Jump to content

Template talk:Did you know/Palestinian rabbis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus to promote after 69 days, owing to the disagreement about which hook to use. Based on my reading of ALT6 and the arguments advanced here, ALT6 is not supported by the sources. Reviewers considered ALT4 to be an acceptable alternative, though Chesdovi (talk · contribs), the article creator, was against it, instead pushing for the faulty ALT6.

Orlady's willingness to spend much of her time and energy working with the creator to purge the article of copyright violations and close paraphrasing is admirable. She proposed an acceptable alternate hook when the others were unusable and despite the creator's continued stubbornness was willing to continue discussing with the creator.

This DYK nomination failed because the creator was only willing to accept ALT6. Cunard (talk) 04:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian rabbis

[edit]
(
)
  • ... that Palestinian rabbis were actively involved in raising funds for their communities in the Holy Land throughout their history?
  • ALT: ... that Palestinian rabbis were a "self-proclaimed elite" and lacked institutional power?

Created by Chesdovi (talk). Nominated by MC10 (talk) at 17:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The original hook has possibilities, but it needs more specificity, such as "in the 19th century". The first ALT is unacceptable to me -- it's an unattributed and somewhat defamatory opinion that lacks attribution or context. I like ALT3 as a hook, but I cant' find that fact in the article. About the article, I have a concern about close paraphrasing. So far, I have checked the source for exactly one statement in the article, and I find the wording of the article to be much too similar to the wording of the source:
Source: "The arrival of Palestinian rabbis in Amsterdam, London, and New York in the early 1820's, sparked the establishment of societies in those cities to collect funds for Palestine and transmit collections directly to Rabbis Hirschell or Lehren for the Holy Land relief."
Article: "The arrival of Palestinian rabbis in Amsterdam, London, and New York in the early 1820's, resulted in the establishment of charitable societies to solicit funds for Jewish communities in the Holy Land." --Orlady (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked several other statements in the article against the sources, and that's the only instance of "too close" wording that I've found. --Orlady (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've rephrased the sentence you found to be a copyvio issue. As for the original hook, the rabbis continually helped their communities throughout their existence; the earliest written evidence was around the 11th century, but it is likely that they have helped their communities before. I've added "throughout their history"; would that be acceptable.
As for ALT3, I'm fairly certain that the relevant section is Attempt to revive ordination. —mc10 (t/c) 18:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Erm... I'm afraid I need to take back my earlier comment about having found only one instance of "too close" wording. I had not checked the paragraph Attempt to revive ordination against the source cited. When I checked it, I found that large parts of the paragraph were derived directly from the cited source. (For one example, the source reads "On hearing of this event most of the other Palestinian scholars expressed their agreement, and the few who discountenanced the innovation had not the courage to oppose Berab and his following" and the article stated "On hearing of this event most of the other Palestinian scholars expressed their agreement, and the few who discountenanced the innovation had not the courage to oppose Berab and his following.") I attempted to resolve the problems I found by rewording the section, but I likely have made some mistakes because I am not sufficient familiar with the subject matter. I have to ask for the whole article to be checked for other instances of copy-pasting or close paraphrasing -- and scrubbed -- before we can consider this for DYK. --Orlady (talk) 05:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both of you for helping bring this page up to scratch. The "Attempt to revive ordination" section is taken from the 1906 JE which is PD, so there is no issue of CV there. I prefer ALT3, as it is rather apt - and what about placement on Sept 21th? Chesdovi (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, the Jewish Encyclopedia is PD! I added a PD template to the bottom of the article. Still, be advised that it's preferable to avoid verbatim use of a PD source.
I've continued comparing text with online sources, though, and am disappointed to have to say that I've found more instances of too-close paraphrasing. The statements attributed with footnotes 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 (but not 5, 7, and 10) are all very close to the sources. It's clear to me that the article results from a great deal of original work in compiling and assembling facts and ideas from diverse sources. The problem is that too much of the expression (wording) in the article is very close to the expression used in those sources. Examples of some of the wording that I consider to be too close:
  • Source: "In almost every generation, some of the greatest Palestinian Sages were Babylonians who had come to Palestine to study."
  • Article: "indeed, some of the greatest Palestinian sages were Babylonians who had come to Palestine to study."
  • Source: "In R. Jochanan's lifetime the Tiberias academy became the world's greatest center for study of the oral law... ...The Palestinian center became even more prestigious in his day, and many Babylonian disputes were resolved by a 'letter from Palestine'."
  • Article: "Rabbi Jochanan's academy became the world's supreme centre for the study of the oral law and many of the Babylonian disputes were settled with 'a letter from Palestine'."
Seeing the quality and amount of effort that went into researching and assembling this article, I am reluctant to fail it, but I repeat my request for a thorough "scrub" of the wording. --Orlady (talk) 03:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not think that so much was probematic. I have endevoured to fix it. Chesdovi (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chesdovi asked me to approve this in time for the Palestinian bid for statehood next week. As I said to him on my talk page, I think the link between the two is tenuous, and I don't think this article should be run on the same day as it may look like an attempt to delegitimize the Palestinian bid. I have no objection to its being run 24 hours later however. Gatoclass (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
24hrs after is great!!!! Chesdovi (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. You may want to ask Orlady to take another look at it though. It sounds as if she's taken a good look at the article already and she's probably in a much better position to review it than I am ATM. Gatoclass (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked for close paraphrasing in the article again. The first passage I decided to spot-check was "In the 17th-century, a new reading of the Zohar and a calculation by numerous rabbinic scholars revealed that the Messiah would appear in about 1648. In response, Palestinian rabbis composed a written prayer asking for the restoration of the Davidic monarchy and sent it to all Jewish communities with a letter requesting the cultivation of peace and good will in preparation for the messianic advent." Unfortunately, I find that the cited source reads "In the 17th century, a new reading of the Zohar and the testimony of numerous rabbinic scholars revealed that God would send His Messiah about 1648. Palestinian rabbis then sent a written prayer to all parts of the Jewry asking for the restoration of the Davidic monarchy and a letter urging the cultivation of peace and good will in preparation for the messianic advent." Bold is added to show identical or essentially identical wording. Sadly, I conclude that the requested scrub of the article has not occurred. --Orlady (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That particular passage has been rewritten very nicely! However, that was simply a spot-check -- I'm looking for assurance that the whole article has been examined for close paraphrasing, so that my next spot-check won't uncover another problem. --Orlady (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was the last one. I think it's good to go now. Chesdovi (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are correct. I've checked several additional passages, and found no other instances of close paraphrasing. --Orlady (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank goodness for that! Chesdovi (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that's settled, it's back to the hooks. The first one (raising funds throughout their history) is too broadly worded to verify, IMO. ALT3 (Jewish state) is not explicitly cited in the article, and the source for it is a public domain document that has been used rather liberally in the article. I prefer the following variation on the first hook:
This source shows that Berab was planning the “re-establishment of ordination and of a Jewish state” while this other source states: “The Turkish authorities, suspecting Berab of harbouring hopes of re-establishing a Jewish state, deported him from Palestine.”
I therefore hope ALT5: "... that in the 1530s, Palestinian rabbi Jacob Berab, was deported to Egypt by the Turkish authorities for attempting to establish a Jewish state in Palestine?" is okay. Chesdovi (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The hook fact is supposed to be in the article (and sourced there). Regarding Berab's departure from Palestine, the article says: "A more serious setback occurred when it became apparent that the Turkish authorities regarded ordination of rabbis as the first step toward the restoration of the Jewish state. Berab went to Egypt to escape threats to his life." --Orlady (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed by adding the alternative account. Chesdovi (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What happened at the UN? Chesdovi (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The situation of the UN and the Palestinian state is very messy, and should not control the timing for this hook.
    I have been hesitant to push this forward to the main page while there is ongoing contention about the article name on the article talk page. Chesdovi has not participated in the new discussion there.
    As for the hook, I still don't like ALT5, as it is heavily focused on one person who is the subject of a separate article (it has little relation to the article as a whole) and neither the sources nor this article are entirely clear on the facts of Berab's case. I proposed ALT4 because I think it relates more broadly to the article topic and because the specific fact about the 11th century is in the article and cited. The broad generalization regarding fundraising in the original hook suggestion is not so well supported. As a general(!) rule, generalizations are much harder to verify than specific facts, and the article footnote for that particular broad statement identifies a page in the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia but does not identify the specific article on that encyclopedia page (Google snippet view has only shown me bits of that page, which ranges from Halukkah to Halutzim; apparently "Halukkah" is the article cited). --Orlady (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think ALT4 is a valid hook, but it is not clear if Chesdovi agrees. Regardless of the hook, we need to be aware that the whole article is likely to be controversial. --Orlady (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see why we cannot use a specific issue mentioned in the article for the hook. As I prefer to use the point of statehood over charitable fundraising, as it is a current issue after all, I suggest ALT 6: that "in the 1530s, Turkish authorities acted to prevent Palestinian rabbis from developing a scheme which may have resulted in the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine? Chesdovi (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that hook cannot be used is that it is not supported by the article. The article indicates that Turkish authorities were suspicious of the actions of one rabbi (Berab). --Orlady (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"A more serious setback occurred when it became apparent that the Turkish authorities regarded ordination of rabbis as the first step toward the restoration of the Jewish state." Berab could not do it himself. Chesdovi (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I parse that sentence, they regarded "ordination" as a problem, not "rabbis." Berab was the only rabbi who was engaging in ordination, so they kicked him out (or maybe he left for his safety). Regardless of the circumstances of his departure, he is the only one identified in the article as having been deemed to be a threat. --Orlady (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He was the "ringleader", but he could only proceed with the support of many other Palestinian rabbis. He had indeed convened the Safed meeting of 25 rabbis at the outset. It was a group effort, of which he was the instigator. Rabbis ordained by Berab in turn ordained others. There would be no re-establishment of a Sanhedrin or any other similar governing body without at least 70 participating rabbis, all of Palestinian stock. I find this attempt of restoration of a Jewish state in the mid 16-century in Palestine fascinating and worthy of exposure at DYK. Chesdovi (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are painting a picture here that may be valid, but is not part of the article and is not clearly supported by the two sources cited in that section of the article. Moreover, it may not be valid -- in modern times, there is plenty of evidence of governments targeting individual activists as dangerous, regardless of whether they truly had a movement behind them. Regardless of what is true, Wikipedia content needs to be based on what published sources have already said, not contributors' interpretations. Additionally, DYK exists to attract interest in article content, not to "expose" exciting information. Just as a Wikipedia article needs to reflect the content of the sources, a DYK hook needs to come from the article; a hook should not elaborate or speculate on content in the article. --Orlady (talk) 12:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where my speculation lies, but do the following sources suffice?
  • We don't need Chesdovi's approval to take this to DYK, but I don't want to get into a situation of being attacked from two sides for having approved this hook. I expect that the appearance of any hook from this article on the main page will attract some "heat". I don't want to move the hook forward to the prep areas if Chesdovi also plans to continue objecting to the choice of hooks. Chesdovi has not edited since before my last comment about Jacob Berab. --Orlady (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a day to let Chesdovi leave feedback, then pass or fail. I'm a little torn on whether to pass or fail this; it should draw a lot of interest, but as you've pointed out a lot of heat too. DYK regulars might ask why we allowed it here for 2 months, while other editors and readers could start a flame war. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, while Berab was the instigator, and the only one that was penalised with expulsion, it was the collective invovlement of "Palestinian rabbis" which made the scheme at all possible. That other "Palestinian rabbis" (of Jerusalem) were against the plan only increases the notion of communal involement of Palestinian rabbis. The first source above states: "The scholars of Safed worked in harmony with Berab, twenty-five of their number signing the epistle sent to the sages of Jerusalem that contained the resolution of the former to re-introduce Ordination." ALT6 describes what the Jewish Encylopedia states was the ultimate factor for failure of the collective plan: Turkish intervention. It also makes clear that this was not a one man attempt, but a collective plan. Other rabbis did not merely oppose or support Berab, they were needed to take an active part in the ordination scheme and subsequent make-up of the actual Sanhedrin. In view of this, I would like to see ALT6 used, over the one about charity which is rather boring. ALT6 is much more likely to draw people to the subject. Chesdovi (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chesdovi, ALT6 is not going to be approved. Which do you prefer: (A) Reject the nomination altogether or (B) Use ALT4? --Orlady (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is ALT6 unacceptable? The basis of Berab’s plan was the opinion of Rambam: “if all the Palestinian sages would unanimously agree to appoint and ordain judges, then these new ordinants would possess the full authority of the original ordained judges” (Yad, Sangedrin 4:11). (see also: “A hundred years later Maimonides incorporated in his code the opinion that ordination could be re-instituted by the unanimous decision of the Palestinian scholars.” – (pg 44). There are numerous sources which attest to the communal aspect of Breabs scheme: “In 1538, the sages of Safed voted to re-introduce semicha, genuine rabbinical ordination. This immediately sparked a controversy with the rabbis of Jerusalem” – (Safed: the mystical city By Dovid Rossoff, pg. 27), “Some time after the Beith Yosefs arrival in Safed, the town's rabbis gathered to find a leader who would renew the process of rabbinical ordination. In the year 5298 (1537- 38), R. Yaakov (Mahari) Beirav was chosen.” – (The book of Mishlei By Moses Alshekh, Yitzchak Hirshfeld, Avraham Braude, pg. xvi). “In 1538 a Great Knesset consisting of 25 leading Rabbis foregathered in Safed and agreed to restore the "Right of Ordination" in Israel, and Rabbi Ya'akov Biraw was given this authority.” – (Ancient towns in Israel, by Shmuel Abramski, pg. 256). “There is some evidence that the propaganda campaign of the Rabbis of Safed to revive the ancient form of ordination [Semikhah) reached the city of Fez. Ben-Naim asserts that Samuel bar Maimon ibn Danan, a sixteenth century scholar of Fez, was one of two hundred scholars ordained in the ancient manner in Safed.” - (Jewish society in Fez 1450-1700: studies in communal and economic life, By Jane S. Gerber, pg. 103). “This community attempted to revive the ancient practice of rabbinic ordination and was convinced that its study of Kabbalah…” (The Cambridge Guide to Jewish History, Religion and Culture By Judith R. Baskin, Kenneth Seeskin. Pg 414.) “…rejected it and argued not only that there was no warrant to revive ordination but also that the decision of the Safed rabbis was invalid since although the latter formed a majority of the Palestinian scholars, their majority descison was reched in the absence of all” – (Selected judgments of the Supreme Court of Israel, Volume 3, 1958, pg. 137). There is no reason why ALT6 is not an option. ---Chesdovi (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to accept the judgment of DYK reviewers regarding an acceptable hook, DYK doesn't have to feature your article. --Orlady (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I accept User:Gatoclass's view over yours in this case. You said "Wikipedia content needs to be based on what published sources have already said" and I have provided such sources to support ALT6. Chesdovi (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All Gatoclass said was that it would be acceptable to run the hook the day after the Palestinian petition was heard by the UN. I don't believe he reviewed the hook proposals.
I, on the other hand, continue to insist that the hook needs to be based on the article. This one isn't. Furthermore, while the sources you cite make clear that Berab's religious activities had some support from other rabbis, Berab was the one that the Turkish authorities suspected.
I will be happy to reject this nomination or push ALT4 to a prep area. Your choice, but those are the only options. You exhausted my good will a long time ago... --Orlady (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gatoclass had misgivings about the hook timing, but was okay with specifically using ALT3 “I have no objection to its being run 24 hours later however.” (See also DYK Palestinian rabbis.)
Regarding ALT3, you said you could not find the fact that "Palestinian rabbis were suspected of planning to establish a Jewish state in Palestine in the 1530s" in the article. Mc10 (the nominator) responded “I'm fairly certain that the relevant section is Attempt to revive ordination”.
When the words “Jewish state” was not to be found “explicitly cited”, I added a source which mentioned “Jewish state” and that Berab was “deported” by the Turks. I then modified the hook to include the latest source that Berab was “deported”: ALT5 "that in the 1530s, Palestinian rabbi Jacob Berab, was deported to Egypt by the Turkish authorities for attempting to establish a Jewish state in Palestine? I also added this fact to the article as required. Then you say that ALT5 is too “heavily focused on one person who is the subject of a separate article”. So why not suggest reverting to ALT3, without the reference to Berab?
Nevertheless, I suggest ALT6 with the reference to Brab removed: "in the 1530s, Turkish authorities acted to prevent Palestinian rabbis from developing a scheme which may have resulted in the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine? But this is still “not supported by the article.”
It is correct that Berab was the driving force behind the scheme and as you say “Berab was the one that the Turkish authorities suspected.” The fact is that the plan needed 25 rabbis to ordain Berab and Berab did in turn ordained others. By removing the ringleader Berab from Palestine, the Turkish rulers tried to prevent the other Palestinian rabbis from developing the process, and it worked. It was not just support that Berab needed. It was active involvement of “all the rabbis of Palestine” – that’s why the rabbis of Safed approached Jerusalem for agreement. It was a group effort on part of the rabbis of Palestine, led by the chief rabbi of Safed. ALT6 is based on the article. If you are not happy with approving this hook, please don't reject this nom, but request comment from others. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Orlady insofar as there are two choices. Regarding the topic and the current restrictions on it (1RR in effect for all articles related to the Arab-Israel conflict, construed broadly), as well as the fact that this nomination is two months old, I'm leaning reject now. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know/Palestinian_rabbis&oldid=1138717638"