Jump to content

Talk:Shabbos App

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hoax?

[edit]

I removed my statement that no such app was ever published, because of course that can't be proved, but everything else - that the authors claimed things, but never actually did them, is accurate until one proves they actually did. It is more accurate to report on Wikipedia they said they did, because we have no evidence they did. Boyblackhat (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made several edits to the Shabbos App page because there never was a working Shabbos App and it seems the whole project was either a hoax or abandoned. While FuriouslySerene told me that it's incorrect to do "original research" (I looked up their patent filing, and saw it was abandoned), I don't understand his reversion of all my edits. The page was started without Neutral POV and it's certainly wrong to say, today, that there is any such proposed app. No one is proposing it anymore. I've removed all the original research problems and restored only the edits that don't buy in to their story. Boyblackhat (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the founders come out and say it was a hoax there is no way to say it was a hoax. The project might be abandoned but that doesn't make it a hoax. Showing a proper WP:RS that shows the patent was abandoned wouldnt be WP:OR. - GalatzTalk 15:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What he didn't like was the USPTO itself showing the patent was abandoned. He called that OR - original research. Boyblackhat (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like how some people are just reverting to a version claiming the app "is" a proposed app, when it was supposed to show up in 2014. At the very least the fact that it was called a hoax back then is core information about this non-project. Boyblackhat (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Shabbos App is a hoax. Therefore this page should be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.118.78.201 (talk • contribs) [1]

I'm sure its real. Typical laughable religious nutcase real! I have not decide what is more silly, 1000 year old religious laws used to prohibit 21st century phone use, or the pedantic workarounds of the religious laws this app proposes. Why don't the concerned just stand on their heads when answering phones on the Sabbath and thus fix most if not all of the objections? It makes the activity of answering phones different enough, and nobody ever made a fire, or built or destroyed anything, or wrote anything, or played music on anything, while standing on their head. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a religious nutcase who thinks texting on Shabbos is the "absolute worst" thing orthodox Jewish children and youth can do ([2] correspondence section). Talk about skewed moral values! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion this would be a "figure of speech". I believe you are referring to a sentence reading "Is it possible that for the mere sake of marketing a product you would have us believe the absolute worst about our children and youth?"[3] In my opinion that would be "hyperbole". Note at our article Figure of speech: "There are mainly five figures of speech: simile, metaphor, hyperbole, personification and synecdoche." And at our article Hyperbole: "Hyperbole … is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally." I'm not sure that the two words "absolute worst" should be "taken literally". Bus stop (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it was fake, because they supposedly had "a team of highly skilled programmers for both android and Apple phones (this project however, is not for iOS)." I doubt they found programmers that are highly skilled in the art of programming for Apple's non-existent non-iOS phones.

Second, until shortly before the Kickstarter was canceled, they promised control of the charging cycle, so that you could plug your phone in mid-Shabbos. However, Android does not expose to programmers a way to do this.

Third, their nameless panel of approving rabbis would have had to have made some pretty fundamental mistakes in the laws of Shabbos. For example,

Fourth, all or nearly all of their Kickstarter responses came in two waves: when it first went live, and a 3 hour window 2 days later.

And last, it was canceled before going anywhere. Not proof of anything, but confirms the significance of 1-4. - micha (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Welcome to wikipedia, Michab. The fundraising appears (if the Twitter account is accurate) to have been canceled, but the launch date advanced, and the price of the app decreased. Finally, wp covers even hoaxes, if there is RS support, and this clearly has RS support. Epeefleche (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This page could and should be about the dispute over the possibility of the app existing, and the resulting conversation about Jewish Law and proper communal attitude toward the app if it did. To leave the opening paragraph as talking about an app and a development team whose existence are in dispute is inaccurate, the presentation of opinion as fact. In general, I think the evolution from the original "press release" version of this page (as Lisa noted in #Obvious advertising) to a balanced coverage is not yet complete. (As for your welcome, I've been lightly contributing to wikipedia since 2005, but thanks.) micha (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we all agree at this point that this was a hoax?

BTW, 5th, their original proposal which they claim they had prototyped cannot be done witin the Android API. For example, Android doesn't give programmers access to the choice of whether or not to charge. The battery interface only covers reading current status (power, % left, plugged in,...)

So again, given that it is now HIGHLY LIKELY that this was a hoax, edits should be made to stop stating opinion to the contrary as fact. 204.212.175.30 (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious advertising

[edit]

The Petertrd and Yossigoldstein accounts which created and modified this article are probably the same user. Both appeared at the same time. Both have edited only this page (except for a single edit to Shabbos mode by Yossigoldstein, which is still connected to this page). This is abuse of Wikipedia, and this article should have been quickly deleted, rather than go through the AfD process. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think they are the same user, bring it to the appropriate noticeboard and have a determination made. They may be. They may not be. If they are the same user, they will be asked to edit only through one account. But in any event -- even if they are the same user, if the topic of the article has received about a dozen RS articles devoted to it, and meets GNG, the result would not be deletion of the article in any event. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Product

[edit]

Not only is the web site obvious advertising by "Yossigoldstein" who shares a name with an alleged (see "Hoax") staff-member of the project, but the Kickstarter was canceled. An ad for a dead project that never went anywhere. The discussion will die down soon enough (to touch on the tangent raised in the "Halichipedia.org" section of this page), and inclusion is IMHO absurd. micha (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs

[edit]

Blogs aren't ipso facto verboten. It depends on the blog. A personal web page blog is typically not an RS. But some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable as sources. So long as the writers are: professional journalists; or are professionals in the field on which they write. and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Halachipedia.org

[edit]

I've removed all links to Halachipedia.org. It is no more encyclopedic than Wikipedia itself, and Wikipedia is excluded as a reliable source on Wikipedia because it is community edited. As is Halachipedia.org. I've also rearranged the article itself to make it less of an advertisement for the "app". The modus operandi of its developers has been to manipulate online sources in an attempt to garner publicity for themselves. At least two of the developers have edited this article themselves, one of whom created it in the first place, in a blatant violation of WP:COI. It should go without saying that any blog posts about this app other than posts by experts in the field of Jewish law and electricity should not be considered reliable sources here. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lisa—you say "The modus operandi of its developers has been to manipulate online sources in an attempt to garner publicity for themselves." Do you have any substantiation for that claim? If so, what? Bus stop (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If all I had was the fact that this article was created by one of the people behind the app, that would suffice to back up my statement, no? Between the three COI/SPA editors who have edited this article (at least three, that is), it came across like an ad. They used a pre-Kickstarter page to drum up interest, and shipped it to every Jewish and tech news outlet out there. The fact that so few of them actually bothered to cover it is significant, but it was enough to defeat the AfD on this article, which should have passed. In fact, it should have undergone speedy deletion instead. In any case, I don't need reliable sources for claims on a Talk page. Those strictures are for the articles themselves. Here, common sense is enough. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good quality source, as is this. The Jewish Daily Forward tends to be a good quality source. I doubt that they were manipulated to address this topic. You are talking about advertising for the app. You aren't using advertising in the usual sense. The success of this product very much hinges on approval by religious authorities. Religious authorities are not open to advertising in the usual sense. Of course anyone with a degree of expertise in underlying religious law is welcome to weigh in, and that is exactly what we see. Good quality sources have opinions on a variety of points concerning the "Shabbos App". That results in, for Wikipedia purposes, reliable sources, which essentially validate the existence of an article. Bus stop (talk) 12:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first source you mention is a reprint of a post from a personal blog. It says so at the end of the article. If you think Fink's blog is a reliable source, you can argue that, but the fact that the Forward reprinted it means nothing. I've had three blog posts on The Times of Israel. If I want, I can sign up to have posts on Forward Thinking in the Forward.
Wikipedia's policy on user generated content says that "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." Eliyahu Fink is not a professional journalist. Is he a professional in the field in which he writes? Perhaps. But the policy continues: "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." Additionally, is Forward Thinking subject to "the news outlet's full editorial control"? Maybe. I looked here and found nothing one way or the other. I know that The Times of Israel recently increased their oversight on blog posts, but I'm not sure even there that they have "full editorial control" except after an article has already been posted.
On Eliyahu Fink's blog, he has a page where he identifies himself. He adds, with strong emphasis, Opinions expressed on this blog are my own. No one officially endorses this blog.. Does that enter into whether his blog counts as a reliable source? The fact that he explicitly refers to what he posts as opinion? And as far as your second source, Julie Sugar, as far as I'm aware, has zero professional credentials that would make her personal views on the "app" fall into the category of reliable source.
(addendum: I found this, which describes her as "a writer living in Nashville, Tennessee. She writes plays, poetry, and narrative non-fiction, and designed her own BA in Playwriting through the Thomas Hunter Honors Program at Hunter College." I'll let that stand as evidence of her blog not being a reliable source.)
Not long ago, Jewish blogs and online news outlets were consumed with news about Zev Farber and his denial of Sinaitic revelation. Do you think an article called Zev Farber and denial of Sinaitic revelation would be suitable for Wikipedia? I assure you, it got far more coverage than this mythical app has gotten. This "app" is about as outlandish as Farber's views were. But at the very most, I could see a Wikipedia article called Challenges to rabbinic authority in Orthodox Judaism. Not something specific about Farber. Likewise, were someone to create an article called Technical innovations in Orthodox Judaism, I could even see this putative app having a small section in it. Much smaller than, say, Shabbat elevator or the Sabbath mode or the Zomet Institute or the Grama switch, but included, sure. Near the end. This article, however, would never have been created had the developers of the "app" not created it themselves. I can't think of another case on Wikipedia where an article was created by a WP:SPA as the account's first edit, and substantially edited by two other WP:SPAs, which were created by two of the primary developers of the subject of the article, and yet no one seems to think that's an issue. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
folks, this is not a forum. if you want to put the article up for deletion again, please do so. otherwise please use the Talk page to discuss content and sources. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and i want to say that continuing to bring up allegations of COI on a Talk page amounts to personal attacks and harassment - please see this section of the COI guideline, for the appropriate way to handle concerns about COI. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

images

[edit]

first image was uploaded here by Petertrd. 2nd image was uploaded here by yossi. according to you all, they are both part of the team building the app. and both the first and the second were uploaded to wikimedia by yossi. Lisa deleted the new one, on the basis that is not reliable. How can one say the first one is more reliable? Rather than edit war over images, we should remove them all. Jytdog (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche please tell me, what is the "reliable source" for the first image? Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is this nonsense about a RS for this image? Debresser (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A misunderstanding that is now cleared up. see here. Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please spell this out for me. What was the conclusion? Debresser (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What Jytdog links to is a discussion that I started that was not about images, and was accidentally directed to him. As to images and RSs, I agree with Debresser and his comments on this page and in edit summaries. Epeefleche (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Debresser about the image. WP:COI specifically encourages interested editors to contribute quality images. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions of RS-supported material

[edit]

Lisa continues to delete RS-supported material from the article. Most recently, here. That material is appropriate -- it need not be "necessary" as Lisa concocts is the rule. It is completely appropriate for both the lede and the infobox, btw, to have material that is duplicative of what is in the text of the article, as their purpose is to summarize what is in the article text. It is not "innappropriate duplication" or "not necessary" ... but rather appropriate use of the lede and the infobox, as summaries. And the deletion of RS-supported material by Lisa because she does not in her POV deem it "necessary" is inappropriate. Lisa, please take this as a polite warning to desist. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Lisa is a little to deletionist here. On the other hand, the paragraph about who are on the team is indeed a little unneeded, as the firm is already mentioned before and the team members are already in the infobox. Still, as I see the whole time on film articles, names from the infobox may be repeated inside the article. Debresser (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the original screenshot. The updated one was added by User:Yossigoldstein, who has a significant COI here, and is clearly a response to criticisms of the "app". When I asked for a reliable source, I didn't mean for the image's existence; I meant that it does not reflect the "app" described in any of the sources in this article. And as such, it is no more than argumentation by someone with a conflict of interest.
I disagree with your argument. The image is better, though, so I won't revert. Debresser (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2nd AfD

[edit]

I'd like to reiterate what User:michab wrote above. The Kickstarter has been canceled. Theories that this was a hoax appear to have been borne out, at least tentatively. I'm inclined to start another AfD at this point. Something that caused a kerfuffle in Jewish online sources for maybe a week and now seems not to exist any more hardly seems worthy of its own article. All of the reliable sources refer to the Kickstarter, which has now been canceled, so none of them really refer to something that is currently happening. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD has been created at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabbos App (2nd nomination) - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read that the developers closed their kickstarter? Can you point to RS coverage of that, or are are you looking only at a kickstarter page? And have you read that they are coming out with the product earlier than when they were depending on their kickstarter? And have you read that they are lowering the price? And who cares anyway -- the planned product, not the kickstarter, garnered the RS coverage. And - as is obvious - the first AfD closed a mere two days ago; do you think it appropriate to start up new AfDs two days after the former ones close? Or might you understand how that could be viewed as beating a dead horse, and disruptive? Epeefleche (talk) 03:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Steve Bar-Yakov Gindi

[edit]

Here's the "educational website" run by Steve Gindi: http://www.milknhoney.co.il/. "Long time rabbi" means that he received ordination years and years ago. Not that he's an experienced rabbi, let alone an expert in Jewish law. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We follow what the RSs say. Not what any individual editor's POV or OR says.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is a "reliable source" period. Things are reliable sources for something. In this case, The Times of Israel is a reliable source for news. It is not a reliable source for Steve Gindi's background, and the article wasn't about that. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all -- you keep on deleting RS-supported material. Based on your POV. And your OR. That is not acceptable. Please take this as a final warning. As to this RS -- "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. This is a statement of fact. Obviously. Your personal views, and original research, certainly do not trump an RS news outlet on a statement of fact. Epeefleche (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat -- Lisa, you keep on doing the same thing. Deleting RS-supported material. Without appropriate reason. It is not "undue" -- it is far less than the contrary opinions, which are also reflected, in the controversy section. And the material you seek to add a second time is already covered in the controversy section. Where it belongs. Please stop adding redundant material -- rabbis disagreeing with the goal of the app, in the purpose section, when it is already covered in the appropriate section -- the controversy section. Thank you. You are I believe operating under final warning. Please do not push this further. And please heed not just my warnings, but the comments of the other editor in this discussion to you. Epeefleche (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

[edit]

All the material in the last few paras, after "Facebook pages were created both in favor of and against the app", appears to be synthesis by an editor. In essence what is prohibited by WP:SYNTHESIS ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.... If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article."). I suggest it be deleted. Thoughts? --Epeefleche (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I nearly deleted it myself earlier, for the same reason. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose; deletion of RS-supported text

[edit]

Lisa most recently is seeking to move the para re the purpose of the app, as described by the developer and a rabbi, and bury it below the comments of those disagreeing with the app. Here. This was accompanied by Lisa also yet again deleting RS-supported text, that the RS deemed relevant, but Lisa sought to hide. Neither is appropriate. The views of the developer etc. as to the purpose of the app are in the correct section. The "controversy" is with regard to those who disagree with the developer, etc. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated addition of uncited Original Research

[edit]

Lisa has now three times added the same uncited Original Research, an example of which is reflected here. She is welcome to add the challenged material if she has an inline RS ref that she adds directly supporting the text; otherwise, it is not appropriate. Two editors have deleted it, and it would be good if Lisa were to not edit war over it. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the removal of that sentence. It's unsourced, stated in an arguably POV manner ("no sign of an actual app"), and is unnecessary given that we've already been told that the developers have announced a delay on the website. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Shabbos App. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shabbos_App&oldid=1216406836"