Talk:David Lieber

message: There are entries for this man on the 15th and 16th.  What is the correct date of death? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.56.73 (talk • contribs) 
:He passed away on December 16th. It may also be appropriate to note that this was Yud-Tet B'Kislev on the Jewish calendar. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am no longer sure of the secular date. The article says Monday, which is the 15th. So go with that. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 06:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: UPDATE. It was late Monday (the 15th) California time, which was early Tuesday (16th) EST, which was the source of my confusion. So, it's the 15th. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Death 

message: The NYTimes obituary mentions in the first paragraph "He was editor of a controversial book of Torah translation and commentary that called into question the historical accuracy of some of the primary accounts found in the Old Testament.  so I added this interesting fact to this article. Michael Safyan undid the revision saying "the "controversial" publication is the "Etz Hayim Humash." Statements about controversy should be made in the "Etz Hayim Humash" article, not this article." I have several problems with this. First, if an interesting and truthful detail has been added to wikipedia, and a wikipedian believes that the detail belongs someplace else, then it is incumbent on that person to move the information, not simply to delete it, because deleting it smacks of perhaps a different motive. Second, the person who should have moved it still must provide a more significant defense than  simply stating that it belongs someplace else. If this man is presided over the controversy, why doesn't it belong in his article? I trust the fact-checked NYTimes more than I do random wikipedians. 74.68.152.245 (talk) 15:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Etz Hayim Humash contains, in addition to a modern translationn of the Torah, a number of essays and commentaries from a wide range of viewpoints. Some of these essays view the Torah as the unquestionable divine word of God, while some of the other essays question the historicity of some of the biblical narratives. The New York Times article was stating that some people found the Etz Hayim publication to be controversial for its inclusion of essays which even entertain the notion that the Torah might not be the divine word of God. I question the merit of using the term "controversial"; however, since the publication was made by and for the Conservative Jewish movement which has always entertained such questions. Though the Orthodox Jewish movement generally does not entertain such questions and, therefore, does not use the Etz Hayim Humash, this does not mean that the publication was "controversial", simply that the two movements do not always agree. NYT was being sensational. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I am not a random Wikipedian, I am his grandson. (I will try not to make it into a WP:COI). ← Michael Safyan (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I wanted to point out that the New York Times article is correct, but you appear to be misreading it. It says that Zady was the "editor of a controversial book of Torah translation and commentary that called into question the historical accuracy of some of the primary accounts found in the Old Testament." Note that the clause "called into question the historical..." modifies "book of Torah translation and commentary" (i.e., the Etz Hayim Humash) as opposed to "Dr. David L. Lieber". Later down in the article, it states that Etz Hayim contains, in addition to the Torah and translation, "essays on topics ranging from the Torah scroll and dietary laws to ecology and eschatology" and that some of these essays also "raise contentious questions..." Note that the entire discussion here is about the Etz Hayim Humash, not about David L. Lieber. It is for that reason that this material belongs in the Etz Hayim Humash article, not here. Readers can access the material by wikilink. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

text: if ... a wikipedian believes that the detail belongs someplace else, then it is incumbent on that person to move the information, not simply to delete it. I was not aware of that policy, but that seems reasonable enough. I will add the information to the Etz Hayim Humash page. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also decided to compromise by adding some of the material here, as well, albeit with different phrasing. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did David Lieber question the historical accuracy of the Bible? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on David Lieber. 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/20090118131335/http://ajula.edu/ to http://www.ajula.edu/
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) 05:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified