Standforder

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Standforder

A tag has been placed on User:Standforder, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Debate over oral Torah

A tag has been placed on Debate over oral Torah, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As reviewing administrator, I saw that this article was not identical (or even similar) to the one previously deleted, so I declined to delete it. I just now removed the hangon tag you re-added--this tag just relists it for speedy again, and is not needed. However, I am concerned about the present state of the article, which seems to be returning to the version originally deleted. There are several topics being confused here: the criticism of rabbinic judaism in contrast to other Jewish and Jewish-derived traditions, the criticism of the concept of oral law in Judaism, a concept which is indeed specific to rabbinic Judaism, but not the only difference between it and other traditions (it is, for example, hardly the only difference between rabbinic Judaism and Christianity), and criticism of various elements of the Talmud--again an overlapping subject. As I understand it, and think my understanding to be the standard view, iIn rabbinnic Judaism, the Talmud (& its primary component, the Mishnah) is not the oral law--it is rather an attempt over several centuries by several hundred scholars to reconstruct and write down what is remembered of the oral law & to record the debates over what it is and how it is to be interpreted. (I am using rabbinic in what I believe is the standard meaning--the Jewish tradition descended from the Pharisees and forming the basis of contemporary Orthodox,Conservative, Reconstructionist, & Reform Judaism--though all of these have somewhat different views of it. The originally deleted article contained a good deal of miscellaneous criticism and abuse of the rabbinic Jewish tradition, including much of the calumny used in criticizing the Talmud during the Christian middle ages--especially the Talmud's negative treatment of Jesus. It also included various other historic & contemporary attacks upon the authenticity of the standard Jewish tradition.

The material in the original article, and in the restored article as it now exists, consists of a good deal of unacceptable Synthesis: for example, I notice the sentences: "Which even can be seen today in modern Jewish literature: The Encyclopedia of Judaism also goes so far as to comment: “The .... " This is unacceptable writing-- "goes so far as to comment" makes a judgment on the validity of particular propositions. The text also contains misleading and excessive links, including the multiple linking of the word "Jewish" . I notice many uses of "supposedly". I notice a complete confusion of the criticism of different schools: Karaities, Christians, and others. I notice a good deal of very defective English: "Many of the devote followers " , " but both had some followed some non-biblical guidelines.", 'Debatable over the Oral Torah" --this sort of grammar is characteristic of machine translation into English.

This material is already discussed in an orderly fashion in the many Wikipedia articles on Judaism and the Talmud. Perhaps we need another article of Kariate views of Rabbinic Judaism . But as I said at the original AfD on the article, this is not getting there. I thought the material could be rewritten ,and at one point asked for its restoration, but eventually decided I could not do it from this base. It was considered before to be an unencyclopedic essay, and it is once more just that--see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Talmud

Unfortunately, I conclude that this material is headed for a re-creation of the earlier deleted article, as bad or worse than what it was originally, and I have corrected my benign assumption that something more suitable was intended, and deleted it as a recreation. Please do not attempt to recreate it in any form on any page, including user space. If you wish to appeal this, the only direction to go is Deletion Review. I do not think the history of the article would make makes this approach very promising, but you do have the right to go there. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I see you reinserted part of it. I made some general comments on the talk page. I will give it another try at rewriting, after comparing it with other articles on the subject to see if it is even worth the doing. In the meantime, you might take another look at the grammar, and remove all internal links of a word after its first appearance. Please do not add any more of the old and unsatisfactory material, I probably am showing more patience with this than anyone else here would do, There's no point my indicating the many factual and grammar and format errors in detail--there are simply too many of them, and rather than try to correct them it will be easier to rewrite, if it seems worth the effort. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank-you, for kindness and patience.

Message about Pharaoh's of the Exodus

I got your message on my talk page, but I don't like to give out personal information over the internet. If you have a question regarding something I have previously posted please just ask and I will be happy to answer, as I have nothing to hide. Willietell (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay that's cool. I wanted to talk but there's too many Jehovah's Witnesses haters here (I won't name names) to do so freely. That 's I given you my E-mail address instead.