User talk:Rabroy

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Rabroy, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 18:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Yeshiva & Rabbinical School and Classic Judaism

Thank you for working on these articles. As one who has been writing for many years for Wikipedia, I want to warn you of some pitfalls you will want to avoid (I posted this at User:MikaelSwayze's talk page yesterday):

Never use another Wikipedia article as a source. Wikipedians do not consider the Wikipedia to be a reliable source.
I see that you are affiliated with the Canadian Yeshiva and Rabbinical School. In general, editing an article about a subject with which you are personally directly involved is considered a conflict of interest, and is generally forbidden. In this case, I don't think anyone will complain. On the other hand, be careful about including hype. For example, the article presents the school as being around since 2009, while you and I know that it still has no students. You might want to rewrite the lead to make that clearer.
The article on Classic Judaism is more problematic, and has already raised some eyebrows here. Currently, the article is an apologia, long on excuses and short on facts. Are there any Jewish congregations that identify themselves as Classic Jewish? How many congregations and how many people? Are there any sources that discuss this as a Jewish religious movement? I couldn't find any. Currently, the article has one source, which never mentions Classic Judaism. Surely Sperber and Tanenbaum have published articles that you can quote from? The article is currently at risk; you need to give it some meat if you don't want it deleted.

Welcome to the Wikipedia. These criticisms are offered in the spirit of friendship - your articles are better than my first ones were. Hope to see you around - there's still plenty to write about. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am new to this and appreciate your comments. I am away from home for the next two weeks with minimal access online. On my return, I will try to fulfill all the above suggestions that you have made.

Re Classic Judaism article. I have read all the comments and will try to meet the issues as soon as I get back. Some significant changes have already been made. Individuals have been listed as inpiration rather than what previously seemed to imply that they somehow belonged. The specifics will all be reliably footnoted. The point about Americanism was removed. It was interesting but not at all pertinent. Also, trying hard for NPOV. Etc. Any help you can give would be appreciated.

I suppose you have been following the deletion discussion. Many of the participants in that discussion who have voted keep are anonymous users who give the impression of being associated with the authors of the article. This will not have any effect on the outcome of the discussion, and, on the contrary, ticks off a lot of the more established editors. It is a tactical error.

Under the circumstances, I would suggest that you and MikaelSwayze, as authors of the article, chime in, acknowledge the inappropriateness of the article for the Wikipedia, and agree to its deletion. It will save your reputations as Wikipedians from tarnish.

I have copied the contents of the article to User:Rabroy/Classic Judaism. This will preserve it for future use, when the deletion discussion reaches its inevitable conclusion. Then, you will be able to reuse the material in other articles, or perhaps recreate it when you have more encyclopedic content (for example, when there are synagogues which declare themselves affiliated with the Classic Jewish movement, and there are articles published which use the term and discuss this as a religious movement).

Do not be discouraged. Establish yourselves as editors by working on other articles (the article on Rav Papa, could use some amplification, for example). This will give you a better idea of what other editors expect from a Wikipedia article, and will establish you as a member of the clan. By then, perhaps, Classic Judaism will be sweeping the Conservative and Orthodox congregations of the world, and you will be able to recreate the article. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion

In case you did not know this, the deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic Judaism. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 05:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have appreciated all along the tone of your comments, and am as of tonight back in Toronto. I have read all the comments and am going to try to make a thorough rewrite within the next few days. I hope it will be able to speak for itself.

I did a little work tonight, especially on the pov. Classic Judaism is meant to be a useful, descriptive term, not a movement in competition with Orthodoxy or Conservative Judaism. So no, it is not trying to amass congregations or anything like that. I think that is starting to come across.

That seemed to be a major issue for those who commented, and I can understand it. Any specific suggestions you can make to assist me in getting this right would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

(My next effort, over the next few days, will be to get the rest of the footnotes in.)

Howdy Rabroy! I see that you are putting in alot of effort towards improving the content of the Classic Judaism article. Just so you should be aware, the deletion discussion does not judge the quality of the article as much as it judges whether or not the article meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. The big problem as I see it is that there are no published sources reporting on "Classic Judaism". Please read WP:RS for a definition of a reliable source. As such the article subject seems to be a neologism. Please read WP:neologism for the problem with this. If you want to save this article from deletion you need to find reliable, published, secondary sources.
I'm thrilled to have knowledgeable contributors here on WP improving coverage of Jewish issues and personally I think that what you are terming Classic Judaism has a lot to offer. I just don't want your effort to go to waste if the article is deleted. Kol tuv, Joe407 (talk) 08:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Joe Tonight, I added a number of such "secondary source" references, especially in the first paragraph, but also throughout. If you think it is "getting there," then I will go on to inserting the rest of the footnotes over the next few days. As you know, this is my neophyte endeavour, and I very much appreciate your guidance.

RabRoy - You're not getting it. What you have is a position paper not an encyclopedia article. The sources you cite need to use the term "Classic Judaism" in that fashion you are promoting it's use in your article. What you are doing is a a violation of WP:SYNTH in which you are taking multiple sources and creating a new statement. this is great for a position paper but not for an encyclopedia. Joe407 (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, that was harsh--and deflating. I've read more in the various Wikipedia guidance articles. Please understand, I am not trying to wage what seems to be called a Wiki War. Rather, I want to learn from you who have more experience how to get this right. So maybe I needed the wakeup. I think, because it seemed so obvious to me from hundreds of sources read over the last fifty years, I left out some necessary steps for an encyclopedia article. So I have redrafted the first paragraph once again. At this point, I would appreciate any specific suggestions anyone has for the first paragraph. I know it is a kind of a header (stub?) and, once it is right, hopefully I can then remake the rest of the entry to suit. Thank you in advance to everyone for any help you can provide. Rabroy (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rabroy, Joe407's comments may seem to you harsh, but, alas, what he says is true. Unless you can bring sources that use the term "Classic Judaism" in the sense that you are using it, your article will be considered original research and synthetic. At this point, its deletion seems inevitable.

I have copied the updated version to User:Rabroy/Classic Judaism so your work will not be lost.

One possibility is for you to incorporate some of this material into existing articles on Judaism, such as Jewish religious movements, especially the section on Jewish religious movements#Emergence of trans- and post-denominational Judaism. It would be a shame for this excellent scholarship to go to waste. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was willing to learn, but if deletion is "inevitable," then it seems as if the decision has already been made, and nothing I can do will help. To be honest, I feel very let down. Once I included the synonym "classic/classical," I thought I would still have much to learn but that the rest would fall into place. I knew I had a long way to go, but I enjoy that. I can find scores of credible footnotes--all expounding the concept exactly as presented. And, while Wikipedia is rightfully not a source, I found 21 articles using "classical Judaism," all unfootnoted, which makes me think that people regard the usage as completely known. I certainly do. Moreover, there are 1467 additional usages on Wikipedia referring to classic Jewish thought, etc, which, except for those that refer to classical Hebrew, are also almost all synonyms. Furthermore, my bookshelves are full of the terminology, with and without exposition, and I had already posted several citations with more to come.

Okay, it was a bad experience. I do not have a clue what you mean by incorporating the material into other articles that are written in totally different ways. To my surprise, when I type in "Classical Judaism," Wikipedia has so many references that it itself asks that an article be created--exactly what I was endeavouring to do. Unless there is a shred of a chance of success, and there is somebody willing to help me through the neophyte stage, I fold. Shalom, Rabroy (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RabRoy, I (and many others) are happy to help you in anyway we can. (This does not mean that we will agree with you all the time. As an educator I'm sure you know it don't work that way.) You know a great deal and it would be a wonderful contribution to the community if you stay and help out. User:Ravpapa used the term inevitable due to his knowledge of how deletion policies are played out. There is no cabal out to get you or your article. Please let us know if we can help. Joe407 (talk) 03:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Joe407. I feel burned and am more than a little hesitant to get started again. What would you think of the following proposal? Delete the Classic Judaism article. Then, using the work page that User:Ravpapa set up for me, I would try to make a total rewrite. "Classic Judaism" and "Classical Judaism" would be synomyms with a planned redirect from Classical Judaism to Classic Judaism. "Classic/Classical Judaism" and "Classic/Classical Jewish thought" are also used interchangeably so Classic Jewish thought and Classical Jewish thought would also be synonyms with planned redirects. While all of these are being used all over the place, none of them currently exist as articles. Still on my work page, I would try to produce an NPOV article with full scholarly notes that takes into consideration all the comments that have already been made. (They have been immensely reasonable and insightful, and their mandates should prove to be achievable.) As I am working, you guys, if you are willing, can critique the new article where I slip up. Then, if we get agreement, we can repost it for the world to comment on. Doing this would take considerable time, and I would need to know that deletion of the new article is not inevitable. Rabroy (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism talk page

RabRoy, You might want to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Classic_Judaism. We really are not trying to push you away or take down your article. We do want to have a productive discussion that will produce a clear, reliable, encyclopedic coverage of Judaism both historically and today. Welcome back. B'Ahava, Joe407 (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Classic Judaism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Classic Judaism 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/Classic Judaism (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. IZAK (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Classic Judaism

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Classic Judaism, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about Canadian Yeshiva & Rabbinical School

Hi Rabroy: Please join in and share your views at the discussion about the Canadian Yeshiva & Rabbinical School at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Canadian Yeshiva & Rabbinical School. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]