User talk:Avraham/Archive 30

al-Husayni
I've left off editing Wiki because I find far too much time is wasted in exhausting non-issues that serious neutral editors would never squabble over, on whatever side they might be. But I keep an eye on pages. I noted your reversal of the prior editor's 'few' (actually 'a few' would have been more correct), to 'no Palestinians' supported Zionism. You are quite right to query this and ask for sources, but the previous editor was correct. There is an excellent source for precisely this issue of Palestinian support for Zionism, namely Hillel Cohen's Tseva ha-tselalim, now available as Hillel Cohen, Army of Shadows: Palestinian Collaboration with Zionism, 1917-1948, trans.Haim Watzman, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles 2008. In chapter 3 (pp.66ff) the author provides a classification of 4 types of Palestinian collaboration. 'Collaboration' of course is not 'support' but Cohen does, in categories 3 and 4 designate ideological supporters and supporters motivated by humanitarian sympathies for Jewish neighbours, which therefore fits perfectly with what you request. I appreciate your keeping an eye on that page, which I worked hard on until I threw in the towel out of general exasperation, and hope you can edit in this source on the point under consideration. Regards Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey request
Hi,

I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, Sam4bc (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Blood Libel at Deir Yassin
Milstein isn't fringe per se, but the views expressed in this particular book are. If you read the article and its Talk page (it's a mess, I know), you'll see that the book was ignored by the mainstream Israeli media and academia, and it may be self-published.

Even in Deir Yassin massacre, Milstein's viewpoint is given only two paragraphs at the end of a long article. Since his viewpoint is "outside the consensus" of historians, I think giving him a full paragraph in the lede gives his view more attention than it deserves. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that.
I didn't notice until after I had posted my opinion that the discussion was closed. I tried to self-revert but you beat me to the punch. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Avi, you're a hypocrite - Re: Aron Tendler
Avi, I don't know if you're a relative or a student of Mordechai Tendler, but you're arrogant hypocritical schmuck selling your own POV as gospel.

"Tendler helped prepare and edited Feinstein's responsa for publication in the Igrot Moshe series."

Including the responsa in the early volumes published in 1959, 1960, and 1961 before Mordechai was even bar mitzvahed? Somehow I have a problem with that. I just can't picture Reb Moshe handing his tshuvas to a ten year old kid to edit and prepare for publication. But perhaps you know better. Maybe Mordechai told you himself.

"Despite his denial of wrongdoing and claim to his right to have his day in court, Tendler has never appeared to testify any of the lawsuis or actions in court or bais din, including those that he initiated."

Fact- Mordechai Tendler has not come to bais din with the RCA even though they agreed to Zabla years ago. Tendler did not go to court against AM and call her a liar to face and deny her allegations under oath, rather he fought tooth and nail for 2 years to have the case dismissed on technical grounds. That BTW is no victory. The court ruled that even if everything AM said was true, the action for which she is suing does not exist at law. He withdrew his action in Santa Clara County Supreme court against the bloggers when it was clear that he had no action to sue for. Outside his general allegation of libel, he did not specify one single statement made by a blogger (that wasn't already said in newspaper and TV) or demonstrate how he was damaged by it. In his action action his former shul for breach of contract that he filed in Rockland County supreme court WITHOUT a heter arkaos, he did not personally testify where he could be cross examined under oath. In the action that he had his 12 remaining supporters file against the shul (also without a heter arkaos) he also did not testify. (4 of them immediately withdrew seemingly unaware that they were parties to the suit.) His silence speaks volumes. I'm sorry the facts bother you. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd be happy to see it.

"His brother,former senior rabbi of Congregation Shaarey Zededk in North Hollywood California,Los Angeles rabbi Rabbi Aron Boruch Tendler, resigned from his 22 year post in 2006,"

So I'm wrong? He didn't resign? He still the senior rabbi? He's still teaching in Yula? He's still in LA and not in Baltimore? You should contact Shaarey Zedek. They seem to be under the misconception (according to you) that Aron Tendler is no longer there and a dude by the name of Jonathon Rosenberg is the Rabbi.

Stating of fact is not poisoning the well. It spreads knowledge and increases discussion. Your deletion of facts that you don't like is called POV censorship. Don't be a hypocrite. If I erred in any of the above I'd be glad to hear about it. Be sure to fill Shaarey Zedek in on their error as well. pikipiki (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Mirrored on my talk page


 * Avi
 * 1) Half truths are completely correct and designed to mislead. If I say you haven't visited a prosititute in the last two years, it's probably 100% correct, but it gives the impression of something else. The man resigned after 22 years as the pulpit Rabbi of Shaarey Zedek, that's a fact. The man is no longer in Shaarey Zedek or YULA, That's a fact. The man resigned amidst allegations of sexual impropriety, that's a fact. I do not address the particulars of the allegations nor whether they are true or not. That's why they're called allegations. Repeat: The man resigned from Shaary Zedek after 22 years as Senior Rabbi amid allegations of impropriety. That's all fact without personal analysis.
 * 2) Yes Mordechai Tendler did help with SOME of the later volumes, which is why I Inserted the word "some" That you removed. He was not the general editor of Igros Moshe he did not edit all or most of Igros he edited "some of Igros moshe which is why I changed "Tendler helped prepare and edited Feinstein's responsa for publication in the 'Igrot series" to Tendler helped prepare and edit some of Feinstein's responsa for publication in the Igrot Moshe series." That you so graciously reverted.
 * 3) My edits were not unsourced. In your supreme wisdom, you alone determined that the two sources I cited, stating allegations from numerous sources were unreliable.
 * 4) Allegations were made, that's all I said. How do you define verifiable? there's a documentary on you tube? Pick up the phone and call anyone in Shaarey Zedek. Or would that be original reasearch? If there is no record of Mordechai Tendler testifying in any court proceedings is that "verifiable" because it says so in the court record, or is that original research because I cared to look and you didn't?


 * And by all means please protect the article. It may stop you from editing out facts. It might bring needed attention to your over zealous attempt to maintain "neutrality" in favor of Tendler.  ala George Orwell "All animals were created equal, but some animals are more equal than others." -Animal Farm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pikipiki (talk • contribs) 07:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To Pikipiki, re the first sentence of this thread: please comment on content, not on the contributor. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Land Day
Just wanted to let you know that user PR brought up concerns about Jaakobou's editing of Land Day and asked me whether he should bring up his concerns with J's mentors. Rightly or wrongly, I advised him against bothering you. Still, it seems only fair that I let you know about this. You can see the recent conversation at User talk:HG. Hope this finds you well, HG | Talk 19:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Emil Gilels
Hi Avi - I'm looking at a bit of an edit war involving some information you added to this article, complete with OTRS ticket number, specifically that the subject of the article is Jewish. Another editor who says she is the niece of the subject, has been changing the adjective "Jewish" to "musical". Can you help me out in trying to determine how significant the subject's religion/culture is to this article, and why it would need to remain if other family members are objecting? It would be helpful in figuring out how best to deal with this issue, particularly as User:Bomsalam has been blocked for edit-warring in relation to this. Thanks. Risker (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC) (addendum to give you the link to the ANI discussion) Risker (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OTRS isnt a reliable source. This isnt a good way to achieve quality, and has probably led User:Bomsalam to believe that her word is authoritative on this matter, and being blocked for defending her preferred version. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

disruptive?
Archives serve to prove my point about the troll gang. Several admin editors warned me that "circumcision will always be a mess" specifically because of certain editors (you and jakew). You bring spurious arguments (like the sources you cited in discussion that DO NOT address your point) to waste time.TipPt (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Your unscholarly behavior (citing a source that does not support your claim) and writing (misleading, non factual) is disruptive and misleading. You are responsible for physical great pain and sexual harm http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=hss_pubs] without religious purpose.TipPt (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is proof positive that TipPt's purpose is not to build an encyclopedia, but to use wikipedia as a soapbox. Preventative measures may need to be taken. -- Avi (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am objecting to your current (see troll) role in Circumcision. Specifically your citing sources that are quite religious but clearly not relevant (not mentioning technique at all), and past war discussions.  You have been quite unscholarly.TipPt (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circumcision&diff=prev&oldid=235412935 demonstrates Tip's inaccuracies; thanks Tip [[image:face-smile.svg|25px]] -- Avi (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The Judaism Newsletter
This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. As always, please direct all questions, comments, requests, barnstars, offers of help, and angry all-caps anti-semitic rants to my talk page. Thanks, and have a great month. L'Aquatique [ approves | this | message  ] 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  20:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well done.
Good idea, getting an uninvolved administrator to look after the situation with TipPt. That was the right way to handle it. I was going to revert some of TipPt's changes, but it was going to take me time to figure out which of the many changed sentences I wanted to revert, and I got distracted with something else. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

, thanks for your message, SmackBot makes a number of changes that are available to all WP:AWB bots - in general these provide a number of non-controversial minor improvements.

Regards,

Feigl Article Recovery
My very short-lived article on Erich Feigl which was found in need of improvements was deleted around Aug 4th 2008. Since other editors had also contributed to it and I do not have a copy of the original material plus improvements, I would like to recover the article as it last appeared in Wikipedia so that I can further clean it up for re-submission. I am hoping you can help me recover the article. Thanks much.--Murat (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Was externally reviewed by the Washington Post:. i noticed you've made the most edits on the article. you probably know about the review i just couldn't see it elsewhere on your talk page, cheers Tom (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Circumcision
I've been off on other parts of the wiki, and caught up recently on discussion at Talk:Circumcision. I was very happy to see that you've found some time to participate in the discussion there; I hope your work isn't keeping you as busy as it was for a while, and that we'll end up both participating in the discussion at the same time at some point. I was also very pleased to see some positive efforts from both you and Blackworm to establish a good basis for communication, including both of you modifying your messages,. Your reply here to Finn is an excellent example of civility. I'm afraid, though, that the word "mischaracterizations" could easily be misconstrued. Regarding your reply to Gary's question: I think this is a good example of the difficulties of communication between people with different points of view. What's obvious to someone with one point of view may very well not be obvious to someone with a different point of view. When you mentioned answering a question with a question, I thought of the fictional character Perry Mason, who makes admirable use of questions in reply to questions as a method of avoiding giving away the slightest hint of information. I wondered why you didn't answer the question at that point, and figured maybe you had forgotten to, or didn't want to answer for some reason. I didn't realize you thought you'd already answered it: or I thought you'd given only a partial answer. I'm also posting a message on Blackworm's talk page. Regards, ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)