Talk:Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin/Archive 3

Documenting Opposition
There definitely is opposition. Daniel575, it would be very helpful if you could come up with a source that represents the Haredi position using language somewhat less strong, and perhaps discussing some of the arguments supporting that position.--Shirahadasha 20:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am unable to find such sources online. As you may know, Chareidi papers simply do not write on things which the Chareidi world does not support. An example is how not a single chareidi newspaper devoted a single article to the planned 'gay parade' which would have been held in 5 days in Jerusalem, R"L (may the Merciful One save us). Why? Because the gedolim commanded them not to devote a single letter to it. That's how chareidi newspapers work. If the chareidi world boycotts this initiative, does not support it, then the chareidi newspapers will not devote a single letter to it, positive nor negative. The closest thing which you will find are articles containing remarks about members of the 'Sanhedrin'. For example, the article which accuses Yisrael Ariel of having 'poisonous opinions', his books being 'unworthy of being purchased' and him being 'unworthy of any support for his activities'. As you can read in the second article (published on wednesday), this is the certified and confirmed opinion of the Litvishe gedolim. --Daniel575 17:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Understanding that there may be limited material in English, has a halakhic responsa on this subject been issued in Hebrew by any Haredi rabbi or Beis Din? --Shirahadasha 02:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, there has been no official response by any leading Haredi rabbi or Beis Din. --Historian2 07:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, Daniels complaint that the "Hariedim don't write on the internet" is also the reason I cannot give you a link to Rabbi Fischer's psak of the Eda Hareidi to show that Daniel's comment is factually wrong. --Historian2 07:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If Daniel would stop reading newpapers and instead learn his Rambam, he would see that the judges of the "Sanhedrin" specifically do not require individual "approval". Once the original "Samuch" (ordained one) is selected by consensus, then he is free to pass ordination on to whom he sees fit. The Rabbis ordained by the first ordained Rabbi do not need to be "approved" in any other way.  So Daniel's comment about Rabbi Steinsalz is not only wrong, it is irrelevant. --Historian2 07:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Historian2, but of course we can't present our own legal analysis from traditional sources, we have to present the analyses of the contemporary factions if we can find them. --Shirahadasha 16:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Historian, Just your spelling of 'Eda Hareidi' shows that you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. --Daniel575 17:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are so many ways to spell it, I usually cut and past. I believe I copied that from you.  Personally I spell it Eda Charedis --Historian2 18:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Daniel: Stop this zealotry. This is not the way to behave. 203.217.54.74 06:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not 'my legal analysis', it is the basis for teachings and quoted by the Rabbi Beirav, Rabbi Yosef Karo, Rabbi Aharon Mendel haCohen and Rabbi Zvi Kovsker, in their works. It is also a plausible reason why the leading Rabbis have not opposed the current effort or even commented on it. The roots of this effort go very deep in Jewish law, and there are 'heavy weights' on both sides of the argument. Documenting the basis in Jewish law for these actions is essential to understanding their approach and how they have been received (ignoring of course remarks from those who are not knowledgeable).

I think it is impossible, without quoting original research, to document the opinions of contemporary factions. The best we can hope for is to list the issues. For example Daniel575 said to the effect "The Sanhedrin's ideology is contrary to Hareidi ideology" But where did he document or even explain the ideology of either? How can he source such a statement? It would be like writing and article to explaining the workings of the the United States Senate, by showing the pastimes and activities of Sen. Kennedy. --Historian2 18:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, it seems to me that "Historian2" is the webmaster of thesanhedrin.org., and therefore his opinion is not unbiased and he is clearly promoting a certain agenda. Bear this in mind as you discuss with him.


 * That's very funny, my name is Andrew and I can fax my passport to anyone who wants to see. I am in touch with the webmaster and we are on good relationship, but he is not pleased that I have included so much negative material, especially the article by Rabbi Kaganoff. As I have entertained the idea of possibly publishing a book on this subject, he has provided me material and pointed out many things that I would not have otherwise known, but I only have included in the wikipage what is publicly available --Historian2 07:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Dispute status
I may be imagining things, but are we making progress toward at least agreeing on an approach to documenting this contentious issue? I see a lot of efforts underway to re-organize the page and to broaden the scope of information covered. Originally, the site of most of the conflict seemed to be the old "Criticism" section. Assuming the areas of content that still need to be researched and written, what sections of this article remain disputed? -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 21:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I am the only one writing anything --Historian2 08:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Daniel appears just to be adding unsourced original research and inflammatory rhetoric, so the dispute is still in full course. --Historian2 08:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am being totally MIA. I am sorry. I have some issues to deal with. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No prob, CrazyRussian. Historian2, is it specifically the The debate stirred within the Hareidi camp section where you are disputing content?  Are there any other current sections you dispute?  I apologize if it seems like I am asking an obvious question, but it is getting exceedingly difficult for me to track the dispute with all of the reorganization and new text.  If this is the only section, I would like to start to visit it one paragraph at a time so we can agree on the text and citations.  In the mean time, please do not edit this section (I direct this request to everyone) and please hold off discussion until I start an organized discussion heading. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 14:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The current text does not reflect the disputed comments, but reflects an attempt at a compromise wording. My approach to compromise wording has been to tone down the rhetoric, provide an alternative view, and provide much more context. --Historian2 15:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I dispute the comments from Rabbi Shach about Rabbi Steinsaltz as "evil"
 * I dispute intense Litvish opposition to Rabbi Steinsaltz is held by all groups of Hareidim
 * I dispute the comments about Rabbi Ariel's books being "poison"
 * I dispute is his claim that the Yated Newspaper in it's opeds is the official mouthpiece of the leadership of the Litvish leadership.
 * I dispute his new comments by Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Ulman that Rabbi Levanoni is "lying"
 * I dispute the premise that "there is great opposition in the Hareidi camp to the new Sanhedrin"
 * I dispute comments about Rabbi Yoel Shwartz and Rabbi Michael Shelomo Bar-Ron being respected only by minor and controversial groups
 * Thanks Historian2. I'd like to review these again just to get them fresh in my mind, and then I will post a heading to begin reviewing the first item.  In the mean time, please remember to assume good faith in your fellow editors; it will make this whole deal a lot easier. While this is clearly a much-debated topic, I think everyone is here to make this the best article possible. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 15:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous, Historian! First off, Haredi (in general) or Lithuanian Haredi (in particular) criticism is a perfectly valid topic for the encyclopedia. If it's sourced, it's includable, much as you may not like it. Next, Yated is as prominent as news organ in the Haredi world. Its opinions, including its editorials, do represent the views of the Lithuanian Orthodox leadership, and a discussion of those is valid here as well. Finally, Daniel575 is not even Litvish! He's explicitly a follower of the Dushinsky Hasidus, and by nationality is Dutch. Your positions here are ridiculous. Superfinally, stop using Yiddish and Hebrew terms! Andy is not Jewish, and probably has no idea wtf you're talking about! - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Read my comments again, I didn't say that. Sorry about the hebrew and yiddish. Lets take each point one at a time. --Historian2 16:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * CrazyRussian: None of them are in reaction to the Sanhedrin. Do you want me to add every bit of insane ciriticism about your so called critic? 203.217.54.74 06:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I also dispute such comments. They where NOT given in reaction to being part of the Sanhedrin. Most of them where as serious as Rabbi Ovidiah Yosef's joke about Ashkenazim. 203.217.54.74 06:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi there - welcome to the discussion. I am about to start some organized sections to discuss the content in question, and I hope you will participate there. In the mean time, would you be willing to consider creating an account and editing/posting while logged in?  It is not necessary, but definitely helpful in organizing discussion.  Thanks! --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 19:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone read Irgot HaSemicha?!?!?
{{blockquote|text=Against the view are such authorites as the Chazon Ish, Rabbi Avraham Yeshayah Karelitz, who quoted Rabbi David ibn abi Zimra (Radvaz) on the subject, who in turn sided with the [{Ralbach]], who based his claims on the Ramban that it is impossible to form a Sanhedrin before Moshiach, the Jewish messiah, comes.}}

The before Moshiach comment is nonsense. They opposed it because Moshiach must be given semicha and they are not allowed to make it possible that this could happen before the time has come. (the time they are referring to is after an ingatherment of the exiles). I also wonder if anyone read the Chazan Ish's statements? He was talking about 1940s when the Zionists wanted to make a Sanhedrin (not based on semicha) which again was before a majority ingatherment of the exiles. Rabbi Kook also tried to establish the Sanhedrin since the 1920s but knowing what he was talking about he knew this wasn't possible till a majority ingatherment of the exiles. Instead he established Cheif Rabbinut in Israel which would work in the direction of establishing a Sanhedrin once the time has come. Every Cheif Rabbi in Israel knows this and they are supporting the establishment of the Sanhedrin because a majority ingatherment of the exiles has happen. They have said that themselves. Daniel: Go and ask them yourself. You live in Israel. 203.217.54.74 06:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Additions by 203.217.54.74
I moved your text from the introduction to the "forming a sanhedrin" section to keep the introduction small.

What do you mean by "A Beth Din of 71 was formed but has not taken on the responsiblity of the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem as a Sanhedrin of 23 must be formed in every city first. Under Jewish law they have the status of a Sanhedrin of 71 outside of Jerusalem." I am not sure this is true. Where is this from? --Historian2 12:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem's job is to solve conflict in between different conflicting outcomes of minor Sanhedrins. This requires minor Sanhedrins first... I can't really think of how to put in simple words. I give you some Talmud reading... maybe you can explain it better. It might be a few days till I give it to you... so don't worry if there is a delay. 203.217.64.19 13:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Finding sources
I think a stronger argument, if you are trying to prove opposition by the Lithuanian Hareidi community is simply that fact that the Yated runs articles against these people. I think it would be a stretch to say that any other Hareidi community feels the same way about these two Rabbis. This leads me to the greater point of this "dispute" section. If the Haredi community truly has such a problem with the 'Sanhedrin' then a verifiable quote shouldn't be hard to find. Bring a source. I think a more accurate statement is what I wrote originally, that the Hareidi community is generally unaware of the 'Sanhedrin' or doesn't take it seriously (laughs at it, etc). Historian2 21:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Such a quote IS very hard to find. It does not exist. As I said before, Haredi newspapers do not write on issues which conflict with their religious POV. For example, you will not find a Haredi newspaper writing negatively about 'Jews for Jesus'. I suppose according to your logic that would mean that Haredi rabbis are not opposed to Jews for Jesus? --Daniel575 21:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would be hard to find. There are many hareidi newspapers printing comments about missionaries, websites of yad l'achim, jewsforjudaism, etc., whats your point? --Historian2 22:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is impossible to find. It does not exist. You will not find any Haredi newspaper writing about Jews for Jesus. Yes, they will write about unspecified missionaries, about Yad l'Achim, about Jews for Judaism. But they will not write about Jews for Jesus. Your conclusion: Haredim are not opposed to Jews for Jesus? --Daniel575 22:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok find a quote about some unspecified group of Rabbis trying to reinstitute semicha and create a Sanhedrin. That would be fine.--Historian2 22:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com/ mentions "Jews for J." in over five articles. --Historian2 22:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Two articles here. Quite surprising. I will continue looking, but don't expect any results. This whole 'Sanhedrin' thing is just a total non-issue in the Haredi world. Nobody gives a youknowwhat, understand? People simply don't care. This is how the average Haredi person or rabbi feels about it: 'It has no authority, has no influence, was set up by a bunch of heretical idiots and doesn't deserve any attention whatsoever.' --Daniel575 23:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, this is something, about the principle at least: see here. Scroll to the section that begins with 'Incidentally'. --Daniel575 23:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And another. See the section called 'Uprooting from the Source'. --Daniel575 23:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, the "Sanhedrin" plan of Rabbi Maimon in 1949 was clearly opposed by the Brisker. These sources might be good for the text that appears "When Rabbi Yehudah Leib Maimon in 1949 tried to form a Sanhedrin out of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate, leading rabbis of the Haredi world repeatedly voiced their strong opposition in a number of declarations", but have nothing to do with the current attempt. --Historian2 06:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How about Daniel's text above, I find it much more accurate "This whole 'Sanhedrin' thing is just a total non-issue in the Haredi world. Nobody gives a youknowwhat, understand? People simply don't care. This is how the average Haredi person or rabbi feels about it: 'It has no authority, has no influence, was set up by a bunch of heretical idiots and doesn't deserve any attention whatsoever.'". IMHO "not caring" is very different from "great opposition". If we could just rid of POV, it might be a good text. :-) --Historian2 07:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion: Crystal ball predictions
This heading is ONLY for discussion of the following passage: "The above attempts to indicates the sharp divide between the ideology held by the some of members of the Sanhedrin initiative as opposed to the ideology of the Haredi world. The quotes indicate how strong the opposition held by the Lithuanian world against two particular members of the 'Sanhedrin'. There has been no indication that this 'Sanhedrin', as an institution, will ever be one that the Haredi community can embrace."

What is the purpose of the statement "Litvishe world will NEVER support that Sanhedrin"? or the milder one that concludes the section we are discussing "this 'Sanhedrin', as an institution, will [n]ever be one that the Haredi community can embrace." Crystal ball predictions are not appropriate for an encyclopedia --Historian2 07:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Such things cannot be explained to anyone who is not a Haredi Jew and not at all familiar with the Haredi world. The Litvishe world WILL NOT EVER support that Sanhedrin. That's a plain fact. --Daniel575 00:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Historian. - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That is orignal research. The very fact Litvishe Rabbis here support the Sanhedrin proves Daniel wrong. 203.217.54.74 06:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Aha, and which Litvishe rabbis are those? Most be R' Avraham Shapiro? You're talking about Litvishe rabbis who ignore and don't care about the words of the Chazon Ish, Rav Shach, Rav Nissim Karelitz and Rav Yosef Sholom Eliashiv? And who still identify as Litvish Haredi? --Daniel575 16:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The Litvish Rabbis I talked to said very clearly the Chazan Ish was referring to Zionist starting a Sanhedrin in 48. They take this as a totally different case. 124.168.3.10 07:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This text should be deleted. The whole text is unsourced and the last sentence predicts the future. --Historian2 13:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion: Comments about "lies, total lies"
This heading is ONLY for discussion of the following passage: "Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Ulman, denied that Rabbi Halberstam had ever supported the Sanhedrin or had anything to do with it, and called the claims by the 'Sanhedrin' 'lies, total lies'."

Daniel575, why did you add this material? It is original research, unsourced and libelous. Why do you do this? "An associate of Rabbi Moshe Halberstam, Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Ulman, denied that Rabbi Halberstam had ever supported the Sanhedrin or had anything to do with it, and called the claims by the 'Sanhedrin' "lies, total lies". --Historian2 17:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Historian reverted my edit here under the pretense of it being OR. Earlier, however, Historian said: "I have spoken with two Admorim on the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah, and have sent people around to collect input from the offices of various Gedolim,..." Further, most of the things in the article have only one single biased source: the 'Sanhedrin' website. Do you have any reliable, neutral, non-involved sources that say that Rav Eliashiv gave his blessing to the project? Arutz Sheva does not qualify, since it copies its material straight from the 'Sanhedrin' website. If you are going to edit out my OR, I am going to edit out your OR, which will result in 98% of the article disappearing. --Daniel575 21:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have specifically not used any of my own research in the article. All the material is sourced.  The material was published in Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, Forward and Arutz 7 years before there was a Sanhedrin website.  Why are you doing this? --Historian2 22:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The question is why you are doing this. There are no independent sources verifying that Rav Eliashiv, Rav Halberstam, Rav Goldberg, and even Rav Shapiro have offered any support. On the contrary, all the information to which I have access indicates exactly the opposite. The sources which you bring each have only one source: the 'Sanhedrin' itself. --Daniel575 22:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't change the facts. I have presented numerous sources and identified each one accordingly. You have no source for your information other a private phone call that no one else heard. Rabbi Ulman has never made this claim in public, and no one else has. Who knows if he referred to Semicha or Sanhedrin? Who knows if you quoted him correctly?  Who knows if he was in a position to know these claims? --Historian2 07:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * He is one of the other members of the Edah HaChareidis, was a close personal friend of Rav Halberstam, and I asked him about the 'Sanhedrin' led by Levanoni and Steinsaltz which was set up 2 years ago and which claims to have (had) the support of Rav Halberstam and Rav Eliashiv. His answer was that any claims of Rav Halberstam having had anything to do with this 'Sanhedrin' or having given it his blessing were "lies, total lies." --Daniel575 08:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I had already put forth a compromise text "Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Ulman, a colleague of Rabbi Halberstam, who does not support the new Sanhedrin project, claimed that Rabbi Halberstam had not specifically approved or given a blessing to the new Sanhedrin." next to Rabbi Steins comments disagreeing with this. But in over a month of arguing over this you have not offered one single compromise. You are simply pushing POV. --Historian2 07:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not pushing anything, it is you who is pushing. --Daniel575 08:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Andy, I fail to see how the wikipedia system works when sources are not readily available online and someone is pushing an uncompromising POV. --Historian2 07:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Who is Andy? --Daniel575 08:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, just as a side note - what is a 'Rambamist scholar' and what is the 'Rambamist camp'??? Is this some sort of Zionist thing? I thought all of Orthodox Judaism accepted the Shulchan Aruch as the supreme legal code? The Rambam is very nice and interesting and Mishneh Torah is a great work - but hey, it is not the work we use for practical stuff. We use the Shulchan Aruch and its meforshim (commentators). I do not really understand what 'the Rambamist camp' refers to. Please explain. --Daniel575 08:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe he's talking about the Briskers. lol. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 14:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Or the Yemenites. Or... Or the dozens of Internet communities. I have heard statement like Daniel's many times from chabadniks. Where do they get this nonsense from? 124.168.3.10 07:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Daniel575, I am Andy. Unless my mother is mad at me, in which case I am Andrew. At any rate, the only question that must be answered for this passage is, "Where is the verifiable citation?" If there is none, this passage does not belong here, with or without the phone call phrase. If there are other passages that are likewise unsourced, we must address them separately, but in this heading we are only concerned with the passage stated. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 14:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The quote from Rabbi Ulman has got to be reduced or eliminated. It is not relevant, the wikipage and its source material say that Rabbi Halberstam endorsed and accepted the reinstitution of Semicha, it does NOT say he supported the new Sanhedrin, so Rabbi Ulman's comment is not only unverifiable it is irrelevant. --Historian2 14:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is most definitely relevant. The source material for your claims about Rabbi Halberstam are unreliable. Everything I know indicates that it is a lie, a total and plain lie. There is nothing wrong with noting this. The page says that Rabbi Halberstam was himself involved with this 'Sanhedrin' in becoming its first 'samuch' etc. That does mean that he supported the 'Sanhedrin'. Which is contradictory to everything I know. Thus, this matter needs further attention: did Rabbi Halberstam have anything to with this 'Sanhedrin', yes or no? You say 'yes', I say 'no'. Your source: the 'Sanhedrin' website and other news sources which all base their information on the 'Sanhedrin'. My source: a close associate and personal friend of Rabbi Halberstam. I have not been editing out your version, please do not edit out my version either. --Daniel575 15:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We are editing in the "sandbox". There is no question this quote is unverifiable and original research. If I also think it is wrong, I will dispute it and demand it be removed.  First of all, I do not understand his claimed comments, please clarify what is "lies, total lies".  Does he mean to say that a) Rabbi Halberstam never (even passively) participated in an election for semicha? b) that Rabbi Halberstam did participate, but never intended it to go so far as an actual Sanhedrin. c) that he did participate and did intend to make a sanhedrin but never approved or participated in this this particular Sanhedrin. d)its all conspiracy  and fraud. What do you claim that Rabbi Ulman meant? (From my own OR, I believe c) is true for what that is worth).  --Historian2 08:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Stropkover Rebbe told me Rabbi Moshe Halberstam did not want to go on to be on the Sanhedrin as he was 72. By the time we have a fully running Sanhedrin he would almost be 80 which would disqualify him to serve. 124.168.3.10 07:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the dubious tag to Daniel's claim about R' Ulman, I will soon start a straw poll to see if we should keep an unverified entry in this article. We should not allow this in just because Daniel threatened to keep deleting verified sources. Yossiea 15:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC) In addition, Daniel is in violation of WP:RS "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher" I can't belive we are being held hostage by Daniel's bullying. If something is in clear violation of WikiPolicy, why does it still remain?Yossiea 16:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC) Here's more: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question, and any unsourced material may be removed by any editor." And: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. Thus threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Yossiea 17:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Disputed
 * I think we should take an unoffical tally to see if Daniel's unverified claim, and WP:OR should be allowed to stay in the encyclopedia. See Verifiability for more info.
 * If you again delete the remarks by Rav Ulman, I will delete all references to the Chareidi gedolim ever having supported this thing. For that, there is NO SOURCE other than the Sanhedrin website, and Arutz Sheva (which is NOT a reliable publisher) and other news sources which got their information directly from the 'Sanhedrin' and did not verify it either (like Haaretz). As far as I know, there is as much to prove Rav Ulman's quote as there is to write that Rav Moshe Halberstam was involved in the Semicha thing, or as there is to say that Rav Eliashiv, Rav Goldberg gave their blessings to it all. --Daniel575 | (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read the above WikiPolicies. You are in violation of several of them. Until you have a source, it does not belong on Wikipedia.
 * And this speaks directly to you: "A good way to look at the distinction between verifiability and truth is with the following example. Suppose you are writing a Wikipedia entry on a famous physicist's Theory X, which has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. However, in the course of writing the article, you contact the physicist and he tells you: "Actually, I now believe Theory X to be completely false." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Wikipedia entry.

Why not? Because it is not verifiable in a way that would satisfy the Wikipedia readership or other editors. The readers don't know who you are. You can't include your telephone number so that every reader in the world can call you for confirmation. And even if they could, why should they believe you?

For the information to be acceptable to Wikipedia you would have to persuade a reputable news organization to publish your story first, which would then go through a process similar to peer review. It would be checked by a reporter, an editor, perhaps by a fact-checker, and if the story were problematic, it might be checked further by the lawyers and the editor-in-chief. These checks and balances exist to ensure that accurate and fair stories appear in the newspaper.

It is this fact-checking process that Wikipedia is not in a position to provide, which is why the no original research and verifiability policies are so important.

If the newspaper published the story, you could then include the information in your Wikipedia entry, citing the newspaper article as your source." Yossiea 17:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Daniel575, are you currently searching for a citation for that statement? If so, Yossiea, is it possible to assume good faith here and let the passage stand while the citation is in work?  Daniel575, if you are fairly certain that no citation is forthcoming, please consider removing the statement per WP:V. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 17:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no source. It is personal, this rabbi lives across the street and I asked him in person. I will remove all instances of non-verifiable claims in the article. --Daniel575 | (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What's with all the removing? Now you're just being silly.Yossiea 18:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why did you delete what you deleted? What is unsourced? Yossiea 18:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You guys are editting too fast for me to follow. I mentioned to Daniel I have not modified the text, someone else is disputing it. What is your question? --Historian2 18:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am now removing all unverified claims, as you requested. The 'Sanhedrin' website and Arutz Sheva, which directly copies its news from the 'Sanhedrin', are not reliable sources. They are very POV and absolutely not reliable. I am not being silly, I am being consistent. Alternatively we can revert to the way it was before Yossiea entered the game, ie, with Rav Ulman's comment (which can have a fact-tag added) and with the claims by the 'Sanhedrin' that Rav Eliashiv, Rav Halberstam etc were involved. Yossiea, you cannot have it both ways. As I wrote: concerning Rav Halberstam's alleged involvement in this whole thing, the 'Sanhedrin' website and Arutz Sheva are NOT reliable sources. If you find me a citation to HaEdah (the journal of the Edah), the Yated or any other reliable Haredi newspaper, I will be happy to include it. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, with my version as of now, the entire dispute is resolved. We can finish things like this, remove the POV tag from the page, and declare the whole thing closed and resolved. Historian, agree? --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Daniel you are silly, the Sanhedrin website only was created in February of this year. How could the other sources have copied from it?  --Historian2 18:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As per WikiPolicy that I quoted above and as Aguerriero linked to, Arutz Sheva articles are to be included, whether or not you believe them to be true. Quit pushing your NK agenda here, let's try to get a NPOV article up. Yossiea 18:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nowhere does it state as fact that the Rabbis supported anything. The wikipage says that the Sanhedrin claims that they did, this assertion is enirely verifiable.  It says these Rabbis have not commented on the issue.  All this is verifiable fact.--Historian2 18:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Before February, they had their own channels. Arutz Sheva is very closely aligned with the ideology of the 'Sanhedrin', which is religious-zionist. The Edah HaChareidis, to which Rav Halberstam belonged, is diametrically opposed to (Religious) Zionism. I just spoke to Rav Ulman about it again, and he didn't understand what it is that people are having trouble understanding. OF COURSE Rav Halberstam had NOTHING to do with this! Like, 'duh'. Just the sheer craziness of claiming he was involved. It's like claiming that Shiite Nasrallah is running for president in Saudi-Arabia. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Daniel, before you edit again, take a look at: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR I just spoke to Rabbi Ulman and he said that I am a godol hador and I should get all your money. Please paypal me.
 * If Rabbi Ulman states what you claim he states, then find a source. Until then, you as a primary source just won't cut it.Yossiea 18:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Quit the reverting, now, please. You leave it at my version until Aguierro comes back and gets involved again. No Rav Ulman, no Arutz Sheva stuff. No unverifiable content. Arutz Sheva is NOT a reliable source. You keep Arutz Sheva in, you keep Rav Ulman in. You throw Rav Ulman out, I throw Arutz Sheva out. Get it? If you want to be strict regarding verifiability, fine. Then so will I. Historian and I had agreed on this and had agreed to maintain a low level of verifiability, letting both the Rav Ulman quote and the Arutz Sheva articles stay. If you want to change that, fine, but it works both ways. You are not going to have it both ways. Now quit the reverting, or you are going to be in violation of 3RR. Leave it this way until Aguierro comes back. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No offense but stating that YOU and Arutz Sheva are equal in verifiability is laughable. AS passes the Wiki test, you as a source do not. Until you provide a source, it won't go in. If it's true, why is it so hard to get a source? And suddenly now you decide to abide by Wiki rules? Yossiea 18:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so Yossiea just violated 3RR. I am not reverting back, since I will not break 3RR. I am waiting for Aguierro. Arutz Sheva is by definition not a neutral source. For your information (and for Aguierro): Arutz Sheva has been banned by the State of Israel for its extreme-right neo-fascist Zionist outlook. It is forbidden from broadcasting in Israel and only exists on the internet. It praised Baruch Goldstein and defends Yigal Amir. I think that should suffice for Aguierro to draw his conclusions regarding their credibility when it comes to the allegations of Rav Halberstam having ever had anything to do with the whole 'Sanhedrin' thing, also in the light of my findings with Rav Ulman, who was a colleague of Rav Halberstam. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And I think we should delete anything from the Yated, they are not a proper source. They don't follow generally accepted journalistic rules and guidelines, and they make things up or edit things to suit their agenda, and they even state so on their website. Furthermore, the website of the Sanhedrin is an acceptable source. If you don't like it, then find a source for your claim. Bottom line: FIND A SOURCE I'm sure the Charedim would love to publish your supposed source, the fact that neither the Yated or the Hamodia cite it doesn't help your case. Yossiea 18:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are making a big mistake here. The Yated articles are about the view of the Litvishe gedolim of Rav Ariel and the Temple Institute. That is what they are for and they are accurate. For quotes on the views of Litvishe gedolim, you use a Litvish paper, the Yated.
 * For quotes on the views of Chassidishe gedolim, such as Rav Halberstam, you use HaEdah or such chareidi newspapers.
 * For quotes on Zionist rabbis, you use Arutz Sheva or Makor Rishon or such newspapers.
 * There is no contradiction at all in using the Litvishe Yated for the views of Litvishe gedolim. There is a problem in using Arutz Sheva for the views of those rabbis who hate, detest, despise Zionism. Is that so difficult to understand? --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So use a chassidishe newspaper, Hamodia. Find the source for R' Ulman's supposed stance in the Hamodia. To say that we can only use a specific newspaper for a specific reason is funny.Yossiea 18:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Go have a latte, everybody. We'll reconvene here after Shabbos and deal with these issues. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine. I badly need to take some time off now. This thing is eating up all my time and I don't like it. Gut shabbos everybody. We'll continue on motzaei shabbos (ie, saturday night). --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Protected

I have protected the page so you can discuss all changes here before making them. I suggest everyone read WP:POINT, and think about whether you are editing the article for quality, or to prove a point. As we have prior, please open a heading to discuss any disputed passage, and we will come to an agreement about it. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 18:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought we reached an agreement. Daniel would delete his R' Ulman comment until he can find a source and we can all live happily ever after. He's now claiming that only his newspaper sources should be used as other sources don't share his views, which I believe is contrary to WP:RS.Yossiea 18:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Daniel's position is indefensible. --Historian2 19:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Daniel clearly needs to follow Wikipedia sourcing policy, and needs to provide sources for claims that individuals made statements. This would be especially true of potentially controversial statements. --Shirahadasha 23:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)