Talk:Tzvi Berkowitz

notability tag

Concerns have been expressed previously and I've restored the notability tag because the references aren't at all satisfactory: they're either congregation websites and such, local blurbs and programs, or brief acknowledgments in books. Please do not remove the notability tag until substantive WP:RS are added, for example a published sources that discuss this person and his work specifically. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC).

• Hi Agricola: This a major Haredi rabbi and Talmudist who is well-known and active in the American yeshiva world, who is well-known in his field. There are no glorious works about such people. So far, the objectors have been satisfied with the upgrade of this article and have even added agreeing touches. Had they objected they would have said so, so it is unclear where you are coming from or why now. Have you researched this field enough? have you edited in these areas much? Judging from your edit history it seems you have no interest or experience editing in this type of subject so why are you getting involved now? The sources cited so far are more than adequate to prove WP:N. If this was a soccer player of a comic book character there would be no problem with that many decent citations. The earlier concerns were prior to the improvement of the article and the addition of WP:RS. Also, user Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) has noted [1] in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaim Dov Keller that: "...Religious sources and media of notable religious organizations are perfectly acceptable reliable sources to establish notability of religious subjects and figures. Notability in the field, not notability in general media, is the standard, and that is met here. There is no problem I can see that can justify questioning this..." and the same applies here. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The first part of your statement borders on assuming bad faith on my part and suggesting that because of my edit history I'm not qualified to edit this article. Do I have that correct, or would you care to rephrase? (To satisfy your suspicion as to "why now": because this article showed-up recently on the prod list, which I monitor closely.) You do not WP:OWN this article and there are legitimate concerns with the substance of the sources. I repeat that most of these are just web-page listings that say essentially nothing more than this person actually exists, e.g. all of these 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. The ref from torah.org makes a singularly trivial mention of his name, while the rest (this one, this one, and this one) are all just book acknowledgments for his support, help in copy-editing, and such. I should not have to remind a long-time editor such as yourself that these sources do not confirm notability in the least. I've replaced the tag to simply mark this article as needing more help. Please add substantive references that discuss him and his work before you remove this tag again. I have no intention of getting into a WP:EW here. The alternative would be simply to take the article straight to AfD and my sense is that in its present form, it would not survive there. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC).
    • Agricola: The expert editors who were the first ones to prod the article have since that time in fact been satisfied that that article was indeed substantially improved by adding their own improvements to it. At this time no one is questioning the notability of this rabbi but you, which is odd, given that you are basing yourself on an earlier prod that has since been attended to with the addition of the added WP:RS and in this case they are solid enough to allow this article to stand as it is. The citations say a lot more than he "exists" which is very insulting, offensive and borderline WP:Libel. Sure, this article, like tens of thousands of others, may need improvement as many WP:STUBs and brief biographies do, but the way you are setting down draconian stipulations here is alarming given that based on your edit history you are not an expert in this field and have little interest in it beyond nitpicking and questioning editors who have no axe to grind beyond wishing to see to it that a truly notable personality is not shoved aside. Regardless of how well I knew Wikipedia policies, I would defer to reliable established expert editors. I have nominated articles for deletion, so I am not "anti-deletion" either. Yet I would never enter a subject matter or domain of knowledge that I know nothing about, such as rocket science or astrophysics and its related scientists and notables, or snoop about religious personalities and ministers in other religions such as Islam or Christianity that I am not an expert in and do not edit and rummage around for articles to nitpick with. What I am saying is logical, rational and objective. Quit threatening with AFDs, if that's your goal, go for it and we'll see what happens and what comes of it. I am not "married" to this article, and I'm confident it will be judged as worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. I am certain that were this to be taken to AFD it would survive. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
      • You're trying to give the impression that removal of the prod tag means that all the editors of this article now accept that the subject is notable, but that isn't true. You're the one that removed the tag, so I think all we can really say is that you believe that notability has been established. Pardon if I disagree. The citations actually do not say much more than he exists – have a close look at them please. Also, have a look at WP:NPLT – perceived threats of action related to libel are wont to get you blocked. Ditto with your oblique accusations to my being motivated by bad-faith. How about just leaving ethno-religious issues out of this altogether? Biographies are indeed a subject area where anyone can and should edit because bios involve nothing more than integrating information from already-established sources. The very problem here is the sources. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC).
        • Hi Agri: The problem is not the sources. The ten cited are more than sufficient at this point. Many WP:STUBs, far lesser than this article, have none and get to exist for a very long time while receiving the benefit of the doubt. The problem is that, as in any field, one needs perspective and experience with the subject matter and this can be evidenced from editorial histories and mentioned in discussion, and as in this case, this person would be notable even if there were no sources to speak of. Some of the most famous rabbis have no sources that would meet Wikipedia standards and that does not make them any less notable. While there are many rabbis with lots of sources and they are not notable, because not all that glitters is gold. The good judgment of seasoned and reliable editors is just as important as the technical aspects of writing articles. Editors, in the process of creating articles, are not citation machines but are also assumed to have reliability when supporting a subject. That is why there are talk pages for each article and on each user's page and for project pages such as WP:TALKJUDAISM where these kind of things can be thrashed out in detail -- of course that means that users who run around with deletionist hatchets are willing to engage in serious discussions when confronted or called on their moves and not get hostile and defensive when confronted with information and facts they may not know about. Lastly, my comments about violating WP:LIBEL have nothing to do with threatening anybody so your accusation against me is WP:NONSENSE, because what I was saying was that to accuse the subject of "merely existing" is the equivalent of saying he is a nobody and zero and in that sense it would be a libelous statement to him. You are missing the wood for the trees. IZAK (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)