User talk:Mgenuth

Speedy deletion of Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh

A tag has been placed on Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ironho lds 10:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:HaravYitzchakGinsburgh.gif

Thanks for uploading File:HaravYitzchakGinsburgh.gif. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ginsburgh article

Could you provide some sources for the article about Yitzchak Ginsburgh. It has no sources whatsoever, and that is pretty ridiculous for a relatively large article about a well-know and discussed person. Don't forget that any unsourced information may be removed at will, and occasionally editors do that.

Why don't you upload a photograph? Just make sure it has the correct license. Debresser (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a redirect Ginsburgh, and have added Yitzchak Ginsburgh at its target. Debresser (talk) 10:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balance to Yitzchak Ginsburgh article

Thanks for your earlier attempts to give fair balance to the criticisms of Rabbi Ginsburgh. However, note that most of these have recently been deleted. I think the best route from here would be to give valid credit to the reasons other editors removed most of the rebuttals-note carefully their stated reasons for doing so-then try again with more sophistication to give balance and defence of Rabbi Ginsburgh. I like to take the sympathetic, caring attitude that their deletions of your defences were probably valid and legitimate. This makes sense to me both philosophically-in view of my tendency to empathise with aspects of Judaism criticisms, even when I disagree overall, and also practically-as such an attitude is necessary on Wikipedia to prevent editing conflicts. This attitude is further pertinent in view of my discussion with a wise and learned Lubavitch scholar about this, who thinks that the alledged quotes of Rabbi Ginsburgh, cited in the controversy section, would imply that in these aspects Rabbi Ginsburgh is philosophically incorrect-and I say this as a full devotee of him.

I really look forward to the article including good defence of his critics, as I have been citing his Kabbalistic and Chasidic scholarship (usually anonamously) on various Wikipedia pages. In order to avoid other editors again deleting your responses, they must be carefully structured, worded and cited with fullest consideration of the reasons your first attempts were removed. Non-emotive language is essential. Intimate understanding of Wikipedia article style of scholarship, and merits for inclusion are needed! With gratitude in anticipation of your efforts-if you have the time to do this! It's really important and urgent, considering the unique genius of Rabbi Ginsburgh and what his Torah can offer Jews and non-Jews! (If you succeed and gain consequent confidence, you might then like to try giving similar treatment to the biased anti-Kabbalistic generalisations of Israel Shahak, though I think the article on him only describes the anti-Talmudic aspects of his writings (I have two of his books). Or alternatively see his Wikipedia page for tips in how to respond to the biased criticism of Rabbi Ginsburgh)

Alternatively, if you think that the deletions of your responses to the criticisms of Rabbi Ginsburgh were unfair, then you might like to simply restore them, monitor the page and get into an editing conflict about them! Arbitration from an experienced third party Administrator would then be helpful to decide if the deletions of your edits were fair or not! I'm not experienced enough in Wikipedia to know.

Write back to me, if you like, to tell me what you think, though periods of time may elapse before I read your posts, as at the moment I am very busy, and only get internet in local internet cafes! With best wishes April8 (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from April8

Thanks for your informative reply that explains the difficulty of giving some balance to the page Yitzchak Ginsburgh! While I remain open to the criticisms of his adversities (perhaps more than you), I'll always be a devoted (though perhaps discerning/inconsistently selective) student of his, as the rest of his teaching is so amazing. Therefore, I think the page needs quality defence of him, despite and because of the criticisms, to restore balance! I guess if shlichus (and life!) were easy, then we would have no need to be here! Are you sure there's nothing more you could do? As an insider student of Rabbi Ginsburgh (and from what I've seen, his translator!), even with your correct indightments of the faults of wikipedia, and perhaps the resistance of particular hostile editors, maybe there is still a compromise 3rd way between the page's present version and your attempted defence. As wikipedia happens to be the shlichus, regrettable or not, I guess our task is to keep working at adapting it as best as possible, within its limitations, to at least steer it in a fair direction. The alternative, though understandable, would be to forsake the shlichus given to us!

Is there no legitimate way of quoting Rabbi Ginsburgh's books in his defence? Perhaps without the emotional language of your first attempt. I specifically notice the anti-Judaism page of Israel Shahak does this extensively. The section Israel Shahak#Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight Of Three Thousand Years systematically summarises his line of argument in that book, with both citations and book quotations in the main text and footnotes. Perhaps the same could be done of those Hebrew and English writings of Rabbi Ginsburgh that describe the holy and honorable potential of non-Jews (as opposed to those writings more geared to political war etc.) Perhaps, especially his book "Kabbalah and meditation for the Nations". Eg. the claim that Rabbi Ginsburgh sees non-Jews as "subhuman", refered to on his page, is a mischaracterisation of his full thought from exagerating one particular aspect. It is fundamental that Kabbalah sees all people as reflecting the Sephirotic "image of G-d". Your previous attempt at this book quotation defence failed because you were too emotive, and perhaps not systematic enough - Imagine how an unemotional outsider would dispassionately survey the philosophy of Rabbi Ginsburgh, noticing (and allowing credit for) its faults, and noticing (and allowing credit for) its benefits. Such a completely dispassionate observer would take satisfaction and philosophical delight in humble pursuit of truth from whatever origin, in seeing both the criticisms and third party mischaracterisations, and defences and praises. This thought experiment would give one the instruction of how to successfully balance the page to reflect all (legitimate and illegitimate) opinion, as it needs to!
Perhaps, specifically, with your contact with Rabbi Ginsburgh, he might know of further third party quotations in his defence.

Consider this: while you are perhaps rightly upset by wikipedia, you are the person, perhaps, best placed for this shlichus! Any shlichus given to one is bound to be hard, but that's what makes it enjoyable and worthwhile! In the process it might even arise that one gives some agreement to the adversaries and critics! (though alternatively, that might just reflect my lack of holiness and pure faith!) Also consider: the hostile views of the critics of Rabbi Ginsburgh may not all necessarily be outside the boundaries of legitimate Orthodox opinion - see for example the various groups and individuals described on the page Dor Daim. Rejection of Kabbalah, innate Jewish superiority and Jewish Nationalism are all valid theological options in the history of Jewish thought, whatever one may think of them. Such breadth of Hashkafah can instead be seen as Judaism's strength. So, even if Rabbi Ginsburgh's quoted critics are non-Orthodox, other Orthodox thinkers could also share their views. All the more reason to carefully represent all opinions. (NB. I myself am a follower of Hasidic-Lubavitch, rationally expressed mysticism, allied with apologetic centrist political views, and half Modern-Orthodox in loving and valuing secular studies on their own terms. I think the best solution to the difficulty in Kabbalah of Jewish supremacy is radical bittul - to have no ego is the only way to philosophically resolve the problem, if one accepts it, and value all people more than oneself! - I'll exclude some of the nasty terrorists from my affections though!.....but that's beside the point!) With best wishes April8 (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]