Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:31, 18 June 2006

For discussion prior to 1/1/06, see the Archives:

• User talk:Briangotts/archive 2005
• User talk:Briangotts/archive 2006

I will generally respond to comments on the commentor's talk page.

New article announcements, etc.

Hi Brian, thank you. FYI, I am planning to start Portal:Judaism/New article announcements and I hope you won't mind if I start populating it with the list of new articles you gave me. I thought it is a good idea to keep them centralized for all to participate, similar to other portals, including Portal:Israel/New article announcements. What do you think? ←Humus sapiens 10:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Still there are some articles that belong neither to Israel nor Judaism, e.g. Shanghai ghetto. Do you think we need Portal:Jewish history and Portal:Jewish history/New article announcements?

Brian, I followed up on this: WikiProject Jewish history (shortcut WP:JEWISH-HIST). There is also WP:JEWISH-HIST/New. Feel free to criticize, improve, etc. ←Humus sapiens 07:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Jomsvikings

BrianGott, Thank you for your input in jomsvikings article. I was fully prepared that I will be involved in some another tedious revert war over a word or too; but your edits in the page are very reasonable and I was very pleasantly surprised. Szopen 13:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Bielski

Aaand after looking over your interest i have the specific request to do. There is article about the bielski brothers. It is now about the book, instead that over the controversial heroes; Also, for me as a Pole it is hard to write the NPOV version of the article. Bielski's are both heroes and bandits, they saved hundreds of people and yet are remembered as simple bandits by mnay Polish witnesses; maybe you could take a look whether current version of the article is NPOV enough? I think I will abstain from the article for some time. Szopen 13:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

New articles

They look great Brian, thanks for bringing them to my attention. Jayjg 20:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Another new article you may be interested in, mostly just taken from JE: Subbotniks. Tomer 23:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Brian, please see Template talk:Did you know#May 12 and tweak as you see fit. ←Humus sapiens 23:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Makhir of Narbonne, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 07:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletionism facing (Judaism) articles

Hi Brian: I have just placed the following on the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Judaism. Shabbat Shalom, IZAK 09:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Shalom to everyone: There is presently a very serious phenomenon on Misplaced Pages that effects all articles. Let's call it "The New Deletionism". There are editors on Misplaced Pages who want to cut back the number of "low quality" articles EVEN IF THEY ARE ABOUT NOTABLE TOPICS AND SUBJECTS by skipping the normal procedures of placing {{cleanup}} or {{cite}} tags on the articles' pages and instead wish to skip that process altogether and nominate the articles for a vote for deletion (VfD). This can be done by any editor, even one not familiar with the subject. The implication/s for all articles related to Jews, Judaism, and Israel are very serious because many of these articles are of a specilaized nature that may or may not be poorly written yet have important connections to the general subjects of Jews, Judaism, and Israel, as any expert in that subject would know.

Two recent examples will illustrate this problem:

1) See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zichron Kedoshim, Congregation where a notable Orthodox synagogue was deleted from Misplaced Pages. The nominator gave as his reason: "Scarce material available on Google, nor any evidence in those results of notability nor any notable size." Very few people voted and only one person objected correctly that: "I've visited this synagogue, know members, and know that it is a well established institution" which was ignored and the article was deleted. (I was unaware of the vote).

2) See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Berel Wein where the nominator sought to delete the article about Rabbi Berel Wein because: "It looks like a vanity project to me. While he does come up with many Google hits, they are all commercial in nature. The article is poorly written and reads like a commercial to me." In the course of a strong debate the nominator defended his METHOD: "... what better way to do that than put it on an AfD where people who might know more about the subject might actually see it and comment rather than slapping a {{NPOV}} and {{cleanup}} template on and waiting for someone to perhaps come across it." But what if no-one noticed it in time and it would have gone the same way as "Congregation Zichron Kedoshim"? Fortunately, people noticed it, no-one agreed with the nominator and the article was kept.

As we all know Googling for/about a subject can determine its fate as an article, but this too is not always a clear-cut solution. Thus for example, in the first case, the nominator saw almost nothing about "Congregation Zichron Kedoshim" on Google (and assumed it was unimportant) whereas in the second case the nominator admitted that Berel Wein "does come up with many Google hits" but dismissed them as "all commercial in nature". So in one case too few Google hits was the rationale for wanting to delete it and in the other it was too many hits (which were dismissed as "too commercial" and interpreted as insignificant), all depending on the nominators' POV of course.

This problem is compounded because when nominators don't know Hebrew or know nothing about Judaism and its rituals then they are at a loss, they don't know variant transliterated spellings, and compounding the problem even more Google may not have any good material or sources on many subjects important to Jewish, Judaic, and Israeli subjects. Often Judaica stores may be cluttering up the search with their tactics to sell products or non-Jewish sites decide to link up to Biblical topics that appear "Jewish" but are actually missionary sites luring people into misinformation about the Torah and the Tanakh, so while Googling may yield lots of hits they may mostly be Christian-oriented and even be hostile to the Judaic perspective.

Therefore, all editors and contributors are requested to be aware of any such attempts to delete articles that have a genuine connection to any aspect of Jews, Judaism and Israel, and to notify other editors.

Please, most importantly, place alerts here in particular so that other editors can be notified.

Thank you for all your help and awareness. IZAK 08:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Radhanite

Yes, no problem I am going to translate what I found. I am currently moving out of my appartment so it will take me about 3 weeks to get an internet access on a daily basis, and I will start after that. I will come back to you when it's done in order to rectify the language mistakes. Poppypetty 15:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Another DYK?

Template_talk:Did_you_know#May_17 ←Humus sapiens 01:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Brian, please check WP:FN. That is the preferred and easy ref. format, so let's be fashionable. Shabbat shalom! ←Humus sapiens 01:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK!

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Baruch ben Neriah, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your efforts! ++Lar: t/c 03:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - May 2006

The May 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —ERcheck @ 11:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Khazars

It's hard to say exactly, but I know what mindset he's coming from. Jayjg 20:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza

Why did you decide to restore an anon's comment that was clearly a personal attack? Pecher 21:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29

Radbaz

Shavua` tov, Brian... When you get a chance, I could use some help at David ben Solomon ibn Abi Zimra... most specifically with ascertaining when he actually lived, as well as any other pertinent information. The JE article and a minority of websites indicate that he lived 1479-1589 (110 years) (relevant google search), while a greater number of websites quote a more believable 1479-1573 (94 years) (relevant google search). Thanks for your time, Tomer 22:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

CrazyRussian's RfA

Re: Muhammad

I've already thought about the same. Sounds like a good idea. Pecher 13:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Already beginning. Pecher 17:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I will appreciate your taking a look at this. Pecher 17:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Oleg

It is certainly not your editing I am concerned for, as I know you for an honorable person. It's the non-sysop Ghirla's feelings that I concerned for. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Defrocking

I see you didn't bother to answer any of my concerns, but preferred - as you always do - to call your opponents "vandals" and "trolls". Moreover, you invited your buddy to protect the page which he did. For the umpteenth time, you abused your admin tools by using rollback to revert my edits as if they were vandalism and deleting the redirect Oleg (which had a history of several edits) in order to move Oleg (name) back there, rather than requests it on WP:RM as it should have been done. Don't think that yout underhand activities go unnoticed. The only remedy in such cases is desysoping, which I am going to seek. Good bye, Ghirla 08:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

My response on Ghirla's user talk:Actually I did address your concerns, such as they were, on the talk page. As for trollism and vandalism, it is my experience that these are you modus operandi, even when I attempt to reach out and be reasonable. If you wish to go ahead and seek de-sysoping, go for it. I will of course oppose as strenuously as I am able, and point out your extensive history of name-calling and other outrageous behavior. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla has asked that I no longer post on his homepage, so I will do so here. I urge him, in the future, not to make baseless accusations, and in particular not to make threats with which he is unwilling or unable to proceed. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Jose ben Yochanan

Hi Briangotts, I removed citations from the article as it was taken from the Jewish Encyclopedia. Thats fine. However, does wikipedia need the citations given by the JE? I'd contend not. As it is, the JE has been credited and anyone seeking further info can go there. Misplaced Pages has its sources (i.e. here the J.E.), while further down the line wikipedia's sources have their own sources (i.e. the JE's numerous sources). I believe I've conformed to WP:CITE. It clutters up the article and I've seen many other removals of such citations from other JE-based articles. See here.

Would you not agree that it would be impractical and bordering on the ridiculous if, apart from every source quoted on wikipedia (e.g. Britannica, Encarta), those sources own sources were quoted? Many thanks, Nesher 16:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Your point is well-taken but I think the example you give is inapplicable. An article might be written that cites to or quotes from an Encarta, Britannica, or other encyclopedia article. I totally agree with you that in such a case, it would be silly to list separately all the sources cited in that article (unless, of course, the source itself was also used in the WP article).

I think the situation with JE articles is somewhat different. In many cases, due to the public domain status of the JE, JE articles are copied in their entirety and reproduced verbatim on Misplaced Pages. So what usually ends up happening is that the article on Misplaced Pages is in fact the JE article. In such a case you can't really say that the JE article was a "source", because in fact the WP article IS the JE article- because of this, I think it's appropriate to cite both the JE and the JE sources in these situations. But I'm open for further discussion and willing to be convinced that I'm wrong.

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Jewish_history#JE_citation_format for more thoughts on the issue.

--Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I completely accept the point that many JE articles are copied verbatim - but my point still stands. Do "Heilprin, Seder ha-Dorot, ii" or "Schürer, Gesch. 3d ed., ii. 202, 352, 357" mean anything to anyone but the erstwhile scholar? A resounding NO. However, many users understand the link to the JE below - and if they want to continue in greater depth (and know where to find these dusty volumes!) then they can easily see the citations there. Only every millionth person or so knows what these sources mean (and even less will look them up).

Even if the "WP article IS the JE" - which is true at article inception but the archaic language and tedious formats are generally fiddled with and added to over time - why does that necessitate keeping unnecessary text that can be accessed a click away? Many thanks, Nesher 17:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Many, but by no means all, of the JE articles brought over to Misplaced Pages are eventually copyedited to a degree sufficient to render them a different article than what we started out with. As for the text being "unnecessary", I'm not sure we can assume that Jewishencyclopedia.com will always be a viable site, or that it will forever be available.

I guess my argument would be that if the originally JE article is revamped to refer to all new references, it would be appropriate to remove older materials no longer directly cited. But in my experience it works the other way- usually incomplete articles and stubs are replaced by JE articles wholesale, and then the changes to those JE clones are usually relatively minor.

As for few people bothering ot look up those citations, very few people will bother to look up any kind of reference whatsoever so it seems to me no kind of argument against their inclusion.

The esoteric nature of many of the citations used in JE is a problem, but I think the solution would be to either have a separate page giving all the abbreviations used in the JE (as, I assume, the original JE did) or trying to go through and make them more clear, not to simply remove them. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm discerning an underlying rationale here, one that I don't entirely disagree with. I remain unconvinced as to the relevancy of these citations (even if the article is essentially always remaining a JE clone), since what's good for JE doesn't work with wikipedia and the paradigm (although not the current reality) is that these articles should not just be copied from JE - even if its legally 110% OK - but rather edited over time. However, I see a major point you refer to in passing that has a firm basis in my eyes - the JE website won't be here forever and these valuable notes could be lost. Looking at it from my perspective, there's only one question: Is it wikipedia's role to preserve (arcane) history, however important? Or is it the recording of facts; whatever isn't critical isn't included? Many thanks, Nesher 18:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're asking whether I think Misplaced Pages should be a historical archive for all sorts of irrelevant references simply because they might be lost, of course I don't. But I do think that articles, generally speaking and when possible, should be cited. Now the JE articles are full of citations which may be cumbersomely (is that a word?) phrased but still have value as identifying the source of the information.

Look at it this way. Let's say an article is generated regarding a rather obscure topic, by taking the JE article and copying it wholesale. I think we both agree that these articles should be edited to make them more readable (I do love the old prose and regret that it's seen as irrelevant, but I acknowledge that it's a bit much for the average reader). But just changing the language of the article doesn't mean that you've made it a new article- it is still the old JE article, with the same sources, modified for legibility. I still think that doesn't justify calling JE the "source" for the article when in fact the sources are the works of Messrs. Graetz, Kohler, et al; some Biblical passage, or the Talmud (to name a few possibilities).

I'm all in favor of fixing the citations, to the extent we're able, and make them more comprehensible to the average reader; but realistically speaking, notes and references have real value to only a tiny minority of readers in any case. Even a "Pesik II, iv.", incomprehensible to most people, has value to a few (to quote Abraham ibn Ezra, "the wise will understand...") and I don't really see it detracting too much from the rest.

One thing I do agree with you is that inline citations should be replaced, wherever practical, with footnotes. But I would hate to see these valuable (if esoteric) references simply tossed. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with you, but for different reasons. As citations for the sake of citations, I believe that just because one has copied a JE article, that doesn't mean that the person is obliged to copy the entire article with citations et al. In my humble opinion, no injustice is rendered to the fine JE (I also admire the prose but find it impractical sans certain contexts) by leaving out their citations. So on that we agree to disagree, I take it. You remain convinced of the relevancy of these citations, if only to a fraction of readers. Fine.

However, I would argue that the citations are valuable in and of themselves as a historic record, and if they can be integrated in a visually pleasing/acceptable way into the article, i.e. nice format and inline citations definately replaced with footnotes, then its fine that they stay. In light of this partial retraction, I'm only opposed in cases where the citations (especially those inline) stick out like a sore thumb and disrupt the flow of the article. I take it that you don't regard wikipedia a historical archive - and might oppose the inclusion of citations on those grounds alone were it not for their relevancy to the article. Many thanks, Nesher 19:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's better to agree, for the "wrong" reasons, then to disagree for the "right" ones. :-) I agree with you that irrelevant citations are pointless - it defies the very purpose of citations altogether to have ones that don't relate to the article. But sourced material should be preserved unless the source is abandoned. As I add JE articles in the future, I will try to fix up the inline citations to make them footnotes, and where possible fix the deficient citation format in the references. Much obliged for your desire to resolve the issue amicably. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, see the list of abbreviations used in the JE --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

And to you. Don't worry; I may yet come round to your way of thinking :). Would you like me to restore the Jose ben Yochanan citations? Many thanks, Nesher 19:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well done... I can see you've put in a lot of work -- Nesher 12:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Ghirlandajo

I've been looking through the issues you have raised. I think it is best to stick very closely to discussing article content with this editor, and save any discussion of editor conduct for an RfC or something similar. Based on his behavior, that (or something similar) is looking increasingly likely (unfortunately). Jayjg 17:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote stacking

You have recently been observed cross-posting in order to influence Categories for deletion#Category:People killed by or on behalf of Muhammad. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Misplaced Pages's common practice", such cross-posting should adhere to the guidelines laid out in Misplaced Pages's internal spamming article. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that resulted in blocking. It is best not to game the system, and instead respect Misplaced Pages's principle of consensus-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. Thank you.

 «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  19:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Your post on my talk page is incredible, considering postings here Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild/Categories requesting votes. There is no wikipedia policy against informing long-standing members of votes the outcomes of which may interest them. In no case did I request that the party vote one way or the other. Your outrage is highly misdirected. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Brother I understand what you are saying they are wrong to ask to vote or induce people to vote.. "That is Gaming the System", (See above how I learnt my lesson) Whoever does it its wrong maybe you can tell them to stop doing it.. probably they dont know..  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  20:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that I sent the message only to people I know and have collaborated with on Misplaced Pages, who I knew would be interested in the vote. I did not randomly select people for spamming. Nor did I post a request to vote on a blatantly POV wikiproject page requesting votes. As it happens many of the people I contacted voted to rename the category, and after discussion I came around to their point of view, not the other way around. That's not gaming the system. That IS the system. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary suppose people who you asked, voted in support of you? Wouldn't that be gaming the system? See brother, my idea is not to threaten you or anything.. I dont want you to do the same mistake I have done (ofcourse in my case it was totally unintentional as I didn't know the rules I assume the same with you). And I am only being nice to you.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  20:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mystic: I came to User talk:Briangotts for an unrelated reason and I saw your post. I would welcome Brian's notification but I didn't get it. I must say that I find your intimidation and threats unacceptable. ←Humus sapiens 20:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I find spamming on "both sides", and to partisan "Guilds", totally unacceptable. It casts the results of everything tainted with it into doubt. Brian has a point when he says it already is way out of control on the Muslim Guild. The complainers here have a point when they say that Brian spammed. I have a point when I observed that Bhai Saab spammed (and more egregiously than Brian, it would seem, as he'd contacted people who hadn't even been involved in the discussion). We can't let this get any more out of hand. Can we take this to WP:ANI, where I have requested clarification on the guideline?Timothy Usher 10:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Banu Nadir

Yes, that's the usual modern apologetics. In addition, people sometimes complaint about an incorrect translation of Muhammad's biogrpahies as if a massacre could somehow become a warm welcome with the right translation. Pecher 20:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)