Talk:Yisroel Dovid Weiss/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

---

Review of Problems

Okay, I think we should discuss in this section some of the problems we all have with the article as it is right now; but agree not to make any further changes without discussion and resolution. Right now, the article people see is more/less neutral; so let's leave it that way until these things are resolved. Any agreement? As far as I can tell there are three major issues under discussion: 1) Is Rabbi Weiss a rabbi, 2) Were the 7 put in cherem and if so, by whom, 3) Can Mrs. Schlessel's comment about Weiss shaking hands be used in the article. Is this correct? Shia1 03:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Bsnowball's incredible bias is another issue. The fact that he constantly glosses over facts and attempts to chill the contributions of individuals, like Rabbi David Charles, who is far more knowledgable than him on this subject, from inserting facts, is unbelivable. Language MUST be put in to explain the delicate Rabbi situation because the entire Jewish world--the Agudah, Satmar, the Edah, you name it--says they don't represent Jews. A title like Rabbi give Mr. Weiss apparent legitamicy. It must be explained that, at least according to all other Jews, Mr. Weiss does not represent them. I am glad that Shia is pragmatic enough to sense the factual tension (Mr. Weiss's lies to the media about his qualifications, and the fact that he does not have the qualifications of backing to be called a Rabbi). I would be more than glad to work out language with you. Schlessel is quoted in most media sources throughout the world. She is reported on most of the sources bsnowball is relying on to call Mr. Weiss a Rabbi!!! The fact that she writes without much sympathy for those who imperil the well being of America may be upsetting to islamic sympathizers like bsnowball, but this is America. And if you don't like it, leave. I urge Rabbi David Charles to continue the quest for truth, and not be threatened by racist thugs like bsnowball. 67.83.90.10 15:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please quit writing threats and insults to other contributors. Calling another contributor 'racist thug' falls under that category. Thank you.

Now, let's address your concerns. First of all, can someone provide a link to whatever this Schlessel woman wrote? I do not know what article/publication/website you keep talking about that this Schlessel woman wrote. Secondly, I do not call Avraham Yitzchak Kook a rabbi. Neither do I call Mordechai Eliyahu, Avraham Shapiro, and many other so-called 'rabbis' by that title. They are Zionist heretics who are not worthy of that title, and my rabbi does not even want to hear their names being mentioned. Now, does this entitle me to start editing those articles and remove the title 'Rabbi' from their names because I and my rabbi say that they do not deserve that title? NO! That is not the way the world (and Wikipedia) works! David Charles and 67, please refrain from this very weird behavior. --GivatShaul 15:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

for your edification: [1] ;)  ⇒ bsnowball  18:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Bsnowball is writing the threats, calling someone what he is, for example, a racist thug, is not a threat. The Debbie Schlessel site is brought down on the discussion site on numerous ocassions. Look for it. Finally, Rabbi David Charles (how DARE can you take out the RABBI in HIS name?) are pointing out facts: While no one is disputing the scholarship of Rabbi Kook, no one is aware of Weiss's scholarship. Furthermore, a newsource is not in the position to "declare" someone a Rabbi (in the absence of a reputable semicha) unless that person is outstanding. Mr. Weiss is not outstanding. Bsnowball and others, like yourself, are guilty of using IDEOLOGY to justify their factually unsubstantiated claims vis a vis Mr. WEiss and continue to remove FACTS which prove otherwise. In essence, an ordinary laymen was called a Rabbi without justification because Bsnowball and others WILLED so. That is unconscionable and in violation of NPOV and original research.

Bsnowball, continue your behvaiour, and you will be warned and eventually blocked.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.90.10 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 8 February 2007

Admins are watching, please play nice, everybody. I'm not yelling at anyone, just yet, but if the tone of this conversation doesn't settle down quickly, I may be taking some administrative action. Before anybody thinks to, asking me to block your opponent doesn't count -- play nice, work it out, establish a compromise that works. Pretty please. Luna Santin 20:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Lunah, I hope this does not get ME in trouble. This is the first time I read this article. Then I noticed this discussion. Rabbi David Charles and the other anonomous editor are posting facts. Bsnowball and others are taking them out. They claim the New York Times can declare who is a Rabbi, yet they say that Debbie Schlissel, a noted lawyer and columnist and Jew, cannot declare who is Charedi. The contradictions and bias are amazing to me. And while racist may be strong, I understand their vexation. Aguda's statement along is enough to qualify the Rabbi issue. For shame. 71.250.102.48 19:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My rabbi, for one, does not call Kook a 'rabbi'. My rabbi does not even want to hear the guy's name mentioned. Same thing for his son. Same thing for other reshoim (crazy people) such as the guy who wrote 'Eim HaBonim Smeichoh'.. what is his name again... Teichtal I think.

And my rabbi is not NK. My rabbi is one of the leading dayanim of the Edah HaChareidis of Jerusalem. --GivatShaul 22:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Given that "reshoim" means evil or wicked people and certainly not "crazy people," and that this is such a widely used term that a even a young child would know this, one must question whether any of your claims of "authenticity" are legitimate. In other words, this is such a basic mistake that it makes me wonder if you've ever stepped foot in a yeshiva.

Okay, please, again, calm down everybody and have a constructive conversation. Please stop insulting each others rabbis, for whatever reason. (I'm half tempted to ask, in the name of neutrality, that only Chinese people with no knowledge or connection to Judaism edit this page.)Also stop calling each other names. And stop accussing people of racism and anti-semitism. I started this heading for legitimate, calm discussion of three issues, so they could be addressed in order. It has already been crowded by insults and less than intelligent or helpful comments. Now let's neutrally and calmly address the first hurtle: Being that it is stated in various sources (including an edition from 2001 of The Edah newspaper) that Weiss is Rabbi Weiss, what are the reasons for removing the title rabbi from the article? I understand the unsigned user feels it is wrong to give Weiss legitimacy. Is this the primary reason? Other reasons also should be spoken out. Shia1 00:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I will start with the fact that Agudah and Satmar referred to Mr. Weiss and his cohorts as "dressing as Jews" and the fact that they don't represent the Jew's interest and are making misrepresentations. This is relevant because the title Rabbi gives Mr. WEiss the appearance of legitamicy that the rest of the Jewish world publicly denounced. I think some qualifying language like, "although Mr. Weiss claims he is a Rabbi, A=Satmar, the Edah Charedis and the Agudah have proclaimed that he is not a representative of any Jewish concerns for any Jewish denomination other than himself. Furthermore, he has not produced any works on the Talmud." The latter is relevant because someone dressed like him appears to be a Satmar chussid (even though he has been seen shaking women's hands), honest, and God fearing, and yet Gedolim who are at least as anti-Zionist have found his behavior unacceptable. Therefore, the fact that that he has not produced any works nor has given any shiurim to Yiddin on any sugyah in shas should be mentioned, so that no one gets the impression (as he attempts in his many videos on Youtube) that he is a talmid chochom, chas vesholom. These are facts of which everyone is aware. As far as Givat is concerned, I am at least as anti-Zionist as you are, but what the Edah, Satmar, and even the Agudah says about what Weiss did is very significant in factually giving over the "Rabbi" worthiness of Mr. Weiss given the fact he has no semicha or accomplishments in learning. I reiterate that as opposed to Rabbi Kook's ideas on Zionism as I am, I still acknowledge that he learned in Volozhin and was a talmid chochom, unlike Mr. WEiss who claims to have received semicha from a yeshiva which is not quite Volozhin, to say the least.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.83.90.10 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rabbi 67. There is something fundamentally wrong about his being called a Rabbi, when all Jewish groups are stating that he represents only his beliefs. It would be akin to calling David Koresh the Messiah without qualification. DavidCharlesII 21:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so let me sum up your position, and then, without repeating it, simply by saying whether it is correct or not, you can say if I understood the basic premise of your position correctly. After that, those who disagree, will state why, without insult, and we can see if we can move on to the other problems. The way I see it, you are saying that the title Rabbi does not simply mean a man who has smicha, but a person who is a representative of the wider Jewish world, and given the denunciations by the Aggudah, by the Zali faction of Satmar, and the Eidah Chareidis, it can be seen that he does not represent the wider Jewish world. That is the main force of your arguement as I understand it. We will call this Arguement A. There is also an issue of him not having produced any works on Talmud. This is Arguement B. I'm dismissing arguement B as not worth discussing, because nobody holds a rabbi must publish. Then there is a claim, which I will call Arguement C. This is the arguement that he does not have smicha. This I am saying is not the key arguement being made, but the most germane, and in my mind, would be enough to remove Rabbi from his name if it could be sited in a verifiable source. Are these correct summaries of your arguements for removing Rabbi from Mr. Weiss's name? Shia1 23:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much, but I must add that even if we had a copy of a semicha (whish even according to Mr. Weiss has not been from an institution of repute in terms of its students), the institution which has given it to him is a very questionable one--not merely in terms of whether it actually is a legit institution but because it has been denounced by eveyone, as well. Also, there is no requirement to produce works of scholarship, but we have no way of determining whether he is a scholar. Most reform Rabbis probably don't even know how to read Mishnayis. The fact that they call themselves "Rabbi" or even recieve semicha from an instition calling him by that title, means nothing--he is ignorant of Jewish law. Many videos on YOutube can be viewed by anyone here. Mr. Weiss never speaks to Jews, only to non-Jews, regarding matters of religious law. This is very telling. More significantly, he is very simplistic in his statements--making over generalizations if not out right laws (about the extent of his support, for example). That, too, is very telling. I would agree with Rabbi David Charles that Mr. WEiss's article should read more like David Koresh's--a madman making wild pronouncements--only he had a larger following than Mr. Weiss. 67.83.90.10 17:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so before we go any further, would you consider it a valid compromise simply to list the yeshivas he has beeen involved with in a manner like this, "Y.D. Weiss is a neturei karta spokesman and Rabbi, having recieved smicha from Yeshivas Chasam Sofer." That way it is mentioned which yeshivah gave him smicha. Shia1 03:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course not, even he says he did not get smicha from CS. 67.83.90.10 15:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, do you have reliably sourced information for him having recieved smicha elsewhere, and would you feel it a good compromise to simply add the name of that yeshivah in a similar fation? Shia1 07:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

. . . And I thought you were unbiased!!! Mr. Weiss has no source for his alleged semicha. His CV which is published on this disucssion claims that he received it from the Neturei Karta orgnization office in Monsey. Even he never claimed that he got it from Chasan Soffer. The sentence is objectionable because its untrue and original research. He is also not really a spokesman for Neturei Karta, but rather a faction which calls itself Neturei Karta (Rabbi Blau's other son-in-law has very serious disputes with Mr. Hirsch, someone who received a lot of money from Arafat, by the way, about what Neturei Karta should be like). Essentially, this means that Mr. Weiss is, at best, claiming that he represent a branch of a splintered group of Neturei Karta. . . and then there is always the fact that he was condemned by anti-Zionist groups. 66.93.254.200 16:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That's it? You don't want to work this out anymore? we have to resort to edit wars AGAIN?!?! Let's work at a consensus, please, based on facts.

No, I'm entirely willing to find a good compromise, I simply was very ill for a while. Anyways, the CV I saw above seems to indicate he recieved his Smicha from Chasan SOfer, which I imagine was a typo for Chasam Sofer. After Chasam SOfer, he goes on to being a "Rabbinical Fellow," which is the English translation of Chaver. It requires smicha to be a Chaver to a Kollel. I'd actually be curious to know his area of expertise, as it implies there is a specific area of halakha he is expert in that most are not. In any case, if you have a source for his smicha being from Beis Yehudi or another Neturei KArta Beis Midrash, I think the best compromise is simply to add a sentance saying that. "Rabbi Weiss recieved smicha from Blank Organization, a Neturei Karta organization. (source) This organizations power to grant smicha has been questioned by the following groups. (source)" Otherwise we are turning over to you the power to determine which organizations smichas are valid, and we have to go through wikipedia editing out the title Rabbi from every non-Orthodox and/or anti-Zionist rabbi. Shia1 06:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The CV claims he recieved his semicha from Beis Yehudi. CS does not give semicha. You obviously are trying to change the CV, or were told to do so by Mr. Weiss. I would remove the title Rabbi from every non-Orthodox Rabbi for the same reason I would remove it from Mr. Weiss--they lack the education to be called a Rabbi and lack the requisite level of Jewish practice to be called Rabbis. Be that as it may, there is no reason for him to be called a Rabbi because the CV is probably a lie. I would need to see the copy of the semicha before I would accept it. Until then, we have no actual source that he is a Rabbi. DavidCharlesII 15:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I see the edit wars have already restarted, and this article is going to degenerate into Hasbarah, so I think we took too long. Whatever the case - the CV says Beis Yehudi. Okay. My suggestion is you put in Rabbi Weis is a NK Rabbi, having recieved smicha from their Beis Midrash Beis yehudi. If you like, place, "according to his CV as posted on whatever.com" Your desire to see a certificate is beyond normal wikipedia need for sourcing considering reliable news agencies have called him rabbi a doen or so times. Anyways, I'm pretty much done here, and think any further arguements should be taken to the arbitration commitee, as we've asid enough here for them to figure out the issues. Shia1 11:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

AND WE HEAR FROM SOME PEOPLE THAT WE'RE INDEED IN THE 21st CENTURY. AFTER I READ THIS THREAD, I'M CERTAIN THAT WE DIDN'T LEAVE THE MIDDLE AGES. SHAME ON ALL OF YOU! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.184.225 (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

All this sinas chinam and chol hamoed Pesach too. Derech eretz please. What a chillul Hashem this discussion has turned into, mamash a shande for die velt. Chag kasher v'sameach my friends. 141.157.191.77 14:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Rabbi Dovid Yisroel Weiss is a 'Rabbi' and he is representing Neturei Karta International in New York, Monsey, see here: http://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/contactus.cfm (source: NK-USA, 'about us', friday, nov. 16, 2007) Uebrigens: Soweit mir bekannt, macht es durchaus einen Unterschied, ob einer 'Rabbi' oder 'Rebbe' genannt wird! 84.177.105.41 16:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 84.177.105.41 16:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 84.177.105.41 16:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

fixing recent edits by avraham

• 1st i've taken the liberty of putting some of the quotes from weiss back in the main text, after all, he is the subject of the article (i don't think tho, that we needed all of the tehran quote, it's easily available for anyone who wants to read it.)
• 2nd we don't need all those other quotes in the footnotes as they're referenced and available online.
• moved the agudat denunciation down to with the rest of them, the edah & satmar quotes arguably should be in lead because they were unexpected, not so agudah etc. (it's only 70 year old news after all)  ⇒ bsnowball  10:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Its considerably older than that--as it Agudah started in Europse. As usual, you should know knowledge of the salient facts. You should not be editing this article at all. DavidCharlesII 15:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I find it better to HAVE the texts in the quotes; it adds to the verifiability. I understadn why you may want the main speech in the text, that is actually part of the reason I think this article should be deleted. It is 95% about the VISIT, not the MAN. However, I disagree with removing the other texts from the footnotes. What is the harm in having MORE proof and attribution? -- Avi 12:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• i see you've just rv'd without addressing the problems i fixed from your edit. we have quotes from the article's subject because they present his views, self explanatory really. for instance the quote in the lead succinctly sumarises his beliefs about zionism & the state of israel
• why put back both paragraphs from the speech when they effectively repeat each other?
• you will note that there is material other than the tehran conference ie the coference in durban & a short para (it is dificult to find info) on his background.
• your filling up the footnotes (along with your odd 1st attempt to put everything he said in the footnotes) with irrelevant extended quotes makes the underlying text very difficult to read & therefore difficult to edit. hence should go as the text is available in the linked references. if they were printed sources you may have a point, but as it is they do not add to verifiablity. can you give examples of similar articles that have all this annoying & unecessary extra text?
• re afd: unlikely to succeed as doesn't give a valid reason for deletion & your argument ignores sections of the article. also, as far as i can tell, it isn't quite an afd as you haven't followed the process correctly, it doesn't appear to be listed in any of the deletion logs (never filled an afd so i don't quite know, but it might be best to start again following all the instructions or ask an admin how to fix this)  ⇒ bsnowball  14:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The Orthodox Union isn't Cheradi, they are religious Zionists. That should be fixed. I'm voting for arbitration concerning any future arguements if they just degenerate down the same road. Shia1 11:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Have put back in changes User:Avraham blanked the other day, fixed per Shia1 just above & gotten rid of the absurd lie about "crime against humanity". WP:BLP still applies even if a newspaper reprinted it. Also the source of the lie isn't properly identified, what "haredi journal"?
  • Actually, you are mistaken. The quote is sourced in a reliable source. The fact that it itself is quoting is not only irrelevant, but preferable, as we prefer SECONDARY sources. -- Avi 19:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Now Avraham, are you going to respond to my objections about the repetitious text in the footnotes? I also note you have only doubled up text in the footnotes that is critical of Weiss, very interesting. Can you explain why we should have to put up with this, when it makes it much harder to edit the article & is entirely superfluous?  ⇒ bsnowball  19:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Because it allowes the reader to see the relevant text on the page without having to follow the links. -- Avi 19:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to restore the properly-cited information you removed, in your misunderstanding of WP:BLP. Please do not remove valid information again. -- Avi 19:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• civility: please add your contentious material rather than using it as an excuse (twice now) to blank without discussion justified changes by other editors (note i did this for your footnotes on my 2nd edit). it can then be discussed, & i will not remove material while it is being discussed. note i've justified all my changes above & at least one (re shia1) is a correction of another of your factual mistakes.
• repetition in footnotes: a useful compromise would be to include the quotes that are for paraphrases, as finding what is being referred to can be time consuming if the refenced page is long. there is no need to duplicate direct quotes which are already in the article. anything else is of no importance, if it was it should be in the main text. as it stands the effect of these repetitious is to lend undue weight to criticism, given that only the critical articles have been repeated.
• also no need to mention vandalism as you did on my talk page, this is a content dispute & i did justify the excision, even if you do not agree with the justification.  ⇒ bsnowball  09:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, since you have such a negative reaction to footnoted quotes, I have placed the pertinent quotations BACK ito the articles, and removed the footnoted ones. Hope this makes you feel better . -- Avi 15:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

i think WP:POINT might be appropriate now. as i said, the problem is undue weight npov: in general there's no reason/precedent for article being two thirds criticism. specifically, criticisms from edah & a branch of satmar are necessary, as they were unexpected. for the rest we don't need each of their actual statements in repetitive detail & arguably we don't even need to mention the disapproval of many of the pro-zionists as it goes without saying. so what of this veritable mountain of criticism can you bear to part with? i suggest the entire response to tehran be condensed down to one reasonably short sub-section. (ps the last edit: how do you get o r in that? it isn't obvious that the claim might be partially verifiable, hence the note. what exactly do you object to?)  ⇒ bsnowball  16:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that criticism from pro-Zionist sources isn't that important, however, most of what got the general media's attention was the Tehran incident, so I'd object to removal of that material. JoshuaZ 16:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

i'm proposing removal of excessive & repetitive criticism on grounds of undue weight npov, not removal of any of the facts about the conference. can we please get that straight. also shia1, your opinion on what's been done to the speech, i thought both paragraphs unecessary, yes/no/the other paragraph?  ⇒ bsnowball  16:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) His notability is a function of the world reaction. It is well sourced and pertinent to the article. It is not wikipedia's fault if >98% of world Orthodoxy comes out against this man. To change the reliably cited facts to fit a preconceived opinion is a POV violation of the worst possible kind, I am afraid. -- Avi 17:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Editorial comments

Resolved

No editor is allowed to make any editorial comment that is not a paraphrase or quote of an outside source. That is a violation of the original synthesis clause of WP:OR/WP:ATT. No matter HOW obvious or simple it may be. So, phrases like "Claim borne out by photos", besides being potentially point-of-view violations, are expressly forbidden by WP:ATT unless they are quotes of outside reliable sources. Thanks. -- Avi 16:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

written reports of demo numbers are well, elastiky, the information that there is some acctual verification is potentially helpfull, how do you suggest it should be worded?  ⇒ bsnowball  16:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If we have a reliable source, we quote it, otherwise we are duty bound to leave it out, I am afraid. -- Avi 17:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

point connceded, we even get to pretend we're getting somewhere :) now, please address concerns stated above  ⇒ bsnowball  17:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the conference

(Split out into own section for convenience)

Despite the disagreements on the WfD, I think we all agree that should Weiss be considered notable, it is a direct result of his attendence at the conference. His attendance is a necessary condition to his notability; whether it is sufficient is the primary point of disagreement in the AfD. As such, criticism (both positive and negative) of the conference, in my opinion, is a necessary portion of this article, as it is critical to the claim of notability in the first place. -- Avi 18:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

opinions about notability are for the afd, we're discussing the article's content here. i agree some of the criticism should be stated, i said so above. i do not agree that we need all the invective you want to add, it contravenes npov. hence i propose condensing the reaction to the tehran visit into a single sub-section with quotes from satmar & edah, mention of the treatment he has recieived and mentions of these other organisations. do you object/what else do you want kept?  ⇒ bsnowball  18:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to hear some more opinions before any significant changes are made to the article. -- Avi 18:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Repetitious/excessive criticism?

There is dispute over whether approximately two thirds of the article should be taken up with criticism of Rabbi Weiss, is most of said criticism repetitious and/or tangential?13:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Do you have details on the sections you think are repetitive? Antonrojo 19:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• the problem is undue weight npov: in general there's no reason/precedent for article being two thirds criticism. specifically, criticisms from edah & a branch of satmar are necessary, as they were unexpected. for the rest we don't need each of their actual statements in repetitive detail & arguably we don't even need to mention the disapproval of many of the pro-zionists as it goes without saying. so what of this veritable mountain of criticism can you bear to part with? i suggest the entire response to tehran be condensed down to one reasonably short sub-section. (ps the last edit: how do you get o r in that? it isn't obvious that the claim might be partially verifiable, hence the note. what exactly do you object to?)  ⇒ bsnowball  16:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• I agree that criticism from pro-Zionist sources isn't that important, however, most of what got the general media's attention was the Tehran incident, so I'd object to removal of that material. JoshuaZ 16:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Despite the disagreements on the WfD, I think we all agree that should Weiss be considered notable, it is a direct result of his attendence at the conference. His attendance is a necessary condition to his notability; whether it is sufficient is the primary point of disagreement in the AfD. As such, criticism (both positive and negative) of the conference, in my opinion, is a necessary portion of this article, as it is critical to the claim of notability in the first place. -- Avi 18:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• After the shock about his speeches in Tehran subsided I think we have to distinguish several aspects:

1. Weiss has in fact attacked several Zionist organizations.
2. Weiss has attacked the existence of the state of Israel.
3. Weiss gives part of the blame for the Holocaust to Zionist organizations.

It is self evident that the each of the attacked parties should have their opinion (rebuttal) included in a balanced and fair article. What can be done, if several organizations said basically the same, it can be condensed into one sentence and referenced to each of the organizations. I have to confess that, after reading both Tehran speeches my first reaction was that it would be OK to have a Weiss-bashing-party, but with a little distance I see that it would not be fair either. What ever the case, we have to see that we remain neutral and balanced, which is why I could not be part of editing this article Alf^Photoman 22:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• The man is notable (or notorious) for going to the Tehran conference and I don't see any way to discuss that away and therefore the references should remain. The more relevant question (for me at least) is what did he actually say there? I see absolutely no reference to the minutes of that conference in relation to the Holocaust (could be that I am using the wrong glasses). Without actually seeing all what he did there I cannot see how we can have a fair and balanced article. Alf^Photoman 15:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

to re-iterate, no-one is proposing removing any reportage of the conference. i am proposing condensing the criticism of weiss, which is not reportage of weiss's actions, but reportage of judgements about him. this is not a dispute about what he may have done, but about criticism being over-represented in the article. btw weiss's speech is linked to in the footnotes. can't help you if you want an 'independent' source sorry.  ⇒ bsnowball  19:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just read both speeches and am so shocked that I better wait a few days for a fair assessment. Alf^Photoman 19:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• i can't wait, please note that formatting above is to distiguish between the 3 quotes i copied for the r f c & the ensuing discussion. now having BEEN BOLD, the types of changes i had in mind are between more & less, so let the games begin...  ⇒ bsnowball  19:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• To paraphrase the argument for criticism heading this section with a WP:WTA spin: "Weiss has taken a controversial position on Zionism which several Zionist organizations and Isralies strongly disagree with and since his opinions differ so much from mainstream Judaism, the arguments of his critics should have a substantial presence in this article". If someone is 'a person of note' primarily for holding controversial opinions then I think it is fair that much of the article discuss arguments against his position--provided they are unbiased and in keeping with WP:BIO, and his position is explained fully and fairly. Antonrojo 19:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

1. first weiss is not notable for his ideas, but for his vocality. his views aren't weirdo fringe views, but standard haredi anti-zionism a la Yoel Teitelbaum etc. (sure they're minority views, but that's pretty damn obvious.) & obviously he's most notably for attending this publicity stunt.
2. much of what is in the article is invective (in answer to your q about what i had in mind), for instance i just changed the ha edah quote to the argument the guys offers against weiss's speaking at conference. (avraham's helfully rv'd without any discussion, check [history) & of course the acctual quotes from the zionist organistations are irrelevant, we know it already. also don't think 'his position' should be 'explained' by agudah, as it is in the last section.
3. again, the diff i linked above is my proposed absolute minimun
4. hope that helps, i'm wasn't really arguing about wta but npov  ⇒ bsnowball  17:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Responses to numbers:

1. Not according to the SATMAR itself! One would think that Satmar is the best expositor of the Satmar Rav's (ZTVKL) positions, and THEY came out against Weiss. -- Avi 17:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
2. If this man is notable, it is only because of the world-wide reaction touched off by his visit. Otherwise, ANY tourist to Iran should get an article. The extremity and strength of the reaction is what MAKES this man notable. Trying to bowdlerize and whitewash world reaction is both a violation of NPOV, as well as removing the very elements that allow wikipedia to have an article on him in the first place. Not to mention that removing well-cited information is vandalism unless shown otherwise. -- Avi 17:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• 1. a branch of satmar condemned him for attending the meeting, not for his views on israel, which might as well be straight out of va yoel mosche.
  2. "bowdlerize and whitewash" is a straw man, as i have pointed out repeatedly (& demonstrated) i am not proposing removing information merely invective & repeated or irrelevant criticism
  3. as for your claims about vandalism, not much in WP:VAND about content disputes, tho "Adding copious 'repetitive' or meaningless content to a page" could be relevant here.  ⇒ bsnowball  18:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• • 1. His atending of the meeting makes him notable. Otherwise every Satmar Chasid would be notable. ANd while in the eyes of the RS"O, they are, L'havdil elef alfei havdalos, in wiki they aren't. The meeting makes him notable. ipso facto the meeting responses to him are notable. .
    2. Part of the notability is the extremeity and uniformity of the reaction. When was teh last time that Satmar and the OU came out with similar, extremely strong statements. Strawmen are not good arguments, but here nothing is made out of straw (well except for Bays Esav L'Kash but that is out of scope ;) ).
    3. However, as I stated above, this is neither repetitive nor meaningless, but part and parcel of what makes this one man have any shaychus to notability: to wit, the reactin to him. If there was no reaction, no one would have heard of this guy. -- Avi 18:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

concrete proposals

please note above about notability is irrelevant this is a rough idea of what i'm proposing, not removing anything substantial about the conference or the reaction. specific points:

1. anti-zionist organisations need only be mentioned, as their denunciations are not notable, they've always opposed nk
2. no need for the former ashkenazi rabbi's opinions & metzger should be clarified (as if they were put in herem, he doesn't have the authority to do so)
3. ha edah reaction should be rational argument, not invective all the following argument should be in:

   "Regardless of what they said at that conference, the very fact that they participated gave Ahmadinejad the justification to say: 'Look, the haredim feel the same way we do about the Holocaust.'"

4. 'weiss explanation' section is unnecessary: enough of his pov above, & we can source his views from him, so we don't need 'zionist' interpretations of him. quote is also doctored it actually reads "He [ahmadinejad] respects the Jewish people and he protects them in Iran."
5. this all because the whole thing is highly pov, two thirds of the article is taken up by not just criticism, but invective & ranting  ⇒ bsnowball  17:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Responses by number:

1. Disagree. The severity of the reaction is what makes him notable, so the quotes should remain.
2. Disagree, these are among the most notable Rabbis in the Israeli political scene. They, in a sense, are among the foremost representatives of Orthodox Jewery in the political arena in Israel. Should remain.
3. I will have to think about this.
4. Reliable sources are reliable sources, and secondary sources are preferred to primary sources. We should use Weiss himself only as a last resource (See WP:RS and [[WP:ATT}})
5. The criticism and the severity thereof is what makes this man different from any run-of-the-mill Neturei Karta member. Removing them would once again make this person unnotable.

-- Avi 17:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

please give up on this irrelevant distraction. there is more than enough material (that is independent references to him) in the version i diffed above. it is not actually the vehemence of the criticisms that makes them important (every kahanist exteremist's opinion would be relevant on those grounds) but the authority of the people who are expressing those opinions. this is only a way of avoiding the pov issue i have raised. (please also address all the points i have made, your doctoring of the quote etc.)  ⇒ bsnowball  17:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, please remember to be civil; comment on content, not editors. Secondly, your opinion has been made known, as has mine. Now we need to wait for further input. -- Avi 17:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

ok, to avoid distractions, 1 point at a time: first why do you object to removing the comments from OU & agudah, given that any idiot knows they're opposed to nk. why can't it just be stated that they denounced weiss et al again? (note joshuaz did agree with this point above)  ⇒ bsnowball  18:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Becuase the strength and severity of the responses is part and parcel why he became NOTABLE. Any idiot knows of NK, why is Weiss special? Because of the response. -- Avi 18:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

please adress the point i made: that these denunciations are irrelevant, because they're entirely predictable.  ⇒ bsnowball  19:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Let us be specific YOU feel these denunciations are irrelevant because YOU would have predicted the responses. Besides for being somewhat non-sequiturial (what does predictability have to do with relevance?), they are your opinion. The responses were made, they are part of the story, and belong in the article. -- Avi 19:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

the argument, as has been stated several times already, is these particular denunciations (ou & agudah) do not need to be spelt out but only mentioned because those organisations have been denouncing nk for as long as it has existed, therefore they're just not that important. this is what i asked you to address. (& as i said, another editor agreed with this point.) so just calm down & discuss it, there's no need for another dummy-spit like last week when you posted insults from the archive on my talk page. either you discuss changes, or we take this to mediation & do the same thing there, why not discuss it now?  ⇒ bsnowball  20:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? -- Avi 20:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

can you discuss the point i reiterated in the first sentence of my last post (without getting carried away & going on about rfc:user again) or does this need to be discussed in mediation?  ⇒ bsnowball  15:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to your claims of personal attacks (dummy-spit). I already have responded to your first point, in that it is solely your opinion as to the relative predictability of organizational response based on your understanding of their political philosophy vis a vis Israel, Zionism, and Neturei Karta. In other words, your point of view based on original research. I reiterate that the notability of this man is based on the range and extremity of the reported responses to his actions, and thus those responses are part and parcel of the article. Is there any point I have raised which gives you specific difficulty? -- Avi 15:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

it is not 'or' to claim the full quotes from organisations known to hate weiss et al are irrelevant because they always say things like that about nk, note also i didn't propose removing mention of these dennunciations. ('or' does not rule out any argument you happen not to agree with, it's specifically about the wording of what goes into the article) & as i've pointed out before another editor disagreed with you on the point. given that you refuse to do anything else other repeat the same barely relevent argument to every objection, i will apply for mediation. for the rest: re-read the hypocrisy you left on my talk page [2] if your memory really is that selective.  ⇒ bsnowball  16:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I think you just mademy point for me . One other point, before mediation, don't you think a specifc request for comment is appropriate; there are other opinions besides yours and mine, you know. Perhaps we'll get more responses now. -- Avi 16:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(reset tab) Avi, if you define some of the specialized religious terms and references such as 'weiss explanation section' and submit the article for peer review, I think you will get more responses to these questions. Antonrojo 18:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Temple

This is a mistranslation by Ynetnews. Orthodox Judaism believes that the only building to be called "Temple" is that which stands on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. There has not been such a building for about 2000 years. I would expect you to be familiar with this.
In Reform Judaism (which neither Weiss nor Metzger affiliate with, and which both actually very strongly oppose), houses of worship are commonly referred to as "temples", because Reform Judaism does not believe in a third temple. It sees the Reform Judaism house of worship as a permanent replacement of the temple, and therefore, it is to be called "temple".
To simply copy Ynetnews' incorrect translation is silly and stupid. It is obvious that Metzger spoke of "batei knesset", meaning synagogues. Not "batei mikdash", meaning temples. If you want confirmation, find the original Hebrew source. It's you who is making trouble here, not me. --Bear and Dragon 15:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly "Mikdash M'at" is used all over Shas. Secondly, as a direct quote, it needs to be brought. The alternative is to paraphrase, but the substitution of synagogues for Temples may be considered OR, as logical as it is. This may be a time we are hamstrung by wiki policy. -- Avi 15:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

apologies for starting that, putting the actual quote in was just pedantry on my part :) my main point was removing the bit about herem. given that it's clearly jpost's 'mistake', perhaps it should be changed back to the paraphrase, as my version ("temples") can't be what he said & could confuse readers unfamiliar with the above, then deal with OR claim if it happens?  ⇒ bsnowball  11:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Source that he is a Rabbi?

What is the source for the allegation that Yeshiva Beis Yehudi is a yeshiva, small or otherwise? I cannot find where it is mentioned at all, outside of obviously inappropriate sources. If you cannot find a source for it being a Yeshiva, it is better not to mention that it is a yeshiva, or add that it is not known or registered. Thank you. 67.81.154.219 15:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, if this problem is not addressed, I will make an edit myself. I was simply hoping we could arrive at a consensus and act cordially with one another--instead of entering into an out and out edit war. Those are hardly productive. 67.81.154.219 15:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Weiss learned there. NK website mentions it. Need anything else? Do you also require a Reliable Source for Yeshiva University existing? --Bear and Dragon 15:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not make myself clear; I was asking for someone who is not a sockpupeteer to answer the question. I heard of YU, everyone has. But no one has heard of this so called Yeshiva. The Website is not a legitamite source, as it is a hate site. 67.81.154.219 16:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)L

I repeat that this matter ought to be resolved on the discussion boards, and those who refuse to discuss the issues relating to questions concerning the factual veracity have no right to participate in edit wars. I am trying to be civil here and work this out with others here. Absent any help, I have no choice but to remove the original research concerning the status of the institution from which Weiss purports to have recieved semicha. 67.81.154.219 15:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The proper way to handle unsourced bio information is to delete it; not to cast aspersions on various organizations without any backup. I have deleted the entire CV sentence. Further, any organization can call themselves a yeshiva should they desire; there is no accreditation organization like Middlestate or AARTS that they must conform to. Should we get a source for Weiss's ordination, there is nothing preventing Bais Yehudi from being called a yeshive if that is what they call themselves. -- Avi 14:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if they call themselves a Yeshiva, no one is aware of the quality or standards of learning in this so called yeshiva. If the Reform world would call some lady who never opened a chumash in her life the posek hador, and it would be a credible source, she still is not a posek hador. There is nothing wrong with making note of this.

Yes there is. It is not wikipedia's purpose to start rating yeshivos. Wikipedia is a tertiary source; we are not supposed to add any opinion to the article. What would upi like, that I should go down and giev a bechina to each person there? How about an oral bechina on Melicha, or maybe shakla V'tarya Ba'al Peh for 30 blatt in Menachos. You get the idea? "Posek HaDor" has a definition; a "Yeshiva" van be anyplace where Orthodox Jews sit and learn. -- Avi 18:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Rabbi has a definition. Semicha has a definition. And if its given by a school whose very existence is in question, something's wrong.

It is, in FACT, relevant that a so-called Rabbi has not produced a work or was ever involved in a work of scholarship. It is a well known fact that ought to be respected. 67.81.154.219 14:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears that you have no concept of how Semicha works in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. I have Yore Yore twice, from two completely different, yet eminently respectable, Orthodox Haredi establishments, and L'Da'avoni, I have never published a sefer, a kuntres, or even a collection of Sh'e'los U'Tshuvos or Divrei Torah. So regardless of the "well-known" nature (pure original research, by the way) of the "fact", it is irrelevant, unnecessary, and you are drawing incorrect conclusions therefrom. ANd even if it was ironclad 100% correct, it would be original synthesis. -- Avi 15:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have Yadin Yadin. I have also published extensively. I know, apparently, a heck of a lot more about the subject than you. My point was that it is a fact that he never published a work of scholarship. It is also a fact that this so called yeshiva does not, as a matter of fact, exist. Did he actually get semicha from anyone? He does not say he did. But it is a FACT that he is (1) not a scholar by any strech of the meaning of the word and (2) the orgnization which gave him semicha never gave semicha. That was the point I am making. Saying he is a Rabbi advances a position. There is nothing wrong with qualifiying that he never wrote a work of scholarship to advance that he is not a scholar. Write citation needed for all I care, but for goodness sake, be honest. I know, I know, Wikipedia does not need facts, only verified lies. 66.93.254.200 16:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I'm curious, on which sections of Yoreh De'eah were you tested for Yoreh Yoreh, as my two had some overlap but some difference. Yadin Yadin is more standardized, unless you are in Eretz Yisrael, from what I understand. If you are willing, from where is your semicha?

Back to the point at hand, people are often given the sobriquet "Rabbi" even if they do not deserve it as those of who have spent the time, and been tested, on the various chelkei halakhah that make up semicha. As an aside, both my father and father in-law, my maternal grandfather, my paternal grandfather-in-law, and about half of the great-grandparents on both sides have/had Yadin Yadin, so I doubt you know a "heck of a lot more" than I do. Especially in light of my having studied Hilchos Edus and Hilchos Dayanus as well, but never felt ready enough for a closed sefer bechinah on them, as I was for Yoreh Deah. -- Avi 16:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I will agree with the IP anonymous user that his Semicha may be questionable, after all he is a one issue man, and i doubt such a young person so busy with one subject has mastered all other subjects in Judaism to be considered as a full fledged Rabbi, but his vocation, no matter how narrow it is is still considered a Rabbi: Avi has declared that YDW is only a Rabbi in honorary title, i disagree, if you say that he isn't a rabbi in occupation then he has no honer left, and lets be frank he has no honorary status at all he is shamed and ridiculed all over. But still this title Rabbi as his vocation is very much sourced, every major news outlet in the world gives him this name Rabbi, because no rabbi in history has been so active in his job of teaching Torah, and that is what he believes, that he is teaching the world Torah, i know most Jews don't think it is Torah, but since he strongly believes this, even though he may very well be misguided since most Rabbis have condemned him, but he has his rabbis which strongly encouraged him and see in him as their messenger and say openly that this work is the holiest teaching vocation, and most fundamental Torah duty to teach the world that Jews and Zionism are opposed to each other, so we cannot judge his intentions and say that his work isn't about teaching Torah. There are allot of rabbis that main stream judaism condemns and the Rabbi is still in their articles because wikipedia does not let the dominant POV overrule the minority POV, there are many who see in him a legitimate rabbi, we disagree on this but we cannot silence them--יודל 13:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

COngradulations

I want to congradulate the editors of this page. I came here from the Freidman article because we have been cleaning it up, and I figured similar problems would exist here. The talk page is a disaster of policy violations, but the article itself is neutral and informative. I wanted to congradulate you all. Basejumper 10:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Occupation as a Rabbi must have to do with employment?

Unless a reliable source can be found that he is employed as a Rabbi, be it pulpit, rebbi, rav, etc., we cannot have the occupation tag filled. The fact that someone has Semicha allows them to be called "Rabbi", but it does not make them employed as a Rabbi. Do you understand, YY? -- Avi 14:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. A rabbi can be voluntary and must not be employed by anybody else, the word Rabbi means he teaches Torah to others through his knowledge that others respect him for. Its Not at all a organized think. Its like an artist and any other vocation, if a source can be found that he is an artist and the world refers to him as such i don't need to produce his employment papers.--יודל 16:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has a bona fide Haredi Orthodox semicha, I can say that you are incorrect. You need to review the definition of occupation as well. -- Avi 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we put this whole thing in the main article as in here?--Shmaltz 01:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is not a bad idea, since there is no proof of his having semicha. Most people called "Rabbi" in wiki have no proof either, but it is common knowledge that the great Orthodox Rabbis would never have been accepted as Rabbis without semicha, so that is acceptable. Weiss, however, is not in that category, so it is something to consider. However, as there is absolutely no source for his occupation as a Rabbi, it cannot be added as an "occupation". -- Avi 02:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't he quoted in the newspapers as Rabbi Wiess? as such that gets sourced at least to include in in the article as disputed like they did with Friedman. Don't you think so?--Shmaltz 15:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If you find external sources who dispute this sure do add it.--יודל 15:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Avi you could very well be a rabbi, but i ask u please stop floating your personal credentials because even if they may be true, we as a Wikipedia should never base our edits on somebody's credentials unless i can verify it, last time i checked your user page it is not your real identity there. To the point do u believe a rabbi is different then an artist? If its the same he can be occupied in his rabbinical teachings and must not be employed by any synagogue.--יודל 13:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The "occupation" tag has nothing to do with his or my being a Rabbi, it has to do with making a claim as to how he is gainfully employed. "Occupation" as it relates to the infobox tag is specifically employment. Art, science, and wishful thinking notwithstanding, there is no valid reason to make a claim about Weiss's occupation without a reliable/verifiable source. It certainly is not common knowledge, and it is very possibly the case that he is actually not employed at all. Regardless, until such point as suitable documentation that he acts as a Rabbi for the sake of his employment can be provided, it is a blatant violation of WP:OR to make that claim. -- Avi 14:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that i have no source of his employment but he still occupied as a rabbi teaching Torah, Again an artist even he is not employed is still occupied as an artist.--יודל 14:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

YY, my brother gives chaburos in yeshiva, thereby teaching Torah; that does not make him a Rabbi. My grandmother (she should live and be well) gives weekly shiurim to women, thereby teaching Torah; that does not make her a Rabbi. Teaching Torah alone does not make one a Rabbi. -- Avi 14:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

But teaching Torah full time does indeed make you a occupied Rabbi, he does not have to be employed by anybody.--יודל 14:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope. It does not in the sense that "occupation" is being used in this infobox. -- Avi 14:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep. It sure does just like any other Artist.--יודל 15:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Rabbi: is it his employment or occupation or just honorific?

YY, quit your pushing a POV. You need to source that he's a rabbi. This is a biography of a living person. Secondly, putting him in haredi rabbis is laughable considering that every haredi rabbi condemns his actions. Thirdly, Wiki policy, and Wiki Judaism project policy states that honorifics do not go in the article. If you find a source for calling him rabbi, then it can stay, until then it's unsourced and MUST go. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

OK i will bring many sources: CNN Jerusalem Post New York Times. Do i need to copy and paste all the gazillions of Google results which he is referred to as a rabbi?--יודל 14:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Those sources are not valid. 1) Any Jew with a beard is called Rabbi. 2) The media will call him by whatever title he goes by. What we need here are "internal" sources that state he is a rabbi. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not internal if the whole world calls him Rabbi he is a rabbi and you must bring internal or external sources to dispute this.--יודל 15:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if they may allow the honorific, and that is a matter of discussion, none of those allow the occupation. -- Avi 15:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Avi, now u r going to tell me that the Times and CNN and Fox News only gave him this title for an honor?! The Times and CNN I could hear, should have here an agenda, But Fox News and the Jerusalem Post?! Give me a Break... They are the biggest Zionist media, nobody buys such baloney that they would honor an anti Zionist activist as a rabbi if this would not be his vocation.--יודל 16:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Honorific, not honor. Yossiea ^(talk) 16:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the word honorific in the millions of citations where they call him plain and simple Rabbi and neither should Avi push his made up word here neither.--יודל 16:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

honorific. Yossiea ^(talk) 16:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) YY, you may need to review the definitions of occupation and honorific. You seem to be working under a few misunderstandings. There is nothing wrong with that per se but ithelps to understand the use of the terms, especially vis-à-vis wikipedia. Thank you. -- Avi 16:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Avi you must stop telling other users what to do we are here to talk about the subjects not about the users. Please stop your personal attacks. i assume good faith that because you have proclaimed yourself a rabbi and ridiculed me as a fascination on my talk page u r convinced that other users arnt enough knowledgeable of the subject therefore they must go and study the issues but assuming good faith know that others do the know issue just like you so stop making this into an issue about the users. Now back on topic just like we don't dismiss reputable references of professors artists doters and so fourth as only honorific we do not dismiss them when called rabbis, i don't think the standards of the Times is the same as the Post, it is not a tabloid those people would not waste details in clarifying every minute title. I now see that Yosia has picked up your claim so i will not revert it but you r wrong he is a full time Rabbi and your nitpicking of my sources is evidently worth for what it is let other users come into this discussion and see whats right. thanks for the coloration--יודל 16:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even certain what you are trying to get at with the above paragraph. So, lets try and keep things on topic. As for using the honorific in the article text, my personal opinion is somewhat nuetral. I have no particular problem giving YDW the honorific "Rabbi" or not in the article. My problem is saying that he is employed as a Rabbi, either in text or by using infobox tags, without reliable and verifiable sources to that fact. Now, where specifically do you disagree and what sources do you have to that effect? -- Avi 17:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

OK so now we are talking about Employment? you say that you don't understand one word of the paragraph, i suggest you reread all your paragraph's as well, His employment was never ever claimed to be notable or existing, this was never the issue. not once! Avi show us once where we discussed his employment? The whole debate is if he is a Rabbi in Occupation you claim that since he isn't employed he cannot be in occupation a rabbi, i say to you that a rabbi is very much so as a artists you do not have to be employed in order to be occupied with this vocation. Again he is a rabbi in occupation and there are millions of sources to that, you want to dismiss all those sources because in your mind if he isn't employed those are only honorific titles, i disagree so many peaple do not call a rabbi who isn't teaching Judaism a rabbi, but i hear what you and Yosia claim and i will not revert it until another user sides in this--יודל 17:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

See occupation. -- Avi 17:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

and see (before linking) that it leads to a vocation and see there that it does have nothing to do with employment it is a occupation without any real employment.--יודל 17:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the {{infobox person}} is using it to mean JOB. No more; no less. -- Avi 17:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Not by Rabbis or any other occupation, do u think a writer if he is unemployed is the occupation tag empty? sure not! because a writer is a writer once the world has given him the recognition, a rabbi is a rabbi once the world has given him this recognition. so it should be his occupation once i have given u the millions of sources that he is considered as a rabbi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yidisheryid (talk • contribs) 18:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not how it works. Recognition, imaginary or otherwise, doth not a job create. Bottom line, you have brought no proof for the man's occupation, and are trying to add the tag based on some original ideas as to the definition of "occupation". Wikipedia does not allow that. -- Avi 18:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Do u agree that by an artist or a writer it would have been an occupation filled in as writer? I don't see you disagreeing on this premise, so why in the heck should we make a Rabbi different? please answer me! and stop saying that i am against wiki policy while u show the worst contempt to the wiki community, do u think we don't know you have battled with 50 users all alone to get this article deleted, we know where you come from and please do not accuse others of your actions, why is a rabbi different from a writer?--יודל 18:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as we follow protocol and call him Rabbi only in the lead, I can see myself allowing it as well. So I'm not sure what the big deal is. Yossiea ^(talk) 17:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

For a user who keeps on nominating articles for deletion day and night and retracts them afterwards it is indeed not a big deal to revert the word rabbi from the article and then ask whats the big deal here, fact is this was discussed with Avi here on the talk page and you jumped in the fray here to accuse me of pushing a certain POV, personally i am with you it isn't a big deal...--יודל 17:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I honestly think you have no idea what you think. You keep switching bandwagons every second. You state that you are now with me, so what exactly is the point of you arguing with Avi? My AFD's have nothing to do with this case so leave it out of it, especially since several of them have you going from delete to keep or vice versa, and one (possibly more) have you as the page creator. I seriously think (I say this with the best of intentions) that you have to take a step back from editing the English Wikipedia. You state that you are an EN-1, many of these issues would not have happened if you would know what honorific, occupation, etc. mean. If you are unwilling to learn from your mistakes, I don't think you'd find your time here a pleasant one. Yossiea ^(talk) 18:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

OK Yosia keep up your good work! But let Avi speak for himself. after all you don't claim to be what Avi claims to be, Avi mentions all the time he is a rabbi and he is evidently an administrator as well, so let him say what i am wrong here, with you i agree of what you want, your wish is my wish! i havent reverted your actions in ages, and i don't plan to do one think against your wish. Shalom holy brother--יודל 19:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)