|WikiProject Religion / Interfaith||(Rated Redirect-class)|
It's a stub, so the no reference tag needn't be used and please state why you feel the article violates NPOV. I will remove it for now. MarcusGraly 15:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm also tempted to remove the second paragraph. It seems somewhat irrelevant. MarcusGraly 15:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Due to the fact that it is only in Judaism that any and all claimants, including Yeshua, are "false," redirecting "false messiah" to list of messiah claimants acts as a POV link pro-Judaism. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Been over this before...
For those just tuning in, see Talk:List of messiah claimants.
Stevertigro, Judaism does not blanket deny all Messiahs. This would imply that there is no Messiah in Judaism, which is plainly false. There are various other issues on your version of this page, too (I don't think the "List of people claiming to be the Mahdi" is a good link here). The bit on the Antichrist is written as a factoid in your version, not in disambiguation page style. I'm not saying my current wording is perfect, mind, but we really need to be careful with blanket statements on religion, as people get very touchy about that subject. SnowFire (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- (reprinted from Talk:List of messiah claimants) Your comment is self contradictory. What difference is there between saying '[Judaism regards] none of the known claimants as real' and '[Judaism regards] all of the known claimants as false?' Keep in mind that False messiah was nothing but a redirect to this page for years - a sign that previous editors regarded the difference between 'false claimant' and 'any claimant' as nil. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 22:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- And we both agree that was a mistake. I wouldn't read too much into the fact this was a redirect. (If nothing else, Jesus is correctly on the list of claimants, and a substantial number of Wikipedians would certainly not consider him a false Messiah.)
I have removed a see also link to Chabad messianism from the beginning of the False messiah in Judaism section. The reason being that it is already linked in Jewish Messiah claimants, and we do not mention all of those here. Not to mention that there is a difference in Judaism between righteous false messiahs and messiah claimants , like in the case of Bar Kokhba or the case in question of Chabad messianism. Debresser (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
@Editor2020:, @Setareh1990:: Since there's been a merge tag on this article for awhile... and it was originally started as now-banned user Stevertigo's bizarre ramblings... is there anything actually *worthwhile* to stick in this article? I don't think there's any useful general concept of false messiahs to be had that isn't a dictionary definition. In other words, Jewish Messiah claimants, Antichrist, and Masih ad-Dajjal are all worthy articles, but there isn't anything ACTUALLY connecting them. No article can sensibly be written on their similarities. For example, look at the likes of Thunder god, which just redirects to List of thunder gods so that people can see more about Thor, Zeus, etc. There isn't any article to be written on "thunder gods in general" that assume Thor & Zeus are somehow related. SnowFire (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think it provides a useful cross-religious comparison of false messiahs, but I won't be heart broken if it is decided to merge. I just wanted to make sure it was discussed first. Editor2020, Talk 19:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
This page was merged, per discussion here, on 21 December, The text was restored this morning, with this edit, and with the edit summary “Undo redirect. This is a discussion of the phenomenon, not a list”.
I have undone the restoration, as there were good reasons to merge this article, and broad agreement to do so. If there are any objections to this, they are invited here.
Also, as one of the issues with the article was it's non-neutral stance and original research, I suggest that even if the title is valid for an examination of the subject, and not just a content fork, it needs to be completely re-written, not merely re-instated as before. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- My opinions are basically the same as above. I'm in favor of a merger, but I also think the current article is mostly harmless in its current form (as opposed to certain other articles which are actively misleading or inane rambles), so I'm not hugely fussed if someone wants to keep it. SnowFire (talk) 06:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have replied on Moonraker12's talkpage, that his edit wouldn't have been reverted, had he mentioned the merger discussion in the edit summary. His vulgar post on my talkpage I summarily deleted. Debresser (talk) 07:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)