Talk:Gil Student/Archive 1

message: PinchasC has twice removed the following neutral sentence: "According to Student, the claim is heretical."
I wondered to myself: Could my memory have failed me? Does Student not say this? So I took the trouble of looking it up. It appears on page 99 in the conclusion. The link is here.
I will not get into a three-time revert war with PinchasC. So if he reverts again I will let others take care of it. But I think there is no more doubt about why he is trying to delete this article. Dovi 10:13, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
:I'm sorry I was sure that Student had written otherwise, I now see that you are correct. --PinchasC 10:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three-time revert 

message: Actually, PinchasC, I think the books being republished, as well as the internet controversy, is most important because of what it shows about segments of the Haredi (not modern Orthodox) communities, and their relationships to "gedolim" in general and to Rav Elyashiv in particular.
It is not just the "modern Orthodox" who opposed the ban and were happy that the book was reissued. The controversy seemed to expose a secondary rift between Israeli haredim versus a significant segment of the American haredi world.
Nor is the point that "Yashar" is davka a modern Orthodox publisher (though it quite often seems to lean that way), but that an Orthodox publisher of any bent went out of its way to do this. That is a first.
What do you say?Dovi 10:39, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
The way it is currently rewritten would be better than before. However the American Gedolim for example Feldman (see the blogs about his latest letter) agree with the others. My point with Modern Orthodox, was that regarding the people running the publishing house not the books it prints. --PinchasC 10:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attitudes towards rabbinic authority 

message: The vfd decision is boilerplated below: Dunc|☺ 14:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VFD 

message: I left the following note on the talk page of the admin who deleted this at PinchasC's request:
:From your comments on PinchasC's talk page, it seems you may have understood the entire debate backwards. Gil Student is not a creationist, nor is the book that he published. Rather, Gil Student stood up publically for a book that had been excommunicated by Jewish creationists through the internet, and reissued it. The excommunication partially backfired because of the internet! This is the first time in modern history anyone has done something like that.
:You deleted the article in the middle of an ongoing debate, minutes after two serious votes in favor had been cast. The two admins were not supporting deletion. I only noticed the Vfd today, and began to both improve the article - showing its relevance - as well as create a serious, factual discussion that didn't really exist before. Plus you certainly didn't look at all for the kind of "rough concensus" that an admin is meant try for.
:It seems to me that some ardent sockpuppets gave the defense a bad name on this one, hurting their own cause. Apparently Student also has a fan club. But that shouldn't be ammunition in the pocket of someone who wants to censor information because of his own biases (PinchasC wants to eliminate Student's critical view of Chabad, as his biased edits today demonstrated several times). Dovi 18:10, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
The deletion did not take into account any of the points in the discussion that took place shortly before it happened. Most of the opinions expressed did not take that discussion into account either. (Unfortunately, I only discovered this VfD today.)
The following is an open list. Please sign if you favor Undelete. If and when there are enough votes they will be moved to Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion.
* Dovi 18:28, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
* I originally voted to delete, but at the time I wasn't really cognizant of how big the Slifkin controversy is, nor Rabbi Student's role in it.  I knew about Yashar Books and the book Rabbi Student wrote relating to the Rebbe controversy, which taken by itself seemed to me to be only borderline notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned.  However, Dovi makes a compelling argument, and I would have at least liked to have seen a little more discussion before the article was deleted so quickly. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes for undeletion