Talk:Eliezer Berland: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:28, 6 April 2019

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography Start‑class

	Biography portal 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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Judaism Start‑class Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles 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.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"The 'Torah path'"

Can't wait to hear the rationale for this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring sourced information which is reliably sourced and 100% likely to be true. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BURDEN, get consensus for inclusion. Start an RfC, perhaps? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is relevant information and reliably sourced, so the burden is on you to show why this should not be included. Debresser (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(a) At Jewish religious clothing‎, Debresser you removed a key historical fact from a strong academic source as 'superfluous', and continued to remove it. Remove superfluous sentence

Here (Eliezer Berland) you are challenged for including material from a so-so source, which the other editor thinks acceptable only for bare facts.

The source is RS for bare facts only, not for this sort of claim

You insist on restoring what N regards as a superfluous sentence stating

Not OR, since this is in the source. Now stop being disruptive and discuss, or be reported

Well, by the same token (logically) what you removed at the other article was also in the source, and therefore, esp. since it was high quality historical material, should not have been removed. There is no policy coherence in the two edits. In one you can expunge a sourced statement as superfluous, in the other, you revert a challenged statement from a middling source by asserting it is in the source and therefore must stay.Nishidani (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the policy coherence behind these two edits?Nishidani (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 ::Per [[WP:BURDEN]], get consensus for inclusion.  Start an RfC, perhaps?  [[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk:Nomoskedasticity|talk]]) 17:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 ::: This is relevant information and reliably sourced, so the burden is on you to show why this should not be included. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 17:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
+(a) At [[Jewish religious clothing‎]], Debresser you removed a key historical fact from a strong academic  source as 'superfluous', and continued to remove it.
+[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_religious_clothing&diff=890256450&oldid=890255854 Remove superfluous sentence]
+Here (Eliezer Berland) you are challenged for including material from a so-so source, which the other editor thinks acceptable only for bare facts.
+*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eliezer_Berland&diff=890906782&oldid=890903500 The source is RS for bare facts only, not for this sort of claim]
+You insist on restoring what N regards as a superfluous sentence stating
+*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eliezer_Berland&diff=891071762&oldid=891040913 Not OR, since '''this is in the source'''. Now stop being disruptive and discuss, or be reported]
+Well, by the same token ('''logically''') what you removed at the other article was also in the source, and therefore, esp. since it was high quality historical material, should not have been removed. There is no policy coherence in the two edits. In one you can expunge a sourced statement as superfluous, in the other, you revert a challenged statement from a middling source by asserting it is ''in the source'' and therefore must stay.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 19:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
+ Where is the policy coherence behind these two edits?[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 19:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)