Talk:Jacob Neusner/Archive01
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Please sign your comments
Please sign your comments on this page. Or, if you do not wish to do so, please make some sort of seperation between your comment and the previous persons text. Also, if youaren't going to sign your comment please do include the date. It has been very hard to follow the discussion pages here until now. Guedalia D'Montenegro 03:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Introductory Comments
...all Wikipedia articles must be in complicance with our NPOV (neutral point of view) policy, and should not turn an article into a hagiography. RK 20:12, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Negative articles
....
The tone and content of the section regarding criticism of JN became too toxic. Perhaps the author(s) should publish that content in another article representing the work of other scholars in a more positive and constructive manner. As it stood - it was a flame attacking JN - not appropriate for this context. ...
Warning: Please do not continue to use an encyclopedia article as a polemical vehicle to attack the work of a productive scholar. Feel free to enter new independent articles about each of the other writers and include in those locations their achievements that you believe are corrective to those of Neusner. We do not want this to become an edit war. ...
8/8/2006: Removed anti-Neusner rantings. This is an encyclopedia not a blog. Flaming rants, sarcasm and snide comments are not acceptable here. ...
Ongoing vandalism in this article must be reverted. ...
Criticism of JN is unavoidable and this article is much to praiseworthy of JN. JN did not discover the "centrality of documents" as is asserted in the begining of the fourth paragraph. JN is outrageously prolific and many, if not most, contemporary talmudic scholars are critical of his scholarship (especially his knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic.) I agree that this article should not become a forum for this kind of debate, and the best way to avoid it is to always use a neutral point of view. Unfortunately the article as it stands today is highly pointed. This should be rectified.Guedalia D'Montenegro 05:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC) ...
JN did innovate in his field (History of Religions: Judaism) as described in this article. The attacks in this article were long and rambling, not in tone or style proper for an encyclopedia. The proportion of critiques to publications is miniscule: 10 (non-refereed) articles/reviews v. 900+ books and thousands of articles. Even in present form, the critiques longer then the critiques rendered to Freud in that Wikipedia entry. An encyclopedia entry should characterize the new knowledge that a scholar created and not be used as a vehicle for denigrating a personality. ...
Precisely because of the eulogistic claims for this "new knowledge," and the praise for the overall methodology, made at remarkable length, in the bulk of the article, some counter-balance in some detail is necessary if there is to be any hope of neutrality in this article. The article is way over the top in its claims, most of which however are not dealt with in the critical section. The critiques are solely directed to substantive issues regarding the nature of Talmudic Judaism and its early history. Certainly if Neusner is a "controversial" author, as is stated at the start of this article, it is appropriate to indicate why this is so somewhere in the article. Some of the "new knowledge" itself is controverted in the critical reviews, so readers ought to know this. The assertion that the articles/reviews were non-refereed, just made above, is simply false; most were published in well-known and reputable scholarly journals in the field of Jewish Studies, thoroughly refereed, including even one in a journal edited by Neusner himself, others range from encyclopaedia articles to academic books, and include critiques by leading Jewish Studies scholars, even Neusner's own former teachers. The entire issue of how balance is to be achieved in this article, and what room there might be in it for criticisms of claims made, is now in informal arbitration. Editing wars and attempts to silence criticism are not the answer.
[edit] Technical Terms
It is unclear to me which terms that are used in this article are specific to Neusner and which are generally used in his field. The overall style of the article assumes both a familiarity with Neusner and formal theology. PhatJew 20:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] birth place/date
Where/When is his birdate and place? --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 03:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC) Added...
[edit] Tags
This article is entirely too long and needs to be A) wikified and B) cleaned up. Please remove the tags once this is accomplished. CQJ 14:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've shortened the article somewhat, wikified a few paragraphs and cleaned up a few areas. I'll leave the tags in place as there is a substantial amount of work to complete. Addhoc 12:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] MAJOR REVISIONS
I have made some major revisions to this article. I hope that by shortening and simplifying what was a very long and pointed article, an imporved entry has been created. For some reason, I was not logged in when I made my revisions, I mention this only to let those of you who want to know whose IP address is linked to such a major revision of this article.Guedalia D'Montenegro 19:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The revisions by D'Montegegro are a major improvement, and the shortened critical section, in which I am particularly interested, looked satisfactory and needed only slight revision (spelling, a few phrases). However, I notice that the eulogist, Neusner or his surrogate, who wrote the original highly "pointed" article (i.e., highly biased to one point of view), was predictably not satisfied with the critical section, and has rewritten it yet again to minimize the significance of his critics and eliminate some of the most telling phrases and even one or two of the references to critical articles of which he particularly disapproves. Perhaps it is time for him to desist? I have restored the original critical section, which is largely what D'Montenegro wrote.
Prof. Zeusse has been most relentless in his attempts to slant this article and get his name and publications mentioned.
[edit] A few things/Mediation Cabal request
- Please sign your comments on talk pages with the ~~~~ structure.
- A mediation cabal case has been filed in regards to this page, however, it looks that a few unregistered users are among the disputants. Please be aware that once I find an administrator to review the page, it will be at the very least semi-protected, meaning that the IP users working here will need to get user accounts and play along with the rest of us, or, I'll just have the article full protected. I'll be doing this to end the temporary edit war/revert war so we can work on the article and clean out all of the weasel words and NPOV stuff.
- Anyone involved here needs to go to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-20_Jacob_Neusner_article and review the information there as soon as possible.
- I will also be archiving the talk page to assist in the Mediation.
Comments, questions, issues should be routed to my user talk page. Please keep your posts there to under three lines as I have requested at the top of my talk page. Thanks. We'll get this under control shortly. CQJ 18:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I am fed up with wikipedia biographies.Guedalia D'Montenegro 20:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Is Jacob Neusner editing this page?
I don't know. Some of you seem to think so. I do know that user: 12.26.7.141 and user: 68.197.244.75 are the main obstacles to writing an NPOV article about Neusner. These users, known only by their IP addresses, insist on writing overtly one-sided praise and minimizing the criticism of JN. Moreover - if you take a look at what these IP addresses have contributed - they are responsible for Neusner references all over Wikipedia (disturbing the Saul Lieberman entry, among others).
Is this Neusner himself? I doubt it - how could the author of so many books be such a terrible writer. The entries by 12.26.7.141 are written especially poorly. So my guess is that Neusner is smart enough to stay away. At least I hope so. I do think the some of his students (professional academics) have been involved in this debate. It is sad that these people cannot keep a NPOV. I am sick and tired of it.Guedalia D'Montenegro 20:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Most professors have students that act as their "army" to spread their personal beliefs. Anyone that has spent time in college would see this. It is very possible they are doing this on their own, but for the sake of impressing/promoting their saint Hackajar 15:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above assessments. User 211.29.1.141 (australia IP address) is professor zeusse who keeps interpolating criticism that is not accepted in the field in question, so that he can add his two articles to the list of those who are critical of neusner. it has been a tiring game editing, polishing, removing and then finding the same person's slants and attacks back the next day. [68.197.244.75 ]
Dear 68.197.244.75, By agreeing to the "above assesments" you have agreed that you are the major obstacle to this article. Please try and write NPOV only. MOST Talmud scholars take the criticism of Neusner seriously. Any article about him MUST include this section. Do not delete it. Furthermore - if you are so keen on identifying other IP addresses, why dont you identify yourself, dare I ask that you get a Wikipedia screename and sign your entries! Guedalia D'Montenegro 22:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
