Talk:Mercaz HaRav

What the hell is "national elements of the torah"? I've removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.119.138 (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"Mercaz HaRav"
I edited the translation to reflect how Rav Kook himself translated the name of the Yeshiva--Merkaz "HaRav" meaning for "the many"--In other words, "Central Yeshiva For The Masses." Rav Kook envisioned the Yeshiva to be a central Yeshiva which would attract "HaRav" from all over the world. Ksavyadkodesh (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

transliteration
Why Mercaz rather than Merkaz? &mdash;Tamfang (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Because the Hebrew letter "kaf" is generally transliterated as "c" and the Hebrew letter "kuf" as "k" (and in old fashioned transliterations, "q").--Gilabrand (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We learn something every day. Thanks.  &mdash;Tamfang (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Mercaz HaRav massacre
I have removed the list of victims or the massacre because the section should be kept small. While the terror attack is notable - it has it own article - it is not what makes Mercaz HaRav notable and the article should reflect that. It is a small part of the total history of the institution. This is consistent with other article such as Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and Kent State University. Jon513 (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Section on "Relationship to West Bank settlement"
As is well-documented, Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook encouraged his students to settle all parts of the biblical Land of Israel, including the Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula. To focus only on the West Bank and Gaza is to miss the bigger picture. An encyclopedia should present on overall understanding of a topic, not just collect statements from various books and articles. (And certainly not cherry-pick solely from antagonistic sources.)

Furthermore, the article is about the yeshiva and not about one of its deans. To devote an entire section of a short article on a 100-year-old institution to the ideology of one of its deans doesn’t make a lot of sense. Cm613 (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point, however it could be seen as POV to describe something as an antagonistic source, it is just a source. I suggest that you add in references to the Golan Heights, etc, and sources you may consider 'sympathetic' however there is no need to remove or overwrite the present material in order to do that.Regards.Pngeditor (talk) 08:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I get that you want the Lustig reference to refer solely to the West Bank and Gaza. But the second source that you added also speaks of settling Sinai and the Golan Heights!
 * "Although the formal creation of the movement [Gush Emunim] comes in response to the Yom Kippur War and talk of withdrawal from the Sinai and the Golan Heights, its roots go back to the capture of those territories, the Gaza Strip, and Judaea and Samaria"
 * I strongly suggest you reconsider the revert.
 * Re POV and sources - I saw the Lustig source as antagonist since, as the Wikipedia article on fundamentalism states, "the label "fundamentalism" can be a pejorative rather than a neutral characterization."
 * What bothered me more was the reference from the NYT in the main section ("where hundreds of future militants, opposed to territorial compromises and promoting Israeli settlement of the occupied Palestinian territories, received their formative education"). This needs to be fixed. It doesn't belong in the main section but should be put in context in a new section on "Protests to territorial compromises." The NYT article was written in 1982 during the evacuation of Sinai settlements as part of the Egypt–Israel peace treaty, when many Mercaz HaRav students were active in protests against the withdrawal. The NYT never spoke of "future militants." Rather, it says "Hundreds of militants who defiantly squatted in the occupied West Bank or in Sinai to forestall the return of the territories to the Arabs." The reference is misleading.
 * In addition, the use of "militant" by the NYT is problematic since it is widely-known and documented that the rabbis of Mercaz HaRav called for non-violent civil protest. That is a POV that needs to be countered. Or leave the whole thing out. Cm613 (talk) 09:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)