Mizanthrop (talk | contribs) |
not a forum |
||
Line 152: | Line 152: | ||
Because [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg]] has forgotten to mention it, he has posted at [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Blogs_used_as_references]]. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 21:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC) |
Because [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg]] has forgotten to mention it, he has posted at [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Blogs_used_as_references]]. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 21:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Lubavitch Lies and propaganda == |
|||
When I was a kid who just came from USSR in 1989 I was immediately drawn into the lubavitch cult. They use to tell me a lot of bs like the lubavitch rebbe spoke 40 languages and that he practically invente dthe atomic submarine, that he was smarter than einstein, trhat he is the messiah, that a israel army soldier had a portrait of rebbe in his wallet pocket near the heart and he got shot and the bullet got stopped, etc etc. we even went to see him before my barmitzvah and i still have 2 bucks from him and a pic of him handing the cash to me |
|||
just goes to show how people are naive and are drawn into these cults (religon) and then stay out of habit, superstition (incredible FEAR of ancient silly things like evil eye, etc) and because veryone around them will condemn them if they dissasociate |
|||
its also very true that all these fanatics are very hateful, not much better than islamofascists |
|||
religion must die for humanity to live |
Revision as of 02:24, 22 November 2009
Biography B‑class | |||||||
|
Judaism B‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Chabad article AFD
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upper Midwest Merkos - Lubavitch House and if you can raise the quality of Upper Midwest Merkos - Lubavitch House. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
More hard info, less sugar-coating
I just spent more than an hour copyediting this article, and along the way found a few inconsistences and a lot left out. I prepared a subheading for the whole "Moshiach fervor" that broke out during his lifetime, and opened the floor to a full discussion of how Chabad has split into three camps since his petirah. I agree with what was written above (in 2007) that this article lacks teeth. Yoninah (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Fully agree. It's crazy that the controversies are not referenced in this article. It would seem that this is a clear POV fork. MikeR613 (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Removing gushing praise
I've no doubt that someone will put it back, but I've removed a perfectly outrageous piece of gushing praise of the Rebbe. "The Rebbe was and is considered one of the greatest scholars and holiest men from this, past, and future generations. his holiness pervaded the entire world. it was unmatched." Saying that it is unsourced is a terrible understatement. The Rebbe was one of the most controversial figures in modern Judaism, and the fact that one of his followers thinks he was the greatest doesn't justify its inclusion in Wikipedia. As I said, someone will put it back, but it's wrong to do so. Consider it my protest. MikeR613 (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- It should not be put back, since these words - although true - are clearly overdone from an encyclopedical point of view. But you too should differentiate between the objective greatness of the Rebbe, and the controversities arond him. Debresser (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Rebbe's picture
The image Image:Rebbe.jpg is not a free-use image, and has been removed by a bot from my userbox Template:User ChabadnikLubavitcher. Isn't there a free-use image of the rebbe? Isn't it possible to get one? Debresser (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
New Additions Regarding "Vacantly Senile Stare"
The following has been repeatedly re-added:
- Following the stroke, some of Schneerson's followers interpreted his "vacantly senile stare" as an indication that he had attained enlightenment and was the Messiah.[1]
I think this is rather POV, especially considering the tenor of the link provided. That article was written by a clearly biased anti-observant Jew who obviously has an axe to grind. I see no firm reference basis to support such a claim and see no reason it has a place in this article—at least not without much more to back it up and a bit of rewording. Your thoughts, everyone? RavShimon (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Mark A.R. Kleiman is a Professor of Public Policy at the UCLA School of Public Affairs. To dismiss him as a "biased anti-observant Jew" is quite unfair. He tends to prefer a more low-key style of Judaism, but this doesn't make him "anti-observant," just anti-fundamentalist. This article has far too much hagiography, as indicated by previous complaints, and doesn't adequately address the fringe movement surrounding the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Including this relatively mild criticism is a good step forward. *** Crotalus *** 20:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I believe that samefacts.com is not considered a reliable source, but is considered "self-published" and is thus it is very uncommon to allow it. The exceptions are encapsulated in WP:V as "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I do not think Dr. Kleiman's expertise in public policy makes him an established expert on the Lubavitch movement, or even Hasidic Judaism, so the source should not be accepted. -- Avi (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- This article is primarily about the impact of fundamentalist Judaism on public policy, so it is within Dr. Kleiman's field of expertise. Furthermore, a Washington Post article (reproduced here) indicates that the "messianic belief gained speed — and voice — when Schneerson, who had no children and had not appointed a successor, suffered a stroke in 1992 that left him unable to speak for the rest of his life." So that's some backing for the statement that Schneerson's less reality-based followers started to consider him the Messiah as a result of injuries sustained in the stroke. *** Crotalus *** 20:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree with both statements. Firstly, Kleiman is not considered an expert on Lubavitch or Hasidic Judaism. I highly doubt he is even considered an expert on "fundamentalist Judaism" as one paper doth not an expert make. Nor is Lubavitch considered classic "fundamentalist Judaism" anyway. Thus, Kleiman's self-published works on Lubavitch are not acceptable. An example of an allowed self-published source would be quoting James Davila, a Professor of Early Jewish Studies and Principal of a college who has published ten or so works in the field of Second Temple Judaism and Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, from his blog PaeloJudaica, a blog devoted to "ancient Judaism and its context". That is an example of a recognized expert with multiple quoted works being quoted from a self-published source that is directly related to his or her expertise. Secondly, the fact that there is "some backing" for the statement may or may not be true, but even if it is, that is your synthesis, Crotalus, and thus cannot be used. The most that can be said is "According to Liz Leyden of the Washington Post, the messianic belief in Scheerson gained traction after Schneerson suffered a stroke in 1992 that left him unable to speak for the rest of his life." or something to that effect. I've heard that theory a number of times before, so if we can find another source, we can say "A number of opinions…" or something similar, and not need to identify Ms. Leyden. But I still see no acceptable sources for the "vacantly senile stare" quotation. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- I believe that samefacts.com is not considered a reliable source, but is considered "self-published" and is thus it is very uncommon to allow it. The exceptions are encapsulated in WP:V as "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I do not think Dr. Kleiman's expertise in public policy makes him an established expert on the Lubavitch movement, or even Hasidic Judaism, so the source should not be accepted. -- Avi (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'd be against such wording because 1. many would disagree with that description 2. it is insulting, and as such simply unacceptable here. Debresser (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- "…messianic belief in Scheerson gained traction after Schneerson suffered a stroke in 1992 that left him unable to speak for the rest of his life." is a direct quote, and currently, is attributed to Liz Leyden. It's hard to rephrase direct quotes unless we find an acceptable paraphrase. There still no no acceptable source for the "stare" quote and it is out of the article as of now. -- Avi (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Good riddance. Debresser (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- "…messianic belief in Scheerson gained traction after Schneerson suffered a stroke in 1992 that left him unable to speak for the rest of his life." is a direct quote, and currently, is attributed to Liz Leyden. It's hard to rephrase direct quotes unless we find an acceptable paraphrase. There still no no acceptable source for the "stare" quote and it is out of the article as of now. -- Avi (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'd be against such wording because 1. many would disagree with that description 2. it is insulting, and as such simply unacceptable here. Debresser (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Liz Leyden
I again removed the following paragraph.
Liz Leyden of the The Washington Post wrote that belief in Schneerson as the Messiah "gained speed — and voice" after a stroke rendered the Lubavitcher Rebbe unable to speak.
First of all, let me reply to two of the editors who restored this paragraph.
- The problem is not the reliabilty of the source. All agree, that the Washington Post is a fine source.
- Especially rude was the accusation of "whitewashing" this article. What is black and what is white in this anonymous editor's opinion, I don't know.
The point remains, that (at least) three editors have removed this paragraph again and again, and all for the very same reason: it doesn't fit in this article, in its present form and at the places it was added.
In my opinion, if it were to be rewritten "The belief in Schneerson as the Messiah "gained speed — and voice" after the stroke that rendered the Lubavitcher Rebbe unable to speak." (and the reference, of course), it just might be kept at its first location. At the second location it was even more out of place. Debresser (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have placed it in the original location. I don't really care where in the article it goes, but it needs to be in there somewhere — the Messianic fervor surrounding Schneerson is a major part of the Lubavitcher Rebbe's notability. If others on this page insist on removing this quote, I think the next step would be to open a request for comment to bring more uninvolved editors to this page. *** Crotalus *** 13:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- You were summarily reverted. Let's await the outcome of this discussion. The questions are if this is needed, and how to formulate it.
- Please note that nobody is removing the subject of messianism altogether. The subject is just this specific paragraph. Debresser (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
mentalblog.com as a reliable source
Information in the article is being sourced to mentalblog.com, a blog that was apparently closed in January 2009. How can those inserting the link ensure that it meets the requirements of WP:V? Jayjg (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- As said before, the source is not the blog, but the document explayed there. And it is available, for all to see. And can be archieved also, if you'd care to. Debresser (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- How do you know that this material is accurate? Anyone can create a scanned PDF with anything on it they like. How does the source satisfy WP:V and WP:RS? Jayjg (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- The link is indeed archived, and I have added that to the reference. Debresser (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- What difference if it is archived? So, it was on the blog a couple of years ago. How does that make it reliable? Jayjg (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- You are welcome to use {{Verify source}}, although I recognise the signature, and know this document from other sources as well. Why do you try to discredit this information? Debresser (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- So we can use User:Debresser in the footnote? Please provide reliable sourcing for this. Jayjg (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- The information is true, and sourced by two sources now. The blog just made a pdf of a few pages from the book. While blogs may not be the best sources available, there is not discrediting information here that needs the best of sources. What I do not understand yet is whether you are just wikilawyering, or do you have any reason to doubt the source? Or do you perhaps have a conflict of interest? Debresser (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- The blog is clearly not a WP:RS, and Wikipedia can only source information to reliable sources. What kind of WP:COI could you possibly mean? Jayjg (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I know of enough people who are so convinced of the fact that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is still alive, that they would dismiss the possibility of Schneerson contemplating his possible demise as sacrilegious. Debresser (talk) 03:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- And how could this possibly be relevant to me or WP:COI? Jayjg (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- That is not for me to know. But the possibility exists. After all, to doubt a paper source you need some strong motives. Which remiinds me that if you will not show your rationale for having reasonable doubts about the sources you tagged with {{Verify credibility}}, the tags will be removed. Debresser (talk) 04:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please focus on article content, not "ill-considered accusations of impropriety". When someone adds as sources, a) a blog, b) an archived version of that blog, and c) a name of a book but cannot provide a page number, then there are more than reasonable doubts about the sources. I'll quote directly from WP:V:
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[2] The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article.[3] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.
- Do you understand? The burden of evidence lies with you, not me, and you must provide page numbers when citing books. Now, please abide by policy. Jayjg (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes I do. And I have provided the source. But removing a source because it has no page numbers or quotes, desirable as they may be, is unheard of on Wikipedia. So please stop quoting me things I know by heart. Debresser (talk) 04:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please pay attention that there is a differencebetween what is preferrable and what is reason to remove a source. this seems to be your point of confusion. Debresser (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Did you read the paragraph from WP:V above? I'll quote from it again: "The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article.[4] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books." Jayjg (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please pay attention that there is a differencebetween what is preferrable and what is reason to remove a source. this seems to be your point of confusion. Debresser (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes I do. And I have provided the source. But removing a source because it has no page numbers or quotes, desirable as they may be, is unheard of on Wikipedia. So please stop quoting me things I know by heart. Debresser (talk) 04:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- That is not for me to know. But the possibility exists. After all, to doubt a paper source you need some strong motives. Which remiinds me that if you will not show your rationale for having reasonable doubts about the sources you tagged with {{Verify credibility}}, the tags will be removed. Debresser (talk) 04:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- And how could this possibly be relevant to me or WP:COI? Jayjg (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I know of enough people who are so convinced of the fact that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is still alive, that they would dismiss the possibility of Schneerson contemplating his possible demise as sacrilegious. Debresser (talk) 03:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- The blog is clearly not a WP:RS, and Wikipedia can only source information to reliable sources. What kind of WP:COI could you possibly mean? Jayjg (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- The information is true, and sourced by two sources now. The blog just made a pdf of a few pages from the book. While blogs may not be the best sources available, there is not discrediting information here that needs the best of sources. What I do not understand yet is whether you are just wikilawyering, or do you have any reason to doubt the source? Or do you perhaps have a conflict of interest? Debresser (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- So we can use User:Debresser in the footnote? Please provide reliable sourcing for this. Jayjg (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- The link is indeed archived, and I have added that to the reference. Debresser (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- How do you know that this material is accurate? Anyone can create a scanned PDF with anything on it they like. How does the source satisfy WP:V and WP:RS? Jayjg (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a fundamentally wrongheaded argument. The will itself—a primary sources—is being used as a reference. The use of primary sources is fine for certain sorts of information. WP:V is silent on the manner of republication / collection of primary documents. If the authenticity of the document is questioned, that is a separate question entirely. Bongomatic 05:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- How do we know that PDF on the blog is an accurate representation of Schneerson's will? Jayjg (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- As explained at RS/N, that is not a question of reliability of sources, but authenticity of documents. Bongomatic 06:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that is the position you have advanced at RS/N. So far 7 others commenting there have disagreed with you. Jayjg (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- As explained at RS/N, that is not a question of reliability of sources, but authenticity of documents. Bongomatic 06:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Heshbono shel olam as a reliable source
What makes the book Heshbono shel olam by Binyamin Lipkin a reliable source? Also, regarding this edit, could you please provide a page number and relevant quotation? Jayjg (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't a published book be a reliable source, pray tell me? Debresser (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Getting something published in a book does not guarantee it is a reliable source. Please review WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- You really seem to have some problem here. Since when do we have to provide quotations? Or page numbers, for that matter. Go look it up yourself. Your request is preposterous within accepted Wikipedia norms. Debresser (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please be very explicit in explaining what "problem" I have. Also, since you used the material in your citation, you need to provide the relevant information, including page number. Jayjg (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- As it says on the documentation page of Template:Verify credibility "Add this template only after a good faith attempt to verify the reliability of the source in question." When have you had the time to do this? I think you had better remove those tags. Or explain why you doubt their credibility. Debresser (talk) 03:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't have the book, and it's not online. I have attempted to verify the credibility of the source, by asking the person who entered it as a citation what page number the material was on, and for a relevant quotation. I think you had better provide them, per WP:V. Have you even seen the source yourself? Jayjg (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes I have. I have read the whole book, a few years ago. And remember this will. And for sure I recognise the signature of the LUbavitcher Rebbe. And your demand still is preposterous and outside of accepted Wikipedia norms. Debresser (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Memories of books read "a few years ago" by anonymous Wikipedia editors aren't reliable sources, and page numbers are a requirement for WP:V on books. Your comments are preposterous and outside of accepted Wikipedia norms. Provide the page number or the source goes. Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- The source is the book, not my memory. And although it says a page "should be" provided, nowhere does it say that the lack of a page turns the source into unreliable, or warrant removal. Why do you keep on wikilawyering? Debresser (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- The source you have provided is your memory, not the book, which you do not have and haven't seen in years. I'll quote directly from WP:V:
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[5] The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article.[6] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.
- Do you understand? The burden of evidence lies with you, not me, and you must provide page numbers when citing books, and the only person "wikilaywering" here is you. Now, please abide by policy. Start by explaining how the book Heshbono shel olam by Binyamin Lipkin satisfied WP:V. Jayjg (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Is there any reason you are saying the same thing twice? Debresser (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- The comments aren't identical. Now, please abide by policy. Start by explaining how the book Heshbono shel olam by Binyamin Lipkin satisfies WP:V. Jayjg (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Is there any reason you are saying the same thing twice? Debresser (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- The source is the book, not my memory. And although it says a page "should be" provided, nowhere does it say that the lack of a page turns the source into unreliable, or warrant removal. Why do you keep on wikilawyering? Debresser (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Memories of books read "a few years ago" by anonymous Wikipedia editors aren't reliable sources, and page numbers are a requirement for WP:V on books. Your comments are preposterous and outside of accepted Wikipedia norms. Provide the page number or the source goes. Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes I have. I have read the whole book, a few years ago. And remember this will. And for sure I recognise the signature of the LUbavitcher Rebbe. And your demand still is preposterous and outside of accepted Wikipedia norms. Debresser (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't have the book, and it's not online. I have attempted to verify the credibility of the source, by asking the person who entered it as a citation what page number the material was on, and for a relevant quotation. I think you had better provide them, per WP:V. Have you even seen the source yourself? Jayjg (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- BTW, just to make sure nobody can accuse me of having a conflict of interest. I personally hold points of view which are in some cases oposite to those brought forth by Lipkin. I just positively can't stand it when people try to censor information. Debresser (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I also "positively can't stand it when people try to censor information"; that's why I've quoted the reliable source (Ehrlich) more fully. Jayjg (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I have mentioned our disagreement as to the reliability of these sources on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson. I asked for input here. Just now I saw that you had posted there as well, without informing me. Debresser (talk) 04:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I have also added the source mentioned on the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.
Know what, give me two days to find the pagenumber in Lipkin's book, ok? Debresser (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- No need, since you've given no indication as to why Lipkin's book would be a WP:RS, and an actual WP:RS has been found. I've used that instead. Jayjg (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted your removal of the sources, pending the outcome of this discussion and the one at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#mentalblog.com. I find your behavior unbefitting. Please wait untill these discussions are closed. Debresser (talk) 04:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- You've also removed all the information I've added from Erlich's book. I suggest you revert yourself. Jayjg (talk) 04:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- The book is a reliable source because the author has studied the subject of the last years of the Lubavitcher Rebbe extensively and brings numerous external sources. I want to point out that the website only brings a pfd copy from a few pages of the book, which are themselves only a copy of the original documents. So we are not questioning any conclusions drawn by the author of either website or book. So ultimately, unless we want to accuse people of falisification, there is no sources issue here. Debresser (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Where can we find out more information about Lipkin and his book? Jayjg (talk) 04:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. The PDF stands on its own. Who cares where it's hosted? mentalblog is not the source, the will itself is the source. The signature is clearly visible, and instantly recognisable to anyone familiar with it. If you're claiming that this will was somehow forged, then the burden is on you to give some reason why that is at all likely. Simply objecting to the web site that hosts it is not enough.
Also, what makes Ehrlich's book more reliable than Lipkin's? Erlich is just some shnook who got a book published, just like Lipkin; unlike Lipkin he was never a Lubav, wasn't there during the events in question, and his entire "expertise" consists of having hung around Gershon Jacobson for a few months picking his brain. Getting an academic publisher makes it "reliable"?! Who at the publisher was competent to fact-check it? -- Zsero (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wait, are you talking about this Avrum Ehrlich? Full professor of Judaic studies at the Centre of Judaic and Inter-Religious Studies at Shandong University, and honorary Professor in the Dept. of Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish studies, in the School of Languages and Cultures, Faculty of Arts, at Sydney University, Australia? The one who has published two books on the Lubavitch movement, and was recently Editor-In-Chief of the Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora? The guy who is already cited 10 times in this article? Jayjg (talk) 05:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that Avrum Ehrlich. What makes him more reliable a source on this subject than Lipkin? A job at Shandong University?! What sort of credential is that? And yet, as you say, he is cited repeatedly in this article as some sort of authority. So where do you get off challenging Lipkin as a source? In any case, even if we had no Lipkin, the will itself stands on its own. You have not yet given any reason to doubt its authenticity, any reason for us to believe that some master forger fabricated it, signature and all. -- Zsero (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please review WP:SPS, and then explain again why the blog or Lipkin satisfy WP:V. Jayjg (talk) 05:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- The blog is not the source. You keep evading that point. The will is the source; the blog is simply a convenient site where one can see an image of it. If there was no online image of the will at all, it would remain a valid source. As for Lipkin and SPS, I'm not impressed; Ehrlich's book may be published by a third party, but so what? Do you imagine that the publisher checked his facts? How would it do that? What conceivable knowledge of the subject could the publisher have, beyond just relying on Ehrlich? There is no such thing as peer review on something like this. That makes SPS irrelevant in this field. -- Zsero (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Of course the blog is the source. Are there any other sources with this same text? As for Ehrlich, he more than complies with the requirements for WP:V and WP:RS, which is what Wikipedia uses to make sourcing decisions, and WP:SPS is never "irrelevant". Jayjg (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- How long are you going to keep evading the fact that the blog is not the source, the will is the source. The blog is simply a place where people can look it up. The will would be exactly as good a source if it weren't hosted anywhere at all, and one had to go to the office of public records or somewhere to look it up. Giving a link to the PDF scan makes it more convenient for the reader; challenging it on the grounds that it's a blog by a mentally unstable person is nothing but wikilawyering and gamesmanship.
- And yes, SPS is irrelevant and useless. I am not impressed by your arguments from authority; this is not a sport, in which the point is to abide by arbitrary rules. Every rule, guideline, and even policy is only as good as its premise; if the premise makes no sense in some particular context, then it's stupid to follow it. The whole point of guidelines like the ones you're citing is that sources that fit the preferred description are fact-checked, peer-reviewed, and are therefore more likely to be true. Despite what WP:V says, the goal here is truth; the point of this whole enterprise is to build a better encyclopaedia, and an encyclopaedia that tells the truth is obviously better than one that tells lies. When "reliable sources" are in fact no more reliable than "unreliable" ones, because they are not fact-checked or reviewed by people who know anything about the subject, then they're no better on WP than they are in real life. I know who Ehrlich is and what his "research" consisted of, and that is why I regard him as no more reliable than anyone else, and the fact that KTAV published his book, or that some university in China gave him a professorship, doesn't change anything. -- Zsero (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Claiming that the blog is not the source does not make it so. In fact, the blog is the only source provided for the text of the will. Please review the many comments from Fifelfoo, Itsmejudith, Slp1, Squidfrychef, Dlabtot, Nathan, and me at Wikipedia:RS/N#mentalblog.com as to why it's not a reliable source. As for WP:V, that's what Wikipedia relies on, despite personal feelings otherwise. Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Of course the blog is the source. Are there any other sources with this same text? As for Ehrlich, he more than complies with the requirements for WP:V and WP:RS, which is what Wikipedia uses to make sourcing decisions, and WP:SPS is never "irrelevant". Jayjg (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- The blog is not the source. You keep evading that point. The will is the source; the blog is simply a convenient site where one can see an image of it. If there was no online image of the will at all, it would remain a valid source. As for Lipkin and SPS, I'm not impressed; Ehrlich's book may be published by a third party, but so what? Do you imagine that the publisher checked his facts? How would it do that? What conceivable knowledge of the subject could the publisher have, beyond just relying on Ehrlich? There is no such thing as peer review on something like this. That makes SPS irrelevant in this field. -- Zsero (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please review WP:SPS, and then explain again why the blog or Lipkin satisfy WP:V. Jayjg (talk) 05:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that Avrum Ehrlich. What makes him more reliable a source on this subject than Lipkin? A job at Shandong University?! What sort of credential is that? And yet, as you say, he is cited repeatedly in this article as some sort of authority. So where do you get off challenging Lipkin as a source? In any case, even if we had no Lipkin, the will itself stands on its own. You have not yet given any reason to doubt its authenticity, any reason for us to believe that some master forger fabricated it, signature and all. -- Zsero (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I restored the text by Jayjg completely. Then I added the blog as a second source (which seems reasonable to me, even though it is "only" a blog, because it says precisely the same things). Then I added the sentence "He made up two wills" and added a link to the pdf file and the book as places where these document can be found online or inprint, but not as sources of information. I hope this is satifactory for all involved. Debresser (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- For some information about Binyamin Lipkin. I saw an article written with him. It has a picture and calls him the editor of the weekly haredi journal "Bakehila". Debresser (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- And that makes him a reliable source? Jayjg (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why not? It certainly makes him more likely than Ehrlich to know what he's talking about. -- Zsero (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Explain how so, in terms of WP:RS and WP:V. Please make specific references to the relevant parts of WP:V, quoting the sections that support this contention. Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I never said anything about his reliabiliy as a source as understood in Wikipedia. You asked who the guy is, so I told you what I could find about him. Have you read his book? If you had, you would have know that it is a serious book, involving a lot of research. More about facts, than about interpretations. Anyway, excuse me, but what the hell do you mean with "Explain how so, in terms of WP:RS and WP:V. Please make specific references to the relevant parts of WP:V, quoting the sections that support this contention." If we were to show this to your English teacher, you no doubt would be severely scolded. Could you start speaking normally, please? Debresser (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I was responding to Zsero, not to you. All claims about the reliability of sources must be stated in terms of Wikipedia's policies. The relevant ones are WP:V and WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter who you were responding to. This is a public talkpage. And you have not rephrased your question in normal English. I am afraid nobody here (and elsewhere, because I asked you the same thing on the noticeboard) understands what your problem is, and what it is you want to hear. Debresser (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hiya, popping in as an uninvolved admin. I personally have no preference on how this article is written, but perhaps I can assist with how the dispute is being handled? As a start, might I suggest that everyone please focus on discussing just the content of the article, and not other contributors? For example, try to write posts without using the words "you" and "your". Simply phrasing things in the third person, can often have a remarkable effect at de-escalating disputes. :) There is also a great deal of useful information at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Elonka 23:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter who you were responding to. This is a public talkpage. And you have not rephrased your question in normal English. I am afraid nobody here (and elsewhere, because I asked you the same thing on the noticeboard) understands what your problem is, and what it is you want to hear. Debresser (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I was responding to Zsero, not to you. All claims about the reliability of sources must be stated in terms of Wikipedia's policies. The relevant ones are WP:V and WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I never said anything about his reliabiliy as a source as understood in Wikipedia. You asked who the guy is, so I told you what I could find about him. Have you read his book? If you had, you would have know that it is a serious book, involving a lot of research. More about facts, than about interpretations. Anyway, excuse me, but what the hell do you mean with "Explain how so, in terms of WP:RS and WP:V. Please make specific references to the relevant parts of WP:V, quoting the sections that support this contention." If we were to show this to your English teacher, you no doubt would be severely scolded. Could you start speaking normally, please? Debresser (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Explain how so, in terms of WP:RS and WP:V. Please make specific references to the relevant parts of WP:V, quoting the sections that support this contention. Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why not? It certainly makes him more likely than Ehrlich to know what he's talking about. -- Zsero (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- And that makes him a reliable source? Jayjg (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Those on the WP:RS/N noticeboard have no trouble understanding the concerns regarding Lipkin's work. See, for example, Fifelfoo's comment 1, Fifelfoo's comment 2, Itsmejudiths' comment, and Nathan's comment. WP:SOURCES says "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Which of these is Lipkin's book? Jayjg (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)I suspect it is neither of these. So it is not among "the most reliable sources". So it will be "just a reliable source". Debresser (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- In what way does it qualify as a "reliable source"? By "reliable source", I mean a source that conforms with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding reliable sources. For example, what we know about the author (Lipkin) is that at one time he was apparently the editor of a weekly haredi newspaper. Is there anything we know about the publisher of his book? Jayjg (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Jayjg, since you're adamant on not using blogs and self published material on WP, I assume you would also have no problem deleting other material of that sort from WP, like content from Gil Student [1]. Right? Shlomke (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Of what relevance is this question to this article and me? Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Without agreeing with the indiscriminate removal of all such sources, I would like to point out that in certain cases that is precisely what needs to be done. And eh, Shlomke, I do hope you are not trying to have somebody else make a pointy edit for you with this link. :) Debresser (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with SZero. I've read much of Lipkin's book, and it's clearly well-researched. Just because he doesn't have lots of professorships next to his name, that doesn't mean it should be disqualified. Conversely, may I point out, we've seen plenty of idiotic and ignorant information on this topic coming forth from people with lots of titles. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia doesn't decide whether or not sources are reliable based on whether or not Wikipedia editors vouch for them. It instead relies on the requirements of its verifiability policy and related reliable sources guideline. Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with SZero. I've read much of Lipkin's book, and it's clearly well-researched. Just because he doesn't have lots of professorships next to his name, that doesn't mean it should be disqualified. Conversely, may I point out, we've seen plenty of idiotic and ignorant information on this topic coming forth from people with lots of titles. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Jayjg, since you're adamant on not using blogs and self published material on WP, I assume you would also have no problem deleting other material of that sort from WP, like content from Gil Student [1]. Right? Shlomke (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:ANI
Because Jayjg has forgotten to mention it, he has posted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Blogs_used_as_references. Debresser (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- ^ Kleiman, Mark A.R. "Prejudice regained".
- ^ When content in Wikipedia requires direct substantiation, the established convention is to provide an inline citation to the supporting references. The rationale is that this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references. Alternative conventions exist, and are acceptable if they provide clear and precise attribution for the article's assertions, but inline citations are considered 'best practice' under this rationale. For more details, please consult Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to cite sources.
- ^ When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference.
- ^ When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference.
- ^ When content in Wikipedia requires direct substantiation, the established convention is to provide an inline citation to the supporting references. The rationale is that this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references. Alternative conventions exist, and are acceptable if they provide clear and precise attribution for the article's assertions, but inline citations are considered 'best practice' under this rationale. For more details, please consult Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to cite sources.
- ^ When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference.