Talk:Avi Weiss

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Open Orthodoxy should get it's own article[edit]

I think it's time to re-create a separate article for Open Orthodoxy. It's quite notable in it's own right, it's larger than Avi Weiss, and he's not even head of YCT anymore. Costatitanica (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me why nobody talks about the Jews that were killed by Stalin? Is it because he didn’t keep books on it 2601:58B:880:13CC:E0B1:AAFB:E81F:8A1A (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Torah uMaddah[edit]

I took out the Torah uMaddah for 3 reasons-

  1. Rav Avi avoids anything that sounds too limiting and intellectual.
  2. He does not want to reduce his ideology to another Norman Lamm
  3. The article Open Orthodoxy does not use the phrase nor does his other writings- he likes to say "Everything can be made holy"

Criticism?

The section called "Distinction from Union for Traditional Judaism" should be removed from here or from Open Orthodoxy. It is not based on an outside source but is you own opinion. The differences can be expamined in many other ways.--Jayrav 17:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the article implies this is the only difference, it can be changed. But the whole point of UTJ, which David Weiss HaLivni championed, plastered on its website and published in multiple places, is that UTJ combines a fully critical view of the origins of the classical texts -- Documentary Hypothesis and all -- with what it regards as a rigorous approach to the halachic process, while OO claims a traditional view of the origin of the Torah plus what it regards as a rigorous approach to the halachic process. UTJ believes in Chate'u Israel, OO doesn't. Are you disputing this? Best, --Shirahadasha 18:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is one of proceedure. Your comparison of Rabbi Avi Weiss and Rabbi David Halivni Weiss is the first of it kind. It would make a nice op-ed somehwere but the COMPARISON itself is not in either of their writings or articles. Your implication is too subtle to footnote- it is original. And since there are no Biblical scholars on staff at UTJ - only Rabbis, I might dispute this on content also. UTJ's purpose may have more to do with 1950's CJ, then scholarship. But the nature of UTJ and disputes about the meaning of the UTJ website and the meanings of the UTJ movement are original research. --Jayrav 18:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shira, you are doing great work. The section still seems a little too evaluative for Wiki. I am not going to undo your edits, but at some point you should edit this section (and parts of the other sections) for evaluation words. Best, --Jayrav 17:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open Orthodoxy merged into Avi Weiss article per VfD[edit]

The result of the recent vote was to merge the Open Orthodoxy article into this Avi Weiss article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Orthodoxy (21 Nov, '06). I have already done this earlier [1], posting the entire Open Orthodoxy article here in full. IZAK 02:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

We have gone through this last month and there is record at Modern Orthodoxy:talk. Please stop vandalising with a defamation blog.--Jayrav 17:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If done for the first time this doesn't meet the definition of WP:Vandalism since it can be interpreted as a sincere effort to improve the enyclopedia and per WP:BITE we don't assume newcomers to be up on the fine details of the WP:RS policy let alone WP:BIO. However, for repeaters who've already had it explained to them, it's a different matter. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offering of Criticism in "Avi Weiss"[edit]

I believe the blog at openorthodoxy.com is a worthwhile source to include in the external links. It contains many critiques of Open Orthodoxy that have sources from legitmate publications (with no ad hominem attacks etc). As for it being simply a blog, the topic of Avi Weiss/Open Orthodoxy is not going to have major coverage especially the critiques of it as the topic is small to begin with. To simply mention that there are those that disagree is a good idea in any piece of a religious movement, Mr. Einhorn's blog has done this in depth up until recently, and I do not believe there is more legitmate critique to be found online. For this reason, I think that the link should be included. I hope this finds the eyes of those who can do something about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.227.244.248 (talk • contribs) December 31, 2006.

Removed the link since it is now blogspam and has nothing to do with the matter at hand. 110.50.73.2 (talk) 03:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cousin[edit]

Here is how Rabbi Weiss is Rabbi Willig's cousin: Rabbi Weiss's father (Rabbi Moshe Weiss) is the older brother of Rabbi Willig's mother (Ella Willig nee Weiss z"l). Is that a good enough source? Happy138 20:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status as Biography[edit]

This article is the result of a merger of multiple articles, including the former Open Orthodoxy. Because it also serves as the article on Avi Weiss's philosphy and other elements, it won't necessarily read according to what Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography might consider to be ideal biography standards. Personal data and images are nice and editors are welcome to add them, but I think it appropriate that past work on this article has stressed Avi Weiss's philosophy and activities. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

trivia[edit]

I've deleted the trivia section on multiple occasions now for two main reasons. Firstly, it is entirely unsourced, and as such, is required to be removed per wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people, which states:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

(I am obviously discussing it right now because starting a revert war is in not in anyone's best interest).

Secondly, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such abhors trivia sections. The MoS clearly states that trivia sections are to be avoided. Trivia sections are frequently used as a crutch for new articles. This article is actually fairly large and fairly good, and has been worked on by numerous editors. Please stop bringing down the article by adding a trivia section. If any of the information in the trivia section is useful, then it should be sourced and added into the article in the appropriate place as prose, not a list.

If you wish to add the trivia section back, please make sure that you have addressed these issues and adhere to wikipedia policy before doing so. --Bachrach44 14:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spin off articles[edit]

Do we want to create new articles for Sara Hurowitz and/or the title MaHaRat? Joe407 (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See Sara Hurwitz. Joe407 (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Work Needed[edit]

Substaintial work is needed here - Weiss was very well known pre the most recent Rabbah debate - and this rabbah debate seems to have a ton of esoteric non relevant matters being debated here. A lot of work needed and assistance appreciated. Jonathangluck (talk) 04:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications 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, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (Talk) 14:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Native name[edit]

Hi. Is there a rule saying that U.S. American born Orthodox rabbis have Hebrew native names, defined as "the person's name in their own language, if different"? Personally, I think this is very odd, particularly as it is in the infobox. Ever heard of the antisemitic canard about dual loyalties? Or am I exaggerating? --Ajnem (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial approach to women's studies[edit]

Discussion about a reversion that took place today

I don't think there is any dispute that Yeshivat Maharat, and the ordination of Sara Hurwitz and other women, has generated controversy and criticism. The only question is whether in the scheme of things, the controversy and criticism overshadows the activities and the institutions. Most sources of information (about the Yeshiva and ordination of women) spend about half their space describing the criticism. It seems then safe to say that 1) there should be no dispute to fact, nor 2) to the weight given to these facts. Since the controversy is described succinctly but the ordination and Yeshiva require lengthy description, it would also seem that a reasonable way of retaining the weight of the two versus one another, is to highlight the issue briefly at the top of the combined section.

Therefore, today's reversion is inappropriate, and I would like to restore the previous version.

Points of discussion:

  • reversion claimed to be due to WP:NPOV
  • NPOV issue is disputed by weight of sources discussing controversy at length
  • reversion also eliminates the thread connecting the two sections ("baby with the bathwater"), which is structural
  • overall controversy is lost in the rest of the wall of text, making an introductory statement useful

Let's discuss and resolve. Dovid (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dovid. Wikipedia:Criticism gives information on how criticism and controversy is best handled on Wikipedia. In a nutshell, it's best to give the reader the facts and then discuss the public reaction to those events in a totally neutral way. Section header titles with non-neutral titles tend to develop into magnets for material that violates Wikipedia policies on NPOV. As founder Jimbo Wales puts it, "a troll magnet section". We have to be especially careful in articles on living persons, per our biographies of living persons policy, an official Wikipedia policy with legal implications. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but there's something fairly unusual going on with this subject. The words controversy, dispute,' and criticism are "loaded" words, and often indicate non-neutral POV. But when the sources make clear that the subject deliberately courts controversy, and that controversy is a big aspect of his public perception, those words actually become NPOV, and forcefully excising them is actually a violation of possibly NPOV and possibly Undue Weight.
Further, the reverts (there was a more extensive one today) take a very big hammer to completely remove a god deal of objectively good/safe material. If the claims of NPOV are true, then they should excise the NPOV words but not the bulk of the text.
Perhaps I should have made all that clearer in my second bullet above -- the sources support extensive discussion of the controversy, and of viewing the his ordination activities as equally an attempt at egalitarianism for its own sake and egalitarianism as an attempt to force Orthodox societal change where Orthodox society disagrees strongly with his position.
If other editors have a problem with small portions of what I wrote, let them feel free to change those words to what they think is more neutral, without dumping valid structural changes and valid factual material. We can then discuss the merits of the fine tuning. But I believe these reverts were a partisan effort to excise the article of material that they didn't like.

Dovid (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am another editor who has a problem with what you changed. I'm not required to identify "small portions". On the contrary, you are required to suggest a compromise. Which sourced facts are not currently covered, that you feel should be? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have extensive problems with pretty much everything in the addition:
  • The section header "Ordination of women and associated controversy" is not neutrally worded, and all the content in that section is without sources
  • "Sara Hurwitz and invention of titles" is not a neutrally-worded section header
  • "he is known for giving token requests for the opinions of others": not neutrally worded, and the information does not appear in the cited source
  • "However, Weiss found less publicity than he expected from the ordination He came to believe that this was due to the confusion about the title; perhaps the public did not view it as rabbinical ordination but as a non-rabbinical degree" None of this information appears in the quoted source
  • "Weiss was right; the move sparked a widespread in the Orthodox world, overwhelmingly critcal" A widespread what? There's a word missing. And the source is the opinion of one critic, not widespread criticism from multiple people.
  • "Rumours circulated": We don't report rumours. We're not a tabloid.
  • The section "Orthodox egalitarianism" is entirely without sources. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking as another editor with an interest in this... seriously, Dovid, you can't skew a perfectly good article to make it match your point of view, then insist that others need to justify any deviations from your version. It doesn't work that way. You're the one trying to change things; you have the burden of justification.
You also seem to be under the rather weird impression that every editor who has worked on this article so far has been an unabashed fan of Rabbi Weiss, and that a "compromise" is needed to restore balance. In actual fact, there have been many editors working on this on all sides of the spectrum, and they have arrived at a compromise, one that adequately raises documented objections in a NPOV way. It's taken a fair amount of time and effort to arrive at this.
(Others above me have adequately explained why your changes are misguided at best; suffice it to say that I agree with them.) — Shmuel (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's review the point by point here:
  • The section header "Ordination of women and associated controversy" is not neutrally worded, and all the content in that section is without sources
Was meant to be a summary of the material in the section, only because I find it awkward to have a heading followed by a subhead, with no text to the main heading. Easily sourced, but I don't really care about this paragraph much
  • "Sara Hurwitz and invention of titles" is not a neutrally-worded section header
So what do you prefer? "Sarah Hurwitz and development of titles?" OK. Or do you want it just say "Sara Hurwitz?" I think that missed the point entirely as 1) Rabbi Weiss is primarily interested in the mechanism (ordination of woman and what to call such women) and not the vehicle (Sara Hurwitz as first example of this); 2) fully half of the text of sources on her initial ordination and retitling discuss the intricacies of the title, not the person of Rabba Hurwitz, so the title would be giving undue weight to only part of the story. Perhaps it would be better to have two subheads, one on "Ordination of Sara Hurwitz" and another on the development of the Maharat and Rabba titles? Might work, but seems like it would be an artificial separation.
  • "he is known for giving token requests for the opinions of others": not neutrally worded, and the information does not appear in the cited source
Wrong. Source quote is below, and seems pretty straightforward. As to NPOV, why do you see it that way? It seems to be a well known thing, and how is calling it a token request anything but a straight description? Would it be better as "does not invite input?" Not true, he invites input which he then ignores. "Disregards others opinions?" True, but only says half of the story? More spelled out, as in "He invites the opinions of others, but ignores those opinions?" Works for me, but just seems to be more wordy.

Six years after having first discussed with Hurwitz the outsize notion of her studying to be accepted as an Orthodox rabbi, Weiss approached her ordination at a loss for what to call her. His longtime friend Blu Greenberg, who founded the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance, convened a kind of focus group to help him figure it out. ... Weiss, however, had chosen not to attend the meetings. This was not altogether surprising. His close congregants describe—with affection and exasperation—a man who claims to invite opinions but ultimately listens to his own. “Everyone who joins the shul knows it’s not a democracy,” says a former president, Howard Jonas. “He’s ‘the Rebbe.’” And perhaps he decided to discard the group’s recommendation for the same reason: He doesn’t like to feel nudged.

  • "However, Weiss found less publicity than he expected from the ordination He came to believe that this was due to the confusion about the title; perhaps the public did not view it as rabbinical ordination but as a non-rabbinical degree" None of this information appears in the quoted source
Again, wrong. {{Quote|"However, Weiss found less publicity than he expected from the ordination He came to believe that this was due to the confusion about the title; perhaps the public did not view it as rabbinical ordination but as a non-rabbinical degree" None of this information appears in the quoted source ... And so, in January, to the surprise of his congregation, his board, and his yeshiva, Weiss announced from the pulpit that he was changing Hurwitz’s title to rabba. Now, finally, came the response he’d been used to—though the extent of the vitriol left even Weiss shaken.
  • "Weiss was right; the move sparked a widespread in the Orthodox world, overwhelmingly critcal" A widespread what? There's a word missing. And the source is the opinion of one critic, not widespread criticism from multiple people.
You forgot the misspelling of critical. This is getting fairly petty. But "one critic?" You mean the RCA's collective response is just one? Agudah's is just one? All the others are just one? There are tons of critics, and a decent sampling are quoted.
  • "Rumours circulated": We don't report rumours. We're not a tabloid.
You confuse rumors with the reporting of rumors (are you British?). WP certainly allows for articles to mention that it is well-known that rumours circulated about something, if that's relevant. If I'm wrong, please point out the policy, but remember, the edit does not include non-RS info. It includes RS for a fact relating to rumors.
  • The section "Orthodox egalitarianism" is entirely without sources.
You are correct, I forgot to add the references. Easy enough. The first paragraph merely refers readers to another part of the article, so it does not need a reference. The second para does need refs. I'll have to look at my notes, but I had one for every sentence, and more than one for most. The nymag article may cover all of them.
Demiurge, you are correct that an editor is not required to identify small portions, but a reversion is considered the tool of last resort. So, if the majority of the edit is just untenable, you are in your rights to revert it, without checking if anything is worth saving. But if text is overall reasonably in compliance with policy, but an editor has a problem with a title or some of the wording, then reversion is the wrong tool, and could be a violation of WP:GOODFAITH.
Shmuel, I don't discount other editors, and I don't go for skew. As I outlined atop this section, and in the counterpoint to Diannaa, I find it difficult to discount that the controversy surrounding Rabbi Weiss's moves isn't amajor part of the story. As documented, he has gone out of his way to court controversy in this area and elicit criticism -- which, assuming good faith on his efforts to promote women's ordination, is actually an important tool to increase debate and open doors to having others consider his position. By excising that, one is doing neither Rabbi Weiss nor his critics any favor. Form the personal POV of Sara Hurwitz, her ordination may be the important point of this section. But to the Avi Weiss POV, Sara is "merely" a first among many, and the individual is not important to the idea, as much as he does actually hold her in high regard. Your "weird impression" is actually a bad assumption. I only assume that certain editors have this sort of issue.
Kol hakavod, and ksiva v'chasima tova Dovid (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of citations for POV and controversy does not make them NPOV. Sure, in publications that find the controversy to make a good story that will sell magazines, it's practically the entire focus of the story. But that doesn't mean it's a major part of the story in everyday life. Similarly, that stories dwelling on said controversy can find people who make claims about his motives does not mean those claims are actually true, or even widely believed. Magazine writers can spin narratives in line with their own perspectives; we can't. (I might also note that the quote you cite does not actually say the same thing as your paraphrasing, but it really wouldn't matter if it had.) — Shmuel (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't confuse "facts about controversy" with "controversy about facts." If you don't think the paraphrasing is dead-on, you'll have to show me how it doesn't match, but I guess, as you say, it doesn't matter, you have your position. Dovid (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dovid, you are incorrect when you say reversion should be a last resort. On articles about living persons, immediate removal of unsourced, POV, and non-neutral content is our first resort in keeping Wikipedia from being sued. You as an individual editor could also be sued by the subject of the article, and the Wikimedia Foundation would do absolutely nothing to help you or protect you. This is not a legal threat from me, but a statement of fact based on the information at meta:Legal/Legal Policies#Defense of Contributors. This is in addition to the fact that NPOV material on this website could do real-world harm to real people. That's why bad content is removed as our first line of defense, not as a last resort.

It's up to you, the editor who wants to add content to this biography of a living person, to defend your proposed content, not up to us, the people trying to protect the encyclopedia and the living person discussed in the article from harm to justify the editorial decisions. Unsourced, poorly sourced, and non-neutral content will not be added to this article, not on my watch. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diaanna, what you write flat out contradicts the opening sentence of WP:BLPDEL. First choice is improvement, even in BLP. Dovid (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moment magazine[edit]

The following material was recently deleted from the page:

Sarah Berger, writing for The Moment Magazine, speculates that Open Orthodoxy may be on its way to becoming a new denomination in Judaism.[1]

  1. ^ http://www.yated.com/a-tale-of-two-worlds.0-231-0-.html

This is legitimate material that directly concerns the subject matter of the page and should be restored. Council2 (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it was published by Moment magazine, source it to them and not to a blog. I looked at Moment's website but I couldn't find any such article. (Of course it's possible that it appeared in the print magazine and wasn't posted on the website.) Also, it belongs in the section on Open Orthodoxy, not the lead. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 12:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Avi Weiss. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Avi Weiss. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Avi Weiss. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DeDup[edit]

Some time has passed since Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Open_Orthodoxy, when the options were mostly DELETE or MERGE into Avi Weiss. Now the merged text is largely a dup of Open Orthodoxy & YCT.

Since the Avi Weiss material is duplicative of the other articles, it's time to DeDup. Pi314m (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wording[edit]

The article states that “”Open Orthodox", [is]a term he coined to describe an offshoot of Judaism…”

This makes it sound that open orthodoxy is not even a part of Judaism. Conservative and reform for example are never described as “offshoots from Judaism.” OO is a group within orthodoxy, conceivably an offshoot from modern orthodoxy, although I think it would be more accurate to call it a branch within modern orthodoxy. 45.21.47.33 (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See this edit, which I believe addresses your concerns. StonyBrook (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Avi_Weiss&oldid=1219888062"