The administrator helping me on my talk page suggested I seek comments from others on this topic.
my article is being trashed by 3 users with no knowledge or interest in the Holocaust. First they tried to delete it entirely and were outvoted five to three. Now they have repeatedly gutted it place, undoing a longer, accurate and well footnoted article and putting an inaccurate two paragraph thing in its place.
I originally posted an article on a tragic, but non-controversial topic in Holocaust studies: the New York Times policy during the period of the Second World War to minimize reports of the Holocaust. I relied on two resources: the New York Time’s apology in 2001, and the work of Dr. Laurel Leff.
The issue is not controversial among knowledgable people because the Times itself acknowledged its guilt fully and publicly in its 150th anniversary issue on November 14, 2001, 56 years after the end of the war. Under the title, “Turning Away from the Holocaust”, retired executive editor Max Frankel wrote that the Times knew the accuracy of the reports on Hitler’s persecution of the Jews and the Final Solution, but that from the beginning to the end, chose never to make it a lead story, or the exclusive topic of an editorial. “… to this day the failure .. to fasten upon Hitler's mad atrocities stirs the conscience of succeeding generations of reporters and editors.”
In listing the details of the Time’s policy to ‘bury’ the Holocaust, Frankel cited one outside resource:
“No article about the Jews' plight ever qualified as The Times's leading story of the day, or as a major event of a week or year. The ordinary reader of its pages could hardly be blamed for failing to comprehend the enormity of the Nazis' crime. Laurel Leff...has been the most diligent independent student of The Times's Holocaust coverage and deftly summarized her findings last year in The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics.”
Three people who originally tried to delete the entire article and are now ruining it have never made any contributions to an article on the holocaust or world war II, and are not really interested. they came over from the new york times page, where they try to prevent criticism of the Times. when they were voted down re deleting the New York Times and the Holocaust in its entirely, they have proceeded to gut it in place. i don't have any allies on this page. The administrator helping me on my talk page suggested I go to a wikiproject page to say i would welcome comments from others.Cimicifugia (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)cimicifugia[reply]
Personal attacks aside, I would invite any experienced editor to view the earlier version of this article and judge it for what it was, a complete mess. It was simply a long, rambling partisan rant that relied almost entirely on the opinion of one man and stating that opinion as fact. Worse, it was simply poorly written. Extremely bad articles tend not to stay that way for long on Wikipedia, like it or not.
Also, you really seem to have some ownership issues. You repeatedly refer to it as "your" article and imply that you have more of a right to edit the article because you created it and because you edit other articles on the subject of the Holocaust. I urge you to read WP:OWN to see why this is not the case. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad you ended your edit (above) with a personal attack on a user who is editing in good faith. Anyone who wants to see the disputed version of the article can read it here[1]. Personally I think it needs additional sources for balance, but it is much better that the current stub that has replaced it. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That previous version had perhaps a little too many examples. Something in between that version and the present one would be optimal, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Debresser, I think you are quite right about that. But there are some editors involved who seem rather hostile to the subject, who first proded it, and when that failed reduced it to a stub. That makes constructive editing rather difficult. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Open a discussion on the article's talk page, draw attention from here, and get consensus for a version that should be something in between that previous version and the present one. Add information step by step, and see if it is challenged. And if it is, force them to discuss it, and apply consensus. I am not really interested in the subject, nor am I available, but surely a few editors from here will be willing to lend their opinions for let's say a period of a week. Debresser (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
problems with hostile editors re Holocaust topic need help
Hi fellow Judaism project editors. I am fairly new to wiki and need some advice on dealing with hostile editors. Have any of you had experience with these three - their behavior is a form of Holocaust denial and i am finding being forced by wiki rules to seek consensus with them impossible and abusive. What is the most effective way to present my problem to get them banned from the article entirely? I wrote up the description below. should i post this on the an/i page? is that the right place to go? Thanks for advice and help.
We are having severe problems at the New York Times and the Holocaust article. The topic is a small but for Americans, significant, part of the history of the Holocaust. Like history of the Holocaust in general it is well documented, incontrovertible and not controversial among decent people. It is very well known in the field of Holocaust studies, but unknown by the general public. The information in the article is based on references from the New York Time’s 100th anniversary apology and especially their full-page, 150th anniversary apology for purposefully burying news of the Holocaust on its inside pages (see [2]; the founding director of the U.S. Holocaust Museum; the founding director of Harvard’s Shorenstein Center of Journalism; the founding director of the Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies; the top academic who has written in detail on the subject, Laurel Leff and other academics. The Time’s itself called its policy to not report adequately on the Holocaust ‘tragic’ and “the century’s bitterest journalistic failure”, that it had significant impact on the failure of the U.S. to rescue Jews from Hitler, and said generations of journalists have learned from it not to underreport genocide.
Unfortunately, this topic has attracted the attention of three malicious editors who are very experienced in all the procedures of Wikipedia: bali ulimate, Phgustaf and loonymonkey. They claim the topic is an original POV by the wiki editor who first introduced it; that it is ‘trivial’; that it is fringe; that the Times apology is ‘just one man’s opinion’; that we can’t use quotes from the founding director of the U.S. Holocaust Museum; the founding director of Harvard’s Shorenstein Center of Journalism; the founding director of the Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies because they all come from one source (the script for a History Chanel program written by the Newseum called “The Holocaust: the Untold Story”, available in its entirely on the web here [3]); that the New York Times ‘may have dropped the ball a little’ but that the topic is worth no more than a couple of sentences on the New York Times page.
These same wikipedians previously blocked a paragraph on the subject on the New York Times page, where the topic is currently reduced to a few sentences buried in the section ‘criticism of the Times’ next to a paragraph on a minor editor who plagiarized. In short, wiki is being manipulated by these three hostile wikipedians to recreate in a microcosm the burying of information on the Holocaust.
When the original version of this article was posted it needed more work. Instead of collaborating to improve it, these three hostile wikipedians first tried to have the topic deleted entirely. As part of that discussion they suggested at most it should be a stub. When they were voted down on deletion they proceeded to delete the entire article anyway and substitute a polemical and inaccurate stub, which is what appears on wiki now. They have been belligerent, name calling and working together to drive constructive editors off the page and to impose complete control. They have not once replied to constructive attempts to reach consensus. Repeatedly calling for balance, they have not once produced a reference to provide such ‘balance.’ (There are no opposing references they can produce. There is complete consensus on the basic facts of this topic, just as there is consensus that the Holocaust happened.) They have now changed their tactic to a proposal to merge the article back into the New York Times page, which is a transparent ploy to delete it by another name. The page is frozen and there is no possibility of working on an improved version as long as these three wikipedians are playing the role of spoiler.
I am fairly new to wiki. I am frankly having trouble following the gazillion rules, each with subsets and complex definitions. Baliultimate and his cohorts are very well versed and use wiki rules like insults and weapons to hurl at their opponents. There is something very abusive to me and other sincere editors in the way the wiki consensus process is playing out on this page. It is not fair to us to be asked to collaborate with what are functionally Holocaust deniers. They are denying the validity and facts of this small chapter of Holocaust history, not working sincerely to produce a good article. I respectfully request they be permanently banned from editing this article.Cimicifugia (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)cimicifugia[reply]
Dating the Book of Daniel
According to modern scholars, the Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC. I would argue that this is a relevant information to put in the introduction of the article, but another user thinks otherwise. The "third opinion" agreed with my position, but the other user still opposes to this settlement.
I agree with Malik Shabazz, but in addition think that by default articles should follow modern Hebrew pronunciation, unless directly related to subjects where the Ashkenazi pronunciation is obviously relevant. Debresser (talk) 11:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not every bio of a Jew should, necessarily, be part of WPJudaism. This is an old debate. Should every bio of a Christian person be part of WPChristianity? No. -shirulashem(talk)20:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because the simple fact of a persons belief or ethnicity doesn't mean anything he does is related to that. I wonder how this isn't obvious. Debresser (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser — a person isn't a sum of unrelated parts. It is possible that a person could be a bundle of contradictions but we should leave that to the reader to decide. You are talking about "beliefs," but approximately fifty-percent of Jews are nonobservant. It seems unlikely that a nonobservant Jew is going to be espousing "beliefs." And what you are saying sounds like the end result could be that the (approximately) 50% of Jews who are nonobservant would, by dint of their nonobservance, be ruled out of possible inclusion in the WikiProject Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 03:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair question. I guess my argument was similar to WP:OTHERCRAP. Let me try again. I think that inclusion in WP:Judaism should be similar to inclusion in the categories related to Judaism. I fully agree with WP:BLPCAT where it states, "Categories regarding religious beliefs ... should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief ... in question; and the subject's beliefs ... are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." Albeit that's applicable to categorization, I think it should apply here too. -shirulashem(talk)21:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser — the "said guideline" refers to "beliefs." What of nonobservant Jews? Are only observant Jews eligible for inclusion in "Wikiproject Judaism?" Consider the following: if a nonobservant Jew states explicitly that he is Jewish, wouldn't he or she be eligible for inclusion in "Wikiproject Judaism?" The only part of that "guideline" applicable to the question raised by Jayjg is the stipulation that the "subject's beliefs" be a part of their notability. Also, as Shirulashem points out, those are guidelines for placement in "Categories." It is not clear that those guidelines apply to "projects" such as the WikiProject Judaism. I think if an individual has an article on them and if they are Jewish, they should be included in the "Wikiproject Judaism." Bus stop (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please link to that so I can see it in its context? Where are you finding the "similar guideline for ethnicity, sexual orientation" that you are referring to? Bus stop (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about placement in categories. The question concerns the placement into Wikiproject Judaism. If someone is a Jew, and they have an article on Wikipedia, then I think an argument can be made that they should be included in Wikiproject Judaism. My reasoning would be that the person is the embodiment of Judaism. If they are a nonobservant Jews, as 50% of all Jewish people are, approximately, then obviously they cannot be noted for their "beliefs." Nevertheless, they are Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I misspoke. It wouldn't be correct to say that a person who claims to be an atheist is the embodiment of Judaism. But, if the person is a Jew, then it is axiomatic that he embodies Judaism. I don't know whether Andy Bloch is or is not Jewish. The question is whether he is Jewish or not. But if we determine that he is Jewish, it would not matter if he were additionally an atheist. If he is Jewish I think he should be included in the WikiProject Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the argument in favor or against inclusion in a WikiProject should be even more stringent than for inclusion in a category, so I find that guideline very relevant in outlining the intent of Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't the guideline relevant to this issue (it is the guideline relevant to placement in categories), so you are expressing your opinion. Bus stop (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An example: Woody Allen seems fine in this WikiProject as his work touches on Jewish identity. He's not included just because he's Jewish.WikiProject Atheism has claimed him too and it seems his statements of agnosticism or atheism have been white-washed out of the article, but hey, that's another issue. Fences&Windows11:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder about Sandy Koufax. In an earlier generation, his refusal to pitch on Yom Kippur was considered quite notable.Mzk1 (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, concerning Sandy Koufax. Except that notable or not should not matter. All that should matter is that he is Jewish. The role that Jewishness plays in his life is not for us to evaluate. Why would we decide in advance that all nonobservant Jews are ineligible for inclusion in WikiProject Judaism? That is in essence what we are doing if we accept, as some are suggesting above, that a person has to be notable for their Jewishness in order to be considered for inclusion in WikiProject Judaism. Can you give me an example of a nonobservant Jew who is notable for their Jewishness? While a nonobservant Jew may not be notable for their Jewishness, they are every bit as Jewish as an observant Jew. Judaism is a religion that has always posited that failure to be religiously observant does not in any way detract from one's status as a Jew. The distinction that some editors above are articulating is not only meaningless, it is also misleading. Bus stop (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria for inclusion should have nothing to do with being involved with the religion. For Wikipedia purposes we want to know if the person is Jewish. If Sandy Koufax did not pitch on Yom Kipper — he was involved with the religion. If he simply affirmed that he was Jewish, he would be involved with the religion. Were people not involved with the religion they would probably not identify themselves as Jews. For Wikipedia purposes a statement from an individual to the effect that he or she is Jewish should suffice. The hurdles you are suggesting, in the form of rabbinical ordination for instance — are arbitrary. For a nonobservant Jew — simply saying one is Jewish should satisfy Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion in WikiProject Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just looking at the article King David and it seems to me that certain articles need to have parallel versions. If I wanted to have an article that described Dovid Hamelech with all the Jewish sources, it would probably not work in the general article as the Christians and Muslims wouldn't think it appropriate. And all those pictures of statues of Dovid Hamelech are just obscene. This is a general problem and I'm just using this article as an example because I wanted to edit it. I'm afraid of making any sort of change, because in the past it was impossible to make parallel articles, but perhaps it would work if we could come to some sort of consensus. It would be so much more useful for frum people if we could look at an article and not have to see all the idiocy that creeps into the general articles.
For example, we could have all of Tanach from a Jewish point of view and link to articles that describe the medrashim etc. I would even think that it would be appropriate to have an Orthodox or sometimes even Charedi point of view, because otherwise you would constantly be fighting with people who have all sorts of things to say about medrashim and other parts of the mesorah. Ezra Wax (talk) 04:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I note that this was done with the Netinim, where there are three articles. I also think Biblical Wedding should have a hatnote, stating that it is the critical point of view and referring to Jewish Views of Marriage.Mzk1 (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think your idea is excellent, Ezra. We already have articles like Passover and Passover (Christian holiday). I would also like to see separate articles for the views of Bible critics. As it is now, articles on Biblical topics like Abraham or The Exodus set out the topic according to Jewish sources, then the topic according to Christian sources, and then the complete undercutting of the topic according to "critical scholarship". Yoninah (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being that it looks like there might be agreement here that parallel articles are a good idea, where would be a good place to broach the subject where all interested parties could weigh in? Ezra Wax (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with this comment. "Articles on Biblical topics like Abraham or The Exodus set out the topic according to Jewish sources, then the topic according to Christian sources, and then the complete undercutting of the topic according to "critical scholarship"." Yes, it's called a neutral point of view. You can't only describe a topic according to its adherents or advocates. To deliberately take the argument to extremes, are we to allow everyone—paedophiles, terrorists, white supremacists included—to write about their beliefs in articles without the "complete undercutting of the topic according to "critical scholarship"," or should only articles about the Jewish religion have this special privilege? Is religion to be the only topic immune from critical analysis on Wikipedia?
We have separate articles on the Jewish and Christian Passovers because they are not the same topic, and Passover is already too long to incorporate Christian observance of it (although it should at least be described in a summary section, not relegated to a mere "See also"). Those articles don't describe the observances from a 'Jewish POV' or a 'Christian POV' respectively, or at least they really shouldn't. Fences&Windows11:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The comment above would be good, if this is what is happening. But, for example, the article on Daniel is entirely Christinan, including the quotes from Jewish sources. (See my comment there.) "Biblical wedding" is entirely historical-critical. Also, the texts are not always the same. Some Christian versions of Samuel have many extra chapters. There continual arguments against that the historical-critical ("scholarly") view is more notable.Mzk1 (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Translation on reference desk
I was wondering if someone fluent in Hebrew might be able to take a look at this:
Hi. The article on Psalms states that "most of the psalms are believed to have been intended for singing (some even include instrumentation and the names of tunes to sing to)." In the King James version of the Bible I haven't been able to recognize any notes about instruments and tunes, only notes that attribute authorship and dedicate psalms to various musicians, etc. I assume these details are preserved in Jewish texts. Can anyone clarify or perhaps give some examples? I posted this on the discussion for the article on Psalms but it looks to be infrequently updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.223.16 (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do editors replace, for instance,' book of Exodus' with 'Hebrew Bible'
I see this done from time to time, usually by IPs, never that I can recall with an explanation. Can anyone explain this please? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't be sure, but it might have to do with the desire to use "Hebrew Bible" instead of "Old Testament". Perhaps these editors are over-zealous, and don't realize that the problems with the term "Old Testament" don't apply to "Book of Genesis", since Jews and non-Jews alike refer to it as such. -shirulashem(talk)16:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
