Talk:Open Orthodoxy

message: Restored article. IZAK, you are welcome to request a merge per the RfM procedure. Best, --Shirahadasha 09:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi IZAK! I started an Open Orthodoxy article. Given your discussions on disambiguating Orthodox Jewish and Orthodox Christian topics, was wondering if there was any issue with the name. If there is you might want to comment on the article talk page. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Shirahadasha: I read the article. It cannot stand alone otherwise it would be deleted as a neologism in violation of Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, because "Open Orthodoxy" is Weiss's own very recent creation and it does not have any recognition from anyone within the broader world of Orthodoxy, and thus Wikipedia is not the place to publish new ideologies. All the material belongs with the Avi Weiss article and I have redirected and posted it there and made it fit in as it's Weiss's baby, and is not a universal movement in Klal Yisrael. Best wishes. IZAK 06:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC
It looks to me like IZAK performed the merge, and then about 19 hours later, Shirahadasha opened this talk page, to discuss it retroactively, after-the-fact, I suppose. Is that what happened? If so, I don't object, I'm just wondering if I see the sequence of events accurately. Anyway, I like IZAK's reasons for merging the articles here. I don't want that material deleted, as it is a clear explanation of Rabbi Weiss's views. --Keeves 16:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep. Though it is a fledgling movement in Judaism, it is developing. Yeshivat Chovevei Torah only started ordaining people a few years ago, give it time. I know rabbis from this movement I also know that many Modern Orthodox disparage them and the movement. It is distinct from Modern Orthodoxy and other Jewish movements, and is distinct from its creator, Rabbi Avi Weiss. It deserves its own page. I, by the way, am not part of the Open Orthodoxy movement just so you don't think there is a POV motivation here. Valley2city 17:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's a question as to whether this stream exists; the question is rather whether there is a recognized movement by this name. I think not. IMO this should either be included as an (as yet unlabeled) stream within Modern Orthodoxy (my preference), a section within the Avi Weiss article, or in the article on Yeshivat Chovevei Torah. --Kotzker 17:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Orthodoxy --Shirahadasha 07:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[Avi Weiss]]

message: The article spends more time discussing the response to criticism than what the actual criticisms are, who made them, etc. Could we have a little more elaboration? As an aside, whatever anyone's opinion on OO is, I found this  article by Yoram Hazony very interesting - maybe someone wants to put it into this page?  High Leader (talk) 05:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved   Calidum 20:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Open Orthodoxy →  – WP:COMMONNAME; WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION? Formula per WP:CONSISTENCY with Modern Orthodox Judaism etc. PPEMES (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 28 May 2020 

message: In 2015, the same year that Avi Weiss resigned as Senior Rabbi of Hebrew Institute of Riverdale, he and YCT/Chovevei president Asher Lopatin left the Rabbinical Council of America, RCA. Rather than shoe-horn this somewhere between words like refuse, reject, react, I placed the information (w. citation) into a new second paragraph to the lead. 
Two more "RE" words follow: Reason and resign. Why exactly the resignations is not likely to easily make for a NPOV sentence, but I will now put the pair of resignations where before only one name was mentioned.
The sentence is:
::Weiss and the president of the school he founded both resigned from the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) in 2015.
:::citation as before. Pi314m (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning for inclusion in the lead. Remember, per MOS:LEAD the lead is supposed to summarize the body, which right now it isn't doing a good job of doing. Furthermore, I'm not sure how helpful the information is to readers where it is, because we can't assume they know what the RCA is. It's explained in the body but not the lead. And again, it doesn't explain why the resignations took place. NPOV is difficult, but we could at least quote Weiss if he made a statement about it. buidhe 02:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

text: , I'm not objecting to a mention of history of the Open Orthodox movement and resignations in the lead. I just want to make sure that it satisfies MOS:LEAD, is clear to the non-specialist reader, and reflects what's in the article already. Please feel free to improve the article as you see fit. buidhe 02:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Resignations from RCA, 2015

message: I've reworded to include the sequence of YCT/1999, IRF/2007, resignation/2015, with a link to an article that has numerous direct quotes and itself shows who else covered the resignation (JTA, Jewish Week) and mentions Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, "and elsewhere."
The four paragraphs of direct quote (Weiss)are followed, but not directly, by 3 paragraphs of quotes from the co-resignee. They also mention someone who also resigned, Weiss' former assistant rabbi, who is now in Washington DC.
As for Wiki guidance, elsewhere I've seen HatNotes where info that's now in the lead are NOT there, and THAT's considered a no-no. Please indicate here, if you don't mind, what key item is not in the 1999/2007/2015 sequence. Perhaps the Maharat/Rabba matter? It's mentioned
in the Yated link; should it be explictly be in the lead or is it better not telling "the butler did it" until later on.   Pi314m (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I'm not objecting to a mention of history of the Open Orthodox movement and resignations in the lead. I just want to make sure that it satisfies MOS:LEAD, is clear to the non-specialist reader, and reflects what's in the article already. Please feel free to improve the article as you see fit. buidhe 02:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Better LEAD integration re RCA, including Avi Weiss's side re RCA/IRF