This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
As a precaution, I would like to make all editors at this page aware of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Discretionary sanctions, which applies to all edits made to this page and talk page. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The content still has Noleander's fingerprints all over it. JFW | T@lk 22:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Ugh... I was going to complain that what was left of the article after two large deletions by me was entirely my writing but, upon reviewing the current text, I found there was still one sentence from Noleander viz. "Max Dimont and Derek Penslar analyzed the Talmud's rules governing money. Penslar writes that, in premodern times, Judaism "inextricably" linked economics and religion, and that in the "heyday of rabbinic Judaism" the pursuit of profit was related to the fulfillment of religious commandments."[7]
I apologize... I forgot that I hadn't written that sentence earlier. My question for you guys is: could I return the article to mainspace if I deleted that one sentence? Everything else was written by me and is sourced to (IMO) darn good sources which I have seen with my own eyes. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 03:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, BTW, Jayjg's moving the article back to my userspace amounts to an out-of-process deletion of the article. I do not believe this sort of thing was sanctioned by the ARBCOM decision. Given my good-faith attempts to address everybody's concerns (even though I disagree), I think there was a much more collegial way to resolve the issue. In the interest of keeping a collegial working relationship, let's please not be so arbitrary in the future. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 03:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Richard, let me throw out an idea, just in the spirit of sharing ideas, and not as a specific call to follow any specific course of action. Instead of working towards having this page in the main space, would it make sense to put this sort of material, as well sourced and expanded information, into existing pages instead? We already have a variety of pages about the history of the Jewish people, where perhaps information about economic history would be useful. We already have a variety of pages about ethics and philosophy in Judaism, where perhaps Jewish thinking on wealth and on the treatment of the poor might be useful. And we have pages about the history of antisemitism, where NPOV coverage of bigoted stereotypes about money would be appropriate. Please understand, I haven't looked in detail at these various pages and I don't know whether their coverage is thin in any of these topics, and I am not taking a position that doing any of this would necessarily be better than creating a stand alone page, but I want to suggest that you give it some thought. Just because you got to this draft page by way of that AfD doesn't mean that you can't consider other approaches instead. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I have changed the title of this draft to "Judaic views of poverty, wealth and charity" because that's what it's about at the moment. I may yet want to bring back the topic of usury but that alone does not encompass all of business ethics so claiming that this article is about "Judaic views of business" would be overreaching. I remain unsure whether to use the word "Judaic" or "Jewish" in the title. To me, "Jewish" has a strong connotation of modern rabbinical Judaism and includes secular as well as religious Judaism. I chose "Judaic" to suggest a more religious perspective and one that is tied to the ancient Hebrews and the Tanakh as well as to contemporary modern Jews. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 18:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not one to want to delete articles on Wikipedia, but I do question the need for a topic such as this one worthy of its own mentioning. Are there other articles on Wikipedia about how Christians, Hindus, and Wiccans view poverty? By the way, people who are considered the most generous can be found here and none of them are Rothschilds. Conspirasee1 ( talk) 16:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
As a precaution, I would like to make all editors at this page aware of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Discretionary sanctions, which applies to all edits made to this page and talk page. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The content still has Noleander's fingerprints all over it. JFW | T@lk 22:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Ugh... I was going to complain that what was left of the article after two large deletions by me was entirely my writing but, upon reviewing the current text, I found there was still one sentence from Noleander viz. "Max Dimont and Derek Penslar analyzed the Talmud's rules governing money. Penslar writes that, in premodern times, Judaism "inextricably" linked economics and religion, and that in the "heyday of rabbinic Judaism" the pursuit of profit was related to the fulfillment of religious commandments."[7]
I apologize... I forgot that I hadn't written that sentence earlier. My question for you guys is: could I return the article to mainspace if I deleted that one sentence? Everything else was written by me and is sourced to (IMO) darn good sources which I have seen with my own eyes. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 03:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, BTW, Jayjg's moving the article back to my userspace amounts to an out-of-process deletion of the article. I do not believe this sort of thing was sanctioned by the ARBCOM decision. Given my good-faith attempts to address everybody's concerns (even though I disagree), I think there was a much more collegial way to resolve the issue. In the interest of keeping a collegial working relationship, let's please not be so arbitrary in the future. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 03:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Richard, let me throw out an idea, just in the spirit of sharing ideas, and not as a specific call to follow any specific course of action. Instead of working towards having this page in the main space, would it make sense to put this sort of material, as well sourced and expanded information, into existing pages instead? We already have a variety of pages about the history of the Jewish people, where perhaps information about economic history would be useful. We already have a variety of pages about ethics and philosophy in Judaism, where perhaps Jewish thinking on wealth and on the treatment of the poor might be useful. And we have pages about the history of antisemitism, where NPOV coverage of bigoted stereotypes about money would be appropriate. Please understand, I haven't looked in detail at these various pages and I don't know whether their coverage is thin in any of these topics, and I am not taking a position that doing any of this would necessarily be better than creating a stand alone page, but I want to suggest that you give it some thought. Just because you got to this draft page by way of that AfD doesn't mean that you can't consider other approaches instead. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I have changed the title of this draft to "Judaic views of poverty, wealth and charity" because that's what it's about at the moment. I may yet want to bring back the topic of usury but that alone does not encompass all of business ethics so claiming that this article is about "Judaic views of business" would be overreaching. I remain unsure whether to use the word "Judaic" or "Jewish" in the title. To me, "Jewish" has a strong connotation of modern rabbinical Judaism and includes secular as well as religious Judaism. I chose "Judaic" to suggest a more religious perspective and one that is tied to the ancient Hebrews and the Tanakh as well as to contemporary modern Jews. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 18:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not one to want to delete articles on Wikipedia, but I do question the need for a topic such as this one worthy of its own mentioning. Are there other articles on Wikipedia about how Christians, Hindus, and Wiccans view poverty? By the way, people who are considered the most generous can be found here and none of them are Rothschilds. Conspirasee1 ( talk) 16:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)