Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Baruch Hashem is currently a redirect to ], perhaps incorrectly. I've questioned this at ]. <font color="red">—[</font>](])<font color="red">]—</font> 09:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
== Question regarding the scope of WikiProject_Jewish_culture ==
]. I hope you don't mind me posting this here? ] (]) 16:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC){{small|please ] me}}
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages
Greetings WikiProject Judaism Members!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.
Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
I have had many problems in past with this article, but the most recent problem is that the article fails to mention the Crown Heights riots, even if but to mention that Schneerson's motorcade was involved. Again my source, and my justification, for adding this to Schneerson's article is that the New York Times obituary , and every retrospective article I found on the riots, mentions Schneerson. When I add any mention there is a team of editors that raises extraneous and false claims. I would urge authors interested in this area to help edit some entry in this article that does justice to the link.
My entry, which I thought was the least controversial, although entered in the controversy section (should it have its own section or his legacy?) stated:
Crown Heights Riot
The Crown Heights disturbances in August 19, 1991, which became a central issue in a New York City mayoral race, were set off when a car in Rabbi Schneerson's motorcade went out of control and killed a 7-year-old black child. In the days that followed, a riot erupted in the neighborhood, reflecting existing tensions between Jewish and black residents. Two men, one of them a young Lubavitch adherent, were killed during the riots. A grand jury found no reason bring charges against anyone in the motorcade.
I could live with a shorter version. My quibble is that an article on Schneerson should include the words:
motorcade of ... Schneerson and Crown Heights riot in the same paragraph.Rococo1700 (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
References
New York Daily News, article titled Crown Heights erupts in three days of race riots after Jewish driver hits and kills Gavin Cato, 7, in 1991, retrospective about the riots, by Rich Schapiro and Ginger Adams Otis, August 13, 2016.
The discussion is on the talkpage. It is a subject that was discussed in the past. This proposal has much going for it, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Debresser fails to mention that the discussion in the past mainly favored the inclusion of information into the article, which he opposed. He fails to mention that in the talk page of Schneerson he said this had been "decided" to be excluded by prior discussions, which if anything had suggested that the material be included. He also fails to mention that he deletes the material anytime it is introduced. He also fails to provide any alternative text to include in the article. I am glad he says now it has much going for it, but from my past experience, that has not prevented him from opposing it, and failing to be constructive. I would refer others to prior discussions on Schneerson that he has participated in. Again, I challenge him here as on the talk page, write down the text with citations that you want to include in the article linking Schneerson to the events in Crown Heights in 1991Rococo1700 (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC).
You challenge me? Perhaps read WP:BATTLEGROUND. In any case, you lie. I agreed with your last proposal. It just happens to be that other editors disagree and reverted. Not nice of you to lie about me. Debresser (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Debresser has warned me not once, but twice on my talk page for being too contentious or calling him names. I don't recall calling him names but I am certain I called out his actions. Again, I have well-sourced relevant material that forms an important event in the life of Schneerson. You say you support it now, but you neglect to mention that this article for years mentioned the Crown Height riots in the text at least since before 2005, and in it own subsection from 2009 to 2015, this was deleted completely from the text without any discussion of why, and has since been blocked by you among other editors. Including a deletion of an entry on this topic from 3 June 2015 by 2601:A:6480:10E9:4CDD:C0B8:14D5:EBF0, that you completely deleted.
My recommendation is that ultimately a neutral administrator arbitrate an entry into this article. There is a test now in place, that I have made, and modified according to requests by other editors. If Debresser and Bus Stop and Kemal Tebaast continue to delete this material (and Debresser has in the past as I cite), my recommendation is that we move to arbitration, my hope in this page, is that others would aid in this editing. The three authors above are not constructive in that they do not provide any sourced material to counter the biographical material from the obituary of Schneerson in the New York Times and other sources. They argue only that they do not think its important. That's all: they argue their opinions. I do not want to argue about their opinions or my opinions. The historical sources make a big deal of the events starting and surrounding the riots and their link to Schneerson, or the way we view his life, his biography. They fail to argue this point. There are two editors of those above now posting threats of administrative action against me. What fun!Rococo1700 (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
RfCs fail to reach consensus. The editors above delete any entry in text. Any administrator willing to insert themselves as arbitrator?Rococo1700 (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Video Lecture on the Ten Lost Tribes by Rabbi Eliyahu Kin
User:Gijaor keeps adding this video (using the clever markup though). The discussion has been through edit summaries, not on the talk page, but the new account, obviously not a new editor, seems happy with that. I can't find any evidence that the Rabbi is an expert on the Ten Lost Tribes, which is what we'd need for a personal website, and I don't see any basic difference between a link to a YouTube video and a link to a personal website, so this fails WP:EL. He also seems fairly fringe on at least some issues, see and . Doug Wellertalk17:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Please see the talk page of Arab Jews where some admin decided that because there was a content dispute, he'd lock it up under ECP/ARBPIA and not just a regular semi protection as all content disputes. This is more of the same, if it has the word Jew in it, it is subject to the Israel-Palestinian conflict sanctions. Please comment and make your opinion heard. Sir Joseph03:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
If the question is whether WP:ARBPIA applies, the answer is of course. The wording is {{tq|could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict} (my emphasis), and a significant portion of that article deals specifically with the Arab-Israeli conflict: of the first three paragraphs, the first is a single sentence; 20% of the second, and 40% of the third, is about the conflict.
By the way, the message is not neutrally worded at all (Please comment and make your opinion heard) and so is a violation of WP:CANVAS.
Keep in mind that one of the editors kept removing anything the IP editor put in that would have expanded the article. I don't see any reason to have sanctions on an article where it's not the main topic and there has been no disruption, etc. This is just overkill and goes against the foundations of Misplaced Pages. Sir Joseph14:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@Sir Joseph: You misunderstand. IPs and new accounts already are not allowed edit that page per WP:ARBPIA3#General Prohibition. The fact that extended-confirmed protection had not already been placed on the page was an oversight on the admin corps's part, and it having now been properly applied is something that has already been explicitly sanctioned by ArbCom and is not something you or I or anyone else on this page (or for that matter any random admin) is allowed to overturn. If you want to make an argument that either (a) the page does not fall within ARBPIA because there were Arab Jews before the formation of the State of Israel or (b) the General Prohibition in ARBPIA3 should be amended, you need to take it to ArbCom, and I can guarantee you that if you try (a) you will not be successful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
You seem to misunderstand my point. The page has nothing to do with the IP conflict and should not have been ECP protected. There was no vandalism and no disruptive editing. The editor who requested protection was using it to win the dispute. Not everything with the word Jew in it is subject to sanctions. Sir Joseph01:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The relevant ArbCom case specifies pages that ll IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict (my emphasis). The article clearly places itself under that rubric by making roughly a third of its lead specifically about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Nitpicking over the fact that Palestinians are not involved is not going to end well. Requesting protection for a page that is already supposed to be protected is always acceptable, regardless of the motivations you want to assign to that user. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The phrase "could be reasonably construed" is apparently intentionally vague to allow for it being applied anywhere it might seem reasonable for possible sanctions to be appropriate. That does not necessarily mean that it would be applied in all cases, and I have no doubt that in some articles like this one some edits which might be somehow clearly unrelated to the Israel-Palestine question might not be. Having said that, I know from experience elsewhere in subjects that are both under hot current debate and ArbCom sanctions that it is fairly frequently the case that a given individual or topic becomes a bit of a cause celebre in one of the relevant groups, and supporters of that viewpoint fairly regularly disrupt the content because of it. Particularly in such cases, some sort of sanctions, including page locking in the short term, possibly until the most recent furor about a detail dies down, are not unreasonable. John Carter (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Sir Joseph: Please listen to me: inherently about the IP conflict is your original wording, and is not what ArbCom specified. They were very clear about the matter. IPs are not allowed to edit that page because it defines itself as being "reasonably construed" as being related to the "Arab-Israeli conflict". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Note also that (this is the first time I checked) the text the IP added is still in the article, and included the text Most of the population was either forced out, fled or voluntarily left after the founding of Israel in 1948, for the new Jewish state; claiming that either the article or this specific edit is not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict is laughable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
That comes very close to saying any page with Jew in it is reasonably construed as being part of the IP conflict. The Arab Jews has nothing to do with the IP conflict. Jews have been living in Arab lands since forever. The individual edits that may be part of the IP conflict should not make the whole page subject to sanctions, especially when there is no damage. It takes away from the bedrock foundation principles of the encyclopedia. Sir Joseph02:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
That comes very close to saying any page with Jew in it is reasonably construed as being part of the IP conflict No. No, it doesn't. You need to get over yourself and read what I wrote. (1) Stop talking about "the IP conflict". The restriction is about the "Arab-Israeli conflict". (2) I have edited or read plenty of articles on Second Temple and medieval Judaism that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. (3) The IP edit in question was explicitly about the expulsion of Jews from Arab states due to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If you ignore these key points again and post another IDHT comment like everything you've posted on this page so far, I will take this as an indication of bad faith. The page is clearly subject to the ArbCom prohibition, and the admin who enforced the prohibition was in the right. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
