Wikipedia

Talk:Michael Broyde

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified (January 2018)

Okay. Is there a nontrivial article about Broyde, rather than by him? The blurbs I cited are borderline, I think. He seems to be quoted a lot but I can't find anything specifically interviewing him/writing about his life, his work, him as a subject. Bibliography isn't the same thing as encyclopedia. Felisse 07:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi thanks. You seem concerned about his Notability. I believe he meets the following criteria (in WP:Bio), with my comments in bold:
  1. The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Yes. See google scholar for more than 25 citations. See google web for various press coverage. Further, I would note that google is weak on Orthodox literature, mostly not electronic and often in Hebrew. I didn't search Hebrew.
   * If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability. as above
   * Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.3
   * Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content.
  1. The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography. No, as you noted
  2. The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. Not to my knowledge, though some of his positions, e.g. law prof and national beit din, are themselves significant recognition."
  3. The person has demonstrable wide name recognition Yes, within the Orthodox Jewish world and Jewish (rabbinics) academia.
  4. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. (But isn't this the question at hand? Poor criterion.)

Generally, when I look at wikipedia discussions (eg AfDs), folks don't require non-WP biographical entries and are satisfied with sufficient citations and coverage of the person. What do other folks think? HG | Talk 14:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

He is a prolific speaker and gets around. Yet, all the non self-promotion is for places that he will speak. At this point he may likely be Non- Notability. Well known in a community is not the same as Objective External Notability. He may make a historical contribution in the future but as of now he has not. Any rural mayor may be well known but that is not Notability.--Jayrav 00:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was unable to find an article about Michael Broyde in Google Scholar. I found many written by him, and many that cited his work, but I mean articles that cover him as a subject matter, not articles that he wrote. Prolific scholarly publication may be a criteria - but it's primary research to create an article about a person from works by that person rather than works that have that person as a subject. So, it's not notability I'm really querying here, specifically, but verifiability and no original research. Where are the source articles about this person that are written by a third party and published or web published not by him? Can you direct me at them or give a specific google scholar search that finds them, my own abilities with that tool don't seem to be able to differentiate (all the articles I found with Michael Broyde in the title (searching "allintitle: michael broyde"), of which there were 3, were written by him) Felisse 19:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC) PS if all the sources are in Hebrew, then an article on a Hebrew language Wikipedia seems more appropriate. Though a translation of it might also be appropriate here, since anyone bilingual could check and update it. Just be sure the citations are sufficient that such a person could verify the work. Felisse 19:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Felisse, you say about that you are concerned about verifiability and NOR. However, I don't quite see how those issues come into play. Looking at the few sentences in the bio (stub really), each sentence if verifiable through the sources cited. Perhaps this requires a longer explanation, but NOR isn't really a factor here. None of the sentences can be considered research claims and they aren't really very original either. (It is not NOR problem to cite works "by" an author. Think of it this way: if I start a stub on Shakespeare by listing his works, and nothing more, this doesn't make it original research. It becomes NOR once I list "The Sound of Music" as one of his plays -- and can verify this claim only with my own research.) So, I actually do think your underlying discomfort with the article involves notability. Again, I think he fits the criteria for notability. Regarding google scholar -- I would point out that citations do indicate how much the person is "widely recognized" in their field. Also, this field is not some isolated rural town (contra Jayrav) but various fields of law and religion. I just checked Lexis and it looks like he is cited by about 60 law review articles. and 60 different cites in the Nexis news database. Granted, this isn't overwhelming evidence, but (having seen AfDs on bios), I think it's well above the hurdle for bio inclusion in Wikipedia. Thanks for your patience, take care. HG | Talk 02:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ok, and having read the notability for professors, I think you're probably right. So I did a little re wording, you can feel free to further edit that. I think the only thing that was unsupported was saying he was a "leading rabbi" (this seems mainly to be a slanted restatement of his being frequently cited, a prolific speaker, and in the Bet Din, so I made sure those were all listed in lieu). If you can find a reliable source calling him a "leading rabbi" please cite it after the words and return it if you want. It seems to me he's notable as a professor due to being a bit more notable than the typical Emory University professor, and that suffices. I do think that there's a possibility that an article that fits the requirements in stub form, but lacks any material that could possibly get it out of stub form (there is no reliable info beyond the stub info available without original research) is a problem, but mainly my own frustration at not being able to add to this article and get it out of stubness (which was my original wish) is not a reason to address it further. Felisse 14:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Michael Broyde. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Broyde&oldid=1200398436"