Wikipedia

User talk:IZAK/Archive 40

< User talk:IZAK
Latest comment: 13 years ago by IZAK in topic Proposed deletion of Israeli apartheid

IZAK (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email)

Archive 35←Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42→Archive 45

new page: User:Kevinkor2/LORD2

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi IZAK,

I am starting to research the use of the template {{LORD}} on Wikipedia. The raw research is happening at User:Kevinkor2/LORD2. I've analyzed 7 of approx 50 articles so far. Here are a few things that I have found surprising:

I also found mentions of {{LORD}} outside of where I expected:

As always, comments welcome! Discussing things with you is very helpful to check my sanity before I post to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#smallcaps and LORD.

<humor>Self-deprecating humor: Even a fool is considered wise when he keeps his mouth shut![1]</humor>

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi Kevin: Good to hear from you and thanks for thinking of me! I think we have a big botch-up here because you have both template {{LORD}} and template {{GOD}} saying the same thing, both based on the ignorance of Hebrew. See
  1. Template:GOD#Usage: "{{GOD}} gives the standard translation with small capitals for the Hebrew name for God (יהוה, transliterated as YHWH, interpreted as Yahweh), as it is translated in the King James Bible and other English Bibles, in the special case when it is in proximity of the Hebrew name Adonai, also meaning "Lord". In this case, "Adonai YHWH" is translated as "Lord GOD" or "Lord GOD. (See also The LORD.)"
  2. Template:LORD#Usage: "{{LORD}} gives the standard translation with small capitals for the Hebrew name for God (יהוה, transliterated as YHWH, interpreted as Yahweh), as it is translated in the King James Bible and other English Bibles: The LORD. This name is the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel. The all caps or small caps writing differentiate this from "Lord" in normal type, which is the standard translation for the Hebrew epithet אדני (transliterated Adonai), meaning "Lord"."

This mess is because the Hebrew is not coming through into the English and it cannot because there needs to be a choice and differentiation between how Judaism uses these terms and how they are used in either Christianity and Islam.

In Judaism:

  1. The word יהוה is the Tetragrammaton and in Judaism it is assumed that no one (today) knows how to pronounce that name. That is why the preferred usage for it is "HaShem" and in prayer its de facto usage is "Adonai" ("[My] Lord") but that is not how it's read or spelled. BUT, this is the PREFERRED name for "God" as it would be said in English.
  2. On the other hand, strictly speaking, in Hebrew the word "Lord" is when "Elohim" אֱלהִים is actually spelled and used in print. The WP article about Elohim is not much help because it inserts so much information from secular Bible critics that by the time you read the articles it looks like Judaism believed in a mumbo-jumbo non-deity, which is the point of the Bible critics but not the point of Judaism.

The point is, when trying to sort out these templates, how exact do you want to be? Do you want to go with Christian versions, or do you want to clarify that "According to Judaism, God and Lord are different words because ____ God= יהוה; Lord= אֱלהִים"; and "According to Christianity, this is what God and Lord mean ____ (Father, Son, Holy Ghost)"; and "According to Islam, God and Lord are terms that mean ____ (Allah, ...); "According to Hinduism, God and Lord may refer to hundreds of different deities"; etc.

Thus: According to each religion, God and Lord mean different things and it is irresponsible and downright misleading to have one or two presumptuous templates to speak for all religions on WP.

Hope this helps. What do you think? IZAK (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Meshulam Dovid Soloveitchik

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Howdy. I've come across and appreciated your work on rabbinical biographies before, and in my usual process of trying to add sources to unreferenced biographies of living people I came across this article. I've been having some trouble finding reliable, secondary sources to verify/establish notability, although it sure looks like he would be independently notable with a bit of sourcing. I had been considering replacing the article with a redirect to Brisk_tradition_and_Soloveitchik_dynasty#Rabbi_Meshulam_Dovid_Soloveitchik, but when I noticed you'd been the original author, I figured I'd ask you if you could suggest/add something you consider appropriate and reliable first, so, any suggestions? References absolutely need not be in English, but I'm personally limited to reading English myself. Thanks in advance, --j⚛e deckertalk 20:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm making more progress after recognizing an alternate spelling, so feel free to pass on this if you wish, although sourcing improvements are always welcome. All the best, --j⚛e deckertalk 00:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks so much. I was touched by your sweet missive, which I am sure I do not deserve. Especially coming from you, as I know that while we often agree on matters we sometimes disagree. But you always handle such differences of view with a respect for other points of view which I find admirable. Many thanks. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

תודה --Thanks

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

תודה -- העברית שלי לא טובה. התשוקה שלי : ההוקי של הנשים.

--Geneviève (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Jewish Philosophy template, and Lithuanian Judaism

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
  1. Hello IZAK. Maybe the new collapsed format of the Template:Kabbalah might be better after all, than its previous long form? If so, perhaps the Template:Jewish philosophy should also be similarly reduced? I like the idea that the two templates be of parallel, similar form, to represent the alternative parallel traditions of Jewish Rationalism and Mysticism. What do you think? If so, maybe you have time to attend to it, also improving the contents of Template:Jewish philosophy by putting the people in similar chronological dating? If you do, tell the Jewish philosophy editor User talk:Jimharlow99 of your plan. Or, perhaps, you think its present long form is better. I'm still not quite happy with the collapsed format of Template:Kabbalah, which doesn't scan information easily to the eye. I've no time - leave it to you! Maybe the best solution is to keep the collapsed format, but let each section scan the information in the previous, wider format - rather than the present awkward line-under-line, with its inconsistent groupings of single and double entries? I like this middle path solution, between the present versions of both templates, for both of them. That would also enable the helpful, definitive Template:Jewish philosophy descriptive heading parameters to be retained, as the format, while collapsed, would remain of similar width. Such a compromise would combine the advantage of neat collapsable design, with former attractive, easy to read block text sections, and also avoiding long extendable sections.
  2. Also, see my discussion with Debresser: Talk:Misnagdim#Extended historical "See also:" list on Misnagdim page about the need to make a new "Lithuanian Judaism"/"Lithuanian Jewish Orthodoxy"/"Lithuanian Orthodox Judaism" page, collating and linking to all constituent topics and personalities. This page would serve as an alternative parallel history to the Hasidic Judaism page. I don't think the subject is sufficiently served by the contemporary social-demographic grouping Haredi Judaism, nor the present ethnic Lithuanian Jews diverse page. I've absolutely no time to do this! Hardly get any time at the moment for Wikipedia! If you can help at some point in the future on these two issues (if you agree), I would be most grateful. Tell me your views.

Best wishes April8 (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

NB. See the orphan-stub page "Litvish"/"Litvishe". This page, perhaps renamed as "Lithuanian Judaism" etc. could become the new, missing central-Wikipedia mainpage. April8 (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi April, thanks for contacting me, see my responses below to the above points:

  1. Kabbalah and Philosophy are two separate worlds, but there is plenty of rationalism in Kabbalah and plenty of mysticism in Philosophy (the great Greek philosophers spent plenty of time discussing the "Soul"). No need to start a "friendly competition" of putting templates about them side by side everywhere. Wikipedia tends to give that false illusion that you can create WP:SYNTH and cross over into WP:OR which are actually counter-productive, and when it would be best to let east be east and west be west and never the twain shall meet.
  2. There is no such thing as "Litvish Judaism" as such even though I know what you mean, it would be like saying there is '"Yeshvish Judaism" or "Balebatish Judaism" or "Yekkish Judaism" or "American Judaism" or "Sephardi Judaism" which there isn't because those divisions are best dealt with on ethnic lines and not on religious ones. Thus there are Lithuanian Jews that is both specific and generic. The fact is that "Lithuanian Judaism" is vague and complex, it is at home and at one with Haredi Judaism, and even branches out and has connections to Modern Orthodox Judaism, and Religious Zionism all of which were heavily guided by Lithuanian rabbis simply because Lithuania was the Torah capital of Eastern Europe as symbolized by the Vilna Gaon and the Volozhin Yeshiva (mother of all yeshivas) being there and not some place else. Debresser is focused on Chabad, and indeed Hasidic Judaism is a sub-set of Haredi Judaism by dint of the fact that Hasidisim is a breakaway movement from the historical mainstream but is still part of it because it adheres to Halacha unlike earlier breakaways like the Sabbateans and Karaite Judaism and the later Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism. Debresser and other people molded by Chabad thinking are obsessed with the Misnagdim notion and they are still fighting those long-ago battles. No need to respond to that with articles when plenty of information can be inserted into existing articles. The Misnagdim did exist and they were all Litvaks as far as anyone knows, and it's still like that.
  3. By the way, there is an important topic called Rabbinic Judaism that is an acknowledged form of Judaism the mainstream that opposed Karaite Judaism. But strangely, Reform and Conservatism consider themselves to be part of Rabbinic Judaism as well. So it gets murky when you get involved in debates with editors who speak from those points of view as Debresser speaks from his. Nothing to lose sleep about.
  4. There is already the main article Lithuanian Jews that deals with that and I have redirected all the "Litvish" ones to that page and moved the bit of information to Lithuanian Jews#Etymology.

Hope this helps and please stay in touch. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Couscous-1.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 

A tag has been placed on File:Couscous-1.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kelly hi! 01:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

From April8

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for your response. Here's my thoughts:

  1. Template:Kabbalah and Template:Jewish philosophy - You're right that the 2 templates shouldn't be posited as being against each other, or disseminated in a fight with each other across the pages of wikipedia. Nonetheless, I still like the idea that it would be more informative, insightful and attractive if they be of similar dimensions. While the theology in the Tanach and Talmudic-Midrashic literature is organic (non-systematic) in nature, Jewish philosophy and Kabbalah gave the (only) two systems of theology in Judaism, based on, and interpreting, the Biblical and Rabbinic foundations. As both became part of the canon of Rabbinic literature (excluding modern Jewish philosophy), they can be traced in historical harmony, overlap, and mutual productive influence, or at their extremes found in opposition. Template:Rabbinic Literature has its own template (needs to be put on the Rabbinic literature page). Jewish Philosophy dealt with and contributed to mystical themes (eg Maimonides on Prophecy); while Kabbalah became more powerful and deeper by becoming systemised, influenced by and incorporating rationalism (especially the systemisations of Cordovero, Luria and Schneur Zalman of Liadi). Nonetheless, Kabbalah didn't employ Rationalist method to prove its tenets from first principles, and Philosophy didn't accept Oral Torah secret Divine wisdom structures, originating from "above" human intellect. The two traditions of "Rationalism" and "Mysticism", therefore, represent the two parallel, alternative archetypal systems, traditions and tempraments of Jewish theology. (NB. This audio lecture link, archetypally discusses their respective relevance to Modern Orthodoxy: "Mysticism and Modern Orthodoxy - Is there any place for mysticism as well as rationalism within modern Orthodoxy?")
  2. If the 2 templates, therefore, are to be aligned in dimensions, I previously discussed my thoughts on how this might be achieved. Originally, I designed the Template:Jewish philosophy to be of similar dimensions to the (expanded) Template:Kabbalah. Then the Kabbalah template format became collapsed and redesigned. I'm not quite happy with it. Therefore, I suggested a third way between the two present sizes of the templates. For both of them: Neat collapsing format, but with the block-text writing within each section of the present Jewish philosophy template, and former Kabbalah template. This would also retain some width (wider than the present Kabbalah template), allowing retension of some form of the 2 present descriptive headings in the Jewish philosophy template. I think I find the present writing of entries within each section of the collapsed Kabbalah template to be visually hard to absorb, less attractive, and inconsistent with alternative single and double entries. - Though if others don't agree, some other solution to the issue could be worked out.
  3. NB. If one wished to add a similar, helpful descriptive header to the Kabbalah template, as the Jewish philosophy template has (2), then this could be done: The first header in the Jewish philosophy template could be shortened, while something like "The full traditional belief in Oral Torah mysticism. In academia, "Kabbalah" refers just to the Medieval and Renaissance full theosophical doctrine". The page and template on Kabbalah doesn't make this necessary distinction of terminology. In traditional Kabbalistic belief, Medieval and later Kabbalah is rooted in the concealed chain of transmission back to Sinai and earlier, so all is called "Kabbalah". In academia (also employed by religious academics) "Kabbalah" refers just to the full esoteric theosophical doctrines that essentially took 2 forms: 1 Medieval Kabbalah of the Zohar, systemised later by Cordovero, invoving 10 sephirot, Divine feminine, downward flow of Ohr, etc. 2 Lurianic Kabbalah of Divine catastrophe and rectification. Gershom Scholem's main work describes the different stages of Jewish mysticism. He sees Modern Hasidism as distinct from Kabbalah, and the 1000 years of Rabbinic Merkabah mysticism as pre- and proto- Kabbalah. Eg. the Sefer Yetzirah describes 10 powers of Creation, but they haven't yet got the full doctrinal Medieval Kabbalistic meaning and significance.

This is the first of two posts - the next one about the second topic of Lithuanian Judaism etc. next week! What do you think about my response to this first topic. Best Wishes April8 (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi April: I appreciate you taking the time out to explain all this detail but at this time I am not immersed in these subjects as I am working on some other topics. My suggestion to you is to take this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and post what you have written here over there, and even to a few expert Judaic editors as well such as User:Avraham; User:Jayjg; User:Jfdwolff; User:Yoninah. Thanks and sorry I can't get more involved at this time. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the helpful advice, which I'll do soon. Also, allow me, when I have time (hopefully soon) to respond to your convincing point that a "Lithuanian Judaism" page shouldn't be made - some thoughts about other solutions April8 (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Update from April8

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello IZAK. My thoughts on the Template:Jewish philosophy Template:Kabbalah issue are developing. Please don't copy our correspondence onto Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism page.

  1. I don't have a computer, but go to internet cafes. I began editing on wikipedia in 2008. Due to big chaos, I don't have much time to edit, but from time to time I manage to fill in some emergency editing need on wikipedia! Due to upcoming issues, I don't know when I'll be able to contribute again, so have decided to do a last urgent editing session now - for as long as is needed, up to a month or so! I think I can minimally round off all the topics I have been interested in developing. In the following days, I hope to academically clarify the Kabbalah page introduction and overview to distinguish the terminology issue, definition and variant range of Jewish mysticism. I'll fix the images in corresondance. This will involve explaining, for example, that peripheral issues like Kabbalistic astrology are legacies of early texts, and not definitive of the Medieval and Rennaisance rise of Zoharic and Lurianic theosophical doctrine - the profound core of Kabbalah. Similarly, statements on the page, such as the Ancient Israelite mass knowledge and practice of Kabbalah, don't refer to this central profound, concealed doctrine, but refer to meditative-prophetic methods, later susumed in authoritative Kabbalah. An outside observer, unfamiliar with the profound theological significance of kabbalah, could come away from the page with a superficial notion that Kabbalah is so varied as to be undefinable, and would mainly interest non-intellectual intuitive spiritual people, involved in mystical practices! I previously added the Historical development section images, over a year ago, to clarify such views. I'll continue with other parts of the page. All this will inform the Templates issue, and at the end of it, with intended deveopment of Template:Jewish philosophy, and observation of the style of other wikipedia templates, the issue will mostly be clarified. It would probably not then be necessary to post on the Judaism Talk page. All this plan would be my last urgent editing before time runs out! But thankfully, should minimally coincide with my present knowledge ability to edit. I would then have a few years space to do proper research of certain topics, when time would permit!
  2. On the other issue of alternative solutions to the history of Lithuanian Judaism: I'm sorry that Debresser can be difficult! I'm Lubavitch, but take a different attitude. The main topic I want to research and edit in the future is Hasidic philosophy - reflecting both religious and academic perspectives, and different schools of thought. That would require me to master the subject in many books. My discussion with Debresser on Talk:Misnagdim#Extended historical "See also:" list on Misnagdim page referred to my wish that a person reading the Hasidic Judaism page be able to see the historical and spiritual context in which Hasidism began and later developed. Mainly the subsequent spiritual history of the Litvish world, but also the other non-Hasidic communities - is Oberlander Jews the only other main strand of non-Hasidic Eastern European Judaism? In my lack of knowledge, I thought that Rabbi Moses Sofer, born in Frankfurt, but moved to Bratislava, therefore became the head of Oberlander style non-Hasidic Judaism? The page on Oberlander Jews doesn't cover him, or the influential spiritual path he led. Thefore, weren't Litvish-Yeshivish-Mussar varieties, and Hungarian-Pressburg the two central non-Hasidic Eastern European traditions of modern spirituality? WAIT -I'M SAVING THIS NOW, IN CASE THE COMPUTER CRASHES - BUT MY POST WILL CONTINUE... 86.163.202.227 (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC) This post was from April8, but the computer logged me out! April8 (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Continuation..

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  1. If this is correct, shouldn't the Oberlander Jews page mention the Hasam Sofer? If you look at the "See also" list I was proposing to put on the Misnagdim page (This old version of the Misnagdim page), it includes also secular developments. My idea was to give some information about the historical and spiritual environment in which Hasidism developed. Some of these "See also" links aren't necessary - the secular ones, as they are mentioned on the Hasidic Judaism page, History section. However, the spiritual ones, referring to Lithuanian and Hungarian non-Hasidic spiritual developments are helpful to show the comparative alternative, parallel spiritual developments of Hasidic and non-Hasidic Haredi histories. Also, mention could be made that German Jewish spiritual leders, like Rabbi Akiva Eiger, make no mention and give no opinion on the Hasidic-Misnagdic schism, as their concern was left to Orthodoxy-Reform battle. I differ with Debresser in also appreciating the beauty and depth of non-Hasidic Haredi spiritual history, even though my first, exclusive love is Hasidism. I live with a Litvish family, and find the encounter only enriching! Perhaps Debresser is ghettoised! In truth, I think that a true insight into Hasidism (or non-Hasidism) would, rather, cause one to love other Jews more, and consequently appreciate the sincerity, depth and beauty of their paths. This is not naivity, as one can also reject the false, extreme elements on both sides, who don't have true spiritual insight into their path (See my User:April8 page for my "ideal model of thinking"!)
  2. Initial suggestion to resolve the issue: my "See also" list, would only have been a temporary solution. Better, perhaps, would be to add a section on the Misnagdim page called "Spiritual developments in non-Hasidic Jewish spirituality" - as the intended history overlaps both Lithuanian and Hungarian boundaries. The idea to make a "Lithuanian Judaism" page - as you correctly pointed out, mistaken, as "Lithuanian Judaism" is not an entity - would therefore be too limited to cover what I was really seeking. That's why I suggest this Misnagdim page section, a beautiful spiritual history with beautiful pictures, linking to all the diverse non-Hasidic spiritual developments and movements, and main figures. What do you think? April8 (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User names

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaim Rabinowitz: if you think certain user names are inappropriate, please take it to WP:UAA. That sort of comment is completely inappropriate in an AfD, regardless of whether the user name you have a problem with is the name of another participant. And in general, your behavior on that AfD has been abysmal. Please pay more attention to the actual merits of the cases you discuss and less to the other participants, and please review WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Have moved on now from this. The guy's name is in violation of WP policy per Wikipedia:Username policy#Internet addresses "E-mail addresses and URLs are not valid usernames" (only some admins know he has an "exemption") so it's a trap for users like myself (unaware of him being granted "exemptions" to current WP policies) who can't understand or accept how someone who is in evident flagrant violation of WP policies should be engaged in "imposing" WP policies in AfDS or anywhere. Let's move on now. IZAK (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

My objections

AN/I

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Preview is your friend. Please use it before reposting. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

See the above. Additionally, User:Rms125a@hotmail.com is allowed to have that name, as he created the account before usernames as emails were prohibited. Though it makes it more difficult to change his userrights, it is not impossible. Prodego talk 04:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Prodego: How is anyone supposed to know that he has the "right" to be in the wrong? He is responsible for the confusion. It is not someone who questions his user name that has the problem, because they are in keeping with current WP user name policy that clearly states at Wikipedia:Username policy#Internet addresses: "E-mail addresses and URLs are not valid usernames" and that being so, it is perfectly logical to ask how can a user who does not adhere to WP policy be allowed to implement WP policy? Either there is one policy for everyone or there isn't. So the admins don't want to face up to the problems having "exceptions" created by this and a couple of them even come out of the woodwork to defend him and that just confuses unsuspecting Wikipedians. I am moving on from this at this time. Thanks for your input. IZAK (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The discussion at ANI is now closed. Your raising of the username was valid even if your motive for doing so was not good. The policy has been clarified. RMS is restricted to using that username as an unblocking condition, so it is not going to change without a) RMS wanting to change, and b) the approval of WP:ARBCOM or WP:AE or something similar. Mjroots (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Mjroots, I commend your even-handedness, level-headedness and sense of correctness. I was not aware of all the mitigating factors and the complexities as I bumped into them in the middle of the night so to speak. Much appreciated. IZAK (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

My 2cents

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

IMHO - I'd suggest you step back from this AFD, as well as the UAA / ANI / COI types of complaints for a while. It won't hurt to walk away for a while and come back with fresh eyes on it tomorrow. The points you are trying to make will only get distorted if you come at them too emotionally and are seen to be hounding another editor. Regards,  7  08:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi 7: See my comments above @ #User names, I'm moving on. Nothing more to say for now. Seems like a lot of admins are living in denial, what can I do? Thanks for your input and guidance, much appreciated. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 08:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There were, at one time, a lot of specific examples given in the policy, including that "grandfather" clause about e-mail addresses as user ID's. Those details were removed in December of 2007, in what I take to be an attempt at "streamlining" the policy writeup. [2] The unfortunate consequence is that it makes it seem that the current policy has no exceptions at all. I have asked Alison and also at ANI, whether that "grandfather clause" should maybe be re-added to the policy explicitly, in order to clear up any confusion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps that conversation can be centralized somewhere, rather than bifurcated? I'm not clear myself what the reason was for the removal. In any event, it is not part of the policy as the policy stands, as far as I can tell, and we can't have editors following rules that once were but have been removed from the guidelines, I would think. It certainly wouldn't be how we would handle it in baseball!--Epeefleche (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Alison is arguing that it IS part of the policy even though the current version doesn't say so. Obviously, clarification is needed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks -- I tried following the game as it was played in all corners of the shoolyard, but had missed that subtlety or the basis for such an assertion.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Which has now been done, with the addition of an "Exceptions" section that restates, in general terms, what the policy used to carry in explicit detail about the "grandfathering" of user ID's such as the one in question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks -- is there a location I can go that reflects the discussion and consensus that led to that "restating"? I obviously missed in in my search, as I didn't contribute to it, and am curious whether it received full community review and the opportunity for community input. I usually find such discussions to be dauntingly long and non-topical, but at the same time I guess I'm not a fan of changes that are clearly viewed as contentious being made in a manner that perhaps escapes the possibility of full community review and input. Best, BB.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Look at the user name writeup history for Dec 6, 2007, or thereabouts; and the archive from around that time, which I'm thinking is about archive number 7. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_to_sanction_IZAK 140.247.141.165 (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

BLP, ethnicity, gender

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

We've corresponded on this topic in the past, too.

Wikilawyers have been trying to drive through a wording loophole in BLP:

  • All categorization is required to be both notable and relevant.
  • Certain quibblers have noted that ethnicity and gender are not specifically listed in WP:BLP.
  • WP:BLP is a "policy", while Wikipedia:Categorization, Wikipedia:Categorization of people (WP:COP), Wikipedia:Category names, WP:EGRS, and Wikipedia:Overcategorization (especially WP:OC#EGRS) are "guidelines".
  • Certain quibblers argue that policy trumps guidelines for these special cases.
  • Thus, (non-notable or irrelevant) ethnicity and gender might be allowed for living people, but removed for the dead, undead, or incorporeal.
  • This is difficult to enforce or implement (and was certainly never the intent of the policy).

Last year, you commented on a proposal to add ethnicity. By strict count, there was enough support, and no reason that it was abandoned; perhaps being overtaken by events.... I'm re-proposing the same, plus gender, to match all other guidelines.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Mordecai Tendler

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi IZAK. It looks like Avi has already taken action to reduce vandalism. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

AFD

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You may be interested in the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avraham Friedman. There is also an entire template of roshei yeshiva of Hebrew Theological College which is nothing but red links. Best, Yoninah (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi Yoninah: Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I am not sure why you wish to search out such articles for deletion rather than seek ways to improve them, because this man is a very notable rosh yeshiva in Chicago. Please do not act against the template you mention either, in spite of red links that get filled-in over time, it serves as an important navigational and educational (hence encyclopedic) tool about an important Torah institution in America. Remember that WP:NOTPAPER and there is room for all this especially as you are very familiar with such topics based on your past editing. Thanks again and be well, IZAK (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Economic history of the Christians

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
 

The article Economic history of the Christians has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not an encyclopedic treatment of the nominal subject

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 28bytes (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Beats me Bob, how can there be an article for Economic history of the Jews only, but no such articles for Christians, Muslims, etc? IZAK (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
    • You do know that I'm the one who nominated Economic history of the Jews for deletion, right? 28bytes (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, I do. But this entire matter is far more complicated and it's not a personal matter of likes or dislikes but of attaining the right level of NPOV scholarship because the more one thinks about it, the more one realizes that serious study of a subject from the perspective of Economic history is serious and legitimate. So let's see if we can get there for all of them, Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc. Stay in touch. IZAK (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
        • OK. I believe you understand my position on the pointiness of all this, so I won't belabor it here. But I will note that as it stands now, a very possible result of the AfDs is that the "Jews" article is rightly deleted, but the two you created are not, due to people treating them at face value instead of the understanding the intent of their creation. I hope you will agree that this is not ideal. 28bytes (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Hi 28: Right now I do not see the situation as "a foregone conclusion" and I have no clue how the closing admin/s will re-view and judge the situation/s. IZAK (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Economic history of the Muslims

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 

The article Economic history of the Muslims has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not an encyclopedic treatment of the nominal subject.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 28bytes (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Economic history of the Christians for deletion

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Economic history of the Christians is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Christians until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. 28bytes (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Because something can be politically incorrect and still notable. I too find the stereotypes associated with Jews and finance offensive, but they're there, they're reliably documented, and if done properly, they should be in an article. Taking the position that there never should be an article, as you did in the AFD, essentially amounts to censorship and as a historian, I find that almost offensive as the slurs in the first place Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi there Purplebackpack89: Thanks for contacting me. I too am a historian and I too do not believe in censoring facts and information, so you have nothing to fear and your accusations are unfounded. Take care, IZAK (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Economic history of the Muslims for deletion

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Economic history of the Muslims is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Muslims until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. 28bytes (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Editing Needed In "Mordecai Tendler" Article

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have added the source newspaper articles that clearly show that the current Wikipedia article is in desperate need of factual correction. Also, they clearly verify the accuracy of the intial edits that I attempted.

As my suggestions have thus far been overruled by User: Avraham, please address the need for a serious revision to be done on the current page, based on the newspaper articles I have provided on the discussion page. Thanks.

Koltorah (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi Koltorah: Thanks for contacting me. Right now I do not have enough time to look into all the details. But I am sure that with good sources the article can be improved. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Article Suggestion

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

You know, Mormon Economic History would make a very good addition to your series of articles on religious economic history. Leonard J. Arrington wrote a book on the topic and Mormonism: A Historical Encyclopedia has a section on it as well-they're both available to some extent on Google books. Our United Order article is relevant as well. Might be a pretty interesting article actually. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that an article should exist, but I believe such an article does exist, though with a different title Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Qrsdogg; Thanks for contacting me. At this time there is too much controversy surrounding these types of topics and I could not possibly devote time to such complex issues. Feel free to stay in touch with me. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Workshop. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Economic history of Christianity

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I believe that there is an encyclopedic topic regarding the economic history of Christianity. I think your stub article was way too stubby and thus it seemed really pointy to create it in the midst of an AFD discussion about Economic history of the Jews. This draft article is an attempt on my part to cobble together a meatier stub with the hopes that it will not be the target of another AFD nomination.

I wanted to insert the text that you wrote for the lead of your article but, technically, I can't because of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. According to that guideline, it would be best if you insert it into the article thus maintaining the attribution of that text to you. I have inserted the text in question below. Could you please insert it into the lead of User:Pseudo-Richard/Economic history of Christianity? That way, when the article gets moved into article mainspace, the text will be attributed to you. Thanx.

The economic history of the Christians has been considered by a wide variety of authors, including [[Max Weber]] in his book [[The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism]], [[Michael Novak]] in his book [[The Catholic Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism]], [[Joseph Schumpeter]], [[Gary North]] in his book An Introduction To Christian Economics, [[Alan Storkey]] in his book AChristian Social Perspective, [[Larry Burkett]] whose work focused on financial counseling from an [[evangelical]] Christian point of view.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi Pseudo-Richard: Thank you for contacting me and I greatly appreciate your feedback. I will need more time to look into all this. Right now, my time is somewhat limited. Thanks for your understanding. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

An FYI about process

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

IZAK, I noticed you proposed a remedy on the evidence page. The right place to propose remedies is on the Workshop page, I would move it for you but I don't want to mess it up. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Noleander workshop

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, IZAK. I have moved some of your comments on the Noleander workshop from "Comment by parties" to "Comment by others", since you haven't in fact been added as a party to the case. And I have also removed the second instance of your long comment that begins "This request really surprises me because it's obviously a purely frivolous red herring", because you had put it in two places — by mistake, I assume. Please take a look and make sure that I haven't messed with your posts in a way you dislike! Bishonen | talk 16:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC).

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Israeli apartheid

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Israeli apartheid, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. |Jonathango| 10:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Israeli apartheid

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

The article Israeli apartheid has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

this article headline suggest that there is Apartheid in Israel as a proven fact. while in fact this view is false and have no legal proof, is part of anti-Semitic disinformation. therefore there is no reason to have such article.|Jonathango| 17:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. |Jonathango| 17:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Israeli apartheid

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

The article Israeli apartheid has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

this article purpose is to misleadingly imply that actually there is an apartheid situation in Israel , when in fact nothing more untrue than that. it's an attempt to bypass a "fair" discussion on " the redirect site which is also an inflammatory one . please delete

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. |Jonathango| 16:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IZAK/Archive_40&oldid=1144715407"