Talk:Avi Weiss

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Avi Weiss is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Torah uMaddah

I took out the Torah uMaddah for 3 reasons-

  1. Rav Avi avoids anything that sounds too limiting and intellectual.
  2. He does not want to reduce his ideology to another Norman Lamm
  3. The article Open Orthodoxy does not use the phrase nor does his other writings- he likes to say "Everything can be made holy"

Criticism?

The section called "Distinction from Union for Traditional Judaism" should be removed from here or from Open Orthodoxy. It is not based on an outside source but is you own opinion. The differences can be expamined in many other ways.--Jayrav 17:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If the article implies this is the only difference, it can be changed. But the whole point of UTJ, which David Weiss HaLivni championed, plastered on its website and published in multiple places, is that UTJ combines a fully critical view of the origins of the classical texts -- Documentary Hypothesis and all -- with what it regards as a rigorous approach to the halachic process, while OO claims a traditional view of the origin of the Torah plus what it regards as a rigorous approach to the halachic process. UTJ believes in Chate'u Israel, OO doesn't. Are you disputing this? Best, --Shirahadasha 18:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It is one of proceedure. Your comparison of Rabbi Avi Weiss and Rabbi David Halivni Weiss is the first of it kind. It would make a nice op-ed somehwere but the COMPARISON itself is not in either of their writings or articles. Your implication is too subtle to footnote- it is original. And since there are no Biblical scholars on staff at UTJ - only Rabbis, I might dispute this on content also. UTJ's purpose may have more to do with 1950's CJ, then scholarship. But the nature of UTJ and disputes about the meaning of the UTJ website and the meanings of the UTJ movement are original research. --Jayrav 18:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Shira, you are doing great work. The section still seems a little too evaluative for Wiki. I am not going to undo your edits, but at some point you should edit this section (and parts of the other sections) for evaluation words. Best, --Jayrav 17:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Open Orthodoxy merged into Avi Weiss article per VfD

The result of the recent vote was to merge the Open Orthodoxy article into this Avi Weiss article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Orthodoxy (21 Nov, '06). I have already done this earlier [1], posting the entire Open Orthodoxy article here in full. IZAK 02:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

We have gone through this last month and there is record at Modern Orthodoxy:talk. Please stop vandalising with a defamation blog.--Jayrav 17:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If done for the first time this doesn't meet the definition of WP:Vandalism since it can be interpreted as a sincere effort to improve the enyclopedia and per WP:BITE we don't assume newcomers to be up on the fine details of the WP:RS policy let alone WP:BIO. However, for repeaters who've already had it explained to them, it's a different matter. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Offering of Criticism in "Avi Weiss"

I believe the blog at openorthodoxy.com is a worthwhile source to include in the external links. It contains many critiques of Open Orthodoxy that have sources from legitmate publications (with no ad hominem attacks etc). As for it being simply a blog, the topic of Avi Weiss/Open Orthodoxy is not going to have major coverage especially the critiques of it as the topic is small to begin with. To simply mention that there are those that disagree is a good idea in any piece of a religious movement, Mr. Einhorn's blog has done this in depth up until recently, and I do not believe there is more legitmate critique to be found online. For this reason, I think that the link should be included. I hope this finds the eyes of those who can do something about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.227.244.248 (talkcontribs) December 31, 2006.

[edit] Cousin

Here is how Rabbi Weiss is Rabbi Willig's cousin: Rabbi Weiss's father (Rabbi Moshe Weiss) is the older brother of Rabbi Willig's mother (Ella Willig nee Weiss z"l). Is that a good enough source? Happy138 20:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Status as Biography

This article is the result of a merger of multiple articles, including the former Open Orthodoxy. Because it also serves as the article on Avi Weiss's philosphy and other elements, it won't necessarily read according to what Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography might consider to be ideal biography standards. Personal data and images are nice and editors are welcome to add them, but I think it appropriate that past work on this article has stressed Avi Weiss's philosophy and activities. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] trivia

I've deleted the trivia section on multiple occasions now for two main reasons. Firstly, it is entirely unsourced, and as such, is required to be removed per wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people, which states:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

(I am obviously discussing it right now because starting a revert war is in not in anyone's best interest).

Secondly, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such abhors trivia sections. The MoS clearly states that trivia sections are to be avoided. Trivia sections are frequently used as a crutch for new articles. This article is actually fairly large and fairly good, and has been worked on by numerous editors. Please stop bringing down the article by adding a trivia section. If any of the information in the trivia section is useful, then it should be sourced and added into the article in the appropriate place as prose, not a list.

If you wish to add the trivia section back, please make sure that you have addressed these issues and adhere to wikipedia policy before doing so. --Bachrach44 14:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)