Talk:Amnon Yitzhak

Wikify tag

I removed the "wikify" tag. If there's no article here explaining what a "baal tshuva rabbi" is, it needs to be created, or the term needs to be explained in this article. There's no mention of the term in the Rabbi article. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 08:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, a little more information on context and notability is needed. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 08:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

merge

For the moment, I'm pushing for Amnon Itzhak to be merged with Amnon Yitzhak as the second is a far more common spelling and the article has been around for longer. Ayinyud 17:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

OK for merging

Shalom and thanks--fivetrees 02:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

A controversal figure in Israel

I think that the English article should discuss Amnon Yitzhak's role in religious-secular relations in Israel, since he had become a symbol during recent years. He is accused as well in murder of teenager who loved to listen to his cassetttes, which worsened his relations with his parents. Please don't delete these mentions, but develop it! Narshavs 21:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the article got a little fussy with the discussion of what other people may or may not think of this person. I have put it more into focus and added details about Amnon Yitzhak. I really do not see why we should expand stuff that is really about other people than the rabbi, and even then unclear. Under the baal teshuva article there is more place for discussion of sociological impacts. Since such impacts are by no means special to Rabbi Yitzhak, there is no need to discuss them over again in every article. On the other hand specific controversies, such as a court case, the suicide, as well as specific discussions about Yitzhak in the better press do have added value for the article. gidonb 14:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, a good article abour a person in encyclopedia should include basic details, the public might be interested. If he is a public figure there should be references on his activity, even if it is controversal. There are very special impacts to R.Amnon, which should be presented here.Narshavs 12:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, there are no problems with presenting the Rabbi's activities or possible controversies that are related to him. That is what a biography is about. Regards, gidonb 12:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Category talk:Orthodox rabbis

Could you please provide your opinion on the choice of moving living Category:Orthodox rabbis to Category:Contemporary Orthodox rabbis? Thanks --Shuki 21:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have given my opinion. gidonb 00:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion in the Hebrew Wikipedia

An unbelievable thing happened:

The whole article about Amnon Yitzhak was deleted from the Hebrew Wikipedia.

It happened after Wikimedia Israel received a letter from an attorney representing Yitzhak, which requested to remove allegedly defamatory material from the article.

The article was deleted and recreated without older versions. For the short time that these versions were available, it was possible to see that the article was not any more defamatory against Amnon Yitzhak than an average newspaper or television item about him. Now it's impossible to see that, too (unless one is a sysop there).

Nevertheless, the bureaucrats of the Hebrew Wikipedia chose to salt the article with an explanation similar to WP:OFFICE.

The problem is that it is not a case for WP:OFFICE. Wikimedia Israel is not the main Wikimedia Office, but only a small local association, which is just beginning its life. In any case, as far as my understanding of jurisdiction goes, Wikimedia Israel cannot be held responsible for the content of the article.

This is a sad day for Wikipedia. I'd rather see it go down in flames, than give up to a lawyer. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Zionism

A source for the car: [1]. Mashkin (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume that your inclusion of a cat that perhaps violates WP:BLP is of good faith. Either that or you are justifying my edits on the Meretz article, except here one url is brought forth and on that Meretz page, a wide spectrum of sources was provided. --Shuki (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The two issues are not the same. Here the ynet explains precisely in what way he is an anti zionist. It is not an off the cuff remark. There is also the issue of the movie that is described in the article where Yitzhak equates Hitler and Herzl. That is enough for the cat. Mashkin (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No it ain't. It is your POV, OR, and violation of BLP. --Shuki (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a well sourced claim. You have never said why you think it is improper. You are not acting in good faith. Mashkin (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You are violating WP:BLP as well as specifically Wikipedia:Categorization of people. You are falsely lumping Rabbi Yitzhak in a category. The rabbi might have some controversial views but is clearly not an anti-zionist. --Shuki (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edit is clearly in bad faith since you never said why you object to the tag which is compeletly consistent with the article and the sources. He is explicitly described as an anti Zionist in Wikipedia's article. How can you claim that the tag violates BLP? Mashkin (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for pointing that out. I removed that section. Many people do not take part in Israeli elections, does not make them anti-zionist. Many others also criticize the Israeli democracy, does not make them anti-zionist. If you want a comparison, Rabbi Yitzhak is not Neturei Karta or Chomsky. --Shuki (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

He is probably more anti Zionist than Chomsky (but I will let them debate it). Any case, this is a well sourced and well reasoned claim. do not remove or I will ask that the article be locked. Mashkin (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well sourced indeed...What does 'well reasoned' have to do about it? And get the article locked? Is this another one of the articles you are WP:OWNER of? --Shuki (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

His Anti Zionism is explained bot has a historical view (Herzl=Hitler) and current action (boycotting elections). Both of these facts are well sourced as well as the characterization as an Anti Zionist. Mashkin (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, Ynet is not a RS when it comes to Jewish issues and boycotting elections does not make one anti-zionist. If you want to include legitimate information that will pass BLP and categorization, you will need to provide better sources and prove how this label is significant in the subjects life. --Shuki (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This article, by Avishai Ben Haim who specializes in the religious and Haredi movements is an RS for the purposes of figuring out a movement/person view on Zionism and whether it is anti Zionist. As I said, he explains how he came to that conclusion (we do not have to guess and wonder whether anyone who disagree with him is an Anti Zionist). Mashkin (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Your attempt to blacken the rabbi's image will need multiple RS, not one lone doubtful one. --Shuki (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not my attempt to "blacken" his image, just preserve the quality of Wikipedia by keeping well sourced info. I have asked a whole bunch of editors interested in Israel to comment. Mashkin (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I was asked to have a look at this by Mashkin. It does appear that the statement is properly sourced to a news article (not an opinion piece) by Ynet which clearly explains that the tape is anti-Zionist, and why. The quote attributed to the article also appears to be correct and no misinterpretation has been made. Therefore, I don't see any problem with including the passage, although I think it should be paraphrased. There is absolutely no WP:BLP violation here. --Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yan, "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources,". Here, it is not. If all we needed was one lone source then 'anti-Zionist' can then be applied to virtually every Haredi rabbi. I am asking for more sources, especially ones related to Judaism, other than this single 'according to Ynet' article to base this claim. And to label this rabbi with the anti-Zionist cat, is a clear violation of WP:categorization. Even if more sources can back up this 'anti-Zionist' can be provided, lumping Rabbi Yitzhak with Satmar and Neturei Karta is skewed and not "relevant to the person's notability". --Shuki (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ynet is a reliable source. It is an independent secondary source with solid editorial oversight. It's pretty much as reliable as a non-academic source will get, and academic sources are not a requirement for BLP. Moreover, Haaretz completely support this claim, and as much as I'm personally opposed to Haaretz, it's also a reliable source. I also do not understand how being anti-Zionist is not relevant to this person's notability. He is known for two things: his anti-Zionism, and his conversions attempts to convert seculars to religion. There doesn't appear to be any undue weight in the article, although if you can write something about his conversions, as someone who probably knows more than me about the rabbi, feel free to do so. --Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ynet is a RS in itself, but when making controversial claims about a BLP, it should be well sourced. I read the whole article and frankly, the author himself does not mention how Rabbi Yitzhak is anti-Zionist and I explicitly challenge this claim. I agree that HaAretz would not be a RS on this issue since they are anti-religion in general. The Ynet article (read until the end) is a POV piece that is not itself RS.

Yan, you are disappointing me. I expect deeper thought from an experienced editor. Now, is the rabbi really known for his anti-Zionism? OR from what I know, and certainly POV until proven otherwise. When does anti-government become anti-Zionist? Does Rabbi Yitzhak march through the streets and promote boycotting elections (so what, many secular don't vote, not an anti-Zionist attitude at all), destroying the State, draft-dodging (Yesh Gvul anti-Zionist?), and civil disobedience to other Zionist organizations and government offices? Does criticizing the courts infer 'anti-Zionism'? By this justification, if Rabbi Yitzhak is to be labelled anti-Zionist in this sense, than most Haredi rabbis as well as the Lubavitcher Rebbe who certainly was, and all Chabad supporters who do not say the prayer for the welfare of the state of Israel. Above all, anti-government, or anti-institutional does not mean Anti-Zionism. Please read that article and then tell me if Rabbi Yitzhak is an anti-Zionist.--Shuki (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I also think that information regarding Yitzhak's anti-Zionism is relevant. I am not sure that this is a news article per se, it is in a section titles "Parashat Hashavua", so perhaps it should be attributed to Ben Haim and not just Ynet. Also, I found this article, which also considers him an anti-Zionist. -- Nudve (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the 'acclaimed' source is a POV 'gossip-like' column, not a news article. Jpost is an RS, the said column is not. --Shuki (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an RS who is explicitly given as the source. POV is something that articles in Wikipedia should not have, not sources, so your comment is not even worthy of a discussion.Mashkin (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no question that Amnon Yitzhak's views are anti-secular, but whether they are anti-Zionist would depend on your perspective. If the secular government in Israel is referred to as "Zionist", then clearly he is anti-Zionist, but not in the sense in which Arabs, far-left or ultra-orthodox splinter groups are: he is not calling for Jews to give up the land to the Arabs, nor does he have any sympathy for the latter. Clearly, he is only anti-Zionist in a sense synonimous with anti-secular. Eliyyahu (talk)

Thank you for your opinion. I am not sure that I see the distinction between him and other ultra orthodox anti Zionist. Any case, do you object to citing ynet (with an explicit attribution)? Mashkin (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right, I am not sure there is much distiction with the mainstream ultra-Orthodox, but I wouldn't put him in the same box as Neturei Karta, who explicitly make friends with Israel's enemies. I think a YNet quote may be relevant, but if you read it carefully, it is MK Yuval Steinitz that labels Amnon Yitzhak "anti-Zionist", not YNet. Eliyyahu (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It is the ynet reprter Ben Haim whay labels him as anti zionist "הרב המחזיר בתשובה, אמנון יצחק, נחשב לבעל תפיסה אנטי-ציונית מובהקת, עם קווי איפיון קרובים לתפיסה החרדית-קיצונית מבית מדרשה של חסידות "סאטמר". כמותם, גם הוא מחרים את הבחירות לכנסת. השקפה זו חריגה מאוד בקרב הציבור החרדי–מזרחי, ועוד יותר בקרב בעלי התשובה המזרחיים, קהל היעד המועדף של הרב אמנון יצחק." Mashkin (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Eliyyahu and Nudve, thank you for agreeing to discuss. In order so that Mashkin and I understand your position, could you please A) make an explicit comment on whether the ynet reporter's claim in a gossip-like column is a good source or if more sources are required and B) confirm that the 'anti-Zionist' cat does not violate Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#Biographies of living people. I would like it to be clear because I think that in order to not have a double standard, we would need to categorize (or not) other people and rabbis with similarly sourced opinions as anti-Zionists as well, perhaps everyone mentioned here : Haredim and Zionism. --Shuki (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)