Colonel William A. Phillips

Page contents not supported in other languages.

UCLA Hillel

I have visited the UCLA campus on a tour. The tour guide said that there is no Hillel there. The part on UCLA in the Critisism section contradicts that. Can someone look it up? --Mr.spoof (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is uclahillel.org what you're trying to find? DMacks (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Exsistant Links

I removed 3 red links in the "Critisism" Section. Mr.spoof (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reproductive freedom/social justice concern

I am removing the last paragraph from this page because supporting abortion is not social justice. --StevenL 20:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I admit the article is vague, but it does not mention abortion, which is social activism anyway, if not social justice (when seen as a basic right of a mother). That does not seem to necessitate removing a paragraph that otherwise details an important, if controversial, aspect of Hillel's activities. jnothman talk 02:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have always been under the impression that the March for Womens Lives event is correlated with support for abortion policies. True, perhaps the mentioning of Hillel's activities is worth mentioning but is closer to social activism, not social justice. If this is the case then the article should have been initially written as "social activism." So shame on the original writer of the article for doing a piss-poor job. --StevenL 03:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hillel's web site says[1]:

The March for Women's Lives is primarily concerned with the rights of reproductive freedom and choice for all women. Other issues being brought to light in this march are family planning, health, justice, civil rights, and abortion law.

So maybe an issue raised there is abortion law, but most of it does seem to be social justice-oriented. I will reinsert the paragraph, changing social justice to social activism. jnothman talk 14:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

great :) --StevenL 22:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hillel and Zionism

I'm deleting the last half of the last paragraph. Unsourced accusations about behaviour of Hillel staff and random link to anti-zionist prof are not relevant. djheart 05:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I looked through it, and most of it is unsourced accusations about Hillel and Zionism, or non-functional links (or alt-right/far-left sources). Can I delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari9999999 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Name

I moved the title from Hillel Society, which has never been the official name, to Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WBcoleman (talk • contribs) .

I was pondering this move too. Thanks. jnothman talk 13:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the link on the Hillel disambig article. Karimarie 03:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hillel Staff Ought Not Edit / NPOV Issues

The most recent revision was from an IP address that is located at Hillel's office. [2] So I reverted in principle. If someone wants to do a rewrite, go ahead. -- Posted by User:Hyim 17 May 2006 (info added by 201.78.233.162 03:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC) )[reply]

Question: Why should it be a problem if Hillel staff edits this? Does Wikipedia now have a policy or guideline against this sort of thing? -- 201.78.233.162 03:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know of no policy, but I can see why someone who works for Hillel could lack an NPOV.--Hraefen 03:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but the operative word is could. Instead of just saying, "Whoa, this person is from X, therefore we should remove their contribution," we should judge each contribution on its own merits. It could be NPOV and great!" -- 201.78.233.162 00:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on reverting someone's edits based on the fact that they are an employee of the organization whose article is being edited. As long as they are being impartial and not making it sound like an advertisement, they should be allowed to edit. Indeed, the people with the most information about specific organizations are the ones who work there. Valley2city 20:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles about many agencies were obviously written in-house by their PR departments. The article on Hillel is obviously not an "infomercial" of this sort. Seeing that some detractors have given their input to the article, I cannot see what is wrong with Hillel employees making some edits. Perhaps that is a "conflict of interest," but the same can be said for the critics. Do any of them have an axe to grind? I suspect so. For instance, user "Hraenfen" indicates on his page that "This user rejects as invalid all forms of spirituality or religion." He is, of course, entitled to his beliefs (or lack of them), but as an admitted atheist, might we surmise that this might influence his view of Hillel? Also, if an employee may not edit because of "conflict of interest," doesn't the same thing apply, for instance, to a disgruntled former employee? To a rival agency?

  • Well, first off CaseyHamMD, my user name is Hraefen, not "Hraenfen." And how does me being an atheist form a parallel to a Hillel employ editing a page about Hillel? Am I an employee of The Atheist Society of America editing a page on The Atheist Society of America or something like that? No. And also: what have I added or deleted in the way of content to the Hillel page that belies my obvious lack of objectivity? My user page also says that I'm a vegan and a beer drinker: are you going to use these facts to "prove" that my edits are not objective? Let's see... I have 10,000+ edits to my name over a vast array of topics and you have about 2 dozen, almost all of which are about Hillel. Who seems more impartial after considering this? But this is all immaterial, really. If you have a a problem with one of my edits, please call it to my attention so we can discuss IT, not my userboxes.--Hraefen Talk 21:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Being a vegan and a beer drinker has nothing to do with Hillel. Being an atheist, on the other hand, indicates at least the appearance of a conflict of interest insofar as one might reasonably conclude that you have an antipathy toward matters religious and would be predisposed to defending criticisms of religion and religious institutions. Rather than spend time reversing edits of this already highly edited and badly written article, why not apply your zeal to the thousands of infomercials whch, regrettably, charaterize much of Wikipedia? Why is it that many/most articles about various agencies sound like Pravda in their limitless praise of the subject? Why tolerate such tripe? And by the way, I am also a vegan and a beer drinker--and I have no intention of editig wikipedia articles on either subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaseyHamMD (talk • contribs) 07:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, so just as I thought... you do not take issue with any of my edits. Me being an atheist is immaterial as long as my edits are impartial and in good faith.--Hraefen Talk 21:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date/Grammar problem

"The organization was founded in 1923 at the University of Illinois by B'nai Brith .... By then, it encompassed 120 Hillel foundations and affiliates at an additional 400 campuses."

This makes no sense ("founded in 1923 ... by then it encompassed 120 Hillel foundations"). Can someone please clarify? Thanks. -- 201.78.233.162 03:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unhappy with way article is written

It deeply offends me that this article talks about Hillel in such a negative light. While there may be some problems going on at the national level many local hillel's such as the one at Indiana University I attend is very open and representative of all people and I feel very welcome there. About 2/3 of the jewish students at IU come in yearly and each and every one talks about how welcome they feel and I know for a fact this is the case at most Hillel's. I think it is imperative that it be mentioned in this article that while nationally there might be problems a lot of local hillels do a great job of providing student services.

  • First off: get an account if you want your criticisms to be taken seriously. Secondly: find some sourced info that supports what you say and put it in the article. But please don't remove any sourced info that upsets your sensibilities. Always discuss major revisions before making them. Good luck.--Hraefen Talk 15:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Response to What I was told:

It seems a lot of the articles current criticisms don't have sources supporting them so how come you are telling me I need sources to prove what I am saying.

Secondly I do have an account on Wikipedia I just did not log in when I wrote this.

  • Well, accounts are only good if they're used. And the criticism section has multiple cites and one request for a cite, so I'd say it's not perfect, but far from uncited. Try to keep in mind that just because "About 2/3 of the jewish students at IU" don't have gripes against Hillel, that doesn't mean that they are a representative sample of people in general.--Hraefen Talk 16:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your response: I am well aware of the countless problems at Hillel nationally trust me, it just seems that you should make the article a bit more positive and mention how welcoming some local Hillel are as well. Also have you ever been to Hillel to know what it is like. I for one have been to several and the people there seemed to feel very welcomed and the staff was very welcoming.

  • Again... please use an account. If you can find cites to back up what you're saying, then by all means, put it in the article. And whether I have "ever been to Hillel to know what it is like" is immaterial. Write from citable sources, not from experience and opinion.--Hraefen Talk 17:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's absurd that this article spends so much time on the tiny "Open Hillel" movement, which is now defunct (though attempting a revival) compared to how much times it spends on actual Hillel. Open Hillel should and maybe does have its own entry, but the Hillel entry should be about Hillel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.148.104 (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising

I significantly changed (and condensed) this article a few weeks ago, does anyone else think the "advertising" notice can be deleted yet?Zavtrakat 01:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seidler-Feller assault case

The criticisms may (or may not) have validity, but in light of the fact that Hillel has an 85 year history and exists on 550 campuses on 6 continents and touched tens of thousands of lives, it seems to me that the negative portrayal is altogether disproportionate--particularly the attacks on the two local directors. It is quite one thing to take issue with the organization as a whole or general trends within local Hillels -- but to highlight two local and isolated events is disproportionate. This occupies a significant portion of the entire article! It seems to me that somebody has an agenda. Think: the number of staff hours over 85 years on 550 campuses vs two events by two people at only two occasions on two campuses--one probably taking up no more than five minutes and the other arising from one meeting which probably was over in an hour. That would be like spending a third of an article on Lincoln taking about his wart. Not balanced!

  • No one is stopping you from filling this article up with all the wonderful things Hillel does. When you say "Not balanced!" you may be right (I'm not saying you are, I'm saying maybe), but the solution to an unbalanced article is not to start hacking away all the sourced statements that you don't like. If you feel this article is not a good presentation of Hillel as a whole, please take the time to add some SOURCED info that backs up what you want to say and PLEASE stop lamenting the inclusion of verified, sourced information (information that you don't even argue is invalid). You have a Wikipedia account, so now take the next step and become a contributor, not just someone that complains from the sidelines and tries to delete things he doesn't like.--Hraefen Talk 19:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss to avert revert-war. To me, as written it doesn't belong because it's about a person who is connected with Hillel, not Hillel itself and not overtly acting in the name of Hillel. I have no problem with info that places Hillel in a negative light, provided that it's actually related to Hillel and not just someone who happens to be affiliated with it, and that it's worded to give the same meaning as the citation given. The citation here:

  • Does not support that Hillel was responsible for (or took responsibility for) the assault. We don't know what was in the "undisclosed settlement" and a settlement payment itself often just means cheaper to pay than to fight.
  • Does not support that the assault was done in the name of the Hillel organization, at their direction, or as part of his capacity as leader (which is different than being done as himself or incidentally while "on duty").
  • Does not support that Hillel handled the fallout inappropriately.

A poor leader isn't intrinsically a reflection of a poor organization. If this event is to be kept as evidence that "Hillel International refused to censure a staffer who assulted a women" then the cite needs to be supportive of that specifically, which the given cite does not appear to do (neither censuring nor Hillel International mentioned). DMacks 05:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article may be informative: Jewish Journal of Los Angeles. 1. The assault occurred just after a Hillel-sponsored event that he had participated in. 2. Hillel International has not commented on the case outside of the limited statement in this article. If you know otherwise, please post. I'll post more soon. 70.230.148.15 16:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a number of editorial statements about the Seidler-Feller case. Editorial articles with titles such as "Rabbi beats up women" are lopsided commentary and do not reflect NPOV. Also, whomever deleted a reference to a news article and replaced it with a few editorials completely ignored standard Wikipedia practices. I also deleted a statement discussing "a legal settlement ordered by the court". Courts do not order civil settlements--settlements are agreed to by the parties involved, often in part, because the cost of litigation (in both financial and personal terms) exceeds the cost of a settlement. Affish11 04:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hillel logo.gif

Image:Hillel logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done DMacks (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care of that. It should be obvious for low-res logos, but this rubric now seems to be a standard thing on all fair-use pictures. Valley2city 07:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is allowed

PS continues to remove content regarding Hillel's policy, by merely stating it is "incorrect" even though it is RS. Please Help.BenjaminHold (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The RS does not appear to support that the policy is anyone with a certain opinion/position is prohibited from participating in Hillel at all, merely that promoting the view or hosting programming for it (or in collaboration with groups that do) is. It's only the student comments that take it further to exclude even having the opinion is the bar. External activities or personal views also appear to come in scope for one is holding an officer/position in the organization, but again that's not remarkable for any public face of any group. The criteria are controversial and the source is reliable, but you can't state that the policy exceeds what the quoted policy is. DMacks (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never said individuals are barred for having certain opinions--that is obviously false. I do think it is important to note though that the services provided by Hillel to build and support a strong Jewish community, are limited to those that take a certain stance on Israel. BenjaminHold (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. You feel it is importna to note it, but "services...are limited to those that take a certain stance" is not supported (assuming "those" means people not services). Again, the ref only supports that a policy by which the services are limited, not that students with stances are generally barred. DMacks (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you misunderstood me. "Those" was in fact referring to the services. Like I said, anyone is allowed to attend as an observer or minor participant. But services such as talks must not be talks which for example promote BDS. In a sense, some people and groups are barred though if they are too involved with a service. For example a talk co-sponsored with a group supporting BDS is not permitted even if the topic of the talk is not BDS. This should be reflected in the article. It's a subtle point--but an important matter regarding Hillel's policy. Perhaps actually there should be a section about Hillel's policy, where this matter and others can be explained. BenjaminHold (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can PS actually use the talk page please? He continues to revert edits without justification and without regard to the talk page discussion. BenjaminHold (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DMacks has said all that needs to be said. You have mischaracterized the information in the source. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just replied to DMacks and we both agree that the reference indicates a restriction on services which is important to note. I will revert back to my edit with a more precise statement to avoid the above stated confusion. BenjaminHold (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS continues to revert without going to the talk page. He said in his revert summary: "Criticism of Israel is accepted. Calls for Israel's end as a Jewish State are not supported." However, if you take the four minutes it takes read the source, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/29/us/members-of-jewish-student-group-test-permissible-discussion-on-israel.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0, you will quickly see that everything I wrote was supported by RS. PS need to be clear: Criticism of Israel broadly construed is not accepted. One cannot hold an even in Hillel criticising the Occupation or Settlements for example. Also, I am not really sure what PS is saying with " Calls for Israel's end as a Jewish State are not supported." Neither I nor anyone else in this thread ever said anything relating to that. BenjaminHold (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the "services" section of the article accurately and completely summarizes the position on Israel that the Hillel International holds. The "criticism" currently does a good job of presenting the issues that have arisen because of it. If we are to say any more on this, such as information from the NYT article, better to have it under the "criticism" section rather than the "services" section which should really only contain the official positions of the organization. --Mblumber (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The article as it stands does not summarize the prohibition of the services and partnerships of Hillel as given by their official guidelines on their website. http://www.hillel.org/jewish/hillel-israel/hillel-israel-guidelines BenjaminHold (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect name?

Can someone verify whether "Dr. Chaucey Edward Baldwin" in the History section might actually be Dr. Edward Chauncey Baldwin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.132.60 (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed Edward Chauncey Baldwin. His father's name was Chauncey (with an "n") Edward Baldwin. See The Alumni Record of the University of Illinois at Urbana Page 474 and OBITUARY RECORD OF GRADUATES OF YALE UNIVERSITY DECEASED DURING THE YEAR 194O-1941 Page 61.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Hillel International. 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) 12:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hillel International. 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) 00:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

Preserving here by providing this link. The purpose of the edit was to reduce promotionalism, self-citations, excessive and promotional detail, etc. Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hillel_International