Talk:Yitzchak Ginsburgh

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Judaism

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Censorship of position on 'Jewish superiority over non-Jews'[edit]

An editor removed the following sourced content from the controversy section:

In an April 1996 interview with The Jewish Week, Ginsburgh spoke freely of 'genetic based, spiritual superiority over non-Jews,' stating that Halacha would “probably permit” seizing an unwilling non-Jew for a liver transplant to save the life of a Jew, because "Jewish life has an infinite value,” and “There is something infinitely more holy and unique about Jewish life than non-Jewish life.”

The stated reason given was that it's addition: "seems not to take into consideration previous discussions that took place regarding his page from the outset. In fact, it also repeats claims that already appear in the text."

1) After wasting time reading thru the archived talk page (due to lack of link to section), I did indeed find some interesting things:

a) Since 2009, editors have been trying to keep this content off, and failed every time.

b) One dispute went to the noticeboard, and then Administrators' noticeboard where the Admin warned the remover, and supported inclusion.

d) The last discussion starts with: "One of the most glaring omissions is any discussion of Ginsburgh's opinion on the fundamental superiority of Jew over Gentile. Tons of good sources cover it." Another editor agrees. Ginsburgh apologist counters with red herring ("...Ginsburgh's goal to fulfill the bibilical prophecy that the Jews will be a light to all nations..."). The first user adds another quote "‘It should be recognized that Jewish blood and a goy’s blood are not the same … Any trial that assumes that Jews and goyim are equal is a travesty of justice’." and says that there is more content available.

Ginsburgh apologist counters with his opinion that the sources misinterpret Ginsburgh. Obviously we can't go around deleting source based content just because we believe the source to be in error. That would violate WP:ORIGINAL & WP:NOTTRUTH / Wikipedia:Truth, not verifiability.

Conclusion: Nothing on the page supports the reversion, and on the contrary, all I see is that:

a) Admin previously approved this content.

b) This edit seems to be part of an ongoing concerted effort to censor this article, and enhance Ginsburgh's image.

2) As far as the argument that it "repeats claims that already appear in the text". It is mentioned in a quote about another incident. However:

This seems to be significant enough to warrant mention as a separate incident (if not section, considering the other quote mentioned on the archived page, and the mention there of even more related content).
The way the article is written makes it look like a he-said-she-said issue, when in reality we have direct quotes from an interview.

Yaakovaryeh (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we already mention the "liver" thing in the article. The source in The Jewish Week could be added to that and a bit of expansion is appropriate. It isn't necessary to quote every shocking thing he has said, though. I agree that there is too much apologetics here and it reads like a fan club. The Hebrew sources have to be examined and religious texts removed. I already removed a magazine that is published by the settlement. Arutz Sheva (INN) is also a dubious source as it is run by and for the settlement movement. Zero^talk 14:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: IDK if you saw the end of my post, but I made 2 points regarding the "liver" thing already being mentioned:

1) I think the interview where he discussed 'genetic based, spiritual superiority over non-Jews' is significant enough to warrant mention as an incident in and of itself, rather than a mere mention related to another incident. It's certainly a lot more significant than some of the other incidents like "Haaretz called Ginsburgh "a well known radical on his views on Israel Arab public"."

2) The way the article is written makes it look like a he-said-she-said issue, I.E. Inbari claims Ginsburgh said x, and Ginsburgh denies it. But in reality, we have direct quotes from an interview with Ginsburgh.

P.S. I'm not sure Ginsburgh's statement belongs here all together, since it doesn't really actually respond to what was said. Ginsburgh writes "Never did I advocate taking non-Jewish life, except when tragically forced by war", but no one ever said that he did, on the contrary, Inbari wrote "From this point only a small further step is required to actively encourage", meaning that he hadn't made that step. So Ginsburgh's statement doesn't even address the accusation. The rest of the quote also seems to be obfuscatory red herring that does not really directly address the controversial statements. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 12:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 June 2023[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the title of the students, the order should be changed a bit, so that the doctors will appear first, and the people without the academic degrees will appear at the end. There is no reason to precede "Meir Ettinger" for example, to "Dr. Shloma Kalish" or "Dr. Daniel Shalit". In addition, it is worth adding to this list the names of his old students who edit his books and pamphlets:

Rabbi Moshe Genuth - president of the English department at Gal-Einai, a lecturer at the School of theology of the soul in Israel, and director of the Nefesh Academy of Torah Psychology.
Aviv Moyal - Editor-in-Chief of the "Niflaot" issues in the Hebrew language, published by Gal Einai.
Rabbi Dror Shaul - The chief rabbi and Chabad emissary in Dharamsala, India, senior lecturer at the School of Psychology, and a psychologist. MenZee (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: I have removed the "Dr." titles per MOS:DOCTOR. If you want to list more people, each listing will need a source, as the current ones do. It appears that each of the people in the current list are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, so any new entries should probably follow that criterion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

White washing inaccurate report of the writings that are incitement to hatred[edit]

This Wikipedia article does NOT describe properly the full nature of all the criminal proceedings, upto Israel's Supreme court, condemning the inflammatory writings of Ginsburg. He was formally charged- indicted- with incitement to hatred, racist talk.. and condemned for Baruch Hagever, made to apologize (he gave a weak apology) for Tipul Shoresh. Your article is largely based on input from people who seek to minimize and hide the extent of the condemnation by law of these writings. It is rare for proceedings to be taken and requiring apology and the removal of such things in a democracy- yet this was pursued due to the heinous nature of the writing according to the highest courts and legal-criminal authorities. And the result has been that Ginsburg has been very careful in last 10 years to write anything that touches upon the political circumstances, something that was central to his activities prior to his indictments and trials. The Wikipedia article wrongly covers up mostly this central aspect of his thinking and the major legal court responses condemning these, outright. And his cagey silence on these things, since. Too much hidden here. 2A02:14F:1F5:B032:EA44:DB:E1D7:D23F (talk) 06:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]