User talk:IZAK/Archive 21

What to call the Brisk page
Hi IZAK; I'm totally fine with Brisk Yeshivas & Methods, Brisk Methods, Brisk whatever, I really don't care. I just hope that you don't run into the trouble we had when it was Brisk Yeshivas, and some right-wingers kept yelling "YU isn't Brisk, therefore we can delete (and re-delete, and re-delete) R'YosheBer and R' Moshe." But hey, if nobody complains with the new name, that's absolutely fine by me. Good luck! TLMD13 10:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)TLMD13
 * Hi TLMD: I am sorry that I wasn't around then for that debate. While YU is not Brisk, the fact of the matter is that both Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik who succeeded his father Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik at RIETS were Briskers, like it or not, and they represented Brisk at YU. In fact Rabbi Aaron Soloveitchik, the younger son of Rabbi Moshe founded the Brisk yeshiva of Chicago and also gave the top shiur at YU after Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik's incapacitation and then passing. At any rate, all TRUE Briskers (meaning the core Soloveitchik family and its closest disciples) are not conventional "yeshiva" people according to everyone, including themselves. In Israel, the Brisk yeshivas do not exist as such they are designed to operate informally (no dorms, buildings, kitchens, lecture halls, and the students have to fend for themselves in those areas as they wait to find out who they will hear a shiur from and when and where it will take place -- the very opposite of a modern organized yeshiva -- like joining a clandestine club), indeed the true Briskers are opposed to the entire notion of organized yeshivas as formal institutions (they oppose the Agudah movement on all grounds too). In the case of Rabbi J.B. Solveitchik, even though he was the greatest Torah sage at YU (and probably in America too), he was not the official rosh yeashiva (Rabbi Belkin served in that official role) while Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik considered himself a resident and a rabbi of Boston where he went every weekend, strange set-up. Thus all true Briskers have an ambivilent attitude to being classed with the rest of the yeshiva world, be it as right-wingers in Israel or as left-wingers at YU. Vehatzad hashaveh shebehen Brisk lo mikre yeshiva ("what they have in common is that "Brisk" is not called a "yeshiva" as such".) Stay in touch. IZAK 21:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

מסיבות גל
Could you plz take a look to see if there's anything salvageable there? Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Crz: User:Fsotrain09 has correctly informed the creator of this article (see User talk:Elovic) that it belongs on the Hebrew Wikipedia. An editor cannot write an article in one language and then paste it on Wikipedias in other languages hoping that some sucker will translate it for him. מסיבות גל has nothing to do with Judaism, it's basically about rave parties and I have redirected it there. Thanks and be well. IZAK 04:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Centralised discussions
Dear IZAK, how do we start a centralised discussion again? What is currently going on in the village pump does not seem to be garnering much attention. Can I go ahead and delete living people from, say, the category of Jewish greengrocers, or would that be considered vandalism? How does one propose the partial erasure of a category? Bellbird 11:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC) IZAK: see my new comments under "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Who_is_a_Jew%3F#No_tagging_at_all.3F". Bellbird 13:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Bellbird: Q&A:
 * 1) "How do we start a centralised discussion again?": Just follow the trail on Wikipedia at this point and try to keep up with things through your "my watchlist" feature. At this time most of the serious discussions are at Talk:Who is a Jew?, so let's keep it there for now.
 * 2) "What is currently going on in the village pump does not seem to be garnering much attention": Agreed, so we let them know that there are other discussions going on, which I have done, and let them find the trail. We can always get back to them.
 * 3) "Can I go ahead and delete living people...?": NO! Because it is too controversial and a number of people have complained about this. Try to develop a longer term strategy and to be patient in order to build consensus. Take a look at the list of 100 participants at WikiProject Judaism and perhaps try contacting them and start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism.
 * 4) "Category of Jewish greengrocers?": There is no such category. Please try to avoid cheap jokes and be serious because this is a serious task you have undertaken (of course, don't lose your sense of humor) but keep on track, there are plenty of silly examples to choose from when you look into Category:Lists of Jews for example.
 * 5) "Would that be considered vandalism?": Perhaps, because if it appears that you are running around with a hatchet chopping things down then it makes you look just as nuts as those that went around plastering these phoney lists and categories up in the first place. You must build up your credibility as a responsible editor who wants to help Wikipedia and not just come across as someone with a POV agenda.
 * 6) "How does one propose the partial erasure of a category?": Try to avoid short-cuts, but you can read for yourself what the procedures are at Categories for discussion.

Hope this helps. IZAK 15:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear IZAK:

first of all, my apologies for having edited your user page. I was typing from a text-only browser (which is the only one I have in my office computer, so as to dissuade me from doing things other than work during work hours ;)).

I think you are quite right after all about the unadvisability of "fixing" individual pages, especially when it comes to categories. First of all, the edits are all undone quite quickly. Second, I could give the impression of being a vandal. Third and most importantly, what is relevant is not that, say, Bela Kun or Erik Erikson not be tagged as "Jews". The point is that nobody should be. If some people are and some aren't, that could be taken as a statement that those who aren't are being tagged as non-Jews.

On "greengrocers" - well, perhaps my jokes are not always the best. You are right that, when one gives a silly example, one can sometimes make oneself look silly - especially when there are many silly categories already floating around.

I suppose we shall continue the discussion at Talk:Who is a Jew?, though I thought the village pump to be appropriate. Bellbird 15:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Contacting the creator is being ignored
You make a valid point and I would suggest that you go to each of the *fD pages and change them from "Consider... contacting the creator " to something stronger such as "It is common courtesy to..." or even "It is strongly suggested that ...". Don't bother with discussion, just be bold and do it. There may be some discussion occasioned by your edits but I think the point is pretty unobjectionable, so just do it.

If there is any discussion, it should be around whether contacting the creator should be a requirement or just a strongly suggested common courtesy.

--Richard 16:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Richard: I appreciate your feedback. Let's just give it a little more time for it to take traction as more people notice this subject and digest it. By the way, this is what I have responded so far to two others: ...Some editors slave away at articles and they may have many articles they have on their watchlist and other things going on in their lives, and then boom, their work is gone (not even with a wimper) without the courtesy of a remark on their user pages. It can become very annoying and frustrating. So it's time to raise the profile of this issue, so that at least Admins can be aware of it and they should be the ones to ask and ensure that the original editors have been informed before they finally zap an article or category. I must say the guys over at Images and media for deletion have been very good at this over the last year or two. I used to complain to them in the olden days when they just came along and zapped things without notice, and at least now they have their fancy templates with warnings they put on users' talk pages that either you get the copyright info on a picture or it's gotta go. We need that same level of efficiency and accountabilty all around, otherwise a lot of people will be getting madder and madder as time rolls on. Take care. IZAK 16:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop spamming your complaint across multiple pages. Find one place, make your case there and then drop brief "advertisements" to that discussion on other pages. Opening the discussion in a dozen different pages simultaneously is a sure way to get fragmented and inconsistent answers and to dramatically drive up the frustration of the discussion participants. It will not achieve your goal and is already generating considerable backlash against your call for discussion on this particular point.

Radiant first moved the discussion comments to Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. I have consolidated some other pages with comments to the same place. Please do not create simultaneous discussions again. Rossami (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Mount Hermon
I see you were involved in the article. I'm sure you realise too that since it was annexed, it's in Israel. that beolongs in the intro(syria, lebanon and Israel) and in the category as mountains in Israel. There is a user there deleting these facts. Amoruso 20:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Amoruso: I have only now looked at your good job "defending the Hermon" - keep it up because it does not end there - the same people who want Israel to give up the Hermon want the Jews to give up Israel, (and when the Jews were in Europe they wanted the Jews to give up their lives in the Holocaust and it never ends) so it's not an easy debate. Firstly, the Hermon is part of historical Eretz Yisrael and one cannot "annex" what belongs to oneself in the first place. Secondly, by the rules of war, it's winner takes all. When the Arabs kicked the Jews out their lands they annexed all their property and lands which they conveniently forget since when Arab's take things away from Jews it's called "justice" but when Jews take back a snowy hill here and a barren valley there it's "annexation" making a mockery of simple logic. Finally, you know, in modern times America annexed New Mexico and Texas, China annexed Tibet, Russia annexed Mongolia, Turkey annexed half of Cyprus, Iraq tried to annex Kuwait, and the Haredim are annexing Jerusalem, and you know what, life goes on. So the answer to the naysayers is get over it, and get a life and gotta go now... IZAK 20:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Orthodoxy and related moves
Some of the moves you made may be controversial, and on a few of them I don't understand the need. For instance, "Confirmation (sacrament)" to "Confirmation (Christian sacrament)". It seems to me the term "sacrament" is a Christian term - as reflected by the sacrament page here. If it is not a term in Judaism, does "Christian" need to be mentioned? More generally, is the term "Eastern Orthodox" used in Judaism? Gimmetrow 20:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Gimmetrow: Thanks for contacting me. There is nothing controversial about any of those moves. Let me answer your questions:


 * 1) "Confirmation (sacrament)" alone is ambiguous because (a) "Confirmation" is used in both Christianity and in Reform Judaism and (b) the word "sacrament" is not restricted to Christianity alone. Consult any dictionary (I'm looking now at a Concise Oxford Dictionary which lists four definitions for "sacrament:" (i) a "religious ceremony or act regarded as an outward sign of inward spiritual grace" (ii) Thing of mysterious or sacred nature (iii) Oath or solemn engagement (iv) bind by oath. Therefore because there are those Jews connected with Reform Judaism, which often mimics Christian rituals, having such ceremonies and which do not belong in one article about a Christian practice. That is why I moved the segment dealing with Confirmation in Reform Judaism from this Christian article to  the one about Reform Judaism. And then I added  the note :See Reform Judaism article about its Confirmation ceremony to the top of the Confirmation (Christian sacrament) page.
 * 2) "Eastern Orthodox" definitely needs clarification because many of the Sephardi Jews are known as Mizrahi Jews (see opening paragraph: "...(מזרחי "Easterner", Standard Hebrew ... sometimes also called Edot HaMizrah (Congregations of the East) are Jews descended from the Jewish communities of the Middle East. Included in the Mizrahi category are Jews from the Arab world, as well as other communities from other Muslim countries, including the Georgian Jews, Persian Jews, Bukharan Jews, Mountain Jews, Baghdadi Jews of India and Kurdish Jews."). Most of these Jews come from, and still practice, Orthodox Judaism so it's therefore very necessary to differentiate between "Eastern Orthodox" Christians and "Eastern (Mizrahi) Orthodox" Jews.

Finally, you dwell on the question if this-or-that is used in Judaism and the truth is that there is no single consensus of how most terms and practices are used in Judaism because the Jewish people have a very long history and their religion, culture and language have had many manifestations. Therefore as editors of an ecyclopedia we try to make sure that all aspects and sides of a subject will be presented accurately without undercutting other subjects, all within a NPOV framework. Thanks again. IZAK 10:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

More on Renaming Orthodox Articles
Dear Izak,

I am surprised to have discovered your unilateral revision of the titles of a great number of Eastern Orthodox articles. I am also surprised that you did not raise the matter for discussion before making the changes (e.g. by raising them on the Eastern Orthodox wikiproject). Your actions seem somewhat aggressive.

And from your above comments, I cannot see any legitimate rationale for these changes. I do not believe that there is any tradition in English of speaking of Jews as 'Eastern Orthodox' or 'Russian Orthodox' - unless they become Eastern Orthodox Christians. And the fact that there are expressions in Hebrew is neither here nor there, since what matters for article naming on English-language wikipedia is English usage, not Hebrew usage.

Many of the revisions you have made to article-titles violate English grammar. Whilst 'Russian Orthodox' can function adjectivally, and thus qualify a noun, 'Russian Orthodox Church' cannot, since 'Church' is a noun not an adjective. Thus, whilst 'Russian Orthodox bell-ringing' is grammatically sound, 'Russian Orthodox Church bell-ringing' is not. If you are going to change names of articles, please show respect to the articles and those who have contributed to them by not modifying their titles to something which violates English grammar, and without consulting them when doing so.

With best wishes, Maxim662 21:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Maxim,

RE: Conflicting names with Christian and Jewish Orthodoxy

Hi: I posted the following at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. Thank you. IZAK 03:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello: This message deals with a number of issues stemming from the unclear use of the word "Orthodox" and "Orthodoxy." In the past Wikipedia has tried to avoid confusion between the names of Orthodox Judaism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity by not using the word "Orthodox" or "Orthodoxy" alone in titles when other qualifying words, such as "Church" or "Christian" (in the case of Eastern Christian Orthodoxy) or words such as "Synagogue" or "Jewish" (in the case of Orthodox Judaism, would help to qualify the usage of the name "Orthodox" or "Orthodoxy" so that any reader or editor on Wikipedia should not be confused by a title and should know from an article's or category's name whether that subject deals with either Orthodox Judaism or Eastern Orthodox Christianity (also called Orthodox Christianity). In the past there has been no objection to inserting either "church" or "Christian/ity" where the Eastern Orthodox Church articles or categories are concerned and I have tried to move in this direction. It is for this reason that I have made the nominations to rename the ambiguous categories at Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 14. Yet it seems that some editors are not aware of this and I am bringing this to your attention. I will cross-post this message to WikiProject Orthodox Judaism and to WikiProject Judaism for further discussion. The implications for WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy is that it too should be renamed to WikiProject Eastern Orthodox Church or WikiProject Eastern Orthodox Christianity to avoid any confusion with WikiProject Orthodox Judaism. Sincerely, IZAK 02:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Rapid Messianics...
...not to say Michiganes. Please take a look at Adat Eytz Chayim. Best, gidonb 23:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Gidon: At first I thought you forgot how to spell and then I read the article. Anyhow I have edited it so that it does not read like a commercial and I have placed it into Category:Messianic and Hebrew Christian congregations which is a very NPOV and avoids some problems as it's most certainly not a "synagogue." Thanks for bringing this to my attention. IZAK 10:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just my kind of humor. The congergation popped up as second in the American synagogues category, after the Chabad center that starts with a number. Thank you for the edits. They solved both the categorization and the non-encyclopedic text issues. Sei gesund und mazzel und broche! gidonb 11:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks and Shabbat Shalom. IZAK 11:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Shabbat shalom to you as well. I am still hoping to taste your cholent one day. On the other hand, after one arrives in NY one may have to be on the roads for the remainder of his life ("If I can make it there, I'll make it anywhere"). Cheers, gidonb 17:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

sup?
I know it's not Jewish but I was wondering if you could do me a favor and wikify Hidden Lake Academy? Just asking a favor. --Yodamace1 11:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Michel Yehudah Lefkovits
Do you have any information on Rav Michel Yehudah Lefkovits that you could contribute to his article?

Israel related issues
Posted somethings here, wonder if it's accessed regularly by users. such as this. Amoruso 01:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Shanoh Tovoh
BS"D

Kisivoh V'chosimoh Tovoh. --14:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Shaul avrom
 * Yasher koiach Reb Shaul Avrom and wishing you a Kesiva VeChasima Tova. Be well. IZAK 07:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Messianics again
Hi IZAK, could you take a look at Messianic Judaism & Alternative Judaism when you have a minute? I do not know much about them and do not even know how I got involved in editing them. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sect of Skhariya the Jew
Look correct, AFAIK. I don't know much details though. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, I have asked some others, let's see what they say. Be well. IZAK 07:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

this article references Skhariya. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sect of Skhariya the Jew
The only "Skhariya the Jew" I am aware of is Zacharias Ghisolfi. I am not familiar with this sect. Perhaps Dubnow's History of the Jews in Russia and Poland has the answer, I can check it when I'm able. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I will say, it certainly sounds plausible and I've vaguely heard about stuff like this happening. cf. the Subbotniks.


 * The topic is definitely genuine. In fact, as late as 1980s I've seen a Russian TV report about a siberian village of Russian Judaists. And Skhariya the Jew is known in Russian literature. At the same time I have suspicions that Skhariya the Jew and Zacharias Ghisolfi are in fact the same. I will try to dig something out and discuss in Talk:Sect of Skhariya the Jew. `'mikka (t) 18:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't doubt that the topic is genuine, it's just that the way it's presented makes it come off like it's talking about Jews in too negative a way, which is why I think the article could use lots of polishing so that it does not appear as if someone is holding it and "covering their noses" so to speak. IZAK 03:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Lithuanian Jews
Actually, GOP2 and I disagreed about that. I wanted all the articles to be under "____ Jews" titles, he preferred "History of Jews in ____". I find the latter title to be lengthy at best; what do you think? Jayjg (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Jay: To be quite honest I do not care either way, as long as there is consistency and the job gets done. There is what to be said for both approaches but most of the articles do not have enough in them to warrant having two types of titles. The name "History of the Jews in ______" makes sense if one is studying the history of those Jews IN those countries - but - big but - what would you say once those Jews either migrate or are kicked out by their gentile "hosts"? Plenty of Jews exiled from Lithuania, Russia, Poland, Ukraine, Hungary, and Arab lands etc remained "Lithuanian Jews" or "Russian Jews" etc long after they left Lithuania or Russia etc forever, certainly as long as they were alive and carried on many of the religious minhagim of Lithuania and Russia etc, and by then their history in (meaning within) the "old countries" was over and done with on any significant scale (of course there is always some continuum unless a land has become completely Judenfrei forever - can't think of an example of existing countries, can you?) For example even after the Spanish expulsion (and "Spanish Jews" i.e. Sephardim, takes on a much broader meaning for millions of Jews outside of Spain itself), there is still an important story to be told about Jewish history in Spain until our own days. If on the other hand one wants to know about Jews who came FROM certain countries, regardless of their history, then "___________ Jews" makes sense. GOP2 was writing as a good historian and in that sense I can see what he was trying to do, and I respect it and respected him while he was doing it. Do you really think we should go back now and rename all the articles since the vast majority of them are already titled "History of the Jews in _______" ? Too bad GOP2 is taking a break. Maybe we could discuss this on the WikiProject Jewish history and also run it by User:Humus sapiens and a few others. Best wishes and hope you had a good Yom Tov. IZAK 04:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Lichtenstein
I'm not sure; he seems to be the darling of Jews for Jesus type websites, but there aren't an reliable sources that confirm his existence. Jayjg (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Laitman
Hi,

Michael Laitman is well published, with widely distributed books, and is mentioned by other notable colleagues. I dispute the deletion. He seems notable to me. :) --Haldrik 05:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

(Actually, I think anybody connected to Ashlag is very interesting and very notable. --Haldrik 05:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC))

Pasting message in response in my Talk:
 * Please tell me who it is that controls the concept of Kabbalah. I'd love to read his list of "approved" kabbalists who no one else is allowed to disagree with. ;) Just because you or I may disagree with Laitman doesnt make him un-notable. Daniel Matt is a notable scholar of Kabbalah, and he recognizes Laitman as a Kabbalist, at least in some sense. If published occultists can be called Hermetic "kabbalists", I don't see how it's possible to argue that Laitman cant be called a "kabbalist". It's better just to mention what notable critics say about Laitman in the article about him. --Haldrik 05:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have answered on your talk page. Thanks. IZAK 05:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Since you're proposing to make the deletion, I'd prefer the discussion here because I'd feel more confident that you will have read any concerns I have. --Haldrik 05:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Self-aggrandizing". I understand the criticism. Nevertheless: "recognized and accepted by the true sages of Judaism", and exactly who might these be? As if Jewish scholars and hasidim agree on which thinkers alive today are the "true sages"! --Haldrik 05:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's better to clarify why Laitman is not a traditional kabbalist. For example, from what I understand, Laitman doesnt believe in the miraculous power of Kabbalah (which he describes as superstitious) but he does believe in its philosophical/ethical/psychological power of self-transformation. Obviously mentioning something like this, even using his own words, would be appropriate. --Haldrik 06:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Haldrik: What you have just said about him proves conclusively that Laitman is not a Kabbalist in any way shape size or form. He may be a nice man. He may be smart. He may be well-meaning. He may even have dabbled with some texts that Kabbalah regards as important and he may have met a Kabbalist or two along his life's path, and we know that he claims to have written books (not recognized by any known rabbis of note) but none of this makes him fit to think of calling himself a "Kabbalist" by any stretch of a reasonable person's imagination. He may be quoting "philosophical/ethical/psychological" verbiage, but those subjects are not what Kabbalah is about in essence. He may as well just be a Russian New Age version of Tony Robbins using "Kabbalah-speak" in front of audiences who know nothing about the ABCs of Judaism let alone its esoteric doctrines. What Michael Laitman claims to teach is only "Fake and false so-called 'Kabbalah' " so why do you want to pursue this discussion? IZAK 06:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Philosophical/ethical/psychological" - these are part of Kabbalah too, especially ethical. Without ethical behavior there is no Kabbalah. --Haldrik 20:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Why do you want to pursue this discussion?" Because I believe in freedom of speech, and the right of humans to disagree with eachother: especially humans whose disagreements are in good faith. I feel it is enough to affirm the concepts that humans have in common, and to (mutually) clarify the differences. I feel it is wrong to use violence against humans because of disagreements. I consider censorship a form of violence. Violence is sometimes ethically necessary, but surely not here. --Haldrik 20:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I see you asked some other questions: You said "recognized and accepted by the true sages of Judaism", and exactly who might these be? As if Jewish scholars and hasidim agree on which thinkers alive today are the "true sages"!" and my response is all that is required is for a person to take it upon himself to study the works of the Torah sages of today and yesterday, regardless of which group they come from. You are confusing internal disputes between groups that agree on the teachings of Judaism and trying to say that because Jewish sages have genuine differences of opinion in their Torah discussions, that somehow, Michail Laitman is now also a "genuine sage" because he too has differences of opinion. That is not logical. In fact your argument can be turned around against you: Which sages from either the Hasidim or non-Hasidim have said or written anywhere that Michael Laitman is a Kabbalist? Can you name one known Torah scholar, known to be a Torah scholar in the world of Torah Judaism who even knows that Michael Laitman exists? Please note that there is a huge difference between genuine scholars of Judaism, and on the other hand Jewish (by birth or by interest) scholars. A sociology professor can sit down and decide to write a book about Jews and Kabbalah but that does not make him into a "scholar of Judaism" in any way. He just did some research and wrote a book. Whereas there are genuine scholars devoted to in-depth Torah study, and they publish many Responsa and other normative Rabbinic literature which makes them "recognized and accepted." See also History of Responsa. Hope this helps. IZAK 07:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Torah Judaism" - "is an English term used by a number of Orthodox Jewish groups, mostly associated with Haredi Judaism". If the argument here is Haredi is the only "true" form of Judaism, and Laitman cant be a "true" Kabbalist because he isnt Haredi, the argument would fail to pursuade me. "Non-Haredi" Kabbalah doesnt equal "fake" Kabbalah. I feel the Haredim are an important part of Judaism, but it is only one "true" subculture among various "true" subcultures of Judaism. I believe in the modern world, and consider it spiritually important. The modern world is different than the world of previous centuries, and we should expect to see Torah (Halakhah and Kabbalah) applied to it in new ways to engage new scenarios. When Reform Judaism studies and applies Kabbalah (usually from academic perspective), I still feel it is authentic Kabbalah even if it doesnt take advantage of the fullness of the Kabbalah tradition. As far as I am aware, Reform Judaism would view Laitman as acceptable, and thus his Kabbalah is Jewish. Reform Judaism is also a "true" subculture of Judaism. Even if Laitman was not advocating a Judaic form of Kabbalah, he would still be called a "non-Jewish Kabbalist". As far as I can tell, Laitman would be considered a "non-Haredi Kabbalist", or perhaps a "non-Orthodox Kabbalist" depending on his halakhic views. --Haldrik 20:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I view Yehuda Ashlag a "true" Kabbalist. I am especially interested in any movements in Kabbalah being carried out in his name. I want to know exactly which teachings of Ashlag they advocate, and which teachings of Ashlag they seem to ignore. Wikipedia offers an excellent medium to clarify exactly what the concerns are. --Haldrik 20:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Haldrik: There is no such thing as "non-Haredi Kabbalah" - such a thing is silly and fraudulent and only ignoramusus and fools would buy into it. Sad but true. Reform Judaism rejects Kabbalah because it views itself as a "rational" movement and it despises Kabbalah as supersticious voodoo, so it it is not logical to say that "If Reform supports Laitman..." when in fact the official Reform movement does not accept either him or real Kabbalah as far as is known. There can be no such thing as a "non-Orthodox Kabbalist" it's an oxymoron like saying "non-medical doctors of medicine" or that there are "medical doctors who reject medicine" which is patently ridiculous. You asked for how Kabbalists are known and accepted and I gave you a reasonable answer which you now say is "too Haredi" which is also not logical because the Haredim are the experts in Talmud, Halakha, and Kabbalah even if that strikes you as odd or unfair it happens to be true. The non-Orthodox groups either do not seriously study or accept Talmud, Halakha and Kaballah or regard those areas as not so imporatnt since they value "Jewish ethics" and "secular rationalism." Haredi Judaism, especially Hasidic Judaism is the most spiritual form of Judaism in the world today, so I don't know what you are talking about. Yehuda Ashlag was a respectable rabbi as far as is known, but Laitman has no right to hijack him, or anything in Judaism, for himself and his commercial aims and claim to be his main spokesman, (did Rabbi Ashlag approve of Laitman's books or the notions in them?) There is no equality between Rabbi Ashlag and Michael Laitman. If you want to study Kabbalh in depth it will not be possible to do so on an encyclopedia format like Wikipedia that is open to the world. By tradition and law in Judaism, Kabbalah can only be taught from one teacher to one or two students at a time privately and in secret. Students would then not go "trumpeting" what they have been taught like Michail Laiman does (another sign that he is a mere showman rather than a true scholar of this subject.) Someone who does not know these basic rules is for sure not ready for any serious introductions to the true teachings of Kabbalah, and should not be taught them and would not be taught them by any true Kabbalist. This is all part of the basic background Halakha that precedes the study of true Kabbalah. IZAK 04:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Saintly Tombs suggestion
Thanks. I wish to call it "Tzadikim" if you agree and I want to hear your advice about calling it "Kivrei" or "Tombs" both in an article and in the category. Amoruso 17:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * HI: I suggest that you keep it simple. "Kivrei" means "tombs" so what is the problem? And if it is specified that they are venerated by Judaism then it is obvious that they belong to "Tzadikim". IZAK 04:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Mop?
Hi there! I've noticed your extensive and competent contributions to diverse areas of Wikipedia. As such I was wondering if you were interested in a nomination for adminship. Yours,  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Radiant: Thank you for contacting me. I have been asked this question a few times in the past, and my answer remains the same: No thanks I do not wish to become and admin because I am quite happy to be contributing to Wikipedia to the best of my abilities as I do now and I do not seek any extra responsibilities. Thanks for thinking of me, I do greatly appreciate and it encourgaes me very much. Sincerely, IZAK 02:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Satmar (Hasidic dynasty) is better than Satmar
Hi Mets: Why did you move the Satmar article as it is part of a series, see Category:Hasidic dynasties? You are re-creating a problem here. The original problem was that originally with "Satmar" alone you run into disambiguation questions as you can see for yourself from the following: The Szatmár article (Szatmar redirects to Szatmár) and the Satu Mare article (see Satu Mare (disambiguation); (and Szatmárnémeti, Szatmarnemeti, Satu-Mare redirect to Satu Mare) (are similar sounding to Satmar as used by Jews) all are spellings used by Eastern Europeans but not used by Jews, and therefore on Wikipedia we long ago found a way to avoid conflicts between non-Jewish editors and Jewish ones by adding "Hasidic dynasties" to make it clear that the article/s were reflecting Jewish (Hasidic) usage. Kindly revert your move back to Satmar (Hasidic dynasty) as soon as possible. Thank you. IZAK 07:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't realize it was part of a very large series. My apologies. — Mets 501  (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Mets: hopefully this can be ironed out soon. IZAK 12:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Medzhibozh (Hasidic dynasty)
I'm new to wikipedia, so I hope this is the correct way to contact you -- thank you for your comments on the proposed deletion of the Medziboz Hasidic dynasty. If you look at Meshulam's comments on the Rebbe at the beginning of the Zhvil (Hasidic Dynasty) discussion page it looks like he is from there (Boston)and there may be something personal going on, although in my short experience I have found him to be generally knowledgeable and fair. Anyway, thank you for 'fixing' this deletion issue, which I hope is now over. --ChosidFrumBirth 12:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Chosid and welcome to Wikipedia: This is the way to contact me (any user can be contacted through their talk page), or by Emailing me using the "E-mail this user" link in the "toolbox" on the left-hand side of this page. I don't know much about the "politics" in question here but it's obvious that nominating good articles for deletion, when there are easier first options, is not the way to go. The issue is not done yet, it still depends on what will happen at Articles for deletion/Medzhibozh (Hasidic dynasty) so keep an eye out over there. Feel free to contact me if you have questions. Best wishes and a Gutten Mo'ed. IZAK 12:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the warm welcome. I have a connection to the Rebbe's office and was asked to supply some pictures, which I have now done. I also just noticed the discussion on the Medziboz Hasidic dynasty -- hopefully the new pictures from Medziboz and about the Rebbes will help lead to a solid 'keep', which seems obvious to me at least (I will post this there as well). Again, thanks. --SharonH 13:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Sharon: Nice to have you on board. Please make sure that there is no Copyright attached to those photos, or alternately, that the copyright is released to Wikipedia, otherwise they may be deleted by the Wikipedia admins, see for example Image use policy. Best wishes and Good Mo'ed. IZAK 14:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There are no copyrights but either way the Rebbe's office has released any copyrights to wikipedia -- I had put "GDFL self made" or something like that when I uploaded -- does that do it? I've put pictures both on the Medzibozh Hasidic dynasty page and on Zhvil -- could you fix any of the pictures that need it for me to make sure they're not deleted? Thank you. --SharonH 17:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi SharonH: Good work, but you will have to do your own "watching" since I have far too much on my own plate. You should use the "my watchlist" at the top of the page after you log in each time and it will inform you about changes to articles or photos that you have edited. Wikipedia is a "live organism" and you need to be engaged with it as best you can to be happy with your contributions and with what you get back in return. Enjoy. IZAK 05:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello IZAK - back again with two questions. First, on the Medzibozh page you added the headline "Three Main Zviller Rebbes" and I hesitate to change what you do, but it may not be quite accurate, since the connection with Zvil is only because the Mezbuz Rebbe's son became Zviller Rebbe. The other two Zviller Rebbes are not related to the Mezbuz Hasidic dynasty. Perhaps it could be changed to reflect the Medzibozh dynasty with a mention of the other two Zvillers, rather than having it appear that they all have the same descendancy and relationship to Mezibuz? Thank you. Second, it appears that the consensus, including Meshulam, is now that the article should be kept -- how does the delete candidate label get removed? --ChosidFrumBirth 09:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Chosid: To answer your last question first: Admins moniter all votes, at some point soon a neutral admin will show up, tally the vote, and close it, and also hopefully remove the "vote to delete template" but you should not do this, especially as one of the parties to the dispute. In response to your first comments, feel free to DESCRIBE and EXPLAIN exactly how the the three Zviller Rebbes are or are not connected to each other (actually I noticed that there is also a Zviller Rebbe in Los Angeles, so does that make it four Zviller Rebbes... and counting?) based on the "Medzibozh factor" or other criteria that differentiate them or make them similar. Happy editing, that's what Wikipedia is all about, we can all contribute and improve articles, so please do not feel hesitant in any way, when indeed one of the guidelines that editors are encouraged to follow is Be bold in updating pages …but don't be reckless!. Kol Tuv IZAK 04:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. As I understand it from Rabbi Eliezer Goldman, Rabbi Adler (who is now senile and no longer active), married a granddaughter of one of the Zviller Rebbes, and they sent him to Los Angeles to open a shul there -- he became known locally there as Rebbe but it was never really official or sanctioned by the family. It's moot now I guess. --ChosidFrumBirth 09:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please watch Messianic prophecy article
Hi, IZAK.

I know we have had our differences in the past, but I have a favor to request. There used to be an article Messianic prophecies. A guy with BUPC, a Bahai cult with about 1,000 followers worldwide, started adding loads of material specific to his cult that various people reverted as extremely POV. The guy constantly gets into edit wars. The ultimate decision of the 3 main contributors was to create a separate Messianic prophecy article describing the concept of a "Messianic prophecy", redirect the prophecies article, and create "sub" articles dealing with specific traditions, e.g., "Messianic prophecy (Roman Catholic view)"

I have not been editing WP for awhile but when I came back recently I found that someone had redirected the Messianic prophecy article to something like "List of Messianic Prophecies in the Old Testament Fulfilled by Jesus". I reverted that. I have looked over the MP article again and found it has been severely distorted, mainly to emphasize Christianity. I just finished a major revert a lot closer to the original article and put a detailed explanation in the Talk that specialized stuff needs to be put in other articles and why.

As you well know, once a bunch of evangelical Christians jump on one of these articles it quickly gets so distorted and specific to one religion that no one else wants to contribute. Another problem is that these articles tend to get edited by people with a fairly strong religious background and they just don't grasp the concept that people who don't have a strong background want and need articles explaining basic concepts in general terms, including opposing views.

I am expecting this will wind up in an edit war with loads of POV stuff again being added. Please keep an eye on the Messianic prophecy article for additions that start taking it off its "neutral explain the concept" purpose and start trying to turn it into evangelism or limit it to Abrahamic religions, which is not factually accurate. I'll do the same

Thanks!

P.S. - Regarding upcoming Simchat-Torah -- Chag Sameach!

RickReinckens 16:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Rick: Thank you for contacting me. I have not been able to get involved in this subject. I am too busy with Judaic articles. To be frank, once an article moves deep into the domain of Christianity, or any religion outside of Judaism, I simply give up on it. It is only when an article in question will contain content that is interfering with Judaism articles that I would consider involvement (depending on what else is happening.) Right now it seems to be an edit war between you and this group of Bahais and I am not sure how I can be of help to you. If you think some Judaism editors may be interested, then try posting a request, and why you think it is relevant to Judaism, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Sincerely, IZAK 05:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)