Talk:Einat Ramon

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Einat Ramon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120428080559/http://www.schechter.edu/StaffMember.aspx?ID=17&SM=1b&Dept=Seminary to http://www.schechter.edu/StaffMember.aspx?ID=17&SM=1b&Dept=Seminary

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The article contains no new information since 2011. This is a seven year gap in Ramon's life which the public cannot access what she has been up to.

Overall the article is pretty limited in the information provided, probably because Einat Ramon is not a notably famous individual.

The article lacks many specific details regarding her falling-out from the North American Masorti seminaries, as well as her overall theological ideals and values. While not a notably famous individual, she is a significant figure in Judaic/rabbinical history and thus deserves a more detailed account of her life and why she ultimately decided to distance herself even further by refusing to identify as a rabbi anymore.

Overall, the article is pretty neutral. It merely states the facts of her life, her accomplishments and works within the field of Jewish theology. There seems to be no noticeable "biased claims" as the article doesn't state any of her life ventures as "good" or "bad" and in fact doesn't characterize or evaluate them with any personal-judgment-based adjectives at all. Thus, no viewpoints were over- or underrepresented because there wasn't any viewpoints being represented at all in this article, which takes a solely objective tone while describing the events of Ramon's life.

All of the links work in the article and they all corroborate with the information provided by the wikipedia article. They mostly come from Jewish websites, but again, given that the article makes no subjective claims about Ramon's life, these can be considered reliable sources since they are related to her field of work.

In the very last line of the biography section of her page, the article credits her with setting up "the only Israeli academic program specializing in Jewish spiritual care at the Schechter Institute." However there is no link that confirms this information.

The only comment made on Ramon's page was made by a bot which noted that it had made an edit to one of the external links on the page (slightly modifying one of the URLs). It is part of the Biography, Judaism, and Israel WikiProjects and is rated Start-Class and Low Importance. We have not discussed Ramon's life and there is no true human comments on her wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RockyDennistheMenace (talk • contribs) 14:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

image

 * "These should still be decided on a case-by-case basis, based on an actual analysis rather than simply "they're bad"." you do not have a broad consensus, or policy basis, to remove images. please discuss before unilaterally removing reliable sourced content.--Turktimex3 (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * At the moment we are looking at this on a case-by-case basis, I and several other editors have removed the most egregiously-bad examples of illustrations here and there. There is not going to be a project-wide purge of ALL illustrations of biographical subjects, as some of them are quite reasonable. A particular style though, such as this one, may see a lot of removals though. Zaathras (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I see you are adopting the "egregiously-bad" criteria of supreme court justices to overturn 50 year precedents. but you need a consensus, not your strongly held view, "they're bad". what art appreciation course did you take; what columns in Art in America have you written? where is your citation that they are "egregiously-bad". --Turktimex3 (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Turktimex3, as per WP:ONUS, it is those who seek to include disputed content who are required to get consensus for it - in this case, that's you, and at this point, you have not achieved that. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * i see you like to edit war, rather than wp:BRD, and the onus is always on the other editor to convince you that your non-consensus views should not have the last word. are you going to discuss, are are you in veto mode? --Turktimex3 (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Editors don't need to take "art appreciation" classes or write columns in art magazines, or be a "professional artist" for that matter, to know when an illustration is bad. Anyway, you'll need to find wp:consensus here to re-add the image, especially since this is a BLP and the illustration is being disputed. Some1 (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * yes, you do. your snark campaign to dumb down wikipedia to your level of art non-appreciation harms the wiki. you are not here to write an encyclopedia. and you do not have an image curation policy, so you have to make vague hand waves at "some other policy". --Turktimex3 (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)