Revision as of 17:48, 6 April 2019 editDebresser (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors110,467 edits →"The 'Torah path'": r← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:28, 6 April 2019 edit undoNishidani (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users99,504 edits →"The 'Torah path'"Next edit → | ||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
::Per ], get consensus for inclusion. Start an RfC, perhaps? ] (]) 17:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC) | ::Per ], get consensus for inclusion. Start an RfC, perhaps? ] (]) 17:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC) | ||
::: This is relevant information and reliably sourced, so the burden is on you to show why this should not be included. ] (]) 17:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC) | ::: This is relevant information and reliably sourced, so the burden is on you to show why this should not be included. ] (]) 17:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC) | ||
(a) At ], Debresser you removed a key historical fact from a strong academic source as 'superfluous', and continued to remove it. | |||
Here (Eliezer Berland) you are challenged for including material from a so-so source, which the other editor thinks acceptable only for bare facts. | |||
* | |||
You insist on restoring what N regards as a superfluous sentence stating | |||
* | |||
Well, by the same token ('''logically''') what you removed at the other article was also in the source, and therefore, esp. since it was high quality historical material, should not have been removed. There is no policy coherence in the two edits. In one you can expunge a sourced statement as superfluous, in the other, you revert a challenged statement from a middling source by asserting it is ''in the source'' and therefore must stay.] (]) 19:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC) | |||
Where is the policy coherence behind these two edits?] (]) 19:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:28, 6 April 2019
Biography Start‑class | |||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph of Eliezer Berland be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. | Upload |
Judaism Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
"The 'Torah path'"
Can't wait to hear the rationale for this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Restoring sourced information which is reliably sourced and 100% likely to be true. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Per WP:BURDEN, get consensus for inclusion. Start an RfC, perhaps? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- This is relevant information and reliably sourced, so the burden is on you to show why this should not be included. Debresser (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Per WP:BURDEN, get consensus for inclusion. Start an RfC, perhaps? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
(a) At Jewish religious clothing, Debresser you removed a key historical fact from a strong academic source as 'superfluous', and continued to remove it. Remove superfluous sentence
Here (Eliezer Berland) you are challenged for including material from a so-so source, which the other editor thinks acceptable only for bare facts.
You insist on restoring what N regards as a superfluous sentence stating
Well, by the same token (logically) what you removed at the other article was also in the source, and therefore, esp. since it was high quality historical material, should not have been removed. There is no policy coherence in the two edits. In one you can expunge a sourced statement as superfluous, in the other, you revert a challenged statement from a middling source by asserting it is in the source and therefore must stay.Nishidani (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Where is the policy coherence behind these two edits?Nishidani (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Categories: