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. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 4 September 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
EricDiesel ( talk) 16:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I had heard of David Brickner for his statements years ago, but from reading newspapers, watching cable news shows, or talking to Jewish friends. Does anyone have any of the other remarks generating pre-2008 notability? EricDiesel ( talk) 16:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Some one quotes 20,000 Ghits for David Brickner Jew in the AFD discussion. Can some one not find some WP:RS material on the details of his career before 2008? What is in this article is exceedingly brief at present. Sorry I cannot offer to do this myself. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Please respond to the edit reasons everyone writes on their edit reasons. Do not ignore discussion page, information on consensus on argument NOT to delete page, AND Discussion Page. Consensus was reached on how to word to avoid coatrack. If you think something is a coatrack for something else, write what it is a coatrack for and why. Don’t push POV with unexplained Deletions. Merely writing “coatrack”, and ignoring the consensus on the arguments for deletion page, and on the discussion page, and on the reasons for edit on History page is rude and an abuse of the coatrack policy. Simply calling something a name is not an argument for that name.
EricDiesel ( talk) 01:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Please do not try and add POV or OR to the lead that says that Brickner is "only" Christian and/or that would not be considered a Jew by such-and-such Jewish law. Jclemens ( talk) 21:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I think that's fine, I'll make that change if it hasn't already been done. Jclemens ( talk) 16:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
An edit of mine saying that Messianic Judaism is "considered by most Christians and Jews to be a form of Christianity" was reverted twice as WP:Coatrack. This was in response to a simple 12-word factual statement. Somebody seems to be rabidly anxious to support Brickner's contentious claim to be Jewish. I'm not an expert, and fell into this subject by chance, but the article on Messianic Judaism (MJ) seems to show with lots of references that it's not considered Judaism. A naive reader (such as myself until a few days ago) would conclude from the introduction that Brickner is recognised as a Jew; and from the body that his descent, only, puts this in question. In fact, from what I've recently seen, most authorities say that "a follower of MJ is a Christian", rather than that "Orthodox Jewish author David Klinghoffer has asserted that this renders Brickner non-Jewish under halacha". This is not a matter of using the article on Brickner as a coat-rack on which to hang MJ, but, as the article reports Brickner's considering himself Jewish, to clarify to the non-expert reader that he would not generally be considered a Jew by most authorities. The MJ article says, with reference, "The Supreme Court of Israel has ruled that the Law of Return should treat Jews who convert to Messianic Judaism the same way it treats Jews who convert to Christianity"; this is more relevant than any argument based on halacha status or otherwise. The coat-rack argument has no merit. If there should be no mention that MJ's are considered Christians, then we need to delete Brickner's considering himself Jewish as misleading and one-sided. I'll wait and see what others say. Pol098 ( talk) 15:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Fir a person whose occupation is religion, what religion he is a member of is 100% relevant, and its omission a grave lack. Pol098 ( talk) 20:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
While expanding the family section I noticed what is an apparent discrepancy. [1] lists Brickner's mother's name as "Lois Esther Brickner" while [2] lists her name as "Leah Kendal Brickner." Kendal is her maiden name and Leah looks like a Hebraization of Lois. I'm not sure which name we should list. JoshuaZ ( talk) 17:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
User:DeknMike has inserted this sentence into the article:
although other branches of Judaism accept status for patrilinial descent<ref>Who Is a Jew?[http://judaism.about.com/od/whoisajew/a/whoisjewdescent.htm]</ref>
Ignoring the reliability of the source, it doesn't mention Brickner, so its use here is obvious OR. DeknMike is attempting to defend Brickner's claim to being Jewish on the grounds that, for example, the Reform movement accepts patrilineal descent. However, Reform's acceptance of patrilineal descent post-dates Brickner's birth, and all the moreso his mother's. In addition, Reform insists that patrilineal descent must be accompanied by public identification with Judaism, and specifically states that those who consider Jesus the messiah are no longer Jews. Thus, it's rather classic OR, because the situation is much more complex than the insertion indicates. In any event, we need sources that refer directly to Brickner, Wikipedia editors can't create their own arguments using any source they like. Jayjg (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Messianicmatt, two times you added the following to the article:
and it was reverted by both myself and Jajg for the same reason: it is off-topic in this biography about David Brickner. It seems clear that information about Klinghoffer's family background is irrelevant here. You have now re-added this same text for the third time. Can you please explain why it is relevant to this article? Thanks. Zad68 ( talk) 16:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Messianicmatt, two times you added the following source to the article:
and it was reverted by me twice for the same reason--the book is not a sufficiently strong biography to support an assertion in Wikipedia's voice "David Brickner is a fifth-generation Jewish believer in Jesus" instead of as attributed to Brickner: "Brickner describes himself as a 'fifth-generation believer in Jesus.'" You have now added it back for a third time, so let's discuss this. Here are the reasons why your edit is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy:
These are all fundamental Wikipedia policies that all articles must adhere to. I encourage you to click on the links here and read the Wikipedia policy pages for yourself. Please understand me clearly: I am not saying Brickner's claim can't be stated in the article. What I am saying is that the claim cannot be made in Wikipedia's unqualified voice. Specifically, we need to change:
to:
Is that clear? Thanks. Zad68 ( talk) 16:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC) To Zad68: Yes, that's very clear. Thank you. I have found a direct quote from Brickner with a reliable source and have posted it in the article. Messianicmatt ( talk) 21:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
To Zad68: Why did you remove my new post with a direct quote from Brickner about his being a fifth-generation Jewish believer in Jesus? Did you see my talk post to you yesterday, which state, "Yes, that's very clear. Thank you. I have found a direct quote from Brickner with a reliable source and have posted it in the article."Messianicmatt (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messianicmatt ( talk • contribs) To Zad68: I am going to reinsert my direct quote from Brickner that he is a fifth-generation of Jewish believer in Jesus, as it is from a well-known reliable source, Christianity Today magazine. Please explain to me why you deleted it the first time. Messianicmatt ( talk) 16:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Messianicmatt, "Controversial statements" can only be included in this article if they are indeed described in independent, reliable secondary sources as controversial. You (or any editor) cannot look at a statement made by someone and decide that it is controversial. An independent reliable secondary source, like a newspaper, has to have reported it as such. Zad68 ( talk) 16:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
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. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 4 September 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
EricDiesel ( talk) 16:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I had heard of David Brickner for his statements years ago, but from reading newspapers, watching cable news shows, or talking to Jewish friends. Does anyone have any of the other remarks generating pre-2008 notability? EricDiesel ( talk) 16:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Some one quotes 20,000 Ghits for David Brickner Jew in the AFD discussion. Can some one not find some WP:RS material on the details of his career before 2008? What is in this article is exceedingly brief at present. Sorry I cannot offer to do this myself. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Please respond to the edit reasons everyone writes on their edit reasons. Do not ignore discussion page, information on consensus on argument NOT to delete page, AND Discussion Page. Consensus was reached on how to word to avoid coatrack. If you think something is a coatrack for something else, write what it is a coatrack for and why. Don’t push POV with unexplained Deletions. Merely writing “coatrack”, and ignoring the consensus on the arguments for deletion page, and on the discussion page, and on the reasons for edit on History page is rude and an abuse of the coatrack policy. Simply calling something a name is not an argument for that name.
EricDiesel ( talk) 01:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Please do not try and add POV or OR to the lead that says that Brickner is "only" Christian and/or that would not be considered a Jew by such-and-such Jewish law. Jclemens ( talk) 21:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I think that's fine, I'll make that change if it hasn't already been done. Jclemens ( talk) 16:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
An edit of mine saying that Messianic Judaism is "considered by most Christians and Jews to be a form of Christianity" was reverted twice as WP:Coatrack. This was in response to a simple 12-word factual statement. Somebody seems to be rabidly anxious to support Brickner's contentious claim to be Jewish. I'm not an expert, and fell into this subject by chance, but the article on Messianic Judaism (MJ) seems to show with lots of references that it's not considered Judaism. A naive reader (such as myself until a few days ago) would conclude from the introduction that Brickner is recognised as a Jew; and from the body that his descent, only, puts this in question. In fact, from what I've recently seen, most authorities say that "a follower of MJ is a Christian", rather than that "Orthodox Jewish author David Klinghoffer has asserted that this renders Brickner non-Jewish under halacha". This is not a matter of using the article on Brickner as a coat-rack on which to hang MJ, but, as the article reports Brickner's considering himself Jewish, to clarify to the non-expert reader that he would not generally be considered a Jew by most authorities. The MJ article says, with reference, "The Supreme Court of Israel has ruled that the Law of Return should treat Jews who convert to Messianic Judaism the same way it treats Jews who convert to Christianity"; this is more relevant than any argument based on halacha status or otherwise. The coat-rack argument has no merit. If there should be no mention that MJ's are considered Christians, then we need to delete Brickner's considering himself Jewish as misleading and one-sided. I'll wait and see what others say. Pol098 ( talk) 15:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Fir a person whose occupation is religion, what religion he is a member of is 100% relevant, and its omission a grave lack. Pol098 ( talk) 20:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
While expanding the family section I noticed what is an apparent discrepancy. [1] lists Brickner's mother's name as "Lois Esther Brickner" while [2] lists her name as "Leah Kendal Brickner." Kendal is her maiden name and Leah looks like a Hebraization of Lois. I'm not sure which name we should list. JoshuaZ ( talk) 17:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
User:DeknMike has inserted this sentence into the article:
although other branches of Judaism accept status for patrilinial descent<ref>Who Is a Jew?[http://judaism.about.com/od/whoisajew/a/whoisjewdescent.htm]</ref>
Ignoring the reliability of the source, it doesn't mention Brickner, so its use here is obvious OR. DeknMike is attempting to defend Brickner's claim to being Jewish on the grounds that, for example, the Reform movement accepts patrilineal descent. However, Reform's acceptance of patrilineal descent post-dates Brickner's birth, and all the moreso his mother's. In addition, Reform insists that patrilineal descent must be accompanied by public identification with Judaism, and specifically states that those who consider Jesus the messiah are no longer Jews. Thus, it's rather classic OR, because the situation is much more complex than the insertion indicates. In any event, we need sources that refer directly to Brickner, Wikipedia editors can't create their own arguments using any source they like. Jayjg (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Messianicmatt, two times you added the following to the article:
and it was reverted by both myself and Jajg for the same reason: it is off-topic in this biography about David Brickner. It seems clear that information about Klinghoffer's family background is irrelevant here. You have now re-added this same text for the third time. Can you please explain why it is relevant to this article? Thanks. Zad68 ( talk) 16:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Messianicmatt, two times you added the following source to the article:
and it was reverted by me twice for the same reason--the book is not a sufficiently strong biography to support an assertion in Wikipedia's voice "David Brickner is a fifth-generation Jewish believer in Jesus" instead of as attributed to Brickner: "Brickner describes himself as a 'fifth-generation believer in Jesus.'" You have now added it back for a third time, so let's discuss this. Here are the reasons why your edit is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy:
These are all fundamental Wikipedia policies that all articles must adhere to. I encourage you to click on the links here and read the Wikipedia policy pages for yourself. Please understand me clearly: I am not saying Brickner's claim can't be stated in the article. What I am saying is that the claim cannot be made in Wikipedia's unqualified voice. Specifically, we need to change:
to:
Is that clear? Thanks. Zad68 ( talk) 16:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC) To Zad68: Yes, that's very clear. Thank you. I have found a direct quote from Brickner with a reliable source and have posted it in the article. Messianicmatt ( talk) 21:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
To Zad68: Why did you remove my new post with a direct quote from Brickner about his being a fifth-generation Jewish believer in Jesus? Did you see my talk post to you yesterday, which state, "Yes, that's very clear. Thank you. I have found a direct quote from Brickner with a reliable source and have posted it in the article."Messianicmatt (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messianicmatt ( talk • contribs) To Zad68: I am going to reinsert my direct quote from Brickner that he is a fifth-generation of Jewish believer in Jesus, as it is from a well-known reliable source, Christianity Today magazine. Please explain to me why you deleted it the first time. Messianicmatt ( talk) 16:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Messianicmatt, "Controversial statements" can only be included in this article if they are indeed described in independent, reliable secondary sources as controversial. You (or any editor) cannot look at a statement made by someone and decide that it is controversial. An independent reliable secondary source, like a newspaper, has to have reported it as such. Zad68 ( talk) 16:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)