User:HG1/archive2007 1

Hey

Sorry for not responding before on IRC. You're more than welcome to contact me regarding anything at all (even a question you might think is stupid). The watchlist is probably the best way to do this. Yonatan ^talk 12:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Consistent Life Ethic

I have responded on my Talk page (to keep the conversation cohesive). Thanks! Joie de Vivre 13:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks 4 Help on [List of Iraq War Resisters]]

You put me on to sources and compelled me to do more research, based on the links you provided. I must thank you! rewinn 18:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

stub for Michael Fishbane

Thanks for looking at this. I added a few but sufficient sources. Also, put it in a specific category. I then removed the uncateg and unreferenced templates. Is that ok and proper procedure? thanks, HG 19:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Rsvp

That works for me. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am rashby on freenode and I would like the cloak wikimedia/rashby. Thanks. 23:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am rashby on freenode and I would like the cloak wikimedia/rashby. Thanks. --HG | Talk 11:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Mediation

Sure, I would love some help by someone with background knowledge. Also, I am very busy right now in real life, and do not have as much time to spend on things like WP right now, so more help would be appreciated. Just ask on the article talk page to make sure the other editors will accept this (I see no reason why they might not). Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably the best way to do most of it is on the article talk page, as that is where people wiil watch. Unless of course the message is specifically for one editor and is not important to the flow of the discussion, in which case leave it on their talk page. If you could leave Dking a note on his talk page, that would be nice (I meant to do it a few days ago but never got around to it. I should be able to edit more this weekend and should be much less busy by Wednesday. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Z-man. I did leave Dking a note, he didn't respond yet. I left jossi some q's, not yet answered -- here. Good luck with everything. HG 17:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

AFD

See WP:MERGE—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry to bother you, I'll try to get an involved party to implement this merge (Ryan Johnson, Kyle Snyder).HG

Your message (mediation)

I have added all the relevant talk pages to my watchlist. I'll be glad to help any way that I can. Answering your question, I think it would be best to address most of it on the article talk in this case. If you need to address a specific individual only, use their talk page. The case page isn't necessary but could be useful as a central reference, such as with Smee's request that certain information be posted on the case page. I've interacted with both Smee and Jossi in informal mediations. They are both reasonable and will clearly explain themselves if you ask.

It seems a lot of the dispute is over NRM vs. cults. My suggestion would be to split the article: New religious movements in fiction and popular culture and Cults in fiction and popular culture. NRM could focus on just those sorts of groups. Cults could focus on the archetypes and stereotypes of cults. I think it would separate some disputed issues and minimize them. My second suggestion would be to get the participants to establish some ground rules for list inclusion. If a split is rejected, or you think it would not be advisable, I would still recommend that inclusion standards be split between a NRM standard and a cult standard, since that seems directly related to the core dispute.

I hope that helps. I will keep an eye on things. If you have any further questions or concerns, feel free to leave me a message. Be well. Vassyana 23:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! And your tips on process. And ground rules. My first reaction is that a split would be (what I think is called) a POV fork. I don't think it would solve the problem, but I'll talk it through with folks. I suspect there won't be agreement on which group is an NRM and which a cult.HG 00:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I welcome your participation in trying to resolve these issues. I agree that Vassyana's suggestion probably wouldn't work. I have very limited time to deal with this matter in the coming two weeks, just as Joshi had to drop things for awhile last month, but I'll put together a reply as soon as I can. I urge you to read over the history of this discussion going back to when user name BabyDweezil (now banned) raised these issues in February. The replies to BabyDweezil and Joshi by user names Andries and Smee are especially pertinent.--Dking 18:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) How are things going? I notice that discussion of NRM is almost absent, instead focusing on "cults". You might want to make sure, however obvious it might seem, that the editors are in agreement about NRMs and just disputing "cults". Very good post by the by, it should spur some good discussion. Vassyana 04:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on reading the history, I think any non-cult-like NRM (e.g., Jewish havurah movement) is not a point of dispute, but you are right, I should get agreement on this. Plus, any little agreement is confidence-building. Thanks for feedback on my post. (Assuming you mean my post on the articles Talk page?) HG | Talk 05:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that post, and quite right that some basic agreement can go a long way. Springboards are quite useful. You seem like you have a pretty good grasp of what's going on and what you should be doing, so I only have minor advice to offer. (Good job :P) If I think of anything else, I'll leave a comment for you, but you seem to be right on track. Vassyana 05:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

japan & euthanasia

i've put the source info on the euthanasia talk page. Bueller 007 03:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for congratulating me on my RFA. By the way, what does mazal tov mean? · AndonicO ^Talk 07:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks! :) · AndonicO ^Talk 14:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

inclusion in category

you referred to a talk page where including Broyde in the marital law category was discussed. Can you point out where that page is? thanks Yehoishophot Oliver 04:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Conservative Judaism

Good point. The Who is a Jew article documents the controversy -- I'll transfer some sources later this evening. I agree that the degree to which Orthodox rabbis, in practice, question people's claims to halachic Jewish status is a separate question from the issue of what they profess. Besides the issue of the Israeli rabbinate, my (unsourced) understanding is that many synagogues ask for parental status or conversion certificates when people apply for synagogue membership etc., but I don't know the degree to which Conservative conversions are questioned on a day-to-day basis. --Shirahadasha 19:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I have looked this over, and it appears that you are a kind and polite editor as far as the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-03 Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture mediation case is concerned. I have taken the article Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture off of my watchlist, as well as the Mediation Page. My edits to that article of late have been more on the minor and non-controversial side, adding material sourced to citations that were generally not contested. I trust that you will handle this appropriately with Dking and Jossi. However, I would appreciate an update at the end to hear how it all turns out. Thank you again for your time, your kindness, and your polite demeanor with me. Yours, Smee 06:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

• Responded on my talk. Thank you again for your polite and patient attitude in all this. Yours, Smee 08:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Re : Ryan Johnson

Please check your email. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

:) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Creed

Thanks for your comments. I always intended to move it to the project namespace if people liked it, perhaps it's almost time to do that.

I can't think of any particular source that inspired me... it was more people who inspired me, the ones whose behaviour I admired on one hand and the ones whose behaviour (shall we say) challenged me on the other. So I started thinking, what do I value in other people's behaviour? What do I want to try to reflect in my own behaviour? And that's the result. Andrewa 18:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

AGF

Hi. Let me know if I can help reduce tensions. Good move to protect the page. Perhaps we need a way to clear the air, mention our grievances and annoyances, without taking it out on the article edits. HG | Talk 05:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Hopefully things will settle down. Best, --Shirahadasha 14:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

206.130.208.126

Hey. It seems that the IP is a frequent source of vandalism, and nothing but vandalism, so I have blocked it for two weeks now. If the vandalism continues after that, a longer schoolblock might be necessary. Thanks for notifying me, Prolog 14:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Halakha

Hi! I'm encouraging discussion of the issue of what the appropriate tamplate should be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Orthodox Judaism

Template:Orthodox Judaism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. IZAK 08:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Conservative Judaism

Do you in fact assert that Conservative Judaism's stance is not that it is an offshoot or response to something else, but that it is a thorough continuation of tradition, while other sects, including Orthodoxy, are offshoots of what eventually became to be termed Conservative Judaism? If so, how do you reconcile the extremely lenient attitudes possessed by Conservatism that one may operate motor vehicles on shabbos, when the responsa from great sages including to but not limited to the Chazon Ish, Rabbi S. Z. Auerbach and Rabbi Moshe Feinstein expressly prohobited such performance on shabbos. Were they operating under a delusion of strictness? Additionally, while the official stance of the Conservative movement allows only driving to and from synagogue, it is my understanding that most Conservative Jews drive wherever they desire on shabbos. (A close friend of mine who grew up Conservative and who's father is a Conservative Rabbi informed me of this official stance.) How does this widespread non-compliance conincide with Conservative Judaism being the official bearer of truth, in the opinion you have stated earlier. Are these not the representatives of Conservative Judaism? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)}

David, thanks for your note. For the purposes of wikipedia, I look at the situation in terms of historical and cultural processes. From that standpoint, I see the pre-modern Ashkenazi world as decentralized and somewhat diverse in its traditions and halakhah, though unified via codificatory efforts and rabbinic collaboration (etc). Then, perhaps due mainly to events in Germany and later in Hungary (see Jacob Katz), there is polarization(s) and coalescing into a few rival camps. Each camp claims to be doing what is best with and from the tradition. Each camp emerges through, forms its identity and ideologies through, a fair degree of dialectical tension with the other(s). As in the paragraph above and elsewhere, rather than look at the social processes, you are still trying to adjudicate the situation based on its normative content. You're trying to argue about which camp is Right or True, which may be useful for one's beliefs, but it's not a fruitful way to write an encyclopedia. This isn't the forum for that debate. You clearly have a great deal of knowledge that you can contribute here, but you'll frustrate yourself and other folks until you find a way to accept the kind of forum we have here, the kind of questions we're asking. Do you see what I mean? HG | Talk 02:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Michael Broyde

Hi there. I wrote a reply to your comments on the Michael Broyde talk page. Thanks. Felisse 20:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Still waiting for reply on my additional comments on the Michael Broyde talk page. Felisse 22:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on my talk page. I think I understand your approach. It was not just a lack of biographical information that I was regretting, though, but also a lack of articles synthesizing a viewpoint or discussion of Broyde's work such as you suggested. You are right, I do have scope to expand the article to contain information about his positions, provided I can summarize them in a purely descriptive way.

NOR says "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged" which definitely agrees with your suggestion that Broyde's publications serve as a source for an article on him. However, "An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." So I'd have to be careful to be descriptive only in the above sense.

What do you think of this approach - I can determine which of his articles is most cited, that would be an indication of its notability, read it and attempt to describe the opinion it states, determine which of the citing articles are most cited themselves, and add some information about how they support, extend, or refute Broyde's position. Felisse 00:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi :)

Just noticed your user name, which is somewhat similar with mine, so I just wanted to say Hi :) --HappyInGeneral 09:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Igros Moshe

BS"D

On the page you had written that the Igros Moshe had been published in 1883, eight years before he was even born. Therefore, I put 1983, though it had I think been published earlier. --Shuliavrumi 17:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)