Talk:Zomet Institute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Speedy deletion

Please don't delete this article, The Zomet Institute used the moreshet server for a few years and therefore had a link to it

I took the link off, and hope this will solve the problem

The point is that this material seems to be lifted straight off the website, particularly the project section from http://www.moreshet.co.il/zomet/html/project.htm HrafnTalkStalk 12:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


you are right, i did take it off from there because i got permission from the Zomet Institute to do so

however in the meantime i'll take the project section off

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.143.214.179 (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That section is the bulk of the article, the remainder of which is in any case is unsourced, does not establish notability and was created in a conflict of interest, so is unlikely to survive. HrafnTalkStalk 12:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I changed the article to be as nutral as possible. please inform me if you think otherwise before deleting the article

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.143.214.179 (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This article violates WP:V, WP:NOTE/WP:ORG & WP:COI/WP:AUTO. It has only a snowball's chance in hell of surviving. I have deleted the bulk of the unsourced material in it (per WP:PROVEIT). Please do not (re)insert material unless and until you have a reliable source for it. HrafnTalkStalk 13:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

The organization is definitely notable.

A bald assertion. No substantiation = no value. HrafnTalkStalk 15:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The article should be expanded, of course. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

First find some WP:RSs. HrafnTalkStalk 15:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This organization is very notable in Israel. Sources will appear shortly. Please, assume a little good faith and don't revert it so quickly.
Oh, and please don't template the regulars. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This article was created 6 hours ago, using mostly WP:COPYVIO material by a clearly WP:COI editor. It has been entirely unsourced throughout its short life and can't seem to get it's founding date straight. WP:AGF is therefore running somewhat thin & skepticism running somewhat high. Under these circumstances a fairly ruthless adherence to policy does not seem to be unreasonable. HrafnTalkStalk 15:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
We're in the business of writing an encyclopedia, not of being ruthless.
The new user who created the article is possibly related to the org and thus may have a COI, but this doesn't mean that the org is non-notable. I am just an average Israeli, and i'm not even religious, and i am very well aware of this org's activities. Yisrael Rosen is one of the most popular rabbis in Israel; he's also a columnist. He has an article in he.wiki, which is very stern about notability; i am surprised that he doesn't have an article here.
As for proof - just try to Google "Zomet Institute -site:zomet.org.il -site:moreshet.co.il" and you'll find a plethora of non-trivial external coverage. I could just go on and add the first five ghits, but i try to be more meticulous than that. Until i add carefully selected sources, please don't revert it without discussion. Better delete this article completely than leave it as a meaningless one-sentence with plastered templates. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

<unident>WP:COI creation + no sources = absolutely zero presumption of notability, hence a notability template. If you can establish notability for it, well and good. As to deleting the article, I speedied it when it was mostly WP:COPYVIO material, but that material was quickly removed, so I had no basis for continuing to propose speedy deletion. One of two things can happen to a template-plastered single-sentence stub, it either gets redirected/deleted or robustly expanded. Either is better than letting it moulder as a longer (but likely inaccurate) & non-eye-catching stub, that is unlikely to offend anybody's sensibilities enough to get itself expanded, so can stick around in that condition for years. HrafnTalkStalk 16:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

An improvement to your formula: COI creation + no sources + asking Google + asking WikiProject _______. I also patrol CAT:NN and CAT:CSD, and see a lot of articles about Pakistan and India. When they are not complete gibberish i don't dare to speedily delete them without checking Google + someone from the relevant country. Deleting a lot of articles is not a great achievement by itself. And some people do call me a "deletionist", see Talk:Lingua Franca Nova. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I was talking about the lack of a presumption of notability, not absolute disproof of it. If notability had been disproved, the article would be in the process of deletion. As it was, it was only tagged, indicating that notability had not been established. If editors familiar with the topic (from some wikiproject or elsewhere) wish to thereafter come along and source it & establish notability to, then they are more than welcome. That is what templates are for -- to let editors who have the expertise know that there's something needing doing. I agree that deletion of articles is not a "great achievement", but improving wikipedia's credibility by cutting down on the vast number of shoddy articles is at least a small one. HrafnTalkStalk 16:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


Three external links: one to the subject's non-English website, one to a bare mention of the subject, leaving only one substantive & independent (but hardly scholarly) link. You call this "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? And none of these sources verify the bulk of the statements you have introduced. I think my skepticism has been fully justified. HrafnTalkStalk 16:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a bare mention. Leaving aside the org's homepage, the other two links are not scholarly, but nobody said that every article needs to have a source written by PhD's. Both articles say that Zomet Institute deals with technological solutions to Halakhic problems. There are many many more articles like this on Google. That article doesn't say much more. About Thumin - you will find this book standing next to Talmud in almost every synagogue if you bother to look for it.
Also, the sources doesn't have to be in English - they have to be verifiable. A lot of people can verify Hebrew sources. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you read WP:V#Non-English sources. I think that expecting people to dig in some unspecified location of a non-English website for verification of facts not covered by the English-language links is pushing WP:V well past breaking point. HrafnTalkStalk 16:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
It is such verification problems (due to lack of specificity) that make me regard external links as little better than worthless from the point of view of verification, and to thus value articles whose only 'references' are such external links similarly. HrafnTalkStalk 17:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Failed verification"

I added a source about usage of Zomet-designed phones in the IDF. You are welcome to ask any Hebrew speaker to verify it.

I don't currently have a source about the number of people who study the psakim in Thumin and live according to them, but this book is present in the home of nearly every observant Jewish family and every Religious Zionist synagogue. (Though probably not at Haredi ones.) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Then I am commenting it out until you can find a source for them. This sort of "I know it's true but can't offer verification of it" is exactly why I feel that these sorts of articles need a high level of scrutiny and strict adherence to policy. It also is a further reason for not using ELs as references (as their lack of specificity tends to disguise such problems). HrafnTalkStalk 02:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
You're going WAY over the top: the book WAS printed annually and it is present in the library in my workplace and every other library around here. It's not my fault that you don't live in this country, but as i said, you're welcome to check in any synagogue.
WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." HrafnTalkStalk 08:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
If EL's are not sources and libraries are not sources, then what is? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Does an EL state that "Since 1980 (5740) Zomet Institute has published Thumin (תחומין) - an annual compilation of psakim dealing with modern Jewish life, technology and law."? Then cite the specific URL! Neither "it's somewhere in this library" nor "it's somewhere in this website" is SPECIFIC enough a reference to be ANY USE AT ALL for verification. In fact your attitude to date, in spite of throwing a hissy fit over being templated for it, has been to COMPLETELY IGNORE WP:V!HrafnTalkStalk 08:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If this book is so famous, then why aren't there readily accessible WP:RSs discussing it? Why can't I find it listed on Amazon or Google Books? Are you sure you have the Roman-script spelling of its name correct? You claim that "this book is present in the home of nearly every observant Jewish family" and that I could find it if I "check in any synagogue", but I am beginning to wonder exactly which Jewish denominations consider it to be authoritative. HrafnTalkStalk 09:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This wouldn't be the book whose English title is Crossroads: Halacha and the Modern World, would it? If so, there is little point in mentioning it in an English language wiki without giving its English title. HrafnTalkStalk 09:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Amazon is not that good at selling Hebrew books. If you can read Hebrew, search for "ספר תחומין". I corrected the transliteration (there is no well-accepted standard for transliteration of Hebrew.)
If a book is in a library of a University or a Synagogue, then it is a proof that it exists. Not every little piece of information in the world is google-able, and certainly not everything is available in English. For some things you just need to bother to go to a library.
Stop this silly revert war, please.
Oh, and please, pretty please, stop quoting Wikipedia policy pages for me. Being a sysop i know them by heart. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's an example of academic usage of Techumin: http://www.law.biu.ac.il/pirsumim.php?id=35
Again, it's in Hebrew. I am trying to find better sources in English.
It's not really a good source to be quoted in the article, but it is a good example that shows that this book is taken very seriously. For thousands of people it's as close it gets to being the modern Talmud. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I will stop this "silly revert war" when you stop repeatedly adding unverifiable information to this article -- in the mean time, I will however attempt to do so in a manner that minimises disruption.
    • I will likewise stop quoting policy at you when you stop flagrantly flouting it. That you are a sys-op only aggravates the fact that you are flouting the policies you are meant to uphold.
  • The whole idea of wikipedia is to rely on verifiable publicly-accessible information. Private 'proof' does not equate to publicly accessible verification.
    • If this "book is in a library of a University" then you can verify the book's existence (but not other claims about it) by citing the book's entry in an online catalog.
  • Given that most observant Jews would not be native Hebrew speakers, I find the lack of non-Hebrew sources referring to it to be worrisome. Are you sure that your impression of this book reflects a global, as opposed to a local, viewpoint? Can you give an accurate account of who it is "taken very seriously" by? I If it is only "thousands", then it would be a very small proportion of observant Jews (themselves a relatively small minority of the world's population).

HrafnTalkStalk 12:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen this book in homes of observant Jews in California. Quite a lot of them know at least some Hebrew.
"most observant Jews would not be native Hebrew speakers" - that's also a point which requires some proof, but don't bother too hard, as it is not too relevant. People who care about studying Halakha learn Hebrew and often Aramaic, too.
Even if it was significant only in Israel, which it isn't, it still doesn't make it non-notable.
The way the article is currently written, it can be understood by anyone who has the most basic understanding of Judaism. I cannot think of any possible problem with a "global viewpoint", except maybe criticisms against this organization's psakim, which some non-Jews may dislike, as they often touch politics and questions of Jews' right to Land of Israel etc. - an inevitable ticking bomb. Such things are often criticized even in Israeli mainstream media. All this is just speculation, however. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Whether they have "learn[t] Hebrew and often Aramaic, too" or not, they would most likely write about it in their native tongues. If they are not doing so (as would appear to be the case), it is reasonable to at least suspect that few place any great weight on it. By "globally" I was talking about denominationally, as well as geographically (though that it circulates outside Israel is of some comfort). You have already stipulated that it is "probably not [found] at Haredi" synagogues. Is it accepted by all other Orthodox denominations? By non-Orthodox ones? These sorts of questions really need to be answered in order to give reasonable context to the influence of the book & of the Institute. That is what I meant by a local vs global view. HrafnTalkStalk 14:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The Jewish Orthodox world can be very roughly divided into Haredim and all the rest; the rest are actively or passively Religious Zionist (a.k.a. "knitted yarmulkas"; Sephardi-Ashkenazi divide is not so relevant here). I tried to make it clear that Zomet is very actively Religious Zionist. To start, Gush Etzion, and Alon Shvut in particular is strongly affiliated with Religious Zionism. More importantly, the meaning of the name "Techumin" is "Ranges" or "Domains" (there's a religious meaning to it, which i cannot explain well), but it is also a backronym for "Torah, CHevrah u MedINa", which means "Law, Society and State". That name alone makes the book series and the group behind it Religious Zionist, because Haredim are not so keen about the "State" part in the first place and even less so about mixing those three things together in any modern way. So i wrote that it is "widely studied in Religious Zionist families" ... but all in all, you are right about insisting to have a proof for that claim. I am actively looking for one.
I don't exactly know what is the opinion of Non-Orthodox Jewish movements, such as Conservative and Reform, about Zomet and Techumin. If i find anything interesting about it, i'll add it to the article. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I was getting a bit confused by the lead of Religious Zionism, which seems to imply (in a rather unclear manner) that Religious Zionism & Haredi Judaism overlap in the form of the Hardal. Like any other religious denomination, the sub-groupings of Orthodox Judaism probably aren't familiar to the average reader, so it'd probably be as well to include a bit of context for this in the article, as well as wikilinks to more information (either embedded, or see-alsoed). HrafnTalkStalk 16:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Extraneous

Dear 212.143.214.179,

I don't know how relevant the whole thing about the conversion is, maybe you should start a new page about Yisrael Rozen and put it in there ColdSnow (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)