Talk:Medrash Shmuel yeshiva

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 16/8/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] Prod

Okay, so PinchasC (talk • contribs) thinks Medrash Shmuel is not notable enough for an article and thinks it should be deleted. I disagree. Medrash Shmuel has hundreds of students, as the article says. It is definitely worthy of an article. PinchasC, please motivate, why should it be deleted? --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, its mentioned several places throughout wikipedia--not merely in connection with Rabbi Slifkin. Many other yeshiva are as well. Why should Medrash Shmuel be any different? More to the point, I have some serious problems with my dealings in Wikipedia being reviewed by Pinchos. While I admit that I am still learning Wikipedia's rules--and I will act with complete deference to its rules--I do not believe his decisions are Moshe M' Sinai. He has no right to say something ought to be deleted, even if he thinks its unimportant. As Daniel told me more than once, this is not a forum to state your views--its about facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidCharlesII (talk • contribs).

Now please START SIGNING YOUR COMMENTS WITH 4 TILDES so that we do not continuously have to do it for you. I totally agree that this article should stay and if you look in the article history you will see that I deleted his first template aimed at deleting the page. But please sign your comments on talk pages with this: "~~~~" --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that it is not notable http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Medrash+Shmuel+yeshiva%22&hl=en&lr=&filter=0 and it is only original research. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Pichos has a very strong animus toward any additions I have made in the Rav Shach article. I think his deletions are inappropriate. The fact is Rav Shach is regarded as a talmudic scholar par excellence. Look at his haskamos. Why he decided to delete them--as a matter of pov issues--despite those haskamos is beyond any rational explanation. The other additions, I do not beleve, are as inappropaite as his muddling the Lubavitch issue in a bio of Rav Shach--making it THE prominent issue in the bio. He refuses my insertion of a sentence which is stated in more than one place in Wikipedia as well. This is very dishonest work.

Sorry. "DavidCharlesII 20:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)"

Pinchos, I am not sure if you know of any Yeshivas outside of the Lubavitch area, but Medrash Shmuel has well over 300 people learning in it. Look it up on Yahoo. It also has a subsidiary Yeshiva called, I believe, Aliyos Shmuel. Look it up on Yahoo. This kind of dishonesty is inappropriate. Furthermore, you are not the arbiter of what is important. Its just as relevant as many of the other yeshivas wirrten about in Wikipedia. "DavidCharlesII 20:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)"

Thanks, that's the way it should be! But you don't need to place the "". Another tip: using a : at the beginning of the section will cause it to be moved to the right a little bit. You can see that when you edit talk pages. Very useful in talk pages, to keep things clear. --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Daniel,

If you can show me how to verify add sources, I will verify some of the issues in the article myself. I really do not see how Pinchos has the right to act like such a Communist, but hey, its his life. --DavidCharlesII 20:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. What do we do about Pinchos's excesses? --DavidCharlesII 20:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, I assume it's your yeshiva. You should bring some links. I don't have time right now, doing a lot of things at one time... By the way, you should write the signature as "--~~~~" but without the "" and directly after you finish your sentence. --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, its not my yeshiva. I want to add on Yeshivos which have no article about them. I was wondering if Pinchos is allowed to pick on people? How does one have a communication with him, or, if neccessary, someone above him, to ensure his power does not get to his head? I think his shots are deeply biased. DavidCharlesII 20:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We need more articles on yeshivos and just as important, seminaries - there is not even an article about Neve, I think! Wikipedia really is a men's world. About Pinchas, I don't know. I do not understand this. --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Pinchos even refused to engage in dialogue with me. He is being very unfair to me about this. What do I do? Finally, how do I add links or prevent Pinchos from destroying my contributions? DavidCharlesII 20:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

See the links on your own talk page for how to edit pages, add links etc. You are free to add more to the page. It is not locked from editing or so. --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I added this: http://www.aliyosshmuel.com/show.asp?PID=4#MS. It substantiates pretty much everything I wrote. I sincerely doubt Pinchos is nearly as difficult when it comes to substantiating facts about the Rebbe. But, hey, I am not the one who looks like a bad guy here. DavidCharlesII 20:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no justification for removing this article. DavidCharlesII 20:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I worked your addition into the article. See how I do it, that's how I learned also. I never used those 'manuals' on how to edit pages, I just learned by finding out. And yes, you're right. --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I really appreciate your help. Does this discussion have anyway in preventing the deletion of this article?DavidCharlesII 20:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2006/08/is-hating-israel-doche-shabbos.html

This is the site on which I base my conclusion that some in the NK are not shomer shabbos--at least in the branch which broke off from Rav Blau's . . . DavidCharlesII 20:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't really belong here, it's another discussion. But anyway: that doesn't say anything. They could have slept somewhere in walking distance. Other people (goyim) could have held their signs and they were only holding them when they were not moving. And is there really no eiruv there? Maybe there is? There are plenty of options. --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There is definetly no working eiruv there. The Amira L'Akum shailos abound. DavidCharlesII 20:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

At least you know where I am coming from. It is certainly very suspicious. The Rebbe would have not allowed this. DavidCharlesII 20:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Why is the web site--which states all the information in the bio and more--not sufficient?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidCharlesII (talk • contribs).

You need to sign your comments!

I don't understand what the website confirms, other than that the Yeshiva exists, and that it thinks highly of itself. --Meshulam 14:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It confrims the amount of bachurim, etc--practically everything that needs a citation. Harvard thinks highly of itself, too. DavidCharlesII 15:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The website says that the Yeshiva has "over three hundred students," not "well over." What else? --Meshulam 16:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Make sure you take a look at WP:NOR and WP:VAIN. Before my edits, this page was no more than a vanity piece, and deserved to be deleted. Keep in mind Wikipedia policy when editing articles. Also, you seem to have trouble with WP:NPOV. --Meshulam 16:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It says R' Binyomin is the rosh Yeshiva, that his discourses are influenced by R' Chatzkel, and that he was influenced by R' shmuel. That is close to =everything in this bio.