Talk:Yehuda Amichai

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Jewish culture (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Israel (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Copy Violation[edit]

Hi, To the user who has posted the poem The Jewish Time Bomb, I am unable to verify, if this is allowed under any copyright rules. Please respond.

removed--Duk 06:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Thank you --IMpbt 23:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nili Scharf Gold research[edit]

There are assertions made by scholar Nili Scharf Gold about Yehuda Amichai's life that are apparently controversial. The solution to this is not to delete her statements, though; it's to add them in, then note the controversy and alternate views. She's a published scholar whose assertions are found in notable sources, and there's no grounds on which to remove them. User:Korny O'Near (talk) 04:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything controversial in the article. What are you referring to?--Gilabrand (talk) 06:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
User Maimenuhot keeps deleting the additions; see here. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

In a biography there should not be one dominnent version,like Gold is trying to impose, especially if it was found to be not correct by many scholars. This discussion should not take place in the item, but in the academic field. In the item in Wikipedia should be the biography in consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by חכמביום (talk • [[Special:Contributions/ חכמביום|contribs]]) 09:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not true. If there are multiple published accounts containing conflicting information, then they should all be mentioned. There's no reason to have only the "consensus" version be published, if in fact there is a consensus - I haven't seen any evidence that there is. Korny O'Near (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • See in: Wikipedia: About

"Wikipedia is written by open and transparent consensus – an approach that has its pros and cons" —Preceding unsigned comment added by חכמביום (talkcontribs) 07:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written via consensus - that's totally unrelated to so-called "academic consensus" - which you haven't proven either. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Who are you Korny O'Near ? are you Nili Gold or a member of her family?

Why do you insist so desperately to promote Golds book via Wikipedia by inserting trivial and twisted facts in Amichai's Biography? Is it because distinguished scholars like Prof Robert Alter and Prof Boas Arpali( and many other) harshly criticized the book?

You're violating several Wikipedia rules here, including being civil and assuming good faith. But for the record, I know nothing about Gold except for what I've read in that Ha'aretz article. The information is well-sourced, interesting, and relevant to the article; so there's absolutely no reason to remove it. If you can find these harsh criticisms you talk about, please add them to the article, so that readers can see both sides. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You can find the harsh criticism in Alter's and Arpali's articles mentioned in the biblioraphy, and also in Matt Nevisky article and Joshhou Cohen in FORWARDS.COM Sep 04 2008. For the record:the article in Haaretz is writen by a journalist(Almog) and not by a scohler, and Arpaly who is a distinguished scholar of Amichai began his article:"I was surprised by the enthusiasm of Almog from the book.. to my opinion,like other critics who wrote befor me, this is disheartening book,maybe becouse of the enthusiasm and ego intoxication of the writer" And also for the record: you are violating several rules, the main one is to promote a book via Wikipedia Biography.

If you do not have invested interest, May be if you read more and other things beside Almog's article , you may change your mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by חכמביום (talkcontribs) 20:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not promoting a book, I'm citing an article that cites it. As for the Joshua Cohen article, are you talking about this one? It doesn't say anything, good or bad, about the facts that you keep trying to remove. And yes, maybe if I read other articles, my opinion would change - but my opinion is irrelevant. If the facts are cited in a notable source, then they belong in the article - even if they're followed by a "most scholars disagree". Korny O'Near (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • You are trying, quite aggresively to promote the book in every way. and to mention it in every section of Amichai Biography, in a completely irrelevant manner.
and what do you mean by "notable sorces":the harshly criticied Gold's book by distingwished scholars (and by critics)- or the article by the non- scholar, the journalist Ruth Almog? —Preceding unsigned comment added by חכמביום (talkcontribs) 11:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
They're all notable sources - Gold's book, a review of it published in a major newspaper, and scholarly reviews of Gold's book - all three can, and should, be included in this article. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This discussion is repeating itself, and I won't go on.

I hope you will( under your different names) stop violating the rules by promoting a book via inserting minor trivial& distorted facts (compare the facts to Amichai's interviews and diaries)only in order to promote the book and the writer via the biography.Or maybe we need to take the further measures that Wikipedia offers in such cases of violation . .All the Best. Keep the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by חכמביום (talkcontribs) 11:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You're the only one violating the rules here. And please do take these "further measures" you're talking about - it'll be good for you to hear an outside opinion. In the meantime, I'm restoring the Gold passages. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet[edit]

Funny, how much User:Maimenuhot and חכמביום sound like the same person. This should be reported. --Gilabrand (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

funny how much Gilabrand and Korny O'near sound like the same person. This should be reported. It should also be investigated what is the relation of Gilabrand-O'near to Gold and how she exploit her status in Wikipedia in order to promot the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by חכמביום (talkcontribs) 12:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

I don't pretend to know who is correct in this edit war. But, given that this is an article that I took some time to improve some time ago, it is troubling to see it torn apart by edit warring that doesn't seem to be improving the article or advancing towards consensus. The warriors might want to consider pulling in one or more third parties if they don't think that they can reach accord themselves. Just a suggestion.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What's the best way to pull in third parties? Korny O'Near (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
If an admin has been involved with this article, you might ask them to look at the issue and give their thoughts. And/or touch base with Wikiproject Israel, which lists this as an article of high importance -- they will likely understand the substance being debated better than most. Personally, looking at the argument only on this talk page, I think that what you are most likely to hear back is that the key is that the info have a footnote to a reliable source, what they call verifiability, and that if it is a disputed opinion and the dispute is verifiable you can reflect that and the source as well. You can also try reading and posting on the talk page relative to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Criticism_and_praise --Epeefleche (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC
Korny, I already left a big list of avenues for comment at the AN3 report that was linked at your talkpage: "try Wikipedia:Third opinion or a relevant WikiProject, such as WT:WikiProject Israel or WT:WikiProject Jewish culture". rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

As you can see user O'near brings Gold's assumptions, but not verified facts. Her edited page of Amichai should be withold until the conflict is resolved —Preceding unsigned comment added by חכמביוםcontribs)

  • Since when distorted and unsorced facts are presented in an item in Wikipedia alongside with completely sorced facts (like the 3 mentioned above in my talk)?

== A biography of Yehuda Amichai based on letters that have not been studied before reaches certain conclusions. These conclusions are reported in a wide variety of academic journals and newspaper articles. A certain editor, for reasons that only he/she knows, thinks that these conclusions are wrong and consistently removes the sourced information from the article. The fact that these conclusions are contested is stated in the article. Can this material be deleted because an editor "doesn't like it," without bringing citations from any source to prove that it is wrong (only various garbled protestations about the material being twisted and accusations that Wikipedia editors are trying to promote this person's book)? --Gilabrand (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is one of many book reviews of the biography:

Project MUSE - Israel Studies - Yehuda Amichai: The Making of Israel's National Poet (review) Project MUSE Journals Israel Studies Volume 14, Number 2, Summer 2009 Yehuda Amichai: The Making of Israel's National Poet (review) Israel Studies Volume 14, Number 2, Summer 2009 E-ISSN: 1527-201x Print ISSN: 1084-9513 DOI: 10.1353/is.0.0040 Reviewed by Philip Hollander Nili Scharf Gold, Yehuda Amichai: The Making of Israel's National PoetWaltham, Brandeis University Press, 2008, 468 pp Groundbreaking research usually revolves around innovative analysis of extant materials or the exploitation of new materials that demand reevaluation of previously held assumptions. It is uncommon for one study to contain both of these elements, but Nili Gold's new book constitutes a rare example of this combination. Intimate familiarity with Yehuda Amichai's 1963 novel Not of this Time, Not of this Place, which chronicles the return of its Israeli protagonist Joel to his German hometown, led Gold to conclude that German language, German culture, and Amichai's childhood years in Germany continued to play a strong role in his life long after his arrival in Israel. Yet, despite the strong influence of Romanticism and the poetry of Rainer Maria Rilke, which both looked at one's childhood years as powerful material for the creation of poetry, Amichai's Poems 1948-1962 seems to contain almost no mention of Germany, where Amichai spent the first twelve years of his life, or its... --Gilabrand (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Afalpi (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

THE INVALIDITY OF GOLD'S BIOGRAPHY[edit]

  • This biography is based on letters which were not published anywhere, and are not available to the public. The book reports about the letters but the public can't see them. "Evidently Gold was not given permission to quote passages from the letters, so all the book can offer is her summaries of their content, which makes it a little hard to judge what sort of biographical testimony they provide"(Alter,Robert, December 31,2008, "Only A Man" The New Republic

This is not the only problem of the book. As I mentioned before , the book was harshly criticized by many, among them 2 of the most distinguished scholars of Hebrew Literature: Prof Robert Alter from Berkeley University (Alter, Robert (December 31, 2008), "Only A Man The New Republic • and Prof Boas Arpali' from Tel-Aviv University: Boaz Arpali ,"Patuach Patuach" Haaretz, January 16,2009

The book presents many distorted facts . I will comment on the 3 facts that Gillabrand-Korny O'near brings in her editing. 1. According to Gillabrand Gold claims that the name "Amichai" came from his girlfriend at that time, and that he was hiding this part of his life from the public record. In his many interviews Amichai talked about this episode in his life, in one of them he said that" it was common at that time to change (foreign) names to Hebrew names…. We looked for a name that will suite "Yehuda " and "Ruth". "Amichai" was a right name, because it was Socialist, Zionist and optimistic. After two month we separated" Was he hiding that part of is life as Gold claims? Here is the poem he wrote about it: “The rustle of history’s wings”, as they used to say …………………. For five shillings I exchanged the exile name of my fathers for a proud Hebrew name that suited hers.

That whore ran off to America and married a man, a spice dealer, pepper, cinnamon, and cardamom, leaving me with my new name and with the war.

“The rustle of history’s wings”, as they used to say then, which almost killed me in battle, blew a pleasant breeze across her face in her secure location.

Ruth Z did not initiate the changing of the name and did not invent the new one. She "tried" to see if it suits her first name Has this event any Poetic influence on his poetry? This is the only poem he wrote about this event 2. Little Ruth The fact brought by user Gilabrand-Korny Onear is from Gold's book. She wrote that Amichai , the boy of about 11-12 years old ,had an "argument with a childhood friend, Ruth Hanover, that caused her to bicycle home angrily; she fell and as a result had to get her leg amputated" How does Gold know what happened between the two children? Little Ruth died in the Holocaust. The only witness of what happened is Amichai, and that is what he said in an interview: "There was a girl who studied with me in my class, and in 1934 or 1935 she rode her bicycle and one of her legs was amputated in an accident…"(Dan Omer,"Baretz Hazot milim tzricht lhiot tzel" interview with Amichai' Proza, no.25 (july 1978)4-5. And in his notebook dated 11.12. 1990 , at The Beinecke Library Amichai wrote: "I remember that in 1934 little Ruth accident happened. DAYS before, we argued a little because I gave up easily the leading part of Yehuda Maccabi in the school show and the son of the headmaster got it. She argued that I had to fight more and not to give up immediately " Gold's connecting the argument as a cause for Little Ruth accident is invalid. 3." Gold's main contention, not entirely convincing to some, is that Amichai felt he needed to cover up the depth of his involvement with his German childhood and his love of German literature in order to become a good Israeli citizen and a national poet" wrote Gilabrand. This does not even pretend to be a valid fact, and here is what was said about that "main contention": "There is one other thing wrong with Nili Gold's book, and it is that she has a rather Dim notion of how to read a poem. At least some of this deficiency stems from her fixed idea that poetry is finally confessional or autobiographical, and hence that only through the biographical details can we grasp the real meaning of the poem"… "Again and again Gold asks why Amichai did not represent his German childhood in his poetry, except fragmentarily and obliquely. The inconvenient fact that his major novel , Not of This time, Not of This Place ,devotes elaborate attention to Wurzburg(which is given the fictional name Weinburg) is not allowed to trouble Gold's thesis of suppression' because the book is fiction, not poetry, and hence is thought somehow to belong to a different category in regard to the writer relation to his early years. But Gold's notion of Amicai's 'poetics of camouflage' rests on an entirely unexamined assumption- that it is the task of the poet to represent his life directly and in full…" Alter, Robert (December 31, 2008), "Only A Man The New Republic. And Arpaly wrote: "Amichai did not hide in his poetry the fact that he was an immigrant and a son of immigrants, but he chose to tell the story of his childhood in his hometown , in his novel "Not Of This Time, Not of This Place" and like any other writer he decided which material of his life will become material to his poetry.. " Did Amichai want to become a national poet?...his poetry embodied a silent but piercing revolution against the social and political institutions that enslave the life and happiness of the individual for their need- He should bother so much to build for himself the mythology of a national poet? All the things that Gold thinks he was hiding were not in any contrast to the unique "nationality" embodied in his poetry. I did not find in Gold's book an explanation to the concept 'national poet' but in the first place this concept appears in her book she is pointing to my article(1997) that says:' of all the poets who began to at the time of Amichai, or in later years, since Alterman there was not a poet more popular than Amichai. In this he is unique. He is probably the only canonic poet read by so many, also by people that do not belong to the Literary Community. In this matter he has no rivals. From this aspect, at least, he may be considered a national poet , a title that does not suite him from any other point of view… Gold's use of that title is not clear and not responsible." Boas Arpaly "Patuach Patuach" Haaretz, January 16,2009. To "plant" this distorted facts in Amichai biography item in Wikipedia, by the editor Gilabrand- Korny Onnear,(Her relation to Gold should be investigated) has only one goal: to promote Gold's book.Itlula (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, great - finally, some actual citations. This will go great in the article, alongside Gold's assertions. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Since when distorted and unsorced facts are presented in an item in Wikipedia alongside with completely sorced facts (like the 3 mentioned above in my talk)?

Can Korny O'near-Gilabrand sorce the 3 facts from Gold's book that she is citing in her editing of Amichai's biography? How desperately she tries to promote the invalid , unsorced, harshly criticized book of Nili-Sharf Gold.

Proving the false material of Korny O'near –Gilabrand in Amichai's biography I am asking an admin to remove her distorted editing and to protect it from her vandalism

(talk user "Chchanbyom" talk- as I could not log in I created a new account. The bibiliography item : Christian Leo, Zwischen Erinnen~und Vergessen-Jehuda Amichai Roman "Nicht von Jetzt,nicht von hier" im philosophischen und literarischen Kontext, Konigshasen&Neumann, Wurzburg 2004- was eraced by user Gilabrand. Is there something that frightens her about the book that she wants to hide it from the public?Itlula (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Why was Cristian Leo'S book (about Amichai's novel

" Not from here Not From Now" 2004- )erased from the bibliography? Does Gilabrand fear somthing will be discovered about the relation of this book to Gold's book? And why erasing Robert Alter article,"Only a Man" The New Republic, December 31, 2008? Is it becouse it harshly criticise Gold's book?

== a third to fifth opinion ==

It is really sad to see how a poet who was this engaged in "peace and reconciliation" is now himself a topic of fierce battles. I want to start with some famous stanzas of Amichai "From the place where we are right /Flowers will never grow /In the spring. /The place where we are right /Is hard and trampled /Like a yard." Just to introduce myself I'm the erased author that is cited above, a German scholar of German literature, philosophy and history who was born and raised in the native town of Amichai. When I started to interpret the works of this famous countryman of mine, the soil was fertile, there were a lot of things unsaid and not discussed. I enjoyed this freedom, and now as I read this "talk" by chance I find my name in a field of ideology and insurmountable fronts. It seems to me one party tries to cement the knowledge about Amichai to a certain degree (though to me the criticism of Amichai is just about to begin), the other party wants to rewrite his biography radically (including to wipe out my humble contribution). What can I contribute to this discussion? Merely a pledge for respect and tolerance in the name of Amichai, who would probably have laughed ironically and would have said something laconic like "That's life". By sure there are some facts to be added e.g. that Amichai emigrated in July 1936. I know he gave several differing statements changing his date of emigration (1935/36) and his arrival in Yerusalem (1936/37) for unknown reasons. But as I haven't put my life in a strict chronological order as well, I'd prefer to consult other sources. The registry of the Jewish community in Wuerzburg tells July 1936 for him and his Wuerzburgian uncle. The address book of Wuerzburg 1936 as well, also the tenent's lists of his two uncles (one in Wuerzburg the other in Giebelstadt, his own was burned during the war) and a picture showing all family members in a car in Venice before they left Europe. These are facts. Another topic may be the acceptance of his German cultural influences. As a matter of fact as a young open-minded poet he may have studied contemporary English / American poets during WW II as a member of the Jewish brigade. But as it was mentioned in the article we all know he grew up with German and Hebrew at first and there were a lot of German influences that Amichai never denied such as Goethe, Rilke, Heine, Gottfried Benn or Else Lasker Schueler (he quotes them directly in poems and his novel). Actually a letter of Siegmund Hanover Wuerzburgs Rabbi until 1939 mentions the "young poet Ludwig" and a "great poem of Little Ruth" he made in German in 1947 ("Von Pfeuffers erhielt ich vor einigen Tagen eine grosse Dichtung Ludwigs ueber das Leben unserer armen Ruth" 24.10.1947). He continued to have further contacts to German writers such as Heinrich Boell, Siegfried Lenz or Christoph Meckel. These influences enrich the creative work of Amichai though I would not dare to decide how far they go. Maybe the controversially discussed Miss Gold overemphasized these influences as a reaction to the fact that they were neglected before (though naturally not by me), it's in fact one aspect not the only one and not a deliberately supressed one. A poem is a creative game with several meanings and influences, metaphors and masks, I agree, though Amichai himself says there is always a biographical core in his poems, the engine: a personal experience. And in a way Amichai's poems are intentional, they open the minds and hearts of their readers. As he did in his interviews, Amichai was probably not willing to bore Israelis with poems about his German past for there were different current problem they were more interested in, but when he visited Germany he frankly talked about his German origin and his ancestors. Just two examples what can be changed without distorting Amichai and his heritage. More can be found if the paricipants of this "talk" would try to understand the other to a certain degree. And this degree could be the "compromise". I cannot believe that two parties beholding the same person don't find any similarity in their perception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.176.111.167 (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

My first thoughts are that the presence of the biography and what it says are factual and notable, and so valid for inclusion in the article. Wikipedia isn't here to judge whether claims made in a biography are true or not, but to record what was actually claimed. I'll have a full read through all the above comments later and will expand on my thoughts, but for now I have to contest the removal of this material. -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, disclaimer first - I had never heard of Yehuda Amichai or Nili Scharf Gold before today, and I have no interest in promoting anyone's take on these issues - I have no conflict of interest. Also, I have no interest at all at establishing the actual truth of his life or any claims made about him - I am only approaching this from the angle of what is valid for inclusion in the Wikipedia article and what is not.
I've had a read of the article and of the above points, and I think the argument is missing the point of Wikipedia. The fact that the Gold biography exists, and has been mentioned by other commentators, makes it notable and means that it is valid to refer to it and quote from it - see WP:NOTE. The accuracy of the biog is of no relevance to Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia and not a research publication, and it must carry no original analysis or personal opinions or deductions. All of the arguments above constitute personal opinion, original analysis of Amichai's life and of why the biog might be wrong, and a series of arguments trying to debunk it. As such they are not of any relevance to the Wikipedia article - see WP:OR.
If the biog exists, is notable, and makes assertions, then it is fine for the article to state what those assertions are. If other notable commentators have challenged the Gold biog, then it is also fine to state that too and to quote them. But it must be done with proper references and actual quotations (adding a personal paraphrasing and saying "See bibliography" is not adequate). And it must also be done from a Neutral Point of View - see WP:NPOV. What that means is that it is not permissible to state a personal judgment, like "So-and-so proves that the Gold biography is wrong". Instead, what is needed is an NPOV statement of what was actually said - something like "So-and-so disputes the Gold biography, saying....".
The above discussion says 'It is really sad to see how a poet who was this engaged in "peace and reconciliation" is now himself a topic of fierce battles'. I have no idea if that's the case, but if it is, then it is indeed sad. However, if that is what has happened, it is the job of Wikipedia to record exactly that, and not to try to undo it by taking sides.
-- Boing! said Zebedee 15:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I should have also added that if other notable writers have commented on the same issues as Gold, but have come to different conclusions, then it's fine to add that too - providing it is suitably quoted and referenced, and presented from a neutral POV.
-- Boing! said Zebedee 15:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

FINE, i am trying to bring in some other notable writers , but you undo it automatically. remove your outomaticall undo (or any other tecnical block) and allow bringing in other conclusions, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afalpi (talkcontribs) 15:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said, bringing in other notable writers is good, but you must do it with proper references and from a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). Oh, and other conclusions are only acceptable if they are properly notable - you can't add your own. You cannot simply state your own opinion (that someone else PROVES Gold wrong, because that's pretty much impossible). You need to simply state what the other author says, with an actual reference that others can check - "See bibliography" will not suffice. (Oh, and I don't have any "automatic undo" or "technical block", whatever they are). As a suggestion, why not state the text that you actually want to add to the article here first, so others can give you their opinion about its notability and perhaps suggest how it could be best expressed? -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If you do not have any block- why is itthat one can't edit the Amichai article? that is aganist the wikipedia rools and you are not an instance to decide whether my editing is proper or not

No, it is not against Wikipedia rules for for other editors to revert additions that do not adhere to Wikipedia's WP:NPOV and WP:OR rules - in fact, it's what we do all the time. I really think you should read WP:NPOV and WP:OR, and also familiarise yourself with some of the pages linked to at Template:Welcomeg.
I see you have made another change to the article. It certainly looks more in keeping with WP:OR and WP:NPOV, but it needs some changes. Firstly, you cannot say "Golds claim about Little Ruth is invalid", because that is your personal judgment, so I will remove that (and will replace it with something neutral later). And you should not capitalise parts of a quotation, because we are not supposed to use quotations to argue our personal points of view, but to develop articles neutrally - I will change that too.
Also, you are still not presenting references in the appropriate format - please see WP:CITE. I can fix that up for you later when I have some time, but to do that I need more information about them -
  • (Dan Omer,"Baretz Hazot milim tzricht lhiot tzel" interview with Amichai' Proza, no.25 (july 1978)4-5 - Did you personally read the reference quoted? Or did you read someone else's quotation of what it said?
  • And in his notebook dated 11.12.1990, at The Beinecke Library - Where did you discover the contents of his diary - did you read it yourself?
Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
PS: Your text formatting was, once again, wrong, with your new additions appearing in a box because you had preceded them with spaces. Please preview your changes and make sure they are formatted properly before you submit them - many editors would simply have reverted your recent changes for their incorrect formatting alone.
-- Boing! said Zebedee 07:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've cleaned it up a bit now, so you can at least see what a WP:NPOV version with no attempts at arguing a personal viewpoint looks like. But there's another problem. I presume Amichai was not speaking or writing in English when he made those quotations - the English in the quotations is grammatically poor, which is why we have to question their accuracy. So we need to know where you got the English translations from. If you translated them yourself, then I don't think they can be included, because you have repeatedly shown that you are arguing very hard to prove your own point of view and have not shown neutrality. What we need is for any translations to come from neutral or notable sources. If you can demonstrate that the translations are neutral/notable or can find a source that we can check, they should be fine. But if you can't, I think these new arguments of yours may have to go too.
-- Boing! said Zebedee 07:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Boing- you have not sorced Gold's 3 claims that you mentioned in your edditing , becouse Gold did not sorce them. If you do not understand Hebrew- and can't read Amichai's writings- why do you insist so desperatly to edit the article about him in Wikipedia? only in order to promote Gold's book? It would be nice if you will invest your talents in editing poets their writings you can read. Again, you vandalized my writing in the Disscution, changing my title ,as you eraced before 2 bibliogrpy items ,from the article , one by Prof. Robert Alter that harshly critisized Gold's book, the other by a German writer , Christian Leo, who wrote about Amichai long before Gold) If you mention Gold's book in the Article -it is a personal arguing a viewpoint, and it should not be in the article. But you add her book again and again, eracing other people opinions. If you bring one point of view ,it is legitimate to mention other books and articles by other writers as I did in my discussion' and will add to the article soon.

I think that we are going over and over,on the same things. You do not sorce your claims (citing Gold is not sorcing, you have to bring her sorces) and than vandalizing or twisting the valid sorces. I am calling for an ADMin to take action now

Hi (Sorry, I've been away a few days). What, I "have not sorced Gold's 3 claims that you mentioned in your edditing"? and that I "add her book again and again"? I have never added any material to this article! I have not myself made any mention of Gold's claims - someone else did that, and sourced it properly! I have also not removed any references - what I did was correct the format of yours!
All I have done is removed and/or amended some of your personal analysis, which is prohibited by WP:OR and WP:NPOV, and have tried to explain it to you to try to help you understand Wikipedia better and to produce a good and balanced article. Whether Gold's book is right or wrong is of no relevance - Wikipedia doesn't care which opinion is correct, because that is not the function of an encyclopedia - the function of an encyclopedia is to record notable commentary and not to evaluate it. Gold's book is notable, and your personal opinion is not. You must not add your own opinion that Gold is wrong and other writers are right - and that's really all there is to it.
I'm sorry that you either don't seem to understand the issues here, or are unwilling to listen and learn about how Wikipedia operates, instead apparently seeing me as some sort of enemy to be fought against.
If you feel you wish to seek recourse to admin, feel free to go ahead. I will not try to help you by explaining what you are doing wrong any further - I will simply remove any non-neutral personal judgment you add, and will give you the appropriate warnings. And should you reach a level 4 warning, I will request admin intervention. But in the Wikipedian spirit of Good Faith, and so you can have time to think about any reversions I might make, I will not revert you more than once a day. -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
PS: When you make changes to this talk page, please take care not to remove any material from or otherwise corrupt other people's contributions, as you did with my comments of Feb 4th. -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Afalpi (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)== Vanddelizing sorced text ==


Dear Boing- Zebedee-Gila Brand- Korny Onear what ever is your name, you are the one consistently vandalizing other people contribution, I did not touch your text, I just added my sorces which you twisted , manipulated and eraced ( here is the last version you vandalized )in order to hide or twist the untrue-unsorced facts in Gold's book:

== THE VANDALIZED REMOVED TEXT (BY BOING)

" Amichai traced his beginnings as a poetry lover to when he was stationed with the British army in Egypt. There he happened to find an anthology of modern British poetry, and the works of Dylan Thomas, T. S. Eliot, and W. H. Auden included in that book inspired his first thoughts about becoming a writer. . He changed his name to Yehuda Amichai around that same time. In her biography of Amichai, literary critic Nili Scharf Gold writes that the idea for the name change, as well as the name "Amichai", came from his girlfriend, Ruth Herman., who moved to the United states and than married Mr. Zilentziger .'''''''Cotrary to Golds claim , Amichai said in an Intervew it was his idea to choose the name Amichai," it was common at that time to change (foreign) names into Hebrew names…."Amichai" was a right name, because it was Socialist, Zionist and optimistic."………………….[15] The only influence this event had on his poetry is only one poem "“The Rustle of History’s Wings”, As They Used to Say" in which he wrote: "... For five shillings I exchanged the exile name of my fathers for a proud Hebrew name that suited hers.'That whore ran off to America and married a man, a spice dealer, pepper, cinnamon, and cardamom, leaving me with my new name and with the war" [16]Gold also believes that a childhood trauma in Germany had an impact on his later poetry: he had an argument with a childhood friend, Ruth Hanover, that caused her to bicycle home angrily; she fell and as a result had to get her leg amputated. Several years later, she was unable to join the rest of her family, who fled the Nazi takeover, due to her missing leg, and ended up being killed in the Holocaust. Amichai occasionally referred to her in his poems as "Little Ruth".[17]

In an interview, Amichai described the incident: "There was a girl who studied with me in my class, and in 1934 or 1935 she rode her bicycle and one of her legs was amputated in an accident" [18] In his notebook, cotrary to Gold's unsorced version, Amichai wrote, "I remember that in 1934 little Ruth accident happened. DAYS before, we argued a little because I gave up easily the leading part of Yehuda Maccabi in the school show and the son of the headmaster got it. She argued that I had to fight more and not to give up immediately". [19] In Amichai words- the accident happened days after the argument between him and "little Rute" and not immediatly after their argument.So there is no connection between the argument and the accident as Gold unsorced presentation of the accident. Robert Alter and Boas Arpaly wrote about Gold's contention: "Again and again Gold asks why Amichai did not represent his German childhood in his poetry, except fragmentarily and obliquely. The inconvenient fact that his major novel , Not of This time, Not of This Place ,devotes elaborate attention to Wurzburg(which is given the fictional name Weinburg) is not allowed to trouble Gold's thesis of suppression, because the book is fiction, not poetry, and hence is thought somehow to belong to a different category in regard to the writer relation to his early years. But Gold's notion of Amicai's 'poetics of camouflage' rests on an entirely unexamined assumption- that it is the task of the poet to represent his life directly and in full…" Alter, Robert (December 31, 2008), "Only A Man The New Republic. And Boas Arpaly wrote: "Amichai did not hide in his poetry the fact that he was an immigrant and a son of immigrants, but he chose to tell the story of his childhood in his hometown , in his novel "Not Of This Time, Not of This Place" and like any other writer he decided which material of his life will become material to his poetry.. " Did Amichai want to become a national poet?...his poetry embodied a silent but piercing revolution against the social and political institutions that enslave the life and happiness of the individual for their need- He should bother so much to build for himself the mythology of a national poet? All the things that Gold thinks he was hiding were not in any contrast to the unique "nationality" embodied in his poetry. I did not find in Gold's book an explanation to the concept 'national poet' but in the first place this concept appears in her book she is pointing to my article(1997) that says:' of all the poets who began to at the time of Amichai, or in later years, since Alterman there was not a poet more popular than Amichai. In this he is unique. He is probably the only canonic poet read by so many, also by people that do not belong to the Literary Community. In this matter he has no rivals. From this aspect, at least, he may be considered a national poet , a title that does not suite him from any other point of view… Gold's use of that title is not clear and not responsible." Boas Arpaly "Patuach Patuach" Haaretz, January 16,2009"

"Dear Boing- Zebedee-Gila Brand-whatever is your name' you are the one..." - We are TWO SEPARATE PEOPLE!
-- Boing! said Zebedee 06:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, now you've changed it to "Dear Boing- Zebedee-Gila Brand- Korny Onear what ever is your name' you are the one...". That is THREE SEPARATE PEOPLE! -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
PS: Now that you have come back with your uncivil accusations against everyone who has tried to help you with this issue, I'm afraid I'm forced to withdraw my assumption of good faith. Thus I rescind my offer to restrict myself to one reversion per day - my intention was to give you time to think, but that clearly isn't going to help. -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear BOing& family etc. : I am amazed that you call your manipulation and eracing of my text "good faith". If you claim that you have good faith- leave my text as it is, as i did not touch your text- I just added my facts which you manipulated and eraced.Afalpi (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Dear BOing You vandalize again the bibiliography and eraced Robert alter and Boaz Arpaly- the two most distinguished scholars who harshly criticised Gold's invalid book. And please DO NOT THRETEN ME that you will "rescind my offer to restrict myself to one reversion per day" and do not "give me time to think". You are vandlaizing, patronising and threatning. Do you own Wikipedia? You also threatened to call an ADMIN. Please do it soon! Afalpi (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward[edit]

Mediator User:Epeefleche's request[edit]

Afalpi, or whomever -- as I said in my note some time ago, I'm distressed that this article is being torn up in edit warring. The discussion above is hard to follow, with headers mis-typed so they do not appear as such, and with bold all caps shouting. Can someone perhaps summarize what the outstanding points of contention are, so I can see if I may have a view that may be helpful? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Opinion of User:Boing! said Zebedee[edit]

Hi Epeefleche. I appreciate how hard this is to follow - Alfapi has been editing history and inserting sections that were not originally there (and leaving his failed new section attempts around to confuse things further - I've already removed some). He also rarely signs his contributions, so it can be hard to see who has said what.
I came across this article recently during RCP, and had never before heard of Amichai, Gold, or any of the other protagonists - I have no COI or POV whatsoever. The argument is all about a couple of paragraphs in the article based based on a biography written by literary critic Nili Scharf Gold, in which she makes a couple of controversial claims. Others contest those claims. An NPOV article should, of course, present both sides, with proper references, without trying to judge between them. However, Afalpi has repeatedly tried to change the article to argue only one side - that Gold is wrong. He has tried a number of different methods (admittedly slowly improving) - removing all mention of Gold's claims, removing other well-sourced quotes that he doesn't like, adding his own personal assertion that Gold is wrong, quoting notable people who disagree with Gold (getting better) but adding his own judgment that "This proves Gold wrong" (not so good), doing the same again but adding his own judgment that "This makes Gold's book invalid" (not much better), using valid quotes but capitalising the parts that contradict Gold to add non-neutral emphasis, dismissing Gold's claims as unsourced, and not properly referencing the quotes he is using. (I could provide dif links for all of these, but it would be quite a task now and I really don't have the time).
Through all of this, I have tried to explain WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOTE, and have generally tried to help him understand how to write a good Wikipedia article and that all articles must present the opinions of both sides of any notable argument while arguing in favour of neither. (If you check my comments in this Talk - they're all properly signed - hopefully my AGF and genuine attempts to help will be apparent).
But all Afalpi sees in me is an "If you're not with me you're against me" enemy, and confuses my efforts at promoting neutrality with attempts to argue against him and support Gold's claims. And all I have got in return is abuse (again, I could provide dif links for the abuse if I had time, but you can see a couple of examples in this talk). Another editor, Gilabrand (Talk), has done some very good work in searching for refs, presenting a neutral POV, and generally improving the quality of the article - only to receive abuse from Afalpi too.
The latest, this morning, is that Afalpi has re-inserted two large quotations that counter Gold's claims (which is good), but has not referenced them properly (not so good), and has again capitalised one word that emphasises his own POV, and again referred to Gold's assertions as "unsourced" (her sources are a set of letters sent by Amichai to an ex-lover - the contents of the letters have not been published, but the biog is certainly not unsourced). I've fixed this up (it was a better than his previous attempt, and I had a bit of free time to correct it) - I have removed the non-NPOV capitalization and "unsourced" allegations, have fixed up the formatting of the quotes, and have placed the refs in tags.
Oh, I just noticed that in all of this, a couple of references to Gold's biog have gone missing - I'll dig them out and put them back. Oh, and I think I'll remove the Talk sections here that Afalpi has retro-actively added, as it kinda hides earlier parts of the discussion and emphasises only the most recent part - I'll do that shortly.
Anything you can do to help bring this to a halt would be greatly appreciated.
Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee 02:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
PS: Some of the earlier comments were by User:Itlula (talk), who says exactly the same things and in the same style as Afalpi - I think it's probably safe to assume that all the unsigned 'anti-Gold' comments in this dicsussion are by the same person. -- Boing! said Zebedee 02:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
PPS: User:חכמביום also appears to be the same person - as you can see, also with a history of removing the same sourced content -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Mediator's first suggestions[edit]

Thanks. This is (for me) a good start at understanding what is going on, better than I could divine from the above. No need for anyone to supply me with diffs; I will just look at this on a going-forward basis, in my attempt to help everyone move the article forward. Without looking at the diffs or text, my meager suggestions at the moment are that: 1) everyone (if they can remember -- I sometimes forget myself) sign their postings; and 2) Instead of large postings of material on this page (let's call 10-12 lines of text large, liberally speaking) that can be reflected in a "diff", editors reflect the material in a diff (which can be clicked through to -- let me no if you are not clear what a diff is, or how to create one, and I will explain on your talkpage). Both of those suggestions only go to making the arguments of the ones agreeing to them easier to follow, so hopefully all can agree to them. If the other editors have anything to add to what you've said, I'll take a look. After that, I'll focus on the text in dispute, and see if I can make any helpful suggestions here. One last question -- how notable is Gold (if you know)? I just did a quick search, only on wikipedia, and found no mention other than the one in this article. Same question as to SHOFAR (if you know). No wp article, but a smattering of refs to it in other wp articles (I would have to click through to a number to see if they are to the magazine, but at min there are two or three others. Tx.(I almost saved this without adding my name, but thought that might not be all that funny after all). --Epeefleche (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability of Gold - view of User:Boing! said Zebedee[edit]

How notable is Gold? That's a good question. Apart from the Amichai biog, I can't find much other mention of her. So she might not be otherwise very notable, but her biog seems to be. Here are a few of the links I have found while working on this...
There are others, some of which appear to be rehashes of the above, and various blog/chat comments, but I think the above seems to suggest that the book has certainly been considered notable by a number of important Jewish sources - and generally pretty positively.
I almost saved this without adding my name, but thought that might not be all that funny after all - I'd have smiled :-)
-- Boing! said Zebedee 07:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Boing-Zebedee, how nice of you to bring

Forwards article by Joshhou Cohen ( ;"The Poet Who Invented Himself" Forwads.com Sep 04 2008) the seconed item in your list . And this is what he said (among other similer sayings ) "Nili Scharf Gold, a University of Pennsylvania professor of Hebrew literature, has written a biographical study of Amichai that unpacks not only this poem but also many of the others, while purposefully obscuring, or reinterpreting, the poem that was the poet’s life. Her detailed, generously neurotic work is determined to remind us that Amichai was not a Sabra but a German whose Hebrew was conscious," Afalpi (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem - I'm happy to help. All I want to do is help make the article neutral and unbiased and not argue one specific point of view, and that requires notable sources from all sides. -- Boing! said Zebedee 02:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


Who is Nili Gold ?by Afalpi

HI Epeefleche As you already find out that Gold is a Minor and Obscure scholar As I mentioned before Gold's book was harshly criticised by many, among them 2 of the most distinguished scholars of Hebrew Literature: Prof. Robert Alter( Berkelly U)"only a man" The New Republic, Dec 31 2008, and Prof. Boaz Arpaly ( Tel-Aviv U) Shofar, Winter 2010 "Amichai -The making of Israel National poet." Also: Boaz Arpaly: "Patuach Patuach" , Haaretz Jan 16, 2009 it was also harshly criticised by Litterary critics like Matt Nesvisky "letters I wrote to you" The Jerusalem Report Dec 8 2008, and Joshua Cohen "The poet who invented himself" Forwards and others Is not it a shame that the whole article about a grear poet , Amichai, is ivolving around an obscure and harshly criticised book ? You have not heard about her becouse she is a minor and obscure scholar and she is trying desperatly to push her book via the article on Amichai (By the way, Again items from the refrences and from the bibliography that are not agrreiable to Gold were eraced) Please put an end to this craziness that is going on so long Gold's veiw's should be avalable in the Bibliography, among others and not imposed on the article. Please explain what a "diff' is and how is it done Afalpi (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

An example for The unsorced facts are:

The story about little Ruth accidend as Gilabrand- boing etc. brings it. Her reference is Gold's book, but this is not sorced in the book. Only 2 people knew what happened between them;amichai and Ruth. Ruth is dead -but we have Amichai's version The primery sorce , contradicting Gold's version is found in Amichai's journal in the Bienecke library. This is not just different opinions, here is an unsorced "story' on one side Gold's, and a sorced fact on the other side. Only one of those versions has to be true. It is about facts, not about opnions Afalpi (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Boing! said Zebedee's response to User:Afalpi's comments[edit]

Hi Epeefleche.
(I've fixed a couple of Afalpi's sentences, above, simply to remove the leading spaces that cause them to be shown in those big boxes - here's a diff to show I haven't made any material changes)
Afalpi has recently done this, which removed at least one properly-sourced comment that he didn't like (a statement of something Gold said in her book), and broke a section heading. He says "The story about little Ruth accidend as Gilabrand- boing etc. brings it. Her reference is Gold's book, but this is not sorced in the book." However, I provided a reference to a review of Gold's book that explicitly shows the claim that "Amichai felt some responsibility", so the comment clearly was sourced.
I've reverted his recent raft of changes - there may have been some good ones, but I simply don't have time to pick them apart in detail every day and fix the whole thing up, and if we just leave them for later he will keep on making changes until it's really hard to get back to a good article again.
As you can see from Afalpi's recent comments, he wants us to analyse the Gold biography and decide that it is incorrect, and therefore remove its discussion from the article. He doesn't seem to understand the distinction between notability and truth, appears to think that a Wikipedia article should provide its own analysis, and also seems to think that primary sources are all that should be allowed. (Also, Amichai's own version of events cannot be taken to be guaranteed 100% accurate, as people often do tell things differently to the way they really happened, especially if they have an emotional attachment to the events - I'm not saying that's true in this case, but it does often happen, which is one reason we cannot rely on primary sources alone).
Afalpi's claim that "Only 2 people knew what happened between them;amichai and Ruth" cannot be taken as fact, because Amaicahi wrote a lot of letters to his ex-lover, and it is from the contents of those that Gold draws her conclusions - just because we haven't seen the actual letters themselves doesn't make Gold's analysis either unsourced or false.
But one thing I do agree with Afalpi over is that something has to be done to stop this - I look forward to your recomendations.
-- Boing! said Zebedee 01:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
PS: Here's a suggestion for the short term - How about all three concerned editors impose a voluntary ban on ourselves from editing the article until this problem is resolved? You could choose the version to stick with in the meantime.
-- Boing! said Zebedee 01:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
PPS: Sorry I went way over the suggested 10-12 lines
-- Boing! said Zebedee 01:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Another user's input[edit]

Hi, nice to see that some attempts are made to improve the article. I'm the German scholar from above and want to add some sources to this Byzantine discussion. Just to show you how easily compromises can be found. Concerning the name choice of Amichai I want to quote a German source (interview with the BR 4th of May 1998) in my book (Christian Leo etc. p.248) and translate it the best I can: "Between the two wars we all were very socialist and Zionist in our attitude and therefore changed our names. [...] In these times I had a girlfriend, we both were very young and about to marry, thus we decided to choose a name that would fit to her name as well. Amichai, "my people live!", this was naturally very socialist and Zionist, too. But that's life: two month atferwards we were apart and I was left behind with this name." Probably someone with more experience could add this to the biography if it's really that important. Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chleo (talkcontribs) 02:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. That quote sounds like it would be a very good source to quote, and as you say, a good compromise. If you can provide a full reference to the original - even a German original is fine - I think it would be fine to add it.-- Boing! said Zebedee 02:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Afalpi's criticism of reversion by User:Boing! said Zebedee[edit]

Dear Boing &etc- I was so sorry to find out that again you manipulated the bibliograpy( Nili Gold as the auther of the Shofar article instead of Boaz Arpaly) and eraced CHana Kronfeld article "The wisdom of camoflage" from 1990, and eraced Joshua Choen article in Forwards. You have your reason to worry about those 3 articles- but eracing bibiliography items is the highest vandalism Afalpi (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Afalpi. I didn't "manipulate the bibliography" - I simply reverted your set of changes because you, once again, also removed some properly-sourced material at the same time, and also broke a section heading by adding the text "UTC" before it [1]. I didn't have time to pick your changes apart one by one, so all I could do was revert them to fix the article, and leave you to re-do the good bits if you chose (as I explained above). I have no problem with any of the sources you refer to - they're good, and they should be in there - but you really need to include them properly, without damaging other parts of the article at the same time.
If you wish to correct a bibliography error, please feel free to do so, but don't remove properly-sourced content and don't break the format of the article at the same time - do you ever preview your changes, as I have suggested a number of times?
Oh, and please, will you stop assuming bad faith, and stop being so abusive -- Boing! said Zebedee 02:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Sigh, and you've just done it all again - you've broken the section heading again by adding "UTC" to the front of it, you've replaced good English with your own bad grammar (by duplicating the starts of sentences), and you have removed a number of properly-sourced comments again [2]. Fortunately I have some free time, so I'll fix it all up properly for you this time. -- Boing! said Zebedee 02:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear, and you've made the word "Days" bold this time. It's a quote, and he didn't say it in bold, did he? You really can't just embolden parts of quotes to emphasise your own personal viewpoint! -- Boing! said Zebedee 02:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Further comments from User:Boing! said Zebedee[edit]

Looking back on some of this disagreement (I've checked back as far as September 2009), it is becoming clear that one of Alfapi's arguments seems to be that Primary sources are best, and that they should take precedence over Secondary sources (and he's even suggested on occasions that secondary sources should be banished to the Bibliography section). However, Wikipedia policy is the exact opposite - see WP:PRIMARY. -- Boing! said Zebedee 04:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I've just re-read this section and spotted a rather bizarre claim that I missed before - Afalpi says "she is trying desperatly to push her book via the article on Amichai"! Does he think that I am Nili Scharf Gold? Or that Gilabrand is? Or that other editors he's disagreed with are? Or that we're all Ms Gold? Or perhaps that she's paying us all? -- Boing! said Zebedee 04:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Boing! said Zebedee has reverted again[edit]

I have just reverted another set of changes by Afalpi...

  • [3] is bad grammar - "Contrary to this" used to start two consecutive sentences. (There was nothing wrong with the original - it just seems to be another attempt to emphasise his personal opposition to Gold).
  • [4] (same edit) - "and there was no connection between the dispute and the accident" is personal analysis of a primary source, which is counter to Wikipedia policy WP:PRIMARY.
  • [5] (same edit) - breaks a ref tag.
  • [6] is bad grammar, and is also furthering the editor's POV in personally challenging Gold's claims.
  • [7] removes reference tags and breaks the format of the article, placing the next sentence in a big box.
  • [8] is changing the meaning of a sentence away from the original (relating to one specific event) to claiming that Amichai's actual relationship with Ruth had no other influence on his poetry, and that's WP:OR again.

-- Boing! said Zebedee 07:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

And he's put them back yet again. -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
This is just a waste of everybody's energies. It will be a happy day when this psycho gets blocked. --Gilabrand (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gilabrand. I understand your frustration, but I think we need to work together constructively to achieve the aim of being able to freely improve this article in accordance with Wikipedia policies. The WP:DRR process has been kicked off by User:Epeefleche's kind assistance, and I intend to pursue it as far as necessary - if nothing else, it will be educational for me. I do hope that a number of people who have worked constructively on this article will stick with us and help work this out. -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear GilaBrand-Boing said Zedebe- calling someone who does not agree withyou"Psyco" is realy not a Good Faith attitude, and really breaking a basic low of civilized behaviorAfalpi (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I never called you anything of the sort! Please do try to get it into your head that we are different people, and do not accuse me of something I have not said! -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Protected[edit]

  • Note that page is now fully protected from editing for the next five days. Hopefully this will aid with dispute resolution. Just a reminder, the only exception to the edit warring policy is blatant vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Beeblebrox, hopefully that will help us focus on discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee 03:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Afalpi and response from Boing[edit]

Boing Dear- You vandalized and eraced my editing becouse , according to you , it was bad grammer. Oh, no! The grammer was not the problem. You did not alow me to put Amichai's own sorced version to the little dispute between him and little Ruth- againest your unsorced version. This is not a dispute between a primary and secondary version- you still did not sorce Gold's "story" from her book.You have manipulated my sorced version in order to camoflage the fact that it contradict the unsorced "story " of Gold. As I did not change your writing- I just reacted to them bringing contratictory sorces- why do not you leave alone my writing, and do not change and manipulate it?Afalpi (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Afalpi. I did not revert your changes just because of poor grammar. I have explained that there were a number of problems with your edits, which include...
  1. You do not seem to understand the issue of sourcing. Please see WP:PRIMARY, which explicitly states "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully." and "Our policy: Reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Your own interpretation of Primary sources (interviews, Amichai's journal) are clearly prohibited by that, and you cannot use your own analysis of Primary sources to argue your own opinion. Also, Gold's book is a secondary source, and so is permitted to be used as a reference. And she has explained the primary sources on which it is based (there is no Wikipedia requirement for those sources to be published), so your claims of it being unsourced are groundless.
  2. You also don't seem to understand Wikipedia's approach to truth - see WP:TRUTH Wikipedia:Truth, which says "Truth is not the criteria for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article [...] The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." While the pursuit of truth is an admirable activity, an encyclopedia is not the place to do it - Wikipedia just documents what notable sources have said, and does not seek to analyse the truth of them.
  3. You keep manipulating a quote (by capitalizing, or emboldening, the word "Days"), in order to use it to further your own personal analysis of a Primary source. As WP:PRIMARY also says, "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source."
  4. You also changed the meaning of a statement (changing the word "event" to "relationship"), to add your own personal evaluation that Amichai's relationship with Ruth had no other effect on his poetry. See WP:OR, which states, "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." So your own original opinion and analysis is not allowed - if you wish to claim that the relationship had no other effect on his poetry, you need to find a secondary source that says so and not just state your own opinion.
  5. You have also been removing other properly-sourced content, apart from references to Gold's book, for example here. You have removed that one a number of times, sometimes with the comment "unobjective".
  6. Sloppy editing and bad grammar. This was by no means my only criticism, but you persistently replace good grammar with your own bad grammar (and keep reverting it when people try to fix it for you), persistently break section headings (as you just did with the "Protected" heading above - I've fixed it now), repeatedly format text incorrectly so that it appears in big boxes, and you keep breaking references, resulting in large red error messages. This one is really easy to solve - as I have asked you several times, can you please just Preview your changes first (and check their effect on the whole article), before submitting them?
  7. The sum of all this is that you are trying to make the article argue just one point of view, and you seem determined to either remove, or personally argue against, anything even vaguely critical of Amichai. That is a clear violation of WP:NPOV.
  • As for my not sourcing Gold's story from her book? Firstly, it was not me who sourced it. It was added long ago by someone else, in a properly-sourced manner, and you keep taking it out - all I have been doing is reverting your excision of it. And there is a reference to what Gold actually said in her book (several, in fact) - it's a reference to a review (of which there are a number) in a notable source (and in one of your edits, you removed that reference too). Published reviews are themselves secondary sources, and their use is in keeping with Wikipedia policy.
  • If you wish to resolve our dispute here, you need to address the actual issues I am describing here, rather than just ignoring them and repeating your claims about Gold's book. If you don't show the good faith necessary by engaging in the points I am actually trying to make, this will inevitably escalate further, and I would much rather things were sorted out amicably. So I really do urge you to read and understand the Policy pages that I have referred you to - and please, if anything in them is unclear, just ask here and I (or others) will try to help further.
-- Boing! said Zebedee 04:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Epeefleche[edit]

I'm busier than I would like to be both in the real world and w/a couple of other articles, and don't know that I have the time for this article right now. But I'm concerned about the prospect of edit-warring starting up again once page protection is lifted. If the editors can't reach agreement on the talk page, I suggest they seek help from other editors at a likely wikiproject page or other page -- time spent reverting each others' work is, at the end of the day, a waste ... and would be better spent by all improving other articles. So, if there is a deadlock, I suggest that editors first: a) seek consensus on this page; and b) in the absence of that working, seek the aid of others to resolve the conflict. It may also be that, if edit warring restarts, extension of page protection will make sense.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Afalpi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afalpi (talkcontribs) 21:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

–Hi Epeefleche,

Block quote </ The main issue of the dispute is that Gila Brand- Boing is trying to distort and control in every possible way the article about Yehuda Amichai by imposing Nili Gold's opinions while manipulating other people's credible contribution. Ms. Brand- Boing introduced Gold's name and her private opinions in the article itself , a praxis I have not seen in any other article in Wikipedia about other poets and it is not NPOV . I have looked at similar articles about other notable poets such as; Ted Huges, Allen Ginsburg , Sylvia Plath – whenever disputed material is mentioned, the actual discussion does not appear in the article, only in reference or as a footnote in bibliography. Though all these poets had different biographies and had their share of scholar disputes, the actual names of the biographers and scholars that took place in the dispute was never mentioned in the article itself.

Since Gila Brand-Boing behaved in a NPOV way ("Gold believes" , "Gold thinks", etc)- and accused Amichai for little Ruth accident, I thought there was a need to bring the contradicting facts, mentioning it was contrary to "Golds believes" or her point of view. Gila- Boing manipulated my writing by altering my words: Here is Gila Boing's version: "Gold also believes that a childhood trauma in Germany had an impact on Amichai's later poetry. She says he had an argument with a childhood friend, Ruth Hanover, which led to her cycling home angrily. Ruth was caught in a traffic accident, as a result of which she had to have a leg amputated, , and Amichai felt some responsibility.[18] According to Gold, Ruth later died in the Holocaust. Amichai occasionally referred to her in his poems as "Little Ruth"." . Here is my version:

Contrary to Gold's believe , in Amichai's account of this episode in his journal, the accident happened some days after his dispute with Little Ruth, and there was no connection between the dispute and the accident :"I remember that in 1934 the little Ruth accident happened. Days before, we argued a little because I easily gave up the leading part of Yehuda Maccabi in the school show and the son of the headmaster got it. She argued that I had to fight more and not to give up immediately". Amichai Yehuda, Working Journal, 11.12. 1990, Beinecke Library, Yale University, Gen.Mss 572/ In an interview Amichai said: "Little Ruth is my Anne Frank."[20] "I found out that she (Little Ruth) was in the last transport in 1944. This knowledge goes with me all the time, not because of guilt feeling." [21] "If there is any guilt feeling it's like the guilt that soldiers feel when they survive the battle while their friends were killed"[22] Another line that was erased by Gila- Boing  : The only influence this relationship had on his poetry is on one poem "“The Rustle of History’s Wings”, As They Used to Say" in which he wrote: "... For five shillings I exchanged the exile name of my fathers for a proud Hebrew name that suited hers. That whore ran off to America and married a man, a spice dealer, pepper, cinnamon, and cardamom, leaving me with my new name and with the war".

In general ,Gold's biography about Yehuda Amichai is highly disputed and was harshly criticized by notable and credible scholars such as Professor Robert Alter from Berkley University and Boaz Arpaly from Tel-Aviv University, to name a few. (this is what Boing constantly vandaliize and erace: Nili Scharf Gold…haswriten a biographical study of Amichai that unpackes not only this poem but also many of other, while purposley obscuring or reinterpeting the poem that was the poets life. Her detailed generously nerotic work is determinded to remind us that Amichai was not a Sabra but a German who's Hebrew was conscious Joshua Cohen, The Poet Who Invented Himself" Forwards Com. Sep 04 2008Intruding Gold's controversial and distorted notions highly damages the validity and objectiveness of the article about Yehuda Amichai in Wikipedia. Her book is listed in the bibliography . If one wishes to display gold's controversial and slandering notions I suggest it should be posted under Gold's own Wikipedia article. Afalpi (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Epeefleche, Thanks for your attempts to help - it seems we're going to have to take this elsewhere to get it resolved. -- Boing! said Zebedee 05:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Epeefleche, Boing is vandalizing and eracing again, even items from her list of notability, like the one of Joshua Cohen from Forwards Thank you for your help, Afalpi (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Thank you for your help

The article has been protected from editing for the past 5 days, so how can I possibly be doing anything to it? -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Boing- you did it all in the disscution page , this early morning- you eraced Joshoua Cohen from Forwards Afalpi (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Should controversial content be removed?[edit]

There has been a content dispute between User:Afalpi and a number of other editors going on for some time. Afalpi argues that some content, particularly a biography written by Nili Scharf Gold, makes false claims (or is not objective) and so should not be discussed in the article. Other editors argue that it should, as it is notable and referenced. Opinions are covered in plenty of detail in the above Talk -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Please add comments here -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There has been a content dispute between User:Afalpi and a number of other editors going on since May 2009, with Afalpi apparently using four usernames - see Afalpi [9], Itlula [10], חכמביום and [11] and Maimenuhot [12]. Afalpi has been removing content that appears negative towards Mr Amichai, particularly (but not limited to) a biography written by Nili Scharf Gold. Afalpi argues that the Gold biography makes false claims and so should not be discussed in the article, but other editors argue that it should, as it is notable. There are a number of other issues related to this, but they are covered in plenty of detail in the above Talk -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC) -- This was the original version of my opening comment, which was not sufficiently neutral (see comment by Beeblebrox, below) but Afalpi has objected to my modifying it to the version above, so for the record I have left a struck-out copy of it here -- Boing! said Zebedee 03:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC) )

There has been a content dispute between User:Afalpi and a number of other editors who are apperently one person using the following differnet names : 1. Boing 2. GilaBrand 3. Corny O'near. Afalpi's critisim is limited to the introduction of Nili Scharf Gold's Unaoutherized and widley critsized biogrphy of Yehuda Amichai, in the article. Obviously Wikipedia is not the apropriate media for advertising books, i suggest again that Gold's biography should be footnoted or discussed in other forums ,and that wikipedia will not be used as a marketing tool.
Afalpi (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Both of you, if you believe there is abuse of multiple accounts going on, be prepared to prove it by filing an WP:SPI case, or leave it outside. These kinds of accusations are in no way helpful in a dispute, but if they were proven, would fundamentally change the nature of this discussion, so if you can't back it up with enough evidence for a report, don't even mention it. RFC dispute statements are supposed to be neutral, with each participant making their case below the opening statement. And it's supposed to be about the issues with the article not the issues you have with each other. I'm going to extend the protection for two more days, but after that I'll expect you to restrain yourselves from edit warring until this dispute is resolved. If you can't do that, expect to be blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Apologies - I am not in any way making accusations of abuse of multiple accounts by Afalpi, because I don't think there has been any - the accounts in question have been used sequentially (and not after blocks, bans, or anything like that), which as far as I am aware is no problem. I only pointed them out to show how far back this content dispute extends (which was out of frustration at it having gone on so long - my bad). As my comments were clearly poorly expressed and out of place, I have removed that part of my opening statement (which I have also modified further). I have given my own assurance that I will not edit the article again until this issue is resolved, and I repeat that commitment here. All I want to do here is resolve the issue of whether discussion of Ms Gold's biography of Amichai (and some other content) can be included in the article or whether, as Afalpi contends, it must be expunged. (And as for the accusation that I am using socks, anyone with access to IP records will be able to see that the various accounts are almost certainly posting from different countries) -- Boing! said Zebedee 05:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The assertion "Afalpi's critisim is limited to the introduction of Nili Scharf Gold's Unaoutherized and widley critsized biogrphy of Yehuda Amichai, in the article" appears erroneous - see [13] (which has been removed multiple times). So we also need to ascertain whether the content regarding sacrilegious imagery and religious metaphor in Amichai's poetry can be included, or whether there is a good reason for excluding it -- Boing! said Zebedee 05:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Concering the notability of Gold's biography, I provided a number of references to it here, including negative reviews. -- Boing! said Zebedee 05:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Boing, I had to bring again your accusation aganist me that you deleted . You could apologise without deleting your accusation, but by deleting it one gets an impresion that it is only me accusing you. If I would have deleted my amswer too - Beeblebrox comment would have no meaning. Please stop manipulating!! Afalpi (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Afalpi, please do not change my comments yourself or add back my old comments as if signed by me. As I explained, I was not accusing you of abusing your previous usernames, as I'm sure you used them in good faith. Beeblebrox explained that my comment was out of place, so in good faith I apologised and I removed it (partly because the same text is echoed on the RfC page, here, which is intended to attract others who might wish to help - and if they see it appearing non-neutral, they are less likely to). If you think my comments should be modified, please ask me to do it - you are welcome to ask me on my Talk page, but please ask in good faith, without making accusations of manipulation. Anyway, your suggestion is not unreasonable, so I have now put back a struck version of my original, for the record, and I'm happy if people wish to examine it to see how long this content dispute has been going on - I know from your own comments that you are keen to bring it to an end. (If you wish, you could strike your own accusation in the same way - that way people can see you have withdrawn it but still see what it said). -- Boing! said Zebedee 04:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry. I cannot work on a page with an "editor" (aka vandal) who has multiple accounts (let's quit the apologetics,folks - just look at these pages and you can see they are all the same person). This "entity" has only one goal on Wikipedia, which is to wipe out any interpretation of this poet's work that gets in the way of sainthood. This is evident from his/her "edits" for more than half a year. Apart from the fact that this person is clearly technologically and linguistically challenged, the insertion of POV, the crazed and insane accusations, and the blanket reversion of ALL additional material I have added, no matter what the subject, have forced me to give up this article as hopeless. I definitely have better things to do with my time.--Gilabrand (talk) 07:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gilabrand. Just for the record, should we take that as a confirmation that you think that discussion of the Gold biography and the content regarding sacrilegious imagery and religious metaphor in Amichai's poetry should be included? After all, this RfC is specifically about content, not about Afalpi. (PS: I took a couple of indents out - hope that was ok) -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I thought that was clear. The answer is yes.


Notifications: Just a note to let everyone know that I have notified several previously-involved editors that there is an RfC in progress - Epeefleche, Gilabrand, Korny O'Near, and Ginsengbomb. Those are the only ones I could find in the article history, but if I've missed any I'd be happy to notify them too (or someone else can). I have also added a note to the talk pages of the relevant portals - Israel, Biography, and Judaism, in the hope that someone from those might wish to come and assist. I hope you'll agree that my notifications are neutrally-worded. -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Afalpi, you're risking edit-warring on this Talk page now - altering the above history to emphasis your POV [14]. Would you please just leave it alone while this RfC is in progress, so people can see it as it is? If you want to stress what you think is most important, please do it here, and don't change past discussion. I've reverted this one, but will not revert any more - if you do it again I will file an Edit War report -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Gila Brand , Korny ONear,Boing Dear, it was you who manipulated my headline first, as you have manipulated your comment(see above) and as you have manipulated my writing in the article. willyou please stop manipulating and stop to threaten —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afalpi (talkcontribs) 07:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Korny O'near, Gila brand, Boing Zebedee and Cello - appear to have the same style and the same agenda: introducing Gold's Unaoutherized and widley critsized biogrphy of Yehuda Amichai, in the article( and to distort and control in every possible way the article about Yehuda Amichai.) Obviously Wikipedia is not the apropriate media for advertising and marketing books.Afalpi (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Afalpi, you claim that Gold's biography is unauthorised - could you please explain what you mean by that? Is there a body somewhere that has to authorise biographies before Wikipedia is allowed to refer to them? By the way, it seems something of a coincidence that you added your latest comment here [15], and then a brand new editor named דניאל חי just happened to come along and embolden part of it for you [16]. If these two editors are both you, the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy requires that you openly reveal the connection. And while we're at it, could you please confirm or deny that the other three usernames I have highlighted are also yours - Itlula [17], חכמביום and [18] and Maimenuhot [19]. (There's nothing wrong with them being yours if you used them in good faith and are open about it, but if they are yours and you are not open about it, that would also be a breach of the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy) -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not any of those other people that Afalpi accused me of being. This looks like a case of someone who engages in sock-puppetry accusing their opponents of doing it, to try to deflect attention. Personally, I don't see the logic behind sock-puppetry - it's easy to spot, and I don't find an argument more convincing just because more people are writing in favor of it. This is the internet - you could find people to write in favor of anything. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Korny Oneae, Gila brand , Boing- If you do not understand what an Authorized Biograpy means- please look in the dictionary. As for your brillient psychological insights- I hope you will apply them on yourself. But let's deal with the main issue:

== THE MAIN ISSUE OF THE DISPUTE == a comment by Afalpi

The main issue of the dispute is that Gila Brand- Boing is trying to distort and control in every possible way the article about Yehuda Amichai by imposing Nili Gold's opinions while manipulating other people's credible contribution. Ms. Brand- Boing introduced Gold's name and her private opinions in the article itself , a praxis I have not seen in any other article in Wikipedia about other poets and it is not NPOV . I have looked at similar articles about other notable poets such as; Ted Huges, Allen Ginsburg , Sylvia Plath – whenever disputed material is mentioned, the actual discussion does not appear in the article, only in reference or as a footnote in bibliography. Though all these poets had different biographies and had their share of scholar disputes, the actual names of the biographers and scholars that took place in the dispute was never mentioned in the article itself. In general ,Gold's biography about Yehuda Amichai is highly disputed and was harshly criticized by notable and credible scholars such as Professor Robert Alter<Only a man,The New Republic, Dec 31 2008></ref> from Berkley University and Boaz Arpaly[1] from Tel-Aviv University, to name a few. ( and this is what Boing constantly vandaliize and erace: Nili Scharf Gold…has writen a biographical study of Amichai that unpackes not only this poem but also many of other, while purposley obscuring or reinterpeting the poem that was the poets life. Her detailed generously nerotic work is determinded to remind us that Amichai was not a Sabra but a German who's Hebrew was conscious Joshua Cohen, The Poet Who Invented Himself" Forwards Com Sep 04 2008)Intruding Gold's controversial and distorted notions highly damages the validity and objectiveness of the article about Yehuda Amichai in Wikipedia. Her book is listed in the bibliography . If one wishes to display gold's controversial and slandering notions I suggest it should be posted under Gold's own Wikipedia article.Afalpi (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Afalpi. Your points, one at a time...
  • look in the dictionary - I know what the words "authorized" and "biography" mean (and I can spell them), but that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking what authorization you think a biography needs in order to be eligible as a citation source in a Wikipedia article. A dictionary cannot answer that. If you cannot answer it, your claim that it is unauthorized really doesn't hold any water.
  • brillient psychological insights - I am offering no psychology, I am just asking you to confirm or deny that those other usernames are yours (and I wouldn't be if you were not continuing your accusations againt me). If they are yours and you do not admit to it, you may be guility of sockpuppetry - see WP:SOCK, and please note: "That is, you should not turn up on a page you edited as User:A to continue the same editing pattern, this time as User:B—particularly while denying any connection to User:A, or if the edits or subject matter are contentious". For my part I can state quite clearly that User:Gilabrand and User:Korny O'Near are nothing to do with me, and the evidence (IP addresses, country I'm posting from, etc) will back me up if necessary. So how about you answer the question - are those other accounts yours or not?
  • THE MAIN ISSUE OF THE DISPUTE - Please provide links to Wikipedia policy that supports anything of what you say. A book being widely criticized does not make it ineligible - in fact, that actually helps to make it notable.
  • Ms. Brand- Boing introduced Gold's name and her private opinions in the article itself. That is false. Firstly, I am not "Ms" anyone (I am male), nor am I "Brand". Also, I did not add any personal opinion, and I most certainly did not introduce Gold's name to the article - I simply came along late in this dispute and reverted some of your removals of it. You should provide proof of your accusations that I am using multiple accounts or you should shut up about it. If you don't stop making these personal accusations, which are forbidden by WP:CIVIL, this is going to have to escalate to a complaint about your behaviour.
  • Other - you still haven't explained why you think the comments regarding religious imagery in Amichai's poetry (which you have removed several times) should not be included, and those are also part of this RfC - please explain.
-- Boing! said Zebedee 06:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet: After Afalpi has continued editing the Yehuda Amichai article while this RfC is unresolved, anonymously using IP 132.64.32.163 [20], and has been editing this talk page using IP 132.64.34.173 [21] and User:דניאל חי see [22], I have filed a sockpuppet report. -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The sockpuppet report is now closed, and the result is here - "Clear deception which goes against the legitimate usage of multiple accounts. All registered accounts indefinitely blocked and tagged". -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus?[edit]

It looks like we have three editors, User:Boing! said Zebedee (me), User:Gilabrand, and User:Korny O'Near who support the inclusion of the disputed material (presented in a neutral and balanced manner). The only dissenter, User:Afalpi, provided no policy-based justification for opposing the inclusion, and has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

That sounds like a consensus to me, so if there are no objections, I suggest closing this RfC in seven days, on Fri 12th March, so we can all get on with constructive work on the encyclopedia (it would auto-close on 17th anyway). -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead and do what needs to be done. Thanks for your efforts.--Gilabrand (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Just in case there was doubt, I support this as well. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC Closed[edit]

Closed, as consensus above - just a few days later than planned -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

NPR interview/poems/audio[edit]

There's a lot in external links so I'll just note this here for now: NPR interview/poems/audio with Yehuda Amichai Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The bot reversion reverted several changes by several people, and Accotink2 had only made one minor change to annotate an external link, so I've reverted it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Yehuda amichai.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:Yehuda amichai.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 13 September 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ Sofar , Winter 2010 Vol.28 No.2 p213