Talk:Elya Svei

Resignation from Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah
Rabbi Svei resigned from both the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah and the Rabbinical Board of Torah Umesorah in 2002. Citations to support this would be helpful.

Danielb613 (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Rabbi Svei did not resign, as is popularly believed, from the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah. He ceased his participation as an active member when his health no longer permitted it, but he was listed as a member (often with the "inactive" designation) until his passing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.89.79 (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The article now contains a citation documenting that Rabbi Svei did resign from the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah, and as chairman of the Rabbinic Administrative Board of Torah Umesorah. The article further notes that the resignation was reportedly due to an ideological dispute with his colleagues, as documented in the citation.

Danielb613 (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Alzheimer's Disease
There seems to be an effort by some to whitewash the fact that Rabbi Svei suffered from Alzheimer's Disease in his final years. For example, unregistered user 68.192.89.79 deleted a statement to that effect more than once, including recently, when it was supported by a citation, which he (or she) felt was not reliable enough. I will restore the statement, with a qualifier.

Danielb613 (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Your "citation" is an anonymous blog with no readership and even less credibility. The Burden of Evidence is upon you to provide a credible citation or cease posting unsourced speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.89.79 (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It is well-known that Rabbi Svei had Alzheimer's. Still, at your insistance, I found a source to support the statement, and added a qualifier (noting that he "reportedly" had the condition). At this point, the reader should decide how much weight to give the source. It is not your call. However, I will add that if someone finds a better source, they should please share it.

Danielb613 (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC) It was widely speculated, but it was not "well known", unless somehow it was well known to everyone save his doctors and family, since that diagnosis was explicitly ruled out early on. In either event, your "source" fails to conform to WikiPolicy not to mention any reasonable test of credibility. Further, prefacing wild speculation with "reportedly" doesn't legitimize it nor cause it to conform to WikiPolicy. Wiki is explicit in that the Burden of Proof is on the one posting information to provide a legitimate, credible source before posting/restoring content. If you'd like to escalate this issue, Wiki has mechanisms for that, but regardless of what you choose, try to confine your editing to Policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.89.79 (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, it seems to me that you are using your own knowledge, research, or opinion in deciding that what was reported is not true, which would certainly violate WikiPolicy.

Danielb613 (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)