Talk:Yisroel Dovid Weiss

Honorifics
With rare exceptions, such as world-reknown scholars, talmudists, poskim, or rebbes, we do not use honorifics in articles. No article begins "Mr." or "Mrs." even though most sources usually include those honorifics. -- Avi (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above is simply not true (have a look around). Please cite relevant policy stating otherwise, if it exists. Re the fire, it isn't irectly relevant to YDW & thequote section, shld be integrated into article or moved to wikiquote (I think, but can't find the guideline). Whatever, later 2 not that important. --Bsnowball (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The relevant guideline is Manual of Style (biographies). -- Avi (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See its talk page, how Avi tries to make that page relevant to our title Rabbi which he deletes here time and time again against any outcome of consensus, his minoirety bias isn't excepted at all by nobody, i even went so far to help him by posting a reqwest of other Jewish users of the Jewish wiki-project to see if somebody can help justify his deletions by explaining and formelising a mid-way solution to his new Manuel of style, see the discusion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism but meanwhile only one [with a christen name] user wants all the rabbis not only this article but also the articles that Avi disagrees taken away the word rabbi from its lede--YY (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This was already discussed in the archives by Avi and he just tries to revive this claim, it holds no water, the fact is the article is sourced with many many major established publications who do indeed use the term rabbi on him throughout their writings about the subject, and throughout wikipedia we title all the rabbis and start their biographies with honorifics on the lead even though they are not major rabbis please look at Avi Shafran and more, sharan is only world-renowned because of his activism as a spokesman for the Agudat Israel, Wiess has the same claim to world renowned fame for he is the spokesman of the Netura karte so his title should not be different. thanks--YY (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed the honorifics from Shafran too, you are correct, he is not on the same level as somene like the Satmar Rov ZTVK"L who deserves the honorific. Also review the person infobox template; honorifics should never be used in those. -- Avi (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So now u change the rules while u play.... u r wrong the satmar ruv has a more stronger honorific title its called grand rabbi not rabbi. the word rabbi is used as an honorific in all writings and discussions about this rabbi and other rabbis. we in wikipedia should not decide what titles and terms are used on subjects they all must be according to its sources. Please do not disrupt the whole project and change now all the rabbi articles because u want to make a new policy! remember you wanted to become a bureaucrat now u break this fundamental rule of do not disrupt wikipedia with blatant disregard to 3 other users who have asked u please bring proof to your claim, and u go silently change the will of them without one answer, lets face it its hard for u to make peace that this article exists, the rabbi evidently isn't of your liking as u wanted to delete this article already once. i beg u please play by the rules, do not overwrite the will of others so brazenly.--YY (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please review our policies on civility and assuming good faith. Your history of canvassing others and your personal dislike of me (I still have all of the e-mails you sent me) must take a back seat to upholding wikipedia policies and guidelines. Unfortunately for what I believe you are trying to represent, one cannot selectively apply a policy where one likes it and not in other places.

I direct you to Manual of Style (biographies), in which it clearly states that honorifics should, in general, not be used in the title lines. The exceptions include people such as Mother Theresa who is known primarily by her honorific.

As such, I am going to remove it from this (and the Shafran) article's lede.

I have raised the issue here Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) and I invite you to comment there. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Here we go again... 3 users have expressed their opinion that a rabbi is in place for this subjects honorific, and all u do is overwrite them, ignoring their plea, and disrupting other articles also to delete them to make your point that a rabbi isn't allowed by your new policy of mother Tarisa. that u have no shame to add today as a new policy not even yesterday... what a chutspeh... i will not revert it today, not even the other articles that u woke up today, because i will not stoop to your level, we will give u some time to deal with our concerns, but like this u want to be a bureaucrat? after such dismissive conduct? i guess if u r still admin after such actions and nobody cares u should even be elevated to board member... lets see if your new proposal gets excepted. to delete all words of rabbis from the leads of articles of subjects that do not produce their Semicha diplomas publicly online--YY (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me make sure that I understand you. I show you how Manual of Style (biographies) specifically discusses honorifics in the lede, I make the article comply with wikipedia policy, and you feel that is disruption? So upholding wikipedia policy is considered "stooping"? What is your specific issue. -- Avi (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes u have shown only one link that discusses the issue of the word rabbi and that was done today by u. no problem we have time we will wait, and the disruption is also very clear indeed u have reverted single-handily many wikipedia users, now i will not revert them back because i am not a Rabbi who wants to become a Bureaucrat...--YY (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Have re-worded lead per cited policy and articles on similarly placed rabbis. Re the fire it doesn't seem relevant, as not being arson it can't have had anything to do with Weiss, hence doesn't seem necessary in his bio. Re the quotes, the one labled disputed can go on that ground, and the other can be incorporated into main article, per convetion (tho, no, i can't find guidelines about quote sections.--Bsnowball (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bsnowball, your wording is mor elegant and concise than mine. Re the fire, this belongs in the section below, but I think you are correct in that it can go now as it is not really related. As for the quotes, I maintain that the response to his travel and speeched is what makes him notable (there have been other visitors to Tehran) and the should remain. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mond re: the quotes, you are correct in that it is better to move it into the body. I have deleted the unreliable quote and moved the Holocaust quote to the body of the text. -- Avi (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fire in April 2007
There has been some thoughts about removing this section. Would interested parties pleas explain why, or why not, this should be removed? Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed. See above -- Avi (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

He becomes labled as an anti-zionist and not an antisemite? YOu jews are real crafty with your rhetoric and censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.86.50 (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

minority branch of Neturei Karta
What is the majority branch? Is there a divide within Neturei Karta? I do not find any explanation on this in the article, and there is no source for the claim. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "Small fringe group" and "minority branch" both seem to be value-charged wording with no sources, and should be removed. 172.74.152.136 (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I read the 3 references that were attached on the value-charged wordings, but i couldn't find that wordings in that references. Therefor i removed these wordings and used instead the wording i found in the refences... Wolf170278 (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

allegedly rejected views
I removed the sentence "Neturei Karta's views are rejected by the majority of Orthodox Jews worldwide." because it falsely suggests that the primarily anti-zionistic view ist rejected. But the (in the attached reference) mentioned group Satmar is also anti-zionistic and surely not standing for all Orthodox Jews worldwide. Furthermore they just expressed their protest against the visit of the "International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust" through the group Neturei Karta, which is also the only information that could be found in that reference. Greetings Wolf170278 (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)