Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaim Rabinowitz

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The sources are rather weak, but might be enough to pass GNG. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chaim Rabinowitz

[edit]
Chaim Rabinowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as no prima facie evidence of sufficient notability. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creator of article notified. In addition I would posit that the totally unsourced/unreferenced page appears to indicate that Rabinowitz is notable for the nexus of friendships and/or connections to other people, not for any accomplishments of note in his own right. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only way that major rosh yeshivas are "appointed" is by their association and approval with/from others such as themselves. They would certainly not come to WP or its editors to seek approval of their appointments before they get appointed. The so-called "friendships and/or connections" you attack are the ultimate references and recommendations that determine if a Talmudic scholar is to be appointed as a rosh yeshiva or not. That system cannot be changed or "rejected" to suit WP deletionistic trends by some editors who are unfamiliar with that world as evidenced by your comments that reveal a total lack of WP:AGF about both the subject and creator of this article. IZAK (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sad to see again what has become a very predictable response from you IZAK. Nom has made some observations, which you instinctively take as bad faith. This is one of the very types of behavior described in WP:FAITH2 as "bad faith"! With all due respect, I hope that we might all please stick to relevant policy issues and leave points of view out. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Agri: Kindly avoid personalizing and violating WP:NPA just because you obviously have your very limited POV. IZAK (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IZAK - please be respectful of other editors and maintain WP:AGF. As far as your comment "because one would have to be part of the yeshiva world to know this information", then that would seem to indicate that the information in question could only be garnered by WP:OR, and is likely not confirmable independently nor necessarily reliable/objective. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI Rms, WP relies on expert editors, per Template {{Expert-verify}} that reads:
<!--{{Expert-verify}} begin-->{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>NAMESPACE}}|<includeonly>[[Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly>|}}{{Ambox | type = content | text = This {{{1|article}}} '''requires authentication or verification by an expert'''. Please assist in recruiting an expert or [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this article] yourself. See the [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|talk page]] for details. {{#if:{{{date|}}}|<small>''({{{date}}})''</small>}} }}<includeonly>{{DMCA|Articles needing expert attention|from|{{{date|}}}}}<!-- -->{{DMCA|Wikipedia articles needing factual verification|from|{{{date|}}}}}</includeonly><!--{{Expert-verify}} end--><noinclude>
So obviously if one is not expert in a field their views do not count for much as they make a laughing stock out of themselves in the eyes of truly well-informed editors. Sure anyone can vote anywhere, that is just a sign of a democratic freedom, then again, there is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY as well. Just use your common sense man, also required per WP:IGNORE. People who know nothing about a subject should not come into arguments in violation of WP:LAWYERing just to make points per WP:IDONTLIKEIT against certain types of articles. I have said this many times, I know nothing about rocket science and astrophysics THEREFORE you will never find me venturing into ANY AfDs about those subjects even though I or you can do so, because I KNOW that I am an ignoramus in those fields so I find it incredible that editors feel very comfortable sticking their heads into subjects they OBVIOUSLY know nothing about and simply rely on this or that rule which makes them sound like policemen rather than serious editors of an all-inclusive encyclopedia that is being built step by step. IZAK (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not entirely sure DONOTDEMOLISH applies here, especially as this page has been around for four and a half years with only a couple dozen edits. I have attempted to find info, but couldn't find anything. And as per your above comment, as has been pointed out, it doesn't matter if this is well known in the yeshiva world, if it's not verifiable (which, as it stands, I believe it isn't) then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Ravendrop 03:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Four and a half years, wow!! DO NOTDEMOLISH of course does not apply. Amazing how defenders of this article did nothing to make the article enyclopaedic for years but now fight for the status quo. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rms: Firstly, try avoiding sarcasm, it's not a substitute for logic. Secondly there are not that many Judaic WP editors, and even fewer who know much about the yeshiva world! Thirdly, WP is barely ten years old, and that's not a long time. Building articles takes years in tough subjects and domains -- don't make fun of hard work! Fourthly, if you were truly sensitive and cared about this subject you would not wield a hatchet to it but would do more to find out about it, try by contacting WP:JUDAISM. Finally, there are very few Jews in this world, and even fewer religious ones and far fewer who are busy in the new online medium. I would think it benefits WP to bring in material that at least passes muster with WP:JUDAISM (and they do nominate many article for deletion too when appropriate). One either cares about this subject and wants to see it grow encyclopedically or one does not and engages in deletionistsic tirades against it. Have your druthers. IZAK (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How can anyone who is not from the "yeshiva word" gauge his notability, then? Arcane references alone don't do it. At least if he had been a mohel we could see the career he carved out for himself.Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pun unintended. But seriously, the publications Bobby mentions do establish notability. They are no worse then foreign language or general off-line sources. Notability is not limited to tomato eating contest winners who have thousands of ghits. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder. We do not traditionally judge WP:N by publications, but rather the impact associated with publications. Is there demonstrable impact of these 3 volumes, for example are they mentioned in independent sources, are they cited by other scholars, etc.? Agricola44 (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Don't be absurd Agri! You are making up your own rules that do not exist over the length and breadth of WP or in the history of article creation on WP. IZAK (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please be WP:CIVIL. He's not being absurd or making up anything. Being notable for one's publications falls under either WP:TEACHER or WP:AUTHOR, and both of them require evidence of third-party attention to the publications, not just long lists of pubs. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
David, where did you pop up from? Do you monitor all votes relating to famous rabbis and Jews? because that's the only time I encounter you. Let's be logical here, who would be a Wikipedian "third party" that reads or studies works written by a rosh yeshiva do you think, unless they are other Talmudic scholars and Jews who read such works? How is that to be "quantified"? That someone wrote an article online for a magazine? Wouldn't that be absurd? Like expecting that scientific theories need to be "validated" by proof readers. It would make no sense. Only other scientists can validate the works by scientists. Similarly in this case, works are cited and they are known in the yeshiva world and Talmudic world which should be sufficient. Relying on the expertise of long time proven editors is also an act of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, otherwise you may as well call such editors liars or worse. IZAK (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Despite your continued problematic disrespectful tone let me address the substance of your remarks. I monitor Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators; rosh yeshivas tend to get listed there, though not so much ordinary rabbis. In the case of scientists, the importance of their writings can be indicated by the other scientific works that cite them. If Talmudic writing has no similar system, and there is no non-subjective way to determine whether the writings are important, then perhaps that makes it unsuitable as a general class of subjects for Wikipedia articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David, let's get this straight, Talmudic writings are judged to be important the same way scientific writings are deemed to be important, when other Talmudists acknowledge them -- which is the same way that other scientists acknowledge scientific writings. Therefore it is irrelevant and absurd to expect either non-Talmudists or non-scientists to pass judgment on either Talmudic writings or scientific writings. That is a good basis to build articles, and WP is still building articles which is the main job of good editors and reliable contributors. To go beyond that is just being pedantic and the worst form of WP:LAWYERing. IZAK (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight. Are you trying to argue that only Talmudic scholars are qualified to judge the Wikipedia-notability of other Talmudic scholars? Because I completely reject that position. On Wikipedia, we don't judge by the credentials of an editor, but by what that editor provides in the way of verifiable and reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
David, don't twist my words please. My point is simple, that each field has it's experts (not referring to WP users, some of whom may indeed be experts too, which is key in many instances) and if works are notable in that field, then they are notable period. If a great Talmudic work has been written and popularized and it is known among Talmudic scholars and yeshivas then that creates its notability. WP's job is to to try to convey that not on some "mechanical" basis of rules alone (although they are important and must be met as much as possible) but by welcoming and inspecting and incorporating what reliable editors and basic references have to say. Most articles start out that way, and then they grow over time with more references. Creating, writing and editing articles is like a life-giving birthing process and not like a check-out experience in a super-market. I have been on both sides of the AfD issue and it takes a good sense of the subject to know one's way around in each AfD, otherwise it seems like misinformed activity that is best avoided. That should be logical enough. IZAK (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic attack on the nominator's choice of username elided
  • NOTE to all right-minded Admins: The nominator of this AfD User Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs) has been in constant violation of Wikipedia:Username policy#Internet addresses a most basic rule of WP. He has pleaded and claimed that he is "exempt" from this rule, thus, there is the utterly absurd anomaly that this nominator takes for himself the "right" to break current WP policies with his own self-justifications and twisted arguments, while at the same time he seeks to impose WP policies, as in this AfD, on articles and users. Um, isn't that what is called hypocrisy in English? He will claim that he has a "papal dispensation" from admins someplace to be in violation of rules that all Wikipedians must adhere to once those rules come into effect. For example, no one on WP (not even User Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs)) would be allowed to cite the easier standards for including articles when WP first started years ago, so why should a user be allowed to be in violation of current policies and guidelines and have the self-appointed "right" to impose stricter rules and guidelines on articles he does not like and other users who refute his POV as in this AfD? Therefore: Until such time as User Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs) rectifies his own user name and behavior that is presently in flagrant violation of WP policy, he should withdraw this AfD, in addition to which he should also be censured until such time that he changes his name and follows the rules as they exist and apply to everyone at this time and not the way things were ten or five years ago. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have less intention now than ever of changing my username which I am allowed to keep, according to ArbCom. Anyone who has a problem with that can take it up with them. As far as withdrawing this nomination, no way in HELL. I do not understand why IZAK is concerned about my username which is none of his concern, although I suspect that it is just because he doesn't like this AFD. Talk about IDONTLIKEIT, jeez! The above shrill, hateful, pointless and bizarre diatribe should be seen for what it is by "all right-minded Admins" (and everyone else), as should the fact that IZAK would raise the username issue here rather than at a more appropriate venue, i.e. WP:ANI, although it has already been raised more than once by more knowledgeable editors. IZAK appears to be clearly ethically bankrupt and cares only about getting his own way. I am sure that if I were in violation of anything I would have heard about it by now from someone who is qualified to make such a judgment. And just because I am not an ultra Orthodox Jew doesn't mean I cannot question something related to that topic, any more than the fact that I am not a British knight or a porn star or a pedophile priest or a United States Senator would mean I cannot edit or question the validity of pages related to such topics. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: You do not have the right to "impose" any policies, certainly not ones as serious as AfD policies that rely on complex layers of past WP rules and policies that have changed over time, if you do not abide by WP:USERNAME policy. You cannot rely on uncited "exceptions" that allow you to do as you please while other users are forced to abide by the latest WP policies regarding articles that do not recognize any exceptions. IZAK (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Agricola: The Rabbinical College of Telshe in Cleveland, Ohio cited by universities.com is a rabbinic ordination program in the larger Telshe yeshiva network, so of course it has fewer students. (The total student body is over 300, according to this website: [1].) Anyway, this has nothing to do with the Telshe yeshiva in Lithuania that Rabbi Rabinowitz headed. Yoninah (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read that article? It plainly says "The yeshiva was transplanted to the United States during World War II, when two of its roshei yeshiva ("deans") chose to re-establish it in Cleveland, Ohio, where it still remains". Pretty clear, it seems. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
PS: counting high-schoolers in the figure of 300 still does not make this a "major academic institution", IMHO. Respcty, Agricola44 (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand what's clear to you. The Telshe yeshiva in Lithuania continued until 1941, when the entire town of Telshe was massacred by the Nazis. The only people from the yeshiva who got out were Rabbi Elya Meir Bloch, Rabbi Chaim Mordechai Katz, and a small number of students. Everyone else — the roshei yeshiva, faculty, students and families — were killed. Perhaps the article you read needs a rewrite. Yoninah (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now that you've unilaterally changed that article, you're right, it does indeed no longer say that. Neither version was sourced, so who is the reader to believe? Unsourced material and perceptions of POV-editing are precisely what give WP such a poor reputation in the academic world. I suppose that if we collectively permit this sort of editing behavior to continue, then WP will never really be anything more than some webpages someone uses as a provisional check on their way to more authoritative sources. That said, there are now 12 "sources" to this article, 11 of which are either webpages with trivial or no mention of subject or published books having just a trivial mention. The one legit source (student newspaper article) says he was a Telshe rosh yeshiva, suggesting the proper policy-based disposition of a merge. Sigh. Agricola44 (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Look, I am not trying to sabotage articles. The Telshe yeshiva article is admittedly awful and I have put it on my list for editing and adding sources. There are plenty of online sources to verify its whole history. But I took out the sentence because it was obviously misleading; had you read the section right before it, you would have seen that the yeshiva wasn't "moved" to Cleveland, but that it flourished in Lithuania until the Holocaust, and two of the rabbis who went fund-raising and thus were saved from the Holocaust opened a branch in Cleveland. After the Nazi massacre of Telshe, the Cleveland branch became the de facto yeshiva. Yoninah (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Telshe yeshiva. I think this is the most sensible disposition for 2 reasons: (1) The Telshe article already has biosketches of some of the rosh yeshiva and right now it only mentions Rabinowitz in passing – his section could be expanded with some of the information in this article, so that the contents here are not lost but instead serve to flesh-out the Telshe article more completely, and (2) the sources to support a dedicated article on Rabinowitz himself are demonstrably lacking – refs 2 and 5 are just web pages, ref 3 is a trivial mention (the sum-total on Rabinowitz is "Chazan went to Telshe to further his education with Rabbi Chaim Rabinowitz") and refs 4 and 6 are similar. The extent that he or the Derech are mentioned in ref 1 is unclear. I think ref 4 would be a good source for a Telshe merge because it does actually state that he was one of the Telshe rosh yeshiva. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • COI discussion, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaim Rabinowitz. IZAK (talk) 05:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per GNG/sources that are now reflected (and were otherwise discoverable).--Epeefleche (talk) 08:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources presented do not constitute significant coverage. Rather, they are passing mentions, with scant information, mostly about other people who at one point studied under this person or about the Telshe yeshiva. The best is given here, but even that is so limited, and does not appear to be a reliable source. Quantpole (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The depth of coverage of the subject in the article's sources is, frankly, bad, and my searches didn't turn up anything better. But we do have sources attesting both to his role in the Telzer Derech and as rosh yeshiva of the Telshe yeshiva. The sources in our existing article about Telshe are equally bad, and we don't have an article at all about the Telzer Derech, but I was convinced through the coverage of both subjects in Google books that they are both unquestionably notable. So as a person with an important role in two different notable things, I think Rabinowitz escapes WP:BIO1E and should be kept. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I turned to Google Hebrew and found additional mentions of Rabbi Rabinowitz in a Hebrew sefer and also in an article about the Telshe yeshiva written by Rabbi Mordechai Gifter. The latter speaks about the high level of Rabbi Rabinowitz's Talmudic lectures and the fact that his lectures were all recorded, relocated to Cleveland, and made available to Telshe yeshiva students in their handwritten form. Yoninah (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article as it currently stands provides adequate sources to establish notability. One also needs to reflect on the lack of sources about the Yeshiva world that are available online and in English that would be readily available for most comparably notable individuals outside that milieu. This it does not surprise me that one would be able to find additional sources in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chaim_Rabinowitz&oldid=1146468125"