Wikipedia talk:Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week

THIS TEMPLATE ON YOUR HOME PAGE

It would be much appreciated if you could place the template below on your home or discussion pages, to raise awareness and pique interest in the Collaboration. Many thanks.

Template:ORBCOTW {{ORBCOTW}}

Sourcing

It seems to me that these collaboration can only be successful if there are many sources for these article ( preferably online). Otherwise it would be very hard for the uninformed to add anything of value. Perhaps this should be a major criterion for which articles to focus on.Jon513 18:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um...I somehow messed up all of the other nominations, including my own for Rabbi Hershel Schachter. I haven't figured out how to fix the article. Someone please re-insert the other nominations. --Yodamace1 18:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nesher 19:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No rush

Can I just point out that there is no rush to add names to this list - all can be worked upon in good time. I think we should stick with the current candidates and stop adding too many more names to the list - otherwise none will gain the 5 votes needed. Nesher 19:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding the Purview of this Collaboration

Copied from User talk:Nesher#collaboration of the week by Nesher.

First of all - good idea. There's a lot of pages in there that need work. I was thinking though - maybe we should broaden the scope a little to "rabbinic collaboration of the week". That way we could include some people from the middle ages, as well as the eras of the mishnah and talmud. Broadening our cope would hopefully also broaden the number of people working on the project. Just a thought. --Bachrach44 15:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to broaden the scope - except how do we ensure Reform (and other non-Orthodox) people don't get nominated? Nesher 15:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call it "Frum Rabbis Biography Collaboration of the Week Project". :) --רח"ק | Talk 06:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what if they do? You and I might not be able to contribute as much to some rabbis as others, but I think that's true no matter what scope we have. (For example, I can contribute a lot more to an article on Avi Weiss than I can to one on Karelitz.) Wikipedia is inherently a collaborative environment, and getting more people to edit more pages is almost always a good idea. --Bachrach44 15:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we broaden it too much, the focus becomes lost and we may have nominations that are completely a waste of time. Still, I'm catiously hopeful that we can expand the collaboration to what you suggest. To do that, we must first find an editor like IZAK or someone else to move the page to "Rabbinic Collaboration of the Week" and edit it a little. But remember - before this we'll have to open this up to discussion and other's user's opinions and inputs - so I will copy this discussion to the talk page here. Kind regards, Nesher 16:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 new nominees

I think we should remove the three new additions by anon w/o explanation. I don't know who these are - does anyone else? I think ORBCW should be limited to current stubs, not redlinks. R' Shachter can be grandfathered. Agree? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about those new nominees - but we shouldn't delete them. This is, after all, wikipedia and democratic voting elects these candidates. If there is enough support, they'll be the Col. of the Week and if they don't have two votes by the week's end, they'll be removed. Simple. Also, I don't agree that we should limit this to existing articles. There are literally hundreds of worthwhile articles on this subject that need, and should be encouraged, to be started. Nesher 12:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 Strikes or 3?

Just thinking, shall we up the votes an article needs to remain listed to 3 or leave it at 2? If we raise the bar, they'll be less cluttering articles hanging around. Its an idea... Nesher 09:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and eliminate the five votes to be chosen requirement. The highest vote getter should be picked among the qualified proposals, even if it only has four. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 12:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with CrazyRussian. Ayinyud 14:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that encourage apathy and mean that on a bad week, an article with 2 or even 1 vote becomes "the" colloboration? Virtually all the other collaborations (I've basd this one on many of them) have a minimum threshold of 5 votes. Nesher 16:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, 3 votes minimum - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to, then do it... Nesher 18:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding nominations

I was trying to figure out how to add a nomination but I couldn't do it and every time I hit preview the entire page looked funny. So can some add nominations for Rabbi Oscar Z. Fasman and Rabbi Shmuel Salant?

I'll do it Motzei Shabbos bli neder. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 21:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna add them right now. Why don't you tell us a bit about both in the comments, esp. R' Fasman, whom I have never heard of. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the Tools Section

Should we add a subpage where wikipedians put down their names as official members of the ORBCW? Alternatively this could just serve as a central database of wikipedians known to be interested in the subject and they could be contacted on their discussion pages to vote when the need arises. Many thanks, Nesher 13:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This weeks collab. is Rabbi Isser Zalman Meltzer - it beat out Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (at the moment the shoe-in for next weeks collab. unless it gets outvoted) by only 4 hours and 44 minutes... Your vote makes a difference!

Abaye

People, Abaye is a copyvio from the OU. Does anyone want to put together a non-copyvio stub for him sometime soon? I am a little swamped between the new job and the RfA, so I cannot do it myself. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Ultra-Orthodox"

People, please don't use Ultra-Orthodox, a term I lifted out of the Sonnenfeld article this morning. This is a term I despise, a term used by American papers whenever they want to pain frum Jews as unacceptably too religious, an offensive term. Just use Haredi, which is what Ultra-Orthodox redirects to, anyway. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 12:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you have to ask? The unilateral decision to obliterate virtually any mention of 'ultra-orthodox' on wp is quite amazing given that this project is supposed to be NPOV. In fact, I myself find the term Haredi to be on one hand offensive and on the other hand arrogance. Who decided that dressing in black pants with a white shirt means you are Haredi? I know many other kinds of Jews who are also 'Haredi' = God-fearing people. Haredi is also a hebrew term. --Shuki 17:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My unilateral decision? I was extremely upfront about it, and nobody has called me on it yet. As to the black pants thing, I am not sure what you mean. R' Sonnenfeld was obviously Chareidi - there's no argument about that - and it has no bearing on non-black-pants people (read: me too) being G-d-fearing or not. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, in bona fides, I believe that to obliterate "U-O" is to further NPOV. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]