Talk:Yitzhak Kaduri/Archive 1

Archive 1

official Website

It is obviously not his official Website. This should be corrected.Ortho 03:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Rebbe

Apparently the Lubavitcher Rebbe promised him in 1990 that he would see Moshiach. The Arutz 7 sources do emphatically not say that in 2003 he met the Rebbe! I therefore stand by my edit comment[1] that such suggestions are Meschichist propaganda, even if the user who inserts them may not be a meschichist. JFW | T@lk 08:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Again... I NEVER SAID SO. And one source from A7 does not say so (nor did I say it says so). This source (and it is very easy to find other sources, though most be`ivrit) says that the Rav Kaduri zya"a said he met the man he considers to be today's candidate for being Mashia`h ben David on Nov. 4th 2003. Obviously it is not the Rebbe he is speaking about. Re-read my statement re. the illogism of saying I said so. Again, to make it clear, my sentence properly read does NOT say that in 2003 he met the Rebbe. OF COURSE NOT. Your edit comment did not speak of Meshichist propanda (i.e. Meshichism) but of a "Chabad Meshichist" which naturally is taken personally with words like "go away". hasofer 09:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Possibly I misread the original version. Please avoid jargon, hebraisms and non-English terminology as much as possible. It should make sense to a non-Hebrew-reading non-Jewish reader. JFW | T@lk 11:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten the paragraph to make more sense to the English reader. Nowhere is there proof that Kaduri's passing is regarded as a sign that Moshiach should be coming. If anything, the Ben Ish Chai and the Lubavitcher Rebbe promised him that he would live to see the Moshiach, something that has not happened. JFW | T@lk 11:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well... he`hakham Kaduri zya"a did say (and the different "news" do say so [2]) that not only he was revealed the identity of what `Haza"l called Mashia`h ben David but he met him in person on that day, 9 Mar`Heshvan 5764! Nowhere did I write that the passing is regarded as a sign..., I just wrote that it fosters hopes. hasofer 17:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Though I understand the sound purpose of your edits I find many details to be then far from exact. I will try to correct what I can. hasofer 17:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

What is not exact? And "fostering hopes" is also original research if this cannot be backed up with reliable sources. JFW | T@lk 17:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Converting 9 Mar`Heshvan 5764 to only 3 November 2004 (since though it starts with the evening if one retains only one date, it should be 4 November 2004); `Het of nachalat as "ch" and then as "h" in Yitzhak; ... This fostering of hopes is no original research since one can find many examples of ref. on the internet which speak about that. Nevertheless, thanks for this work/discussion ... now the page looks much better and unless someone comes in to break everything (which is normal for a wiki, I am aware of that), this is a good start for the page on this great meqoubal zya"a. hasofer 18:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

need for picture

Maybe to show how modest the Rabbi was, but the article deserves a picture. If anyone has a personal non-copyrighted picture, please upload. --Shuki 19:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this article still a stub?

--Shuki 19:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope. JFW | T@lk 21:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply

What u mean by stub, also his last name is mispelled! I corrected! - 64.107.3.126

Nonsense. "Kaduri" is the spelling for correct prononciation for english speakers. hasofer 00:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that you should refer to that anonymous poster's contribution as vandalism. S/he should have looked at the talk page discussion first vis a vis the date discussion, and the spelling claim seems more French oriented, but it certainly was not vandalism. I suggest that 64.107.3.126 (from Illinois) registers and reads up on Wiki-ettiquette. --Shuki 07:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I do think that changing the date to 1899 without bringing any info towards that claim and changing the name's spelling only once is "some-sort" of vandalism. I am also french speaking and as a sefaradi I would naturally write the name of the `hakham zekher tsadiq livrakhah as Yits`haq Kadouri... but that is not the point. As I was often reminded this is the Wikipedia for english speakers/readers. hasofer 08:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that the correct spelling should be "Kadouri." This is the way I have always seen it in publications in Israel. I'm sorry I made a few goof-ups in moving this page to the proper spelling, but in the end I accomplished it, and fixed all the links as well. Yoninah 21:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Who let you move the page?! Did you set up a vote? I consider this bordering on vandalism. --Shuki 22:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not vandalism, but it was done without any attempt to achieve consensus here. See my vote below: Google seems to favour the former spelling. JFW | T@lk 03:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Birthdate

Dear Shuki: Are the two clues about Rabbi Kadouri's age independent of each other? If not, then it's obvious that he was born on Shabbat Chol Hamoed Sukkot. Yoninah 13:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is it obvious? Yes, I heard one (chol hamoed sukkot) from the Rabbi of the Nahalat Yitzhak Synagogue, and the other (Tishrei Shabbat) has been widely quoted elsewhere. --Shuki 14:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, fine, so they're independent clues and we can leave as is. Yoninah 14:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy and sources

"These statements were later refuted by his close associates."

Which associates? What's the source? If such a source exists, has the source been verified?

"Kadouri reportedly received blessings from the Ben Ish Chai (Rabbi Yosef Chaim of Baghdad) in 1908[2] and from the Lubavitcher Rebbe (Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson) in 1990[3] that he would witness the coming of the Messiah."

The Baba Sali reportedly made a similar pronouncement, as well.

"Other sources say these blessings were for arichat yamim, long life, which was certainly reflected in his advanced age."

Which sources? HKT 16:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear HKT, thank you for these good points. As a resident of Jerusalem, I can tell you that many provocative statements are often issued in the name of kabbalists such as Rav Kadouri, as well as community leaders such as Rav Yosef Shalom Eliashiv, with no confirmation from the tzaddik or gadol himself. Usually it's something "someone heard in his presence," and when it reaches a fever pitch in the public arena, someone else finally goes to the tzaddik's or gadol's gabbai (shammas), who denies that the rabbi ever said it. (These are the "close associates" I wrote into the article. As far as I know, the claims are circulated by word of mouth, and the denials are circulated by word of mouth. My husband and I have long ago learned that unless a proclamation or statement is signed by the gadol himself, you don't know where it came from.) The claims made in the article that Rav Kadouri said he met the Messiah, or that he received blessings from the Ben Ish Chai and the Lubavitcher Rebbe that he would live to see the Messiah, fall into this category of unsourced claims. Moreover, all the statements cited in the article are lifted from Haaretz, which is not the most reliable newspaper when it comes to haredi interests, and which also doesn't give the sources for these statements—just that "Rav Kadouri said them." Considering that Rav Kadouri was a very private individual, quite inaccessible except to give brachot (blessings), talked little, and didn't even publish his own novellae, I would say that ANY statements about what he said are extremely suspect. Yoninah 07:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

In other words, the statements have not really been "refuted by his close associates"; you simply question the veracity of claims that Rabbi Kaduri made such statements, and you've heard rumors which seem to confirm your doubts. I appreciate your doubts regarding claims of Ha'aretz. Another source of these claims is Arutz 7. Arutz 7 reported that Yehoshua Meiri, both an Arutz 7 showhost and a student of R' Kaduri (reportedly a close student), reported as follows regarding R' Kaduri's activity a week before his passing:

Famed Kabbalist Rabbi Yitzhak Kaduri, who has been in serious condition in the hospital for 1.5 weeks, revived and spoke with his close associates for an hour and forty minutes after the end of the Sabbath, this past Saturday night. One of those people, Arutz-7 Hebrew radio showhost Yehoshua Meiri, related to Arutz-7 the rabbi’s words. The rabbi spoke in Hebrew; what follows is an approximate translation: “The Kabbalists will investigate my words... and will reveal the secret name of Moshiach which was revealed to me on Cheshvan 9, 5764 (November 4, 2003).” The rabbi said he actually met the person who will be Moshiach, on that date.

Meiri also reported that he was one of the four people with R' Kaduri in the room at the time. As I recall finding elsewhere, one of R' Kaduri's grandsons confirmed this. This wasn't reported as a rumor, and Arutz 7 has a reputation of at least not making things up outright. Arutz 7 also reported shortly after Yom Kippur that, on the afternoon of Yom Kippur, R' Kaduri publicly told his entire congregation that the higher soul of Moshiach had just begun to "impregnate" itself into the individual destined to be the Moshiach. This was also based on testimony from eyewitnesses (including Meiri, as I recall). You'd think that Arutz 7 would shy away from such an easily falsifiable rumor if they couldn't confirm it!

Further, regarding the statements of the Ben Ish Chai, et al., these have also been circulated by some of R' Kaduri's students. Perhaps some research on a search engine would yield more information and sources for this. It should at least be worthwhile to do some research or ask someone if they're aware of sources before dismissing these claims out of hand. A few months ago, a shammas of R' Kaduri denied that he made a certain statement, yet R' Kaduri summarily confirmed that he did indeed make the statement. The shammas had apparently not even bothered to ask the Rabbi.

In any event, myself being familiar with the "facts on the ground" (I attended the funeral procession), I appreciate that false statements can appear in the name of a gadol, even with his name printed at the bottom. However, I didn't need to come to Jerusalem to be in touch with this reality, and I don't think that being here should be used as an intrinsic mark of credibility. HKT 17:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Spelling: Kaduri or Kadouri

Vote

Please vote:

• Kaduri - I suggest the article be moved back to the original spelling.--Shuki 01:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Kaduri. Google Yitzchak Kadouri yields 139 hits vs. 10,000 for Yitzchak Kaduri. Seems to be the favoured spelling in English publications. JFW | T@lk 03:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I am really sorry I caused so much trouble and ruffled a few feathers. What happened was that last night I read an authoritative eulogy/biography about Rabbi Kadouri, and looked up whether Wikipedia had a page on it or not. Not finding one (or any redirects from Kadouri to Kaduri, or any alternate spellings within the article, like: Yitzchak Kaduri, also spelled Kadouri or Kadourie), I went ahead and composed my own article and saved it. When I entered it into Category:Orthodox rabbis, and checked into that category, lo and behold I saw the article already written under Yitzchak Kaduri! This necessitated another hour of going through the other article and adding my changes to it. I am sorry that I did not go through the consensus system. Perhaps there is no need for consensus if Kaduri gets so many more hits. How about if we just add the alternate spellings to the Kaduri article and call it a day? All the best, Yoninah 08:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Let's wait for Yirmiyahou. He seems to prefer the north-African/French spelling.JFW | T@lk 09:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks for waiting! Was for Shabbat in NY and everyone I met back there would spell it Kadouri for the following reasons: "K" for the kaf, "ou" for the Sefaradi/french-spelling which more befits a Sefaradi 'Hakham like 'hakham hameqoubal Yits'haq Kadouri zekher tsadiq livrakhah, the presence of the resh after the waw makes the "oo" sound last longer. However, keeping in mind this is the Wikipedia for english readers, I would still vote in favour of Kaduri with a mention for Kadouri (but then also to the full spelling Yits'haq Kadouri). Hope this helps. Yirmiyahou signing from 67.142.130.23 00:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • OK. In the meantime, I vote for Kadouri. Yoninah 12:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Kaduri with prominent mention of Kadouri. Tomer^talk 17:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Kaduri is the way I've seen it (mostly) written in the English language Jewish newspapers and books. IZAK 18:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the page as it appears that, that is consensus here. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 06:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

The Kohen issue surprises me. I have never seen that spelling anywhere. If we're using google as a standard, then 'C' gets almost 70 miilion hits, 'K' gets a few hundred thousand. I've opened a discussion on Talk:Kohen too. --Shuki 14:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It depends how you search. Cohen is a common surname. In those cases Google is not very helpful. In this case, I looked for alternative spellings of Yitzchak Kaduri and found that that is most common spelling. JFW | T@lk 03:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Why hasn't the spelling been changed to "Kaduri", as per consensus? HKT 16:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Age of Kaduri

Was he actually born in 1895? That makes him 110. JFW | T@lk 07:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know there are 2 versions about his age: 104 and 110--Fivetrees 23:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

No one is actually certain when he was born. It is estimated he was somewhere between 104 to 112. Killtan

If nobody is certain when he was born, then the exact date of 7 September 1898 should probably be removed. Ardric47 18:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverted. 212.201.72.122, please cite sources before changing the date. --Shuki 08:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the most recent article in the English Hamodia, his doctor says he was 112. Other estimates vary from 106 to 115. I changed his birthdate to "1894?" to conform to his doctor's assertion. Yoninah 21:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Pulling unsourced info from an interwiki site does not give it legitimacy. The Hebrew wiki is also not the basis for all Israel/Jewish-related pages for other language wikis. If we are comparing pages/versions, then it's obvious that the English page is much more expanded than the Hebrew and the Hebrew article should be copying info from here. --Shuki 19:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Inaproppiate image

The image of the funeral is irrelevant and even offensive. OK, somebody uploaded this photo, but it does not say that it should appear in the article. 18:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That's only your opinion. A funeral in which hundreds of thousands participate is a notable event at the end of anyone's life and pictures are actually encouraged on WP, not censored. --Shuki 19:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Age of Kaduri 2

While there is no contradiction to have several obituaries in the Ex links section, it is not productive to title them with their estiamte of the birthdate since that is not the main difference and it would simply detract from the article, and simply add more confusion. If you think it improves the article, please tell. --Shuki 11:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is obituary article, i think we need to point out the years, i am not putting those years in the article itself, only the link.

Dead link retrieved

[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.53.53 (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Rename

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Yitzchak Kaduri → Yitzhak Kaduri – Yitzhak is the standard transliteration of the name. Loew Galitz (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support – not because of the standard transliteration of the personal name, but because this form of his whole name is more common in English-language sources. Kanguole 10:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Subject's Age

Why can’t the subject’s birth be pinned more closely than eight years? Is this because he refused to reveal when he was born for some reason? From what I have read, the man was obviously intellectually brilliant and was said to have had a near photographic memory. Even if he was hazy about his year of birth, it is difficult to believe he could not recall events when he had been a child to more closely correlate his age to them. “I remember that when I was six, so and so was governor, or this or that event happened."

I certainly do not enjoy his intellectual prowess or exceptional memory, but even if I didn’t know exactly how old I am I could certainly correlate it closer than eight years. For example, when I was in fourth grade, President Kennedy was assassinated. Therefore, I must now be around 57. We’re not talking about a man from the Middle Ages, but rather one who just passed away a few years back. Why the mystery?HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a small fact that does not really matter and I doubt anyone would bother to ask him his age. Why is it so hard to accept that people who moved from a different country were given citizenship papers on which the clerks couldn't care less for accuracy or even proper spelling? I've heard a version of his actual birth year, but I have no RS to attribute, and it remains my OR. --Shuki (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Puzzled

What does this mean: where there wasn't an authomatic artificial respirator, which was donated by a close person. If there wasn't a respirator, there wasn't a respirator donated by anybody. If there was a respirator, why would he only use one if it was donated by a "close person". And what is a "close person"? --Dweller (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

fixed references

Half of the references were done wrong and I fixed them. Also, I removed a dead link. Why did someone revert them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.251.223 (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Whilst accessing WebCite, was flagged a high risk intrusion alert by protection software, the attacking computer was identified as 69.73.131.148,80 (www.webcitation.org).Cpsoper (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

I have made no edits (on this section - added for clarity 24/7), and I fully recognise this is a controversial field, but it's important to note that many of the Israeli and non-Israeli Jews who regard Yeshua of Nazareth as the Messiah would take exception to being called 'Hebrew Christians', and would identify themselves as Messianic Jews, and regard this as the upholding of authentic faith of their patriarchs, prophets and kings, in order to honour Torah. (For the record, I am a Gentile, deeply indebted to the Jews, both Rabbinic and Messianic). Cpsoper (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Cp, thanks for the response. Regardless of what people regard themselves, the fact remains that Judaism and Christianity are not the same religion. Judaism rejects the claims of Jesus and of the Christians, just as the Christians reject the claims of the Jews and of Judaism. We have had these kind of debates on WP for many years now and they are a big waste of everyone's time. WP is not a place to missionize and doing so violates WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Jews for Jesus types and Hebrew Christians are welcome to express themselves and describe and explain their points of view in their articles. What they should not do is invade articles about Haredi rabbis especially and allege that somehow or other that rabbi intimated that "Jesus is the Messiah" given his record as a respected sage. This is just bound to cause confusion and controversy and violates WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, not to mention WP:NOR and WP:NEO by insinuating in this article that Jesus is an ok guy with some big honcho rabbi when it's quite obvious that such a claim is false and fraudulent to anyone familiar with this subject. IZAK (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

So after the latest edit, we now have a non-RS, which was previously sourced for the messiah note, claiming it is a hoax. If it is a hoax, then the section should be contracted, or maybe dropped as some sort of non-event. I'll try to get some Hebrew sources about this event. --Shuki (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I credit you for your consistency in what you regard as RS, Shuki, though it would need more than a Hebrew source denying the note to overturn testimony in its favour, we have all been careful to maintain that it is purported and may be subject to dispute. If you find none, this reference either ought to be removed, (you may recall I raised this issue before with RR see above), or the other edits reallowed - as an old friend of the page, I defer to your choice. There are other sources from YK's seminary in its favour, apart from the 3 others already cited, which you dispute.Cpsoper (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yet another 'new' editor has readded the WDN reference. I have simply readded the old content and removed the non RS youtube ref. If one WDN ref is removed, out of consistency both should be, I regard both as reasonable, given they corroborate other sources. Cpsoper (talk) 06:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Protected

This article has been fully protected one week per a report at the edit-warring noticeboard. Please use this time to reach agreement on the issues that are causing discord. If there is a problem with unsourced information it is helpful if those concerned will look for sources. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this intervention. We'd welcome some proper input from Botsystem - I have had my suspicions he/she's a sockpuppet (straw or otherwise). I am happy to discuss the case further and reach further consensus here wherever possible. The details, from my perspective are in most cases listed above, sometimes repeatedly with different editors, happy to reiterate them succinctly at request on specific points. One point of contention relevant to the present edits (though only as sourcing a report botsystem has removed) is whether WND is RS here or not, it clearly has problems, not least with the birther issue - it's the only source we've so far found to suggest that Kaduri's son disputes the provenance of the note. I am ready to concede on this to proper majority opinion, though I think I'm one of three editors to suggest this source as appropriate here (though not only on the controversy of provenance), and I think there have been two editors opposed here and one on the RS noticeboard. Cpsoper (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I searched the archives at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The last full-length discussion of World Net Daily appears to be Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 80#World Net Daily - RS citation?, from 2010. The conclusion of that thread is that WND is reliable only for its own opinions. According to the editors in that thread, WND does not have 'a reputation for fact checking and accuracy'. If Yitzhak Kaduri is so widely known, surely he has been covered in regular newspapers, magazines and books. There ought to be some academic commentary on his career and movement. EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ed, thanks for hanging around after closing the WP:EWN thread. The issue isn't the ability to source the main, biographical part of the article, I have good sources for that and updating the article with them is on my list of things to get to. The issue is in the "Messiah" section, with this one sentence currently frozen in the article:

"This is also the Hebrew name of Jesus whom followers of Christianity and Messianic Judaism believe to be the Jewish Messiah."

This is the sentence that Botsystem has been slow edit-warring in, and I invite you to look at every one of the edits of his I listed here, they all put this sentence or something like it back in. The problems are 1) It's unsourced; and 2) Even if a reliable source is provided supporting the statement, it's textbook WP:SYNTH. These aren't subtle or tricky, subjective problems--they're very basic WP:V and WP:NOR no-nos. Every one of our attempts to get Botsystem to engage on the issue was ignored. What he typed into the WP:EWN notice was the very first time I've seen him actually address another editor about this.

Personally I the article right now is locked on the WP:WRONGVERSION, and Ed I invite you to consider removing the unsourced sentence until support can be found for it. From my experience with Botsystem (I invite you to look at his edits and edit summaries), because the article is locked in at his preferred version right now, he won't bother engaging in this discussion, and the purpose of locking the article to cause that discussion to happen won't be fulfilled. Zad68 02:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If your main disagreement is the 'Jewish Messiah' sentence, consider starting a thread at the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. That would allow you to get some outside opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Ed re WND, then strictly there's a lot of work to be done on the many pages, where WND is already cited in wiki, though not as a source of its own opinion, many controversial, a few listed above. The other sources currently cited are Maariv and Israel's News One, there are others listed above, like Kaduri's official website though not agreed upon. As to the controversial sentence, Zad raises, it has value in that it touches on why this reported disclosure was so striking. It could be removed without affecting the material content of the article. Cpsoper (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

OK Ed, I'll start with WP:AGF one more time and open a discussion about the sentence here, and send Botsystem a personal invitation to participate in the discussion. If he does not participate in the discussion (he hasn't yet), I'll open a WP:DRN discussion. Then we will hopefully have consensus regarding the sentence (with our without Botsystem's participation) once the page protection expires. Zad68 12:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

"Messiah" section?

Currently we only have one reliably-sourced sentence about how Kaduri stated that he had met the Messiah and expected his arrival soon. Is that enough to warrant a whole section titled "Messiah"? It seems WP:UNDUE to call out a whole section of this relatively short biography, call it "Messiah", and fill it with only one sentence. What are the benefits for doing it this way? Zad68 19:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

First, thanks for your helpful tidying up. However, don't run too fast, without some consensus, two RS sources support Kaduri's claim to meet the Messiah (Maariv and News One, which first broke the story). The note is multiply substantiated. As above, many other wiki editors disagree about the RS value of Israel Today and World News Daily (cautiously) in general, and the arguments for its specific use in this context as corroboration are given above. Then there is kaduri.net, which reportedly officially represented the rabbi during his life, which carried the story and still carries the note, and this year continues to carry speculation about its significance. Shuki, has agreed with us before about News One. It has also been a matter of considerable interest, in Rabbinic, Messianic, Gentile Christian and even Muslim circles. In addition, no source has been cited to directly dispute its provenance, though WDN's quoting of the interview with his son, David, has been cited to contest it. If you look at the history of the edits on this section, you will see that the note is what generated the Messiah section originally. Cpsoper (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

How is quoting the text of the note in original Hebrew OR? It simply enables Hebrew readers, which many readers of this page may be, direct access to the original meaning of the note. Cpsoper (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cpsoper, this article does need quite a bit more tidying on its way to becoming a proper Wikipedia biography.

The issue isn't whether or not there are sources of some reliability that report he left a note. The issue is WP:UNDUE. Of all the things that Kaduri did and said during his life, why is this one episode regarding this note give so much weight? If it's debatable whether it was Kaduri himself who even wrote the note, and there is nothing authoritative from Kaduri himself as to what the note means, I don't see how it meets the Wikipedia policy regarding WP:UNDUE to give it a whole section. Can you please explain? Zad68 20:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The WP:OR is first in the English translation, "he will raise the people and confirm that his word and Law are standing". This is not in the source cited. Whose translation is this? The second bit of WP:OR is "This note is slightly ungrammatical, and the words form a Hebrew acronym, a kabbalistic device, for the name 'Yehoshua'." This is not in the source cited. Whose analysis is this? I hope you don't mind if I remove this, which appears to be WP:OR, until we can find a reliable source for it. Zad68 20:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting for the snail! The English translation is literal and directly from the Hebrew, please refine it or cite a source rather than just remove meaningful content. As to the issue of grammar and its significance as a kabblistic text, this is a repeated theme in pages on kaduri.net and other analyses. It's easy to show that the 'she d'varim' is not grammatical, however I grant the point, since these sources have been disputed, and this part of the section may be properly removed. I think the kabbalistic acronym, which is of course the heart of the controversy, ought to remain.

As to the question of undue weight. The sage himself was increasingly preoccupied with the Messiah and his advent in his last years, as both undisputed RS sources testify amply. This note was reportedly sealed at his request for a year. That indicates his own concern for its importance. Are the last words of a dying man of undue weight? The rabbi himself begs to differ from you, Zad. Cpsoper (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Zad, please don't remove the translation for English readers. Cpsoper (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you understand the very contentious nature of providing an original, uncredited English translation of something regarded as religious text. (Surely you've looked at how different bible translations can be...) Regardless, I put it back per your request, but let's find an authoritative source for the translation, or at least provide an attribution for the translation. Zad68 20:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding weight, let's flesh out the rest of the article and see where this falls. Zad68 20:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: Edited "the name of the Messiah, 'Yehoshua'" to "the name 'Yehoshua.'" because Wikipedia should not make a claim to know what the name of the Messiah is, or even agree with the idea there is one. Zad68 21:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree about translation, that's why I chose the most literal. The translation programs/websites are hopeless with such phrases. WND (which I recognise you dispute, and I also have reservations about) is a little more interpretative [http://www.wnd.com/2007/05/41669/] ' He will lift the people and prove that his word and law are valid'. What about using this a s a soucre only for the translation? Incidentally, though it is not RS, and not worthy of inclusion in the page here's an example of discussion about the issue of grammatical nature of the note [4]. Cpsoper (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate others may not agree, I have added a reference for the image only from kaduri.net. It is a higher resolution image, unblemished with NFC's logo, and better analysed than the news one site. We have discussed kaduri.net here before, I do not intend to use it for any other purpose than sourcing the image itself.Cpsoper (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I have uploaded and inserted this image of the note, File:Yitzhak_Kaduri's_note.jpg under fair use from the Kaduri.net website, though the image is identical to the NFC image. Cpsoper (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Section break

Cpsoper, regarding As to the question of undue weight. The sage himself was increasingly preoccupied with the Messiah and his advent in his last years, as both undisputed RS sources testify amply. This note was reportedly sealed at his request for a year. That indicates his own concern for its importance. Are the last words of a dying man of undue weight? The rabbi himself begs to differ from you, Zad.: The "last words of a dying man" are not what Wikipedia editors are supposed to take into account in assessing weight, and it causes me concern that you would offer this as an argument. Instead, we need to refer to Wikipedia policy and guideline. Wikipedia guidelines advise us in determining WP:WEIGHT with: "each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint."

In practice, what this leads us to do is assess how much and how deep the coverage reliable sources have given to such an episode relative to the coverage the sources have devoted to all the other aspects of the man's life. The very fact that this article has been picking at scraps from very questionable sources like WND and Israel Today to piece together a separate "Messiah" section is a red flag that the article is featuring this material way out of proportion to actual, genuine reliable source coverage of it. Add that to the fact that significant sections of this biography, like the sections on his youth, education, and rise to notability--the sections which are really the "meat" of a Wikipedia biography--are entirely unsourced (including direct quotes!), and it begins to appear that this biography is being maintained for reasons other than presenting a neutral, reliably-sourced, fact-based biography in line with other Wikipedia biographies.

So, let's move this biography in the direction it needs to move in. I'll start pulling some reliable sources to get the youth, education and other sections sourced, and we can then see whether there needs to be a separate "Messiah" section. Zad68 03:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Cpsoper, on a first look through sources:

• In Highbeam newspaper archives, I found no reliable sources that mention the note.
• In Google Scholar, I found no reliable sources that mention the note.
• In Google Books, I found no reliable academic books that mention the note.
• In Google Books, I found two mentions in Christian evangelical books, both of them quoting the Christian evangelical Israel Today.

There isn't a case here for a separate "Messiah" section regarding this note, and I am beginning to question whether this belongs in the article at all. Zad68 04:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, for your labours in tidying this whole page up considerably. The credit for the foundation work on the page belongs to Shuki and others, but it has needed refining. I recognise and respect your experience and acquaintance with wiki policies, and have read the sections you allude to. With respect though, you had already removed the section, after pruning it down rapidly, whilst acknowledging that is has been better referenced than other sections. May I suggest this may hint at a certain perspective on the note itself? I have not concealed my own, but falteringly sought to represent it objectively, with others helping. The question about the rabbi's views remains highly salient. If he isn't allowed to act as a reliable (albeit primary) source for his own life and views, then I irreverently suggest there may be a problem with the guidelines. If, God forbid, we were ever to become the subjects rather than editors of a page, would not our own diaries and memos, during critical times, even if remotely but reliably accessible from proper sources carry similar weight to a perfunctory but widely publicised public obituary. This seems properly encyclopedic and far from OR to me. I don't mean to suggest Shuki's and other editors' work is perfunctory, far from it, but according to the sources we do have this note meant a great deal to the rabbi. He was a well known figure in Israel, but it would also be incautious to suggest the note was welcome, and the complete silence even of a public denial of its provenance for so widely if informally published a phenomenon is itself noteworthy. Was it not known about? Hardly - even now, 7 years after the event a google search for 'Kaduri's note' returns over 36,000 hits. At the very least, it is a phenomenal rumour.

As to the RS sources, News First's editor is a reputable, professional journalist who now works for Maariv. He has reported on Kaduri repeatedly and plainly had contacts in his seminary. He reports seeing the note at first hand. Kaduri.net is an important contextual source, having reportedly acted as the rabbi's official representative during his life. It still hosts the highest resolution image of the note, and discussion about it. Israel Today has been widely cited in Wiki, on a wide variety of subjects as RS, including some highly controversial and it's not surprising academics elsewhere continue to cite it. It claims to have had direct access to some participants in the reaction to the note and uniquely reported David Kaduri's reaction. I share concern about WDN, its involvement in the birther controversy was shamefully partisan (although Obama's own literary agent acknowledged unwittingly promoting his 'Kenyan' orgins recently), but I can think of equally if not more egregious examples by much better known sources, also regarded as RS. WDN has been cited in wiki nearly 500 times as RS. WDN may have picked up the story from the other sources, but their reputation (albeit such as it is, depended on double checking these) and their reporting does, this time, seem nuanced and balanced.

The case for retaining this section remains strong. If you'd like us to seek further advice from senior editors, whom we'd both agree don't have a preformed view on this, I'm happy to go down that road, and bow to the ultimate consensus. Feel free to come back robustly - I'm happy to weigh up these questions more thoroughly here or privately. Best wishes. Cpsoper (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

More POV editing, without discussion here and without referencing, I think most of this should be reverted - others' views? Cpsoper (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, reverted. Zad68 13:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"Note" proposal

Cpsoper, I've been thinking about this. My assessment is that we have two groups of biographical information with distinctly different levels of source quality:

• We have the large, general section of the biography, which can be sourced from (generally) unquestioned WP:RS reputable sources such as biographies published by respected national newspapers, and with information cross-confirmed by these sources. I have found more biographic sources for Kaduri than what's in this article, and they're from WP:RS reputable sources--the Jerusalem Post, Knight-Ridder, the Guardian (UK). Real, good WP:RS sources.
• We have a small section regarding some poorly-sourced information and claims regarding "the note." All of this information is originally sourced from an interview done by the Messianic/Christian evangelical "Israel Today," which cannot be considered a WP:RS for these claims in this article. It was picked up and repeated by NFC. WND is not a WP:RS, kaduri.net is a WP:SPS and cannot be used to support any biographical claim in this article. Lots of Christian evangelical sites republish these claims, and I even found a mention of it in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, which may be interesting in the various articles about Christian evangelism, but they're not useful to include in this biographic article about Kaduri.

I do not feel any of sources for the "note" content meet WP:RS for inclusion in Wikipedia. The sources aren't good enough, and certainly don't rise to the quality level of the sources available for the rest of the article. However, there does seem to be interest to have Wikipedia carry something about this note.

Here is my compromise proposal: We create a new article Yitzhak Kaduri "messiah" note and move the content about it to this article. The main article Yitzhak Kaduri will have a brief mention of the note and have a link to Yitzhak Kaduri "messiah" note. Keep in mind that this new article will have to abide by all of Wikipedia's policy and rules regarding sourcing, WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, etc. just like all other Wikipedia articles. This will allow Wikipedia to have this content without lowering the overall sourcing quality of the main Yitzhak Kaduri article, and will also elimininate the WP:UNDUE problem that currently exists with the "Messiah" section in the main article. Also, the "note" article will then justifiably be able to expand its coverage of the subject to include speculation by evangelical Messianic/Christian groups, including the well-sourced claims of those groups about what they think the note means, and also the well-sourced responses of others regarding those claims. A detailed "note" discussion is undue, inappropriate and off-topic for this general biography article about Kaduri, and I will continue to make Wikipedia policy-based arguments for its removal if it keeps getting added back here. However, such content would be appropriate in the new "note" article.

What do you think? If you agree I will ago ahead and do this.

P.S. There's no need for us to get into this "robustly," which sound like an invitation to aggressive debate--not necessary. Zad68 14:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this constructive proposal, and some interesting observations, Zad, I've just lost my lengthier reply, but here's the nub. I'm cautious about this. I don't see the need for a new page on the note, let alone speculation on it, in an encyclopaedia. The rabbi's repeatedly reported preoccupation with the Messiah and purported care for the note, the massive interest in it, seem grounds for appending a modest and precise additional section. I've agreed about removing what may be seen as OR, (though not originating here). I think the references to the note should either be retained here or removed wholesale.

As to the sources, NFC was probably first on the scene. As discussed above, they report having the note in hand, and had sources in the seminary, and reported on the Messianic interests of Kaduri before Maariv and A7. Israel Today may have followed NFC or may have had independent sources. I haven't pressed for their inclusion, in face of others' doubts. Kaduri.net may be argued to be WP:SELFPUB given its reported function as an official mouthpiece for the rabbi during his life. Its image of the note [5] is higher res and better quality than NFC's [6], lacks its logo, and corroborates its value as a source. Again in the face of others' doubt, I have not pressed it. I respect your views and those of others on WDN and Israel Today, and acknowledge they are shared, though there is plenty of dissent elsewhere on wiki on this. Again I have not pressed either of these sources, though their reporting on this issue seems balanced and nuanced, other than asking for outside comment - which has been remarkably absent.

I share your concern about multiple, radical edits from new editors, with strong opinions but weak or absent references (- perhaps from a fairly limited no of sources). If you desire, I'm still happy to formally seek other senior, independent opinion. Best wishes, Charles Cpsoper (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

More somewhat off the subject and tendentious editing by Botsystem. Again, I think this last edit should be reverted. I invite him to discuss his edits here. Cpsoper (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

More assertions of 'vandalism' by botsystem and two warning notices sent to me, for reverting what other editors have already agreed is off the subject editing. I have partially reverted this again. It may be appropriate to seek outside resolution, but there is a troubling lack of participation by this editor here so far, despite direct invitations. Sockpuppetry perhaps? Cpsoper (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Please cite references for the controversy amongst rabbinic Jews before reposting. Justify relevance of inclusion of dispensational Christian doctrine in this section (reference to Armageddon and AntiChrist). Cpsoper (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of "This is also the Hebrew name..." sentence

There is a dispute regarding whether the following sentence (or one like it) should be in the article:

"This is also the Hebrew name of Jesus whom followers of Christianity and Messianic Judaism believe to be the Jewish Messiah."

According to Wikipedia policy, this sentence should be removed for the following reasons:

1. It is unsourced and so fails the Wikipedia policy regarding verifiability.
2. Even if it were sourced with a good reliable source, it is textbook synthesis and so fails the Wikipedia policy regarding no original research.

Are there any Wikipedia policy-based reasons for including this sentence? Zad68 12:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for crystallising this. I don't think there's any doubt the bald statement in isolation is verifiable, it's hardly a controversial claim. However it is speculative to link the statement here to whatever Kaduri's reported note actually referred to, I agree it represents OR and a synthesis of unsubstantiated views. Cpsoper (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem Charles. Also, Dispute Resolution case been opened here. Zad68 14:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The juxtaposition of this statement - which may be correct, serves to imply a context of Kaduri's note which is not supported by any sources. A source must be found that links the two to support the inclusion of this sentence. Ankh.Morpork 14:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree Ankh, textbook WP:SYNTH. Zad68 14:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

...and after looking at Jesus#Etymology_of_name, I'd even go further than that to say that the Aramaic and Hebrew spellings usually given for Jesus do not match the note acronym. Zad68 14:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I personally think that DRN is unnecessary and you're using sledgehammer to crack a nut. (e.t.p) The edit clearly runs counter to Wiki policy and is only supported by a single editor that has thus far declined to explain his position. Ankh.Morpork 14:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I hear ya, brother. However, the admin who handled the WP:EWN case, EdJohnston (talk · contribs), recommended to me several times to open a WP:DRN case, so I did. Zad68 14:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You will be waiting a long time for that statement...You might find RFC an easier form of dispute resolution in seemingly clear-cut instances such as this, especially when there is only a single disputant. Ankh.Morpork 14:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to follow process and do as Ed recommended. Ed recommended DRN several times, and as he was the handling admin at my EWN case, if I opened another path as well, it would look like forum-shopping, and the first thing another admin looking in on this would say is, "Why didn't you try what Ed said?" I've never done DRN before so this is a learning experience for me, and I don't mind that. However, nothing stops another editor from opening an RFC independently. Personally, I would rather that not happen, as I'd like to see how DRN works. Zad68 15:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Good luck. I just hope this learning experience isn't confined to a class of one. Ankh.Morpork 15:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

May I offer my own opinion? The word "Yehoshua" in Hebrew translates into Joshua, not Jesus, which is "Yeshu." This is just the Hebrew language, and anyone who speaks Hebrew can tell you that. Furthermore, as stated above, it'd be synthesis, and is unreferenced anyway. No point in the edit. --Activism1234 03:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Activism, looks like you're on board with myself and Ankh and Cpsoper. The one editor we really need to have engage with us in this discussion is Botsystem. Zad68 04:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

If an editor is refusing completely to discuss - and you've given them ample time (more than a day) - there is nothing you can do. You have significant support from a variety of editors that this edit has no place in the article. The views of Botsystem will hardly change that. Especially if the editor is simply refusing to participate. If they're refusing to participate, how can we count their views? It shows that the editor just doesn't care to participate in the discussion concerning the edit - and thus makes it irrelevant. --Activism1234 04:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

And should Botsystem eventaully choose to participate in the discussion, even if that's only in a week or a month from now, by all means go ahead and reopen it. I doubt it will change much, but we simply can't wait forever if an editor isn't going to discuss. --Activism1234 04:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Though on another point, Jesus is an Anglicised version of the Greek, ιησους , which is the common LXX translation for Joshua or its shortened Hebrew version Jeshua or Yeshua, ישוע בנ־נון of Neh.8.17.Cpsoper (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Cpsoper is correct. The Greek New Testament follows the Pentateuch (the LXX) when referring to identities from the Tanakh. ιησους is what the Pentateuch uses for Joshua (Yehoshua), and Neh 8:17 uses "Yeshua son of Nun" as a variant for "Yehoshua son of Nun". So the obvious interpretation is that the Hebrew name of ιησους (Jesus) was Yeshu, itself a variant form of Yehoshua (see the wikipedia entry for Yeshua). The existing sentence really seems weird and communicates a degree of anxiety. It reads "According to popular belief it means jesus, which is incorrect because jesus' name was Yashkah and was not Yehoshua." Why does the present edit put the name of jesus with a lower case "j". Is this meant to be a sign of disrespect or contempt? And why is it claimed that the Hebrew name of Jesus is Yashkah? Isn't Yashkah the name pious Jews use to refer to Jesus in order to avoid mentioning the name "Jesus"? Perhaps it would be better to say something like 'The reading "Yeshoshua" has excited interest from those who identity this as the Hebrew name of Jesus of Nazareth (see Yeshua).' Eagleswings (talk) 06:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Eagleswings' post, although I don't think it's necessary to insert a Christian transliteration into a page about a Jewish rabbi, it is widely acknowledged that Jesus' name is shared with Joshua's (or properly Jehoshua), sometimes shortened as Yeshua.Cpsoper (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Back to the topic... The page protection will expire tonight, but I probably won't be around to edit when it does. As everyone participating in this discussion is in agreement that the sentence doesn't meet Wikipedia policy, anyone who's around should feel free to remove it. Zad68 19:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The Messiah

Of course, no mention of the note here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.173.75 (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no RS to base that claim which would otherwise contradict the basis of Kaduri's belief. --Shuki (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The controversy about Kadouri's cryptic reference by acronym to 'Jehoshua' is noteworthy and still attracts considerable interest and speculation. It is reported the sealed note to be opened a year after death contained the message, 'Yarim Ha'Am VaYokhiakh ShDvaro VaTorato 'Amdim' (He will raise the nation and prove his word and law are standing).Published images of the note are widepread accompanied by evidence of its authenticity, it is widely reported that it was also initially published by kadouri.net. What purpose the censoring of the issue here? Link to copy of original removed on 23rd May to avoid violating copyright, but a quick search will reveal copies of the article quickly. Cpsoper (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Please bring RS. --Shuki (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you consider Kadouri.net a reliable source on Yitzhak Kadouri? Cpsoper (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean Kaduri.net? No, it fails RS and I wouldn't even attribute anything to it. Looks like a partisan 'news' site friendly to Yehoshua Meiri who seems to be a controversial figure in Rav Kaduri's past. --Shuki (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct Kaduri.net, thanks for the comments, though if Kaduri.net had been started by Yitzhak Kaduri and his disciples, and was under their control at the time, its report seems to carry weight as an authentic witness - is this untrue? What about the article in Israel Today, on 30th April 2007, RS or not? Screenshots of the item are still available, [7] and there are also several published copies of the full text still extant, which agree with each other. There are of course also many images of the note itself, [8]. from the other early source News First Class, plus of course Maariv, which asserted the note was forged and World Net Daily, which you have already expressed objections to. May I ask do you object to the historicity of these accounts? Cpsoper (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I have found an archive of the Israel Today webpage, actually updated after it was first put up: Rabbi Reveals Name of the Messiah. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I have sought advice on the adequacy of these sources please join us there.Cpsoper (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The notice board is now archived | hereCpsoper (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Have updated links above to comply with copyright policy.Cpsoper (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It is imperative to bring RS, especially to report such controversial claims in WP. Kaduri.net is not RS, and I seriously doubt that the rabbi himself started it, seeing that the site feuds with his children. --Shuki (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to have missed the noticeboard discussion. As you can see, I was off-wiki for many days. --Shuki (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Where is the evidence kaduri.net 'feuds' with his children? Was this only evident after the note affair or before too? Cpsoper (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Shuki, you reject the reliability of Israel Today, WND and Kaduri.net, but why do you also reject the testimony of News One? Maariv, which you accept, has restored Yoav Yitzhak to its staff. This multiply attested act of Kaduri appears to have been of great importance to the rabbi, though I grant its intended significance is subject to interpretation, which does not warrant speculation here. Why reject it as though it were a mere act of senility? Cpsoper (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You will never win, Wakopedia's Fascist (we are gods so we are always right) will always come up with some lame excuse why they never allow the truth to be added to the liberal Anti-Bible rag site. If you prove them wrong, they will just say your proof is made up or on a site they don't recognize. Typical liberal BS.--69.14.97.53 (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Properly sourced material will always be included on this liberal Anti-Bible rag site. --Dweller (talk) 07:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Dweller, so please would you give your opinion on the question I've raised about News One? I've posted the question back on the RS noticeboard.Cpsoper (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

News One, is apparently part of an advertising group (according to our article, which was appropriately full of advertising until I trimmed it). --Dweller (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Dweller, it's a Hebrew news site and the link was incorrect, it is here also going by the name News 1, not the Pakistani advertising group whose page you've tidied up.Cpsoper (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I recognise latest edit by jk1974, unsolicited by me, returns to controversial ground, I have added what now appear to be RS references.Cpsoper (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Help in left aligning the heading title, 'Messiah', without damaging the right aligned image of the funeral appreciated - I've struggled with this.Cpsoper (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Some crossposted discussion from the RS noticeboard.

Have had communication from Israel Today editor, the article was in their print edition for 2007, 'We did feature it on our website for a time after WorldNetDaily wrote about it, but the article did not get reprinted online when we revamped our website.' I also hope to have news from Kaduri.net soon. I'd still be grateful for other views on News1. I see it is used elsewhere on wiki in at least two places as RS, Ronald Lauder and Nahum Barnea.Cpsoper (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

|... I actually think that News1 is normally an RS though it is evident that in this case, it merely picked up the note picture from the kaduri.net site which is certainly not RS and seemingly dubious and there is nothing in the news1 article 'source' to give any other background at all. Given the lack of RS reporting the authenticity of this note at this time, it should not be included in the Kaduri article. --Shuki (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks |... I await your response to questions of evidence on kaduri.net there, Shuki. Perhaps we should clarify with NFC whether it 'merely picked up the note picture' from kaduri.net, I agree that would not constitute proper journalism? Though the Israel Today and WND articles went further, as you know. I agree NFC is ordinarily RS, there are at least three other citations Gideon Levy, Yoel Lavy and Haaretz. If it were not ordinarily RS, these should also be amended.Cpsoper (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I grant my Hebrew is not excellent, but my reading of the page does suggest first hand sighting of the note, not a second hand report 'הגיע הערב (ג', 23.1.07) לידי Nfc.', the crucial word being 'to my hand'. There are also details about the note's writing which also imply first hand enquiry. It appears to be corroborated by the other two sources (though there may be some interdependence between WDN and IT) and of course kaduri.net.Cpsoper (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

No, your translation is wrong. The Hebrew does not state "I received it", but "Nfc received it" ("to the hands of Nfc", rather than "to my hands"). So the comment does not necessarily suggest first hand sighting; the (unnamed) writer could just be stating that someone else at the site had mentioned seeing the alleged document. RolandR (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Granted, so, RR, is it still proposed that when NFC says, the note arrived to 'the hands of Nfc' on the evening of 23/1/07, and cites 'אנשי חצרו', 'men of his court' that this was generated only by seeing the note on Kaduri.net without another primary source? If that is the case, it would not be professional journalism, especially if as you and Shuki have claimed kaduri.net does not represent Rabbi Kaduri. However it doesn't seem at all likely, NFC also first broke the story about Kaduri's claims to have met the Messiah in 29/10/2005, so they have sources in his seminary.Cpsoper (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea how the writer derived his/her evidence. The onus is on you to establish that this is a reliable source for this claim; several editors have questioned this. RolandR (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see where NFC/news1 says that it got the note. I guess it comes from the translation. It merely says that the note was revealed, whatever that means. --Shuki (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I beg to differ with you both. NFC has been repeatedly accepted as RS for other pages, despite RR's global objection to the site. (I may have difficulty in counting but 'several editors' appears to be two at most, one specifically only to this incident.) Why must we start with assuming that NFC acted unprofessionally in this particular case, when it is RS elsewhere? What about the other two independent sources? Others on this noticeboard are discussing weblogs as RS! - these other two sources are identifiable, widely accessed institutions, with a track record in fact checking, self-correction, and are multiply-edited, with archived records. The question is not one of opinion, but of the incident of the note's discovery. From whence the onus to prove NFC acted out of character with its recognised modus operandi? There is ample evidence NFC has had connexion with Kaduri's seminary. The statement that NFC had the note idiomatically 'in hand' on 23/1/2007, in the evening is on the link above, Shuki. If there is a dispute about the note's provenance, please produce your sources. We have seen none except those you have so far chosen to reject. In addition, neither of you have as yet cited any formal evidence to contest the claim in print that kaduri.net represented the rabbi semi-officially during his life. I accept the note and its interpretation is controversial, and an entry should reflect that, but the evidence of its historicity is well substantiated, and I fear perhaps other considerations are affecting your weighing the nature of the sources. In the absence of objections I will cross post some of this discussion to the talk page.Cpsoper (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Cpsoper

I recognise that 'reliable' sources may only be useful in specific contexts, and share considerable reservations about some of WND's reportage. However I note that a wiki-site specific google search for WND as a source returns nearly 500 hits, and includes some highly controversial subjects for which editors have considered it reliable. These include Johnny Chung, Failed terrorism plots, Golden Triangle (Southeast Asia), Project Daniel. For Israel today, there are 36 hits on a wiki-site specific search, and again include many Israel topics, like the beauty queen Liran Kohner, the charity Yad Sarah and List of artifacts significant to the Bible. These also include its use as RS on some highly controversial subjects, like Majdi Halabi, Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, and Gaza Baptist Church. Comments welcome. Cpsoper (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

In the context of the current conflict of editors over RS - these earlier points are worth addressing.Cpsoper (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you recognize but WP policy concerning reliable sources is quite clear. WND has had multiple discussions at the noticeboard despite its newsworthiness, and israeltoday does not even come close to WND. The onus is on you to show credible sources, not on the rest of the community to prove they are or are not. --Shuki (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful to communicate your reservations more specifically, especially in light of the widespread use of both sources elsewhere. Both seem to me to meet RS requirements, I note only one dissenter posted on the noticeboard without being specific and it's evident many other editors agree with me elsewhere. Please remember, these are being cited here as mere corroboration for a source you have already acknowledged.Cpsoper (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no more specific than me pointing out that those two sources are not reliable sources and have never been accepted as such and sorry, your faulty analysis of RS noticeboard does not make these two sources RS. The onus is on you to prove that any WP community has approved WND and israeltoday.com to be RS. --Shuki (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Over 500 citations as RS throughout wikipedia from both sources on a plethora of topics, some of them listed above, are ample evidence for this claim. Cpsoper (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with many of the recent multiple edits. The removal of POV material and youtube references for example, even though I restored some of the controversy section, after Botsystem's undiscussed removal. However the note is multiply substantiated and should remain. Cpsoper (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, we could do with an agreed source for this latest edit. I doubt it'll be found outside of WDN or IT. Cpsoper (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)