Jump to content

User talk:Egfrank/Archive 1

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

Business and Economics Collaboration

[edit]

General

[edit]

I checked out the link you posted. It appears to me that in the case of Attribution theory, it's tagged as a Business and Economics because of the effect it has on global economy.

As for my HR background, I wasn't aware there was a psych side and a financial side. Maybe that's just the blonde talking. I worked in the Commander's Support Staff. Considering I didn't deal with finances, and my Commander was a head-job, I'll just go with psych end. LaraLove 15:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Business plan

[edit]

Egfrank, the business plan article is looking much better, thanks to your work! Since you're still working on it, I'll just leave you to it. When you have all your text and references in place, let me know if you want some help with wikifying. --SueHay 15:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I have a bit more I want to do re: cleaning up the old "sample outline" - once everything I can salvage has been moved to its new home, I'll let you know. As for *all* the text and references - I think that will take a very long time. There's no reason we shouldn't start working on the wikifying as soon as this first pass is done. Egfrank 15:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Got your note here and on my talk page. Drop me a note on my talk page if you want help with the wikifying. Don't forget Wikipedia:Attribution :) --SueHay 15:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Company Categorization

[edit]

Template syntax

[edit]

Help:Template is a starting point for template syntax. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) is a the place to go to ask questions. I don't regularly work with the parser functions that are needed to do what you want. I know enough that I can consult the manual when I need to.Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie Welcome

[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Egfrank, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

[edit]

Dear Egfrank, You are welcome, I am glad to be of help. Best wishes, --Cyril Thomas 15:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

[edit]

You recently left a message on my talk page. You asked if I had any special interests. I do, the interest in companies. I enjoy providing info on companies. Thanks for your time. --The Random Editor 21:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to Inquiry

[edit]

Hi, sorry I have no responded sooner to your question on my page about the use of the Dick Wirthlin photo.

I got the photo from lds.org, which is the official website of the LDS (Dick's) Church. They publish promo photos of everyone they call to be a General Authority. This was Dick's promo photo. I don't know a lot about what photos you can and can't use, but I know that promo photos are one of the types that may be used under the "fair use" copyright rule if you are presenting the promo photo merely as showing what the person in question looks like. I think it is allowed because that is really the purpose of a promo photo--the copyright holder actually wants people to publicize what the person looks like. SESmith 00:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments

[edit]

I read your comment on Grace E. D's talk page. Letting you know that I filed, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DPeterson --Mihai cartoaje 00:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cerebral hypoxia

[edit]

No problem. I'm glad you appreciated it; some editors don't like it when citation styles are changed. Best, Fvasconcellos 16:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re

[edit]

It is not really proper to link real life identities of Wikipedia users. You should post a note at the Admin's noticeboard to get a broader audience for your question. Thank you. --Ragib 22:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Business and economics project

[edit]
Hi Egfrank. Thanks for the note on my talk page about my specific interests within the business economics project. I am particularly interested in issues related to credit in the United States. There has been a lot of noise in the U.S. lately about different kinds of credit vehicles (subprime loans, payday loans) and whether they should be restricted. I hope to help Wikipedia stay up to date on these issues and also to make sure that the articles recognize both the problems with these credit vehicles and the ways in which they have opened credit to those who had not had it previously. If you have ideas about how I might get other interested Wikipedians involved in this, please let me know. I am somewhat new to the community so could use all the guidance I can get. Thanks! --Mackabean 14:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

In your recent comment you say that you have legal concerns, both that if WP misrepresents XXXXX, it is liable for that, and that XXXXX might sue WP for some reason. Usually when I see stuff about legal concerns, they come from frustrated users who threaten to sue if they don't get their own way. I understand what is going on in that situation, its obviously pretty silly. I'm wondering, personally, what you mean in this case. I'm asking you mostly for my personal edification. I rarely see such worries from responsible users, and I'm wondering if I've missed something, and what precedents there are for legal issues like this involving WP. Thanks, Smmurphy(Talk) 14:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have concerns that XXXXX (the organization) is misrepresenting its relationships to other organizations. This might lead to a cease and desist order from those organizations (XXXXXXXXX) to XXXXX (the organization, not the sock puppet). This order might also be sent to any other organization that unwittingly takes XXXXX's self presentation as gospel.
Now lets consider WP's role. If we leave the article unattended, it is highly likely our favorite editor will invent a new sock puppet, edit the article to her liking. Which would mean WP gets a cease and desist order. Lots of money, time, paperwork.
We could of course be vigilant, even edit protect the page. This would prevent the first problem. However, the interpersonal skills of XXXXX's director are not the best (assuming the sock puppets are the real person and not an impersonation). So I don't consider it out of reason for her to attempt a frivolous law suit if the protected article is not to her liking. Again time, money, and annoyance.
For an important article these concerns may well be worth the time money and effort. For an unimportant article, I think not. That was all. Egfrank 15:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Does WP get C&D letters often? I guess probably so. Wikipedia:General disclaimer seems to be WP's first line of defense. Also per SwatJester here:
"Keep in mind, Durova, you won't be sued for editing and administrating wikipedia. Anyone who would even try would be laughed out of the attorney's office, and anyone who tried to do it themselves would very likely be sanctioned for frivolous suits. (the exception to this being defamation/libel cases, but that's not the case here)."
This feeling about frivolous suits and sanctioning of lawyers involved is my first reaction both when considering an editor being sued and when considering WP getting sued (defamation and copyright issues not withstanding). Generally, I guess the policy is no legal threats.
Do you know anything for sure beyond this (as in does the office actually have much to do when empty or not so empty legal threats are sent to it)? Or are you just thinking hypothetically? Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 16:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have no personal knowledge of their procedure beyond what you have already cited above. Nor am I a lawyer. In a general manner of speaking, though, I suspect the process is similar to resolving any formal legal dispute. Correspondence goes back and forth until the one issuing the cease and desist order is satisfied and is willing to sign a document to that effect. All of this needs to be done by lawyers so that the i's and t's are dotted and the issue doesn't resurface later. Egfrank 17:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Smmurphy(Talk) 18:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just read your revised comment on XXXXX. I'm really impressed you have revised your position based on the current and highly charged situation revolving around this article. Hopefully we can revisit this article when the company gains a reputation in the international community. David D. (Talk) 14:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:your message on my talkpage

[edit]

Per what EdJohnston (talk · contribs) said, this should probably be archived.--Isotope23 16:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing my page

[edit]

The page about VEGA Group - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VEGA_Group - has been tagged as "This article or section is written like an advertisement". If found your details in our history, and wanted to ask you if you could please let me know how best to restructure the content to prevent it being construed as an advert, as we are trying to prevent this appearance. User:Mtgunning (added by User:egfrank).


It is always a pleasure when someone wants to improve an article, but you have some real challenges. Let me see if I can explain.

  • I'm not sure of a delicate way to say this, but single article editors, especially those that write articles about their own company, are not particularly welcome in the Wikipedia culture. So right up, your company is at risk of creating the wrong impressions. I refer you to the following policies WP:COI WP:NPOV WP:CITE.
  • On the other hand, you probably spend more time researching your company and its market position than any one else (or you should be) and as odd as it might sound, figuring out how to write a good NPOV article on your own company could be of benefit to both your company and Wikipedia.

So here is how to start:

  • don't be a one article editor. Find other topics to edit. Pick random articles and clean up their layout, grammar, spelling, etc. Helpful donkey work is a great way to win friends and fans.
  • detach. In the note above you refered to the article as "our" article and "my page". Problem is, the article isn't your article, but Wikipedia's article to edit or even remove as the community likes.
  • try to get other people interested in editing the article. This will help you detach and give credibility to the article. But make sure you respect wiki policies if there are disputes - e.g. WP:RRR, WP:SPAM. A good way to go about this is to look at the history of articles related to your industry. Perhaps one of the editors would enjoy working on the VEGA_Group article or at least be receptive to a mentorship role, see Wikipedia:Mentorship for further ideas.
  • cite everything using reliable non-VEGA affiliated sources. If you feel this will not give a fair view of VEGA_Group, you are probably better off recommending the article for deletion or reducing it to a stub. A short neutral well cited stub article is always preferable to a long article loaded with information that cannot be verified.
  • take the academic view. How does this company fit into its larger market? If there are published financials, how would an equity analyst treat them? Would they see trends, red flags? How does the company's competitive strategy appear to an outsider? Its management philosophy? Its approach to corporate governance?
  • purge the article of any and all marketing speak. When in doubt, leave it out. Be aware particularly of time bound words, superlatives, and pretty much any qualitative statement that cannot be backed by facts, especially if it makes the company look good.

If all this sounds like fun, welcome to Wikipedia!

If all this sounds like too much, I'd recommend just deleting the article. There is no dishonor in this. On the contrary, a self sponsored deletion with a comment about not realizing that this was against policy will be to your and your company's credit.

If I may be of further help, let me know.

Best of luck, Egfrank 17:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. It is good form to sign any post. To do so just type four ~ like this ~~~~ at the end of your comment. Wikipedia will automatically fill in the time, date and your user name.


Thanks for your advice and information. We will look at reviewing the entire posting and following each of your suggestions. Damianschogger 14:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tip

[edit]

Your right of course, and I think I need to read up on my Wikipedia Policy. Thanks for the tip.
--Random Say it here! 18:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, it's random. I nominated money for good article rating. They turned it down, but said if the article was made better, they would reconsider. Go to the talk page, and read what they say. If you don't mind I could use some help fixing the article. --Random Say it here! 14:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD notification

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Crosby Textor, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how Crosby Textor is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:Crosby Textor saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. Alasdair 03:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Business & Economics article on Andrew Saul

[edit]

Just a heads up that Andrew Saul (ex-CEO of Cache and Brooks Bros.) has been nominated for featured article status here. Any input, comment and suggestions would be greatly appreciated, there is not that much info on him as it relates to his business career, and being an !expert, I'm not quite sure how well I can flesh it out. Please feel free to comment and/or improve the article. Thanks! MrPrada 21:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Role of women in Judaism

[edit]

Hi! I recognize the article has been heavily edited by editors with Orthodox points of view and you're welcome to better explain the Reform position on these things. I'd encourage you to supply reliable sources, particularly for philosophical discussions and explanations why certain rule changes were made and actions taken. The article currently emphasizes rules and actions instead of explanations not just because this more reflects a traditional worldview, but also as a consequence of Wikipedia's policies: rules and actions are easy to identify and verify, while explanations are more difficult. The article is really in need of attention from an expert who can supply more detail and identify appropriate sources about more liberal views. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You mentioned the issue of Orthodox views of women and Torah reading. The issue of lenient opinions on this issue and groups within (or depending on ones viewpoint, claiming to be within) Orthodoxy is discussed in detail the Partnership minyan article (See also the article on Shira Hadasha, the first congregation to attempt to implement them.) Although some role-of-women argments are based on necessity, these are not. Best, --Shirahadasha 08:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I didn't mean to say that it was the only logic Egfrank 08:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Judaism or Progressive Judaism

[edit]

Copied your comments to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Best, --Shirahadasha 14:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Suggest not unilaterally substituting Category:Progressive Judaism for Category:Reform Judaism until until discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism matures further and hopefully a consensus is reached about what terminology to use. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Just to let you know that I took your suggestion to heart and the WkiProject is now called Progressive Judaism - makes perfect sense! Take care, A Sniper 17:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reformers Unite...

[edit]

Howdy friend, and thanks for the greetings. So far I am the only member of the new WikiProject Reform Judaism which I hope you'll join. My wish is that more literature and historical documentation re: the German Reformers and the North American Reform movement makes its way to Wikipedia, and that my edits can improve the NPOV of existing pages. Best wishes, A Sniper 15:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Egfrank! I see we both did our undergrad in the US and a Masters in the UK (my Dad's brother went to Princeton). Anyway, Chag Sameach! Certainly we can work together on this. I agree that we should have a presence at the Judaism project - my motivation for working on a Reform WP is that there is such a wealth of information that could attract additional interest, such as the Orthodox project others are involved in. My problem, like with everyone else, is fitting things in between work & family. I lecture full-time, so I normally trawl Wiki between classes - mostly music pages and re: religious history. Oh, sorry about getting the template wrong on my page - wasn't paying attention to my edit. Looking forward to hearing back from you... A Sniper 9:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Halivni

[edit]

I think it would be OR to extrapolate Halivni's importance based on the number of citations. But if you can find something, then by all means go ahead. Chag SameachWolf2191 11:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brit Milah

[edit]

I did a bit of work on the circumcision page re: Reform history - please look it over. My edits will be obvious, and all referenced. Ciao, A Sniper 13:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Geiger

[edit]

Hell! I see that you ware planning to rework some of the articles on some topics related to Reform. Curently the article on Geiger is very sub-standard considering his importance. I am considering updating using the NEJ but if you have any other sources you can work in that would be better. Where do I find that index of citations you mentioned re Halivni? Best Wolf2191 03:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

[edit]

Hi! Thanks for your note. I replied on my talk page. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hermeneutical circle

[edit]

Dear Egfrank,

Thank You for Your message.

My work is functional programming, I have MS in mathematics. My hobby and long-time goal is to study cultures of pre-state cultures, especially that of gatherers. I am learning two Eskimo languages (Sireniki and Ungazigmi), and am interested in modern cultural anthropological treatments and ethnographical records on several shamanistic cultures, including semiotical (Hoppál) and hermeutical (Clifford Geertz) approaches.

This may reveal, that, although my work makes me interested in AI and my goals make me interested in hermeneutics, but I am not an expert in either. Even, I lack fundamantals in both. I am not justified yet to write strong claims, even summaries on this topic, because I lack the necessary overview and experience.

I thought, that the cited work links to hermeneutics in many ways, and should be at least mentioned in hermeneutical articles.[1] The cited authors reflected to the works of Heidegger, Gadamar and Habermas. Besides of this, "Computational hermeneutics" is an existing term [2]

I have not even read through the paper I cited in the article, thus, I am not justified yet even to argue. If You agree, I shall remove my contribution from the article, work with it on my user page (or offline), study all concerned topics thoroughly, and after this, if I continue to think that it belongs to articles of hermeneutics, then (and only then) I shall make some concrete proposals.

Best wishes, and thank You for the feedback,

Physis 17:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Egfrank,

Thank You for the reassuring words. I have moved the AI-related contributions to my user page, and shall study the concerned topics offline.

Best wishes,

Physis 19:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Manual of Style‎

[edit]

Hi! I appreciate your efforts on the Manual of Style but beg to disagree with you on one issue. You recently made a change from a reference to all sources reflecting the "Torah" viewpoint (admittedly rather badly worded) to a reference to medieval commentators. My personal view has been that reliability of a source is determined within a field of expertise. Orthodox Judaism regards itself as a field of expertise and, whether or not one agrees with its outcomes, it has a self-correcting peer review process for determining which individuals are considered experts and which viewpoints are considered notable and acceptable within that community. Accordingly, the community's position has always been that sources that have been published and are considered reliable within the "Torah community" are reliable for Wikipedia purposes because they reliably articulate a notable viewpoint and have been vetted by experts in that viewpoint. This has been the position of all administrators from the Orthodox community and has historically been the position of the Judaism WikiProject. Although the statement of this position could be better and more neutrally worded, I don't recommend unilaterally departing from it without discussion. I particularly disagree with changing to a reference to "medieval commentators". It's vitally important for this community to have the ability to explain its contemporary situation and offer contemporary viewpoints, and we have to have the ability to have the sources generally used to articulate notable contemporary viewpoints considered reliable for Wikipedia purposes. Wikipedia guidelines provide some flexibility to support this; for example, the fine print in the verifiability and reliable sources say that it's OK to quote a self-published work (such as a letter from a figure like Moshe Feinstein or the website of a well-known Yeshiva) if the author has been determined to be a notable expert in the field through published sources. Part of my job in dealing with the general Wikipedia community has been to advocate for the need for this leeway continuing and to explain the special sourcing problems of religious topics and editors. I also don't believe that undercutting the ability of the Orthodox community to have its sources for articulating its contemporary positions considered reliable creates any general advantage for the purposes of the Encyclopedia or benefits anyone else. Once again, doubtless this special need of the Orthodox community could be articulated in better and more neutral language that more closely tracks existing flexibility in the guidelines. Best, --Shirahadasha 13:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving your comment to the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Judaism/Manual of Style page - this is too important to discuss on the user pages. Egfrank 17:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Midreshet Lindenbaum

[edit]

Sorry, I don't have it. Thanks, --Shirahadasha 22:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hermeneutic circle

[edit]

Thanks for the note. I default to that form of citation-- it's what I was taught. But as you say, there's usually a "Works Cited" section to refer to. Thanks for the tag change. That's the one I meant. Glad you made the referral. I sometimes don't know where to turn for help on something way out of my experience. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bible

[edit]

Thanks for your note. I am an administrator and I am stepping in. I've protected the Bible article temporarily. I've left Talk:Bible unprotected in hopes the user will see reason and use it for discussion. If the user violates the WP:3RR policy, I will enforce it, but I will avoid blocking him if he stops short of doing this. At last check he was almost there and I've already given a WP:3RR warning. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your EAR

[edit]

Hello,

This is a courtesy follow-up regarding a request for editor assistance you made about a week ago. A few responses have been provided to your request, and I wanted to see if you found any of it useful.

Please feel free to reply at my talk page; better yet, update the request yourself. Cheers, --Aarktica 08:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitic magazine

[edit]

Hello Egfrank. Thanks very much for your comment on my talk page. Of course I agree that praising Hitler is blatant and outrageous antisemitism. This isn't really at issue on the Dalit Voice page. Wikipedia policy is that we should let the facts speak for themselves and use reliable sources; that's all that I am trying to do. Luckily there are a couple of good external sources that have described the views of the magazine and these should continue to form the main framework for the article. What emerges from these and from looking at issues of the magazine is that it has a complex mix of non-mainstream views. Antisemitic themes recur, so do Afrocentric ones, but the most common themes probably relate to Indian politics. That's why I don't think it's appropriate to simply describe it as "antisemitic" in the lead. Please get back to me if I can explain more fully. Itsmejudith 13:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conservadoxy comment on HG's talk page

[edit]

Hi Egfrank. Please note my response to your comment on HG's talk page. Best, Savant1984 20:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conservadox

[edit]

Hi, thanks for your note. I saw the google hits, but I'm more interested in reliable sources. Have you seen any promising and good quality sources yet? Also, where does UTJ itself use the term? I'm curious whether you agree with what I mean about it being written like an essay. For instance: "As a result, Conservadox Jews, who a generation ago could feel very comfortable in either an Orthodox or a Conservative setting, have become increasingly isolated from both Conservative and Orthodox Judaism as the gap between the two has widened." Sounds both like it's trying to make an argument ("as a result") and express some vague impressions ("feel comfortable... isolated... has widened"). It all strikes me as spot on, yet not encyclopedic. Take care, HG | Talk 20:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You're welcome to copy that talk (and the above). Kol tuv, HG | Talk 21:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tangent. Seeing that you're a linguist, would you care to comment on the use of "generic term" at Talk:Psychiatric abuse. Of course, only comment if you agree with me! ;) HG | Talk 03:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

religion

[edit]

Hi. I am afraid i have no time to work on the religion articles but I can share my views with you and maybe they will be of help. First, anthropologists and sociologists were interested in the origins of religion primarily in the 19th century - the major theorists are E.B. Taylor and James Frazer. By the early 1900s anthropologists were rejecting any theorization of the origins of religion as speculative and unscientific, and shifting to classifying different kinds of religions and asking about religion's functions. The sociologists Max Weber and Emile Durkheim produced very important works that continue to influence anthropologists. anthropologists themselves focused primarily on studying specific religions or the beliefs and practices of specific groups - in the first half of the 20th century the two dominant figures were Malinowski and Frazer. Virtually all anthropologists writing in the second half of the 20th century, incluing Levi-Strauss (who is not a notable theorist of religion) and Mary Douglas (who was) were heavily influenced by Durkheim, for example. Clifford geertz was more influenced by Weber. Other important figures are Victor Turner, Stanley Tambiah and Talal Asad. I hope this helps - if you know people who are familiar with these individuals or who are willing to read them, you will make a lot of progress. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frazer saw religion as an early form of science. levi-Strauss simply noted that people in all societies classify things, and people in different kinds of societies classify things differently - his classic works on this are The Savage mind and Totemism - but his principle ideas come from Durkhenim. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! You anticipated my question before I asked it! So, in other words his essay on the creation story might be relevant to biblical criticism (as an example of Durkheim influenced hermeneutic), but as for the theory of religion, he presented no new insights? Egfrank 12:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't a Bible scholar ... I would focus in the articles on religion on clarifying the ideas of Taylor and Frazer, Weber and Durkheim first, and that will provide a framework for fitting in others like Douglas and Levi Strauss, Turner and Geertz and Asad, and be driven by an even-handed overview of what scholars actually did, than predetermining what some of us editors are most interested in and looking for articles or quotes to squeeze into those. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only meant to clarify his role vis a vis religion - the article I was referring to was in my PU anthropology and folklore class syllabus though for the life of me I can't remember the title. I tend to be mostly interested in how the bible is read (by various academic disciplines and by religious and non religious alike). Although he may not have been a specialist in the bible per se, he was a specialist in the structural analysis of myth. As such, he was well within his expertise in commenting on the creation story and any number of other mythic stories (by which I mean the myth in the anthropological sense or in the German sense of Geshichte, not myth=fairy story) in the bible.
As for your thoughts on the anthropology and religion - thanks for taking the time to provide a list - Asad is new to me and he seems particularly interesting since he comes from an Islamic perspective. If I ever have a chance, I may read through that list, but for now my hands are also full. BTW, I quite agree with your approach: surveying the literature and then writing rather than trying to anticipate what editor X will like. Egfrank 00:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected guidelines

[edit]

It is not about a vote nor about persuasive arguments; it is about demonstrating that the consensus of the WP community supports a policy or guideline either directly or through practice. This has not been the case on religious figures. Despite having some support from the participants in the discussion, this proposal only reflects the opinion of a tiny minority of the millions of WP contributors. Policy and guidelines are purposefully difficult to implement at WP, or else we'd be drowning in personal opinions labeled as policy or guidelines by energetic editors. Despite your hard work and good ideas, the proposal did not gain traction, but that is typical of proposed guidelines.

Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus for acceptance is not present after a reasonable time period, for which consensus is unclear after a reasonable time period for discussion regardless of whether there is active discussion or not, or where discussion has substantially died out without reaching consensus. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected. It is considered bad form to hide this fact, e.g. by removing the tag. Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally it is wiser to rewrite a rejected proposal from scratch and start in a different direction." --Kevin Murray 11:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

I apologize for my misperception of your role at the religious figures guideline. I see that you are a recent but energetic and prolific contributor to WP; these are welcome and needed traits here. I would like to see many more editors take an active interest in policy as there is a general ambivalence at this point. However, you might want to spend a bit of time learning the nuances and history in the policy area before venturing too far into decision making. That being said, we need fresh ideas and good experience -- your resume is quite strong. I'd like to discuss issues with you as time permits and offer my services to mentor you a bit if you wish.

Perhaps before jumping too far into this specific issue, we could discuss the infrastructure of the notability criteria and the recent trends. As WP is still relatively new the evolution is still rapid and the infrastructure is rather malleable. In a nutshell individual subject specific notability guidelines (such as religious figures) evolved somewhat independently, WP:Notability is a relatively recent project which seems to be evolving toward a central standard or as some propose, the only standard. The most recent trend has been to consolidate more specific criteria at a second tier level such as WP:BIO or WP:ORG, the former dealing with all people and the latter with all groups of people (with some family or partnerships under BIO). For example religious figures are covered by BIO where churches etc. are covered by ORG. Without exception recent attempts to create specific guidelines on types of people has met rejection (e.g., politicians, actors, musicians) and established guidelines such as Pornographic actors have been merged back into BIO.

The objective of the apparent consensus is to provide simple objective criteria, without need for arbitrary or quantitative standards. In a way less is more as we have a risk at WP of our rule-sets ballooning beyond the complexity of the US Tax Code. Consider the tragedy of the commons in economics as an analogy for our policy; what seems reasonable for one area of WP, contributes to what many have described as CREEP.

The popular standard is relying on third party writers in verifiable and credible media to establish whether a subject is "notable." However, there is a vocal group who insist on specific standards such as all Popes or professional bal palyers are notable, even though there may be some Popes and professional ball players about whom we have insufficient verifiable information to write an encyclopedic article. Maybe a specific place to begin on this project is to determine how well BIO handles religious figures and then make the determination whether BIO can be the vehicle to solve the perceived problems, or whether a separate page is warranted.

If you want a cohesive discussion, then choose your page. I am fine with corresponding with you traditionally at the project talk page or back and forth on our individual pages, but I’m not interested in developing my talk page into a discussion page on this or any other topic. --Kevin Murray 16:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gp75motorsports

[edit]

Thanks for your notice. I checked your comments (after correcting my own typo). User:RiçkK‎ has in fact been permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia, back in 2005, so putting up a permanent notice was not incorrect. Regarding your other comments, other users have suggested that some of this user's warnings and comments may have been a bit harsh for the situation. You're welcome to follow the discussion at WP:ANI. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

[edit]

What an impressive story of "finding the right boundaries". You were right to challenge them to go as far as possible, they were right to discover their boundary. Great compromises, sincere boundaries ... a valuable interaction.

Yes, the only path for a gentile, according to Christians, is Jesus. I fully appreciate the "it would have been enough" point. (Rather a rabbinic style of presenting a point, btw;) This is a difference between Protestants and Catholics too — Jesus and Bible are enough for the Protestant, why seek God via Mary, Pope or Priesthood?

It makes me wonder if Christianity has contributed to anti-Semitism by "grabbing" God-fearers who would otherwise convert to Judaism. The Tanakh has many clues that Israel is a light for the gentiles and is God's witness to them. The NT reports such gentile believers in Jewish circles. By placing itself between God and godless world, gentile Christianity functionally isolated Judaism from that world. Its culture was foreign and its spiritual value became marginalized by the ultimately more prominent Christian form of monotheism.

Imagine if things were different, if Judaism were competing with equal numbers alongside Christianity to incorporate outsiders into theocentric communities!

By the way, I'm an unconventional Chrn re Eucharist. I think an annual passover is a much more reasonable interpretation of the NT and Ex 15. Nicaea specifically stopped that practice, and Calvin discouraged its restoration at the time of the Reformation. Without such influences stopping it, it would lead to significantly greater Christian appreciation of their Jewish roots.

Thank you for sharing your perspective on JfJ and MJ. Yes, I think they are very Christian and yet the Catholic Church would officially reject them as readily as Protestants! To be honest, I can find it hard to think of JfJ and MJ as Jewish, but I feel their sincerity to fulfil the Mosaic covenant as Jews, and I respect it deeply. I'm still trying hard to understand their situation theologically, it's fascinating and difficult.

Finally, I've disagreed with Catholicism twice in this post. I disagree with many of their official teachings, but I'm not anti-Catholic. I'm sure I don't really need to say that to you, you understand independence of thought within religious traditions. Shalom, my friend. Alastair Haines 10:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many Thanks, Friend

[edit]

I just wanted to thank you for your extremely kind words. What a thoughtful thing to do! All the best, A Sniper 17:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help re: Bible narrative

[edit]

Hi,

I'm feeling the impossibility of what I'm attempting, but I want to push on anyway. You know I think something like this should live somewhere at Wiki.

Anyway, I've written a synopsis of Genesis. It feels awful working with the Bible in English, let alone leaving so much out. The fun part is having the benefit of rich traditions of interpretation to help guide selection of the flow of the narrative.

Only B'reshit itself is perfect, so I've no illusions about what I've drafted, so I'd appreciate your comments.

You'll note I've not laboured the Aqedah to suggest crucifixion parallels. I was quite conscious of passing over all sorts of things while trying to stick to the core narrative. I have deliberately repeated the phrase "grow in numbers" to reflect echos of p'ru ur'bu. There are other subtleties. I actually tried to help a reader feel the impact of Isaac's birth, and of Joseph's forgiveness. They are amazingly moving stories. But overall Genesis is a "warts and all" soap opera of "skeletons in the family closet."

So, I'd love your comments or changes, I'm also keen to have someone draft Exodus. Hint, hint. I'm content for this text to "wander in the wilderness" until it can yashav or shakan somewhere.

Shalom. Alastair Haines 10:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to put comments on the talk page corresponding to this draft - that way you can keep this all together...see you over there. Egfrank 11:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geiger and Zunz

[edit]

This discussion was moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Progressive Judaism#Abraham Geiger and Leopold Zunz on Egfrank 16:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Progressive Jewish thinkers

[edit]

Hi Eg (may I call you that, for example?). Just noticed your Category:Progressive Jewish thinkers. If you don't mind my saying so, that list may be admirable but it would tend to be a matter of personal opinion, right? If so, how would you feel about deleting it? Be well. Pls reply to my Talk. L'hit, HG | Talk 05:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly open to discussing the usefulness of this category.
Some background. The category isn't exactly my invention. It arose while I was trying to do some cleanup on a rather heterogeneous set of items that had been assigned to Category:Reform Judaism - a mix of summer camps, rabbis, concepts, people, etc. When the members of a category are too much of a mixed bag the category is not particularly useful - the human mind needs a certain amount of homogeneity to effectively scan down a list.
I certainly didn't feel I had the right to nix the Reform Judaism category (nor even change its name alas - it includes topics of interest to all progressive Jews across the world but is named in a manner that is biased towards the American branch of progressive Judaism.) Nor, in most cases, did I have the time to research the validity of the existing associations between each article and progressive Judaism. My conservative solution was to break the items into mentally homogeneous groupings while still preserving the connection to Category:Reform Judaism. Hence thinker+reform turned into Category:Progressive Jewish thinkers.
As for the category being "personal opinion". No, I don't think so. If the thinker influenced the development of progressive Jewish thought then it is arguably a progressive Jewish thinker. We can find reliable sources for asserting X influenced progressive Judaism.
There are, BTW, many thinkers that have influenced research, dialog, and rhetoric in all streams of Judaism from Orthodoxy to the most tradition denying universalistic segments of Progressive Judaism. Abraham Joshua Heschel, Joseph B Soleveitchik, Leopold Zunz among them. By extension of the definition of "Progressive thinker" offered above, these would also be members of Category:Orthodox Jewish thinkers and Category:Conservative Jewish thinkers.
My question in return would be: how do we capture the thought that has influenced each movement? On one hand I think it is very important that we get away from the idea that any movement "owns" some part of Jewish thought and tradition. On the other hand, each movement focuses on a different (albeit overlapping) group of thinkers. This too is notable and needs to be documented.
Kol tuv, Egfrank 07:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Egfrank: You seem not to grasp that the purpose of categorization is to create greater clarity and organization of topics and the system should not be used to artificially create categories and groups that do not exist, except in some people's minds and imaginations. For example, would anyone argue that Category:Nazism should be "categorized" under "both" Category:Nationalism "and" Category:Socialism , since after all, Nazism is a contraction for "National Socialist German Workers' Party"? Definitely not! because Category:Nazism is not what some fairy-minded "thinkers" may say it is, but rather it is correctly and accurately categorized under clearer categories like Category:Racism Category:Fascism. So the idea with utilizing categories is not to cloud and obscure subjects but to clarify and specify. Thanks again, IZAK 08:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I understand that the purpose of classification is to create greater clarity. Could you please explain what your specific objection to this category is? Do you object to the need to identify a list of thinkers that have influenced progressive Judaism? Egfrank 12:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Concern about duplicating Reform and Progressive labels

[edit]

This topic has been moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Progressive Judaism#Is Progressive Judaism OR? to encourage wider participation in the discussion. Substantive issues involving the content and arrangement of wiki articles should not be discussed on user talk pages. Egfrank 16:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to raise something with you here, Egfrank. It sounds like you are getting exasperated. I don't know. In any case, you started personalizing the discussion in a way I don't appreciate. I would prefer that you don't speculate on Wikipedia about my personal life, feelings or circles. So I'm asking that you go back and delete your recent comments that question my personal fairness and reasoning, etc. (When did I say something that merited this: "I don't think you want systemic bias any more than I do. Why exactly do you believe this is only an appearance of bias, and not the real thing?") (Also unnecessary: "I don't think you really appreciate..." "perhaps you have never heard..." "The only people I have ever heard object to the term "progressive" are orthodox Jews. Are you really, really, ...." "Is this about reason or personal familiarity?" Also: "you still feel uncomfortable with the term "progressive".") If you so wish, rephrase your speculations about me, my life, and my feelings without any implication or reference to me personally. If any of my comments have similarly personalized the discussion, I'm certainly willing to return the courtesy. Thank you for your consideration about this. HG | Talk 04:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My deepest apologies. They were not at all intended as an attack. The questions were honest and directed only at you because you have been the one writing. I really don't understand your position. I was not being rhetorical.
But what matters is that you do feel they are an attack. I will be more than happy to reword them in a general way. That presents no problem to me. Since no one seems to disagree with you but I and user:A sniper I have to assume that there is a silent consensus on this project that the term progressive judaism should be forgotten as an umbrella term and replaced with "reform judaism". It is this silent consensus that upsets me, not you. I think you are an honest person trying your best. As I said I am puzzled, but I take no offense. Egfrank 05:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Incidentally, I've enjoyed your (online) company and never doubted your intentions. HG | Talk 13:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(copy) Hi Izak and Egfrank. I think your discussions on the Project page are going overboard. Pls see my comment there. Maybe you all can be more, as we used to say, mellow? HG | Talk 16:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's systematic Orthodox bias

[edit]

Hi. I wanted to let you know that I've been sitting on the sidelines of the Progressive/Reform debate, primarily because I don't know much about the name "Progressive Judaism", but I support you 100%. I'm going to add some comments shortly.

Get used to being insulted for not being an Orthodox Jew and having your movement described as something other than Judaism. Other editors have written that Conservative Judaism is a movement made up of Orthodox Jews who don't follow halakha, and Reform Judaism is made up of Conservative Jews who don't follow Conservative halakha. IZAK used the word Judaism without any qualifier to refer to Orthodox Judaism, which is simple (though possibly unintended) honesty on his part — many of the editors who are involved with Judaism-related articles consider Orthodox Judaism "Judaism" and anything else non-Jewish.

As I wrote, because of my ignorance of the subject I don't feel qualified to join your new Wikiproject, but I support anybody and anything that contributes a non-Orthodox viewpoint to articles concerning Judaism. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pshaw, Malik you are more than qualified to edit on prog/ref stuff -- and it'd be better for you than some of that other drek ;->> LOL, fondly, HG | Talk 05:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unjust use of personal criticisms

[edit]

Hi there guys: Regarding User Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) comments here and at User talk:A Sniper#IZAK and Wikipedia's systematic Orthodox bias, may I say a few words in my own defense? (a) At the outset I am really disappointed to read your comments as I have until now had great respect for you and your work on Wikipedia. (b) Malik, what you have done is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I have never addressed any personal comments to you or to User A Sniper (talk · contribs) or to User Egfrank (talk · contribs) because that is beneath contempt and violates WP:CIVIL. (c) I have not made a single edit to the Reform Judaism or Progressive Judaism articles at this time, so I do not know what you are carrying on about. (Unlike User:A Sniper and User:Egfrank who have recently made lots of controversial edits to Judaism articles that reveal their POV biases.) (d) I had some questions which I brought up on User:Egfrank's talk page and which were also brought up on the WP:JUDAISM talk page. During those talks, when the meanings and differences between Jewish denominations outlooks are/were discussed, all sorts of things are said. It is not false to say that both Reform and Progressive Judaism allow Jews the eating pork unlike Orthodox Judaism which forbids it based on the Torah. (e) If an editor were to state that Islam forbids pork but that lapsed Muslims do eat pork chops would that be a slander? Nope, it's statement of fact. (f) There is no "Orthodox bias" on Wikipedia, what a joke! Just go and read all the Biblical articles and see how many of them have Christian and modern critical views. So don't be funny please! (g) If you think or imagine that anything I stated about any subject in the body of any article violates WP:NPOV or WP:CITE rules then point it out and I will be glad to discuss it with you or with anyone else. But please don't go around making hateful and hurtful comments behind my back, right here out in the open, when all you do by that is reveal your own prejudices a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and probably even WP:LIBEL against me. Thanks for taking note. (h) If you honestly believe in "Wikipedia's systematic Orthodox bias" then take it up at some official forums and discussion groups such as at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on articles and let Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism know about it, so that this percived bias can be corrected, if any such exists -- but do not make me into the straw man and fall guy of your mistaken beliefs and misconceptions -- it is intellectually dishonest and is not appreciated. (i) Malik, I hope you will apologize for fairness' sake. This message has been copied to User talk:A Sniper#Unjust use of personal criticisms; User talk:Malik Shabazz#Unjust use of personal criticisms and [[]]. IZAK 04:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry IZAK, but anyone who insinuates that Reform Jews are lapsed Jews cannot be taken seriously as an editor of anything related to Progressive Judaism. Do you even recognize the biased things you write? I don't know whether you are an Orthodox Jew, and frankly I couldn't care less, but if you ARE then there is certainly an argument that could be made that thousands of years of being obsessed with rules, laws and rigidity has been at the expense of ethics. I consider this matter finished, as far as my talk page is concerned. I'm not continuing in any silly banter and I offer nobody any ill will. L'chaim, A Sniper 22:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Sniper: Orthodox Judaism regards Reform Jews as "lapsed" Jews or worse because according to Orthodox Judaism they (the Reform and Progressives) reject the classical Shulkhan Arukh and the Halakha, that is not "my" view, see Who is a Jew? to understand that Orthodoxy does not accept any of Reform's converts and in cases where the child's father is Jewish but the mother is not, the children are not Jews according to Orthodox Judaism, and that is also not according to "me" or anyone else. If you missed that lesson somewhere then you fail to understand Orthodoxy. Lamentably you are again personalizing the discussions and the outlook of a movement with an editor's private life. Who we are as people does not count, what counts is the accuracy of our words as editors. I cannot remake Orthodoxy any more than you cannot remake Reform and Progressivism and what they stand for. It is sad that you wish to trivialize what I say by calling it "banter" and I look forward to the time when you will treat those views that differ from yours with respect and seriousness. IZAK 04:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] I responded to IZAK's original comments at User talk:IZAK#Offending comments. I am not participating in the further discussion between A Sniper and IZAK. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


IZAK, I think you need to take a deep breath. Just because there are people out there that define Judaism differently than you doesn't mean that you personally are under attack.

I have done my level best to speak neutrally to you and try to understand your view. I have never attacked your commitment to Judaism. I am quite sure your intentions are good, you clearly have a love and passion for all things Jewish. In your own way you are also trying to observe the Jewish maxim not to embarrass people in public. If anything I have said has come across as an ad-hominem attack I apologize in advance - it is always possible I have miswritten something in a manner that did not reflect my good intentions.

Having said that, I think in kindness and fairness to myself and others, it is time for me to say a few critical words.

  • Rather than address User:A Sniper's complaints you have attacked him, claiming that he (a) personalized the discussion (b) does not respect your views because he criticizes them and insists that they do not represent the whole of Judaism. User:A Sniper did not personalize the discussion. His feelings at your denigration of his faith are shared by many (and well publicized in the press - citations upon request). They are as valid and notable as your opinion (and that of others) that his religion (and mine) is an excuse to eat pork.
  • As for myself, you have accused me of no end of Wikipedia violations (OR, POV, editing on the sly, conflict of interest, wiki lawyering, to name a few), without a single bit of supporting evidence. Worse yet, you have attempted to recast dedicated and responsible Wikipedia behavior as nefarious POV warrioring (e.g. co-creating projects, publicizing projects, editing articles, reviewing material in my user area before I write, and so on...). A cited article on a topic with over 20 thousand books catelogued by that topic in an academic library (HUC) is hardly OR or POV. A publicized project created by two editors who didn't want to discuss matters of substance on user pages is hardly "solo editing". A refusal to go around slapping reform/liberal/progressive criticism sections on non-progressive/reform/liberal statements, opinions, or movements can hardly be called POV warrioring.
  • Rather than address my complaints that your manner of speaking was overwhelming your good intentions and making it hard to hear you, you suggested that the real problem was that "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" and apologized for not being tender spoken enough. My comments were not because of my "tender" gender. Other (male) users have also complained about your lack of tack (User:SwatJester, User:A Sniper) come to mind. Joking or not, good intentions or not, you are out there ruffling a lot of feathers and acting as if their feelings are their problem not yours. Derek eretz is at least as important a mizvah as kashrut, and I think you know that.

I'm sorry that you dislike the fact that liberal/reform/progressive Judaism believe that they are committed to Judaism. This is their well documented and notable belief, painful as that may be. They believe that their take on Judaism is as true to the Covenant on Sinai as you believe Orthodoxy's is. In fact, in their heart of hearts, many believe it is truer. That is why they are progressive Jews and not orthodox. They love HaShem as much as you and I am fully convinced that HaShem knows that, even if you don't. But even if I and they are totally wrong about HaShem, their belief is verifiable, notable, and not to be censored or ignored. Kol tuv, Egfrank 06:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Egfrank: Thanks for the mussar! Let me repeat again. I have the highest regard for you as an editor. I do not wish to discuss our lives. To each his own and vive la différence as they say! This is not about "me, you" or "he said, she said" and the stuff you mention above leads to nowhere. Let's recap: A few days ago, in my desire not to take unilateral editorial action, and with a good faith desire to get your feedback first, I came to this very talk page [3] with some straightforward editorial questions regarding what appear to be duplicate Reform and Progressive categorization. Without further consultations, you then moved [4] my request to the Progressive WikiProject. Upon seeing your unilateral move, I moved the discussion [5] to a broader audience at WP:JUDAISM. From that time onwards you have responded by either complaining about me, launching into lengthy essays about the Progressive movement, nitpicking about what I said or implied or whatever else suites your line of criticism against me, opening up uncalled for "third fronts" at new venues, such as at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/open tasks#WikiProject Judaism needs help - geographical bias concerns and joining with the unconstructive personal attacks of User:A Sniper instead of providing a few crystal clear unambiguous answers one way or the other without getting defensive in any way. We are all grownups here and we can all handle the heat. So to make things easier, I shall repeat the essence of what I asked of you yet again, in summary: ...you created Category:Progressive Jewish communal organizations, Category:Progressive Jewish higher education, Category:Progressive Jewish thinkers with articles in them that pertain to Reform Judaism more than anything else...The Central Conference of American Rabbis is the arch-Reform rabbinical body, yet you have on your own placed them in Category:Progressive Jewish communal organizations, when surely that should have been Category:Reform Judaism communal organizations?...You put the main Reform Judaism institution of Hebrew Union College into Category:Progressive Jewish higher education, should that not have been Category:Reform Judaism higher education instead? You then place Moses Mendelssohn into Category:Progressive Jewish thinkers, which is actually quite nebulous because the term "Progressive" could have so many connotations in light of the Haskalah milieu Mendelssohn lived in and was responding to..." Can we get some specific answers please? That's it. Let's not get sidetracked with all the ideological mumbo-jumbo and tiring personalization of arguments. Thanks, IZAK 07:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Eg, in my view, you don't really need to respond to the preceding pts here or with IZAK directly. Maybe we can give the debate/discussion here to percolate a little while, e.g., at the CSB page, and you (and A Sniper) and IZAK can chill out and walk away from your intense to-and-fro. What do you think? It seems like IZAK is willing to give this a break. You guys obviously should keep representing your view in the relevant forums/fora, but maybe you'd consider doing it in a less intense way? (And so should I take my own medicine....) How about if we (incl me) give other folks a chance to get a word in edgewise? And meanwhile, maybe we could calmly improve some of the existing articles (but not go on any editing sprees to prove our point etc), how does that sound? this might be better for all concerned in the long run. Take care, let me know what you think, HG | Talk 07:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi HG: As I told you I will stay out of the fray for a week at least, but that won't make the questions I raised go away either. Let's see what happens. Thanks for your efforts. IZAK
      • HG, I think if you look at my edit history, rather than User:IZAK's words you will see that I do anything but go on "edit sprees" to prove points. I write carefully and slowly, cite material of academic quality whenever available, mark my own edits with {{fact}} tags and stub tags, and discuss substantive changes before making them. Not to mention the fact that I limit my comments, criticisms, doubts, etc to material for which I am willing to spend significant time reading and studying. I'm not even sure it would be possible for me to go on an edit spree considering all of the research constraints I place on myself. Egfrank 09:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, this isn't about personalization, nor I think is it even about Progressive Judaism. It is about different understanding of wiki process and neutrality:

  • I moved the conversation because as a matter of principle I don't believe in discussing articles on talk pages. I chose the Progressive Judaism project as a forum because in my understanding of wiki policy, the only issue at hand was notifiability, verifiability, and reliablity of sources. I believe projects dedicated to a subject area are the best forum for those questions. The progressive Judaism project was, in my opinion the place most likely to find that expertise. However, had you not jumped the gun I would have also posted a notice to the general Judaism project - the more the merrier
  • I have only complained about you when I felt that your actions violated my understanding of project boundaries or wikipolicy (e.g. discussing significant deletes before taking action). I had no problem with the change of venue, only in the way you did it (you could have - for example - simply put a note: discussion to be continued here). In most cases I have sought to defend you even as I disagreed with you. As an exercise you might try counting the number of times I have said that your opinion is notable, shared by others, or that you are out and out "right".
  • I only moved discussion to a "third front" when both I and another active discussion participant agreed that there might be an issue of geographic systemic bias and that a pair of objective eyes should be involved. At this point it was no longer a discussion with you IZAK, but a discussion among many. I'm not sure why you are seeing a third forum as a bad thing. That is wiki procedure when participants agree that they need new input. The opportunity to do that is a good thing.
  • User:A Sniper did not attack you personally, but rather the views implied by your statements. And he only did that after you expressed a notable but highly offensive view point. It seems to me that you can't take what you give. His view point (that using pork as a benchmark trivializes Judaism) is just as notable as yours, even though it is offensive to you.

As for the articles and categories I created or edited, of course I did those edits. I did so based on verifiable, reliable, and notable terms and sources. There is nothing wrong with that.

Please IZAK take a deep breath. You are a good man and I think if you leave this for a day or two, you might be able to see that none of this is about you. If you still can't see it, I invite you to talk about it with me again or even bring it to arbitration if you think that will help. Kol tuv, Egfrank 08:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK - I repeat, this is *not* about you. I think I was quite careful to express to A Sniper *my* exhaustion, *my* concern about the definition of neutrality on the project. I am concerned about the dynamics of the Judaism project. It does violate my sense of what neutrality means on wikipedia. Those are my opinions. I have a right to those opinions. I fully acknowledge they may be wrong. But they are still mine and they affect how I think and feel.
IZAK - I am also human. I am stressed out. I need support. Others do too. It isn't right for you to attack people who have been supportive to me (as you did Malik). Nor is it right that you attack me for expressing my concerns and asking for support (did you read the line about getting exhausted?). My message to User:A Sniper is about *my* needs and maybe his. Again, this isn't about you.
IZAK, please take another breath. I'll take one too. This is all of our project, and a concern about the project is a concern about the project, not you. And if third parties do eventually get involved it will be to help us *all* be better , kinder, more welcoming editors. Surely, that is what we all want? Egfrank 13:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, feel well, let's take it easy. After all, I so often have to remind users that we are here to enjoy being editors on Wikipedia. Take care, IZAK 11:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<trying to lighten the mood> Your recent edit summary had a slip -- "breath of usage" -- maybe you just want the rest of us to breath the same air (or whatever) that you're on. ;) HG | Talk 02:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The HUC 20,000

[edit]

Hi Egfrank. How are you? I'm sorry this whole thing has gotten so confrontational (though less so between us, I hope, than what's happened with Izak). Anyway, I do feel a bit miffed that, having collected all sorts of data, you haven't mentioned my results. I would have myself mentioned your 20,000 -- except I haven't been able to replicate the outcome. At first I felt somewhat inept, but since you've continued to use that number, repeatedly, to support your argument, I'd like you to please show me how you arrived at the figure. When I go into the HUC library database (link here), I am getting the following results:

  • Keyword search. "Progressive Judaism" yields 231, "Reform Judaism" yields 2257 (10x)
  • Heading keyword search, Subject: "Progressive Judaism" yields 13, "Reform Judaism" yields 296 (20x)
  • Heading keyword search, Title: "Progressive Judaism" yields 102, "Reform Judaism" yields 456 (4x)
  • Heading keyword search, Subject: "History of Progressive Judaism" yields 1, "History Reform Judaism" yields 47 (40x)

As you can see, I am getting results that would appear to support my view that "Reform Judaism" appears significantly more in the literature than "Progressive Judaism". Please explain to me how you arrived at the 20,000 figure. Perhaps you made an error? Please let me know either way. Thanks, kol tuv, HG | Talk 06:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HG, I see nothing but good will in your actions. Also I want you to know that I do respect and appreciate your hard work.

As for the HUC citation, I'm assuming that you are using the default search criteria. This only turns up books that have the search words in the 'beginning of the title. That probably isn't what you want. Instead you need to click on "Expert" in the left sidebar. This will take you to an advanced search screen.

To get the 20K result, search all fields for "Progressive Judaism" - that will include a word anywhere in the title, as well as cataloging by key words. In the box labeled "Search Terms:", enter "aw:progressive+aw:judaism" (no quotes). Make sure there are no spaces between the terms. That will give you the 20K.

However, upon closer look, at the search criteria, "+" broadens the search resulting in any book that has either Judaism or progressive in the title. That of course is not what we want. If we use "&" (which limits the search to adjacent terms, we get these results:

aw:progressive&aw:judaism: 315 aw:reform&aw:judaism: 2049 aw:judaism: 20,000

I'll go and correct the results immediately (can't have misinformation around). Kol tuv, Egfrank 08:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kinds words and for your willingness to both patiently explain and recheck the data. You're right, I hadn't used "Expert" at all (not surprisingly!). I was able to replicate your results, except that the correct number for aw:reform&aw:judaism seems to be 2415. Can you double check and then correct your figure (2049) above? Also, I think the 20,000 number doesn't shed light on the question and can be disregarded now, right? Thanks muchly. HG | Talk 12:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Handling the dispute over Progressive Judaism

[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Progressive Judaism dispute and possible POV fork. I've also set up an AfD for that page. Jheald and others, it's important not to force matters this way. Please self-revert immediately the major change you made at Reform Judaism. I will probably have to file an AN/I on this matter, sorry. HG | Talk 19:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...HG - no one is forcing issues. You have not provided one valid reason for keeping that content on the main article and many reasons for removing it were given. You even agreed

As for my deletion - no content was lost - because it was in the sub-article. Its purpose was solely to prevent a content fork via duplication. Remember you were the one who was afraid of a fork. I'm not getting where you are going with this, but your recent revert of my fork-prevention edit was disruptive and created the very content fork for which you are afraid.

HG, enough is enough. Please take a break - you don't even like this topic enough to go research your own sources and add new material. I really don't see why you are involved and interfering in the work of knowledgable editors who are trying to fix some very serious gaps in wiki coverage and doing so with careful responsible edits. Egfrank 19:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate your refraining from commenting about what topics I like or whether my contributions/knowledge are valued. HG | Talk 23:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. If only for consistency's sake, I've done an AfD for Reform Judaism (North America) as well. This way we can deal with both spin-off/forks around the same time. Thanks. HG | Talk 23:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 13:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

[edit]

See the comment at the Bevis Marks talk page. --Dweller 12:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ProgressiveJudaism

[edit]

Hi. Instead of replacing Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar with Template:ProgressiveJudaism, you should add the new template. I'll change the articles you've already done. If finding room for the template is a problem, consider using a footer template similar to Template:Conservative Judaism or Template:Orthodox Judaism. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saw what you did with UK Reform - looks good! Egfrank 21:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bevis Marks Synagogue

[edit]

I saw you slapped a {{copyvio}} tag on this.

JewishEncyclopedia.com is a word-for-word upload of the Jewish Encyclopedia (1901-06), which is now copyright expired. Therefore it is entirely legitimate to include the text verbatim. The JE as public-domain source is in fact credited, as it should be, with {{Jewish Encyclopedia}} at the bottom of the article.

It therefore seems appropriate to remove the tag. Jheald 21:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but see the talk page - I was told by a more experienced user that an admin has to do it. Part of the problem is that even though it is JE, the site it came from claims copyright on all page contents and doesn't exclude GPLD's or JE material. Egfrank 21:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's gone now (and I've updated the central copyvio register to say why). We'll see whether it comes back, but I doubt it will. You're correct that the site has a copyright scarecrow on it; but those articles are all verbatim from the JE, and all US copyright-expired.
Sorry for not having checked the talk page first - I hope I don't usually come in shooting from the hip! Jheald 21:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that particular one wasn't - it was a mix of synopsis and copy. Egfrank 21:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't being clear. What I meant was all the articles on the JE website. There's no novel material there. Jheald 21:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main point

[edit]

Yes! I completely agree. I think there is a Zeitgeist that associates any mention of God with a cocktail of "unscientific", bias, judgemental discrimination, and even militant extremism.

I am firmly of the opinion that such assumptions are themselves unscientific, POV, inadvertently discriminatory and simply unencyclopedic. Encyclopedias of the past, and Britannica today do not flinch from reporting theocentric ideas from the NPOV. But at Wiki, we need to help active editors understand that this is possible.

At some point, my friend, we may need to simply boldly edit, backed by sources, and defend our edits. It's one thing for people to suspect the future work editors may contribute, it's another to challenge the actual text they have provided.

I'm rather thrilled to discover you're a lady (or woman if you prefer). There are so many men at Wiki! Sorry about my slip to a default masculine pronoun, I'm normally careful to assume nothing. It's a funny thing to communicate freely at an intellectual level (and even share something of my heart on various issues) without knowing something that's normally picked up by the most rudimentary social contact. Enough said, kol tuv. ;) Alastair Haines 23:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! :D No, I'm not in the least fussed, I couldn't resist the opportunity to try to reflect back to Fc that Fc's own comments re me revealed Fc too has instinctive perceptions that can be challenged. Actually, I completely agree with you, yet again, that Fc is helpful because an additional perspective does show things we are overlooking. I'm just trying to keep the playing field level by pointing out that atheist or non-academic POVs are still POVs also.
I think the article needs to be written from the agnostic NPOV about the other POVs. Atheist comment on the Bible is essential in an encyclopedia, but not the type that claims itself to be neutral because it has no faith-community alliegance. Not that I'm sure Fc actually holds such a position. I hope we find out. Alastair Haines 01:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award

[edit]

Thank you for my award. I shall treasure it. :LOL: -- Jheald 11:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Burial Ground

[edit]

Noticed you question at this page. A discussion which relates to your question is occuring at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject British Royalty, over how to apply Commonwealth realms in such articles. GoodDay 19:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Magazine photo

[edit]

Howdy. Yes indeed I'll add the photo - give me a couple of days and I'll look for one that will withstand the constant hassle of the copyright bots. Best, A Sniper 13:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo is up at both the page for the magazine and the Reform Judaism (North America) page. Let me know what you think. Best, A Sniper 18:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope your Shabbat was nice. This was a particularly happy one as we put up some decorations for Hanukkah right before dinner, and I brought home fresh challot (one w/ seeds, the other without) and a rather decent Israeli Cabernet (Barka, from Hulda). Yum. Best, A Sniper 14:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Neutrality Project

[edit]

Hi, I'm trying to ensure that the Neutrality Project has not become inactive. If you would still like to participate in it, please re-add your name to the Review Team list. Jame§ugrono 08:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

body and soul

[edit]

Thanks for your comment! And I can take this opportunity to tell you how much I have appreciated all your comments, I am glad you are involved and hope you have time to go over all the Jewish-related articles. There was a time when I put a lot of work into the Christianity and Judaism article but I have had to cut back lately .... Anyway, thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS in fact perhaps you could go over the Christianity/Judaism article and see whether you think any of our recent thread on the Bible talk page could be incorporated into that article. Disclosure: I have a pet peeve about the phrase "Judeo-Christian" which I think elides important differences between the two religions; this is one area where I think there is a real need for more cross-cultural communication and education. I guess I am proposing two things: that you edit together your comments and mine into something you think could be added to the C/J article, and also that we ask Alistair to help develop it, clairfying the Christian position (or, Christian positions). What do you think? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll make a first step by copying the whole discussion over to that article. Perhaps you could ping Alastair. Egfrank (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I just pinged him! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reform and conservative

[edit]

Hi Egfrank. Haven't been in touch in a while. I came across your comments at Talk:Relationships between American Jewish religious movements#Reform and conservative and I have responded at some length over there. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, sis,

[edit]

Frank is a very charming name for a woman! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While we are being personal, it put me in mind of Annelies Marie "Anne" Frank. But I should withdraw from a family discussion if it is not welcome. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very welcome :-) . Friendly voices make my day. Frank is indeed my last name - or rather one of them. However, I am no relation to Anne Frank - the Franks in my family are from Baden-Württemberg and left shortly after the Franco-Prussian war. But more personal details only available via email - which either of you are welcome to do. Egfrank (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trust-building and mutual understanding

[edit]

Hi. I'm glad your wrote back on my Talk. I just replied there. I would like to see us continue working on trust-building and ironing out our misunderstandings, miscommunications, etc. If not at WQA, then maybe elsewhere? Anyways, fyi and please reply on my Talk. Thanks. HG | Talk 01:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette alert

[edit]

Hi Egfrank - I just wanted to apologize for my absence from the Wikiquette alert over the last few days. Unfortunately, something came up off-Wiki, and I didn't have the time to do a proper job. I'm also sorry that the alert didn't end more productively than it did. Best of lukc in resolving your disputes, and please let me know if I can be of any assistance in the future. Sarcasticidealist 23:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tikkun Olam

[edit]

Regarding the Tikkun Olam page: I'd like to thank you for what you did on the tikkun olam page. I had been trying for quite some to get that article to reflect the fact that not all Orthodox Jews follow the Lurianic-Kabbalistic mystical-tikkun model, but every time I'd add Rav Hirsch and Rav Kook and the like for the Orthodox ethical/social-justice/practical-moral-example model (there is no dispute that there is a non-Orthodox model of this, of course), my contribution would be quite promptly deleted, for reasons I can only speculate on.

Besides that, wonderful job on what you did; totally reorganizing the page to have both "ritual tikkun olam" and "ethical tikkun olam" surely involved a significant effort, but it panned out quite nicely so as to differentiate those two models of tikkun olam. I myself am too busy to perform such drastic revisions, and so I tried to fit my additions within the preexisting format, which made it perhaps unwieldy and unpolished. Kol hakavod on what you've done!

Sevendust62 17:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User degree/MSc

[edit]

Hi, I noticed you added a discipline parameter to {{User_degree/MSc}}. I've removed this (basically a revert to what it was before) since it left an odd looking " ." space-dot if the parameter was not used. The template is now almost exactly like {{User_degree/MS}}. You probably want to use the {{User_degree/MSc subject}} template to specify your discipline. +mt 03:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I made the change on my user page. I'm wondering though if we should merge the two templates - it's a fairly trivial thing to fix the bug that you found. Egfrank (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem intuitive to merge the two, and it would be compatible to turn the template with "_subject" into a redirect (basically, the merged template will use {{{1}}} argument to optionally show the discipline). Mind you, there are at least 10 other "_subject" userboxes out there that would ideally be merged; see Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education#Generic Degrees with Subject. +mt 16:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Shaw

[edit]

Thanks for your comments. I, too, am interested in the evolving issues in the US between African Americans and newer African and Caribbean immigrants. An interesting novel was published this last year that was set in the Logan neighborhood and reflected some of those issues, by an Ethiopian American. I have it but can't find it just now- think his last name is Metsu. It's on the NY Times list of 100 best books. I always wondered when someone would start writing about it.

Also, yes, some of the major African American churches in Shaw were trying to bring back their successful suburban descendants. They were buying up property, too, to generate better businesses in the area and undertake redevelopment. --Parkwells (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely

[edit]

Looks like we're in an edit war. Any suggestions? Tim (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EGF, thanks for your note! I'm not concerned about incivility so much as the idea that the page itself could just disappear. I'm going to try to throw in some references tomorrow. My three primaries for tomorrow are: Berkhof's Systematic Theology for the Christian column, Cohen's Everyman's Talmud for the Jewish one, and Stern's Messianic Jewish Manifesto for the MJ one. I have a ton more books, but those are the first three to start with. I think that the best way to win this silliness is to cram as many sources as possible before some well meaning Wiki moderator wannabe starts adding his muscle behind Nick's comments. Nick has at least been a useful third party to give us an idea of what to fix, and I'll do what I can in as short order as possible. I hate the fact that we ended up in this war... which reminds me... I think I'll have to periodically archive the source material on this. The stuff everyone's adding is really high quality! Tim (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EGF -- thanks for the suggestion. I gave a lot of my Messianic books to my brother, but I have a few sources left. I'll do what I can. I also archived the page on my talkpage in case the thing gets deleted. I'd have to not have access to what everyone did!Tim (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey -- that was a fantastic suggestion! I'll try to update the archive once a day so that all the work doesn't permanently disappear if we lose this debacle.Tim (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EGF -- we're very quickly losing the AfD war here. What we need to know is what will satisfy the majority of the voters here. It looks as if most of them want to delete it because it's a table. We can't satisfy that requirement without ceasing to exist. If we lose, the only thing that will be left will be my archive... which won't do anyone any good but myself.Tim (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. As I said, I'm a newbie here. I guess your idea to delete the neutral POV column is the best way to preserve the page. I'm not sure if I'll be able to finish the Messianic column in time before the decision, though. Real life is intruding. Tim (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done for now. I have a feeling it will end up in my Archive when the dust settles. I find it fascinating that everyone keeps saying to turn it into a book. There isn't any OR in the thing, so it wouldn't work for a book.Tim (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad we can laugh! :-) It's way past my bed time, my wife is drawing a bath, and I'm halfway through a glass of wine making last minute geek cites on our sinking page! Tim (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you make that non-sequitor in the Jewish apostasy cell, or did Lisa? Whoever did it created an internal contradiction and also contradicted the Telushkin quote (that got cropped as well).Tim (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. Yes, I meant that second paragraph. I tried one more time (before reading your note) to corrected it by simply taking BOTH Lisa and myself out of it, and letting Telushkin talk directly (with her sources added). Lisa's sources do not contradict Telushkin, but Lisa's comments do. Right now I don't have any books available, so I'm not taking time away from sourcing :-) Tim (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. There's no working with this person. There's no compromise -- no nothing. The only time I've ever experienced this on Wikipedia was with a Jehovah's Witness, and he was infinitely more reasonable.Tim (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely learned my lesson on that one. A bizarre form of vandalism and I took the bait. I'm just not used to insincerity. Anyhow -- I won't be able to do anything for a while, but if you have any suggestions, I'll try to listen to them better.Tim (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't devote much time today (I'm sure good news for you, since I was equally culpable yesterday). But if I can help in any way, let me know. Or if I should just do citations tonight, let me know. You've given good suggestions in the past, so I'm wide open.Tim (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TODAY, I'll listen to you. Most of my effort yesterday was an attempt to keep her from contradicting herself. Although Jews understand that shituf "is idolatry" and "is not idolatry" at the same time, and although Jews understand that "Christian" means "Gentile" -- most everyone else on the planet won't make sense of what she's writing. But, since the assumption of Good Faith is no longer something I can continue to entertain, there's no need for all the effort. As you said, I'll work on the cells she isn't editing. Hopefully her non-sequitor won't affect the rest of the judgment of the page if we can make the rest of the page NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teclontz (talk • contribs) 16:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Ma'am (can you hear my South Carolina accent?). PhD in theology. I actually WROTE a translation of the New Testament as part of my doctoral thesis. And then I made a, uh, bad career move with the conversion...Tim (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of the hard work. Hopefully we can keep improving it faster than it can be disrupted. I'll make a point this week to look up every one of your factchecks I can. I actually learned some things in the process. For instance, Stern's theology (although I don't share it) was much more coherently formulated than I had thought. I had remembered Messianics just being either Charismatics or Dispensationalists using Jewish terminology, but Stern really made a move toward forging a self-consistent entity. That being said, I'll have to balance the citations using him with others -- because he seems to be more Orthodox (Christian) than a lot of other Messianics. If he's above the norm, then he's not completely indicative of the movement. It would be like quoting only Soloveichik (sp) or another titanic thinker. The BEST example is not always the most BALANCED example, because the average Jewish thinker, the average Christian thinker, the average Messianic thinker... is average.Tim (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request, be briefer in your AfD comments

[edit]

Hi Egfrank: Pardon my advice. Regarding what is happening now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms. Normally, Wikipedia AfD pages are not the place to conduct massive debates between parties. You did a good job presenting your views. You should not be writing essay-length responses and retorts to others as that just clogs up the page, makes the whole process messy and hard to follow, and is over-all counter-productive and very annoying to most editors who do not do such things when coming to vote and give their views (usually not more than a few sentences, if that.) I know it is not easy for a writer, but try to be consise and to limit yourself to paragraph-length responses at the most. People coming onto the page can go to the article's talk page to see and join detailed debates. Thanks for giving this your attention. I am placing a similar message on the others who are creating havoc on that page with full-blown essay-length responses rather than more focused replies that would be much more helpful to all concerned. Shavua Tov and Chanukah Sameach. IZAK (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

[edit]

Each time I've made a change, I've explained it in the talk page. Tim, on the other hand, has removed sources, and replaced them with lengthy inline quotes of material that is already included in the references at the bottom of the page. Warn him, not me. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette alerts

[edit]

I've posted some comments on the Wikiquette alert intended to get at the civility issue. I hope you will give the process another chance. I will do my best to keep the conversation focused on the civility issue between you and User:Eusebeus. Egfrank (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At your polite request on my talk page, I have withrawn the RfC. Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taric25 (1) filed a completely spurious sockpuppet report (a form of personal attack) as a childish response to not getting his way in a content dispute. (2) He then vandalised the user's talk page and (3) came close to a 3RR violation. Those are very serious affronts to how we do things and my tone is entirely warranted. Since it clear that the user is trying disingenuously to game the system I'm not wasting my time with this dross anymore and I am sorry if you have had to do the same. The real issue here is what sanction Taric deserves for his hideous behaviour. Eusebeus (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let you work on that, then. Until this gets brought up to AN/I to request a block against the user, I have no additional interest and stand entirely by my original remarks. I note your point, however: the user needs to be severely cautioned and if others wish to make such caution in a less peremptory or monitory fashion, then that may be salubrious. Despite Taric's attempts to game things via Witiquette, this not a dialogue since my remarks are not incivil. Eusebeus (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Civility Award
Thank you for your assistance.
Taric25 (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Aryeh Kaplan quote

[edit]

Sorry, but your "rule" that the quote must have the word apostasy in it is neither a Wikipedia rule nor a reasonable one. The quote stays. Don't vandalize the page again, please. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to risk people thinking that, if they can conclude such a thing in the face of the evidence to the contrary. And since "apostasy" is a fairly archaic term, your misunderstanding of the concept of synthesis would eliminate most sources. The quote stays. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add the following, from WP:GAME:

Related terms are wikilawyering and pettifogging, which refer to following an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy to violate the spirit of the policy

Eliminating a pertinent source on the basis that the actual word "apostasy" is not used in that source is gaming the system. It is a major Jewish position, and trying to block it on such tendentious grounds is highly inappropriate. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lisa, no one is gaming the system but you. Egfrank (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms‎

[edit]

For future reference, please avoid the "refactoring" and movement of editor's comments that you did at that AFD. I assume you were trying to be helpful, but it makes it much, much harder for the closing admin to sort out who said what. Beyond that, I'd also like to point out that AFD is not a vote in the respect that it is any sort of numerical count. It is a gathering of opinions that hopefully form a consensus. Refering to it as a vote can be misleading to editors not familiar with the process. Regards,--Isotope23 talk 17:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem... a lot of times you will see the term !vote used (i.e. "not vote") at AFD to denote that it isn't a vote. It's a pretty common misconception; I thought AFD was a vote for quite a while when I started editing here. I hope you don't think I was specifically picking on you over the refactors, I realize you were not the only one doing it. I closed the AFD. Hopefully you can all work out any content issues with the article.--Isotope23 talk 17:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I from December 15th

[edit]

Thank you for your lengthy response to WP:AN/I. I agree that emotions have run very high, by most all parties involved. I wish there was somebody working on this article who did not have a strong POV to help mediate. The only ground I have is based on long hours of research, despite years of personal experience with survivors. But I wanted to thank you for the time you took to consider the situation and weigh in your opinion. Daniel Santos (talk) 11:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, btw, that's why I wrote WP:MEDS :) Daniel Santos (talk) 11:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Graveyard

[edit]

My request to Moonriddengirl for the deletion of the page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business and Economics/graveyard1 has been declined for technical reasons. My understanding is the page has been superced by Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business, but she will not allow deletion unless you place the template {{db-author}} on it; Could I ask you to do this? --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Egfrank , it's Pilot

[edit]

Please stop by the talk page for the article Bible and join in this discussion " # 34 , The Pendulum Swings " ........... a contributor , Carl recently took it upon himself to make deletions to the articles intro. ( one of which I took great pains to incorperate which was well cited and important and valid ) , plus some other work was already there by others I appreciated too , Holy Bible, Scriptures, Word of God where removed ......... I undid his changes to the intro. and reinstalled the prior version , and he reverted it back to his version with the deletions 3 times so far tonight ......... so I am not putting it back again until tommorrow night night since I have battled with him 3 times so far this eve. .......... thanks in advance ...Pilotwingz (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please!

[edit]

Please respond to Bikinibomb's comments about figs and Judaism here, thanks Slrubenstein | Talk 00:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms

[edit]

An editor has nominated Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knock, Knock: Mi Sham?

[edit]

On vacation?

While you were out, the Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms was, to put it nicely, deconstructed. My tabular separation of Judaism and Christianty was removed and replaced with a mashing of the two together into a single list! Gave me the whillies. We're on the tail end of the fourth AfD. Slrubenstein tried to rescue from the third AfD the newer Judaism-and-Christianity-combined format. I've tried to salvage at least two different glossaries: Glossary of Christian terms and Glossary of Jewish terms.

Also, BikiniBomb and I have salvaged the Glossary as it was just before the third AfD: [7].

We were both very impressed with your objectivity and peacekeeping skills -- as well as your skills in sourcing and fact checking.

I've talked to some administrators and there is a way to use the original glossary format (even with the Unambiguous terms column) once we get it settled. In the mean time we'll be quietly working on it until it's something that won't be AfD'd every time someone doesn't like someone else's religion.

We have no intention of wasting time arguing instead of sourcing, so we're only adding people to the editing by invitation, and you are our first choice. We'll get some Christians and Messianics and perhaps more Jews in there so that, when something looks a little weird to a person who actually HAS that perspective, we'll all know to do more researching on the sources to make sure that they really are normative.

The idea is to match conotations to terms, and then terms to conotations. For instance, the Trinity. The word brings up a monotheistic... dimensional... conotation to Christians. It brings up a polytheistic heirarchical conotation to Jews. That's matching conotations to terms.

Next we'll match terms to conotations and give a pointer. For instance, Christians have a term for a polytheistic heirarchical conotation. That word is "Arianism."


Term Christian Jewish
Trinity Monotheistic, Dimensional Polytheistic, Heirarchical (see Shituf)
Shituf Unfamiliar term. (See Arianism) Polytheistic, Heirarchical, (see Trinity)
Arianism Polytheistic, Heirarchical Unfamiliar term (see Shituf)

Although it looks like it will fork too much, it really won't. It ends up in a loop. Editors can check the table and follow it around for terms to search for in their citation hunts. How would a Jewish editor know what equivalent term to look for in a mixed audience? How would a Christian editor know? I think 90% of our arguments come from the fact that the editors just don't know that the terms mean different things to the different groups. Each meaning is valid for that group. If you're aware of it, you can move on. Is "trinity" REALLY polytheistic to Jews? Pretty much, yeah. Is it REALLY monotheistic to Christians? Yes. Editors shouldn't need to waste their time arguing about it once they have a quick translation tool.

The idea is to document it like a regular glossary within each column, and have the only "OR" being the fact that they are arranged in a matrix. Kim Brunner said that this is actually allowable if the cell contents are in compliance.

The current table is too bloated and argumentative. It doesn't need to be as short as my example above, but definitely shorter than it is. Would you care to help us in the sandbox while we get it together for an admin review?Tim (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Activity survey for members of WikiProject Companies

[edit]
placed on talk pages of all participants

I wanted to get a notion of the level of activity of people who are members of WikiProject Companies with respect to monitoring the WikiProject Talk page and participating in discussions of interest and/or responding to requests for input.

Could you please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies/Member information#2008 Quarter 1 (Jan-Mar): Talk page monitoring survey and adding yourself to one or more of the several groupings listed?

Thanks for your assistance.

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business and Economics/graveyard1

[edit]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business and Economics/graveyard1, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business and Economics/graveyard1 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business and Economics/graveyard1 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Foggy Morning (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter

[edit]

This newsletter was automatically delivered by ShepBot because you are a member of the WikiProject. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) on 04:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please help with Shituf

[edit]

I am writing this to you because you have edited articles on Jewish subjects in the past. There is currently an RfC on the talk page of this article [8].

You can view the difference between the contending versions of the article here: [9].

The page is currently protected from editing for 5 days, but the end result of the article depends on what consensus, if any, is reached during those 5 days. Please help with this RfC. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter

[edit]

This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list.


Still There?

[edit]

Egfrank, are you still there? I could use your perspective on an arbitration involving Lisaliel and myself: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alastair_Haines/Evidence -- yes, I know it has someone else's name on it, but there are four people involved.Tim (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Judaism Newsletter

[edit]

This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. As always, please direct all questions, comments, requests, barnstars, offers of help, and angry all-caps anti-semitic rants to my talk page. Thanks, and have a great month. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics

[edit]

Hello, I am trying to bring WP:WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics back to semi-active status. Toward that end, I have moved all members who have not posted to the project page in the past six months to a section, "Inactive members." If you wish to be active in the project, I hope you will move your name back to the section, "Members." You may also remove your name if you are no longer interested in the project. Thanks, and happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Egfrank. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Category:Deloitte

[edit]

Hello, Way back in 2007 you nominated a category for delation that I just recreated. Here is the original discussion. It looks like at the time there were only 4 articles but the content has grown since then. Please take a look and, if you have any concerns, let me know on my talk page. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Content of a business plan for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Content of a business plan 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/Content of a business plan 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brevan Howard Page Update

[edit]

Hi Egfrank,

I see you have an interest in financial based Wikipedia pages and I'm getting in touch as I was wondering if you could help me out with the Brevan Howard article? They're one of the largest hedge funds in the world, but their Wikipedia page has a number of factual inaccuracies in it. The talk page clearly identifies all of the inaccuracies, backed them all up with sources. The user page of the previous editor who was helping out says he is taking a long break from Wiki, and the page hasn't attracted any new editors since October 2013.

It would be very much appreciated if you could lend a hand on this. Jenny.barrett (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Guidance

[edit]

Hello. I'm new to the wiki community and would like to start working on editing the Property Insurance page with the help and collaboration of more experienced contributors from Project Finance Participants. There is a recommendation that the Chartis article be merged with AIG's page. I think the Property Insurance page could be strengthened with parts of AIG's page since it shows how current events and emerging trends effect it's regulation by the government. Hurricane Sandy and updated payouts of the WTC are not on the Property Insurance page either - which to me seem to be relevant. Do you think adding more information would be beneficial to the Property Insurance page? If so would you be interested in collaborating what facts should be included? Any response would be kindly appreciated. Thank you.Lgkkitkat (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Progressive Jewish thinkers

[edit]

Category:Progressive Jewish thinkers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Business articles indiscriminately tagged

[edit]

Hi, I'm writing to you as you appear near the top of editors for Business. If after reading this you don't feel able to help me, please let me know or preferably suggest someone else to go to.

I consult business articles from time to time and note the prevalence of NPOV tags. Typically the reason seems to be that the company's achievements are mentioned; it seems that some editors expect business-related articles to be hatchet-jobs on the companies concerned.

My issue is that the NPOV tag asks that it be not removed till the "dispute" is settled. I have tried to dialogue with the taggers, without success, and it seems that if someone sticks on a NPOV tag and then doesn't respond, it stays there for ever. This doesn't seem to be right, but I can't find anything in Help, which seems to assume that the disputants will amicably agree how to improve the article.

I could say more but will leave it there. Hope to hear from you Chrismorey (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Egfrank/Archive_1&oldid=1142984699"