Talk:Yehuda Amichai

message: Hi, To the user who has posted the poem The Jewish Time Bomb, I am unable to verify, if this is allowed under any copyright rules. Please respond.
:removed--Duk 06:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you --IMpbt 23:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy Violation

message: There are assertions made by scholar Nili Scharf Gold about Yehuda Amichai's life that are apparently controversial. The solution to this is not to delete her statements, though; it's to add them in, then note the controversy and alternate views. She's a published scholar whose assertions are found in notable sources, and there's no grounds on which to remove them. User:Korny O'Near (talk) 04:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything controversial in the article. What are you referring to?--Gilabrand (talk) 06:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: User Maimenuhot keeps deleting the additions; see here. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Absolutely not true. If there are multiple published accounts containing conflicting information, then they should all be mentioned. There's no reason to have only the "consensus" version be published, if in fact there is a consensus - I haven't seen any evidence that there is. Korny O'Near (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is written via consensus - that's totally unrelated to so-called "academic consensus" - which you haven't proven either. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

text: You're violating several Wikipedia rules here, including being civil and assuming good faith. But for the record, I know nothing about Gold except for what I've read in that Ha'aretz article. The information is well-sourced, interesting, and relevant to the article; so there's absolutely no reason to remove it. If you can find these harsh criticisms you talk about, please add them to the article, so that readers can see both sides. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm not promoting a book, I'm citing an article that cites it. As for the Joshua Cohen article, are you talking about this one? It doesn't say anything, good or bad, about the facts that you keep trying to remove. And yes, maybe if I read other articles, my opinion would change - but my opinion is irrelevant. If the facts are cited in a notable source, then they belong in the article - even if they're followed by a "most scholars disagree". Korny O'Near (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

text: and what do you mean by "notable sorces":the harshly criticied Gold's book by distingwished scholars (and by critics)- or the article by the non- scholar, the journalist  Ruth Almog?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by חכמביום (talk • contribs) 11:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They're all notable sources - Gold's book, a review of it published in a major newspaper, and scholarly reviews of Gold's book - all three can, and should, be included in this article. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

text: You're the only one violating the rules here. And please do take these "further measures" you're talking about - it'll be good for you to hear an outside opinion. In the meantime, I'm restoring the Gold passages. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nili Scharf Gold research

message: Funny, how much User:Maimenuhot and חכמביום sound like the same person. This should be reported. --Gilabrand (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sockpuppet

message: :Afalpi, or whomever -- as I said in my note some time ago, I'm distressed that this article is being torn up in edit warring.  The discussion above is hard to follow, with headers mis-typed so they do not appear as such, and with bold all caps shouting.  Can someone perhaps summarize what the outstanding points of contention are, so I can see if I may have a view that may be helpful?  Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediator [[User:Epeefleche]]'s request

message: ::Hi Epeefleche. I appreciate how hard this is to follow - Alfapi has been editing history and inserting sections that were not originally there (and leaving his failed new section attempts around to confuse things further - I've already removed some). He also rarely signs his contributions, so it can be hard to see who has said what.
::I came across this article recently during RCP, and had never before heard of Amichai, Gold, or any of the other protagonists - I have no COI or POV whatsoever. The argument is all about a couple of paragraphs in the article based based on a biography written by literary critic Nili Scharf Gold, in which she makes a couple of controversial claims. Others contest those claims. An NPOV article should, of course, present both sides, with proper references, without trying to judge between them. However, Afalpi has repeatedly tried to change the article to argue only one side - that Gold is wrong. He has tried a number of different methods (admittedly slowly improving) - removing all mention of Gold's claims, removing other well-sourced quotes that he doesn't like, adding his own personal assertion that Gold is wrong, quoting notable people who disagree with Gold (getting better) but adding his own judgment that "This proves Gold wrong" (not so good), doing the same again but adding his own judgment that "This makes Gold's book invalid" (not much better), using valid quotes but capitalising the parts that contradict Gold to add non-neutral emphasis, dismissing Gold's claims as unsourced, and not properly referencing the quotes he is using. (I could provide dif links for all of these, but it would be quite a task now and I really don't have the time).
::Through all of this, I have tried to explain WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOTE, and have generally tried to help him understand how to write a good Wikipedia article and that all articles must present the opinions of both sides of any notable argument while arguing in favour of neither. (If you check my comments in this Talk - they're all properly signed - hopefully my AGF and genuine attempts to help will be apparent).
::But all Afalpi sees in me is an "If you're not with me you're against me" enemy, and confuses my efforts at promoting neutrality with attempts to argue against him and support Gold's claims. And all I have got in return is abuse (again, I could provide dif links for the abuse if I had time, but you can see a couple of examples in this talk). Another editor, Gilabrand (Talk), has done some very good work in searching for refs, presenting a neutral POV, and generally improving the quality of the article - only to receive abuse from Afalpi too.
::The latest, this morning, is that Afalpi has re-inserted two large quotations that counter Gold's claims (which is good), but has not referenced them properly (not so good), and has again capitalised one word that emphasises his own POV, and again referred to Gold's assertions as "unsourced" (her sources are a set of letters sent by Amichai to an ex-lover - the contents of the letters have not been published, but the biog is certainly not unsourced). I've fixed this up (it was a better than his previous attempt, and I had a bit of free time to correct it) - I have removed the non-NPOV capitalization and "unsourced" allegations, have fixed up the formatting of the quotes, and have placed the refs in tags.
::Oh, I just noticed that in all of this, a couple of references to Gold's biog have gone missing - I'll dig them out and put them back. Oh, and I think I'll remove the Talk sections here that Afalpi has retro-actively added, as it kinda hides earlier parts of the discussion and emphasises only the most recent part - I'll do that shortly.
::Anything you can do to help bring this to a halt would be greatly appreciated.
::Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee 02:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: Some of the earlier comments were by User:Itlula (talk), who says exactly the same things and in the same style as Afalpi - I think it's probably safe to assume that all the unsigned 'anti-Gold' comments in this dicsussion are by the same person. -- Boing! said Zebedee 02:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: PPS: User:חכמביום also appears to be the same person - as you can see, also with a history of removing the same sourced content -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinion of [[User:Boing! said Zebedee]]

message: Thanks.  This is (for me) a good start at understanding what is going on, better than I could divine from the above.  No need for anyone to supply me with diffs; I will just look at this on a going-forward basis, in my attempt to help everyone move the article forward.  Without looking at the diffs or text, my meager suggestions at the moment are that: 1) everyone (if they can remember -- I sometimes forget myself) sign their postings; and 2) Instead of large postings of material on this page (let's call 10-12 lines of text large, liberally speaking) that can be reflected in a "diff", editors reflect the material in a diff (which can be clicked through to -- let me no if you are not clear what a diff is, or how to create one, and I will explain on your talkpage).  Both of those suggestions only go to making the arguments of the ones agreeing to them easier to follow, so hopefully all can agree to them.  If the other editors have anything to add to what you've said, I'll take a look.  After that, I'll focus on the text in dispute, and see if I can make any helpful suggestions here. One last question -- how notable is Gold (if you know)?  I just did a quick search, only on wikipedia, and found no mention other than the one in this article.  Same question as to SHOFAR (if you know).  No wp article, but a smattering of refs to it in other wp articles (I would have to click through to a number to see if they are to the magazine, but at min there are two or three others.  Tx.(I almost saved this without adding my name, but thought that might not be all that funny after all).  --Epeefleche (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediator's first suggestions

message: :How notable is Gold? That's a good question. Apart from the Amichai biog, I can't find much other mention of her. So she might not be otherwise very notable, but her biog seems to be. Here are a few of the links I have found while working on this...
:* Her book at Brandeis University Press
:* Review of the book in Jewish Quarterly
:* Review at the Jewish Daily Forward
:* A mention at Project Muse (looks like two, but one is a misspeling)
:* Article in Haaretz
:* Article at PoemHunter.com
:* Review at The Jewish Week, New York
:* Review at Tablet (A New Read On Jewish Life)
:There are others, some of which appear to be rehashes of the above, and various blog/chat comments, but I think the above seems to suggest that the book has certainly been considered notable by a number of important Jewish sources - and generally pretty positively.
:I almost saved this without adding my name, but thought that might not be all that funny after all - I'd have smiled :-)
:-- Boing! said Zebedee 07:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem - I'm happy to help. All I want to do is help make the article neutral and unbiased and not argue one specific point of view, and that requires notable sources from all sides. -- Boing! said Zebedee 02:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability of Gold - view of [[User:Boing! said Zebedee]]

message: Hi, nice to see that some attempts are made to improve the article. I'm the German scholar from above and want to add some sources to this Byzantine discussion. Just to show you how easily compromises can be found. Concerning the name choice of Amichai I want to quote a German source (interview with the BR 4th of May 1998) in my book (Christian Leo etc. p.248) and translate it the best I can:
"Between the two wars we all were very socialist and Zionist in our attitude and therefore changed our names. [...] In these times I had a girlfriend, we both were very young and about to marry, thus we decided to choose a name that would fit to her name as well. Amichai, "my people live!", this was naturally very socialist and Zionist, too. But that's life: two month atferwards we were apart and I was left behind with this name." Probably someone with more experience could add this to the biography if it's really that important. Best regards  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chleo (talk • contribs) 02:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. That quote sounds like it would be a very good source to quote, and as you say, a good compromise. If you can provide a full reference to the original - even a German original is fine - I think it would be fine to add it.-- Boing! said Zebedee 02:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Another user's input

message: Looking back on some of this disagreement (I've checked back as far as September 2009), it is becoming clear that one of Alfapi's arguments seems to be that Primary sources are best, and that they should take precedence over Secondary sources (and he's even suggested on occasions that secondary sources should be banished to the Bibliography section). However, Wikipedia policy is the exact opposite - see WP:PRIMARY. -- Boing! said Zebedee 04:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Further comments from [[User:Boing! said Zebedee]]

message: I have just reverted another set of changes by Afalpi...
* is bad grammar - "Contrary to this" used to start two consecutive sentences. (There was nothing wrong with the original - it just seems to be another attempt to emphasise his personal opposition to Gold).
* (same edit) - "and there was no connection between the dispute and the accident" is personal analysis of a primary source, which is counter to Wikipedia policy WP:PRIMARY.
* (same edit) - breaks a ref tag.
* is bad grammar, and is also furthering the editor's POV in personally challenging Gold's claims. 
* removes reference tags and breaks the format of the article, placing the next sentence in a big box.
* is changing the meaning of a sentence away from the original (relating to one specific event) to claiming that Amichai's actual relationship with Ruth had no other influence on his poetry, and that's WP:OR again.
-- Boing! said Zebedee 07:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And he's put them back yet again. -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just a waste of everybody's energies. It will be a happy day when this psycho gets blocked. --Gilabrand (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Gilabrand. I understand your frustration, but I think we need to work together constructively to achieve the aim of being able to freely improve this article in accordance with Wikipedia policies. The WP:DRR process has been kicked off by User:Epeefleche's kind assistance, and I intend to pursue it as far as necessary - if nothing else, it will be educational for me. I do hope that a number of people who have worked constructively on this article will stick with us and help work this out. -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I never called you anything of the sort! Please do try to get it into your head that we are different people, and do not accuse me of something I have not said! -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Boing! said Zebedee]] has reverted again

message: *Note that page is now fully protected from editing for the next five days. Hopefully this will aid with dispute resolution. Just a reminder, the only exception to the edit warring policy is blatant vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Beeblebrox, hopefully that will help us focus on discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee 03:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: I'm busier than I would like to be both in the real world and w/a couple of other articles, and don't know that I have the time for this article right now.  But I'm concerned about the prospect of edit-warring starting up again once page protection is lifted.  If the editors can't reach agreement on the talk page, I suggest they seek help from other editors at a likely wikiproject page or other page -- time spent reverting each others' work is, at the end of the day, a waste ... and would be better spent by all improving other articles.  So, if there is a deadlock, I suggest that editors first: a) seek consensus on this page; and b) in the absence of that working, seek the aid of others to resolve the conflict.  It may also be that, if edit warring restarts, extension of page protection will make sense.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been protected from editing for the past 5 days, so how can I possibly be doing anything to it? -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment from Epeefleche

message: It looks like we have three editors, User:Boing! said Zebedee (me), User:Gilabrand, and User:Korny O'Near who support the inclusion of the disputed material (presented in a neutral and balanced manner). The only dissenter, User:Afalpi, provided no policy-based justification for opposing the inclusion, and has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.
That sounds like a consensus to me, so if there are no objections, I suggest closing this RfC in seven days, on Fri 12th March, so we can all get on with constructive work on the encyclopedia (it would auto-close on 17th anyway). -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, go ahead and do what needs to be done. Thanks for your efforts.--Gilabrand (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just in case there was doubt, I support this as well. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus?

message: Closed, as consensus above - just a few days later than planned -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC Closed

message: There's a lot in external links so I'll just note this here for now: NPR interview/poems/audio with Yehuda Amichai Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPR interview/poems/audio 

message: This article has been reverted by a bot to  as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot reversion reverted several changes by several people, and Accotink2 had only made one minor change  to annotate an external link, so I've reverted it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem 

message: An image used in this article, File:Yehuda amichai.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 13 September 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Yehuda amichai.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Yehuda Amichai. 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/20050104083533/http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/amichai.htm to http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/amichai.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071217143811/http://www.tel-aviv.gov.il/Hebrew/_MultimediaServer/Documents/12516738.pdf to http://www.tel-aviv.gov.il/Hebrew/_MultimediaServer/Documents/12516738.pdf
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) 18:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Yehuda Amichai. 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/20071013162051/http://www.literaturfestival.com/bios1_3_6_509.html to http://www.literaturfestival.com/bios1_3_6_509.html
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) 10:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Yehuda Amichai. 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/20120427110252/http://www.ithl.org.il/amichai/more.html to http://www.ithl.org.il/amichai/more.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120614115459/http://cms.education.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/4A95A475-6ACF-490B-8DD7-C9DFB8FE2B01/75461/aYehudaAmichaipoetry.doc to http://cms.education.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/4A95A475-6ACF-490B-8DD7-C9DFB8FE2B01/75461/aYehudaAmichaipoetry.doc
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121009164116/http://www.ithl.org.il/author_info.asp?id=14 to http://www.ithl.org.il/author_info.asp?id=14
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120427110252/http://www.ithl.org.il/amichai/more.html to http://www.ithl.org.il/amichai/more.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100226185152/http://www.stephenmitchellbooks.com/transAdapt/yehudaAmichaiExcerpt.html to http://www.stephenmitchellbooks.com/transAdapt/yehudaAmichaiExcerpt.html
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) 20:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified