Talk:Gateways (organization)

Merging rabbis into main Gateways article

See the related discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mordechai Suchard‎ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Rietti‎. IZAK (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Mergers completed. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Gateways personalities

I would like to remove this section or at least majorly cut it down. WP:NOTDIR. We are not the Gateways website and they can host an "About our rabbis" section on their own website. Thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Article problems

This reads like a brochure for the organisation. It lacks 3rd party commentary on the organisation itself, terms like 'current' and 'this decade' or clearly not encyclopedic, it has far too much about 'personalities' (see comment above also), including unsourced original research ((WP:OR)) such as "He is known for his quick wit and tremendously acute sense of humor, evidenced by some of the lectures he delivers", etc. I know that the AfDs said merge, but this is still far too much detail considering that the decision was to not keep the articles on these individuals. Dougweller (talk) 07:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Second the motion. Chop it down. Joe407 (talk) 05:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Information about any organization is bound to read like a brochure because the whole purpose of a brochure is to give background info on whatever organization you're looking for info about - that's the point. This page does contain relevant bio's though (oh and how much is "too much"? a very vague term you enjoy using as code for "I'm going to delete stuff I don't like and know next to nothing about"), by request and brochures don't; brochures don't have large reference lists like this one either. So, why don't you tell us why you really want to censor this page suddenly, Dougweller? or more specifically, the information on Rabbi Becher? Tell us how you came to this page to make him and his organization look dubious only after his work was cited as relevant for keeping the comparison chart on the Ipuwer Papyrus page after so many attempts to censor it, using any flimsy, ad hoc excuse you could think of, even self-contradictory in one case, and how you've come here employing more contrived excuses for your thinly-veiled attempt at more censorship in your ongoing desperation to make your position look even remotely valid just so you can censor more info you don't like being discussed to this day by scholars (like Dr. Enmarch who cited Rabbi Becher and his article/URL from which the table you want to eliminate originates)? Tell us how you're only interested in censoring this page as it became relevant to your interest in censoring the page on the Ipuwer Papyrus. This little operation is a case study on how disinfo agents manipulate data to manage public perception, Orwellian-style. I hope people learn from this important example; it is by no means an isolated incident. 97.106.241.66 (talk) 10:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

'Personalities' was added 2 years ago [1] by the editor who wrote most of the article. I agree it's a word which shouldn't be there, but neither of us (Joe or me) added it. That and the rest of your post is just more comspiracy theory ranting. It's not just Becher's entry that needs editing, but I did come here trying to find out more about Becher. When I find a bad article, no matter what the subject, I try to fix it at least a bit if I have time. I've edited thousands of articles. Dougweller (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If all you can really respond to is a parenthetical comment that I removed after double-checking, before you even posted, well, need I point out how desperate that looks? Ah, so you really didn't try to smokescreen your concern with Becher by including the rest of the article with your trivial "brochure" straw-grasping? Well that's reassuring to know. And I like how after the brochure comment you turn around and whine about "too much" info? How transparent can you get? Let's just throw out every complaint we can think in hoping something sticks shall we? I can only shudder to think how long you have "edited" all those other "thousands of articles." 97.106.241.66 (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

And that's why editing your comments is often a bad idea, if you'd struck through that bit I would have been more likely to notice it. You obsession with me - and your misrepresentation of my posts, is really getting tedious. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You instigate an edit war with me, stalk me to edit other entries, send me thinly-veiled threats, and report on me, and I'M the one obsessed? Is that some kind of spook mind-trick to invert everything? Everything is documented. 97.106.241.66 (talk) 09:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Great, are you going to share the documentation? And I thought I'd followed Becher to get to this article, I obviously even fooled myself. Maybe it's me calling me all those names too (thug, criminal, spook, " Are you, Dougweller, employed by an intelligence agency or activist organization or receiving funds from any foundations? Are you a disinformation agent? Are you part of a massive internet/media campaign to undermine any historical information related to Israel's foundation as a state as recorded in their national holy books by editing/removing from the public any outside evidence and related sources to it for a political agenda effecting middle-east policies?" And much more. I'm probably actually you, that's the way a good disinformation agent would work. Dougweller (talk) 09:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

RAJE merged to here

The RAJE stub was merged, with all its contents, to Gateways (organization)#RAGE because "RAJE" is a 100% sub-division of Gateways and was just a violation of Wikipedia:Content forking. IZAK (talk) 10:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion related to this article

Discussion related to this article—those interested may weigh in here. Bus stop (talk) 10:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)