Talk:Gil Student/Archive 1

Vanity page?
This page should be deleted because it is a Vanity Page--PinchasC 3 July 2005 14:30 (UTC)
 * Vanity pages are pages written about a person by the same person. This is not the case here. R. Gil Student didn't create this page. Before the Slifkin controversy, one might have been able to make that argument (regardless of the original author), but since his company Yashar Books has been mentioned in prominent newspapers such as the New York Times, I don't think it would be such. Does this page need a LOT of improvement? Yes. Does it need to be deleted? No.--Josiah July 9, 2005 00:51 (UTC)

Three-time revert
PinchasC has twice removed the following neutral sentence: "According to Student, the claim is heretical."

I wondered to myself: Could my memory have failed me? Does Student not say this? So I took the trouble of looking it up. It appears on page 99 in the conclusion. The link is here.

I will not get into a three-time revert war with PinchasC. So if he reverts again I will let others take care of it. But I think there is no more doubt about why he is trying to delete this article. Dovi 10:13, July 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I was sure that Student had written otherwise, I now see that you are correct. --PinchasC 10:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Attitudes towards rabbinic authority
Actually, PinchasC, I think the books being republished, as well as the internet controversy, is most important because of what it shows about segments of the Haredi (not modern Orthodox) communities, and their relationships to "gedolim" in general and to Rav Elyashiv in particular.

It is not just the "modern Orthodox" who opposed the ban and were happy that the book was reissued. The controversy seemed to expose a secondary rift between Israeli haredim versus a significant segment of the American haredi world.

Nor is the point that "Yashar" is davka a modern Orthodox publisher (though it quite often seems to lean that way), but that an Orthodox publisher of any bent went out of its way to do this. That is a first.

What do you say?Dovi 10:39, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

The way it is currently rewritten would be better than before. However the American Gedolim for example Feldman (see the blogs about his latest letter) agree with the others. My point with Modern Orthodox, was that regarding the people running the publishing house not the books it prints. --PinchasC 10:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Criticism
I put back in the criticism, including a link to the attributed insult against Edah. The literal quotation had been considered inacceptable in the article before, I'll put it into the discussion site instead. Under he says "I am Yeshiva University-trained but I'm not "one of those" (you know, those gender-bending, halakhah-twisting liberals)." (he does link to the Edah website)
 * I hate to say this, and it is impossible to tell for sure anyways, but when I followed your link and read it, I thought it is actually tounge-in-cheek, mild sarcasm:
 * I am an Orthodox rabbi without portfolio. In other words, I am technically a rabbi but I've sold out to the big-bucks world of finance and do little teaching and no paskening (anything I say about halakhah should be confirmed by your rabbi before being put into practice). I am Yeshiva University-trained but I'm not "one of those" (you know, those gender-bending, halakhah-twisting liberals). ("liberals" links to Edah)
 * Sometimes we forget our sense of humor... Dovi 14:41, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

VFD
The vfd decision is boilerplated below: Dunc|&#9786; 14:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Votes for undeletion
I left the following note on the talk page of the admin who deleted this at PinchasC's request:
 * From your comments on PinchasC's talk page, it seems you may have understood the entire debate backwards. Gil Student is not a creationist, nor is the book that he published. Rather, Gil Student stood up publically for a book that had been excommunicated by Jewish creationists through the internet, and reissued it. The excommunication partially backfired because of the internet! This is the first time in modern history anyone has done something like that.
 * You deleted the article in the middle of an ongoing debate, minutes after two serious votes in favor had been cast. The two admins were not supporting deletion. I only noticed the Vfd today, and began to both improve the article - showing its relevance - as well as create a serious, factual discussion that didn't really exist before. Plus you certainly didn't look at all for the kind of "rough concensus" that an admin is meant try for.
 * It seems to me that some ardent sockpuppets gave the defense a bad name on this one, hurting their own cause. Apparently Student also has a fan club. But that shouldn't be ammunition in the pocket of someone who wants to censor information because of his own biases (PinchasC wants to eliminate Student's critical view of Chabad, as his biased edits today demonstrated several times). Dovi 18:10, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

The deletion did not take into account any of the points in the discussion that took place shortly before it happened. Most of the opinions expressed did not take that discussion into account either. (Unfortunately, I only discovered this VfD today.)

The following is an open list. Please sign if you favor Undelete. If and when there are enough votes they will be moved to Votes for undeletion.
 * Dovi 18:28, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I originally voted to delete, but at the time I wasn't really cognizant of how big the Slifkin controversy is, nor Rabbi Student's role in it. I knew about Yashar Books and the book Rabbi Student wrote relating to the Rebbe controversy, which taken by itself seemed to me to be only borderline notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned.  However, Dovi makes a compelling argument, and I would have at least liked to have seen a little more discussion before the article was deleted so quickly. -- M P er el ( talk 22:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Quickly? It was on VfD for 6 days. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  22:30, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I'm more referring to the fact that it seemed serious discussion was only just beginning as editors who had something relevant to say became aware of the vfd. I would have liked to have heard more of what they had to say. -- M P er el ( talk 00:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There were plenty of editors with "something relevant to say," including myself. Jayjg was in contact with Student himself. "Student didn't think he really qualified for a Wikipedia article" pretty much does it for me. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  00:59, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure, sure I'm not discounting what you or Jayjg said, I meant relevant discussion began from editors advocating "keep". I think that the goal here is to allow a hearing of both sides and come to consensus, rather than hurry up and vote something out in a set number of days.  I didn't feel that strongly for "delete" in this case, and I don't feel strongly for "keep" now, but I do feel strongly about all sides being heard before action is taken.  -- M P er el ( talk 01:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * MPerel, This was all done already it was up for longer than it was needed to be on the VFD, and both sides were heard and discussed, this is how wikipedia works and you must accept that. As I've written below, perhaps you should focus your energies on writing a NPOV article about Nosson Slifkin who is the author of the books involved. --PinchasC 01:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Dovi, the pages on VFD need to be listed for 5 days only. Furthermore as it is clear all these stuff that you were saying was originally mentioned by either Jayjg and JFW, and discussed before you came around. And as a final warning before I file a complaint please stop with all personal attacks. This is the third one. --PinchasC 00:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Something to keep in mind as well is that he didn't write those books involved in the Slifkin controversy, rather he is a partner in a publishing house that he started with a few people that started distributing it. This, as discussed at length doesn't make you notable for a wikipedia article. Iw ould suggest that you focus your energies on Nosson Slifkin as he is the person that should be written about. Slifkin is the one that may be considered "brave" by some and Slifkin is the one that all this attention should be focused on, if indeed notable which we will see if that can be proven. --PinchasC 01:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

See the folowing statements from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion


 * "Please don't list articles for undeletion just because your position was not endorsed on Votes for Deletion. "
 * "Pages that were recently deleted in accordance with policy after being listed on Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion should not be listed unless new information has come to light." --PinchasC 01:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)