of this template. To do so, a need must be demonstrated for its existence, and such needs are as follows:

1. A template to provide easy navigation between exclusive Messianic Judaism articles
2. A template to provide easy navigation from exclusive Messianic Judaism articles to subsections related to Messianic Judaism, on non exclusive Messianic Judaism articles
3. A template to provide easy navigation from exclusive Messianic Judaism articles to non exclusive Messianic Judaism articles that would otherwise be redundant with an exclusive Messianic Judaism version of the same article
4. A template to provide easy navigation from exclusive Messianic Judaism articles to non exclusive Messianic Judaism articles dealing with terms and concepts that a visitor to a Torah observant Messianic Jewish synagogue would encounter, for which either a separate subsection in such an article would be redundant with the rest of the article, or the article itself would be redundant with a separately created Messianic Judaism article or subsection.

Clearly because of the vicious POV attacks on the last template, I would ask that all contributors to this template source their contributions and/or objections. This is a template folks, not an article; so there is and should be some leniency in this template's development, but some seem to think otherwise. A template is a tool, not an article. Unsubstantiated and unsourced charges of POV pushing over a "tool" that aims to be NPOV about a certain POV, will do this template no good.

This template is to be designed as a religious navigation template, similar to other religious navigation templates.

The content of navigable material in this template, was in dispute in two prior TfDs. One was keep, the other was delete. Neither side could achieve consensus on the content. It is the desire of this talk page to move with consensus, and not force another WP:NOT or WP:POV WP:TfD.

Furthermore, all contributors and objectors to this template agree that all future disputes about this template MUST be discussed here FIRST; and not in a future WP:TfD FIRST. A contributor who wishes to submit a WP:TfD will be reminded in any TfD regarding this template, that this dispute resolution notice is in place from the very beginning, and the admin reviewing any TfD of this template will be asked to consider whether or not the nominee has actually bothered to discuss their specific dispute here before bringing it up in a WP:TfD.

This is the development goal of this template. Suggestions would be appreciated. Please begin the discussion below this notice.

inigmatus 05:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss here your reasons for your support of the current primary goals of this template. I currently believe that such a template would be useful, and at the very least would be necessary in all the points mentioned. Other religions have similar templates, see Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Mormonism. It is my desire to see a similar template designed as a navigation template for Messianic Judaism and related articles. inigmatus 05:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. A template to provide easy navigation between exclusive Messianic Judaism articles

I think there are no objections to this primary goal. Anyone else want to add something about this goal here? inigmatus 15:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. A template to provide easy navigation from exclusive Messianic Judaism articles to subsections related to Messianic Judaism, on non exclusive Messianic Judaism articles

I think there are no objections to this primary goal. Anyone else want to add something about this goal here? inigmatus 15:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. A template to provide easy navigation from exclusive Messianic Judaism articles to non exclusive Messianic Judaism articles that would otherwise be redundant with an exclusive Messianic Judaism version of the same article

I think there are no objections to this primary goal. Anyone else want to add something about this goal here? inigmatus 15:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. A template to provide easy navigation from exclusive Messianic Judaism articles to non exclusive Messianic Judaism articles dealing with terms and concepts that a visitor to a Torah observant Messianic Jewish synagogue would encounter, for which either a separate subsection in such an article would be redundant with the rest of the article, or the article itself would be redundant with a separately created Messianic Judaism article or subsection.

I think there are no objections to this primary goal. Anyone else want to add something about this goal here? inigmatus 15:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous template used code from Template:Judaism. It is my opinion that there is no reason not to do so again since much of its design already serves as one of the best religious templates on Wikipedia. A tool is a tool, not an article. Charges of tool "plagiarism," seem ridiculous in my opinion, since if it's useful, why not use a modification of it? The previous Messianic Judaism template has been archived for easy resurrection. If one thinks that the archived Messianic Judaism template looks too much like the Judaism template, does this pose a Wikipedia policy problem? What Wikipedia policy would be violated if such a design were used again? inigmatus 05:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rules for submission:

1. All submissions must meet accepted Wikipedia policies, and also must meet the primary goals of this template as listed above.
2. Please provide sources for every single claim for or against.
3. Please follow the format here to propose new items in the template.

Guidelines for discussion:

1. If someone wishes to dispute these rules for submission, guidelines for discussion, or content submissions, please post below the item, or open up a new topic on this discussion page and notate that such a discussion exists below, or create a subpage and link the discussion to them here. Please archive and/or move long discussions off to a subpage and include a link to it here. inigmatus 15:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. If you are going to move discussions off this page, please add {{archive box}} to the top! ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. If you are going to mark discussions as "Accepted or Not accepted" it must include "per consensus" since the purpose of this template is to completely avoid POV pushing and involve the consensus decisions of all participants. inigmatus 15:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SUBMISSIONS

Post your submissions below here:

(see archived User talk:ChristTrekker/MJtemplate#Article List from previous TFD)

All Exclusively Messianic Judaism articles, categories, portals, lists *Accepted per consensus. See archived discussion here 1.

Torah *See current discussion here.

Tanakh *See current discussion here.

Talmud *Not accepted per consensus. See archived discussion here 1.

God Messianics use these very names of HaShem in their liturgy, speech, and other forms of communication. People visiting a Messianic synagogue would be exposed to these names, thus the reason for their inclusion in the template. The creation of an exclusively Messianic article like Names of God in Messianic Judaism would be 100% redunant with Names of God in Judaism. [1], [2]. inigmatus 15:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been added by user:Ju98 5. It looks as a good starting point for the next one. It focuses on Messianic-Judaic specific topics in the religion template style.

Part of a series of articles on Messianic Judaism

Yeshua · Theology · Religious practice Messianic Seal of Jerusalem Complete Jewish Bible Chosen People Ministries Jews for Jesus · MaozIsrael Messianic Bureau International Messianic Jewish Alliance of America

Portal

v t e

That looks like a very good start. It's to-the-point and avoids the bloat of the previous version. A question about the image - is that an image representative of and widely used by the movement, like the Magen David is for Judaism, or the cross and fish for Christianity, or is it something that's been put together for wikipedia or some other limited public offering? The content of it is fine, but it's very busy, for lack of a better term, and looks a bit hacked together. Something simpler would be more appealing. Daniel^C/_T+ 12:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is called the "Messianic Seal of Jerusalem". It has been found on some pottery, which lead some to claim it is thousands of years old, although others claim that it was an archeological hoax. Regardless, it has been used since the late 1960's. -- Avi 12:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, this is the first time I've seen it. It's not very elegant, but from what you've said it seems appropriate for the template. I'm actually interested enough now to do some research on it myself. :) Daniel^C/_T+ 13:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the start. Feel free to create it with a note that current consensus favors it as a start. inigmatus 14:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's reasonable to start with a Template like this, that sticks strictly to Messianic topics. However, if the Template starts filling up again with general Judaism links (the reason it was deleted in the first place), then it would immediately become a candidate for speedy deletion. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, in the above subsection, I intend to post sources for every item included in the list, as to the article's relevancy to Messianic Judaism. If someone wishes to dispute a listed item, dispute it there in the subsection above. Don't bring the entire template to TfD without first debating individual item listings here first and making a substantiated case against them. inigmatus 17:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original is up top, the new one below. I've stripped it down to the bare essentials—that was one of the suggestions put forth during TfD debate. In the interests of just getting something in place I tossed some of my initial idea (see below) for now rather than waiting on others.

Personally, I feel that many of the Judaism and Christian topics certainly have a place in a MJ nav template. (Tallit is certainly as relevant to Messianic Jews as to any other group of Jews.) However, it is also valid to say that since there is already a "primary" navigation for general Jewish subjects, a nav guide for a sub-area of Judaism ought to restrict itself to that sub-area, which makes complete sense if the sub-area is recognized by the parent. If it is not, then I think it is completely understandable that the sub-area's nav template be complete and self-contained.

So this is a compromise. The idea (put forth before the last TfD) was that "common" topics remain on the MJ template, but hidden by default. Only topics unique to MJ would be always-visible. Since the technology isn't quite "there" yet, I've pushed off that design for future improvement, though the stubs for it remain. The problem was that I'd like to see the links as a continuous list whether or not the section is expanded, but since the code relies on blocks, each section has (potentially) two lists. I don't think that looks very good. First point, what do you think of that approach? Second point, if the line break doesn't matter to y'all should I add the hidden sections back in (and just fix it up if/when the tech improves)?

I had been thinking that we'd do all pre-discussion there (since it's already been mentioned in various placed, I assumed most interested parties knew of its existence) because when it's ready to go live, the move from user to template space will wipe out this talk page. But maybe that's OK? ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although complicated, there is a way for an admin to merge the two talk histories. It's the process used to fix a cut-and-paste merge and requires some liberal delting, renaming, moving, and restoring. If necessary, I will do that once we have a template. -- Avi 20:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Avi, the offer is appreciated. ⇔ ChristTrekker 04:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of continuity, I will post the first code that you've shown here. If I made a mistake, feel free to modify the code to fit your suggestion so we can at least have something. inigmatus 21:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? You're not referring to my version. ⇔ ChristTrekker 04:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any further comment? Seems like Inigmatus decided to go with Ju98 5's template without discussing the merits of one design over the other. ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer Ju98 5's template currenty, as it contains articles that are MJ-specific. -- Avi 19:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My template contains all those links except MaozIsrael and Messianic Seal of Jerusalem, which can certainly be added. But I guess I was looking for comparisons of the design and structure primarily, as they establish a visual identity. (A major complaint was that it looked confusingly similar to the Judaism template.) The content of the template is easily changed, and will likely do so over time. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like either or. I personally like the alternating colors. I didnt realize I put Ju's template in over ChristTrekker. I was really just wanting to get a template put in. Feel free to modify the template with your modications of design.inigmatus 21:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the alternating colors helps readability, use of sections help usability, and I changed the header to a more space-saving layout. Essentially, that's the difference. However, I'll let someone else make the final decision on which proposal gets used. ⇔ ChristTrekker 22:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this version is used, note that there's currently some stuff enclosed in a nowiki block while it's in my userspace. ⇔ ChristTrekker 22:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can call it a consensus on the design (yours), and a consensus on the content (Ju's). Feel free to change the design. If someone balks they can always speak up here. I really don't think having one template look like another is a sufficient reason to not have the same design. inigmatus 23:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is an absolute insult. Tell me here if anyone knows, what was the problem with the previous template? All of the links were relevant. Because this one is total garbage. Noogster 22:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they want more sources to include such links on a navigation template. So, post in the subsection above, and source away. I'd feel better if individual item listings were discussed and debated, rather than baby-with-the-bathwater blanket TfD nominations. This tempalte is a navigation TOOL not a POV pusher or censor, and I want both sides to realize this. inigmatus 17:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a case of J trying to dictate permissible beliefs to MJ. "No, that's ours, you can't have it." Good grief... Other religions get along on WP even though they may refer (link) to the same concept/thing, so why is it so hard to cooperate in this case? I really don't understand. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the currrent code needs cleaning up. I don't think we need show/hide sections for the template. I believe they are a distraction and even borders on censorship to a point - as if we're trying to hide links that others might be offended at seeing. The most important reason I think the code for show/hide needs to be deleted is that on some browsers the code messes up the presentation of the template badly - like overwriting the template category headings to make them unreadable. inigmatus 18:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template adds Category:Messianic Judaism to the articles it's included on, which is a nice convenience. However, many MJ articles begin with "messianic", to the point that it's unhelpful to read an alphabetical list when one gets to the Ms. I plan on adding an optional "sort" parameter to fix this. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is done. I've also reviewed the articles that started with M and sorted those that seemed good candidates. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the stuff that was the whole source of the TFD in the first place. This template is about stuff uniquely related to Messianic Judaism, not stuff already on the Judaism and Christianity templates. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I don't remember it ever being stated that it was content alone that caused the TfD. It was the combination of content and the "borrowed" Judaism template appearance that might have confused readers or given a false impression about the relationship between J and MJ. This new template changes the format (one part fixed) and hides the "shared" content by default (other part fixed). There's absolutely no justification for saying that certain Wikipedia articles are barred from being linked to by certain other articles!!! ⇔ ChristTrekker 04:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the borrowed content was mentioned in the TfD nomination, if you actually read the TfD discussion, that rationale was actually rebuffed by a number of "delete" !votes. If you review the other religion templates, you'll find that, for example, in Template:Islam, "God" is linked to God in Islam, not simply to God...thus making the link relevant to Islam. "Academics" is linked to Islamic studies, not to Academics. "Art" is linked to Islamic art, not to Art. Template:Christianity also does an admirable job of making its links specifically relevant to Christianity. This template should concentrate on what makes Messianic Judaism messianic. What makes it Judaism [sic] is covered in the article Messianic Judaism, and linking to everything that makes Judaism Judaism is little more than linkcruft at best, and Messianic supersessionism at worst. Tomer^talk 04:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my thought is this: How do we know that someone investigating MJ on Wikipedia will make themselves familiar with the "base" form of Judaism prior to reading up on Messianic Judaism? We don't, and I don't know if we should expect them to. One can expect that on may subjects, the MJ view is going to be very similar (or even identical) to either a Christian view or a Jewish view. In the absence of an article detailing the subtle differences, why not link to the "main" article? The absence of a link would seem to indicate that the concept is not relevant to MJ at all, which would be inaccurate! To use your example, if God the Father was not yet written, I'd fully expect Template:Christianity to link "God" to God until the more specific article was fleshed out. Furthermore, if Christianity did not have a concept of God that was distinct from the "typical understanding" contained in that article, yet "God" was very important to that faith, I also see no reason why that template couldn't continue to link to the article. This is a quite reasonable position, and I don't see why it should be prohibited.

This situation is quite strange. On one hand, Jewish editors seemingly want to treat messianics as something wholly different and distinct, relegated to their own articles. Yet now that it is time to make a template, they want to treat messianics as a subset of Judaism, only allowing Template:Messianic Judaism to link to topics if they are not already included in Template:Judaism—i.e. read about Judaism first, then read up about this "flavor" of it. Is this schizophrenia or hypocrisy? I'm honestly curious. If it is distinct, it should be accorded the right to link to whatever is necessary to give an accurate portrayal of itself. If it is a subset, then it should be accorded the right to be included more fully in the "main" articles. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add a link to a WikiProject. This is a self reference and should not be in the template as per WP:ASR and my previous comments on this matter at Template talk:Messianic Judaism/Exclusive MJ. mattbr³⁰ 20:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite reasonable. Since I am fairly new to Wikipedia, though, tell me, how will people be able to know that the MJ Wikiproject exists? The project pages themselves do seem to be getting into a little bit of a decrepit state. Noogster 03:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine if someone finds an article/topic they'd like to contribute to, they wisely read the talk page first, and note the project template that should be present at the top. At least, that appears to be the SOP, from what I've seen. ⇔ ChristTrekker 04:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments in the last paragraph at Template talk:Messianic Judaism/Exclusive MJ. mattbr³⁰ 07:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for crying out loud... Y'all have gone and gotten the template locked? This situation is clearly not going to improve. How do we go about requesting some kind of high-level arbitration or whatever-you-call-it? The only way I see this being resolved right now is if some neutral third party can come in with some authority and knock some heads around, and hands down an official statement of WP policies as applied to this topic. It's not just this template, it's the whole relationship between two RL communities bleeding over into blatant in-WP POV warring. I'd hoped that an understanding could be reached, but part of me knew that was overly optimistic. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current iteration of the template is enormously better than when I last saw it (during a deletion debate). Well done to all concerned. --Dweller 15:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name a single aspect in which it is better. Because whereas the last template was a comprehensive linkbase of information relative to many different aspects of this religious movement, this one is written from an extremely angular perspective and censors any information certain groups don't like to be shown. Noogster 22:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It conforms much ore closely to the community consensus on TfD. That in and of itself is both necessary and sufficient. -- Avi 22:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not when much of the TfD process was itself a farce. Noogster 22:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how exactly was it a farce? Because it didn't agree with your preconceived notions? And also, I think Messianic Judaism is a farce. Who cares? It doesn't matter. It's not relevant to this discussion. This talk page is for improving the Messianic Judaism template. I believe that by openly admitting you are a messianic, you're asking to be blocked per WP:COI. If you want an example of this, please see this, where a Scientologist was banned from editing the Scientology template, as well as all Scientology related articles. Don't make the same mistake. Looking at your behavior, I am sorry to say it may be too late. Thanks.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 23:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In general, Noogster's being a Messianic would not be a conflict of interest but may be a point-of-view issue. A conflict of interest would be more along the lines of his editing of Messianic Jewish Alliance of America were he to be an employee or officer thereof. The Terryo case was NPOV, not COI, IIRC anyway. -- Avi 02:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but my general example still stands. Scientology and Messianic Judaism, while they have few supporters here in WP, those supporters are often very dogmatic regarding their views. I think the dogmatism of noogster and terryeo is comparable.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 02:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, it's no longer likely to be mistaken for the Judaism template, which was the problem many people were bothered by at the TfD. --Dweller 23:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, WHAT, Kirby? You are telling me that it is a mistake to honestly reveal my identity (halakhic Messianic Judaism) and intentions for editing Wikipedia (improving the encyclopedia content, with a focus on the MJ articles), and ethical to do the opposite? Obviously whatever case you're talking about was bad stuff, and that scientologist guy had no business being unilaterally banned in such a fashion. Have you no shame or sense of justice? It's called a NPOV and everyone is responsible for maintaining one here. Noogster 00:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are. But they're also responsible for abiding by consensus on what is NPOV. We have a name for people who impose the true unbiased version on everyone else. They're called banned users. -Amarkov moo! 01:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is protected, and should be tagged with {{protected template}}, or another suitable protection template. Thanks – Qxz 20:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the protection in the hope that everyone can get along and use talk pages for consensus. Edit warring will just get this locked again. -- Avi 03:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last I recall, there was remained a disagreement about Talmud, especially in light of the fact that a number of Messianic sources discussed the "dangers" of the Talmud and Rabbinic Judaism. -- Avi 18:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about that? If you want to find links to absolutely everything that is relevant to the MJ worldview, you visit the portal. The template would contain only those articles that are within the purview of the Project, the ones that are specific to MJ. Would this be a solution satisfactory to all parties? ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds ok with me.--Kirby♥time 05:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The goal sounds laudable, if and only if a portal was created. However, like most grand solutions to the Messianic vs Anti-Messianic disputes, most of us don't have time to create or update a portal. There are just too few Messianic and Messianic-supporting editors to keep such a project running while also maintaining hard-fought "territory" that would be censored by the sheer number and weight of Anti-Messianic popular opinion, rather than by anything substantial. There are only so many pages that two regular Messianic editors can only conceivably support and maintain without getting their stuff deleted all over the place by zealous anti-Messianics. I can't even seem to devote time to a arbitration request because I'm having to spend what little time I do have in arguing over semantics, rules, and regulations, with those who have the time to engage me there, where others assisting them have the time to delete, edit, modify, remove, and otherwise engage in "minor" content censorship that eventually changes the entire NPOV of some important articles. The battle to keep content from being censored against by popular opinion vs hard evidence refuting such content, is overwhelming - for no matter who says that Wikipedia isn't a battleground, it certainly is in the minds of those who have a stated and documented desire to see all things Messianic disappear from Wikipedia. So until the Messianic editor team gets more volunteers willing to step up to the plate and protect what currently exists; I don't think a portal is going to happen anytime soon. But then again, I think a portal would be a great idea - and perhaps the Messianic team should consider "retreating" to just maintaining a portal for now, that is...until someone decides to one day post a threat of a 3RR violation over a semantical issue over its own discussion page! That's when participating in Wikipedia as a Messianic editor becomes sheer madness at that point, and those in WikiProject Judaism start congratulating each other for having the "Messianic threat reduced". inigmatus 15:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was another attempt here to hijack Jewish symbols and replace the current one with Magen David. Please don't do it again. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there's a definite problem with the so called "Messianic Seal" that is currently used to symbolize Messianic Judaism in this Template. There is no legitimate archaeological evidence for its authenticity. This seal is not used by any major Jewish Messianic organizations: MJAA (http://www.mjaa.org) doesn't use it, British Messianic Jewish Alliance (http://www.bmja.net) doesn't use it, neither does Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations (http://www.umjc.net/) or Intentional Messianic Jewish Alliance (http://www.imja.com). In fact, the few places one can find it are usually cheap jewelry web sites or on Ephraimite Movement websites (Gentile movement that claims to be the lost "and found" tribes of Israel!). I propose using Magen David as a symbol for Messianic Judaism as it is the symbol used by most Messianic Jewish organizations. There are some Rabbinical Judaism users on Wikipedia which try to impose on Messianic Judaism which symbols it can and cannot use. It's tantamount to religious intolerance. I propose leaving it to proponents of Messianic Judaism to define its symbols.

Illegitimate symbol:

Either do not use any image at all or find another image, but do not hijack commonly accepted symbols of other religions such as Judaism. It is confusing and deceptive and (speaking of tolerance) intolerant. As for your "proposal" - please see WP:OR. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing and deceptive? I must respectfully disagree. That's YOUR personal (and emotional) opinion, and nothing to do with the facts. It's not for you to judge whether Messianic Judaism should be considered part of Judaism. Orthodox Jews do not consider Reform or Humanistic (atheistic) Judaism legitimate (or any other "ism" other than their own, for that matter), not even consider their converts as Jews. But you don't have a problem with either using Magen David. Messianic Jews are Jews (ethnically, culturally and they believe also religiously) and they consider Jewish symbols such as the Magen David as their very own - they don't use crosses, fishes, or anything else. You know full well that Messianic Jewish movement uses Magen David and/or Menorah as its symbols, and I gave you a list of major MJ websites for your reference. This is not my original research or idea, as you tried to insinuate by pointing me to WP:OR, but Messianic Judaism's JEWISH symbols.If you are not sure of that fact, see the photo of the Messianic synagogue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Messianic_synagogue.jpg) on the Messianic Judaism page itself! Is that photo ALSO confusing and deceptive to you? I am not trying to convince you, just pointing to others on Wikipedia your proactive personal bias towards Messianic Judaism. Using words like "hijack Jewish symbols" - are you not speaking emotionally, from personal bias? I think it's a problem, especially since you seem to set yourself up as some kind of authority on this website. Kakdela2118

Humus, go pick on another topic in Messianic Judaism. The Seal is not in dispute. I posted tons of sources, and even my own Messianic congregation uses the symbol - as well as others in the Denver area. http://iacmusic.com/symbolspage.html If you want pictures of the symbol's use, I'll be happy to provide. inigmatus 17:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, Humus is agreeing with you. Kakdela2118 is the one removing what he/she terms the "illegitimate symbol" of the seal, choosing to replace it with a Magen David. I was actually just about to leave a message on your talk page asking you to comment, since I know that you introduced it and know quite a lot about it. Daniel^C/_T+ 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that Daniel. I saw it was removed by him, then I saw his post here, so I figured it was because he disagreed with its existence on this template. However it should be noted that I agree with kakdela in his position that the Magen David is also an appropriate symbol, in that it is not exclusively owned by rabbinic Judaism, and that the Messianic community does use the Magen David to represent itself to each other and to outsiders as well as the Messianic Seal. In fact, the Magen David is more popular than the seal itself, however for purpose of reaching a compromise with the Jewish editing community on Wikipedia, I believe the Messianic Seal is the most appropriate logo to be put on this template since it is used by a good number of Messianic congregations and ministries. inigmatus 18:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I do agree that the Magen David is in common use in MJ communities, but I'm also glad that we have an alternative here to prevent confusion for readers. If we were using the Magen David here there'd have to be some kind of differentiation from Judaism, and that would lead to horrible fiery conflict. I'm warming to the Messianic seal from an aesthetic viewpoint as well too, after initially finding it a bit overbearing. Everything within it flows together nicely, which I suppose is kind of the point. ;) Daniel^C/_T+ 18:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts to avoid a "horrible fiery conflict". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all of your comments. Humus, I understand your position and I do respect it (in some ways). Frankly, if I viewed Messianic Judaism the way you seem to view it, I would probably also oppose their use of Magen David. Like you, I would like to avoid conflict. Although I must admit being quite furious the moment I saw that the monstrosity that some call "Messianic Seal" is representing the Messianic Judaism. I am sorry guys, but the few times that I saw this symbol used, it was by fringes of Messianic Movement (and mostly gentiles). It's obviously fake origins (was Magen David even used in the first century by Jews as a common symbol? I don't think so.). The fact that this seal has been simply ignored or outright rejected by most in mainstream Messianic Jewish movement, I do not want this symbol to erode the Jewishness of the Messianic Judaism. Look around the internet and you will see that this seal is a marketing gimmick from the writers of the "The Messianic Seal of the Jerusalem Church", Reuven Efraim Scmalz and Raymond Robert Fischer (http://www.olimpublications.com/MessianicSeal.htm), as well as the myriad of T-shirt peddlers around the internet. However, since it seems that the "ruling" majority on Wikipedia will continue to revert our changes to the symbol, perhaps a Magen David with M in it's center to represent Messianic Judaism on Wikipedia would pacify them. What do you fellow wikipedians think? --Kakdela2118 01:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Messianic Seal, irregardless of its origins, is in use by the Messianic community today. I would dispute the idea that it's use is only by the "fringe" if of course you mean that the "fringe" is all Messianic believers except the "ethnically"-exclusive MJAA. Its recognition by the secular community is alone a fact that makes it an appropriate symbol on this template in order to match the templates of other religions that also have a top set religious symbol. Inventing a new symbol not in use by even a large minority, could considered original research, and adding or replacing it with a Magen David, though agreeable with me, and probably sourceable enough so as to win a dispute on its inclusion, right now is not agreeable with the popular Jewish consensus, and this template has already had its share of fights just to get it to be the way it is now. You are welcome to follow the process outlined and exampled in this template above to encourage sourcing, discussion, and deliberations on the inclusion of a lone Magen David, but simply inserting it without giving such a debate enough time to cover all the bases - especially on this template - could be construed as premature and outright disruptive and liable to start a revert war between the larger non Messianic Jewish editing community and the practically non-existent Messianic editing community. We have to pick our struggles here wisely, and to be honest, a debate over the Magen David, though commendable, probably could be better reserved for when we do get a larger Messianic community involved in editing on Wikipedia in order to answer objections to it. In the meantime, I would ask that you consider helping us simply organize a to do list on the project page, and if you haven't joined the project, please consider doing so. inigmatus 02:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inigmatus, first of all, I appreciate your valiant fight to keep the content on the MJ article from being defaced - I know it must be frustrating and time consuming. So, thank you! Getting back to our discussion - yes the fringe that supports the Messianic Seal is composed of both Jews and gentiles in the movement. However, a quick search of the internet shows that it's mostly gentiles who are pushing to mainstream the symbol. Messianic Judaism, though inclusive of gentile believers who wish to cast their lot with the Jews, is a Jewish movement. Most gentiles who choose to participate are fully aware of this fact, or why would they choose to participate at all? MJAA is the foremost Messianic Jewish organization whose primary goal is to bring the Good News of their Messiah to the Jewish people (would you agree with that?) You write ""ethnically"-exclusive MJAA" (though I believe they do allow non-jewish "honorary" members) as if it's a bad thing - is it wrong for Jews to have their own movement? Is it wrong for them to have their OWN country, people, beliefs, or is it not politically correct in America today? The Torah says that Israel (Jacob) will always be a nation before God (Jeremiah 31.35-37). I would also strongly disagree that the "Messianic Seal" has been recognized by the secular community (I sure hope it won't be!). Magen David with M in the middle would not represent a NEW symbol - just a clarification of how it applies to MJ. If Magen David can't be used on Wikipedia to represent MJ, I think that we'd be better off not using anything at all. --Kakdela2118 13:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this category's name be changed like the others? --Lonnyron (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]