![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The "partisan sources" template is for sourced articles, very often on controversial topics, whose sources are too heavily weighted towards one viewpoint among several.
This article is a very incomplete stub based upon an public domain article from the old Jewish Encyclopedia. As an article on a Judaic topic there is nothing partisan about that (unless there are other competing viewpoints being denied appropriate representation). But there is absolutely nothing controversial about this article! You can put on templates asking for expansion or sourcing or rewriting, but "partisan" has nothing to do with it.
You accuse the old JE of "cherry-picking" quotations in its attempt to convey some of the book's flavor or importance. Whether or not that is "cherry-picking" is besides the point: It is the author's editorial judgement, and if you don't like their judgement you can add your own quotes, change the quotes, put in a template asking others to review the quotes, etc. But none of that has anything to do with the "partisan" template, which is being used incorrectly here.
Please do not add the template again before resolving the question here on the talk page. If necessary we can ask others for their input as well. Shabbat Shalom, Dovi ( talk) 11:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I think you are correct about Eisenstein, which is a good example of the fact that there is no such thing as an absolutely neutral source. Nor is such a source expected! Rather, what is expected is that the article evenhandedly represent the available sources. The problem here is that the article is based on a single source, and as someone already pointed out in the parallel discussion, the proper tag for this kind of thing is Template:One source, which looks like this:
This article relies largely or entirely on a
single source. |
Neutrality is simply not the issue here, because the article accurately reflects its source. "Neutrality" is for when the article does not reflect its sources because of possible bias (usually regarding controversial topics). Here the problem is not in the article itself but in its lack of sourcing.
In Wikipedia, if an article is imperfect, the general idea is not to remove it but to improve it. The point of tags is to mark what needs improvement. Shabbat Shalom, Dovi ( talk) 13:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
One last thought: You mentioned at one point that you are not capable of improving the article? Why not? Use the Feldheim edition as a source, and any other sources you have. You can of course use the book itself too, and any knowledge you have of it. It's OK to improve the article without sources as long as what you write is reasonable and you tag the fact that the assertions you make still need sourcing. Dovi ( talk) 14:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
--> One note on Rabbi Eisenstein. I have his commentary on the Torah, and in the introduction it says that he contributed the the JE, so it appears that his encyclopedia (which the intro says was multi-author) was not a reaction to it. But I still think the POV banner should be there. By its nature, it should not need consensus ("has been disputed"). Mzk1 ( talk) 20:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The "partisan sources" template is for sourced articles, very often on controversial topics, whose sources are too heavily weighted towards one viewpoint among several.
This article is a very incomplete stub based upon an public domain article from the old Jewish Encyclopedia. As an article on a Judaic topic there is nothing partisan about that (unless there are other competing viewpoints being denied appropriate representation). But there is absolutely nothing controversial about this article! You can put on templates asking for expansion or sourcing or rewriting, but "partisan" has nothing to do with it.
You accuse the old JE of "cherry-picking" quotations in its attempt to convey some of the book's flavor or importance. Whether or not that is "cherry-picking" is besides the point: It is the author's editorial judgement, and if you don't like their judgement you can add your own quotes, change the quotes, put in a template asking others to review the quotes, etc. But none of that has anything to do with the "partisan" template, which is being used incorrectly here.
Please do not add the template again before resolving the question here on the talk page. If necessary we can ask others for their input as well. Shabbat Shalom, Dovi ( talk) 11:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I think you are correct about Eisenstein, which is a good example of the fact that there is no such thing as an absolutely neutral source. Nor is such a source expected! Rather, what is expected is that the article evenhandedly represent the available sources. The problem here is that the article is based on a single source, and as someone already pointed out in the parallel discussion, the proper tag for this kind of thing is Template:One source, which looks like this:
This article relies largely or entirely on a
single source. |
Neutrality is simply not the issue here, because the article accurately reflects its source. "Neutrality" is for when the article does not reflect its sources because of possible bias (usually regarding controversial topics). Here the problem is not in the article itself but in its lack of sourcing.
In Wikipedia, if an article is imperfect, the general idea is not to remove it but to improve it. The point of tags is to mark what needs improvement. Shabbat Shalom, Dovi ( talk) 13:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
One last thought: You mentioned at one point that you are not capable of improving the article? Why not? Use the Feldheim edition as a source, and any other sources you have. You can of course use the book itself too, and any knowledge you have of it. It's OK to improve the article without sources as long as what you write is reasonable and you tag the fact that the assertions you make still need sourcing. Dovi ( talk) 14:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
--> One note on Rabbi Eisenstein. I have his commentary on the Torah, and in the introduction it says that he contributed the the JE, so it appears that his encyclopedia (which the intro says was multi-author) was not a reaction to it. But I still think the POV banner should be there. By its nature, it should not need consensus ("has been disputed"). Mzk1 ( talk) 20:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)