Talk:Elazar Shach/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Chabad 2007

How nice of you all to join us. There seems to be a flurry of editing on the page yet again. Shall we attempt to use the discussion page to talk about this yet again? ShalomShlomo 22:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Relation to the Shach?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbatai_ha-Kohen --This is the link to the Shach, a rabbi during the middle ages ( 1600's ) who is fairly known when it comes to talmud commentary, and such works regaurding jewish law. I would assume he is named after him, but is it known if he is a descendant? --Guardian, Jan. 7, 2007

Name

He is often referred to as Elazar. Which one is correct? JFW | T@lk 17:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Eliezer got significantly more hits on Google (particularly among the English israeli press), so I used that as the standard. ShalomShlomo 23:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Elazar is the (only) correct version. Way to prove it: you must know the newspaper he himself founded, Yated Ne'eman. The paper has an (unofficial) online version as well - it contains about half the articles from the regular (weekly English Israeli) paper. I repeat, *he* himself founded this newspaper. A few links:

http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com/archives5762/chayesara/ - from around his death " Maran HaGaon Hagodol HaRav Elozor Menachem Mann Shach, ztvk"l," Aside from that, just look at: http://www.google.com/search?q=Elazar+Shach+site%3Achareidi.shemayisrael.com&hl=en&lr= and http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Elozor+Shach+site%3Achareidi.shemayisrael.com . (It's spelled as Elazar or Elozor depending on the writer.) Okay... Now, next, I also looked for "Eliezer Shach" ( http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Eliezer+Shach+site%3Achareidi.shemayisrael.com ) and it gives quite a few results as well. Now *I* am confused as well. Still, I have recently read that (quote from memory): "His real name was Elazar. It is unknown from where the name Eliezer came, but his name was Elazar." I'm 100% sure it's Elazar, so you should change it. PS. The English-Israeli press (Haaretz etc.) are not exactly a good resource for these things, with all due respect to them (I read Haaretz myself). --Daniel575 19:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Daniel575- I used Eliezer because the majority of (English) resources I came across in print and the net used it. If you're convinced the other spelling is accurate, feel free to change it. I'm happy to use whatever spelling as long as we have some consistency between articles. ShalomShlomo 17:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

ShalomShlomo, if you're going to work on this article more, you will do better by quoting the Hareidi press with which Rav Schach affiliated, rather than Ha'aretz. My initial search on Google of "Menachem Man Shach hesped" turned up Dei'ah VeDibur (the English Yated Neeman here in Israel, which he also founded) and Aish.com, which are much more reliable interpreters of Rav Schach's activities than the secular, leftist Ha'aretz newspaper. As a subscriber to the English Yated, I can tell you that they are printing articles about Rav Schach nearly every week since his passing! Yoninah 19:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yoninah, thanks for the sources. I knew Schach had a newspaper but was unaware it had an English translation. The page as it presently stands is hardly meant to be definitive; I created it because no one else had, and remembered seeing various Schach articles in Haaretz following his death. While I take your point that the haredi press are likely to certainly have more information regarding Schach's personality and teachings vis-a-vis the Torah world, outside perspectives can also be helpful, particularly relating to, for instance, analysis of Schach's political activities and astuteness, or his perception/legacy among non-haredi Israelis. The optimal solution, I think, would be to incorporate elements from both "types" of sources. The fact that I have yet to do so here is much more a function of a lack of time than it is any bias against the haredi press. I will certainly keep your comments in mind when working on this page in future. Of course, if anyone would care to help fill the various sections out a bit, that would be extremely helpful and appreciated, too. ShalomShlomo 00:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Schach a Misnaged?

Isn't true that Rabenu Shach was mitnagued!!!!! He just don't acept -like other jewish, even hasidic ones- what Chabad was/is doing! Bresolver 17:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Many of the resources I've come across on Schach either said he was misnaged, or at least mentioned that he was not hasidic. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Did he have a rebbe, for instance? Do his followers identify as Hasidism or Misnagdim? His rabbinical career seems to show strong affiliation with whatI understand are largely misnagdic yeshiva instutions, and I believe many of his influences were/are notable misnagdim. ShalomShlomo 20:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

ShalomShlomo: Being "not Hasidic" does not automatically make a person into a "misnaged"! In Eastern Europe, and in most non-Hasidic yeshivas today, the bulk of students often came from Hasidic homes. It's not as clear-cut as you imagine. For example, even in Rav Schach's case, you are obviously not aware that he studied and taught at Karlin (see article) when he was younger, and retained a fond connection with that group. And you should note that "misnagdim" basically do NOT self-identify as such. Usually it is used more in jest. Actually, the word "misnaged" has become something of a mild "slur" as it's used by certain (Hasidic) individuals who dislike people who object to those who oppose the extremes of Hasidism. IZAK 02:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

IZAK: Actually, if you check the history of the article, you'll see I started it and was the one who included the Karlin bit. Thanks for the refresher, though. Interesting tidbits aside, is there actually information suggesting Schach wasn't Misnagdic? Because, as I said, a lot of the material I've read about him (online and off) claimed he was, and separated him from the Hasidic rebbes in Israel, for instance. I was also under the impression that Schach's non-affiliation with Hasidism was one of the reason he formed Degel HaTorah. If he wasn't, then someone should write a section addressing this, as I did in the page about Rav Kook. Perhaps you should also write a paragraph or so about this in the various articles pertaining to Misnagdim, such as Mitnagdim and Hasidim and Mitnagdim. It could be very helpful and informative for Wikipedia users. ShalomShlomo 06:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

ShalomShlomo: Rabbi Shach's issues with Hasidic leaders in Israel was based almost exclusively on matters pertaining to Israeli politics, and had absolutely nothing to do with meaningful religious differences and certainly was not motivated by anti-Hasidism. Do not confuse Rabbi Shach as a Haredi leader living at the end of the twentieth century with the positions of the Vilna Gaon who lived two hundred years earlier in the eighteenth century in an age still reeling from the after-effects of the false messiahship of Sabbatai Zevi (1626-1676)! The only exception is Rabbi Shach's vehement opposition to the last Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902-1994) (because of fears that like Shabbati Zevi, Rabbi Schneerson would turn out to be a "false Messiah," a position some would say was prescient), and a position shared by other Hasidic leaders as well (Satmar's opposition to Lubavitch is well known, and most Hasidic groups have a disdain for Lubavitch -- and in turn Lubavitch scorns anyone who opposes them.) In fact when Rabbi Shach established the Degel HaTorah political party his ally was the present Belzer Rebbe, Rabbi Yissachar Dov Rokeach (b. 1948) and the two joined forces asking their followers to vote for the new party. Subsequently, Rabbi Shach was invited as the most honored guest to the Bar Mitzvah of the Belzer Rebbe's only son and heir in front of a huge public celebration. So this disproves that Rabbi Shach was anti-Hasidim (which is what mitnagdim means) even at a time when he was forming a new political party without most of his former Hasidic allies of Agudat Israel. From the form of your question: "... is there actually information suggesting Schach wasn't Misnagdic? Because, as I said, a lot of the material I've read about him (online and off) claimed he was... " it shows that you are coming at this subject the wrong way. Rabbi Shach did not self-identify as a "mitnaged". Nobody does! It's almost a silly anachronism by now (see what I have written below to explain this further.) As for Rabbi Shach's relationships with the Hasidic rebbes of Israel who were his contemporaries, in Rabbi Shach's old age (and he was active as a Haredi leader until he was over one hundred years old!), he decided that none of the Hasidic rebbes were his equals in Torah scholarship and he gave up on trying to convince them of his POLITICAL DECISIONS by simply MOVING ON. He first did this when he created the Shas party and later when he created the Degel HaTorah party. One must realize that Rabbi Shach was both a tremendous Torah scholar which he proved through his widely studied written works known as the Avi Ezri as well as being regarded as the pre-eminent rosh yeshiva in the Haredi world, and he simply "did not suffer fools gladly", as the expression goes. He was extremely conscious of his role as a Torah leader and spokesman and he was a highly astute and effective politician (creating two parties in the Israeli Knesset that still function is quite a feat!), but he was not opposed to the teachings or the workings of Hasidic Judaism as such (unlike the Vilna Gaon who was opposed to Hasidism -- "lock-stock-and-barrel"). None of Rabbi Shach's writings or declarations are anti-Hasidic (of course, the modern Lubavitch movemnent under Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson is the exception, because in Rabbi Shach's view it was a breeding ground for false-Messianism and had the potential to mislead masses of Jews and thus needed to be forcefully and openly opposed head-on -- but not because it was related to Hasidism as such.) Therefore, judging from his written works, Rabbi Shach was a supreme Talmudist but he did not write polemics against Hasidism. In his political actions, even when he formed the Degel HaTorah party he then encouraged it to join with the Hasidic dominated Agudat Israel as the combined United Torah Judaism list. Except for Lubavitch, he had cordial relations with Hasidic groups and Rebbes. Perhaps, the only ones who have a vested interest in labelling him a "mitnaged" are the Lubavitchers, but they have an obvious axe to grind against him, and as a group with a vested interest (that their Rebbe should be the "Moshiach"), it's clear why they would want to call Rabbi Shach a "mitnaged". In fact if you will look at the sites on the Internet that perpetuate the word "mitnagdim" you will see that it's basically ONLY Lubavitch that still keeps up the old propagandistic and long-discarded labels of "mitnaged" or "mitnagdim". So you should not be trapped or fooled by what is by now worn-out terminology that is not used and has been dumped by most normal people. IZAK 06:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Use of the the word "mitnagdim"

I am repositing here what I have just posted at User talk:ShalomShlomo#Use of the the word "mitnagdim". Thanks. IZAK 05:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi ShalomShlomo: Perhaps you are not aware that the word mitnagdim in a modern-day context is very out-dated and may even be regarded as a mild slur by the people you think are "mitnagdim". The original mitnagdim were so called because they followed the Vilna Gaon (1720-1797) who opposed the early Hasidim (who viewed the early Hasidim as another dangerous manifestation of Sabbatai Zevi's influence), particularly Lubavitch and Breslov. The first so-called "mitnagdim" (i.e the Vilna Gaon's disciples) did not choose this name for themslves, rather, it was their Hasidic opponents, who themselves were "mitnagdim" (the word simply means "opponents" in Hebrew), who pinned the label "mitnagdim" on those who did not wish to adopt the new ways of Hasidism -- at the same time that the followers of the Baal Shem Tov (1698-1760) chose to self-righteously call call themselves "Hasidim" (which means "righteous ones" in Hebrew) -- an act of great chutzpah. Without dwelling on past history, by now the fact is clear that there is no such thing as the "mitnagdim" like those who lived in the times of the Vilna Gaon! Hasidism has been well-established because its commitment to Halakha is beyond question and it is not opposed by anyone in the Torah world. Those Haredim who do not follow the Hasidic ways are today known as "Litvaks" or the "Yeshiva world" -- or "Lithuanian yeshiva world" -- but not as "mitnagdim" because, while they seek to maintain their own traditions of the original Ashkenaz that existed for a very long time BEFORE the advent of the Hasidic movement -- they are not presently enaged in an sort of kulturkampf. As proof of the positive and constructive relations between all Haredi Jews (Hasidim and non-Hasidim together) one can look at Agudath Israel of America in the USA which serves as an umbrella organization for Hasidic Rebbes and non-Hasidic Litvish yeshiva deans and their commmunities. And in Israel, the ongoing alliances of Agudat Israel and Degel HaTorah under United Torah Judaism serve the common needs and agendas of all Haredi parties. Bottom line, it is very rare indeed to find groups who self-identify as "mitnagdim" so you should therefore not use that description in articles when you want to talk about or describe Ashkenazi Haredi groups that are not Hasidic. To say "non-Hasidic" is ok, or perhaps "Lithuanian yeshiva communities/rabbis" (sometimes also referred to as "Yeshivish" -- but not always in a serious sense.) Any discussion or mention of "mitnagdim" should therefore be restricted to articles or personalities dealing with the struggles during the times of the Vilna Gaon and the Baal Shem Tov and one or two generations following them. Basically, the major disputes between followers of Hasidism and those who opposed them ended by the end of the nineteenth century. With the dawn of the twentieth century all the European Haredi groups and factions united, most notably as proven by the establishment of the World Agudath Israel in Europe in 1912. Many non-Hasidim have become serious Hasidim over time, and the majority of students and faculty in non-Hasidic yeshivas have strong Hasidic ancestry. The lines run in all directions in the Haredi world, so it is incorrect to use old labels such as "mitnagdim" in a frivolous manner that does not apply today. IZAK 05:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Quote

The quote aganist Rabbi Schneerson wasn't even said by him. Looking at the sources would back up my claim. ems 18:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Rabbi Shach's fame and Chabad

Why have some editors here so convinced themselves that Rabbi Shach's fame hinged on his relationship with Chabad and the Rebbe? when nothing could be further from the truth. Rabbi Shach, with his own family connections to some of the most famous Haredi rabbis, through his written work/s the widely studied Avi Ezri in the yeshivah world, his leadership as Rosh Yeshiva of Ponevezh, and his political acumen and effectivenes in all areas of Israel's politics (in which Chabad is but a small part), all bespoke his fame nad greatness. There is no need to defame him in the manner that many Lubavitchers tend to do. That would be a POV defamation. IZAK 08:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

IZAK- I agree. I didn't have time yesterday to deal with the more contentious issues in the section; I was more interested in cleaning it up so as to make it more coherent and less redundant- my apologies if that was seen as endorsing the comments. I've tried to make the section more balanced this evening, and I think the version as it presently stands is much more NPOV, or at least approaching it.ShalomShlomo 09:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well; very little of Shach's life or fame had anything to do with Chabad. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry ShalomShlomo if my made it seem like you put it in, you didn't and I was just refering to that version.

The story about Shach being rejected from a teaching position in a chabad school is well known in Chabad. I dont realy see a problem with keeping it in the article specificaly since it clearly says it's what the critics say, it's their POV, not simply stated as fact. I didnt originaly put in any of this so I'm not sure which "analysts" the anom was refering to. IZAK, the rebbe in fact had a big role in Isrealy politics. Also not everything you dont like is "propoganda" (like you say in you edit summary and other places). Shlomke 05:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts: I for one would not have a problem with putting a little more of the earlier Chabad stuff in, particularly if the position is as widespread as you say it Shlomke says it is. If a story or argument about a person is well-known, it should probably have at least some mention. Furthermore, Shach's inflammatory comments about Schneerson and Chabad (also mysteriously deleted, I notice) are also well-publicized and should, IMO, have a line or two. If you'll all forgive the Hillel reference, if not in the "Shach and Chabad" section, then where? The Shach-Schneerson feud, as I understand it, was very well-publicized at the time. On what grounds should we be omitting it? I'm not suggesting we turn the page into another "Satmar Conflict", but I really don't see the harm with fleshing this out a little bit- along with the other sections, too, incidentally (I still can't believe there's so little here compared to some other pages of haredi personalities, btw. What does the Satmar rebbe have that Shach didn't?) ShalomShlomo 09:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

ShalomShlomo: One fails to see how you can say that there is not enough about the feud that Rabbi Shach had with Chabad since this article has a lengthy section devoted exclusively to that already: Elazar Shach#Opposition to the Lubavitcher Rebbe and alternately, the article about Rabbi Schneerson has nothing compared to that in length -- so your comments about this make absolutely no sense. Furthermore it makes no sense that this article should devote a large amount of space to criticizing and tearing down Rabbi Shach from the POV of Lubavitch -- is there a similar section tearing down Rabbi Schneerson from the POV of Rabbi Shach? It would be pointless if there was, because it would not help you learn who they were and what their significance was as key spiritual leaders of the Jews. Also you are not seeing Rabbi Shach's criticisms of Rabbi Schneerson and Chabad in true perspective. Basically what transpired was that Rabbi Shach (based in Israel) made a few, brief comments and criticisms of Rabbi Schneerson (based in the USA) in public, conveying his views and by extension that of the the yeshiva world that trusted him as their spokesman and that was that. The secular media of course hyped this trans-Atlantic feud among Haredi rabbis up and kept the pot boiling because it made for good copy and a yet another juicy story about Haredim (with one based in Bnei Brak and one in Brooklyn) to keep on the front burner, but the fact is that beyond Rabbi Shach's very brief criticial comments and a letter or two he wrote that was made public that was it. Note too that Rabbi Shach's life did not rise and fall depending on what Lubavitch said about him, he was literally a much larger-than-life figure than that. IZAK 06:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

IZAK: My comment was made in reference to why I thought the Shach-Schneerson feud deserved to be on the page, and why verifable elements of the feud deserved to stay in. I have no interest in tearing Shach down from the POV of Chabad, and I don't think the section does this (aside from the bit that Shlomke keeps putting in about him being an ignoramus, which I think given Shach's reputation as a scholar is almost certainly untrue, in addition to being unverifiable). Saying he criticized Chabad is far from defamation. Incidentally, this wouldn't be taking up such a large proportion of the article if some people (Wikipedia Project Judaism, maybe?) would actually write about Shach's career as a posek and a leader instead of bashing the few attempts to flesh the page out. In any event, I agree with the present version you have written, and have added my own contributions along with it. ShalomShlomo 07:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

ShalomShlomo: FYI Rabbi Shach's followers did not regard him as a "posek" as such (there were others who were in that category of "Halakhic decisors") rather Rabbi Shach was regarded as a Manhig HaDor ("leader [of] the generation") with many considering him to be the RaShKeBeHag --> Rabban Shel Kol Bnei HaGolah ("[supreme] rabbi [of] all the people of the exile") meaning the de facto "supreme leader" of all Jews in the exile (meaning in the era following the destruction of the Jewish Temple) a position which only one great rabbi can hold at any given time. In contradistinction, the Lubavitchers gave the title of Nasi HaDor ("president/prince [of] the generation") to Rabbi Schneerson so you begin to see the scope of the rivalry between the two camps. Of course, the Lubavitchers took it further and promoted Rabbi Schneerson to Messiah and even to God himself (according to some of their belief systems) which only fueled the other side to raise the ante against Lubavitch. Basically, it was a no-win situation for everyone which only ended once both Rabbi Schneerson and Rabbi Shach passed away (and you know what Lubavitchers think that their Rebbe did not "really" die, so the problem continues, but with much less fervor because there is no leadership on either side that comes to the level of either Rabbi Schach's or Rabbi Schneerson's greatness in Haredi and Hasidic Judaism.) IZAK 09:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

IZAK- thanks, as always, for the interesting info. Who was Manhig HaDor before Shach? Is there any information on how he began his "climb" (aside from the obvious advantages of marrying into Rav Meltzer's family)? I think stuff like this would be very interesting to the average Wikipedian- I know I'm often very curious about how various gedolim got to where they did. ShalomShlomo 09:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

ShalomShlomo: Before the era of Rav Shach, the Litvak Haredim basically accepted Rabbi Avraham Yeshayahu Karelitz (d. 1953) (known as the Chazon Ish) as their manhig hador (he and Rabbi Shach were both from Bnei Brak). (NOTE: There is a Brisker wing to the Israeli Litvak Haredim who are anti the Agudah-style approach of working with and within the State of Israel and its official organs and their followers looked to the Brisker Rov Rabbi Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik (d. 1959) as the supreme leader of the Haredim before Rav Shach instead of the Chazon Ish). There was a bit of a vacuum until Rav Shach asserted himself but Rabbi Yaakov Yisrael Kanievsky (d. 1985) (also from Bnai Brak and known as The Steipler Gaon who was also The Chazon Ish 's brother-in-law) was regarded as a great manhig but was more of a posek, and many Israeli Haredim looked to some American Haredi rabbis, like Rabbi Aharon Kotler (d. 1962) as a pre-eminent leader. The Israeli Hasidic world was dominated by the Rebbes of Ger, particularly Rabbi Yisrael Alter who was the most powerful Rebbe in Israel for thirty years (from 1948 until he died in 1977). But by the early 70s Rav Shach was already ruling the roost and calling most of the shots as you can see from his effectiveness as a political leader in breaking away from Agudah and creating single-handedly both Shas and then later Degel HaTorah his enduring "political legacies" and "gifts" to the State of Israel. Not bad for a "non-Zionist". Now I must truly sign off and get some sleep. Shabbat Shalom ! IZAK 12:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Mezuri "minor" edit cancelled

1) Rabbi Shach opposition to Chabad, is an "hot issue". Chabad supporters want to insert here their point of view. But here the stuff shoudl be as neutral as possible. So unless there is accepted evidence to this degrading claims, it should remain here as an unproved claim.

2) Mezuri tried to hide his change. Calling it "fixed minor incorrect facts", whihc is a balatant lie. You want to say that Chabad's versions etc. is true? Say it openly. Once you hide this under "minor correcting" you show everyone that you are playing games. Nobody is going to trust you anymore! IdeasLover 23:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"False statement"

Meshulam- Could you explain why you discounted the story reg. Rav Shach and Chabad as a "false statement"? Alan Nadler is a respected Jewish scholar who has written one book and many articles on the theology of Lithuanian haredim. I have in front of me a copy of Ha'aretz editor David Landau (himself Orthodox, though not haredi)'s book, Piety and Power. He, too, repeats the story: "[Rav Shach] has even gibed, according to his followers, that 'Habad is the nearest thing to Judaism...'" The Jerusalem Post also contains a version of the story: http://www.bgu.ac.il/politics/newman/eng/pirsumim/columns/Rabbi%20Shach's%20Political%20Legacy%20-%20web%20page.htm Shach is attributed with having responded to the question "What is the closest religion to Judaism?" by answering, "Habad."

A quick Google search (http://www.google.com/search?hs=390&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=shach+%22to+Judaism%22+closest&btnG=Search) confirms that, even if the story is apocryphal, its creation is not recent, and it has become common knowledge among many in the Jewish world. Like it or not, the story certainly exists, though its accuracy may be debateable.

None of this, of course, authoritatively proves that the incident occurred, but at least I have offered some documentation to back it. Do you have anything to support your counter-claim? Do you have any first-hand knowledge disproving it? Or does it just "not sound like" something Shach would say? ShalomShlomo 05:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The Jpost version and the Nadler story are contradictory (Lubavitch vs. Chabad). Evidence that the story is made up. Every reference to it is always from someone who heard it from someone, etc. If you want to put this story in, I'll go find sources for the story suggesting that Shach was angry at Lubavitch because a Lubavitcher yeshiva threw him out when he was young, because he didn't know how to learn. (That story exists, and I have heard it confirmed by credible sources, apocryphal though it may be).--Meshulam 04:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

How can I have first hand or even second hand proof of a non-event, when there is no stated time frame for the event in question? --Meshulam 04:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, among other things, you could have documentation (even oral or anecdotal) that the story is a hoax. That would at least be something. Am I to assume this is not the case? And if not, again, I have to ask what basis you have for declaring the story false and deleting it. Is it anything other than a personal hunch (or a desire to keep any information about Schneerson you feel is inappropriate off Wikipedia) ?

As you your other comment, how are the the various accounts contradictory when none purport to be direct quotes (but rather paraphrases), AND the two terms are commonly used synonyms? And I don't know what you think my motives are, but I could really care less what you "dig up" on Shach vis-a-vis hostile Chabad sources, as long as there's some sort of reliable source (note that I wasn't the one who took issue with it in the first time it was posted). The fact that you're treating this difference of opinion as some sort of tit-for-tat, "you do this, I'll get you back" scenario is a bit disappointing. I have no horse in this race and have no interest in defaming anyone. I'm curious why you are so proprietary and personally invested in this matter. This shouldn't be a question of, "anything critical of Chabad has to have something critical of Shach, too." If you want to argue that the story is irrelevant or off-topic, that would be a different conversation. Why is this sort of response/threat necessary? (And incidentally, your account of Shach's Chabad "eviction" differs from the other version someone else put up- using your logic that must automatically discount it as well.) ShalomShlomo 04:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I really do not care for this bio. I think it says little about the man, and tends to pay far more attention to Lubavitch than the bio itself warrants. I strongly suggest a neutral rewrite.

The Luibavitch Section should be taken out

Either the section should be taken out, or a truthful version comporting more with the facts must be put in. This is not a forum to insert the Chabad rumors regarding Rav Shach's supposed reasons for placing pressure on the Rebbe for allowing his followes to believe him to be Mashiach. I have never seen a bio put such a slant on someone else's extremely prejudiced and incorrect views toward its subject.

Pinchos, if you have a reason to take out documented facts relating Rav Shach, please talk to me first. Its not good etiquette to act out of animus toward anyone.

I believe Pinchos owes me an apology. DavidCharlesII 21:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Instead of apologzind for his continues cynical abuse of power, Pinchoc has once again manipulated Wikipedia guidelines to assure that an article would conform with his npov. Despite my quotations of well known books, Pinchos has continued to delte them, unaware, perhaps, of the extreme irony of his alleged justification (npov). If anyone can advise as to how one can ensure that the Wikipedia community not be hijacked by individuals with an agenda to inject articles with their npov, I would appreciate their help. Everyone is free to observe my changes and Pinchos's continued agenda in destroying not only meaningful additions--but helpful in ensuring factual accurcacy (as opposed to the disgrace this article has become). DavidCharlesII 14:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Pinchos: Rav Shach had no critics on the issue of Lubavitch Messianism save Lubavitch Messianists. Your continued editing out of this fact is NPOV and violates Wikipedia's rules.

Quoting Rav Hutner from Making of a Gadol is NOT original research.

Removing the known comments Rav Aharon Soleveichik has on Lubavitch Messianism is not only untruthful but also smacks of NPOV. Revise your editions accordingly, and try to stop hijacking the work of others with discussing it first--it violates Wikipedia's policies. Thank you. DavidCharlesII 14:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Pincho C: Your continued use of highly negative npov edits on this page has been noted. Please note your comments only on this forum. Wikipedia is not a forum for your particularly unfounded positions on this subject. Your previous lack of appropriate etiquette pursuant to Wikipedia's standars has been noted as well. Take this as a warning. DavidCharlesII 16:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Lubavitch

I have taken out the bio on the Rebbe in this article, on the grounds that it violates NPOV and has very little relevance in the subject's life. If it can be written from a lesser Lubavitch perspective and with far less detail, I would agree to keep it.

Thank you.

DavidCharlesII 17:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What "bio"? It is a section in the article about a controversial issue Shach involved himself in and which remained on his agenda for the better half of twenty-five years. Beyond Shach's life, it also gives context into the split of Agudah and the founding of Degel and helps explain present-day rivalries and animosity between Shach's followers and Chabad (and, as an addition, serves as another data point in documenting Litvish opposition to Schneerson). I agree that, strictly speaking, this is not the "job" of the Rabbi Shach page, but he was involved in this issue for a long time, it is one of the things he is remembered for, particularly outside of his own community, and explaining it- or deleting it- has ripple effects on other topics and articles.

Furthermore, as I was the one who wrote this section, primarily using secular Israeli social science and media sources, I would be very interested in you explaining the supposed pro-Lubavitch POV you see.

Again, I question your tendency towards deleting material you believe to be POV or irrelevant rather than working to fix or improve it. ShalomShlomo 18:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not mean to disrespect your work, and I apologize sincerely if I offended you.

I'm neither offended nor disrespected; I'm confused. I am far from a Chabad fan and fail to see how the section in question has a Lubavitch POV.

I called it a bio on purpose. It seems way different from the section on the Rebbe (I hope you don't say shlit"a).

I don't call anyone shlita. Take a look at the Satmar talk page from way back when.

My issue was not only was it written from a Lubavitch perspective, as opposed to working through Rav Shach's--any by extension--Rav Hutner's, R' Ahron's, and literally all gedolim outside Lubavitch today--concerns about Lubavitch Messianism.

Again, I disagree. The section is written from the perspective of an outside observer- Shach had problems with Chabad; they manifested themselves in this way, example X Y and Z. Some Chabad people said these were personally motivated, Shach's people say they weren't. I agree, it's not a detailed working of the theological differences between them, it has a largely political focus. This is pro-Lubavitch how? The section descibes three or four incidents where Shach and Schneerson clashed. You are seeing pro-Chabad bias where none exists. If you are interested in putting more info in to give context to the theological dimensions to their disagreement, feel free- though of course this would increase the section's size.

I think this bio is not like, say, Rav Schorr's or Rav Shmuelevitz's. It focuses on controversies, not the person. If the Lubavitch issue needs to be put in here at all, it could take a sentence or two long. Look at the other bios and you will understand where I am coming from.

Most of Shach's notoriety outside of his immediate community came from his involvement in such controversies. As long as they are presented in a fair and respectable manner, I fail to see why they should be automatically excluded. Again, see the Satmar page.

I will be willing to work together with you in fashioning something reasonable, honest and fair. DavidCharlesII 13:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to it. Also feel free to use my individual talk pages.ShalomShlomo 20:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone have any idea what's going on with the Chabad section? Hello? ShalomShlomo 22:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"Furthermore, many Roshei Yeshiva, including Rav Ahron Feldman, have since echoed Rav Schach's concerns with respect to Lubavitch Messianism." Who is Rav Ahron Feldman, and why his opinion is interesting in particular?

he is one of many prominent Roshei Yeshiva who are appalled with some of the practices that appear to be mainstreaming in Lubavitch. Please do not defend Meshichists in this article. This article is about RAV SHACH. His values are important to the extent it can be verified he held them. Too much defense of meshichists should be in an article defending Lubavitch Messianism. Further attempts to insult the subject of the article will be treated in accordance with Wikipedia rules.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent editing of 67.81.155.106 does not conform to rules

1. In an encyclopedia article, after referring to someone as "Rabbi" or "Rav" (the first time mentioning his name), from then on you only use last name.

2. When something is quoted from a source, don't squeze in your own comments.

3. Need a source for the following:

"Schneerson was never regarded as an equal of Rav Shach's in the Torah world; and thus his interest in disputing Rav Shach, a man almost unanimously hailed as the greatest scholar of the generation by gedolim of earlier generations, was greeted with bewilderment, if not amusement by the Torahworld at large. To this day, Schneerson's antics merely amplify his reputation as an eccentric who had no respect for the traditions and leadership of the Torah world."

"Rav Shach was an unwilling member of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah beginning the 1970s, the position being forced on him by Rav A.Y. Karelitz,..."

"In 1988, citing disagreements in leadership style with the various Hasidic rebbes in the Agudat Israel party, Shach officially broke away from Agudat Israel..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonoson3 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

== False Statement #2? ==

I would like to understand how R. Shach could have recited tehillim for the Lubavitcher Rebbe ZT"L when the Lubavitcher Rebbe ZT"L fell ill in 1992; when during that period of time R. Shach himself was unwell, up to the point where he was not able to leave his home. If he could not have been well enough to control his own self, how would he then be able to recite tehillim for someone else? Can anyone verify the fact that he recited tehillim for the Lubavitcher Rebbe? I don't believe he would. The source brought down for that event is not reliable at all, being that he soesn't bring a date, or any other verifiable source, and is based on a personal article which is not neccessarily even true. Imnotadetroiter (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Footnotes

Winchester and Zsero's edits (pointedly from the third of January, 2010) to the footnotes have no business in an encyclopedia article about Rav Shach: they are nothing more than an attempt to repudiate the charges against their rebbe. If they would like to create a new Wiki page on "refutations to anti-Chabad charges of idolatry" I'm game. But Zsero's title "this is a footnote, not an essay" is as relevant to his edits as mine.
I cut these two some slack by leaving their footnotes largely intact but adding some corrective information (to the effect that their sources neither corroborated their claim nor, in all but the Tanya instances, had anything to do with their rebbe's sicha). Therefore, I've largely removed both footnotes - leaving only direct links to the offending sicha so readers can draw their own conclusions (I believe in empowering people to make educated decisions...others seem to disagree).
If Winchester and Zsero insist on turning this page into a platform for tangential (and incorrect) ideological rhetoric, I may launch a neutrality complaint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikkunsofrim (talk • contribs) 21:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Tikkunsofrim (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Footnotes are an appropriate places to add sources and notes to inform the reader; but they are not places to conduct extensive debates. The article says that R Shach called the LR's statement idolatry; it's therefore relevant to note the many sources supporting that statement. Quibbling about which specific term the sources use for the Deity is not productive; all parties are strict monotheists, after all. Nor is implying that Tanya is not an authoritative source productive. You are right that a link to the sicha in question is useful; I have provided a link that can at least make a colourable argument to not being a copyvio. -- Zsero (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Your footnote's sources, being irrelevant, hardly inform the reader - and, as I said, they belong on another page. You have ignored the observation that none of your sources have the slightest connection to the sicha (besides Tanya). And while the Tanya is certainly an authoritative source for chabad ideology, it isn't independent of the movement such that it can be used to corroborate. If you can add this fluff, I can add its corrections.
I could live with your new URL, though.Tikkunsofrim (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please minimize your ignorant rants. Tanya is not only a source for 'Chabad Ideology' - it is an authoritative classical text accepted by every Chassidic group. Lubavitch is actually one of the smaller groups (compared to Satmar, Ger, or Belz etc) where Tanya is accepted as an authority. Londoner77 (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

And as to "all sides" being "strict monotheists", I would draw your attention to a number of primary sources that strongly suggest otherwise, including in which the LR clearly considers his father-in-law or himself or both to be "in charge of everything", "all powerful" and "impossible to hide from"! Sounds like a god to me. Tikkunsofrim (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you (TS) have any credible sources for these accusations? If so, please cite them. Thanks, Londoner77 (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Londoner77, check out here: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=25033&st=&pgnum=157 - Look at the last line on the page, in the parantheses (and continuing on to the next page). אם הוא בעה"ב על הכל, ויכול הכל, ובמילא אינו יכול להתחבא ממנו

Yonoson3 (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

An outrageous and factually unsupported accusation has no place in an encyclopedia, unless placed in context, which is what the sources I quoted provide. Insistence on hair-splitting semantics do not do justice to the issue, other than (perhaps) serve as a convenient red herring. Fact is, 'atzmus umehus' is a term used to describe God, largely (almost exclusively) found in texts associated with the school of Chabad philosophy, begining with the Tanya. Claiming it to mean something else because you don't find it in earlier texts, is like claiming that 'google' and 'search' have different meanings, simply because you won't find the term 'google it' in any text more than 20 years old. Thus your contention borders on the absurd, and leads to an obviously invalid conclusion. If you'd like, I have no objection to removing the entire paragraph dealing with that particular accusation of R' Schach, should you wish it to remain, however, context is critical. Winchester2313 (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Note the further textual reference I've added which is rather unambiguous...to say the least: The Divrei Shlomo (Venice 1596) writing on p.vaeira, explicitly states that"All the Names of God are actually 'atzmuso umehuso', and not merely descriptive like the other names people give to things..." Winchester2313 (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'm afraid that you are making one serious theological error and avoiding the two key ideological points. I'll take you through it step by step.

The error is in saying that the difference between "Atzmus" and "Shechina" is purely semantic. Legitimate Torah sources NEVER swap such words as though they're synonymous. While there are meforshim to Tanach (Metzudas Dovid, for one notable example) who allow for minor synonyms, key phrases like this are in a different category. ::In fact, getting back to our issue, the Arizal rules that "Atzmus" is so exalted that one may not even THINK about it. He says no such thing by Shechina. And, by the way, don't think that Chabad invented the term.

Now even if this "Rashi" you "borrowed" from Rabbi Slifkin is real, it proves exactly the opposite of what you want: because Slifkin uses it - most incorrectly I believe - to "prove" that Rashi believed that God had a body! If that is what you want us to think about Chabad, then I think we're in agreement!

The two ideological points from the sicha that you are studiously avoiding are,

one: that the LR identified himself with Atzmus HaShem, explicitly considering himself the physical incarnation of the essence of God, and

two: that the LR used this identification to justify having his followers daven to (betten) him.

For sources proving both of these, see, of course Identifying Chabad, and especially this page.

Neither of these are even discussed - much less corroborated - in these irrelevant sources that you bring. They have no business on a respectable Wikipedia page...why do you insist in keeping them there? Tikkunsofrim (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Slifkin?! What the $#^&% has he got to do with this? Where did he come from? The point is that all these sources support identifying tzadikim with God. The Rashi in Vayishlach is very much to the point: Yaacov, a human being, is explicitly called Keil, which is one of the seven Names of God Himself; and it is God Himself who calls him this. These sources provide the reader with a context in which to evaluate R Shach's attack on the LR for saying something similar. Your essay has no place there, and turns a footnote into a sub-article. -- Zsero (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Slifkin is the one who popularized this "Rashi" some months ago as part of his infamous corporeality essay. I am sure that, had he not written it, the average Google user would never have been aware of it. Again (and again and again, if necessary): none of these non-Chabad sources support the two key points of the sicha (that the LR is the physical embodyment of God and that you can daven to him). It was these two points that bothered Rav Shach, therefore, these sources do not belong on the Rav Shach page.
Oh, and watch your language. :) Tikkunsofrim (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Tikkunsofrim (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Are there any verifiable sources that this is what bothered Rav Shach? Any letters, tapes, or is it in any of his books? Londoner77 (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Londoner77 - in Michtavim U'Maamorim (I forgot where) - ועתה החליפו את האני מאמין המקודש לנו מדורי דורות בתבנית אדם בן תמותה

Yonoson3 (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And that has got what to do with anything? Who is this "average Google user", how did he get into the discussion, and how do you know what he would or wouldn't be aware of? How many "average Google users" are aware of Slifkin? You think more people read Slifkin than Rashi??! In any case, the Rashi is still a Rashi, and it still says what it always did. And Rashi didn't make it up, he's just quoting Chazal. And what Chazal said is that God Himself called Yaacov "Keil". That is a clear source for what the LR said, and every child who learns chumash and Rashi knows it, but evidently R Shach forgot it when he made his attack on the LR. That is context which the reader needs in order to understand the article, so it belongs in a footnote. Your quibbling does not. -- Zsero (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Slifkin and Google thing isn't all that important: I assume that anyone quoting that "Rashi" almost certainly got it through a Google search ending up at Slifkin's site. I could be wrong. But what you still haven't addressed is the fact that, even if Rashi really did say it, it nevertheless casts absolutely no light on the two key claims against the LR. I don't know if Rav Shach can be expected to be familiar with Rashis that might not exist, but even if he was familiar with it, it wouldn't take away any of the power of his charge.

Either way, if we can agree to leave the page the way it currently is, then I think we can call it a night. Regards, Tikkunsofrim (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What a bizarre assumption you make. What kind of person is not familiar with a simple Rashi on chumash?! Evidently you are not, and you should be ashamed of that! Why would anyone need Slifkin to tell him about it? And what would your hypothetical Google user be searching for?! And what is this about "Rashis that might not exist"? If you don't remember it from just a few weeks ago, or from your cheder years, take down a chumash and look it up! And yes, it is directly on point, as are the other sources that Winchester added. The entire point here is the LR's statement that a rebbe is not a memutza hamafsik but rather a memutza hamechaber, because he (like all tzadikim, and like all Jewish neshomos) is God. All those sources back him up on that last point. And he said nothing about davening to a rebbe! The Kedushas Levi does say that one may bow down to a tzadik, but the LR didn't say anything like that. Evidently R Shach wasn't familiar with the Kedushas Levi either.

And no, I do not agree to leave it as it is. I think it's a travesty to remove the sources that Winchester so helpfully gathered. You should put them back and then make your case for removal here on the talk page. As for me, I'll wait a while to see whether we can achieve consensus, and whether you'll do the right thing in the meantime. -- Zsero (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite bewildered at this point, what with 'Slifkin', simple Rashis that 'may not exist', and your superimposition of whatever fantasy into the LR's talk (wherein, btw, he clearly referred to his father-in-law, not himself). I'll summarize briefly, and wait for you to restore the contextual references I provided, or to remove the entire section dealing with the bizarre accusation against the LR. You seem to forget that this is a neutral encyclopedia, and not a platform for cynical attempts at recasting historical events.

First, the LR made a statement that a rebbe, any rebbe (and likewise tzadikim- as per my previously cited sources), and in this case referring to his FIL, is the "essence and being of God as He placed Himself into a body..." - a bold statement, to be sure. Yet there are many sources in the zohar and other kaballistic & chassidic texts where tzadikim are refered to as God - yes, many. I only quoted a few, including references to certain tzadikim as 'Kel' or 'Y-Y'. So we established precedent - this was not the LR's invention.

Certain posters then questioned whether 'Kel', 'Y-Y' etc are the same as 'atzmus umehus', to which I and Zsero responded "yes" - God is God, whichever name you choose to call Him. I then quoted an ancient text, the Divrei Shlomo - 1596) who clearly states that any of Gods Names "are actually atzmus and .... the mehus, and not just an 'external' name like other names people give to things". Your response was to cavalierly deem the evidence irrelevant, and continue with a series of crude and false accusations (that the LR advocated praying to him, etc).

I believe the logical conclusion here is that Rav Schach made a mistake, and not having all the information available, judged spontaneously. I will not speculate as to whether he did so because that was simply his style, or for whatever other possible reason. What led me to this conclusion was simply the fact that in all of his writings and talks available for study, we see no kaballistic, chassidic, or similar expositions. It is abundantly obvious from all available evidence, that his forte was the in-depth study of talmud, and closely related texts such as rambam. However I did not attempt any judgement in my edits, rather providing an honestly sourced contextual background - which you seem to find unacceptable. This will obviously require third-party intervention, which is sad. Winchester2313 (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, Zsero? "a simple Rashi on chumash"? You really haven't been following this carefully enough. There is no Rashi in any chumash that either you or I have ever seen (nor in any Chumash that's been printed over the past many centuries) that mentions Atzmus. There was, reportedly, one edition from the Sixteenth Century that had such a formulation but it's far from clear that it's really Rashi. I assure you, you didn't learn it in cheder!

That memutza hamechaber business is simply wrong (nor is it mentioned in any of the sources your friend winchester brought). See the Rambam's fifth yesod from his perush l'mishnayos, Perek Chelek, where he rules that using a meilitz to bring yourself CLOSER to God is specifically what is forbidden!

And, one more time, none of those sources permits davening to a rebbe (and that IS what betten means...don't try to wiggle out of it). Finally, writing, as you do, "because he (like all tzadikim, and like all Jewish neshomos) is God" proves my point perfectly: this is a version of pantheism...how can you blame Rav Shach for criticizing it?

It is indeed a simple Rashi that is printed in every chumash, and that every cheder boy learns. I added it to the footnote, and you can see it in the edit history. I'm astounded that you're not instantly familiar with it. Of course it doesn't use the word "atzmus"; why are you so hung up on that word? It wasn't in use in Rashi's day; but is "Keil" not good enough for you? Is "atzmus" somehow different from "Keil"? Are they different gods or something?!

The distinction between memutza hamafsik and memutza hamechaber is indeed the LR's own idea; nothing in any previous source contradicts it, but nor does anything support it, which is why he clearly labelled it his own idea and left it to his audience to accept or reject it. Betn means to ask; when you ask someone for a favour, are you praying to him?! As I said above, the LR didn't go nearly as far as the Kedushas Levi, who wrote that it is permitted to bow down to tzadikim. (ומותר להשתחוות להם. Parshas Shoftim, sv velashemesh)

And yes, all of those sources in the footnote that you and Yonoson3 deleted show that tzadikim can be called "God", and the Tanya explicitly says that every Jewish neshomo is a "literally a portion of God". None of this is new, and none of it can be considered heresy, at least if you want to stay in your vaunted "mainstream" of Orthodoxy. Not even R Shach dared to openly call the Baal Hatanya a heretic, at least once he was prominent enough that his words would be reported! (Though he did dare to open his mouth against him, as well as against the holy Baal Shem Tov and the Kedushas Levi; unfortunately I have not yet found these incidents in a source reliable enough for WP, or you can be sure it would be in the article.) -- Zsero (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Winchester, you wrote: "You seem to forget that this is a neutral encyclopedia, and not a platform for cynical attempts at recasting historical events."
Actually, this is an encyclopedia page on Rav Shach. Specifically, a section called "Opposition to the Lubavitcher Rebbe". That would suggest that the page should stick to the topic at hand and avoid revisionist Chabad polemics.
Regarding language, by claiming that there's no difference between, say, Shechina or Keil, and Atzmus, you are essentially saying that words - especially the very words used to describe God - have no meaning. You've just wiped out a huge chunk of Torah literature - not to mention most of authentic Kabbalah.
Now to the "false accusation" that the LR advocated that his followers pray to him. If I ask you to please pass the salt, that's not a prayer. If I am told to ask a dead rabbi for all my worldly needs while bearing in mind that he is the physical embodiment of the essence of God and that he is "all-powerful" and "all-knowing" (as the LR wrote elsewhere), then that's prayer. You could at least do your own rebbe the favor of reading his words in context.
Finally, I define mainstream Judaism largely by what the Rambam rules. Let's take a look, for instance, at some of his Thirteen Principles of Faith and see how the LR's theology stands up:
The second yesod: God is infinitely simple and internally indivisible (the essence of His Unity). That's obviously impossible if He is somehow to be found within human and other bodies or if He's somehow "everywhere" in a physical sense.
The third yesod: God has no body nor any physical characteristics of any sort. how could an incorporeal G-d be areingeshtelt in a guf?
The fourth yesod: God is infinite in time - He had no beginning. But if he is"synonymous" with a mortal human being He must have had a beginning.
The fifth yesod: one may pray to or serve nothing besides God. Need I say more?
The seventh yesod: that there has never been, nor could there ever be a prophet equal to Moshe. How many dozens of sichos refer to chabad rebbes as being neviim equal to or even greater than Moshe?
Thus, Rav Shach's criticisms were hardly borne of ignorance. Tikkunsofrim (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Winchester's point was simply that there are various sources for the kind of statement that Rebbe Schneerson made. Your ranting and argumentative polemics are not for Wiki, rather for a theological debate. Fact is, (and I'm certainly no Lubo) that Rav Shach stood alone in calling the Chabad idol-worshippers. For this kind of statement to be left in, Wiki rules mandate leaving the sources Winchester added. I looked up some of them on hebrewbooks.org, and he happens to be correct, especially the Divrei Shlomo. You can accuse the Tanya and Chabad of whatever you want, but an encycopedia demands balance and impartiality - his references provide it, and must therefore be restored. Londoner77 (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I propose removing the entire 'External Links' sub-section. It serves no purpose other than to further clutter the page, contains many dead or redundant links, and is of no practical use. We know that RS said shiurim on the 'yeshivishe mesechtos', that he wore a black hat, and that he spoke yiddish. Where does it end - perhaps some links to his preferred brands of cereal or soda??Winchester2313 (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No reason why it should be any different than the links on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubavitcher_Rebbe.

If a link is dead, erase it yourself. Yonoson3 (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, this is an encyclopedia - there's nothing wrong with having this info. You're going to have to do better than that, Winchester. Yonoson3 (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, let's keep this civil, shall we? Just use WP:EL to check the appropriateness of links, and remove dead links (or even better, replace them by working ones, see e.g. http://www.archive.org/). Debresser (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed this below, and might again draw your attention to the difference between an encyclopedia and a hagiography. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The links on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubavitcher_Rebbe are orderly and not redundant. ONE link to access hundreds of talks, not a separate link for each one. And please mind the NPOV before quoting from an article subjects OWN newspaper. Winchester2313 (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

recent edit warring, civility issues

Hi. I've protected this article against editing for one month due to the edit warring that has been taking place. Please discuss edits here, not by edit warring on the page. Secondly, please follow Wikipedia's civility policy. It's one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia for a reason- it's very important to focus on the content, not the contributor.

I won't be watching this page, but once a clear consensus is reached concerning the content, please drop by my talk page to get it unprotected. You can also go to WP:RFPP. tedder (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"There is no need to worry about machlokes...one is obligated to be a baal-machlokes. It is no feat to be in agreement with everybody!"

The above quote, comes from an article by Avishai Ben Chayim (http://www.nrg.co.il/online/11/ART/936/156.html). I believe Ben Chayim is getting this quote from R' Shach's speech at the Degel Hatorah convention at Binyanei HaUma (http://www.tsofar.com/zofar/mashtap/show.asp?id=493). I watched that video, and it seems to me that Ben Chayim is not giving the full context. I had made a change earlier that it should read as follows:

"In another speech, he quoted a Dvar Torah from Rabbi Yehoshua Leib Diskin, that because Moses had to preside and deal with the Jewish people's disputes, he was not loved by all, and this is an inevitable consequence of the fact that he was a leader and decider of the Jewish people."

Winchester2313 switched it back (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elazar_Shach&diff=335766369&oldid=335765014).

It seems to me that in regard to this quote from R' Shach, the video itself carries more weight than Ben Chayim's article. Anybody agree with me? I would like some feedback so we can get a consensus on this, and then when Tedder opens up the page to being edited, the relevant passage can be fixed.

Yonoson3 (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No. That may be the way R Diskin said it, but it's not the way R Shach did. I'm sure R Diskin didn't say that Moshe Rabbenu was a baal machlokes, and one must be a baal machlokes, and that there's no reason to worry about machlokes. Those were R Shach's words. As for using a primary source rather than a secondary one, one would think this would be better, but WP rules seem to favour secondary sources; don't ask me to explain it or defend it, but that's how it is. The recording is a primary source, the NRG article is secondary, and reports what the primary source said. By the way, you can't rely on the subtitles on the recording at the site you linked to; they're very much not a literal rendering of his words, but rather the subtitler's opinion on what he meant to say, especially when he switches to Yiddish. -- Zsero (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Rav Shach was well known for controversial comments and attacking other groups pretty much every time he spoke publically.Your attempts to revise history this way are quite transparent, as well as disturbing. Let the man speak for himself. Londoner77 (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"but WP rules seem to favour secondary sources" - where does it say that?209.155.94.48 (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS -- Zsero (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a transcript of both of those speeches (printed back in the day - immediately following the rally), and the lines ABC quotes (and which I added for context), were relatively mild, compared to a lot else said in those talks. To imply that they were in any way taken 'out of context' is wishful thinking, with all due respect. I listened to the tapes very carefully. Honesty dictates leaving RS's statements up, especially since they lend perspective to a lot of what he then went on to say. Winchester2313 (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Winchester, would you be able to email those transcripts to libraryplace@gmail.com I'm interested in seeing them. Yonoson3 (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Support from Lithuanian Haredi leaders

Zsero insits that the section say Lithuanian Haredi leaders (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elazar_Shach&diff=335736565&oldid=335736402). Does anybody else concur? How do you define "Lithuanian"? If it means born in Lithuania, then many of the people quoted in this section were not born in Lithuania?

209.155.94.48 (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think its fairly obvious that the terms 'lithuanian' and 'yeshivish' are largely interchangeable in the present-day vernacular, and as such, the sub-header should remain as it is. Were there to be any prominent chasidic or MO rabbis quoted, then I'd agree to a change, say, to 'orthodox leaders', but not with the names that follow. In this context, Lithuanian clearly refers to 'of the litvishe school' -- Winchester2313 (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding chasidic, one of the quotes is from the Belzer Rebbe. And regarding MO, we can add the obituary of the OU (http://www.ou.org/oupr/2001/schach01.htm). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.94.48 (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

One swallow doesn't make a spring. The Belzer threw his lot in with Degel, and sat on the stage at the infamous Binyanei Haumah speech, and was thereafter shunned by all other chassidim. His reasons for being there had nothing to do with regard for Shach. -- Zsero (talk) 04:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The support that this paragraph refers to are (written) statements defending his honor following strong attacks against RS by certain groups in the very early '80s. Not a single chassidic rebbe (including the Belzer at that time) signed those letters. So I don't believe its (even) a case of 'one swallow'....only Litvishe rabbonim signed those letters. Winchester2313 (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Lithuanian" means "from Lithuania". Even though Lithuanian is a disambiguation page on Wikipedia, I think that this is the most obvious meaning of the word. Zsero must have meant "Litvishe". "Yeshivish" is a term used for the informal vernacular of yeshiva students. I for one do not equate it with "Litvish". In short, I propose using "Litvishe". Debresser (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it should be changed to 'Litvishe'. Londoner77 (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Will the real Yonoson please rise

I have very strong reason to believe that the editor on this page using the name 'Yonoson3' is in fact, Yonoson Rosenblum (or Jonathan Rosenblum), the notorious revisionist of Artscroll/Mesorah 'fame'. He has been asked (as of mid-2006)to participate in a stealth-campaign of creating 'facts' on a variety of internet sites, that would jive with the Artscroll 'weltenschaung'. As is quite evident, in his many edits on this page, the sources are all partisan, clearly proprietary, and obvious pr mouthpieces. He will not quote from any objective or outside sources, as that type of research would be at odds with his revisionist agenda. 'Chareidi', 'Shema Yisrael', and similar sites he cuts-and-pastes here actually use Wikipedia to make their versions (usually single-party based hearsay only) of events available, as they try to establish legitimacy. That is NOT what Wiki is about. Yankev26 (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not Rosenblum. Yonoson3 (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I do see what you mean regarding all the proprietary sources. Seems to me somebody is trying to distort the record of Rav Shachs actual contributions. Is it Jonathan Rosenblum (author of the fawning histori-fictions), I don't know. Though you wouldn't expect him to come on and admit it here, would you? Londoner77 (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

We now have, in the 'External Links' and following subsections, over 75 links to various websites, articles, obituaries, eulogies and hagiographies. The majority of these are neither verifiable nor do they make any pretense at being objective. I'm inclined to suspect that 'Yankev26' may be onto something here. Furthermore, the majority of the sources cited by 'Yonoson3' on this page are, incredibly, sourced from the newspaper founded by the subject (Rav Shach)himself, staff of same, or closely related publications - in clear violation of multiple Wiki policies such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_an_encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view I propose removing removing most of these links, particularly as some of the more recent additions actually malign other groups of people in their attempt to rewrite history. If someone replaces this mess with an orderly link, say to a site carrying ALL of RS's talks (rather than cluttering the page with the present mess), I'd view that as constructive. Winchester2313 (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid Winchester2313 does have a point here, about the dubious objectivity of a subject's own newspaper. Also, this article includes too much glorification instead of neutral fact: not everthing anybody said about him has to be included here. Debresser (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

As it seems many (if not most) of the External Links submitted here are merely unverified shills that serve no constructive purpose, I again propose deleting these as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL. Should anybody object, please provide a good reason for this content to remain, and why you believe it to be acceptable under Wiki guidelines. I'm okay with a few articles or obituaries from mainstream media, but not this clutter.Winchester2313 (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I will start with the most obvious spam.Csteffen13 (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Also about the "correspondence with other gedolim" bit. It needs to be redone by actually linking to the documents it claims to mention or that section should be deleted. Do we care how many people wrote Shach letters - especially if we cant see them?Csteffen13 (talk) 06:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with whoever removed the Telegraph obituary. After reading it, the piece is so full of exaggerations and blatant lies that it could only have been printed as part of a paid ad. Unless Yonoson3 provides compelling evidence supporting the ludicrous claims in that piece, I will remove it in the next few days.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources Winchester2313 (talk) 07:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What exactly in that article do you think is "ludicrous"? Yonoson3 (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Exaggerated and unsupported assertions such as;

"Considered by many as the most important rabbi in the last quarter of the 20th Century, Rabbi Schach is believed to have received Ha'shulchan Ha'aruch Ha'hamishi." or-

"It is understood, however, that there is also a fifth part to Ha'shulchan Ha'aruch, a non-written section, which passes orally from generation to generation, but only to great and exceptional religious leaders. It was passed, so it is believed, to Rabbi Schach." or-

"While many other Yeshivot prohibited their students from devoting much time to non-religious subjects, Rabbi Schach allowed his students to learn Maths, grammar, Hebrew and Biology, though not English. On other occasions, however, he could be quite strict. In June 1988, he sent a personal letter to his followers prohibiting them from taking part in outdoor activities, such as going on trips, learning to drive or renting a car" or-

"At about six o'clock he would to walk up the many steps leading to the Yeshiva, where he was surrounded by crowds of people waiting patiently for his blessing." Such promotional fantasy has no place in an encyclopedia. not to mention that the article is rife with other biographical errors. As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability, I believe it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winchester2313 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Winchester2313 (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing "ludicrous" here. No reason why this article shouldn't be a credible source. Yonoson3 (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Briefly, as you seem convinced that dumping stuff on Wiki is a right and not a privilege.

1. There is no credible sourcing for a claim that Rabbi Shach was "Considered by many as the most important rabbi in the last quarter of the 20th Century" or for the even more fantastic claim that "Rabbi Schach is believed to have received Ha'shulchan Ha'aruch Ha'hamishi." So out it goes.

2. There is no fifth part of the SA "which passes orally from generation to generation, but only to great and exceptional religious leaders." That is unsupported bunk, so out it goes.

3. There is no evidence, and anybody with any knowledge of Ponovezh (which you obviously lack) can attest, that there were ever "crowds of people waiting patiently for his blessing." And certainly never at 6am. More nonsense you seem desperate to legitimize. Soon you'll 'find' an article telling us Shach had the DaVinci Code as well... so again, out it goes. As for the Wiki policy on external links, since you seem unaware of it, I will copy sections of it below, so you are aware of them.Winchester2313 (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, the "Verifiability" rule doesn't apply here since this is only an external link to an article, and not in the wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonoson3 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wiki guidelines on External Links state quite clearly, Yonoson3, that: "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. They further state that;

"Some external links are welcome (see "What should be linked", below), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." As others here seem to agree, Yonoson3 seems to have gone overboard here by plastering this page with rehashed, unverifiable, and clearly promotional links. That the majority of these 'articles' seem to originate in the Yated Ne'eman newspaper (founded by the subject of this article) lays bare Yonoson3's agenda. Again, please follow the rules. Clearly, these promotional hagiographies have no place, anywhere, in an encyclopedia.Winchester2313 (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the eulogy by Shlomo Katz which, among other ridiculous claims informed us that Shachs funeral was attended by "600,000 people", that R' Chaim Ozer Grodzinski was his babysitter, or that Shach authored a haggadah. As others here have already mentioned - this is not Artscroll or any other revisionist platform - this is an encyclopedia. Are you SURE you're not Yonoson Rosenblum, you act eerily like him...Winchester2313 (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yated Neeman & Dei'ah VeDibur

Dei'ah VeDibur is a site owned by Yated Ne'eman, a newspaper founded by R' Shach to promote his ideology and opinions. I have removed various statements about R' Shach whose source(s) were either Deiah VeDibur, Yated Ne'eman, or articles directly citing them as a sole reference. It is a violation of multiple Wiki rules and guidelines to dump this sort of hagiographic material here, and package it as if it was objectively sourced. For obvious reasons, media owned or founded by an individual can not possibly be considered a reliable source of information regarding said individuals stature and / or accomplishments. Winchester2313 (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If that site is truly part of the Yated THEN IT SHOULD ALL BE ERASED. Must be the Israeli Yated as the US version is much more reliable. Pinny would never rely on such junky tactics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.194.234 (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

None of the video links worked either - so I removed them.Csteffen13 (talk) 06:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Checking through some of the 'sources' cited here, I was amazed at some highly controversial, and poorly sourced, statements and positions. I'll take the liberty of posting the exact wording of the guideline, as some here seem unaware of same: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article. If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."Winchester2313 (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

'Yonoson3' and his spam?

Having repeatedly removed external links, unverifiable information, and other content put on this page by 'Yonoson3', he now returns to post a link to his brand new blog. Surprisingly, this blog seems to contain most of the information removed by various editors for not meeting Wiki guidelines! Is it time for an arbitration? Winchester2313 (talk) 06:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If there is repeated violation of Wikipedia guidelines (WP:EL, Wikipedia:Edit warring) you could post on WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In the mean time I have warned both Winchester2313 and Yonoson3 against edit warring and the possbile sanctions against continued edit warring. Users should use this section to resolve their problems first before making new edits. Debresser (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have posted in advance, and requested input here on talk, of every change I've seen fit to make. What can I do if Yonoson3 refuses to follow the rules?!Winchester2313 (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In plain English, and I notice others have made similar comments previously. Not every book or pamphlet with a talk by Rabbi Shach needs to be listed here. Ditto for every recording of his classes. When 3,4,or 5 different books are printed containing the same talks, they should not all be linked here. Nor should every hacks opinion of what a great guy he was. This all adds up to relentless and redundant promotion, which should not be going on here. As mentioned earlier, Yonoson3 has posted over 75 items in the External Links section alone, which is both disproportionate, and spamming.Winchester2313 (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And for the record, I agree with Csteffen13 about removing the 'Correspondence with other gedolim' section. It serves no purpose other than clutter, and without actual links to the letter themselves, remains useless and unverifiable. Imagine if every Wiki article on a rabbi had a list of every contemporary they corresponded with - the mess would be ridiculous!! Winchester2313 (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean "clutter"? Is there a limit to how much information can be on a page? And what do you mean "unverifiable" - the links reference books where the letters can be seen - go check them out yourself. It's not useless - it shows that Rabbi Shach was well-respected by other gedolim (see the letters themselves) - and this fact (his universal respect in the Yeshiva world) is exactly what YOU are trying to remove! I understand your concerns about the Yated articles, but these letters are verifiable and meaningful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonoson3 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC) There most certainly IS a limit to how much one can put on a page - plus, you continue to ignore the guidelines that have been pointed out to you about posting and linking. NOT every word/book/flyer somebody wrote about RS needs to be on this page. If anyone acted similarly to Yonoson3 and edited the pages of the Rav Kook, Lubavitcher Rebbe, Chofetz Chaim, or Brisker Rav as you have here, those pages would run (at least) five times their present size, and NO, that does not belong in an encyclopedia. By plastering 75-or-so links to a figure like RS's page, you have abused Wikipedia's editorial freedoms. You need to stop this now. Were anybody to have any doubt as to your motives, the little stunt you tried by linking a freshly created 'blog' here the other day exposed your agenda right away! If the material is not fit for Wiki, WHY would you try and backdoor-it-in through such obvious deceit? Stop your edit warring, and play by the rules. If you have a link to the actual letters, I for one have no objection to putting it up. But if someone made a separate line entry for every Gadol the LR or RK or the CI corresponded with, the article would be a silly mess. And that is unacceptable. Csteffen13 (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you a copious Wiki editor that is so concerned about Wiki articles being too long (for those interested, check out Winchester's contributions history), or is that just a cover for trying to remove anything that reflects positively on R' Shach? And BTW, Debresser, being that you're still embroiled in the Chabad POV Case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad_movement/Evidence) you don't really have any say on this page (being that this is about R' Shach and you are Chabad, no further explanation necessary) until you get that arbitration case settled. Yonoson3 (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I checked Winchesters edits, and can't see what you're on about, frankly. Sour grapes, anyone? Debressers involvement in what seems (to me, at least) to be a spurious conspiracy theory/claim in no way negates his right to edit here. Stop inventing rules, and try to focus on keeping the same ones as everyone else here. Csteffen13 (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"When 3,4,or 5 different books are printed containing the same talks" - ok, so which one's are exactly the same?Yonoson3 (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"Nor should every hacks opinion of what a great guy he was." - Most of the people that are quoted are prominent Rabbi's in the Orthodox world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonoson3 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you take a look at these pages for Orthodox Rabbis with far more notability than Rabbi Shach, and see what the Bio and External Links sections should look like? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Feinstein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchok_Yaakov_Weiss http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Teitelbaum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_B._Soloveitchik Notice how nobody saw the need to plaster every eulogy or paid obituary....Csteffen13 (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Correspondence with other Rabbis

Csteffen13 trimmed this down to make it more encyclopedic (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elazar_Shach&diff=350734063&oldid=350733061). The links themselves, however, should still stay (in order for readers to know to where these letters are). And also I would like to add on "Rabbi Moshe Feinstein". Does anybody object to me making these changes? Yonoson3 (talk) 04:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I've edited in Reb Moshe, as per your suggestion. If you'd like to add a footnote to each name with the relevant source, I'd certainly have no objection. It simply doesn't warrant a separate sub-section. Csteffen13 (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"Demanding" the Messiah's appearance

"He objected to Schneerson's call for "demanding" the Messiah's appearance, despite Schneerson having cited Rabbinical precedent for this, including that of Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan (the Chofetz Chaim), one of the most important figures of the 20th century Torah world."

Although there are sources that do mention demanding the Messiah, there are also sources that would seem to indicate otherwise (e.g. Ketuvot 111a). These should also be mentioned. Does anyone object to me adding these in?Yonoson3 (talk) 05:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No. That would be more than presumptuous. Rav Shach never gave that as a reason (it would be absurd, considering that the gemara you refer to has no halachic bearing), and it would, bizarrely, presume that Rav Shach knew more and/or better than the Chofetz Chaim & many other poskim!! You need to stick to stuff you can solidly source, and stop trying to 'spin' history.Csteffen13 (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Lag Baomer parades

"In the early 1980s, Shach, together with Rabbi Yaakov Yisrael Kanievsky (the "Steipler")[19],issued proclamations strongly condemning the Lag BaOmer parades that Chabad has been holding around the world since the 1940s."

It's quite possible that the opposition to the parades was only to the way that the parades were being held during that time period. This is not clear in the way it is phrased. I think it would more clear if it read as follows:

"In the early 1980s, Shach, together with Rabbi Yaakov Yisrael Kanievsky (the "Steipler")[19],issued proclamations strongly condemning the Chabad Lag BaOmer parades." and then have a footnote that says "Chabad has been holding these parades around the world since the 1940s". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonoson3 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Barring any concrete evidence to the contrary, why would anyone assume that there was any difference in the 'way the parades were being held during that time period'?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

One of the things mentioned in the letter of protest is that at the parade there will be national soccer stars, and these are inappropriate role models for Jewish children. So it's very possible that the protest was limited to the parades at that time, because of the above.Yonoson3 (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen the actual letter, but if its as you say, then it might make sense to remove the entire sentence about the parades. If you want it to stay in, however, then the history should remain in as well. It can't be both- either they opposed it one particular year, which makes their opposition historically irrelevant, or they opposed the entire concept, in which case the length of time is quite material.Winchester2313 (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take it completely off.Yonoson3 (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Fact or opinion?

"Despite the refusal of other religious groups to join, Shach's war against Chabad/Lubavitch and its leader was unrelenting."

Is this a fact or an opinion?Yonoson3 (talk) 05:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's start with something very simple: is it sourced? In addition, I'd rephrase the "religious groups" to "Jewish denominations" or something like that. After all, we are not talking about other religions. Debresser (talk) 09:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, its a 'fact' according to the DeiaH Vedibbur articles you've been relentlessly posting here. Those articles would never lie or invent 'facts', would they, Yonoson? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

In the 'Life in Europe' section, I propose deleting the sentence of "....as if there were no war" as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29. The 'source' for this statement is an article http://www.shemayisrael.co.il/jewishobserver/archives/feb/biography.htm which cannot even pretend to be objective or impartial, is a violation of NPOV and full of obvious lies and / or exaggerations. Winchester2313 (talk) 04:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Information from two recent books

The following two books published by Feldheim have a lot of relevant info which I'd like to add on to the Elazar Shach page:

1) In Their Shadow: Wisdom and Guidance of the Gedolim Volume One: Chazon Ish, Brisker Rav, Rav Shach [Translated from the Hebrew title B'Mechitzasam Shel Gedolei Hador #1]- By Rabbi Shlomo Lorincz - Published by Feldheim Publishers, 2008. 453 pages. - ISBN 978-1-59826-207-0

2) Path to Greatness - The Life of Maran Harav Elazar Menachem Man Shach, Vol I: Vaboilnik to Bnei Brak (1899-1953) - By Rabbi Asher Bergman. Translated by Yocheved Lavon. Published by Feldheim Publishers, 2009. 634 pages. - ISBN 978-1-59826-440-1

Does anyone have a problem with me adding more to the page? Yonoson3 (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Were the books to be bonafide research, it would be debatable on the merits. However, Rabbi Shach's grandson is hardly a source of any original or new discoveries, in fact, there isn't much new to be 'discovered' about a rabbi who lived in the twentieth century, whose works have been printed, and whose positions on major issues are a matter of record. Shlomo Lorincz has a well-deserved reputation as a blatant liar. This reeks of a backdoor attempt to get the same style nonsense as the 'Deiah veDibbur' staples back onto the page, and that is unacceptable. Inserting this type of revisionist material would be a violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_researchWinchester2313 (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There's stuff in the biography ("Path to Greatness") that I have never seen anywhere else, and I'd like to add it in. Regarding Lorincz, do you have anything substantial to back up your accusation? If not, this is pure motzi shem rah. Be careful what you say.Yonoson3 (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. Things that first appear in hagiographies and which you've "never seen anywhere else" don't belong in an encyclopedia. Even when these things were first 'discovered' by the article subjects grandson.... No.Not even when the new information arrives courtesy of the article subjects political handler - Shlomo Lorincz. If you insist, I will write more, but the point should be clear - Wiki rules certainly are. Why not find an article from an independent newspaper or journal printed while RS was still alive, telling us how great he was. Shouldn't be too hard, if the man was such a superstar, should it?Winchester2313 (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now go ask mechila by Lorincz's kever for what you said about him.Yonoson3 (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Now be nice Yonoson (or is it 'Rabbi' Rosenblum...). You know Lorincz will be eternally thankful for anyone setting the record straight (as elaborated upon in the Reishis Chochma). Pity we can't say the same for the mess he left behind.Winchester2313 (talk) 03:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Though I agree that Artscroll, Feldheim, and similar fluff has no place in an encyclopedia and would only lead to more edit-warring, theres no need to get snippy about it. Winchester should ease up his/her attitude, and Yonoson hopefully gets the message that spam cannot be dumped here unchallenged - hopefully things will stay quiet now.Csteffen13 (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

All the stuff you keep dumping here, Yonoson, does not belong in an encyclopedia. This is not a referal source for KOL HASHIURIM, nor do any of their links belong here. If you'd like to put a single link to a site carrying his shiurim (a la the Lubavitcher Rebbe page) I'd have no objection.Csteffen13 (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Bookspam

I have removed more bookspam by Yonoson on this article, as per talk and as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam#Bookspam. I wonder whether Yonoson has bothered reading the stuff he dumps here, or is he programmed on 'autopilot'? Just a few facts and examples; 1. The material in the Yeshurun journal is mostly stuff already printed in the Avi Ezri, as is most of RS's stuff.(Even the Avi Ezri wasn't all written by Shach himself, as he writes in the book.) 2. Being that R Shach never really spoke or wrote much apart from his weekly shiur on the Talmud, the Avi Ezri & Michtavim, the other stuff is mostly just extrapolation and creative interpretation by other people. This stuff does NOT belong here. If you want to add his grandson (Asher Bergman)s historical fiction - ask first, and if others object DO NOT POST IT. 3. Likewise for a hagada 'written' by Shach when he never wrote anything about the hagada. His grandsons recollections of Pessach stories and other tripe have no place in an encyclopedia. 4. Shach never wrote any of the Machsheves Mussar/Zekeinim/Yegia Erev etc. either, so why do they belong here? 5. Asher Bergman will, no doubt, continue to 'discover' lots of new stuff his grampa knew/said/did which hasn't been known, but his fantasies still don't belong here - maybe on that blog you created Yonoson, but not in an encyclopedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam#Bookspam Csteffen13 (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Look Yonoson, I can only imagine that you are a brainwashed robot programmed to dump silly spam here repeatedly, in spite of being warned repeatedly to STOP! The latest garbage you deposited here informs us of the 500,000 or-so people at Shachs funeral, of R' Kahaneman selecting him to head the yeshiva alongside Rabbis Povarsky and Rozovsky, and is riddled with other errors. If you can't justify inclusion on this page as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTLINK#LINK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion then please go somewhere else - Artscroll maybe...? I have likewise removed the silly 'eulogy' by R'Beeri - it has no place here, and again, merely repeats silly nonsense like the lie that the Brisker Rav only wrote two approbations in his life. There is no reason for every article ever written about Shach to be dumped here. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links before attempting to dump more spam on the page. Winchester2313 (talk) 04:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What other seforim did the Brisker Rav write haskamos to?Yonoson3 (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

He definitely wrote one for the sefer 'Divrei Yashayahu' (a copy is printed in 'Zichron Mordechai' at the beginning) and probably a few more. I ask you again, nicely, to stop plastering the page with stupid eulogies/articles/impressions/fantasies and whatever else some rabbi on planet earth had to say/feel/imagine about RS and his monumental achievements. If you cannot present a compelling reason for something to be in an encyclopedia, then it does not belong here. Winchester2313 (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What sefer are you referring to? Couldn't find it here (http://hebrewbooks.org/41412) or here (http://hebrewbooks.org/33570). Yonoson3 (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Just saw "Igros Maran HaGriz Halevi, the Brisker Rav by Rabbi Shimon Yosef Meller" (http://www.michtavim.com/Griz.pdf), and it looks like Winchester2313 is correct that there were a lot more haskamos than 2...Yonoson3 (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm restoring a bunch of seforim which are packed with Divrei Torah from R' Shach which are NOT already recorded in Avi Ezri. If you don't believe me, go learn the seforim yourself. Yonoson3 (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That is unacceptable, unverifiable and untrue. It is irrelevant who actually brought the AE or the Michtavim to the printer, what is relevant is that they were both actually written by Shach himself. All the tripe that some student / son-in-law or other claims to have heard, divined, or otherwise extrapolated from Shach does not belong in an encyclopedia. This has already been discussed and resolved earlier, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BURDEN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WWIN. I am reverting your spam edits, and reminding you of the burden for inclusion in an encyclopedia yet again. Winchester2313 (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, is this any different: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubavitcher_Rebbe ("Unedited compilations of his talks and writing")Yonoson3 (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is very different. What those are are actual verbatim transcripts of the LR's talks, not some re-extrapolated nonsense. If the 'External Links' section on the LR'S article included every book or article written by others about the LR's teachings, it would likely run many tens of pages - and that would be the same type of spam you keep dumping here. Winchester2313 (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Archived off-topic chat

Collapsing thread of no relevance to improving the article

Smurf Shach I am sorry, I do not mean to be disrespectful, but in the external links section, there is one leading to a page with photos ([1]), and in one of these photos, the Rav is, literally, blue in the face. Yes, blue. What on earth is that picture? Insert coins (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Perhaps the picture was taken during one of his typical tirades castigating some person or group he disagreed with? Winchester2313 (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Lol. Debresser (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Well it looks more like either he was in disguise for Purim or dead. Seriously. --Insert coins (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC) I had a look now. It is just an old picture of bad quality. Nothing special. Debresser (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Please be civil, at all times, even in sub-headings on talk pages Kindly avoid deliberately violating WP:CIVIL; WP:LIBEL etc by using derogatory descriptions meant to insult and flame (see Flaming (Internet): "Flaming [also known as bashing] is hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users") such as "smurf" that is absolutely not called for here or anywhere. If you want to say a photo looks blue or green or purple, say so, but crude jokes and put-downs based on Chabad POV hatred of this rabbi is not called for at any time or place and will be deleted, per WP policies. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC) No jokes and no POV. This is the title given and used. The user doing so specifically states no insult is intended. Please do not censor Wikipedia. Also please assume good faith. Failure to comply by these policies and guidelines will have to be brought to the attention of the proper authorities. Debresser (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Don't be ridiculous. Smurf is one thing, and Rabbi is another. Check it out. To call a WP:NOTABLE rabbi a "smurf" is blatantly uncivil and provocative and lowers the level of this encyclopedia to being a stupid place instead of a serious place for discussing and creating articles, because language and how it's used is important. When was a Nazi even called a "smurf" on a WP talk page but here you think it's ok for a big rabbi? Can you even see such a discussion taking place in any serious circle? Sorry you don't see the difference. Also please stop your constant threats to run to ANI instead of being able to discuss things at talk pages and resolving them. How about asking editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM for their opinions and let's see what they have to say! IZAK (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC) IZAK, I'm rather defending the misnaged POV by stating the obvious: why does a website allegedly devoted to honouring the rabbi put up such a bad, and I think it is even more than bad, photo of him? Note that most of the other photos are only scarcely better. I suggest removing the link altogether. The page in question is amateurish and, as I said, the blue photo is shocking. --Insert coins (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC) I don't care about any photos here. It's the use of bad language that must go. I don't care about about "misnagid" or "chosid" my concern here is about WP:CIVIL and proper use of language and that this hot topic should NOT degenerate into a theater of the absurd, in spite of the irrational Chabad hatred of this rabbi, which is something they just cannot let go of. IZAK (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Speaking of POV and 'irrationality', IZAK, I think the various viewpoints / controversies would be best clarified by the posting of additional statements by RS himself, so 'rationality' can then be judged objectively.... I'll be happy to update the page with many sourced and accurate quotes soon, which should help clarify any misunderstandings. Since controversy is a significant part of Shach's notability, I think more information about his true stand on things would be enlightening, as I'm sure you agree....Winchester2313 (talk) 07:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Insert Coins asked his question respectfully, but Winchester2313's comment above is silly and crude.Yonoson3 (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry you find the facts and history so uncomfortable Yonoson. Perhaps you can start another blog dedicated to 'The Real Rav Shach - Gentle Man With Nice Things To Say About Everybody' ? Winchester2313 (talk) 07:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC) I have posted IZAK (talk · contribs) on WP:ANI for his continued changing of the header above, which IMHO constitutes censoring. This is just for your information, but please let's not discuss it here. The WP:ANI link is meant for that. Debresser (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Archive of ANI discussion

Main page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive637 § Elazar Shach talk page

Photos external link

As can be seen in the collapsed section above, the link to one of the photos on that link evoked a sarcastic observation. In fact, some of the photos are even uglier than that one. I cannot believe someone was taken to task for pointing out the ugliness of the photos as "demeaning", while continuing to post the site. The site itself demeans its subject by presenting him so poorly. A 5th-grader with nothing but magazines, scissors and construction paper could do better than that website did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Please , then don't try to censor those who bring it to our attention. P.S. There is no such word as "commentate". Maybe you didn't get that point. But since you don't understand the point about the photo either, that could be par for the course. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)remember WP:CIVIL. Unfortunately, there ARE some very unflattering pictures of him on that page, but they are still of him. Can you provide a clear reason on why you want to remove them, besides that they are "ugly"?Ishdarian|lol^wut 08:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Civil to who? The rabbi? He's dead, so he doesn't care. If you want to use ugly photos, that's up to you. But to come down hard on another editor, because he pointed out they were ugly, is absurd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks to Ishdarian's insistence on retaining that link, I have once again re-opened the complaint at ANI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Reopening the ANI shouldn't be an immediate step. I wasn't coming down hard on you and saying 'No, don't remove it!' You removed the link without an kind of explaination other than they were ugly pics. That seems to fall under Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Ishdarian|lol^wut 09:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED, being unflattering is not a reason to remove the link - if the images were used to ridicule him in the EL then, yes, that would be a reasonable objection. Please quit taking this to AN/I unless you have complaints on editors behaviour. I recommend an RFC --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Then don't complain when people ridicule the picture. If you want to link to that ugly thing, then it's fair game for ridicule. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry what? These are not mutually exclusive policies; the EL seems fine as it has images of the person. And it is inappropriate to ridicule or in any other way (good or bad) commentate about this person on the talk page - which is exclusively for discussing article improvement. I recommend you drop this per WP:STICK, it seems to be going in circles. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Where do you see me "commentating" on the rabbi? This about the photo. And the reason it's going in circles is because we can't seem to get that fact through to you all. The photo makes him look stupid. That's not my fault, it's the fault of whoever posted that photo. ←Baseball at the source, by dropping that link. And since when do we link to foreign language sites anyway? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Where do you see me "commentating" on the rabbi? - nowhere, sorry I thought it was clear I was replying to your comment of Then don't complain when people ridicule the picture.. Please let me know if this is still not clear. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

And where do you get the idea that "commentating" on THE PHOTO equates to "commentating" on the subject? That's where IZAK was dead wrong. Maybe some of the followup comments to the OP's were closer to that. But it is THE PHOTO that demeans this guy, not some editor's criticism on a talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

And where do you get the idea that "commentating" on THE PHOTO equates to "commentating" on the subject? the photo is of the subject. Even if it were not then commentating on it is still not appropriate on this talk page. But it is THE PHOTO that demeans this guy, not some editor's criticism on a talk page. - rubbish. regardless of what the photo is like (demeaning or not) the commentary was also demeaning, again, this is not a mutually exclusive thing. :) I'm afraid I cannot make it any more clear so will be unwatching this page, if you are still unclear on why it is inappropriate to commentate on the photograph as was done here then please ask someone else to explain it to you. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The photo makes him look like a Smurf or like the Violet character in the Willie Wonka movie. If you're OK with those facts, then don't try to censor those who bring it to our attention. P.S. There is no such word as "commentate". Maybe you didn't get that point. But since you don't understand the point about the photo either, that could be par for the course. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Meh...

• The photo makes him look like a Smurf or like the Violet character in the Willie Wonka movie. If you're OK with those facts, it is not a fact, clearly failing the definition of a fact. Please quit using such terms to describe the photo; a point that has been made already.
• P.S. There is no such word as "commentate" - yes there is
• But since you don't understand the point about the photo either, that could be par for the course., that is just rude and uncalled for. Really, just droip this whole thing, you're verging on being disruptive. Referring to the photo as "smurf" is not required to discuss the issue of whether it is an appropriate EL. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• • "Commentate" is poor usage, like "orientate". He has a bluish face in that photo, which invites ridicule. So don't complain when that ridicule arrives. Fix the problem at the source, by dropping that link. And since when do we link to foreign language sites anyway? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Commentate is, actually, exactly what I meant (rather than "comment", which you may have thought I intended). He has a bluish face in the photo - that is factual. It might invite ridicule - is not necessarily factual but certainly a reasonable comment. "He looks like a smurf in the photo" - is not factual. So, the latter of those is inappropriate commentary here on WP. Is that more clear? --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Izak was being a nanny and was out of line. Is that clear? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Izak could have asked the OP to change the heading, but instead he changed it on his own, with a bogus-argument edit summary: "Smurf Shach: fix sub-heading for better language that is not offensive." Izak is the cause of the escalation of this matter. A Smurf is a cartoon character. If an editor thinks a photo looks like a cartoon character, then do something about the photo, don't hassle the guy who pointed it out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"Izak could have asked the OP to change the heading, but instead he changed it on his own, with a bogus-argument edit summary: "Smurf Shach: fix sub-heading for better language that is not offensive." Izak is the cause of the escalation of this matter. A Smurf is a cartoon character. If an editor thinks a photo looks like a cartoon character, then do something about the photo, don't hassle the guy who pointed it out." My thoughts exactly! That being said though, why not remove the ugly photo link and be done with the whole debate? While we're at it, the redundant obituaries section should also be removed, as they don't belong in an encyclopedia, even as EL's. No other major rabbinic figure has them (at least not thatI can see)? Londoner77 (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Welcome Londoner: You are dead wrong when you allege that "Izak is the cause of the escalation of this matter. A Smurf is a cartoon character." Simply because it was User Insert coins (talk · contribs) who started this entire problem by inserting the heading "Smurf Shach" -- while a quick perusal of User Insert coins (talk · contribs)'s edit history shows that he edits almost exclusively in Church and Christian-related topics and articles, and just once when he gets involved on the talk page of a prominent Jewish Haredi rabbi, he resorts to a very controversial adjectival "honorific" which is actually a deprecating mocking put-down that was uncalled for. He has in the ANI discussion admitted that he did this to give himself "smiles" and it was pointed out to him that that is not an excuse and he needed to find other healthier ways to cheer himself up. Perhaps he should find ways to say humorous things to caricaturize the subjects that are near and dear to him and leave alone this subject that he relishes making fun of and that you defend as if it was the most "normal" thing in the world like a fresh morning walk. Wake up, people take this subject seriously and will obviously take offense if offensive and demeaning descriptions are used. Just because Alfred E. Neuman is in Mad Magazine comics does not mean that any person we dislike or is not photogenic gets called by that demeaning and loaded insult. IZAK (talk) 07:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No. BB, you are starting to go over the line. The initial issue was that IZAK changed you heading. You are now trying to say that the pictures need to be removed because people will make fun of them. Of course they will, but Wikipedia is not the venue. Making fun of pictures on Wikipedia constitutes as disruptive editing. Your arguments for the link's removal are hinging on your own personal opinion. Also, you are becoming uncivil and are beginning to attack other editors. If you want to continue arguing about it, please use a civil tongue. Attacking editors will not be tolerated. Ishdarian|lol^wut 00:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the photos of Rabbi Shach presented here. I am not sure what criteria apply here. Verisimilitude would come to mind. Does it look like the man? As the several pictures all give a basic ballpark similarity of appearance I'd say that collection of pictures pass that test. I really don't see anything particularly undignified in any of the poses the camera has caught him in. I'm a little at a loss for words and thoughts to address quality issues vis-a-vis the photographic images found at the above linked to web site. So far I have only heard that the blue coloration on the face in one of the images was objectionable. This may be so. Are there any other detracting qualities that anyone can point to in the assortment of images presented there? Does anybody find any of the photographs particularly good in any ways? Be specific, please. Bus stop (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Baseball Bugs: This is the second time that you refer to me as a "nanny" (why should I be surprised if you think it's kosher to refer to Rabbi Shach as a "smurf") that only reveals that you have no clue about what WP:CIVIL means, not to mention that it is now the second time you crossed the line by violating WP:NPA against me with blatant name calling and insults simply because we have a disagreement. You are crossing into dangerous ground. Let me ask you bluntly, would it be ok to call Jesus a "bloody mess" or "nailed" or "screwed" when he is depicted hanging on the cross after his crucifixion? Or would it be ok to call Budha a "fat blob" or "lump" or "couch potato" as he is depicted in his statues? Not even Hitler and Nazis gets called insulting names in talk pages about them, he is not called "french fries" or "crispy" since he was cremated outside his bunker. Goering's and Himmler's photos after they poisoned themselves makes them look like "ghouls" and "dead vipers" -- yet obviously no sane and respectful WP editor would call them such names on their WP talk pages while you see no harm in excusing and fighting for absurdly-named insulting headings or worse, but you fail to see that once you allow name-calling and snide descriptions of subjects in photos or art to be "acceptable" in discussions and talk pages about subjects on WP, then you open a whole can of worms and start a destructive process that leads nowhere. So you are well-advised, as you have been told by quite a few other editors here and at ANI, to back off, stop falling into the WP:SPIDERMAN syndrome, and APOLOGIZE for your rudeness and open violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL not just to me but to many other editors who are trying to be reasonable and consider this as your last warning from me, or I will ask that you be stopped from your uncivil and insulting tirades simply because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi IZAK, well, I do primarily edit articles on churches but for a reason entirely of my own and having nothing to do with Christianism but everything to do with Alsace where these churches stand. As a matter of fact I am Jewish myself, but of the "Kulturjude" kind only. This certainly doesn't make my case better, does it? Because misnagdim here, chabad there, it is always haredi vs. secular. But this is not the point. I had read a book making many mentions of Rav Shach, looked up the article, followed the external link, saw the photo. I never saw such an unflattering photo of a rabbi in my life and was struck by the colour but also the facial expression and the position of the head. I asked - why does he look like this? Could it be a disguise for Purim? Could it be him on his death-bed (Jews don't make this kind of photo, usually)? I never got any satisfying answer besides "the photo looks lousy because it is lousy", because I was unfortunate enough to have made an uncalled-for joke. And now you are litterally after me, begging that I reassure you that I didn't mean to call the rabbi a smurf. I didn't call the rabbi a smurf. I didn't even intend to call him a smurf. I found that he looked like Le Grand Schtroumpf on that particular picture that some supposed admirators of his have unearthed who knows where, and why. And I wanted to know more. About that picture. That's what talk pages are for. To ask for explanations. Explanations that could tell you something. About the man. And his life. Like they should.--Insert coins (talk) 10:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

To clarify some points. The photo is blue because the color balance has been modified; you'll note that other areas of the picture are yellowy. I have no idea why that was done. On a seperate matter the talk page is only really for discussing improvements to the article - not for questions about the article subject. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Before IZAK entered the picture the edits in the area in question represented a basically incorrect use of the Talk page. This edit started the ball rolling. This edit was hardly proper. Nor was this edit. And I don't see how this edit constitutes proper use of the Talk page. Finally IZAK came along and made this edit. In my opinion IZAK's edit restores to the Talk page a proper working atmosphere. Subsequent to IZAK's edit were this edit and this edit, essentially restoring disorder to the Talk page. I have to defend IZAK because the edit history vindicates him of any of the charges that some have leveled against him. Bus stop (talk) 11:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bus stop: What you are pointing out is part of a far larger pattern of all manner of attacks, some subtle, some direct, by pro-Chabad POV editors against personalities and topics that they deem as "enemies" of their movement, and it was why there was a case brought against them for just this type of negative and disruptive editorial behavior at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement, see in particular Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence, and why pro-Chabad POV warriors, such as User Debresser (talk · contribs), have been put on notice by the ArbCom: at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Proposed decision#Future proceedings: "...However, if user-conduct problems worsen, then a request to reopen this case may be filed." Feel free to do so and feel free to ask for additional diffs to update that case since January 2010 when the ArbCom's Chabad-movement case was conditionally closed, that prove the ongoing disruptive behavior of the pro-Chabad editors, often under the guise of misapplication of WP policies and guidelines to suit themselves, when they find an opportunity to push their obvious POV, or, when an editor who does not share their outlook tries to intrude on their "own" articles that they guard in violation of WP:OWN even against other Judaic editors, and where they would never for an instant permit the type of usage of demeaning descriptions like "smurf" on talk pages to describe any of their many rabbis, many of whom look quite similar, with their white beards and aged faces, to Rabbi Shach in this article. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I certainly have no axe to grind here, IZAK, but I read that case you were involved in and think that you may see conspiracy theories where none exist. Chabad is a controversial movement, so strong feelings spur the debate on both sides - this is normal. Shach was probably more controversial than Chabad, likely made more enemies, and therefore engenders strong feelings when he is discussed. I feel you've overreacted here, and that calling someone a "smurf" is not really a big deal, especially when all someone did was say that a certain picture made him LOOK like one. Big deal - let it go. Londoner77 (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Londoner: You are playing loosely with facts and with logic, please stop it. Rabbi Shach was one man, while Chabad is a movement. Your arguments are absurd. The world at large has long forgotten what Rabbi Shach said or did, while in the yeshiva world they only study his classic Talmudic works. It is only some in Chabad that cannot let the past go and keep the "flames" alive because they resent Rabbi Shach's honest and fearless direct and unashamed critiques of their controversial movement and its underpinning ideology. So instead of offering a more positive view, the best that Chabad can do is to keep on attacking a rabbi who is dead, as they keep on attacking the Vilna Gaon, while they revere their own last rabbi who is dead as the messiah, while the world has long moved on from all this pettiness and has better things to do than to worship a dead rabbi as the "messiah" or attack his dead ideological opponent as a "smurf" and far worse if so allowed. But at least WP will not tolerate this offline battle that it cannot and will not solve or take sides in from destroying the required adherence to WP decorum and policies by you or any other pro-Chabad POV defenders. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 05:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Than you IZAK, for making very clear what shameless revisionism you seek to promote, and for exposing yet again your paranoia and conspiratorial bent. Can you substantiate your slanderous claim that Chabad "keep on attacking the Vilna Gaon"?? The Vilna Gaon is quoted in many Chabad texts, and in various major issues (zmanim) concurs with the Ba'al haTanya. Rabbi Shach was not an 'ideological opponent' of Chabad - he was little more than a fickle puppet used by Shlomo Lorencz to attack Chabad, nothing new there. Predictably, Shach's vicious (and unsupported) attacks were met with scorn and derision by his many targets. Shach never authored a single philosophical work of any kind, and to the best of my knowledge, never managed to textually support any of his many attacks on Chabad and other groups. Rather, his way was always to scream insults and expect his positions to be accepted ipso facto as it were. Please cease making baseless and slanderous accusations without presenting any supporting evidence - it exposes your conspiracy theories for what they are. Winchester2313 (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Winchester: I have no desire to get into a war of words with you. You are the worst violator of WP:BATTLEGROUND on this article and its talk page as any examination of its history would show. Try your tactics somewhere else and see how far you'll get. Stop being the self-appointed accuser-prosecutor-jury-judge-executioner all in one to keep on attacking Rabbi Shach on WP in any way you can. If you do not move on from this page and display a better grasp of and adherence to WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, WP:WAR you will only harm your own blatant pro-Chabad POV course that you never tire of displaying (just read your own intemperate words right here above) as you accuse others of the very things you are guilty of yourself. Consider this a warning, it's time this page was not turned into a literal madhouse every time you show up to do battle causing utter bedlam! IZAK (talk) 05:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, IZAK, to your obvious dismay my focus on this article has been, and remains, to keep it in compliance with WP:V and WP:SOURCE. A review of your comments in this discussion, as well as in your earlier lengthy conspiracy claim, shows that you are focused on blindly forcing your agenda while constantly ignoring guidelines such as WP:IRS, WP:AGF and WP:EQ. Your above paragraph illustrates this problem clearly, and your threats and 'warnings' directly violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Perhaps you can substantiate your earlier claims on this page, and clarify the following, again as per WP:V. 1. Do you have any evidence that, in your words, Chabad "keep on attacking the Vilna Gaon"? 2. Can you offer any evidentiary support of your "Rabbi Shach's honest and fearless direct and unashamed critiques of their controversial movement and its underpinning ideology" statement ? 3. Your claim that "the best that Chabad can do is to keep on attacking a rabbi who is dead" is likewise pure slander and libel. Can you offer any WP:SOURCE that might support your statement, or any evidence of same?

If User:IZAK insists on simply continuing their slanderous attacks without engaging in a WP:CIVIL discussion of the actual issues, perhaps we would be best served by an administrator taking a look at this sorry saga...? Winchester2313 (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Winchester2313—but wasn't this your edit? Bus stop (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure it was. Your point being...? Winchester2313 (talk) 04:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Winchester, the point that User Bus stop is making is that you were inflaming the situation and acting improperly and not in keeping with the decorum befitting a WP user on a WP talk page. I will repeat, I will not get into a war of words with you, and there is no need to back up what is common knowledge and obviously known, as you well know. Yet you ALWAYS come here and to a few other Chabad-related pages with your guns blazing, and you scream and shout and worse, and when called on it, you act self-righteously saying "what me?" and "what of it?" Come on now, do you think people are that stupid or don't notice or don't care? Just look at this talk page and see how you talk while you accuse others of all sorts of the same things you think it's ok for you to violate. To quote your words above (highlighting mine), when mentioning the WP:NOTABLE Rabbi "Shlomo Lorincz has a well-deserved reputation as a blatant liar" (is that a way to talk about a subject? was he a Nazi that you write like that about him?); "Lorincz will be eternally thankful for anyone setting the record straight...Pity we can't say the same for the mess he left behind" (he was a notable politician, but you can't help injecting WP:IDONTLIKEIT); attacking User Yonoson3: "you are a brainwashed robot programmed to dump silly spam here repeatedly" (violates WP:NPA; WP:CIVIL; WP:EQ; WP:BATTLEGROUND); "please go somewhere else - Artscroll maybe" (how disgusting to disinvite a valuable editor who is unfailingly courteous and never talks to you the way you insult him); "merely repeats silly nonsense like the lie that the Brisker Rav only wrote two approbations in his life" (using words like "lie" and "liar" when you disagree is so childish); "stop plastering the page with stupid eulogies/articles/impressions/fantasies" (calling points you disagree with "stupid etc" is again a display of your arrogance that has no place on WP); "All the tripe that some student / son-in-law or other claims to have heard, divined, or otherwise extrapolated from Shach does not belong in an encyclopedia" (using the word "tripe" to demean and devalue a subject under discussion is a clear display that you have no grasp, yet again, of WP:CIVIL; WP:EQ; WP:NPA; WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND); "not some re-extrapolated nonsense" (your arrogance on display again making it impossible to cooperate) and there is lots more of this on other pages. Each and every one of those violates WP:CIVIL; WP:EQ; WP:AGF and quite obviously WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and more. There is no way anyone can cooperate and work in harmony with an editor who speaks, writes and acts like you. I warn you once again to refrain from this sort of language and behavior and I can assure you that not one admin would be amused to read what you have been up to on this page and a couple of others that you have taken it upon yourself to edit in keeping with a blatant and aggressive pro-Chabad POV, while you hide behind a curtain of misapplying WP policies, of "sources" and "verification" to cover up your terrible behavior in blatant acts violating WP:LAWYERING. Perhaps you should take the advice you gave User Yonoson3 and "please go somewhere else" if you cannot control your urge to WP:CENSOR and flaming this page. IZAK (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• P.S. Winchester: Because you sound like one or more of the editors that were involved in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement and you feel so safe behind your present identity to throw all your verbal assaults here and elsewhere, and so far you have failed to fill in even a minimum on your WP:USERPAGE it might be the right time to request Wikipedia:CheckUser to see if you are not also in violation of WP:SOCK. IZAK (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Izak, you sound quite unnecessarily heated and would surely do the entire Wiki-community a service if you simply addressed Winchester2313's questions. Do you, or do you not have any evidence to support those claims you made against Chabad above, and which I see (reading the comments on the ANI page) you have a history of repeating. If you cannot support your allegations, one must wonder whether you are actually part of a conspiracy against Chabad yourself, and this is coming from someone who is certainly no Chabadnik himself! Why not be courteous enough to admit your error, or support your allegations. That is hardly an invitation to war.Londoner77 (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Londoner: Go check through my editing record and you will see that I was the one who built the foundations of the articles relating to the 7 Chabad Rebbes. I admire the movement and its leaders. But, I know this may be hard for a true-blue believer to grasp, that does not mean that pro-Chabad POV editors can come here and disrupt this article about Rav Shach for years already, or that Chabad is above criticism, or that objectivity and logic must be abandoned out of mere reverence for Chabad, or that editors like you, Winchester and Debresser and others should be allowed to utter the most vile insults against other users or subjects in WP. Go to a WP article about Hitler and try calling either Hitler or an editor there a "liar" and see how far you get. So please stop your own proven WP:WARRING and try to contribute positively to articles and discussions and not just join in blindly with knee-jerk defenses of the Chabad party line, and while we are at it, you sound a lot like some other pro-Chabad POV editors and so far, as with Winchester, you have failed to fill in even a minimum on your WP:USERPAGE so it might be the right time to request Wikipedia:CheckUser for you too to see if you are not also in violation of WP:SOCK, as User Zsero (talk · contribs) is now blocked permanantly. Please stop your Wikipedia:Harassment of this subject and of editors who come here in WP:AGF and instead have to face a barrage of assaults and insults from the pro-Chabad POV warriors who clearly have their own agenda, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence for more details about that. IZAK (talk) 04:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Londoner77—you say, "Big deal - let it go." This issue was fully resolved as of this edit. With that edit IZAK corrected the situation, in accordance with Wikipedia policy found at WP:TALK. IZAK should not have had to correct that situation again and again. Bus stop (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Bus stop. Please do not head IZAK's comment. He just sees Chabad conspiracies in every Judaism-related edit he doesn't like. I have tried to point out in that ArbCom discussion that IZAK is irrational about this. Debresser (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Debresser: You are making the illogical allegation yet again, that if your faulty edits and questionable editing habits are pointed out, that that is somehow an "attack" on Chabad, or that an editor must somehow be "prejudiced" against Chabad, which in my case is just not true. When it is just your pattern of attacking and editing that is being questioned, time and again. Notice how dismissive you are when facts and the truth is being pointed out to you. You need to realize and admit that it is your uncivil behavior that is the problem, that you feel you have every right to be a POV-warrior to attack anyone and anything the Chabad party line hates and defend anything that Chabad approves of, but that in reality it has nothing to do Chabad itself or with how WP should function, it's just you "personalizing" and claiming to "embody" Chabad on WP which YOU DO NOT!, and "therefore" you allow yourself the "liberty" on WP to do as you wish in this mission ignoring the input of fellow Judaic editors who also know a thing or two about this subject and can back it up. Sorry, but you need to look in the mirror first before making false allegations against other editors. IZAK (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have responded fully to Insert coins's above comment on his talk page. IZAK (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

hi IZAK and Debresser—I focus on core issues. If a photograph is to be discussed one must use incisive language. One must avoid references that result in extraneous associations. In a moment of levity someone types something and hits the save key. But after another editor comes along and reins in the jocularity, that should be the end of it. IZAK shouldn't have needed to revert the extraneous reference additional times, and fend off a slew of accusations. At the point that he (IZAK) made his initial edit he was 100% correct in doing so. An argument ensued that lasted extensively with charges and countercharges being strewn over more than one page. The allusion was a poor choice of words because a photograph has core qualities that can and should be referred to specifically. Bus stop (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That is your opinion, and no more than that. It is shared by others, but no by all. Anyway, I see little good coming from this thread as well... 22:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) [2]