Talk:Don't give Hitler posthumous victories

Untitled
There are two headings "References"--one should probably be "Notes" or something. rodii 15:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Good call. That's fixed now. Durova 19:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Already covered by other commandments
Firstly there is an extra 7 mitzvahs the Sunheadren instuded. Secondly this would come in clear violation of "thou shall love thy friend as thy self" I am sure if I got through Sefer HaMitzvahs with this in mind I will be able to find more, but I am sure someone else smarter and with good memory can do this. 220.233.48.200 19:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Per my comment below, please cite your source. Durova 21:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The Torah. See where Moshe sets up the courts/Sunheadren. IIRC both in the books of Shemos and Devarim. 220.233.48.200 09:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Can't be the 614th
But can be the 8th Rabbincal commandment, just get the Sunheadren to accept it (not that it needs acceptance, as it is likely a violation of a few other commandments). And you got yourself a law. Have a nice time finding yourself the Sunheadren, and that is the easier part. 220.233.48.200 20:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There's no POV advocacy here. The article merely reflects the fact that Emil Fackenheim called it the 614th commandment and others have repeated it as such.  The introduction makes an explicit statement that this is unofficial.


 * Re: your other suggestion, please find a source for that proposal. We could mention it in the article if it's cited. Durova 21:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The 613 are given by God, one of them is "thou shall not add or remove." He is in clear violation of this. The only type of laws Sunheadren are allowed to add or remove from are the Rabbnical laws, the power is given from the Torah to the Sunheadren. I should make clear the last time there was a Sunheadren was at the time of the second temple, next one will be at the third Temple. One of the 7 laws is, outside of Israel a 2nd day for holidays has to be kept, reasoning was as the Bies Din had to declear wether the lunar month was 29 days or 30 days, and people outside of Israel could only find out from Israel, so to incase they can't find out (beleive it or not they didn't have email those days :D) so that they don't keep the wrong date, the Sunheadren made a law both possible dates must be kept. This is no longer valid because now we have a fixed calander. But as there is no Sunheadren to remove this law, we have to keep it until there is one to remove it. Because the Torah only gave the Sunheadren the power to add and remove Rabbincal laws. 220.233.48.200 23:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe the nature of my comment isn't clear: this article reports an assertion that has achieved attention for nearly 40 years. Part of that coverage means it reports the name its proposer gave for it, a name that has passed into public discourse and met varying degrees of acceptance.  If you'd like the article to include a statement that rejects the concept for the theological reason you describe, then you need to cite a reputable published source.  I look forward to reading it when you provide it.


 * I'm going to give the introduction another polish. It will reflect the spirit of your feedback.  Regards, Durova 23:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sources the Torah (thou shall not add or remove), Talmud, Code of Jewish law, Shulchan Aruch and the Rambam. 220.233.48.200 09:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Right. I've got the Biblical law quoted.  I'd feel better in terms of Wikipedia's No Original Research rule if we were quoting a scholar instead of trying to interpret the source directly. Durova 02:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

World Net Daily
Is not a realible source, their stories are made up. They many times claimed the "end of the world," with one of the more recent story that I saw claiming, that Bird flu in Thialand mutated to a human to human, and 30% of Thialand's poluation has died from it within a day ch"v. Removing anything that uses it as a source. 220.233.48.200 20:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If you object to the source then I have no objection to the deletion. I should comment per your edit note that I did not call Michael Medved a rabbi. Durova 21:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Emil Fackenheim's credentials
I've double checked per Encyclopedia.com: "Canadian-Israeli rabbi and philosopher, b. Halle, Germany, grad. Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums, 1939; Ph.D., Univ. of Toronto, 1945." Also an obituary

The Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums looks like a reputable institution. 

I'll give this a little time in case there's any evidence to the contrary, but from what I've seen so far it would appear POV to deny that he was a rabbi. Durova 00:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I see that someone removed the title from before the names of all of the Reform rabbis. Somehow I suspected that was where this was heading.  I'll be putting the titles back.  It's POV to deny them the title when so many contexts accept it.  If you find this inadequate I encourage you to leave the title in the text and footnote the objection. Durova 08:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If you are going to agrue that they are Rabbis, I am going to argue I am a doctor, a lawyer, etc... but does this accully make me any of those? Do I expect to be called in an encyclopedia by all those title? NO. 220.233.48.200 09:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No it will be a POV to accept that he is a rabbi, that POV is the reform one. The title of a Rabbi started with Moshe, see Gemara Sunheadren for more details, which requires a Rabbincal degree. 220.233.48.200 09:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is NPOV, neutral point of view. This means that we discuss various POVs, without taking a clear side. Saying that he is a Rabbi, or saying that he is not a Rabbi, are both POVs. Our job as editors isnt to *avoid* having any POV (as that would be impossible), but rather to navigate various POVs, explaining them as we go. As you may have noticed in our article on Rabbi, a Rabbinical degree is not a universal requirement, nor is even Semicha. See WP:NPOV Ronabop 02:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hm - so how do other Wikipedia articles handle this issue? Is there a precedent or a standard style that we can imitate? Durova 02:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Some OR/POV phrasing/editorializing?
"Sixty years after the Holocaust there remain a few survivors. These people and their memories and opinions deserve respect. The 614th commandment has become a meaningful part of public discourse about Judaism, Zionism, and anti-Semitism. Yet those who discuss it sympathetically may not embrace it wholeheartedly. For newer generations who understand the Holocaust as history, the injunction to grant Hitler no posthumous victories denies positive interpretations of the subjects it addresses"

While I don't disagree with the sentiments of the above paragraph, it doesn't seem encyclopedic in it's general tone, and may have a bit of a conflict with WP:NOR.... maybe something like:

"According to historians (fact) and religious scholars (fact), the 614th commandment has become a meaningful part of public discourse about Judaism, Zionism, and anti-Semitism. Yet those who discuss it sympathetically, such as - (fact), may not embrace it wholeheartedly. For newer generations who understand the Holocaust as history, the injunction to grant Hitler no posthumous victories denies positive interpretations of the subjects it addresses, according to - (fact)"

Would work better? Ronabop 02:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, that's worth considering. This is less a historical issue than a religious one.  I see your point.  The article is filled with references to rabbis, Christian clerics, and laypeople who use it actively and gives examples of how it fills their discourse.  What makes me hesitate is the potential of seeming to elevate one or two above the rest.  Thank you very much for the suggestion.  I'll think it over. Durova 04:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Religous scholars??? Religous scholars know of the commandment of "thou shall not add or remove" and this is in violation of this commandment. Durova, want to take this issue to a Jewish court. Instead of us agruing over something, that none of have the right to claim we are more right than the other? It is the only way we can get this issue solved. 220.233.48.200 09:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 220.233.48.200, The point of my suggestion was to remove or alter language which seemed to be expressing an editorial opinion in its tone, or lacked sourcing and citation about beliefs which some might find contentious. Because wikipedia is not the place to look for what *is* authoritative about a belief, but wikipedia is a place to look for what *others believe* is authoritative about a belief, authors and editors often have to separate themselves from their subject matter to a certain extent... so, rather than saying "X is true", we have to write that "Y believes X is true". For example, we can write about what orthodox believers think is true, what reform believers is true, what secular historians think is true, etc.


 * In regards to taking the issue to a Jewish court, even if said court issued a ruling that calling this subject matter the "614th commandment" was a violation of "thou shalt not add or remove", such a ruling wouldn't change the need for an encyclopedic entry about the subject matter itself. Indeed, it would add more information about the subject matter. Ronabop 02:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Addressing concerns
I've started a new section about terminology and cited Deuteronomy. I've also gone through the text to remove loaded phrasing and intend to change the article title to, "Do not give Hitler posthumous victories." If I've missed an occurrence of "614th commandment" please catch my omission. It still appears where the subject demands it as identification in the introduction and as a description of Fackenheim's claim. I believe I've removed all nonessential occurrences that could be construed as advocating this POV. As a respectful word to the objectors, true NPOV requires a delicate balance between your belief and an opposite one. I hope to treat both perspectives fairly. Durova 06:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * True NPOV requires, none made up stuff. Because I can go and "beleive" Bush is Osama Bin Laden, and demand it has to be added to the article or else it isn't NPOV. This idiotcy needs to end. 220.233.48.200 09:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has a pretty good policy on this: some ideas are sub-noteworthy. There seem to be two issues here and I'd like to address them separately:
 * The substance of Fackenheim's message.
 * The importance he accorded it.
 * With respect for the dignity of religious law, it seems to me the first topic remains important whether or not one agrees with Fackenheim about the second issue. It's a substantive argument about a very important matter.  One need not consider this law to discuss the ideas it represents. Durova 02:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism all reform.
Why isn't there any Criticism from Orthodox people, the most obvous one is it violates the law "thou shall not add or remove" 220.233.48.200 10:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There should be something about that, but not stuck in the introduction and all over the article. It should be in the Criticism section.--Prosfilaes 19:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually I included a reference to that law within the article. The editors who commented to that effect haven't named any Orthodox critics.  If you provide them I'll be glad to include them. Durova 02:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)