Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:53, 13 June 2013

Template:BLP noticeboard

Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Luchins, who takes a firm stand against fundamentalism, arguing with Aaron Soloveichik, a dean at Yeshiva University and the head of the Brisk yeshiva in Chicago until his death, that it is against Jewish tradition, names rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik as his rabbi, but also has a strong connection to Chabad Lubavitch, and is a frequent speaker at its venues.

How does FN 14 show this? Where does Luchins say that Rabbi joseph Soloveitchik is his Rabbi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EMESPATROL (talk • contribs) 14:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've had a look and will take it one referenced bit at a time.

• "Luchins, who takes a firm stand against fundamentalism, arguing with Aaron Soloveichik, a dean at Yeshiva University and the head of the Brisk yeshiva in Chicago until his death " - The reference doesn't seem to support any arguing with Soloveichik. The only mention of Luchins in that link is him saying "“Using Rabbi Soloveichik in this way is a tremendous disservice to one of the great Torah giants of our generation,” in reference to the way Soloveichik’s words were presented by some within Lubavitch.
• "that it is against Jewish tradition," - The link provided with this source doesn't seem to mention him, but a search on google books gave me this which is in the same book. It mentions his views on homosexuality, that it is a sin but that doesn't mean they should be demonized, and that they should be allowed in synagogues. Again this doesn't seem to support his view that fundamentalism is against Jewish tradition.
• "names rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik as his rabbi, but also has a strong connection to Chabad Lubavitch," - In this source he says "My Rabbi, Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveichik" so it supports that. the source is an interview with Chabad Lubavitch but I can't see where it says anything that could indicate he has a strong connection with them. Maybe the word strong could be taken out.
• "and is a frequent speaker at its venues." - this source states that he was a guest speaker for them but it couldn't be use to say he is a frequent speaker. It could be used to support his connection with them.

As for the other bits removed in your edits.

• "Luchins, who considers himself a "staunch gay rights supporter,"" The source supports that stating "Luchins, who like his boss considers himself a staunch gay rights supporter". I would also consider the Advocate to be a reliable source.
• "a liberal – or a 'leftist,' as he prefers – in an Orthodox community that is ever-more conservative, and tart tongue has often landed him in the center of controversy" This is a direct quote from this site and should not be altered unless it is re-worded in your own words.

I suggest adding {{failed verification}} to the problem sources and maybe others can be found to support the claims. If it can't be supported then that first sentence could be taken out or re-worded. The rest of the paragraph should stay in but maybe with the word strong taken out in reference to his connection to Chabad Lubavitch, and frequent speaker could be changed to just say that he has been a speaker. If you think there are issues with the information being selected in a biased way, then you should add more info to balance it out. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I have made some corrections. Luchins' connection to Chabad Lubavich does not belong in the career section. As far as sources are concerned, they do not suggest that Luchins is active on behalf of Chabad Lubavich. As for your suggestion to change the wording of the Lubavich-Connection, Sarahj2107, I'm all for it and will change it promptly. It is unfortunate that not all the pages of Luchins short essay about the two Rabbis Soloveitchik are available on Googlebooks, but my guess is, that it is safe to say that they both were Luchins teachers, as EMESPATROL first suggested, but I'll check as soon as I have the time to go to the library. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC) P.S. and thanks, Sarahj2107, for checking the sources.

It is not acceptable to use a personal blog as a source for contentious material about living persons. There is no verification or vetting that the articles in question have been faithfully reproduced in their original, unedited form. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove sources and sourced material. The Jewish Daily Forward is a RS by WP standards. Thank you, Ajnem (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Failed Messiah though is not. You also deleted many changes from others w/o giving any reason. Please give individula consideration to changes made by others if you expect them to do the same for your changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.160.231 (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

To those with a personal interest

Personal involvment with the subject of an article is problematic, reverting sourced material is not a good idea (see above), neither is starting an edit-war. 216.163.160.231, EMESPATROL and whoever has a personal interest in Mr. Luchins, please read Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest and explain what you object to on the talk page. Thanks, Ajnem (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see comments in italics and brackets below. This is based on the version that you removed. The version which you would like to revert to was changed by various editors who listed why they made the changes – perhaps the onus is on you to explain why things should be your way? I have taken out the time to include my comments and respectfully ask you to do likewise. Since you question the motives of others I will take the liberty of asking what it is that interested you so much to create this page and spend so much time on it? Luchins was born in New York City, the oldest son of Abraham Luchins and Edith Hirsch Luchins, both well known American Gestalt psychologists. ( Dr. Edith Luchins is better known as a mathematician) A political advisor and longtime Democratic activist (I think activist is a biased term, and is not from a source.) who also worked for Republican politicians, Luchins is described as "a liberal – or a 'leftist,' as he prefers – in an Orthodox community that is ever-more conservative" by the Jewish Daily Forward, The Forward also asserted that his "tart tongue has often landed him in the center of controversy. (The 2nd half of this sentence seems like an odd selective quote to begin explaining his views)" After the death of former Senator Moynihan in 2003, Luchins announced that he would quit his political activities, saying “everything I cared about in politics was buried Monday in Arlington Cemetery.” Luchins was Senator Moynihan's point person on the issue of relocating the United States embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (Do not understand why you deleted this). Luchins, who takes a firm stand against fundamentalism, arguing that it is against Jewish tradition, names (in one interview) r(R)abbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik as a rabbi of his, is described as a close student of Rabbi Ahron Soloveitchik, and also has a longtime connection to Chabad Lubavitch, and has been a guest speaker at its venues (This sentence needs work, but I am surprised that you have deleted twice his speaking for 4,000 people at the kinus shluchin which had quite a bit of press coverage.).

(The final 3 paragraphs seem to belong more on the Pollard, Balkany & Aish HaTorah Wiki pages. That being said the source that Mrs. Pollard denies the letters is a personal website which is hard, IMHO, to take seriously when the letter has been printed in numerous sources. Why have you twice deleted a link showing the letter has been published? An editor already has explained that the word controversy does not fit here) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.160.231 (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop deleting material that is reliably sourced, but that you do not like. As already advised, please read WP:COI. WP:NPOV and WP:BATTLEGROUND also seem like pages you might want to read. We edit here by consensus and editing from the same point of view, jumping from one account to another, or from one IP address to another, is especially frowned upon. As is bringing off-wiki campaigns into wikipedia editing.

We try to be especially careful about derogatory information in biographies of living people. Reading WP:BLP might give you some help in figuring out how to frame your arguments in a way to build new consensus here on the talk page. But so far, as best I can tell, your methods are overwhelming your message. David in DC (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

So, what it amounts to is that 216.163.160.231 resents it that the article doesn't mention that Edith Luchins was also a mathematician. Well, just change it 216.163.160.231, and while you are at it, you may also add David Luchins birthdate if you know it and if the Luchins have any children please add that too. Thanks, Ajnem (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Controversies Section

The controversies section seems to contain original research. It also seems like it is the site of some serious edit warring. I'm not going to start edit warring, but it should probably be deleted and all the participants blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.17.126 (talk) 05:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Wheel warring

A series of IPs and a single purpose account seem intent on deleting sourced, relevant material from this page. They seem to be wheel-warring so that they avoid WP:3RR, but they don't seem to get it that edit-wars are against the rules, even if they don't violate 3RR. They call sourced material "original reasearch" in edit summaries when, in truth, it comes from reliable, tertiary sources. They delete the subject's account, reported in a reliable tertiary source, describing a key episode in the continuing imprisonment of one of the most notable cases of an American jailed for espionage in the last 50 years. The account describes the attempts of Danial Patrick Moynahan, Ahron Soleveichik and Joe Liberman to have the convicted spy freed by the President of the United Statessubject The story is esinsider account of one of the most notable American spy cases, published in a reliable tertiary. The subject worked for Moynahan for 20 years and is a student and associate of Soleveichick. Both of these facts are alread documented in the article, making his account just about the opposite of the repeated edit summaries justifying the deletion as "just a story" told by the subject and asking why this particular "story" belongs in a wiki-article about the subject.

Help!
David in DC (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles