Talk:Elazar Shach/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Debresser content removal

Debresser has twice removed [1] this sourced content and I would like an explanation. This is an article about Elazar Shach, it's a philosophical position of his, and it's sourced. Thank you so much and have a wonderful day. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I have explained my reason in the edit summary, if you haven't noticed. I think it is just irrelevant small talk. It does not shed any new light on Shach's ideology itself. Debresser (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

But doesn't it support what was said in the previous paragraph, namely that Shach was not opposed to "Chassidus Chabad from the previous generations" ? Yonoson3 (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to concede that point. Ok, so if somebody would feel that we should have these witticisms of generally doubtful reliability, so be it, let him restore it. Debresser (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Support from Litvishe Haredi leaders

For those unfamiliar with the general history of Shach going nuts at any party or Rabbi not toeing his line du jour, the wars only started in the mid to late 80's. So when the term 'Support from Litvishe Haredi leaders' is used, the only info. that belongs there are statements that clearly support Shach in his political jihad. YD Rokeach's statement clearly does this, so does the statement by the group of Rabbis quoted at the begining. Neither Rabbi's Gifter nor Shapiro OBM ever got involved in any political wars or defences, so some statement (from not the highest grade source?) being stuck into this section is deliberately misleading. Thats why I removed them. If anyone has any real proof of relevance, they can put it back, but now it just serves to mislead people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.87.47 (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Gifter, how about this (part 2)? [Also available here: http://www.iawaken.org/shiurim/view.asp?id=6688]Yonoson3 (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

And your also wrong regarding Shapiro - check out his eulogy for Shach (Sefer Hazikaron L'Maran HaAvi Ezri, page 5, "Daas Torah Berurah")(Book can be found on Otzar HaChochma).Yonoson3 (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

And let me also add R' Shmuel Auerbach link (#10,11,and 13). Yonoson3 (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, not to mention that a lot of the stuff some of the recent posts on this page have attempted to 'prove' constitute pure WP:OR. Winchester2313 (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Shach was always arguing or fighting with other Rabbis and groups, whatever his reason, and he was open about it and proud of the fights he started. As he said, and the press reported "there is no point in agreeing - one MUST be a promoter of arguments" so when users like Yonoson3 try to argue what everybody knows is true with 'information' from a journal honouring Shach- it stinks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.179.186.2 (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding quote from Mishpacha magazine about Chinuch Atzmai

Also, the quote from Mishpacha regarding Chinuch Atzmai is not an "exceptional claim". Shach was very involved with Chinuch Atzmai (e.g. see here and here and here), so it makes sense that they would want him to come to America to help out with the fundraising.Yonoson3 (talk) 05:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

194.78.45.187 says that the story in unbelievable, because "If it is real there will be many real sources". Sound like a pretty weak argument to me. Anybody agree? Yonoson3 (talk) 05:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately for certain revisionists, true stories usually have multiple sources and can be easily verified. Those attempting to recast Shach don't have it that easy,so they typically plant information in ethnic (or their own) media, and hope the fantasy becomes part of the record.... Seems people here aren't quite falling for it. Winchester2313 (talk) 06:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, not sure why 194.78.45.187 is making such a big deal about the word "delegation". It's probably simply referring to Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah of America.Yonoson3 (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

May I politely remind you of the guideline you seem detrmined to ignore in your efforts to force material back into the article:

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it."

Clearly, some readers (myself included) find it very difficult to believe that the universally recognized 'posek hador' ever headed any "delegation to beg Rav Shach" (who was a highly politicized and quite controversial figure) to fundraise or anything else! If such a thing were even remotely true, there should be no difficulty reliably sourcing it. Londoner77 (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding R' Asher Bergman's book "Path to Greatness"

Recently I have added information to the page from the book "Path to Greatness - The Life of Maran Harav Elazar Menachem Man Shach, Vol I: Vaboilnik to Bnei Brak (1899–1953)" published recently by Feldheim. This is a very well-researched and reliable book. It has copious footnotes sourcing much of the material. (I will add the exact sources for the quotes to the page). Regarding some of the specifics about the relationship between Chazon Ish and R' Shach, the quotes are not unbelievable at all; anyone who is familiar with R' Shach's early life is aware that he was close with the Chazon Ish and the latter held the former in high esteem. This relationship is talked about in great detail in the above mentioned book (as well as R' Shach's close relationship with many other gedolim of that time period including R' Chaim Ozer, R' Aron Kotler, the Brisker Rav, etc.)Yonoson3 (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

So maybe you can explain why nobody ever hears these amazing stories until 60 YEARS after Chazon Ish passed away!!! Now arrives a grandson who was probbly not even born before Chazon Ish dies and HE finds all stories nobody ever heard before? The book is obviosly not very reliable at all unless it gives evidence that can be checked! This book is published in 2009 when all his sources are probbly dead many years. Sylvain

The book delineates EXACTLY where the quotes (which were removed) are coming from:

"Harav Shach has everything a great man needs to have!" R' Shmuel Auerbach heard this from R' Yehoshua Tanchum Karelitz (nephew of Chazon Ish), who heard it from Chazon Ish

"After the Brisker Rav and Rav Isser Zalman, HaRav Shach is head and shoulders above the rest..." R' Mordechai Kartman heard this from R' Mordechai Shlomo Berman (another nephew of Chazon Ish), who heard it from Chazon Ish Yonoson3 (talk) 05:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the issue being raised, namely the fact that 'hearsay', even printed hearsay, hardly qualifies as a reliable source for anything, certainly not an encyclopedia. Not to mention that its hard to believe the Chazon Ish would ever make such a stupid and obviously untrue statement about a largely unknown Rosh Yeshiva, which is all Rav Shach was at the time the Chazon Ish oassed on. Head and shoulders above whom?! Rav Aaron Kotler, Rav Chatzkel Abramsky?! Shach was not remotely in their league, and certainly not then.Londoner77 (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Yonoson3 can explain why he seems so very determined to defend such an obviously false and ridiculous quote? Alive during the CI's final years were;

Yosef Shlomo Kahaneman

Avraham Chaim Naeh

Reuvain Grozovsky

Aharon Kotler

Yehezkel Abramsky

Yoel Teitelbaum (the Satmar Rov)

Yechezkel Sarna

among other greats, while Elazar Shach was an unremarkable lecturer at the Povevezher yeshiva, who wouldn't have rated a mention alongside these famous scholars.I think a closer examination of "Path to Greatness" is warranted, and especially the sources he presents for newly 'discovered' and highly unusual 'information'? Winchester2313 (talk) 06:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Feldheim is a reasonably respected publisher of Judaica. If you believe the book to be unreliable, please raise the issue at WP:RS/N. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Winchester's objection to the "head and shoulders" quote, the Chazon Ish was probably specifically referring to Rabbi's in Israel... Yonoson3 (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's another source for the quotes: פניני רבנו האבי עזרי http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=50717&st=&pgnum=173

content removal.

I've reverted User:Jayjgs blanket removal of much information for the following reasons, and request that he or any other editors seek consensus as per WP:CON before making controversial edits:

1. The information he removed was the subject of discussion on the talk page some time ago, and as I recall, the consensus was then that it was relevant and should remain.

2. Removal of basic contextual information violates WP:NPOV as it lends significant bias to the article, and compromises neutrality. This is why I stored these edits. (I happen to think much of the article should be cleaned-up as there is both redundant and irrelevant information, but I would/will seek consensus on this page before removing such information.)

3. Some of the information should be better sourced, but this can be achieved by appropriate tagging, rather than blanket deletions. Winchester2313 (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The content removed consisted entirely of material written by Wikipedia editors to counter statements made by Shach - as such, it was obvious WP:NOR. In addition, none of the sources actually mentioned Shach himself. It was added relatively recently, with no apparent concern about consensus or policy for that matter, and I'm not aware of any discussions much less "consensus" regarding it. Please do not restore this policy-violating material Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The article as you seem determined to force it would be a clear distortion of the historical record, would violate WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, and was largely the subject of a discussion on this page about a year ago - when you also attempted to force your opinion on the matter though others disagreed. If "A" publishes a position with source references and "B" much later attacks said position without any source material, reporting the attack alone (in a vacuum) is a deliberate distortion and violation. Of course none of the sources nor the original position mention Shach - Shach only launched his attacks many years after RMMS's position and sources were published! I will try and find/post the link to that discussion soon, and will also correct the reference formatting to comply with WP:V, as I agree that they weren't formatted correctly. Winchester2313 (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no preconceived notion about what the article should say, I only care that it adheres to policy. This article is about Shach; therefore all sources used must be reliable and at least mention Shach. Please review WP:RS and WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The removal of the Chabad refutation is entirely appropriate. That is, unless the refutation directly and by name addresses Shach's views, and ideally if there is a high-quality secondary source to support this claim. JFW | T@lk 19:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Placing the cart-before-the-horse doesn't make any sense. There is no 'Chabad refutation' - Shach attacked the Lubavitcher Rebbe's published position on various issues. Shach did explicitly mention who he was attacking, so the position he attacked belongs in the same paragraph. I will rewrite the paragraph so it fully complies with WP:NPOV (balance and neutrality) and WP:NOR. Winchester2313 (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

By "Chabad refutation" JFW was referring to material written by Chabad supporting Wikipedia editors to counter statements made by Shach. Regarding "placing the cart-before-the-horse" not "making any sense", that's right, which is why we'll start with reliable secondary sources that refer directly to Shach, and see what they say, rather than inserting original research and then insisting it must remain and be tagged in the hopes that one day some reliable secondary sources can be found for it. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the statements regarding Shachs 'correspondence' with various Rabbis, as the way it was worded violated WP:NPOV WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. Other than a few exchanges in a talmudic debate, there was no ongoing correspondence of the sort that was implied. Furthermore, Shach actually writes begging Rav Meltzer to respond to him. It needs to be re-written so it doesn't fail WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. Also, not every rabbi who corresponded with his peers belongs in an article. Winchester2313 (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

A simple chronological exaggeration was removed as well: Shach never served 'at the helm' of the yeshiva during Chazon Ish's lifetime, nor for at least twenty years following. He and Rav Povarsky both served in a junior capacity to Rabbi Shmuel Rozovsky during his lifetime. Winchester2313 (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Gerer Rebbe and political life sections

Csteffen is repeatedly reverting changes to these sections. The first difference in question are where the article says "Shach did not suffice with the struggle against secularism and Zionism. During the years of his leadership he waged bitter wars against anybody he suspected of deviation from the classic charedi path." where the other version says "Shach did not only criticize secular Jews and Zionism, and during the years of his leadership he often attacked anybody he suspected of deviation from the classic charedi path." The second is "However, it is grossly inaccurate to base the entire conflict on a renewal of the historic dispute between Hassidim and Mitnagdim which began in the latter half of the eighteenth century." as opposed to "Menachem Friedman has called this comparison grossly inaccurate." Csteffen has argued that the weaker versions are somehow WP:OR, and that exact quotes are necessary. I don't see any OR in these versions. Moreover, without extremely good sourcing, saying things like "bitterly attacked" is not neutral (and a single article is hardly good enough sourcing). Csteffen has also argued that these should stay because they are exact wording in the sources. This is both not the case (one of the sources is in Hebrew, not English) and if it were the case would mean they need to be in quotation marks with the authors clearly attributed. Since he's reverted twice I'm now bringing this to the talk page. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

What you call "weaker versions" are simply your own wp:or on a very controvesial subject. That's why I corrected your edits to reflect exactly what the wp:sources say, as opposed to what you might wp:like them to say. One is an exact translation of a highly regarded journalist in a major newspaper Yediot Aharonot. The other Menachem Friedman is a well-known academic and researcher, and though I also have personal preferences for how it should read, I reverted your edits to again, the exact wording of the source as per wp:npov and wp:verify. And FTR- the translation of "nihel milhamot ...marot" is "waged bitter wars", which is exactly what I changed it to, as opposed to "bitterly attacked" which is how it read before. C Steffen 16:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talk • contribs)

Reliable sources can say non-neutral things. The problem is the connotation of "bitter" and "waged war". The actual point can be stated without the connotations, and should be, unless we include the claim in exact quotes. Just because something is the wording in a reliable source doesn't matter it acceptable to include in an article. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarifcation?

Question for those involved in the edit wars on this page: If I understand certain editors here correctly, any information that is only attributed to a single source (whether said source be a major newspaper, published work, or research passing WP:RS) may be removed by any editor at will? How many sources need information be mentioned in to pass WP:VERIFY? And if a WP:SECONDARY source cites a quote by a subject, does that then remain WP:PRIMARY? If so, much information based on quotes cited in secondary sources is subject to removal at will. Winchester2313 (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, the lede is a summary that should be able to stand on its own, so the use of the word "contraversial" needs to be clarified in the lede; for example "His views on XYZ raised much contraversy". Martinvl (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought of rewriting the lead that way but didn't for risk of looking like wp:or C Steffen 03:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talk • contribs)

Shach - "controversial and divisive" ?

Shach himself stated, "The Americans think that I am too controversial and divisive. But in a time when no one else is willing to speak up on behalf of our true tradition, I feel myself impelled to do so.". The words "highly controversial" seem to have been n the article here for a while, which were removed today by user:Jayjg. I then replaced them with "controversial and divisive" to reflect the exact wording in the source, whereupon user:Jayjg again removed them, without providing a reason. For a man who frequently attacked some of the most prominent and influential rabbis and orthodox Jewish groups of his generation with accusations of 'heresy', "controversial and divisive" seems rather appropriate wording. I intend to restore the wording unless other editors have a good reason not to? Winchester2313 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Please review WP:LABEL. It's easy enough to find some source somewhere that refers to most leaders as "controversial", but we don't put those descriptors in the first sentence of article ledes, particularly when the specifics of the "controversy" aren't even given.

2. It's a quote from Shach himself, not an assessment by respected historians, so it falls under WP:PRIMARY.

3. Just because he opposed Menachem Mendel Schneerson and Lubavitch, that doesn't make Shach's primary characteristics "controversial and divisive" (see WP:UNDUE).

4. In reality, Schneerson was even more "controversial and divisive" than Shach ever was (admittedly in part because he was simply better known in the non-Orthodox world). For example, American Jewish Desk Reference (p. 85) has a biography on Schneerson that starts

SCHNEERSON, MENACHEM MENDEL (1902-1994) Perhaps the most controversial and charismatic contemporary Orthodox Jewish leader, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the seventh Lubavitcher Rebbe, inspired both a legion of devoted followers and band of critics who denounced his leadership as a cult of personality.

The author (American Jewish Historical Society) and publisher (Random House) far better meet the requirements of WP:RS than do Berel Wein and Shaar Press (your source). The reason why this is not shoved into the first sentence of the Schneerson biography but is here is that Schneerson's fervent followers carefully comb negative material out of his biography and insert negative material into the biographies of his opponents.

So no, you won't be restoring that wording here. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Berel Wein is a highly respected historian. Please stop misrepresenting obvious facts.C Steffen 22:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

He is not mainly known, especially in his own community, as being especially controversial and divisive. JFW | T@lk 19:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, controversy accounts for almost all of his wp:notability. A simple run of his name through any newspaper of the 1980's and 90's shows that controversy accounted for almost every mention. Ditto for his constant attacks on other leaders and groups.C Steffen 22:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Distortions don't serve us very well here. Shach was not "controversial and divisive" simply because he attacked Chabad. Some of the reasons Shach might qualify as the most divisive rabbi in centuries are because, among other attacks, he;

1. Publicly branded one of the most prominent rabbis of the generation, Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik a heretic and accused him of "indoctrinating the masses with heresy".

2. Accused Rav Adin Steinsaltz of being another heretic, and wrote that "all his works contain heresy" even while admitting that he hadn't actually read them himself!!

3. Wrote that all the great rabbis who succeeded in both torah and secular studies were a product of "maaseh satan" (satanic forces)....(so Yaakov Kamenetsky was a satanic product?!!)

6. Attacked Yeshiva University and Touro College as a 'destruction of our religion'!!

7. Utilized any public appearance (outside his yeshiva) to attack and heap scorn on others, whether calling the kibbutzniks "breeders of rabbits and pigs" who would "bring another holocaust upon us" or railing against another large orthodox group (Chabad) as yet more 'heretics'spreading heresy!

8. Announcing that one "is obligated to be controversial" only further supports the labels..

Spreading the love via character attacks and allegations of heresy would usually be enough to earn the WP:LABELS "controversial and divisive". So would the fact that controversy accounts for most of his WP:NOTABILITY as evidenced by the bulk of his press coverage during twenty-odd years in the limelight. His statement as quoted in the book by Wein is obviously a WP:SECONDARY source, and not, as Jayjg claims, primary. Winchester2313 (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody cares why you think he is controversial. If you even a remotely reliable respectable secondary source calling him "controversial and divisive" then we may be in business. Otherwise, you're wasting everyone's time with your speeches.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems clear that Shach was controversial. So let's find some source, and have it. Brewcrewer, please stay polite, thank you. Debresser (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't appear to have been any more controversial than other Orthodox Jewish leaders of his time, including Schneerson, Joel Teitelbaum, or Ovadia Yosef. In any event, even if reliable secondary sources can be found to support the contention, it certainly won't be a WP:LABEL in the first sentence of the lede. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I restored the word "controversial" as per Faith and Fate pg. 340 by Berel Wein. Though its clear why some might say it should be "highly controversial" I think this is the most reasonable compromise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.20.91 (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

And I've removed it again, per the policies, guidelines, and consensus above. Don't add it again. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There was no consensus, and the term is very well sourced. Please stop forcing your view onto the page and in this discussion. Winchester2313 (talk) 06:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There is an obvious consensus above, and the poorly-sourced insertion failed WP:UNDUE, WP:LABEL, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:LEDE, also as shown above. I'm getting really tired of editors editing Wikipedia solely to laud Schneerson and denigrate his opponents, and it won't continue. Support policy for a change, and get consensus for this first. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There is an obvious consesnsus above, and that is, that as soon as it is sourced, it can be added. Jayjg, I have noticed before that you try to take a defensive stance for Livak Jewry, but if you undo well-sourced consensus edits, you are bound to find yourself topic-banned very quickly. Debresser (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have posted a warning on Jayjg (talk · contribs)'s talkpage. Debresser (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Debresser, posting a template message to a long-time editor, especially one who has been around much longer than yourself, is bad form and generally considered insulting. Please don't do this again.

In regards to the merits of the discussion, it is quite possible that Shach is controversial (Winchester raises convincing arguments), but this is original research and the source provided is a primary source because, from what I can tell, it consists of Shach calling himself controversial (no matter where the statement is published, it's still a primary source). I will revert the edit if no reliable secondary sources are provided.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Shach himself calls himself controversial and we have Berel Wein calling him controversial seems to be enough sourcing to say he's "controversial". The stronger wordings of "controversial and divisive" or "highly controversial" seems not justified. Note that while Shach calling himself controversial is primary, that's not an issue given that it is him talking about himself. In general, figures are reliable when talking about themselves unless one has a serious reason to think otherwise (e.g. patently ridiculous claims). JoshuaZ (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, just realized that we only have one source, not two sources, since the Shach quote is just part of Wein's remark. Given that, I'm not sure this should be in the lead. If we have more sources calling him controversial it might be justified. Not everything that can be well sourced should be in the lead. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thinking about this further, WP:WTA includes "controversial" explicitly since it is a word that rarely actually has much in the way of content. It immediately raises questions of the form "controversial how" Something like "During his lifetime Shach had disputes with many prominent Rabbis" is probably better to have in the intro. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Debresser, as far as I can tell, only you and Winchester2313/4.12.20.91 think the term "controversial" should be added. On the other hand, JFW, Brewcrewer, Ynhockey, JoshuaZ and I don't agree. So, where is this "obvious consensus above" you claim exists to add the term? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The quote "controversial and divisive" is from a respected secondary source, so it should stay. That said, I think the word "controversial" is enough and doesn't need prefixes like "highly" which run the risk of appearing as wp:or. I think Jayjg editing and threatening other editors (as if he/she wp:own the page) is wrong and should stop.C Steffen 22:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talk • contribs)

Reply to Ynhockey. If there is reason to believe that an editor has violated Wikipedia's rules, then the right thing to do is to warn him. And a warning template might just be the right way to show him that even (and especially) longstanding editors should keep the rules. I find it insulting of you to start comparing who has been on Wikipedia the longest. Did you also compare how many edits each of us has contributed? You might find that very relevant as well. In addition, I have crossed paths with Jayjg several times, and find reasonable indication that he has certain points and prejudices. And he should know better than to push these, especially when his edits are not backed up by Wikipedia's rules. Debresser (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPA and WP:TPYES: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". This is particularly true when, as in your comment above of 23:33, 21 May 2011, your statements are false, but true at all times. Now, where is this "obvious consensus above" you referred to? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

to stick to the point as well... Nobody disagrees that if a person is controversial according to reliable sources, that such can (and should) be reflected in the article. And if there were such an editor, then per Wikipedia's rules we would not even take his opinion into account, because such are the rules. Is there anything further you would like me to clarify for you? Debresser (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that the people who disagree that he's "controversial according to reliable sources" include Jayjg, Brewcrewer, JoshuaZ and myself. For now I'm going to restore the previous version until a more civil discussion takes place. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually it seems that the version until Jayjg's recent blanket deletions included the term "highly controversial" which is not exactly sourced, while the term "controversial and divisive" is. Berel Wein is a well-known author and 'Faith and Fate' is a more reliable wp:secondary source than many of the sources presently supporting the Elazar Shach article. I'm restoring the word "controversial" and suggest bringing in some uninvolved editors to take a look at this, or maybe this calls for an ANI?C Steffen 22:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talk • contribs)

Its pretty clear that Shach was like the book quotes him saying 'controversial and divisive'. The amount of other rabbis and groups that he constantly attacked make it pretty obvious. The word 'controversial' is well sourced and obviously true, so it should stay. Does every edit on this need to be a war??Charleswindsor (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

How does it meet WP:SECONDARY? The source is not by Wein. It consists of Shach calling himself controversial. I'm rather tired of the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on this page. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 06:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine, even better. So we have a reliable source that he called himself "controversial". If ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality should be self-identified in order to mention them in an article, surely the fact that Shach self-identified with being controversial is sufficient reason to mention that fact. Debresser (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it is clear that we are not reaching consensus here. What should be the next step? Ask a panel of three uninvolved (and perhaps even non-Jewish, just to be sure they are uninvolved) editors for mediation, perhaps? Any other ideas? Debresser (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

A more relevant measure of whether or not one was "involved" would likely be whether or not one was a supporter of the Chabad-Lubavitch organization, which Shach strongly criticized. In any event, one certainly doesn't become "involved" by being Jewish and/or non-Jewish, and Wikipedia doesn't restrict editors or commenters on any topic to those of a specific faith and/or ethnicity; please review WP:INVOLVED and WP:COI. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that if you could get three such (preferably non-Jewish) editors to rule on this, we would all be better off, though by my count, the consensus seems to be for the word 'controversial' to stay. Perhaps the definition of WP:GAME is most relevant here at this point? Winchester2313 (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Ynhockey (~49000 edits), User:Brewcrewer (~49000 edits), User:JoshuaZ (~31000 edits), User:Jfdwolff (~67000 edits), and User:Jayjg (~96000 edits) do not think the word should be added, pointing out that it violates a number of guidelines and policies. User:Debresser (~62000 edits) and you, User:Winchester2313 (~800 edits) think it should be added. In addition, User:Csteffen13 and User:Charleswindsor, who have a combined total of under 100 edits, and edit only to support you, unsurprisingly agree with you. So, where do you get the notion that "the consensus seems to be for the word 'controversial' to stay"? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

There's quite obviously no consensus here, but, contrary to what you may believe, Jayjg, the opinions of editors are not weighed by number of edits. If you're accusing Winchester2313 of something, do it at WP:SPI. Until something comes of that, I'll take every one of their opinions with equal validity as yours. Nightw 08:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

In the real world, someone with 50,000 edits is far more likely to understand Wikipedia policy than someone with 10 edits, but you're obviously not required to abide by logic and common sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• I saw a post relating to this article at NPOVN. I would entertain the notion of calling someone "controversial" in the lead sentence if there were a very large preponderance of sources referring to him as that. But in fact, I am unable to find English-language sources applying to Shach phrases like a "controversial leader" or similar, neither in Google News nor in Google Books nor in Google Scholar. As for "divisive", that type of value judgment seems completely inappropriate in the lead sentence. So I support Jayjg's argumentation, which seems sound and in line with WP:LABEL to me, and would encourage editors to please heed it. (Note: I'm not Jewish.) --JN466 20:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The only sources I can find state that he spoke out on many controversial issues. Would it be an improvement to add something along those lines instead? That would avoid labelling him as something. Nightw 09:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

He made most of those issues into controversial ones. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I have in any case reverted to the consensus version, supported by almost all editors on this page, which should stay unless new evidence comes up. Please disregard the edit summary by the way, I had something unrelated in mind. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. For the past few weeks it has been IP proxies that have been inserting the information. Perhaps the Chabad-supporters are tired of using them, or have run out of them, so Winchester2313 has started inserting it again. I expect that Csteffen13 (talk · contribs) or Charleswindsor (talk · contribs) will be back next, to revert on their behalf. In any event, still no consensus to insert this, for obvious reasons. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it was another IP instead - probably a proxy. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I cannotfor the life of me see where there was consensus reached to remove the information. It is reliably sourced, and especially now that its been slightly rewritten in a more neutral tone, it certainly should stay. That is, unless Jayjg really does own this page, as his actions and threats would suggest.--Londoner77 (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Oh, and for any interested parties - 217.111.141.59 is myself editing and for some reason not succesfully having logged in.--Londoner77 (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It is clear that there is no consensus for adding this material; please stop falsely claiming anything else. Winchester2313, Csteffen13, Charleswindsor, Debresser, and (now) you want to insert the material, whereas I, JFW, JoshuaZ, brewcrewer, Ynhockey, Jayen466, Nightw and Plot Spoiler do not agree it should be added. And Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and in addition, the material you are inserting actually misrepresents the source, which nowhere says "He was viewed by some as being controversial". Misrepresenting a source is a rather serious matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Very well then. I suppose based on your point that it should just say 'controversial and divisive', as those are the exact words used by the source. I'll insert them as such. Unless you have a legitimate reason for why sourced information should NOT be in an article? (Other than the fact that you don't like it). Why not request other editors who are not involved in this dispute to resolve it, since you are obviously as involved as anyone else here?--Londoner77 (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've explained quite clearly why it doesn't belong in the lede, at the top of this thread. It's a shame you've been edit-warring on behalf of others without bothering to even read or understand what the issues are here. Why are you edit-warring in this material when JFW, JoshuaZ, brewcrewer, Ynhockey, Jayen466, Nightw, Plot Spoiler and I have pointed out it violates policy/guidelines and there's no consensus to add it? Also, as I've explained on your Talk: page, if you insert it again, you'll be blocked for WP:3RR. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"Controversial and divisive" is clearly inappropriate for the lead, even if the consensus of reliable secondary sources was that he was "controversial and divisive", which it is isn't. To learn about WP policy compliant leads, check out Adolf Hitler. Despite Hitler's being widely viewed in a negative light, there is nothing in his lead which WP:LABELs him, because it is written by editors who are familiar with WP policy as well as correct encyclopedic style. Given this, it is really sad and petty that you guys devote so much effort to WP:LABELling Schach, and your arguments are completely against WP policy, good style and common sense, so please desist. Jayjg is absolutely right. Zargulon (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Modern Orthodox and Yeshiva University

I removed the entire section "The Modern Orthodox and Yeshiva University" because it violates WP:NOR. It clearly is just a copy-and-paste from R' Chaim Rapoport's Feb. 07' article on the seforim blog (http://seforim.blogspot.com/2007/02/rabbi-chaim-rapoport-open-letter-to.html). If someone wants to take ACCURATE and EXACT quotes from the Michtavim U'maamarim and reinsert them properly, please do so.... Yonoson3 (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand: 1. If it is copy&paste, then it is not original research, rather a copy-vio. 2. If it is copy&paste, then how is it not "ACCURATE and EXACT"? 3. Why shouldn't you do this yourself, rather than remove the information? Debresser (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Some of the things that Rapoport writes are not direct quotes from specific letters of Shach but rather Rapoport's OWN understanding,synthesis, and summaries of Shach's letters (e.g. "Rav Shach held that YU type institutions are an entirely negative phenomenon posing a threat to the very endurance of authentic Judaism."). If statements like this are going to be put on Wikipedia, then the source is Rapoport, not "Michtavim u'Maamarim"; is Rapoport's post on the seforim blog an acceptable source for Wikipedia?

Also, some of the things he writes which he DOES provide exact quotes are being taken out of context. For example:

These modern conceptions, he said, were an absolute disaster “causing the destruction of our Holy Torah” (vol. 4 no. 319 pg. 35)

If you take a look at the letter you'll see it's SPECIFICALLY talking about establishing a branch of Yeshiva University IN ISRAEL.Yonoson3 (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for the explanation. Debresser (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I corrected statements and quotes to reflect the updated information you providede. When there is this type of problem the solution is not to renove whole sections of a page you do not like, just correct it with the source. This is important information that belongs here even if you do not like it so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.234.16.56 (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Continued - Regarding quote from Mishpacha magazine about Chinuch Atzmai

Continuation from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elazar_Shach/Archive_2#Regarding_quote_from_Mishpacha_magazine_about_Chinuch_Atzmai

A while back I put in the following reliably sourced quote:

When a delegation of rabbis, headed by Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, begged him to travel to the United States to collect money for Chinuch Atzmai, he promised to think about it. They promised that he could return after three days at most, so as not to cause much bitul Torah. A short while later, Shach phoned Feinstein and told him that despite his desire to help the campaign, he would not be able to make the trip. “When I arrive in America, a large crowd will be waiting for me. I won’t be able to tolerate that honor,” he explained his refusal to go. “Every person has to make his utmost effort to help, but the honor that they accord me will be beyond what I can tolerate.” (The Scepter of Chesed by Nosson Weiss. Mishpacha Magazine, Issue 132, November 8, 2006, page 23)

Still don't understand what Londoner77 and Winchester2313's problem is with this quote. What do the other editor's think? Yonoson3 (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently he didn't want undeserved honor bestowed upon him. Commendable. Debresser (talk) 10:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm restoring it... Yonoson3 (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Quote from R' Moshe Grylak

A while back I put in the following quote from R' Moshe Grylak:

Rabbi Shach said on many occasions that the Jewish people consists of both Torah scholars and balabatim (lay people) who support Torah learning. “Everyone is required to serve Hashem,” he said, “but not everyone can do so by means of learning all day.” (Point of View: May I Bother You With Some Facts? by Rabbi Moshe Grylak. Mishpacha Magazine Issue 310 May 26, 2010)

Grylak studied in Ponevezh Yeshiva and was editor of Yated Ne'eman (Israel), so I'm sure he knows what he's talking about when quoting Shach. Anybody disagree? Yonoson3 (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Not me. I agree. A reliable source. Debresser (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

How very convenient of user:Yonoson3 to have removed the word "reportedly" from the source he quotes, and to now misrepresent the source as a reliable one, which it is not. Very slick indeed, but hearsay it remains. --Londoner77 (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You may add the word "reportedly", but if it's printed in the Mishpacha Magazine, you can not remove it. Debresser (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It does NOT say "reportedly" in the original. You can call Mishpacha Magazine (718-686-9339) to verify. Londoner77, please explain why Mishpacha Magazine is not a valid source for Wikipedia.Yonoson3 (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm putting it back... Yonoson3 (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

My Recent Edits

As you noted Jayjg I am a new contributor so please indulge my asking for clarification.

I was not aware that so many things are covered by guidelines and it is somewhat daunting to see that one has to dedicate so much time to learning so many guidelines before contributing. But after reviewing the links you gave for reverting the changes I had made to this article I would say that I think that it is monotonous and boring to consistently refer to the subject of an article only by the surname.

Also, in the case of Rav Shach, at least in the circles I am familiar with, it would seem to me that it would be acceptable to refer to him as "Rav Shach" rather than as "Shach" under the following rule:

Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included. The honorific should be included for "Father Coughlin" (Charles Coughlin), the 1930s priest and broadcaster; Father Damien, the missionary in Hawaii; Father Divine, an American religious leader; Father Joseph, in 17th-century France; and Mother Teresa, a 20th-century humanitarian.

Also, I was wondering why you removed the link to http://www.chareidi.org/archives5762/chayesara/CS62aravshachbio.htm

It was listed under the title "Eulogies and Articles about Rabbi Shach" which it clearly is.

What about adding the following link: http://www.chareidi.org/archives5762/vayishlach/rshach30.htm

And/or the following speech: http://www.chareidi.org/archives5762/toldos/T62orshachspch1.htm

Mp1233 (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The site you link to is actually owned and operated by the Yated Neeman which obviously fails WP:SELF WP:RS and WP:V. Additionally, eulogies inserted as paid advertisements also fail WP:RS and WP:V. --Winchester2313 (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

"Father Coughlin" and "Mother Theresa" were near unique exceptions, people known broadly by a name that included their title. Shach is not known as "Rav Shach" any more than any other Israeli rabbi. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The Dei'ah Vedibur site is neither owned nor operated by Yated Neeman although it incorporates material that they own. It never was owned or operated by Yated Neeman either. If I may to learn about working in Wikipedia, even if it were owned or operated by Yated Neeman I could not see in your links anything that would make its content not linkable in an article about Rabbi Shach. Also, there was no link to any paid advertisement of any kind. I would be interested to know which of the links you thought was a paid advertisement. I note that no objection was raised to the speech of Rabbi Shach, so can I assume that is ok? Mp1233 (talk) 10:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't object strongly to the obituary, though it's not really helpful, just a hagiography. Regarding http://www.chareidi.org/archives5762/vayishlach/rshach30.htm , see WP:ELNO #9. Regarding the other link, why that particular speech? It seems random. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The Dei'ah Vedibur site is full of propaganda and unverifiable information that definitely fails WP:V as has been discussed here quite some time ago. Additionally, everything on that site fails WP:NPOV. Regarding some of the obituaries that were removed, they similarly contained untrue information and were published in newspapers as paid advertisements. I have no objection to a working link to any of RS's speeches, and believe that they are actually beneficial, as they provide an honest and unadulterated view of what the man really was.--Winchester2313 (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.chareidi.org/archives5762/vayishlach/rshach30.htm is not a results page of a search engine. It is the index page of a special section published by Dei'ah Vedibur 30 days after the passing of Rabbi Shach. The collection of articles includes translations of a few speeches of Rabbi Shach and recollections from several of his closest students. I think the articles are relevant and of interest. The page has nothing to do with WP:ELNO #9. When I first read your objection I thought that you must have meant a different rule. Just now I realized that your citation was as intended but you misunderstood the content of the link. Mp1233 (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Almost everything published on the Deiah Vedibur site fails WP:V, and much of it fails WP:SELFPUB as well. Nothing on that site has any measure of verifiability as per Wikpedia standards - you may choose to believe it, but that doesn't justify inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Winchester2313 (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Zionism and Secularism

Regarding Shach's struggle against Zionism and secularism, besides secondary sources it would be helpful if there would also be links to primary sources (i.e. Shach's own writings and speeches). That was the reason for my recent edits, which were subsequently reverted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elazar_Shach&diff=447198243&oldid=446685765 What do the other editors think? Yonoson3 (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Those links you posted are not relevant to the paragraph where you inserted them, and constitute WP:OR which is not allowed. Please read WP:V and edit accordingly.--Winchester2313 (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't understand why people keep restoring odd/meaningless prose. "Shach did not suffice with the struggle against secularism and Zionism."?? Perhaps that means something in the original Hebrew; it certainly doesn't mean anything in English. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It's the exact wording of the quote, and IMHO is quite clear. While there may be a slightly better way of saying "Shach waged war against more than just the secular and Zionists" (which is the point the writer makes), I thought it best to restore the precise wording given the contentious nature of the page.--Winchester2313 (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ynhockey has been kind enough to translate your prose into English. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Which I appreciate, as he has improved the language without compromising the substance...--Winchester2313 (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Not that there was anything wrong with the previous version. Also good English. Perhaps of a tad too high a level for some? Debresser (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it was good Dutch, but it was certainly not good English. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding quotes from the book "Al HaTorah V'al Ha'Temurah"

Recently I inserted quotes from the book "Al HaTorah V'al Ha'Temurah" (Chippenham, England: Anthony Rowe, 1992) (Can be seen here: http://identifyingchabad.org/al_hatorah.pdf). Winchester2313 removed them, claiming that it violates Wiki rules (WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:OR, and WP:V):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elazar_Shach&diff=443807405&oldid=443764652

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elazar_Shach&diff=443763836&oldid=443452329

Does anyone agree with me that these quotes are valid? Yonoson3 (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in that 'book' belongs on Wiki - it is simply an anonymously published polemic attacking a specific group, which is presumably what someone is attempting to use it for here. It fails WP:V WP:RS and many other guidelines. It also happens to be full of blatant forgeries and lies. If you continue to ignore the guidelines by WP:POV defamatory edits that fail WP:V, I intend to take it to ANI.--Winchester2313 (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I was not familiar with this site and its online publications. I must say they made a very unpleasant impression on me. Reminds me of some hate-sites. Debresser (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Who is the author? Do you have more information on the book, such as an ISBN number? Antony Rowe Chippenham appears, at first look, to be a vanity press. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Links to Speeches and Letters of Shach

Recently I came across several speeches and letters from R' Shach on http://hebrewbooks.org/:

• Derech Halimud B'mishnas Maran Ha'Avi Ezri
• Yarchei Kalla Speech
• Speech at 8th Siyum HaShas
• Speech at Agudah Convention
• Talmudic Discussions with Rabbi Mordechai Gifter 2
• Talmudic Discussions with Rabbi Isser Zalman Meltzer
• Talmudic Discussions with Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinski
• Talmudic Discussions with Rabbi Moshe Feinstein
• Talmudic Discussions with Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner
• Letter regarding secular Zionism and other issues
• Letter regarding severity of reading improper material
• 5 Letters
• Letter regarding shaving
• Letter regarding Shmitta
• Letter to Ba'al Tshuva
• 3 Letters
• Letter of encouragement to Yeshiva student
• Letter regarding Yeshiva University in Israel
• Eulogy for Rabbi Moshe Feinstein
• Letter regarding study technique in Yeshiva
• Letter regarding secular studies

I thought these are very valuable in that they are directly from Shach, and I haven't found other places on the internet where they have these things available to read. I thought that some of these speeches and letters would be appropriate to be linked in the External Links section. I read through WP:EL carefully, and I think that these would qualify. (I believe that these links are more appropriate than the ones we discussed here Talk:Elazar_Shach/Archive_1#Bookspam) What do the other editors think? Yonoson3 (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This would not be appropriate; please review WP:LINKFARM. A properly-written Wikipedia article has few external links. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. So would ONE link to the following http://divreiaviezri.blogspot.com/ be ok? Yonoson3 (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

No, that's a blog, so it would violate WP:ELNO #11. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

One of the links provides a primary resource (i.e. Shach's own writings) for an in-depth discussion of the general statement made in the Wiki article - Shach was deeply opposed to Zionism, both secular and religious. He was fiercely dismissive of secular Israelis and their culture. - http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=33425&pgnum=14 Would it be proper to have this as an external link?Yonoson3 (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

And this "Shach supported the withdrawal from land under Israeli control, basing it upon the Halakhic principle of Pikuach Nefesh ("[the] saving [of a] life"), in which the preservation of lives takes precedence over nearly all other obligations in the Torah, including those pertaining to the sanctity of land" - http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=46420&st=&pgnum=289 Yonoson3 (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Continued - Quote from R' Moshe Grylak

Continuation from here.

This quote was removed again: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elazar_Shach&diff=491958870&oldid=491958707 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elazar_Shach&diff=494085535&oldid=493767388

As mentioned earlier, I don't understand why this is not a reliable source. I am not aware of any contradictory sources in R' Shach's writings.

Any objections in putting it back? Yonoson3 (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agreed then, and I agree now. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It definitely fails WP:V and as it is, at best, an editorial comment, it cannot generally be relied upon as a statement of fact, as per WP:NEWSORG. Not to mention the problem with this particular statement considering that it also fails the WP:EXCEPTIONAL rule. In light of these glaring issues, it should not be restored until there are multiple independent sources cited.--Winchester2313 (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Adin Steinsaltz

Regarding the following sentence:

"In the summer of 1989, a group of rabbis including Shach placed a ban on all of Steinsaltz's works."

Winchester2313 took this out (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elazar_Shach&diff=495405170&oldid=495340600), explaining "Removed improperly sourced violation of WP:BLP".

These are the sources I have found so far:

http://printingthetalmud.org/essays/13.html Printing the Talmud: From Bomberg to Schottenstein, Yeshiva University Museum, 2005, pg. 137.

http://www.yoel-ab.com/katava.asp?id=115

Popularizing the Talmud: An analytical study of the Steinsaltz approach to the Talmud by Rabbi Joseph Elias - The Jewish Observer, January 1990, pgs. 18-27. Available here: http://www.jewswithquestions.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=2</ref>

Are these sources valid?

Yonoson3 (talk) 05:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Instead of repeatedly coming on here and asking silly questions about whether hate-sites or blogs qualify as 'sources', why don't you bother actually reading the guidelines, so you can appreciate what doesn't qualify. Here are some links, to make it very easy: WP:RS WP:V WP:NOR You also (obviously) need to read WP:BLP before continuing your spamming.--Winchester2313 (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's another source:

http://www.ranaz.co.il/articles/article3071_19890804.asp

Yonoson3 (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

No explanation was given as to why these sources are invalid. I'm restoring it. Yonoson3 (talk) 07:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The Jewish Observer article, as well as the book "Printing the Talmud", seem to be valid sources. Why not? Yonoson3 (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

No objections given the past several weeks to valid sources, so I'm restoring it both here and on the Adin Steinsaltz page. Yonoson3 (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify what sources are being used here:

There are 4 printed sources:

1. Book - Printing the Talmud - http://printingthetalmud.org/essays/13.html

2. Magazine Article - The Jewish Observer - http://www.jewswithquestions.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=2

3. Newspaper Article - Yated Ne'eman - http://www.yoel-ab.com/katava.asp?id=115

4. Newspaper Article - Davar - http://www.ranaz.co.il/articles/article3071_19890804.asp

Being that several of the above are from many years ago and thus difficult to get a hold of a hard copy, I also supplied links to websites where these articles can be read in full online.

Hope that clarifies things. Yonoson3 (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources #1 and #3 check out. After clicking source #2 I receive an error message "Sorry, you don't have permission for that!". Source #4 mentions a ban only of 3 of Steinsaltz works. Debresser (talk) 08:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding #2, try going here (http://www.jewswithquestions.com/index.php?/topic/225-r-adin-steinsaltz/) and then clicking on the article download. Does that work? Yonoson3 (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The policy says clearly that All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged must include an inline citation of a source that directly supports the material. Since the information Yonoson3 posts here is NOT what the sources he brings say, and also that the Bomberg book says that Rav Moshe Feinstein DID support the Steinsaltz Talmud, so this presents another violation of the Unbalanced policy and many others. Therefore I have removed the information until it is put back with valid sources, as the policy says that Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article.

   * WP:BURDEN
   * WP:PROVEIT

However, do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.146.213.16 (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

What precisely is the part you think is not supported by the sources? Because I have found the sources to say what Yonoson3 claims they do, including concerning Rav Waldenberg. Debresser (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no reliable source that says Rav Waldenberg banned all of Rav Steinsaltz's books instead what it says is how Rav Feinstein supported it. The websites and typed pages YONOSON3 brings are not at all reliable. HE has to bring strong sources for this, NOT me as the policy clearly says. So I have removed it again.

It is in source 2. And I see nothing wrong with that source. And again, you first have to establish consensus. Yonoson3 established that there were no objections before he made his edit, and so far your allegations are factually wrong. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

No it is NOT in there. That (2) is a link to a site which is NOT a reliable source by policy and also to a page which somebody made on a home computer and NOT a published source. I read it now very clearly. And the policy says that if it is about a living person or group itz needs to be a strong source or removed. The BLP policy is what I mentioned before. Also the BURDEN policy. So you seem to make new policies which are NOT those of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.146.213.16 (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, please keep your posts to the point, and do not make them ad hominem. No need to tell me what I make up, just explain your understanding of the policies and guidelines in relation to the article.

I have myself seen the name of Rav Waldenberg on source 3 (sorry about the mistake between 2 and 3), saying that he agrees with the words of the rabbis from the BaDaTz about a ban of Steinslatz' works. How do you understand those words? Source 2 is not a reliable source, agreed. Debresser (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

And it was NOT discussed at all. Yonoson3 put the allegation in and WINCHESTER23 removed it as a violation. The policy of BLP and also VERIFY means that it should be removed until there is consensus that it has a proper source. So in keeping with the policy I will now remove it again.--194.146.213.16 (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It was announced in this very section, and unchallenged for a long time. Debresser (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

That is not true and it was removed long ago because of the sources not being acceptable and now suddenly YONOSON3 appears to put it in again even after he never responded in an earlier discussion why the sources should be acceptable. I dont yet know enough to search the discussion history fully but I read it here and will find it soon. Also the BLP policy clearly forbids this type of information without a very strong source which needs to be from the editor wishing to insert material.--194.146.213.16 (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

And Wikipedia policies and guidelines forbid you to revert more than three times within a 24 hr period. And the very core of Wikipedia is consensus, which you don't seem to understand either. FIRST discuss, THEN edit. Don't you see that 2 editors (me and Yonoson3) agree here, and disagree with you? So 1 source isn't such a good one, but what about the other 3? I urge you to stop editing first and discuss later, instead discuss first. Debresser (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

And I find that WINCHESTER23 removed this on June 1 2012 for the same reason and that the policy is VERY clear that the burden is on YONOSON3 to prove why it should be IN the article and that BLP says it should be out. So how do you call that a consensus I read more and more here that YONOSON3 ignores all consensus from all editors here and pushes his rubbish on Shach without keeping the BASIC and OBVIOUS policies. Why do you suddenly attack me when I edit here according to VERIFY and BLP and RELIABLE SOURCES and he does not??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.146.213.16 (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Because you revert sourced information with claims you don't prove. You say that Rav Waldenberg isn't in the source, and I see he is. You claim that source 2 is not up to WP:RS standards, and I agree. But what with the other sources? Note that Winchester123 is an editor here, but he is rather aggressive in his methods, and not always keen on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. So I am forcing you to discuss and consider Yonoson3's edits objectively. For the record, Yonoson3 and I hold opposite views on a lot of subjects, including abut Rav Shach, but I will not let sourced information be removed without good reason.

If you want to add that Rav Feinstain endorsed Rav Steinsaltz' books, then please do so. But be sure the information is sourced. Do something constructive to make this article better, more balanced.

I see no BLP violation in the text at this moment. Please point it out to me. The text mentions a sourced fact, in a neutral way. Debresser (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Look at the sources YONOSON3 brings and you will see exactly why I call him a fraud. Sources number 2 and 3 are not acceptable by policy as reliable. Source 4 is very clear and what is written is that THREE OF STEINSALTZ'S BOOKS (NOT the Talmud) were banned by Shach (a fanatic who banned many things for no clear reason). It does NOT say that the other rabbis banned anything and it only says that Steinzaltz himself said that THOSE THREE BOOKS were edited by others who were NOT IN ACCORD WITH HIS VIEWS OR HIS INSTITUTE. Thatis what source 4 says NOT ANYTHING ABOUT A BAN BY MANY RABBIS ON ALL HIS BOOKS. So YONOSON3 again is exposed as a fraud who lie deliberately to edit and violate BLP and RS. Now we come to Source 1 (The Printing the Talmud website) which only quote from the Yated Ne'eman regarding this ban on all Steinsaltz books. Yated Ne'eman is NOT a RELIABLE SOURCE for wikipedia about Shach. Again if a ban on all Steinsaltz books really happened it would be able to be VERIFY from sources that are not only relying on Shach himself. Instead of attacking ME you should attack YONOSON3 for all his fraud in lying about this and many other sources what they REALLY say when one reads them.--194.146.213.16 (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Just want to clarify something: Source #2 is from a Jewish Obsever article years ago. That is a print source. I have a copy of it in front of me right now, and it explicitly mentions the following names:

Elazar Shach, Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, Eliezer Waldenberg (the Tzitz Eliezer), Chaim Kanievsky, Shmuel Wosner, and Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg.

If you don't believe me, you can call Agudah to get a copy of that old artcile. I put in the link here to jewswithquestions.com just so people can see for themselves, but apparently that link is not working now. But regardless of the reliability of that link, either way the JO is a print article which I beleive is reliable. No? Yonoson3 (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

194.146.213.16, 1. Don't tell me what I should do. 2. Yonoson3 himself also acknowledges that source #4 is only about 3 specific books, and that is not a reason to call him a liar. 3. In general, keep your comments ad rem and not ad hominem. Such is Wikipedia guideline, WP:NPA. 4. More to the point: Why wouldn't Yated Ne'eman be a reliable source about Shach? You make this claim without any explanation. And it seems very unlikely to be true, since Yated Ne'eman is a charedi newspaper. Debresser (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Since Yated Neeman was started BY SHACH specifically to advance his OWN opinions and views. Therefore it violates the SELF policy. The Jewish Observer also needs a close look if they had an editorial review that is ok for wikipedia policy (I do not know the answer yet).--194.146.213.16 (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

He might have started it (don't know), but it is a newspaper with a redaction. In addition, it doesn't really matter where he publishes his ban. Debresser (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Break in discussion

copied from wp:3rr
Both the IP and Debresser are warned not to revert again until a consensus is found about the sources. The dispute is about whether *other rabbis* besides Elazar Schach placed a ban on Steinsaltz's works in 1989. The IP does not deny that Schach condemned the translation but thinks it is a BLP violation to name the other rabbis as sharing his view. I have the article from the "Printing the Talmud" work, page 137, that clearly makes this statement about a whole group of rabbis including Schach and says that the information comes from the English edition of Yated Ne'eman, August 18, 1989, which is a Haredi newspaper. As a temporary matter, the Steinsaltz-ban information could be restored about Schach and you could leave out the other rabbis until an opinion about the sourcing is found at some place like WP:RS/N or WP:BLP/N. Perhaps someone can get hold of the 1989 article in Yated Ne'eman. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I personally find this solution unsatisfying, as it is a compromise for which I do not see the reason. If the source is good enough, and "Printing the Talmud" definitely is, then why not have the information? Why look for the source of the source? There is no such policy/guideline. Nevertheless, out of respect for the closing editor and to avoid further conflict, with the purpose of allowing for broader input, I will implement the edit as suggested. Debresser (talk) 08:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

While I do think the IP poster could use a lesson in civility, he/she does raised some serious issues regarding some of the information posted. The wp:aboutself and wp:selfpub guidelines lay down five conditions limiting usage of these type of sources and the paragraph being debated here violates all five. Yated Neeman was founded to directly promote Rav Shach's views which frequently (as in this case) involved attacking other people and groups. It was precisely because other orthodox publications refused to participate in these attacks that the Yated was created. This is common knowledge and therefore until multiple reliable sources can be found that verify the names supposedly involved in banning his talmud, the paragraph should be more neutrally re-written. Since Adin Steinsaltz is quite alive, keeping the paragraph as is also clearly violates wp:blp and wp:sps. The website being used as the main source for this information doesn't seem to qualify as a reliable source as it is obviously simply repeating unproven allegations from the Yated. On what basis would this web piece be acceptable as a wp:rs for controversial claims?--Londoner77 (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Londoner77, do not remove this information until you have established consensus that your concerns are valid. You have at least two editors who think this information is okay, and the opinion of the admin who had a look at my 3RR complaint also did not mention what you say.

First of all, about the Yated Ne'eman. If it is founded by Shach, then for sure it is a reliable source for his proclamations. After all, the way to make a proclamation is to go to the press and make a statement. That he used a newspaper that is affiliated with him, rather strengthens the reliability, not weakens it. And again, even though he may have founded it, that does not mean that it doesn't have a redaction that checks what the newspaper is writing. It is still a reliable source. Secondly, about a possible BLP violation. The ban was given out by numerous rabbis and published in various places. After such publicity, there is no longer a concern that we are the ones who give Rabbi Steinsaltz a bad name. Debresser (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Might I respectfully suggest you read wp:exceptional and wp:selfpub. They both make quite clear that Rav Shach's newspaper would be considered reliable exclusively for stating his own views, and not those 'involving claims about third parties'. My edits to this page were specifically to comply with EdJohnston's suggestion above which you seem determined to ignore. I might add that reading your calling me a 'hothead' brings to mind something about a certain pot and kettle.--Londoner77 (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC) I have removed the information since wp:blp explicitly mandates immediate removal. Please see wp:burden if you have any doubts.--Londoner77 (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Immediate removal is necessary only when there is a BLP violation involved, which I do not think is the case here. As to hotheads, see my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been studying the guidelines very carefully earlier today, and they are very clear about erring on the side of caution, that is to say that something possibly derogatory (like ones books being banned by many leading rabbis) should be removed until it clearly passes muster by wp:v and wp:rs. At this point it does not. There should also be 'multiple...mainstream...published sources...' while at this point we seem to be confronted with a narrow group of circular sourcing all feeding off a single fringe source - the Yated Neeman.--Londoner77 (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought you were reasonable, until you called Yated Ne'eman a "fringe source". Perhaps you want to specify this statement of yours? Debresser (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's another source:

Northern California Jewish Bulletin, Volume 138, Page ii (San Francisco Jewish Community Publications, Incorporated, 1989)

It says the following:

"Among the other Rabbis issuing comprehensive bans against Steinsaltz were Yosef Eliashiv, a retired member of the Supreme Religious Court, and Nissim Karelitz and Shmuel Wosner, both of Bnei Brak" Yonoson3 (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

And another:

David Landau. "Biblical Scholar’s Books Banned by Ultra-orthodox Rabbis." Jewish Telegraphic Agency 10 Aug 1989. - http://archive.jta.org/article/1989/08/10/2870898/biblical-scholars-books-banned-by-ultraorthodox-rabbis Yonoson3 (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Steinsaltz's apology, as well as claim that some of the mistakes were from the editor's, the Jewish Observer article (referenced above) says the following:

"But did Rabbi Steinsaltz not disassociate himself from the questionable passages and withdraw the books in which they are contained? When his books were first brought to the attention of gedolim, Rabbi Aviezer Wolfson, of Yeshiva Dvar Jerusalem, wrote to him in private; in his reply, he rejected all criticism and maintained that "all that I have written has a solid basis in the teachings of the sages and the commentaries of the Rishonim and Acharonim." When the accusations became a public matter, Rabbi Steinsaltz did acknowledge that there were grave errors in books published "under my name." In the same vein, his Institute declared that serious mistakes had been found in various books, but that the responsibility lay with others who had edited them. This assertion was publicly and violently rejected by the editors of these books; and, indeed, and article in Maariv (Cheshvan 5) quotes Rabbi Steinsaltz as saying that he goes over the work of his assistants and "is responsible for every word that appears." Yonoson3 (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, regarding the other statement in the JTA article:

"The Beth Din (religious court) of Jerusalem's ultra-Orthodox Eda Haredit community, however, took a less extreme position, singling out only the two Bible studies for criticism."

This may have been the intitial reaction, but it seems that later they also took a strong stance. Check out the quotes from Rabbi Moshe Teitelbaum (president of the Edah at the time) and Rabbi Moshe Aryeh Freund (Chief Rabbi of the Edah) here: http://www.ranaz.co.il/notPublished/article35_19890831.asp Yonoson3 (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's another article which makes pretty clear that Rav Eliashiv was on board with Rav Shach regarding Steinsaltz: http://www.ranaz.co.il/articles/article73_19891228.asp Yonoson3 (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing here about Rabbi Waldenberg who was the point of this whole little argument it sems? Makes sense that he never got involved as he was known for doing real work, as a moderate, and had no time for this type of nonsense. Tha Davar article does mention the Edah anyway, so not sure why more proof of that is needed but it seems that Rabbi Waldenberg needs to stay out. Seems that as usual Rav Shach becomes a magnet for strife and arguments just by being mentioned but the page as it reads now gets the point accross without compromising neutrality, so can we all just get along now, LOL?--C Steffen 22:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

CSteffen, I had also paid attention to that fact. Some curse...? As to Rabbi Waldenberg, he was in the other sources, which still need to be additionally verified, but I have no problem with restoring the information and leave him out in the mean time. Debresser (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I just think the page as it reads right now does the job of a neutral presentation well and shouldn't be changed unless there are very rock solid reasons for doing so. Reading through all this, it's obvious that most of the original sources were no good for anything even slightly controversial and that the Davar source was. Let's stick to what's in that source and leave the rest alone. The fact that some of those sources made such a very strange claim (about R. Waldenberg) is only more reason to doubt their credentials. He was not into any of these bans and wars that R.Shach was famous for and that is a very well known fact. I'm not sure what Yonoson3 s point is with starting all these content wars. If he's trying to prove that R.Shach was joined by many other rabbis in his wars against other groups, that is just obviously false. RS generally started his wars on his own and was usually ignored by other groups. Shouldn't we just close the chapter here?--C Steffen 15:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talk • contribs)

If other rabbis joined him, then that is obviously relevant. Debresser (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Right. And that's why I suggested the page stay exactly how it reads right now. It mentions that point from a reliable source without getting into the nitty gritty of questionable other details that the other sources tried here present.--C Steffen 15:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talk • contribs)

Relationship with R' Chaim Ozer Grodzinski

I had added the following paragraphs recently:

Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinski would sometimes consult with Shach before making halachic rulings.[4] Among the halachic queries addressed to Grodzinski and relayed to Shach for consultation were some that came from scholarly rabbis throughout the Diaspora.[5] The Chazon Ish once told Shach that a number of times after he had addressed halachic queries to Grodzinski, the latter had told him that he had relayed them to Shach, and how Shach had responded to them.[6]

When Grodzinski published the third volume of Achiezer, he gave a copy to Shach's wife, who happened to be visiting at the time, and said "Give this sefer to Reb Leizer, for whom did I write if for, after all, if not for him?"[7]

^ Path to Greatness – The Life of Maran Harav Elazar Menachem Man Shach, Vol I: Vaboilnik to Bnei Brak (1899–1953) – pg. 351. E.g. http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=21194&st=&pgnum=197 Yeshurun:11:page 196

^ Path to Greatness – The Life of Maran Harav Elazar Menachem Man Shach, Vol I: Vaboilnik to Bnei Brak (1899–1953) – pg. 352

^ Path to Greatness – The Life of Maran Harav Elazar Menachem Man Shach, Vol I: Vaboilnik to Bnei Brak (1899–1953) – pg. 355

^ Path to Greatness – The Life of Maran Harav Elazar Menachem Man Shach, Vol I: Vaboilnik to Bnei Brak (1899–1953) – pg. 350

These were subsequently removed by I.P. 12.150.29.247 , saying that they violate wp:rs and wp:v.

As mentioned by Jayjg in a previous discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elazar_Shach/Archive_2 "Regarding R' Asher Bergman's book "Path to Greatness""), "Feldheim is a reasonably respected publisher of Judaica. If you believe the book to be unreliable, please raise the issue at WP:RS/N."

Anybody agree with me that the sources from this book are valid?

Yonoson3 (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Feldheim is certainly a reliable source. Yoninah (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And the info is relevant, if even it reeks a little of overly praise. Debresser (talk) 08:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The information you want to put into the article here is so incredible that you need more than just one source, especially when that 'source' is a book written by the subjects grandson and is full of stuff that all falls under wp:exceptional. Here are just a few of the obvious problems:

• Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski was the undisputed posek of his time, maybe the first time someone's halachic authority was as widely recognized and accepted accross the spectrum of orthodox communities. To believe that he sent halachic queries to a wandering young teacher who never even became a posek - ever - is a real stretch.

Whether R' Shach later became an official posek later on in his life is immaterial. R' Chaim Ozer valued R' Shach's opinion as a talmid chacham, so he asked him to look into certain shaylos... Not really such an "unbelievable" claim.. Shach may not have been internationally renown at the time, but to those "in the know" (e.g. Brisker Rav, R' Chaim Ozer, Chazon Ish), his Torah opinion was highly valued... Yonoson3 (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not immaterial at all. In the 1920's Rav Shach was (at best) just another unknown yeshiva lecturer, and considering that he never even served as a rabbi anywhere, the idea that he was consulted on matters of practical halacha is ludicrous. The claims made by 'Path to Greatness' are very exceptional and don't belong in an encyclopedia unless there are multiple sources. Read wp:exceptional before trying this again.C Steffen 06:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talk • contribs)

• Likewise to imagine that another (later) major posek - the Chazon Ish, would have his queries 'forwarded' by the greatest halachic authority of the time to a junior lecturer in a yeshiva is just crazy.

• The claim that Chaim Ozer Grodzinski said he told Rav Shach's wife that he wrote his book for her husband is obviously fake, as Rav Grodzinski writes very clearly in his introduction to both volumes WHY he was publishing the books, and Rav Shach is not even mentioned once!!

The quote was probably just R' Chaim Ozer's way of showing Mrs. Shach how much he valued her husband. I wouldn't call it "fake", but after thinking about it, I agree that it is unnecessary to be included in the article. But I still think the other quotes should remain.Yonoson3 (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• All of these claims coming from a grandson who is way too young to possibly know any of these supposedly true fairytales firsthand makes it all even stranger.

Yonoson3 needs to get some unrelated sources that qualify under wp:v and wp:nor to support this information before sticking it back onto the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

All the stories are well-documented and sourced. As mentioned earlier, an example of R' Chaim Ozer asking Shach to look into a shayla is documented here: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=21194&st=&pgnum=197 Yonoson3 (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice try Yonoson3 obviously can't read Hebrew, or just thinks he can make stuff up and misquote sources with incredible chutzpa!! The one letter you're trying to make a standard out of, shows NOTHING of the sort. Shame on you.76.66.210.60 (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"הגרח״ע ביקשני לעיין בזה" Sounds pretty clear, no? Yonoson3 (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really. It's just what was supposedly 'discovered' by his weak son in-law after Shach croaked. It takes a real sucker to believe that but if you do, have I got a bridge to sell you!! Not to mention that those words just mean "asked me to look into it", no big deal. Stop trying to make Shach look like more than he was, namely, a bitter old man who couldn't stop spewing hate at any and everybody who wasn't exactly like him. Sore loser is all he was. Just listen to ANY speech of his and all you hear is weird rambling with a lot of hate and attacks mixed in.76.66.210.60 (talk) 06:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of things to criticize about Rav Shach, but I don't think this kind of language is apropriate when speaking about a Rabbi, especially after he's already dead. --C Steffen 02:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talk • contribs)

That is simply not true. I read 'Path to Greatness' for a few hours today, and almost everything in there is undocumented hearsay. Claiming to have been told something by some unidentifiable rabbi or other doesn't mean 'sourced'. Why not read wp:rs before editing any more, so you can get an idea of the type of materisl that wikipedia considers reliable? C Steffen 06:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talk • contribs)

A few of your points go well with what I meant by "overly praise". After all, this Shach guy was not such a big gaon. Debresser (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

"After all, this Shach guy was not such a big gaon." Debresser, that was uncalled for. You're personal opinion of how big a gaon R' Shach was is not relevant. (Are you a baki in Avi Ezri that you can evaluate his geonus?) (FYI, read the Brisker Rav's haskama on the Avi Ezri. And read this kuntrus:"Halacha K'Rabbi Elazar" [2] and this sefer "Pineenai Rabbeinu H"avi Ezri" [3] if you want to know more details...) Yonoson3 (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It is relevant, because based on that fact I find it hard to believe that revered older geonim would consult with him. Debresser (talk) 06:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Avi Ezri is a pretty 2nd rate attempt at pilpul, and its sad if thats what Shach is supposed to be judged by. What a loser. The Avi Ezri is irrelevant in most yeshivot, for good reason!76.66.210.60 (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Please check out the beginning of Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner's letter here: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=21194&st=&pgnum=237&hilite= and Rabbi Yitzchok Zev Soloveitchik's approbation here: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=47354&pgnum=59 and the quotes from the Steipler here: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=50717&pgnum=48. You're personal opinion about the merits of the sefer "Avi Ezri" are irrelevant. Yonoson3 (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You mean Shach scored some boilerplate haskomos on crap he stuffed into a book he published....wow!! The man was never a halakhic authority or anything unique, except for his crazy hate and attacks on so many people/groups, THAT was unique.76.66.210.60 (talk) 06:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It's much more than that. The timeline of the lives of Rav Chaim Ozer, the Chazon Ish, and Rav Shach make the stories spun by Asher Bergman almost impossible to believe. The printing timeline and introductions to the 'Achiezer' basically confirm that a lot of the stuff in 'Path to Greatness' is just pure fantasy. C Steffen 18:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talk • contribs)

Please specify what you mean. How does "the printing timeline and introductions to the 'Achiezer'" show that the information is "just pure fantasy"? Yonoson3 (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I just don't have the time to spell out every obvious tall tale in dumb (and obviously false)hagiographies more than I already did above, but if you keep trying to insert stuff that fails wp:v and wp:exceptional I'm pretty sure you will get reverted. Why not actually read the guidelines for a change instead of robospamming the page?--C Steffen 14:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talk • contribs)

Kuntres Chiddushim Ubiurim al HaRambam Hilchos Na'arah Besula

I recently added this link to the "Bibliography" section:

Kuntres Chiddushim Ubiurim al HaRambam Hilchos Na'arah Besula

http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=21194&st=&pgnum=130

It was subsequently removed by 74.8.80.215 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elazar_Shach&diff=528663834&oldid=528663594).

I think it belongs here because it is a significant pamphlet written by Shach himself, and most of it is not published in the Avi Ezri.

What do the other editors think? Yonoson3 (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

If that bibliography is supposed to be complete, then I don't understand why it was removed. If it is supposed to bring only the most important of his works, then this one can be removed. Debresser (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it should be added as it is just an article in a magazine by the looks of it. If it gets properly published as a separate book then it should go in but not like it is now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.150.29.247 (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, this is such a highly specific subject, that it is not a very notable work. Debresser (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Civility

This is a reminder to all that WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks continue to apply to this page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Works

I've removed a lot of the nonsense that Yonoson3 has plastered the page with, true to form. Seek consensus as to whether unverified nonsense some student or other claims to have divined from Shach belongs here BEFORE inserting as per the relevant guidelines.--Winchester2313 (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

These are not "unverified nonsense" that are "divined from Shach". They are accurate transcripts from many of Shach's speeches. For those that don't believe me, here you can read (at least part) of some of them for yourself:

Machsheves Mussar

Machsheves Zikainim

Yonoson3 (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The 'unverified nonsense' referred to your other multiple (and unsourced) edits on the page which violate WP:V and WP:RS. You've already been warned regarding your linkspam and cluttering the page here- Talk:Elazar_Shach/Archive_1#Bookspam, and WP:EL and I would advise you to read and begin complying with the rules. I intend to file an ANI requesting your being banned from editing this page the next time you violate the rules here. It's been long enough.--Winchester2313 (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding these edits 1 2 3, they are sourced in the following two books:

Harav Schach: Shehamafteach B'yado by Moshe Horovitz. Keter Publishing House, Jerusalem. 1989.

Path to Greatness – The Life of Maran Harav Elazar Menachem Man Shach, Vol I: Vaboilnik to Bnei Brak (1899–1953) by Asher Bergman, translated by Yocheved Lavon. Feldheim Publishers

An that's precisely why I added these two books to the "Further Reading section" Yonoson3 (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

And regarding this edit, all those seforim, are, as I already mentioned, direct accurate transcripts from many of Shach's speeches. Yonoson3 (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Your patently false claim of consensus at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elazar_Shach/Archive_2#Continued_-_Regarding_quote_from_Mishpacha_magazine_about_Chinuch_Atzmai is typical of your dishonesty when editing here. It seems that no matter how many times Yonoson3 is asked to comply with basic policy here and on his talk page, he is determined to ignore the guidelines and force hagiographic propaganda onto the page. The book "Path to Greatness" by Shach's grandson (Asher Bergman) is a silly hagiography full of hearsay and stupid exaggerations like the claim that "Shach served as honorary president of hundreds of yeshivas....", among other nonsense, and NOT a reliable source. WP:V and WP:EL make clear that the burden is on the contributing editor to make the case for inclusion, something which seems sadly lost on Yonoson3, false claims of consensus notwithstanding. I have removed some of the more egregious violations of WP:COPYVIO and WP:V in an attempt to maintain compliance on the page.--Winchester2313 (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier by Jayjg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elazar_Shach/Archive_2#Regarding_R%27_Asher_Bergman%27s_book_%22Path_to_Greatness%22), "Feldheim is a reasonably respected publisher of Judaica. If you believe the book to be unreliable, please raise the issue at WP:RS/N." Yonoson3 (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

And BTW, the quote "Shach served as honorary president of hundreds of yeshivas" is from a different book: "In Their Shadow: Wisdom and Guidance of the Gedolim Volume One: Chazon Ish, Brisker Rav, Rav Shach" Yonoson3 (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Debresser—you say that there are "too many external links to works of minor importance in this article". Why shouldn't there be ample external links? This being a biography of Shach, why would works on Shach be of minor importance? Bus stop (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedic article about Shach, it is not his biography. Nor do articles on Wikipedia habitually have a complete list of works of people in the articles, just the most notable. Debresser (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't many sources that are pertinent to Shach be fairly obscure by "encyclopedic" standards? Are they "minor" by dint of being published by companies that only serve the religious Jewish book market? Bus stop (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Obviously not. But that is not the issue. I shall repeat myself for your sake: 1. This is an encyclopedic article about Shach, it is not his biography. 2. Articles on Wikipedia do not habitually have a complete list of works of people in the articles, just the most notable. Debresser (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Debresser, just a reminder, saying things like "I shall repeat myself for your sake" to a user who is asking straightforward questions violates WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Try being more civil and assume good faith. IZAK (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Note to Winchester: Kindly avoid confrontational and deprecating terminology such as calling other user's material "nonsense" and "false claims" multiple times that's a violation of WP:CIVIL. Feel free to disagree but why are you insulting Yonoson all the time while he is respectful of you? The way you are going about constantly attacking Yonoson violates WP:CONSENSUS and of course WP:NPA by implication by making Yonoson seem like a spouter of "nonsense" and a "violator" while you take on the role of the one who "knows" what is "right and wrong". If you have a problem there are better ways to deal with it, such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. But the bickering and insults must stop. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

@IZAK. Risking this post to be removed: don't be a sanctimonious pain in the behind. Debresser (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Although Yonoson3 has been active on Wikipedia for a long time, he doesn't seem to have bothered reading the guidelines and clearly has no interest in abiding by them. Quite aside from his blatant biases and WP:SPA status, he refuses to adhere to any of the guidelines and actually linked to a hate site before I removed it - see his activity here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elazar_Shach/Archive_2#Regarding_quotes_from_the_book_.22Al_HaTorah_V.27al_Ha.27Temurah.22 He has been warned many times by various editors, yet seems determined to force his agenda regardless. The guidelines support building an encyclopedia as opposed to a fringe advocacy platform, and WP:V WP:RS WP:NPOV all set rather clear parameters. It seems to me that perhaps when his detailed edit history is reviewed by uninvolved editors, we may finally clear the air.--Winchester2313 (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Debresser -- Hi. My eye was caught by your statement that articles on Wikipedia do not "habitually" have a complete list of works of people in the articles, just the most notable. I was wondering if you could give a diff to the policy that says it is not appropriate to have a complete list of works of the subject of an article? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I wrote that more as a de facto. Still, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Recommended_structure says something like it. Debresser (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Took a look, and here's what is says there: "This project seeks to establish consistency in naming bibliographies within the encyclopedia and recommends the following:..." Thus the goal of that is to have "consistency" and it's only a "recommendation" -- it does not set iron-clad rules about content. IZAK (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I resent your constant whining and hammering on the same disproved allegations. May I suggest that somebody remove this disruptive comment (or at least the latter half of it, although the first half is also not important) from this discussion. Debresser (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the distinction between an "encyclopedic article about Shach[4]" and a "biography[5]" of Shach. Can you please clear up this distinction? Bus stop (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Not will help uou understand better :)

Reading all this fighting over this article its obvious that stuff that fits into specific policies should stay in, but stuff that people will challenge has to go. Isn't that WHY there are rules in the first place?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.162.103.157 (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding early bio info

I had added some biographical info, sourced in the book "Path to Greatness" (Bergman), but it was subsequently reverted by Winchester2313 - 1 2 3. As I said already, the book is very reliable and well-researched. I see no reason not to include this significant biographical info of Shach's life. If you believe that there is an "EXCEPTIONAL" claim here, please explain. If you believe the book to be unreliable as a whole, please raise the issue at WP:RS/N. If there are no valid objections, I will be restoring the info. Thanks Yonoson3 (talk) 06:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

There are some issues with this as some have already said here. Please remember that all the info you put in needs to pass wp:v. That is just one issue. There are a lot of other issues with what sound like "exceptional" claims and Wikipedia demands "multiple high-quality sources". If it sounds too good to be true it really needs multiple and very good sources that pass wp:v and not just a book written by the subjects OWN grandson.

No issues were raised with the biographical info I'm taking about (1 2 3). The issues were with other things in the book, which were claimed to be "exceptional" [e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elazar_Shach/Archive_2#Relationship_with_R'_Chaim_Ozer_Grodzinski (although I personally don't think they are exceptional)]. The bio info here, though, has not been challenged. In regards to the book as being a verifiable source in general, no one so far has filed a complaint at WP:RS/N. I will be restoring the bio info if no valid objection is brought to the table. Thanks Yonoson3 (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You restored and after his death, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon noted appreciation for his work, saying "There is no doubt that we have lost an important person who made his mark over many years. I express condolences on behalf of all of us; we share in the mourning and sorrow of his family and the haredi community.", which was deleted earlier today. Is all of that really necessary? I think the second sentence is so general that is had better be removed. Debresser (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you're saying, I'll take out the second half. Yonoson3 (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Debresser (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Links to audio shiurim

I had added links to audio shiurim of Rabbi Shach, but these were removed by Winchester2313.

These links are relevant and important for those that want to get a better understanding of Rabbi Shach's ideology. So it seems to me they should be included. Any valid objections? Yonoson3 (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• It is regarded as helpful on WP articles and fills out the "picture" of the subject to hear recording or videos by the subject of the article sometimes in the body of articles as Wikimedia links. Many articles have links to outside sources such as YouTube or other recording sources by their subjects in the External links section so provided it's put in as that, there should be no problem. IZAK (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
• I would like to make 2 remarks. 1. If that would be one link to a website with his lectures, that could still go, but a whole bunch of them to individual lectures, is definitely not okay (see WP:EL #3). 2. In general, it would be better if there would be a link to a documentary about him, then a link to something from him. This is what is called avoiding primary sources (see WP:RS). Debresser (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding #1, maybe condensing the three links to this one link would be better? Yonoson3 (talk) 06:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Debresser (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, Yonoson3, in view of the opposition here, and the possibility of your personal interest in the subject, I'd advice you to establish firm consensus before any such edit you make. Debresser (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Honestly Debresser, the only ones who object can also be combined into only one group, i.e. the pro-Chabad (anti-Shach) editors, meaning you and Winchester, all the others are the comments who "speak" (often using language that violates WP:CIVIL) from anonymous IPs (see above) that runs totally counter to WP:WIKIQUETTE etc. So please give Yonoson a break as he works in WP:AGF to improve the quality of this article. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

IZAK, your "honestly" is my "paranoid conspiracy theory". Stop posting them, and focus on the arguments. Can't do that, don't post. Thank you, Debresser (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually there are probably many other people who don't like all the exagerated and false information a few people keep sticking into this article. Like me, they probably don't usually have the time or interest to fight. For the record, I think because of the very controversial nature of the subject here as well as the many obvious attemps to make him look better by followers writing false stories, this article should really be based mostly on newspapers and journalism and NOT on books by his family that try to polish Shachs image after he died. Gershon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.101.207.138 (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

204.101.207.138—you say you "don't ... have the ... interest" yet your editing history is focussed on this article. Bus stop (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

:) Debresser (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Ordination

Hi all. I deleted the section that was recently made by IZAK and moved the information to the correct section which is; 'Rabbinical Career'. Having another section with the name 'Ordination' makes no sense and is not done for any other rabbi's page. Thanks, Gershon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.101.207.138 (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Info from another book "In Their Shadow"

In addition to "Path to Greatness", I would like to add info from the following book:

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

As I said regarding "Path to Greatness", Lorincz's book is also well-researched and has pertinent info. Again, if someone has problems with the book (as a whole) as being reliable for Wikipedia standards, please bring it up at WP:RS/N. And just as a reminder, please no insults or uncivil behavior, let's just stick to the point.

Assuming no complaints are filed, I will be adding info shortly. If there's a specific piece of info which you believe to be unreliable, please bring up the issue here. Thanks, Yonoson3 (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Excellent choice because (a) Feldheim Publishers is a WP:RS and likewise (b) Rabbi Shlomo Lorincz is a WP:NOTABLE personality. IZAK (talk) 05:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Might I draw attention to the recent discussion on WP:RSN regarding edits on this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_145#Quote_from_Mishpacha_Magazine_regarding_Rabbi_Elazar_Shach and caution against edit-warring in support of edits which fail policy.--Winchester2313 (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you, but I don't see anything about this book which fails policy. Assuming you don't file at WP:RSN, I will be adding information from the book shortly. Yonoson3 (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

All

Recently, IZAK changed and added a few things,[6] and was reverted son after by an IP editor.[7] I don't think most of IZAK's edit was wrong. With the notable exception of "All the leaders of the Haredi world united behind this stand". Even if this were sourced somehow, and I doubt the same source can support two different statements, this is such a ridiculously large claim, that it can not be. First of all, large claims need impeccable sources. But let's be honest, has anybody ever heard of all haredi rabbis agreeing about anything?? Debresser (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• There certainly were other situations where all of the major haredi leaders agreed about something. The prohibition on drafting Jewish girls to the Israeli army is one example that comes to mind. Yonoson3 (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I am the ip editor I think you are talking about. The reason for my revert of those edits is very simple. Noach Orlowek is only good enough as a source for what he said and NOT for what he claims he heard Rav Schach said. Read wp:rs and wp:secondary and that is VERY clear. Rav Schach's letters and opinions on this kind of idea are all printed and he never said or wrote anything like this. If somebody really believes he did then you should be able to find a DIRECT quote or letter from Rav Schach that can be verified. The se3ntence that all haredi leaders agreed with his ideas against serving in the army are also not beleivable and as someone already said here fall under wp:exceptional and need MANY GOOD SOURCES.--72.38.87.230 (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Debresser. If one sentence is a problem then remove that, fine no problem. But the issue here is that we have not one a but several anonymous IP "editors" (they are actually Wikipedia:POVWARRIOR) who remove entire chunks of material that is obviously based on their simple OPPOSDITION to Shach and an obvious hatred of him that is the hallmark of such pro-Chabd editors, and that is not acceptable. Attacking Shach and freely allowing denigrating reports while fighting tooth and nail against a more neutral and positive description of this important and historical Haredi leader is very unfortunate and has turned this article into a prime example of WP:BATTLEGROUND where one set of pro-Chabad editors stand guard to fight anything they seem to hate. Debresser is a more experienced and balanced editor and his edits are reasonable. But the attitude and style of the others is wild and unacceptable they often throw out the baby with the bathwater and it must stop. IZAK (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what your problem is IZAK. I definitely don't hate Rav Schach or any rabbi but if you have important data with good sources - put it in. Im NOT pro or anti chabad either so not sure what your problem is!? Sounds like you want a fake and rosy picture of someone who really made a habit of attacking other rabbis and groups and you just want the article to read like Santa Claus?! I only edit the way I do and never registered or anything but STILL not sure what your problem really is and I'm not qualified to help you.If you want a ridiculous and unbeleivable hagiography without good sources that probably wont sit well with most contributors then that is NOT my problem and sorry if it is yours. Chill out pal. Shalom!--72.38.87.230 (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Um hi there 72.38.87.230 (or whoever you are) please stop going to extremes with comments like: "Sounds like you want a fake and rosy picture of someone who really made a habit of attacking other rabbis and groups and you just want the article to read like Santa Claus?!" Because:

1. Nobody wants either a "fake" or "rosy" picture, but neither does anybody want an attack article from one POV, yours.
2. A rabbi who lived over 100 years and led a major part of Haredi Jewry in Israel was not just "someone" who "only" made a habit of attacking other rabbis. He surely did lots of good as well, isn't that what rabbis do, perform good deeds because they are good people, otherwise what kind of rabbis are they? Napoleon also attacked a lot of people, so did every leader in history and that does not make them all bad, but here in this Shach article editors like you only want to emphasize the NEGATIVE, and that is no mitzva.
3. This article, as it stands is obviously hemmed in by editors such as yourself who do not allow a full and objective picture of the subject to emerge, since you are so determined to focus on some critical public statements this rabbi made. You cite all sorts of WP policies but they are all just grand excuses to stifle this article from becoming a better one.
4. No one wants this or any article to read like it was about Santa Claus, itself a terrible thing to compare a major Jewish religious leader to a symbol of Christianity, and no, no one should want to paint a picture of the 7th and last Lubavitcher Rebbe as if he were better than Jesus Christ (just to follow in the kind of religio-historical analogies you make here) so please stop it with the wise-cracks.
5. Shach was a major figure, as a rabbi, and yes, as a key figure in Israel. He also was very outspoken and he was very politically active in Israel. He broke away from his own political party (Aguda) created a new Sefardi party (Shas) and then created a new party (Degel HaTorah) so this is not a minor figure.
6. Given that rabbis, especially many prominent rabbis in Israel are given to hyperbole, Shach's outspokennes and penchant for speaking his mind made headlines -- that the secular media blew out of proportion, but Shach was merely speaking about and verbalized the notions current in the kind of Haredi circles he led, the Lithunain yeshiva people. He was a very STRONG leader and with that came consequences.
7. But unfortunately, to the Chabad movement he has become something of an "anti-Christ" figure because he dared to directly criticize the 7th and last Lubavitcher Rebbe, which is the ONLY reason so many pro-Chabad editors come to this page and perennially squat on it in the hope of slinging mud at Shach, make him seem like an irrational person and try every avenue of the very attacks they try to pin on Shach. All a very sad state of affairs and WP suffers because of this kind of violation of WP:NOTCENSORED. IZAK (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

3. The full picture includes the fact that he was a controversial person, as you can see from this talkpage alone. And Shach was rather extreme in this regard. IZAK should not try to diminish that fact.

7. After saying in point 4 that you don't want Shach compared to "Santa Claus" and adding an insulting comparison, you yourself call Shach an "anti-Christ". :) And no, you need not reply to this. Debresser (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

IZAK's edit appears to be well-sourced and reasonable. Diverging opinions cited to reliable sources should also be included, if these exist. hgilbert (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Quote from book "Raising Roses Among the Thorns"

Please see Fladrif's comments here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_146#Quote_from_book_.22Raising_Roses_Among_the_Thorns.22_regarding_Rabbi_Elazar_Shach

Assuming no valid objections are raised, I will be restoring the information shortly. Thanks

Yonoson3 (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem here. An interesting quote. Although not sure how important. Debresser (talk) 07:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

In agreement with Yonoson, and it is very important particularly since the question of drafting Haredi yeshiva students is now even more a key topic of public discussion in Israel, after the latest Israeli elections with the Haredi leaders now in opposition it has become one of the biggest and most divisive hot potatoe political and religious issues in Israel. IZAK (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree. If that what it is about, then that is important and actual. Debresser (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: Per WP:RSN: "Resolved: Clearly a reliable source. Underlying disputes should be raised at another DR board. Fladrif (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC) [8]" Thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi IZAK, thanks for the input.

Just want to clarify something, though. The quote from the book "Raising Roses Among the Thorns" (1) is not about the Haredi draft. That is from a different book, "Israel and the Politics of Jewish Identity: The Secular-Religious Impasse" (2).

But either way, Fladrif agreed that the quotes from both books are reliable. Yonoson3 (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Quote from book "Israel and the Politics of Jewish Identity: The Secular-Religious Impasse"

This was discussed at length here. Fladriff's conclusion: "Resolved: Clearly a reliable source. Underlying disputes should be raised at another DR board."

Assuming no valid objections are raised, I will be restoring the quote shortly. Thanks. Yonoson3 (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Edits and restoring previous version.

I've restored some information and undone a few of IZAK's edits of March 2013 which make no sense and had no consensus. If anybody wants to make major changes to the structure of a controversial article they should seek consensus first and that way we can avoid a lot of the wars that went on here in the past.--C Steffen 21:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talk • contribs)

Position on territorial compromise

I've removed the statement added by Yonoson3 claiming that Ovadia Yosef 'concurred with Shach's opinion' on this issue since the sources provided don't even mention Shach so its pure wp:synth. Please don't put back any info that isn't properly sourced and really, PLEASE don't fabricate sources!--C Steffen 02:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talk • contribs)

Ideologue and Zealot

These people are NOT described in their Wikipedia summaries as ideologues and zealots: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Hassan Nasrallah, Osama Bin Laden, Louis Farrakhan.

Apparently, these biased, hateful words are reserved by Jewish Wikipedia editors to use against learned rabbis only. I removed them and they were replaced. I removed them again. This is not the encyclopedia style that is supposed to be maintained here! MosheEmes (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, the editor who replaced those words claimed that they were "sourced" (from a Haaretz article, which is a newspaper generally unsympathetic to Haredim). I can't find the original online but I reworded it to sound more neutral and kept the source reference. I see no problem with that. MosheEmes (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right, MosheEmes. WP:LABEL, part of the Manual of Style, says that "Value-laden labels ... may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. In some cases, in-text attribution might be a better option." If it is necessary to use the words "ideologue" and "zealot"—and I don't believe it is—we should say something like "Haaretz described Shach as an ideologue and zealot". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I think this is another case of censoring Wikipedia (the first being when Shlomo Sand was not called "controversial", despite multiple reliable sources saying precisely that). The strange thing is that some editors prefer removing factually correct, neutrally worded, relevant and reliably sourced information from articles, and there is no outcry. Well, at least I want to register my strong disagreement with this approach. I think the words "zealot" and "ideologue" must stay. Debresser (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

To counter the argument as though the text should use a qualifier like "has been described as". First of all, I can live with that, by way of compromise. But actually, this is not necessary, according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If the source is reliable, then on Wikipedia we do not have to use such qualifiers. The opposite would lead to ridiculous situations, where every statement would need to be qualified in such a way. Debresser (talk) 05:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd also ask MosheEmes to not compare the rabbi to terrorists, as that makes the argument emotional instead of rationale.

Another form of compromise I could live with is have a more moderate sentence in the lead, and move the present sentence to the Political life section. Debresser (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Debresser, the sentence in question was lifted word-for-word from the Haaretz article.[9] As I see it, we have three choices: (a) set it off in quotation marks and attribute it, (b) remove it as a copyright violation, or (c) paraphrase it. Until we decide, I've been bold and taken course (a). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I like Malik's solution. I also think it's an exaggeration to compare this to the Sand case. I would not have made a fuss if the intro simply said Rabbi Shach was controversial. He was. "Ideologue" may be accurate but it has a negative connotation and the same could be said about secular leaders like Golda Meir. Just it won't be said because more people like her. So she's described positively as "strong-willed and straight-talking". "Zealot" is even worse, as if he's going around fomenting revolution or something. MosheEmes (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that since it is a direct quotation, it must be ascribed to its source, per Wikipedia:Quotations. I repeat my proposal to move this sentence to the Political life section, especially since it is too specific now for the lead. Debresser (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I implemented Debresser's proposal and inserted the sentence where it seemed to make sense in the flow of the political life section. MosheEmes (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)