WikiEN-l September 2004

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

97 participants
176 discussions

08 Sep '04

Hello all, I am happy to announce that a Wikimedia newsletter is underway. The plan is to publish it online next week, then lay it out for print publication. You can see an outline of the first issue here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Newsletter_(outline) We are looking for a managing editor in each language, a lead copyeditor, a print editor, and a community reporter. If you would like to work on the newsletter in any capacity, please leave a note on the talk page, or email me directly. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Newsletter Everyone is encouraged to suggest content; particularly compelling wiki-statistics, notes about local wikiprojects, symbolic articles (preferably from the [[meta:List of articles all languages should have]], and 'feature-quality' in more than one language) and images for the gallery. Please leave suggestions for newsletter content on the discussion page above. We also need translators, and proofreaders in each language. You can follow the translation effort or contribute to it here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translation_requests/NL-1 Rundschreiben der Wikimedia Wikimedia newsletter Boletín de noticias de Wikimedia Lettre de diffusion de Wikimedia ウィキメディア広報誌 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translation_requests/NL-1 Wer Lust hat, sich an der deutschen (oder anderen) Fassung zu beteiligen, schreibt bitte an meta.sj(a)gmail.com If you would like to help translate or edit the newsletter, please send mail to meta.sj(a)gmail.com Si Usted quiere traducir entre español y otro idioma, o corregir en español, favor de mandar un email a meta.sj(a)gmail.com. Si vous voulez faire une traduction ou rédacter en français, écrivez-nous a meta.sj(a)gmail.com. 日本語への翻訳、日本語からの翻訳や、日本語での編集作業を手伝っていただける方はmeta.sj(a)gmail.xn--com-u63b3a4a5b7b6byd5nri11b9dykl273d. ===== On the subject of translations, I want to repeat Michael Snow's notice of the press release being prepared in honor of the one millionth Wikipedia article. Please spread the word, and help us translate this into every one of our hundred+ languages (currently we only have translations in 15). Note that the original is still being edited, and is not yet ready for release. Globale Presseerklärung (millionstel Seite) Global press release (millionth article) Lanzamiento de prensa global (millonésimo artículo) Communiqué de presse global (millionième article) １００万記事達成の全世界向けプレスリリース http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translation_requests/PR-1mil This is also a good time to think of local newspapers and radio stations that you could contact about the announcement (it's not too early to start contacting them now). For a list of organizations contacted earlier this year, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Press_releases/Logbook September cheer, Sj

1 0

JFW's and fundamentalist censorship
by Robert 08 Sep '04

08 Sep '04

JFW writes: > The Maimonides issue has spun completely out of control, > like many other pages where RK decides to take over. No one has taken over any article. The real problem, as I encourage you to see for yourself, is that JFW has refused to offer any ideas, yet becomes angry when POVs other than his exist. I have repeatedly extended my hand in friendship, and encourged him to offer points-of-view from within his own community. We have communicated in a most friendly fashion in private e-mail and on a number of Talk pages. I always welcome his point of view. I would love for these articles to include many points of view. But what can I do? JFW refuses to include any POVs he claims exist from within his own community, and it hurts him that not-ultra-Orthodox POVs views exist. All JFW has been able to do so far is to protest the very existence of ideas that differ from his own. That is not Wikipedia NPOV policy. I understand that an ultra-Orthodox Jew, JFW has only rarely been exposed to critical-historical research of his own faith. Still, it is a bit startling to see him dismiss the writing of his fellow Orthodox Jew so blithely. Nothing I added was original research; rather, I merely referred to the views of mainstream scholars of the topic - many of whom themselves are Orthodox Jews. Unfortunately, JFW has a very select list of who he consideres authentic Orthodox Jewish scholars and rabbis, and he is pained by the citation of people not on his very short list. To give an example of JFW's misunderstandings, the last time I mentioned Orthodox Jewish points of view on the topic of Artscroll books, he posted a panicky attack accusing me of damaging Jewish unity. What JFW fails to understand is that Wikipedia is not a fundamentalist Jewish religious publisher. The goal of Wikipedia is NOT to foster JFW's idea of "Jewish unity", Joe's idea of "Christian Unity", or Sally's idea of "Islamic Unity". Our goal is academic honesty and integrity. A long time ago we found that many of our Christian fundamentalists, Jewish fundamentalist and Muslim fundamentalists became angry when they were confronted with historical-critical studies of their faiths. So? They learn to allow these other points of view to exist, or they revert all the material which pains them, and then they eventually get reprimanded. JFW should choose wisely. JFw writes: > He deposits a lot of research, most of which is only > of marginal relevance to the issue, Wow, that is dishonest. We were discussing a very specific issue, and JFW and Jayjg repearedly asked me to provide quotes and references. I complied; In response, JFW is now attacking me for politely presenting the very quotes he explicitly asked me for. I find it mean and disingenous for someone to ask me to provide citations, yet then to complain when I comply. That's outrageous behaviour. JFW writes: > and causes long and heated debates on talk pages > whether these insertions are justified. Yes, this occurs on every one of our pages about religion, Jewish, Christian and Muslim. If you cannot handle this, then this forum is not for you. I have seen a few Chrisitan fundamentalists here become very angry when confronted with sources that do not match thier religious dogma; the same is true for Jewish fundamentalists such as you and Ezra Wax. You both get angry when you see a historical-critical POV. This has all happened before. For example, see Ezra Wax's old battles with Danny. Ezra viewed Danny's contributions as wrong, heretical and biased. In Ezra's view, unless the article was acceptable to ultra-Orthodox Jews, it was not "NPOV". Unfortunately Ezra was wrong. As Danny pointed out to him, NPOV does not mean that everyone will agree with the article. It merely means that we say that "According to group A, the following is true, while according to group B, such-and-such is true". Your problem is that you don't want the article to mention points of view that you consider heretical, and that's not cool. JFW writes: > Often, vital POVs are not represented, because > RK favours particular sources for his research > and (?conveniently) forgets to mention that these > POVs exist. I am pained to see such deliberate falsehoods. Folks, please check the talk pages for the articles in question. You will see that I have repeatedly asked JFW to bring forth other POVs, if he believes that they exist. JFW refuses to do so - and that is his fault, for which he can blame no one else. Instead of bringing forth other POVs, he tries to censor those that he finds heretical or inconvient. He especially seems angry at the views of Orthodox Jews who are not ultra-Orthodox. JFw writes: > I do not argue with Robert over pages that don't > have my interest, but we recently had a major flurry > over [[Artscroll]], a Jewish publisher of religious > texts. Robert wanted to insert allegations expressed > on mailing lists concerning the historicity and factuality > of the content of many of these books. While some of > these allegations came from respectable sources, some > others were simple paranoid mumblings by mailinglist contributors. This is shockingly dishonest. The issue, ironically, was about the phenomenon of ultra-Orthodox Jews censoring facts that they found inconvenient. We are talking about an ultra-Orthodox Jewish publisher faking photos in Soviet-style revisionism, censoring facts about the life of religious scholars, etc. The faked photss and censored texts are well-established facts. The phenomenon is openly discussed in the academic Jewish community, and a significant amount of criticism towards this censorship exists in the modern Orthodox community. The fact that JFW is at odds with his own fellow Orthodox Jews over censorship and historical distortion is a private matter; the fact that he misrepresents this subject in order to effectively censor an article is richly ironic. > I'm seriously wondering where this is heading. This is an ad homenim attack, attributing sinister intentions to me, solely because I am openly discussing subjects that you wish to keep hidden. For shame. We here on Wikipedia do not allow Christian, Jewish or Muslim fundamentalists to restrict the topic or contents of our articles, in order to meet their comfort levels. As I have always done, I continue to invite you to provide quotes and references to back up any points-of-view that you would like to include within any of our articles. Just stop attacking other people for having the right to do the same. Robert (RK) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

1 0

JFW
by Robert 08 Sep '04

08 Sep '04

--- wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote: > Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to > wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' > to > wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > wikien-l-owner(a)Wikipedia.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is > more specific > than "Re: Contents of WikiEN-l digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: VfD is broken (Tim Starling) > 2. Re: Re: Re: VfD is broken (Chris Wood) > 3. Re: Re: Re: VfD is broken (Chris Wood) > 4. Re: Re: Re:VfD is broken (Matt Brown) > 5. Re: Re: Re:VfD is broken (Chris Wood) > 6. Re: VfD is broken (Chris Wood) > 7. Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 14, Issue 14 (Denni) > 8. Re: Please stop Danny from harassing me (J.F. de > Wolff) > 9. Announcing Wikibookclub (daniwo59(a)aol.com) > 10. Re: Re: Re: Re: VfD is broken (Rick) > 11. Re: Re: Re: Re: VfD is broken (Rick) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 12:09:11 +1000 > From: Tim Starling <ts4294967296(a)hotmail.com> > Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: VfD is broken > To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org > Message-ID: <chggs8$rkp$1(a)sea.gmane.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed > > Chris Wood wrote in full: > > Deletionism is a problem because it is against current > Wikipedia policies. > > [...and some other similar posts] > > Chris, how about rolling those 6 posts up into one in the > future, and > quoting the text that you're replying to. This is a > mailing list, not IM. > > -- Tim Starling > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 14:05:51 +1200 > From: "Chris Wood" <standsongrace(a)hotmail.com> > Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Re: VfD is broken > To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org > Message-ID: <chggsa$s0g$1(a)sea.gmane.org> > > > Stubs yes, but their notability and/or verifiability is > another. What > > will people think of how trustworthy our information is > if we permit > > rubbish such as a biased advertisement for a discussion > forum to > > languish on Wikipedia? > > But what do you mean by notability? Your humble opinion? > Have a look at the > proposed policy on what "notability" means at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Importance. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 14:05:56 +1200 > From: "Chris Wood" <standsongrace(a)hotmail.com> > Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Re: VfD is broken > To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org > Message-ID: <chggse$s0g$2(a)sea.gmane.org> > > > Unfortunately, the things which CAN be quickly deleted > are very limited. > Right now, there is a huge number of pages written by a > troll named [[El > Coronado]] which are obvious fiction, but they are not > allowed to be speedy > deleted, because obviously false information is not an > acceptable condition > (by some) for speedy deletion. Instead, we have to go > through the > cumbersome VfD process to get rid of them. If obviously > false information > was an accpetable criterion, then we could have gotten > rid of all of this > user's creations already, and we wouldn't have several > different entries on > VfD for them. > > > > If there were no VfD, what would be the inclusionists' > acceptable process > for getting rid of this false information? > > I don't think any "inclusionists" have argued to get rid > of VfD. We're just > saying it isn't working like it was originally designed > to. I don't have an > alternative process, just a recommendation that people > actually follow > policy on which articles should be listed on VfD - this > is > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Importance > > > It took a great deal of work and research by several > people actively > involved in the VfD process to make this into a useable > article. Would > those of you objecting to VfD actually have preferred > that it have remained > as it was in its original state? > > I am an active participant in [[Cleanup]]. But there > are hundreds of > articles listed there that never get worked on. By > putting a 5-day deadline > on them on the VfD page, we get some very reasonable > articles, which then > get kept. VfD is NOT just a "deletionist" playground, > it's a serious effort > by many people to make decent articles, or to figure out > what to do with > articles that aren't decent. > > We are saying "improve the article, don't delete it , if > the article is > important (Wikipedia:Importance) enough". VfD is not > about improvement, it's > about deletion. Cleanup is about improvement. Yes, there > are some articles > (less than hundreds) which are never worked on. Yet > surely that is better > than the hundreds which are deleted, not because they > don't belong in > Wikipedia, but because they aren't good enough? > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 19:10:58 -0700 > From: Matt Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re:VfD is broken > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org> > Message-ID: <42f90dc0040905191057474d1c(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 13:50:43 +1200, Chris Wood > <standsongrace(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Deletionism is a problem because it is against current > Wikipedia policies. > > Both extremes - extreme deletionism, and extreme > inclusionism - are > against current Wikipedia policies. > > -Matt (User:Morven) > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 14:16:37 +1200 > From: "Chris Wood" <standsongrace(a)hotmail.com> > Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Re:VfD is broken > To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org > Message-ID: <chgham$t1v$1(a)sea.gmane.org> > > > > Deletionism is a problem because it is against > current Wikipedia > policies. > > > > Both extremes - extreme deletionism, and extreme > inclusionism - are > > against current Wikipedia policies. > > > > -Matt (User:Morven) > > === message truncated === ===== I�m astounded by people who want to "know" the universe when it�s hard enough to find your way around Chinatown. - Woody Allen _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

1 0

A future for Nupedia?
by Robert 07 Sep '04

07 Sep '04

>>> Having an article only gives the impression to readers >>> that we tolerate junk. >> Which is good. If we give the impression to readers >> that we tolerate only full-grown complete articles, >> we will detract contributors who are perhaps not quite >> as good a writer as they would like to be. > Exactly. This is why Nupedia failed. That may be one of the reasons why the early attempt at Nupedia failed, but the idea behind Nupedia still lives. Haven't many of us discussed some form of stable Wikipedia 1.0, which has some form of peer-review above the usual? And perhaps Nupedia was a bit premature, as we were asking volunteers to start from zero. Wikipedia has grown immensely in the last few years. The number of people with serious academic credentials who have some favorable opinion of it has probably grown by an order of magnitude as well. Now that a huge amount of open-source material is already available here, it should be easier to re-kindle the Nupedia project today. The idea would be much more attractive this time around, as (on many subjects) people wouldn't have to start from scratch. Contributors could take a series of Wikipedia articles (if they wished) and use this text as a launching pad for their own work. Like Larry Sanger, I am still concerned about the long-term prestige of Wikipedia. As long as many contributors don't reference their claims, and don't rely on published authorities (at least to some extent), then many people in academic won't take our articles seriously. But using Wikipedia as an open-source feeder for growing Nupedia articles leverages everyone's efforts; the whole could be much greater than the sum of its parts. Nupedia might not have worked then. But one or two years from now it might be the perfect idea. Robert (RK) ===== I�m astounded by people who want to "know" the universe when it�s hard enough to find your way around Chinatown. - Woody Allen __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

1 0

Netoholic blocking (was Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Re: Re: VfD is broken)
by Brian Corr 07 Sep '04

07 Sep '04

I have left a message for Netoholic warning him that I will be blocking him if he doesn't stop "refactoring" various talk pages where he is being criticized, citing [[Wikipedia:Refactoring]] and [[Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks]]. The message I left was here: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Netoholic#Warning_re:_refactoring> Thanks, Brian (Bcorr) At 05:48 AM 9/7/2004 +0000, you wrote: >Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 22:48:09 -0700 (PDT) >From: Rick <giantsrick13(a)yahoo.com> >Subject: Re: >To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> >Message-ID: <20040907054809.44301.qmail(a)web60606.mail.yahoo.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >His actions on the VfD page and the pages listed there can only be >considered vandalism. Repeated deletions of VfD headers, and repeated >deletions of pages listed on the VfD page is vandalism. Non-consensus >mass moving of pages is vandalism. Repeated deletions of other people's >discussions is vandalism. > >RickK > >Angela <beesley(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 22:03:28 -0700 (PDT), Rick wrote: > > I have blocked Netoholic for 24 hours. I am sure somebody will run > slavering to the Special pages in order to unblock him as soon as they > see this, but I'll tell you why I have blocked him. > >I'd unblocked him before you sent this. And it didn't involve running >or slavering. > > > Netoholic, since his first few days on Wikipedia, has been nothing but > disruptive. > >I don't think that is a fair summary. Netoholic is not a troll acting >in bad faith. He believes he is improving the VfD system. In my >opinion, he's going about that the wrong way, but his edits can not be >classed as purely disruptive. > >Angela.

2 1

New to list
by Matthew Larsen 07 Sep '04

07 Sep '04

Good day all, I have recently signed up to the WikiEN-l list and would like to say hello to all members! If I post dumb or stupid replys to anything please forgive me as I am new here. Thank you for your time, Regards, -- Matthew Larsen > mat.larsen(a)gmail.com > 07739 785 249

3 2

RE: [WikiEN-l] New to list
by KNOTT, T 07 Sep '04

07 Sep '04

Hi Mathew and welcome to the wonderful world of this mailing list. I might as well use this reply to announce that whilst I've been of this list for a couple of months I'm back now. Theresa

2 1

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Accuracy Heuristics
by Andrew Lih 07 Sep '04

07 Sep '04

I think it would be a good idea to have the information in a tab called "Metrics", which could have those numbers, as well as the number of unique authors, and number of edits. (And of course some heuristic to filter out effects from edit wars, etc.) BTW, this is the recent experiment that has caused the latest buzz: http://www.frozennorth.org/C2011481421/E652809545/index.html Note that each of the five articles used in this person's experiment are very low traffic - one had only three authors and four edits, another had two authors and two edits. Certainly it was not Wikipedia's finest hour, but he certainly chose (and if an appropriate word, cherrypicked) the right ones to highlight the weaknesses. Articles were: Layzie Bone; Magni; Empuries; Philipsburg, PA; Bernice Johnson Reagon -Andrew (User:Fuzheado) On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 11:20:05 -0400, Alex Krupp <amk63(a)cornell.edu> wrote: > On the top of each Wikipedia article should be two things: The time > since each article was last edited and the average number of views > that article gets per day. This would form a rough system of > accountability for every article. For example, a page that hasn't > been edited in twenty days and gets over a hundred views per days > would be likely to contain fewer errors than a page that was last > edited three days ago and gets four views per day. > > This way one could even come up with a simple heuristic combining the > two statistics so that editors could surf through articles looking > for the ones most likely to contain mistakes. One could also surf > through the articles least likely to contain mistakes as an > admittedly imperfect although useful way of finding articles to > nominate for 1.0. I know you can check all of the edits and their > dates through the edit history, but there is no easy way for the > average user to check how many views any given page gets. This could > potentially go a great way for increasing the amount of faith the > average population has in Wikipedia. > > Also, I should mention this has been inspired by the recent > controversy involving the article by Al Fasoldt and the subsequent > discussion on this list and now slashdot. > > Alex Krupp > _______________________________________________ > Wikipedia-l mailing list > Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l > -- Andrew Lih andrew.lih(a)gmail.com

5 5

Al Fasoldt
by Jens Ropers 07 Sep '04

07 Sep '04

I've recently had an email discussion with Al Fasoldt about the entire "can-Wikipedia-be-trusted" affair. He is ok with me sharing his emails, so I could forward all related emails to this list. Do people want me to do that? I'm just asking 'cuz we're talking several emails here and I won't trigger this minor flood unless people are interested. -- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com

2 1

Please stop Danny from harassing me.
by Robert 06 Sep '04

06 Sep '04

This issue is really getting tiresome. Danny, a Wikipedia administrator, is again harassing me. Danny keeps jumping into articles where a discussion about the content is taking place...and instead of offering constructive criticism about how the article should be changed, he makes multiple ad homenim attacks towards me. For instance, consider the recent issue over what should be mentioned in the article on [[Maimonides]] (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon.) I have been doing a lot of reading on this issue for a number of years. I am trying to have the points of view of several mainstream Maimonidean scholars included in the article. Here is the situation, pre-Danny: I brought forth quotes and citations to illustrate the point of view of these people, who are generally regarded as experts in the field. In contrast, Jayjg won't let me quote anybody, and is making the claim that this is part of some Orthodox versus non-Orthodox struggle (It isn't, and I do not understand where his idea comes from; ironically, I haven't quoted any figures from non-Orthodox schools of thought!) I have repeatedly told Jay that I would be happy for this article to include points of view from people with other views, and I am still waiting for him to bring examples. He hasn't offered any at all. Thus, the only points of view mentioned so far are the ones from the sources I brought. JFW had a different complaint. He says that he believes that somewhere, some Orthodox rabbis must have written on this topic, and that we should include their views as well. This isn't a problem, as I totally agree with JFW. I would be very happy if brought forth their views on these issues. So far he hasn't. But I look forward to learning from any other points of view that JFW may yet find. This is how Wikipedia articles grow and improve. No problem, right? But into this Danny started making ad homenim attacks. Danny interjected: > Oh, but RK, you mentioned that you frequent the > JTS library. They certainly have an Or Sameach, as > would any yeshiva in New York and Westchester. For > people who are genuinely intersted in Jewish scholarship, > they are far more accessible than any journal you can quote. > Or are you incapable of conducting "scholarship" that does > not support your POV This personal attack is a violation of Wikipedia standards, yet Danny uses his position as an administrator to get away with repeated personal abuse. He is saying that I am dishonestly not reporting points-of-view that I do not agree with. (A) That is a total lie, and a defamation of character. (B) Curiously, Danny is unable to disagree with a single sentence I contributed; he himself offers no reason to doubt that the quotes I offered are accurate. He certainly offers no other citations. (C) If Danny thinks that other important points of view exist, then by all means go find them and help contribue to the article. But do not slander a Wikipedia contributor for not including points of view that they are not even aware of! We have thousands of contributors who bring new points of view every day. Do we harass them for not bringing counter-points-of-view? No! We'd drive away all of contributors if we did this! If we think something is missing, we simply add it. Is this unreasonable? (D) Danny is lying about my ability to go to a library and look up the specific Hebrew sources that JFW requested. See, Danny and I have spoken on the telephone many times, and he knows that I do not speak Hebrew. When I want to understand what a Hebrew text means, I go to established authorities known for expertise in translation, and I do not attempt to translate it myself. Danny certainly had no problem with any other user on Wikipedia doing this. Why am I the only person who has to read ancient Hebrew in order to write on Judaica articles? Do all of our contributors to Christianity articles have to read ancient Greek? That is just insane. (E) Danny writes "As for the topic at hand, RK, since the vast majority of material on this topic is in Hebrew, as are all the primary sources, you seem incapable of conducting any 'serious scholarship.' " There are two huge problems with this personal attack * Danny is confused about the difference between original scholarship, which we DO NOT accept on Wikipedia, and describing the views of scholars, which is encouraged. I am quoting established authorities and summarizing their views, as is standard for Wikipedia. If he really disagrees the views that I have described, then he is free to look for other views to add. Isn't that always the standard operating procedure? He should not dishonestly attribute what I am writing as my own original research, in order to impugn the views of scholars he may disagree with. * Danny is making factualy false claims. A huge amount of scholarship on this topic is in English, by many of the world's leading scholars. Any claim to the contray is a bad joke. Just go to the huge JTS or HUC libraries in Manhattan, and you will see that half of their collections are in the English language, including many fine scholarly journals. In fact, more Judaica is written in English than in any other language in the world. Danny's factually false claim to the contrary does not improve the article, it is just more harassment of me. Danny's personal attacks have been a long-term problem, and we really need to do something about this. He needs to stop following me around from article to article making ad homenim comments. Being a Wikipedia administrator means being a role model, not someone who uses a personal grudge to harass users. Robert (RK) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

3 2

← Newer
1
...
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l September 2004