User talk:Mark3

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - UtherSRG (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Your Edits to Conservative Halakha
Hello, I had to revert these edits because they somehow introduced Wiki markup language errors which made parts of the article show mark-up language as text in an unreadable way. Also, most of the content you added appears to describe various Conservative practices etc., but didn't appear to address the specific issue of Conservative Halakha, the article's subject. Conservative Halakha deals specifically with the legal reasoning (or, as some say, lack thereof) behind Jewish-law decisions made by the Conservative movement's rabbinical bodies. The Conservative movement publishes a commentary on the Torah, a siddur, etc., but details about these matters, like details about its youth organization, annual convention, etc. etc., are relevant to this article only to the extent they drive or reflect its Jewish-law decisions and the legal reasoning behind them. Otherwise they should be in other articles. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Committee on Jewish Law and Standards
Hello, I undid a number of your edits. The reason was the first edit you did removed existing material which in your view portrayed the CJLS as "too radical". But the material was reliably sourced, and the Neutral Point of View policy prohibits removing material that is reliably sourced because one disagrees with it or it doesn't portray the viewpoint one would like to portray. Finally, you should be aware that you will likely need to provide sources for every statement you add to the article, particularly controversial ones. Wikipedia has a substantial Orthodox contingent which tends to write material critical of things the Conservative movement does. If you feel the criticism goes too far, perhaps it might be a good idea to begin with a discussion of the issue on the relevant article(s)' talk page, plus adding material (properly sourced) with ones point of view, rather than attempting to move the pendulum the other way oneself by removing material one doesn't like. Perhaps compromise language might be possible. Disputes about content are normal in Wikipedia, Wikipedia has many articles on controversial subjects, and there are Dispute resolution procedures to enable an article to be written when groups of editors radically disagree. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: When an article is reverted, its History section contains all previous content, so all the content you added is stored and available to re-added in an appropriate way. Although you should be aware that Wikipedia policies will sometimes be applied sharply in a content dispute, please don't be discouraged. It might be best, however, to proceed a little bit more cautiously. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Shirhadasha: "Hello, I undid a number of your edits. The reason was the first edit you did removed existing material which in your view portrayed the CJLS as "too radical". But the material was reliably sourced, and the Neutral Point of View policy prohibits removing material that is reliably sourced because one disagrees with it or it doesn't portray the viewpoint one would like to portray."

I did no such thing. I did not remove any facts that others had inserted. I merely removed the editorializing against Masorti/Conservative halakhah. The articles had been written in suc a way as to make all Conservative/Masorti rabbis look to be like Reform rabbis. That should be obvious to anyone well versed in the OCR disputes.

Your criticism of my edits would be more helpful if you could point out any specific facts that I had removed. If I removed any sourced facts, your note of that would be helpful, because I would be gald to restore the information, and let others do so as well. As far as I know, I only removed the anti-Conservative NPOV editorializing by some Orthodox Jewish writers on Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, there do not seem to be any Conservative/Masorti Jews who regularly edit Wikipedia Judaism articles. ikipedia draws most of its contributors from the more extreme ends of all spectrums (religious, political, cultural, et-cetera.) while those in the middle are often less passionate, and thus likely not to edit in a war-like zone such as Wikipedia. Perhaps someday such people will be coaxed to edit on [Citzenpedia], which has the promise to become in fact what Wikipedia promises, but will never be able to deliver (reliaibility.) Mark3

"Perhaps compromise language might be possible. Disputes about content are normal in Wikipedia, Wikipedia has many articles on controversial subjects, and there are Dispute resolution procedures to enable an article to be written when groups of editors radically disagree. "

Yes; I am sure that we can compromise. But I would find it more helpful if you would list specific points in my edits that you disagree with. Mark3 19:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello. It should be clear from later discussions that the "anti-conservative editorializing" which "make[s] all Conservative/Masorti rabbis look to be like Reform rabbis" consists of nothing more than direct quotes or close paraphrases of this responsum, which is arguably the most liberal and Reform-like thing the Conservative movement has ever said. Equally arguably, it retreated from the statements it made there in its homosexuality teshuva (when it took the approach of narrowly construing biblical law and relying on its interpretation of a Talmudic concept, Kavod HaBriyot, rather than risking another express confrontation between Biblical law and its view of modern conceptions of morality. But it said it, and the consequence is that editors are entitled to quote it in the relevant articles. The WP:NPOV policy prohibits WP:NPOV, and you are entitled to argue on Talk pages that this is occurring, but you aren't entitled to remove this content without discussion simply because you think it "anti-conservative editorializing" or otherwise disagree with it. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Mamzerut Issue
Hello, I added a comment about edits on Talk:Conservative Halakha which you might want to respond to. I believe the references to Kiddushin 71a etc., prominently displayed in the article, either don't appear in the actual responsum at all or are highly parenthetical and aren't a basis for its decision. I suggest that associating these classical sources with the responsum in such a prominent fashion represents original research. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Tucker Edits
Mark, I just undid your edits to the Gordon Tucker page, but I invite you to come back and make them again, with some changes to follow wikipedia guidelines. I see that you are somebody who, like me, is involved in the Conservative movement, and I am sure you have much more knowledge about Rabbi Tucker than I do. However, I want to make sure that the end result is a factually correct and verifiable article on Rabbi Tucker. I know him (just a bit) and like him, but I'm not here to support or defend him. I just want us to follow good wikipedia practices.

First of all, you deleted some material that had been there for several months, which I assume was correct, because nobody else had changed it, although I don't have firsthand knowledge. Please make a proposal for deletion on the article's Talk page, and let all the persons interested in the page discuss it for two weeks. Maybe there will even be a consensus of opinion much sooner. If nobody responds, then you can go ahead and delete.

Next, you added the following quotation:


 * He was not seen as a successful fundraiser while on the Masorti board.

This is an example of an unverifiable statement of opinion. It may indeed be true. Can you replace this statement with another one that says something like ...


 * A letter writer to the White Plains Jewish Rag, Adam Shimkowitz, complained that Rabbi Tucker was not a successful fundraiser ..


 * Carole Leibowitz, reporting in the Jewish Daily Forward, said that members of the board felt Rabbi Tucker was not a successful fundraiser ... 


 * According to Rifka Rabinowitz, reporting for the JTA, Rabbi Tucker was not seen by other members of the Masorti board as a successful fundraiser.

In other words, if this is a true, give it to us in a way that is factual and verifiable (published somewhere outside wikipedia). Either a quotation that other readers can verify, or a statement by a professional journalist who has conducted interviews off the record would suffice.

Thank you! --Metzenberg 08:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

More Gordon Tucker
Mark, You have inspired me to do a lot of work on the Gordon Tucker page. I've been waiting for your comments and reactions. I would like to go over some of Tucker's writings, and develop the article to a greater extent. Do you know where I can find a list of his writings? --Metzenberg 07:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)