Talk:Dushanbe Synagogue

message: In Controversy, line 6, there is a missing word (between 'a' and 'in'). I'm not quite sure what it is from the context, can someone please fill in the void? Thanks. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 14:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the word "building". I hope it's correct. -- PFHLai 14:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, thanks!  It is so cool to see people fixing the page I started and making it better.  This is my first Wikipedia entry--what a great experience.  elizmr 16:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A missing word

message: This is very disturbing--with so many wealthy Jewsih people, especially in the US and the UK, and so many religious (and otherwise) philanthropies devoted to Jewish and humanitarian causes, there should be no problem with helping buy and build a new building, and even perhaps paying for a bus and driver, to get the elderly congregation to the new synagogue.
Of course there is anti-Semitism involved in this matter, but what can you do. Perhaps those Jews remaining in Tajikistan, should have fled to Israel or gotten asylum (not difficult under their circumstances) in the US or Canada.
Trafalgar007 23:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you say that they should have fled to Israel or gotten aslyum? I agree that those are completely reasonable options, but no one should have to leave their home country in order to live normal lives. I'm sure that a substantial amount of money will be donated to rebuild, but that doesn't change the fact that a government has wrongfully destroyed the original building. -Bottesini 23:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few wikipedians express opinions 

message: Hi Trafalgar.  I am new to Wikipedia, but I think these talk pages are intended to discuss Wikipedia content in the sense of whether or not it should be included, if it is accurate, if it is cited correctly, etc.  This comment above is more in the sense of how you feel or analyze the event and I don't think it belongs on this particular page.  elizmr 23:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope AAAA, that isn't true.  Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox.  This page is for discussion of how to improve the article. Welcome to Wikipedia.  Feel free to put your views on your user page. Maustrauser 13:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, though it's pretty easy in my observation to discuss opinions that other notable people or organizations have or facts with the sincere intent of adding, keeping, removing, rewording, atttributing etc. content in the article. TransUtopian 14:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about whether or not opinions should be included on discussion pages 

message: First of all, on the website that we got the picture from, it says BukharianJews.com, not Bukharan. The community itself calls itself the Bukharian community, Jewish or Muslims. Also, I am a Bukharian Jew. My great great grandfathers were one of the founders and one of the first people to bring the Torah to this synagogue. As the descendant of the co-founders of this shul, I should know a thing or two. LeeMulod333 (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's Bukharian, not Bukharan 

message: Jayjg objected to the edits I made to the article between 11 October 2008 and 22 October 2008 and accordingly rolled back, on 26 October, the article to the previous 11 October 2008 version. In his edit summary he based his decision to revert on removal of “sourced and relevant information” in my edits. 
I have compared all the sourced statements between the two versions. Only one sourced statement (corresponding to note [3b]) was omitted between 11 October and 22 October. The omitted statement reads as follows: “The community argued that it could not afford the costs of rental or construction. Even if they could afford these expenses, one source stated that “most of those attending the synagogue are elderly and very poor, and it is hard for them, both physically and morally, to get to a temporary building provided by the city authorities” (note 3b). If this statement is judged to be relevant in an encyclopedic context, it can be re-inserted in an appropriate place in the article, without rolling back everything wholesale to a previous version. If someone decides to reinsert this statement, care must be taken to straighten out the confusion between construction (permanent) and rental (temporary). 
Regarding the rationale for my edits between 11 October and 22 October, the section as it stood on 11 October was written more like a journalistic piece than an encyclopedic entry. According to one of the editors involved in the article (Khoikhoi), “we could limit the "news update" style of the demolition section and make it more encyclopedic” (see here).  My changes between 11 October and 22 October 2008 were intended to tighten up the rambling, verbose style and to make the discussion more organized and concise. I think I have accomplished that without sacrificing truth or relevant encyclopedic information, although the pieces have been radically rearranged. If necessary, I can justify my edits word by word, sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph.
Based on these considerations I am restoring the version of 22 October 2008. If there are objections or need for further edits, the corresponding actions should be taken on a case-by-case basis, without wholesale reverts.
--Zlerman (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy over demolition of synagogue 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Dushanbe Synagogue. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070301065152/http://www.fjc.ru/news/newsArticle.asp?AID=370417 to http://www.fjc.ru/news/newsArticle.asp?AID=370417
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080908072152/http://rfe.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2008/6/719A60B6-BA4F-4E82-8EC3-8074BC40E7EA.html to http://rfe.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2008/6/719A60B6-BA4F-4E82-8EC3-8074BC40E7EA.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111015075751/http://dushanbe.usembassy.gov/pr_05042009.html to http://dushanbe.usembassy.gov/pr_05042009.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929094122/http://www.fjc.ru/communities/news.asp?cid=84786&NewsType=80052&scope=4015&aid=365268 to http://www.fjc.ru/communities/news.asp?cid=84786&NewsType=80052&scope=4015&aid=365268
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070313224440/http://www.ushmm.org/newsfeed/anti/viewstory.php?storyid=224 to http://www.ushmm.org/newsfeed/anti/viewstory.php?storyid=224
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified