Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:02, 29 May 2006

Archives: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18

Deletionism facing (Judaism) articles

I have just placed the following on the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Judaism. Shabbat Shalom, IZAK 09:02, 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)

Hi, I posted this on another page you posted it on too. As for the congregation, while you might think it's important, if there is no other evidence for it and not many Google hits, it's tough to not delete it. Know what I mean? Otherwise, people might not delete things that really should be deleted because somebody says it's notable. --Awiseman 16:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty critical over at WP:AFD... User:PZFUN has nominated myriad entries into today (5/20)'s log. Many of these articles are extremely notable, such as USY or Young Judaea. This seems like a deliberate targeting of Judaism related articles, but I'm going to assume that this isn't the case. I know you're keeping an eye on what's going on, but the loss of these articles would be a big blow to the Misplaced Pages. Let me know how I can help. Wes! • _c 09:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk page spamming

IZAK, I can see you feel strongly about the deletion of articles on Judaism-related topics. Nevertheless, it's not a good idea to bulk-message on a large number of user talk pages--particularly when your message is so lengthy.

You might consider approaching this a different way. A short notice on some central message board can reach a larger audience, without raising concerns about spamming. Try Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Judaism or the Village Pump, for instance.

In the meantime, please stop the bulk messaging. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 09:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Ten: It's not spamming! I was merely contacting editors that I regularly communicate with. These are not strangers! I will follow up with your advice about the village pump and one or two more places. Thanks for the advice. IZAK 09:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Dr_Baruch_Goldstein_Israel.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dr_Baruch_Goldstein_Israel.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 11:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

PZFUN's crusade

Are we willing to prosecute PZFUN for his hardly-deniable attack on Jewish communal and religious topics? He is clearly marking for deletion organisations with memberships of thousands. His criteria for deletions is also often that the article is not well-written (as well as "utterly non-notable" which is not the case. jnothman 10:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith. 'memberships of thousands' isn't notability enough, though the tens of thousands generally is. Just explain about which orgs are notable, make that clear in their articles, and add references... +sj + 16:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Since PZFUN has some jewish blood in there too I've been told, I'm pretty certain he's not a crusader ;-) . In fact, the articles he nominated are extremely ill-maintained. This is still an encyclopedia, so his actions were technically correct, as far as policy goes.

Even so, it's made several people rather unhappy, so Slimvirgin has applied Ignore All Rules and kept the articles for now, so as to keep the peace.

In the mean time, it would help everyone a lot if we saw some serious maintenance work being done on those articles! Kim Bruning 15:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I have a lot of Jewish family members, including my father. If you want to make this personal, so be it, but it is hardly bad-faith to list articles that currently meet none of the Misplaced Pages checkpoints, such as Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:Sources, and Misplaced Pages:NPOV. Just by merely saying "If you were Orthodox, you'd know him" does not make something notable. Such statements need to have third-party references (ie, they can't just be on their personal page) and must be verified, in otherwords, they must be proven to exist. When an article has no sources, it cannot be assumed by a secular institution that something is indeed encyclopaedic. As for groups, there is a certain level of Misplaced Pages:Notability requirements; in other words, just because something is there, doesn't mean it necesarily deserves an article. There is no article on my Street Association because I can't prove it exists since we've never published anything, nor would an informal organisation of 500-1000 people be encyclopaedic. Please read Misplaced Pages policy before accusing me of bad faith. Páll 18:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

More discussion here Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Definite bad faith. If it really was good faith, he should've at least found 36 cardinals, bishops, and imans to afd and hide behind. --Shuki 00:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there was Jewish blood in some of the crusaders too. But the aplication of "No references" to articles with references, just because they are among some without and you happen to be giving the same nomination rationale for 16 articles doesn't make your actions correct or justified, and makes it seem like an arbitrary crusade on the topic. jnothman 01:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, some of them had one (or maybe two) website that were personal or were videos of them speaking, or had no back up for any of the information sourced. Just because an article has one link attached to it that is called a reference or a source does not make it such. And I would like it if you laid of the crusade rhetoric, it's pointless and only makes the discussion hostile. Páll 01:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I used crusade last night when I was quite upset by my time being spent on countering poorly-submitted AFDs. I hope you can accept my apologies, but it's in the wiki and can't be taken out. I have given you two examples of Hasidic rebbe articles that you nominated where clear print references were properly cited at the bottom of the article. Maybe no citations were given fact-by-fact, but that's usually not done in printed encyclopedias either. jnothman 02:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Almost none of those articles is fact, it is all speculation and copyvios. And fine, those two articles were a mistake, if their texts do indeed exist. So the other 14, then? Fact-by-fact referencing IS done on Misplaced Pages. I am rather frustrated as well as I seem to be wasting my time by trying to have anything to do with Judaism on Misplaced Pages. The minute anyone who is not Jewish and well known for it attempts to edit or prune article, they are attack as an "anti-smite" on a "crusade. It is appaling that the lack of quality is not a concern, while the sheer numbers of articles are. Have you seen Misplaced Pages:CRUFT? Well, now this is JudaismCruft. Páll 02:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not claiming anti-semitism. I think that's silly. What I am claiming is that you, without discretion, nominated a whole pile of things from one category, seemingly only to make a point. Otherwise you may have been more careful in trying to have the articles improved, as many were clearly of notable subjects, even if some lacked references: yes, even the Jewish community here has a sense of discretion as to who is a notable and who is unnotable as a religious figure, but the originators of large Hasidic dynasties clearly should fall into the "notable" category. So don't just nominate so many articles with the same AFD comment- at least change them for when "not notable" or "no references" are clearly false! It is hardly clear that you looked at the articles before nominating them. jnothman 02:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

As to the claim of "CRUFT", I reply that I not at all a fan of most of these personalities and I object to many aspects of their ways of life or interpretations of Judaism. But they are still mentioned often, and are prominent former leaders of large current communities. The heads of smaller and much shorter-term communities are found on Misplaced Pages, and could possibly be called cruft. These, on the other hand, are the founding heads of leader-centric groups that have existed for a couple of centuries. They are a topic of interest to me, but I am certainly no fan that wants my favourite superhero to have a page on Misplaced Pages. These persons are important and notable to Jews and non-Jews alike who are interested in Hasidism (not a minor strange fanclub). jnothman 02:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a stub cat. People clear those out regularly. Kim Bruning 22:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

STOP!

Hello! I took a lot of trouble with Slimvirgin to sort out the situation yesterday. Please do not go around telling things that are not true on many many articles for deletion.

Please discuss with either Slimvirgin or myself before you spread around more misunderstandings yet. I am not very pleased. Kim Bruning 22:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Try be objective. jnothman 22:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeing your answer at Slimvirgins page, the traditional internet response is to refuse to cooperate with you further on this matter, which I am now doing. Kim Bruning 23:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you've gone too far with this. Kim Bruning 23:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Shalom

Shalom IZAK. It's easy to think, when a number of people become upset over a turn of phrase that you have used, that either they're just being over-sensitive and missing the whole point, or they're being deliberately obtuse. But there is always the possibility of showing magnanimity by retracting words that others may find offensive. I ask you now if you would consider showing such magnanimity. This is an occasion on which, I assure you, a retraction would enhance the regard in which you are held without diminishing the strong and important message of what you are saying. --Tony Sidaway 00:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. HKT 00:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I also endorse the above. Best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hello: I am not a mind-reader. Whatever it is that is bothering any one of you I retract. IZAK 05:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Kiddush Club notice

Hi, thanks for the notice. My edits to this article were limited to some basic Manual of Style formatting tweaks; I don't have the specialist knowledge required to make an informed vote on this article and the related AFD discussions. I will do some research into the matter and cast a vote if I can reach a decision on the debate. Thanks again for the notice. Regards. --Muchness 13:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. IZAK 13:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yasher koach

• Good grief, what is this? I haven't seen this one before ?#:=) But thanks a lot anyway Yoda! IZAK 17:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Christian views of Hanukkah

• Now Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#Christian views of Hanukkah.
• Was Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Christian views of Hanukkah.

According to the history, you wrote most of the article. Any idea of some sources? There really isn't content other than religious quotes, but the reviewers claimed "Original Research".

--William Allen Simpson 17:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC) -- watching here

• Hi William: I did not write the article, but I remember dealing with it. I have written a detailed response at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#Christian views of Hanukkah which should clarify the origins of the article, its mutations over time, and my role in it's early development. Best wishes, IZAK 19:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  Thank you, IZAK, for taking the time!

  --William Allen Simpson 19:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Email

Did you see my email? It's urgent. Pecher 14:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I see you're editing, so may I draw your attention once again to my comment above? Sorry for being intrusive. Pecher 18:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pecher: I have sent you my reply via Email. Best wishes, IZAK 18:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

PArtnership Minyan

As an FYI, I had put entries on the issue in both the article talk page and the editor's user talk page, although I may not have waited enough time. --Shirahadasha 22:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Cain and Abel article

Hello IZAK, as I understand, Cain and Abel article is mainly yours. It possibly has a mistake. Jewish tradition suggests that Cain and Abel were born before the Fall of Man. I know this from rabbis but I have not a reference to support the fact. What's your mention about? If it's so, how should article be corrected in the best way? For wiki 19:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

I appreciate it. BTW, are you OK with this: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Judaism#Solomon is a redir to Biblical account of King Solomon? ←Humus sapiens 20:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for helping out in saving the article Spanish and Portuguese Jews (seems to be safe for now) and the category:Spanish and Portuguese Jews (heading the right way, I hope). -- Olve 22:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD reform

Hi, IZAK.

Kudos on adding religion as a category in the proposal; I get the impression that it gets enough AfD listings to necessitate its own category. I am concerned that splitting religion up further would jeopardize the entire categorization proposal, as there's a lot of concern about splitting up into more specific categories (relative to the specificity of "History/Geography", for example). Very broad categorization (even if Religion is part of another category) would still be quite helpful for editors interested in AfDs about specific religions, as that categorization would drastically minimize the the amount of junk to sift through. It would thus encourage more participation in these AfDs. I think that it would be a good idea from the standpoint of achieving consensus to not include the specific sub-religion categories. What do you think? Kol tuv, HKT 19:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hi HKT: I think it would help to split the religion articles,in some way or to some degree, because Christianity, especially articles about it English, are very numerous and may tend to overwhelm articles from other religions and there VfDs as well. I think that the Christianity sections do get a large amount of AFD's listed. After all, Christianity is the world's largest religion with about two billion adherents and the bulk of the English Misplaced Pages's contributors are in the USA and the UK where Christianity is the dominant religion which makes for comprehensive articles and consequent VfDS which would tend to swamp the smaller amout of entries on other religions. Thus, for example, in looking for Judaism VFD's, one would have to sift through hundreds of Christian nominations before one could find the relatively few connected to Judaism. By the way, there is another problem: How to keep tabs of articles relating to Jews or Jewish history or Israel that are not part of the subject of Judaism as such? There is still some debate and thinking needed here. IZAK 14:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Good points you bring up. Maybe you should address them on the proposal page and see how they're taken? HKT 15:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• HKT: For now it seems that the consensus of the discussion at this point, is to stick with very broad categories, so I don't want to rock the boat too much. There are plenty of other areas larger than the religion ones that are being classed together, so let's wait and see if anyone else wants to see smaller categories. IZAK 15:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Son of the Chofetz Chaim?

Hi IZAK, take a look at this. I found this short biography of this Rov in the 1961 edition of the American Jewish Yearbook in the obituaries section (it's all online). I have a strong hunch that he was related in some way to the Chofetz Chaim. This is because:

• His surname was "Poupko" - the same as the Chofetz Chaim
• He was born in Radin

He also received positions in the Agudas HaRabbonim. If you know anything or can investigate his link with the Chofetz Chaim, I'd be grateful. Many thanks, Nesher 11:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Israeli apartheid

Hi IZAK. Could you please restore the article to its original state? The move is considered unilateral and many contributors would argue against that. If you believe that the article should use the (phrase) than please discuss it. Let me know about your thoughts. Thanks in advance. CHeers -- Szvest 19:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Faysall: The move was actually fine editing because the article itself begins with that EXACT self-description that it is a PHRASE, so it's a 100% part of the article's definition of itself and its subsequent content -- a discussion about a phrase, nothing more and nothing less. Knowing that it's only a phrase help keep perspective on its subject-matter and the discussion. Sincerely, IZAK 20:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)