Talk:Yitzchak Ginsburgh/Archive 1

Archive 1

birth place

The book of Inbari I just cited says he was born in Cleveland, Ohio, not St Louis. Zero^talk 10:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have once of Rabbi Ginzburghs books and on the backflap it says "Rabbi Ginzburgh was born in S. Louis, Missouri (sic!) in 1944, received his MA in mathematics from Belfer Graduate School of Science (NY) in 1965, emigrated to Israel in the same year, and studied at the Torat Emet yeshiva and other yeshivot in Jerusalem." Debresser (talk) 10:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Inbari's text is consistent except for the birth place. You can read most of the relevant section of Inbari's book at Scholar: [1]. Zero^talk 11:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

the five justifications

The five justifications as listed by Inbari are "sanctification of God's name", "saving life", "revenge", "eradication of the seed of Amalek" and "war". Those exact phrases are the subsection headings used by Inbari as he discusses them one by one. So far I have tried quite hard to stick carefully to the wording used by the sources I found, which I think are quite authoritative. (Inbari's sources include Ginsburg in person.) We are supposed to base the article on "reliable third-party published sources" rather than to do our own analysis of the primary source. It is not neutral to select just one of the five justifications, and both Inbari and Seeman judge that "saving life" was not the main reason. If you can't get access to Seeman's paper, send me email and I'll give it to you. Zero^talk 13:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Article name

On another front, very few English sources put "h" on the end of "Ginsburgh". The spellings Ginsburg and Ginzburg are about equally used. Do you object if I rename the article "Yitzchak Ginzburg" with a redirect from "Yitzchak Ginsburg"? Zero^talk 13:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

His website and books all use "Ginsburgh". And since he is American born, I think he knows how to read his passport. So that seems like a bad idea to me. Debresser (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

lots more

Clearly there is a whole lot of history missing from the article. Some random snippets (both the starting sentences of longer articles):

• 6 June 1989, The Jerusalem Post: (Editorial by Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi) THE fact can no longer be denied, or concealed. Racism masquerading as true Judaism is on the rise in the land. The most basic tenets of the Jewish faith are twisted to fit preconceptions that, in different hands, would have been condemned as rank anti-Semitism. A band of racist agitators is spreading the argument of the Jews' inherent superiority, calling for removal of the pledges of equality for all citizens of the Jewish state written 41 years ago into the Declaration of Independence. One of these turns out to be the head of the Joseph's Tomb Yeshiva, in Nablus, Rabbi Yitzhak Ginzburg. Attending the remand hearings, in the Kfar Sava magistrates court last Friday, of seven of his students who are suspected of having murdered an Arab girl during their recent rampage through Kifl Harith, Rabbi Ginzburg ruled out any attempt to treat Jews and Arabs as equal before the law. It would be a travesty of justice to do so, the rabbi said, for a Jew and a goy are not equal. In other words, an Arab killing a Jew is a murderer, and merits the highest penalty, but a Jew killing an Arab deserves to go free.
• 10 March 1996; Agence France-Press: "Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres ordered the arrest and two-month detention of an extreme rightwing rabbi on Sunday, a settlers spokesman said. Yitzhak Ginzburg, head of the religious Talmudic school of Joseph's Tomb in Nablus on the West Bank which gathers extreme rightwing activists, was summoned to the police station in Rishon Tzion close to Tel Aviv and placed under administrative detention. No reason was given for the detention. Rabbi Ginzburg had been banned by the army from entering the West Bank for six months following the assassination of former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin on November 4 after a Tel Aviv peace rally."

-- Zero^talk 13:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the relevance of the latter quote? Debresser (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean the second quote above? Ginzburg is the rabbi the story is about. Later he was released by the high court on appeal. I'm hoping to find a source where the whole story is laid out in full rather than to try piecing it together myself from different articles. Zero^talk 13:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one I mean. That one has more place in Human rights in Israel. Debresser (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I will try to add more historical details as time permits. --Mgenuth (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

article name

"The title of the article literally means "Blessed is the man," (from Jeremiah 17:7). The title was later used by an independent editor for the title of a book about Baruch Goldstein." -- but isn't that the book which published a version of Ginsburgh's article? That isn't clear. And what does "independent editor" mean? Independent of what or whom? Zero^talk 15:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There is the article "Baruch Hagever" by Ginsburgh. And then there is a book "Baruch Hagever" by somebody unnamed, who is not connected to Ginsburgh. I do not find this hard to understand from this text. But feel free to edit it in a more clear way. Debresser (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The book certainly is connected to Ginsburgh. There were two publications of Ginsburgh's essay, with small changes between.

• an article produced as a pamphlet in 1994
• an article appearing in pages 18-47 of the 1995 book "Barukh Hagever: Sefer Zikharon la-Kadosh Barukh Goldstein". No editor is given in the book, but Ehud Sprinzak (Brother against Brother, p259) says that it was edited by Michael ben Horin. Sprinzak wrote "the major theme of the book was conceived by Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburgh ... who wrote the lead essay of the volume".

The book is a collection of essays by different people, including Ginsburgh, Rabbi David Cohen, Rabbi Ido Elba, Benjamin Kahane, and others. Zero^talk 01:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If Ginsburgh is credited in the book, or if Sprinzak is a reliable source, you could add this information to the footnote. I know that the article of the pamphlet was officialy Ginsburgh's. The book may be based on what he says, but I am not aware of any official involvement. Debresser (talk) 10:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Inbari and Seeman also both say that the book includes an article under Ginsburgh's name containing his five explanations, so I don't think there is any doubt about it. Zero^talk 11:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Debresser (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

How to use material from Ginsburgh's own web site

This edit runs afoul of WP:OR. It would be fine to add some material from his own web site, but the edit inappropriately includes the editor's own commentary on what it means. We'll need to work out another way of including this material. Any suggestions? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Reposted quotation from the book "Kabbalation and Meditation for the Nations". This is a quotation from the book - this time without my own comments.m656 (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Better -- but you still need to have a look at WP:SYNTH. The problem now is "on the other hand", and (worse) "Inbari's speculations notwithstanding". The latter is particularly a problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, please make sure you're familiar with WP:3rr. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input.m656 (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

In my opinion the controversy section is far too detailed with all those extensive quotes and should be pruned. Debresser (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagree that there is a problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I challenged Nomoskedasticity about a particular quotation in this section on the Noticeboard and it is now under discussion there.m656 (talk) 09:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Re this edit, perhaps Debresser can tell us how/why it is vague. The lede in my view is too brief, failing to summarize the rest of the article ("including notable controversies") as it should do per WP:LEAD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Which "actions that have attracted significant controversy in Israel"? And why did they attract controversy? And why of all things this would be important enough for the lede? Debresser (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

All of these questions are answered in the body of the article. That's why we would put it in the lead, which is meant to summarize the rest of the article. Is this really a mystery to you? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Please try not to be condescending. That is not the spirit of Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Even a lede can not be this vague. 2. This is definitely not what Ginsburgh is know for in Israel (or America, for that matter). Inbari is a marginal person, and his opinions about Ginsburgh are not of interest to anybody, and definitely not noteworthy enough to be in the lede of an article about a person who is know mostly for his lectures. Debresser (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, okay then: it sounds like we ought to be able to expand the article further -- particularly by drawing on sources more important than Inbari, who write about his lectures. I'd be grateful to be pointed to such sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be the problem. That there are not that many sources, as far as I know. Except for Inbari, who, truth be noticed, seems to have a problem with Ginsburgh. But you know what, I'll try to ask around, and perhaps somebody can dig up some interesting newspaper articles about Ginsburgh. I myself remember one, but don't have it. Debresser (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Of course, if there aren't other sources, then there isn't much we can do. And then we'll have to work with what we have. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Obviously. But that still wouldn't justify giving too much attention to Inbari, for the reasons I mentioned. Debresser (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, what you've offered on that score is your view ("Inbari is a marginal person"). But there's no requirement that the authors of sources be notable themselves -- merely that the source in question meets WP:RS (on which there is no question re Inbari). We're not giving attention to Inbari, we're using him as a source on Ginsburgh. All of this is normal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some question as to how reliable Inbari's opinions regarding Ginsburgh are. Debresser (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty with that comment is that Inbari's work is not mere "opinion" -- it is peer-reviewed academic research, published by an entirely reputable academic press. If you have concerns about this, I would suggest you visit WP:RSN. My view is that this type of source represents the highest standard -- Wikipedia ought to use much more of it. But again if you disagree then perhaps raise it at a noticeboard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

That is indeed the problem. That even academics are (sometimes) not unbiased. Debresser (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

But the source meets WP:RS, right? As for whether it is "biased" -- I'm not sure we should give weight to your opinion on that issue, given that the book was subject to peer review by other scholars. Of course, if others have commented on Inbari's analysis, then we can note that commentary. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it definitely meets WP:RS. I'll ask about that also, if there has been criticism of his work in this regard. Debresser (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

unsourced claims

Debresser wonders why I am insisting on sources for the "influence" section. This question has a very easy answer: because BLP requires it, and because adding sources improves the encyclopedia. Thanks to Zero0000 for providing one for Yehoshua Shapira, but unfortunately that source doesn't support the claim (though it does provide support for influence of Yitzhak Shapira). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought that "disciple" is sufficient support for "student" (though the opposite would not be). Do you disagree? Zero^talk 10:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree -- I merely note that "disciple" in that article is used in relation to Yitzhak Shapira, not Yehoshua Shapira. The only thing that article says about Yehoshua is that he is Yitzhak's brother. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I am so sorry, for making a fool of myself. :) Debresser (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently I can't read either! So we are back to having no source for Yehoshua Shapira. Can you find one? Zero^talk 11:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Jewish blood

Ginsburgh has been quoted by anti-semitic writers in order to prove that much of talmudic doctrine and zionist ideology is inherently racist. He appears to say that Jewish blood is worth more than Gentile blood. [2] [3] ADM (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

1. The quote found on [4] is a deliberate misquote. Supposedly the quote is from p. 14-15 in the Hebrew. Nothing there says anything of the sort, and the entire topic is about the Torah's commandment of saving all human life, and how this commandment is superseded in times of conflict.

2. The quote in the second citation [5] is simply a partial restatement of the false quote in 1, so I don't see the need to address it. --Mgenuth (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Ginsburgh states indirectly, that a Jew's blood is more valuable than that of the goyim when he states, "On the theoretical level, if a Jew requires a liver transplant to survive, it would be permissible to seize a Gentile and take their liver forcefully." --72.77.108.124 (talk) 21:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

That would be original research orWP:SYN:synthesis. Although I agree that this seems to be the logical conclusion, still, we have these policies precisely because not always our logic is complete and correct. Such an extreme statement should be sourced directly, and only to the most unblemished sources. Debresser (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

But where is the outrage? If the shoe were on the other foot and a Gentile were to say something equally grievous about jews, screechings of antisemite, nazi, and racist would ensue. There would be outrage in the media demanding apologies from the Gentile who said this. There certainly seems to be a double standard, here. Why has Ginsburgh's evil statements about Gentiles gone seemingly completely unnoticed by the media and news moguls? 72.77.104.30 (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggest changes

Comment 17 states that Baruch Hagever means "blessed is the man". The author apparently doesn't realize that Baruch is the first name of the subject. And since the title was specifically written in reference to him, that interpretation is dubious since it can simply mean "Baruch, the man". It seems that this is used as the source for the claim that Ginsburgh is praising him rather than what follows which appears to state that his actions can be justified in Jewish law.Wikieditorpro (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The title of book rests on the double meaning, as most good sources on the book state. Zero^talk 04:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Questionable citation

"Text of Israeli Supreme Court decision given on 28 March 1996" is not a proper citation. It is only a hint of where to start looking. For this to be acceptable, some editor in good standing (such as you, Debresser) must personally examine the source. A proper citation would include the case number, title, and page number (decisions can be quite long), and you should be willing to answer questions about the context. At the moment this looks like someone copied something from somewhere, we don't know where; it is not good enough. Was it a statement of the court itself, or a claim by a witness that the judgement recounts? Incidentally, http://www.court.gov.il has lots of Supreme Court decisions. I already checked the English translations but there are many more Hebrew judgements that aren't translated, so maybe it is there. Zero^talk 00:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The claim was added by combative editor M656, diff. Zero^talk 01:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

He isn't around to ask him. That he was "combative" is irrelevant. I know another combative editor, just saw him on this article yesterday. Debresser (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"Text of Israeli Supreme Court decision given on 28 March 1996" is not a proper citation. Supreme Court decisions are not indexed by date, they have case numbers and titles. It shouldn't be necessary to do research just to figure out what the source is; that is the responsibility of the editor adding the citation. As yet, this assertion in unsourced. Also, the appearance of this in a Supreme Court decision does not automatically mean the decision is a reliable source for it, as I just explained. Zero^talk 09:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, 28 March 1996 is the day that the Shamgar Commission submitted its report. (That's the Rabin assassination inquiry, not the Hebron massacre inquiry.) Zero^talk 10:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

If I'm the 'combative editor' you allude to, Debresser, I'd just note that it violates policy, as the revert summaries note. Given the record on the page for the precise (and technically impeccable) distinction he appears to make, a claim that he contradicted his often stated view is exceptional, and exceptional claims require verifiable source evidence. This has nothing to do with being 'combative'. (And I followed no one here by the way: as the contribs record shows, I have edited this page several times in the last two years, having put it on my watchlist)Nishidani (talk) 12:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You understood my "allusion" well. Debresser (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The 'if' was polite. Of course, the problem was not the allusion, but the quality of the judgement.Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Part of series on Chabad

I'm not sure that this article should be part of a series on Chabad since Ginsburgh has no formal position within Chabad and the Yeshiva he heads is not affiliated with Chabad. His books are not sold on the official Chabad bookstore - Kehotonline.com. His circle of influence and followers, e.g. Hilltop Youth, are not followers of Chabad. Should this article be classified under Chabad just because of his personal affiliation with the movement?Yml1944 (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, chabad.org features Ginsburgh extensively. His books are listed and individually reviewed.[6] If Google is to be believed, he gets over 1300 hits there.[7]. Zero^talk 10:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, the given source [8] does not support "His teachings and views reflect his own brand of Hasidism and are not widely accepted within the Chabad Lubavitch movement". Actually that article states explicitly that it will not explore that subject: "Secondly, the task of contextualizing Ginsburgh relative to mainstream Chabad Hasidism, the Kahanist movement, and the more militant voices on the edges of the religious Zionist camp is pointed to in the footnotes, but full analysis is deferred for more lengthy treatment elsewhere." and also footnote 91 and 144. You are overstepping here. Zero^talk 10:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

References

Comment by Motti Inbari

I noticed M656 removed the comment by Motti Inbari with the editsummary "removing defamatory comment". It was restored by the original editor Zero0000. Frankly, I also felt from the beginning there is some wp:blp problem here. Perhaps we should reconsider whether to keep that comment. Debresser (talk) 10:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the requirements of WP:BLP are met comfortably. The author is an academic with a PhD from Hebrew University who specialises in this type of subject [9] [10] [11]. His book was published by a university press (SUNY Press, Hebrew edition by Magnes Press). The quotation is presented as his opinion (we have no business deciding whether it is correct or not). It is not a fringe source, nor a fringe opinion (more or less the same analysis can be quoted from several impeccable sources, such as from Ehud Sprinzak (d. 2002) who was regarded as the doyen of Israeli academics in the study of the radical right). What else is required? Of course, a more positive opinion would be admissible too, assuming the source is sufficiently reliable. Zero^talk 11:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the credentials of the author, or the verifiability of his words. And it is phrased in a neutral way. That is all fine. My problem is the defamatory aspect of the comment, which we should avoid in articles about living people. Debresser (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why you think it is defamatory. Zero^talk 12:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Explaining why somebody is racist is pretty defamatory, I'd think. This question was a little too naive. Debresser (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Reports of negative facts or negative opinions are not necessarily defamation. In US law (which Wikipedia is supposed to follow), the report must also be false. In some places like the UK, defamation can also apply to true but private information that there is no public interest in disclosing. I don't think either applies here. The facts claimed by Inbari are just reports of what Ginsburgh himself said or wrote publicly. When Ginsburgh exposes his ideas to the public view, we are entitled to report them regardless of whether they give readers a positive or a negative impression. Otherwise there would be no way to write balanced articles on controversial persons. I chose to quote Inbari rather than quoting Ginsburgh directly because Inbari is an expert and I am not. Zero^talk 03:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The remarks he made, he made publicly. But putting them together, out of context, and adding a comment discerning a general tendency, that was Inbari's synthesis. It is this synthesis which carries the defamatory aspect. Perhaps we should take it to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to ask what other editors think? Debresser (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

By all means take it to LPN. But it is only our synthesis that is disallowed. We are encouraged to rely on the synthesis of "reliable sources". That's why I think using quotations from Inbari (or other expert) is better than trying to tell a story by stringing together direct quotations. Zero^talk 03:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have posted Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Yitzchak_Ginsburgh. Debresser (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this comment, for several reasons: 1) it does not explain who Motti Inbari is and why he is being quoted, 2) it adds nothing new to the section as the quote is simply repeating the content of the article it is speaking about, and 3) only seems to reinforce a negative view. If his comment is truly relevant, considering that he is simply repeating what he claims the article says, then it makes more sense to simply write content from the article. However, this would probably be unnecessary anyway, as this section already gives a wide selection of negatives to take away from the alleged article. I don't think you would find a sentence like this, presented the way it is, in a high-rated article. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

To answer: (1) Motti Inbari is one of the leading academic experts on Jewish extremism. This could be mentioned, but usually it is considered SYNTH to promote or demote the status of people being quoted. (2) Inbari adds an expert analysis to what is otherwise a dry recital of facts. Contrary to what you say, analysis by experts is a feature of good articles. To the extent that the quotation doesn't contain enough analysis, it suggests adding more rather than less. Zero^talk 12:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Zero -- it's quite appropriate to include this analysis. Even the heading of this section isn't really on target -- it's not simply a "comment" (as if in passing). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of libelous content

The quotation from Inbari's 2009 book contains clearly libelous statements about Rabbi Ginsburgh claiming that he permits killing people for the purpose of taking their organs. In fact, he and all other rabbis unambiguously forbid this.

There is no reference given to support the claim that Ginsburgh ever said that. The reference only supports that Inbari thinks that Ginsburgh said that.

Ascribing to a person, out of the blue sky, cannibalistic teachings is the most blatant case of a libelous statement imaginable.

If this is not libelous, what is?

(The quotation continues with another bizarre libelous claim stating that Ginsburgh "encouraged and supported the killing of non-Jews", which made it sound as if Ginsburgh was suggesting killing people for not being Jews, when everybody knows that in "Baruch HaGever" Ginsburgh dealt exclusively with the situation of anti-terrorist activity.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by M656 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If there is any libel -- and I do not accept there is -- it is Inbari's, not Wikipedia's. As things stand, Inbari meets WP:RS without question, and given that academics like him take this kind of perspective on Ginsburgh, there would be a WP:NPOV problem with omitting mention of that perspective. The fact that you appear to think Inbari is wrong about him does not mean that it is appropriate to remove his comments. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If there is libel, it doesn't matter on who's part, it must be IMMEDIATELY removed. This is not a matter of consensus or academic qualifications of quoted authors. There is absolute prohibition of even potentially libellous material (because it opens wikipedia.org foundation to difficult court cases).

The wikipedia rule says: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted..."

If you insert it one more time I will immediately raise the issue with the Wiki-Media foundation. and yes,. there is 0 tolerance to libellous claims that Jews want to "drink gentile blood" "steal gentile livers" "kill gentiles on any occasion when the police are not looking" and the like. In the (extremely unlikely) case that the Wiki-Media Foundation will not remove these bizarre accusations I will personally bring it to court, up to the Supreme Court if necessary. m656 (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have advised this editor to remove his legal threat. I would also note that Inbari is a Jewish Israeli... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that Inbari is a Jewish Israeli is not surprising and is not in the least bit relevant in this case. The 3RR rule explicitly says that potentially libelous content can be deleted any number of times.— Preceding unsigned comment added by M656 (talk • contribs)

Read closely: "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption."

Not "potentially libelous" -- and the reason it suggests going to BLPN instead of relying on the exemption is that if others disagree that it is libelous you could end up blocked after all. You've gone to BLPN, and I would suggest that further edit-warring here is not in your interests. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Yitzchak_Ginsburgh.

• I wasn't so much concerned about the BLP issue. I just think the quote from Inbari is too detailed, and should therefore be removed or referred to a footnote. I don't think we need a four-line quote in the main text here. Debresser (talk) 10:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that the quotation of Inbari's claim re organ transplantation needs to be backed up with a precise reference to the book, to ensure that the quote is not being taken out of context and is thus not a form of libel. Perhaps m656 can supply us with the reference to his/her claim that Rabbi Ginsberg categorically forbids such a practice, and this will settle the matter.
  • I also believe that the line in which Inbari throws in his personal interpretation of Ginsberg's stance (viz. "From this point only a small further step is required to actively encourage and support the killing of non-Jews, as Ginzburg did in the case of Goldstein") is libelous, especially since Rabbi Ginsberg specifically said, as quoted in the article itself, that Goldstein's acts were justified because Ginsberg believes that Goldstein's actions were justified as a pre-emptive strike after explicit warnings of an aAab massacre, NOT because he believes that "murdering non-Jews is ok", as Inbari would have us believe. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • If Ginsburgh has a problem with what Inbari wrote, then he can take it up with Inbari and SUNY Press. Unless and until he has done that, I see no reason to treat material that unquestionably meets WP:RS as problematic because Wikipedia editors (who don't appear to be libel lawyers) worry that it might be libellous. I really see no reason for that worry at all, given what Ginsburgh told the NY Times (as quoted earlier in that section) -- as I have noted, it is not unheard-of for certain types of rabbis to take the view that a Jewish life is more valuable than a non-Jewish life, and Ginsburgh is quite clearly of that type. Now, a quote from Ginsburgh himself on the matter is entirely appropriate -- though we will have to ensure that Wikipedia editors don't engage in WP:SYN to push their own sense of what is meant here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Again, if Inbari claims that this is what it says in the book, let's see the reference. And again, there is a vast difference between declaring that Jews have a right to defend themselves even if it means killing non-Jews, and saying that non-Jewish life does not matter, which is Inbari's libelous claim. Let's see the precise reference. Does anyone have the original of the text in which Inbari makes this claim? Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
        • What do you mean, let's see the reference? The reference to Inbari? The reference now on the article is p. 134 of Inbari's book. I'm not clear on what more you want to see. Anyway, you're right that he isn't saying that non-Jewish life doesn't matter; he's merely saying that non-Jewish life matters less than Jewish life. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, Inbari himself in his book doesn't claim that Ginsburgh "encourages killing gentiles" and his criticism of Ginsburgh goes more in line with what you just said. The quotation from Inbari which is found on the page right now clearly misrepresents Inbari's own position, and needs to be fixed immediately, since the average reader sees words "encouraging killing gentiles" and gets an impression completely different than he would if he would be reading Inbari's entire book (or even just the complete chapter from which this selective quotation is taken)..

This controversy that exists in the real world and consequently needs to be written about in Wikipedia is the one reported in Inbari's book. Namely that many people are angry with Ginsburgh with what they perceive as his "giving prefence" etc. The quotation from Inbari needs to faithfully reflect this existing controversy instead of misreprenting Inbari's criticism as it is now. The opposite point of view in the existing controversy also needs to be mentioned. (That references to killing are only restricted to enemies at war and not all gentiles.)

Another point in the selective quotation of Inbari's book which again misrepresents what is said in a longer text by Inbari himself is the reference to stealing livers. Similarly the selective quote gives a false impression. I could explain at length if needed, but you can probably see it for yourself.m656 (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it appears that the sarcasm I intended in the use of the word "merely" (last sentence, post immediately above) hasn't come across. I disagree that the quotation misrepresents Inbari's views on Ginsburgh. Let's not forget the part about Ginsburgh having been arrested for having encouraged his students to read the book by Yitzhak Shapira, an even lovelier character who believes it is okay to kill non-Jewish children. (I'm still not clear on why that portion of this article was deleted.) So one has to wonder about the notion that his views apply only to "enemies at war". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

First - the sarcasm was not lost on me.

Second - the quotation as it stands now is not clear, and is misleading.

Third - Ginsburgh was not arrested in connection to the book Torat Hamelech. He was only invited for questioning together with two other rabbis. He came and gave explanations. The other two didn't.

Fourth - In any case this is an article about Ginsburgh and not Shapira. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M656 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not legitimate in Wikipedia to describe someone's religious view in a way contrary to what he himself publicly states.

According to Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia is no place for conspiracy theories.

It's like saying "Obama claims to be Christian, but really he is a Muslim".

Ginsburgh declares that he believes that according to Torah it's absolutely forbidden to kill non-Jewish people who are not in the act of making war. But who is Ginsburgh to tell us what he believes?! We'll tell him what he believes. We have an academic quotation for it!

Ginsburgh publicly stated his belief on this subject. Take it or leave it. If it doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions, there is nothing we can do for you about that. When did Ginsburgh publicly state his belief? It was in a published statement 1995 which was accepted by the Israeli Supreme Juctice Dorner and is referenced by the court decision given in 1996. While it is of course true that synthesis in quoted academic works is allowed in Wikipedia, this doesn't apply to the specific case of religious beliefs. Wikipedia has a completely different tradition and rules for handling religious beliefs. In the case of religious belief you cannot let academic synthesis override what a person publicly professes. That is beyond ridiculous. m656 (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah -- pardon me for my misconception -- Ginsburgh wasn't arrested in connection with Shapira's book, he was detained [12]. Phew, I'm glad we got that one sorted. As for the rest of it: sure, there is a published 1996 statement by Ginsburgh -- but he has said quite a number of things, published at different times and places, and Inbari's analysis focuses on some of those. The one doesn't necessarily trump the others -- and it certainly isn't the place of Wikipedia editors to make such a determination. And please learn to follow the indentation conventions on talk pages -- it isn't hard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not be sarcastic. It does not make conversation any more pleasant, and is definitely one of the things to avoid on Wikipedia. In addition, there is a very important distinction between being arrested and being brought in for questioning. This should be made very clear, for the same WP:BLP reasons. Debresser (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay -- my apologies -- I will try to avoid sarcasm. Now, you're right, there is a distinction between being arrested and being brought in for questioning. But I'm less clear on the distinction between being arrested and being detained. I suppose there is one -- but I'm not sure it is a big one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the newspaper report was not precise and Rabbi Ginsburgh was simply invited to come in for questioning. He certainly wasn't detained, and absolutely wasn't arrested. The other two rabbis refused to come, and nobody was detained. m656 (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, earlier you mentioned "this type of rabbis" and I wondered where do you know about rabbis from? Then I thought, perhaps from Matthew 15:26 where Jesus says to a non-Jewish woman "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. " (King James Version). So you see, it's not Ginsburgh, it's religion. (By the way, Orthodox rabbis disapprove of this type of talk.) m656 (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, Inbari's source for the quotation is The Jewish Week, April 26 1996, pages 12&31, which featured an interview with Ginsburgh by staff journalist Lawrence Cohler (aka Larry Cohler-Esses). I have not yet managed to get direct access to this source, though I found two copies of it in uncitable places. The text agrees with what Inbari says, and since both Jewish Week and Inbari are reliable sources I don't see a reason on sourcing grounds to exclude the material Inbari quotes. Another example from the interview, which Inbari apparently doesn't quote: "If every single cell in a Jewish body entails divinity, is a part of God, then every strand of DNA is a part of God. Therefore, something is special about Jewish DNA." Zero^talk 07:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Since writing the above 4 years ago, I have obtained a copy of the original interview and verified that it contains what Inbari says. And more like that. Zero^talk 02:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, I am not supporting the anon who is regularly inserting a category into the article because on principle I disagree with the use of categories to bypass the sourcing rules and express opinions. However, I personally consider that the truth of the category is beyond question. Zero^talk 00:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Rabbi Shapira's criticism of Ginsburgh's statement

(Apologies for not adding explanation to the changes made in section referring to Kifl Haris. Changes were made to correct facts retrieved from cited reference. How do I add an explanation once it has already been published?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 238-Gdn (talk • contribs) 10:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

"The Ashkenazi chief rabbi Avraham Shapira expressed criticism of Ginsburgh's reported statement.[25][26] He was cited as asserting at the time that: “Jewish blood is not the same as Arab blood. He who is not a Jew, and throws stones, or threatens Jews, comes under the (biblical injunction) 'you should kill him first.'”[27][28]"

It's not clear here who was "cited as asserting...". The link in fn 27 does not open the required page (p.100) so I couldn't check the source. Similarly, the link in fn 28 doesn not appear to be open to the public. The quote itself seems to contain two major problems, a. There is no such biblical injunction to kill anyone first. b. The correct quote from the Midrash is, "Anyone who comes to kill you - rise early to kill him first," which is true for pursuing Jews and non-Jews alike. The ruling is that this too cannot be accomplished without first warning the prospective attacker of your intentions. Thus, in my opinion, this cannot be considered an authentic report of Ginsburgh's original words, or at least, it was misinterpreted.238-Gdn (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post article can be found in the archive of the Jerusalem Post, for a fee.

The Google books links first didn't work for me too, but did work the second time, for unclear reasons. The precise text reads:

Ginsburg (sic), head of the Joseph's Tomb Yeshiva in Nablus, is a case in point: Responding to reports of his students' rampages in neighboring villages, the Rabbi averred that "there's blood and there's blood. Jewish blood is not the same as Arab blood. He who is not a Jew, and throws stones, or threatens Jews, comes under the [biblical injunction] 'you should kill him first'."[46]

Footnote [46] reads: Quoted in Sprinzak, p. 165, and refers to the earlier quoted: Ehud Sprinzak, The Ascendence (sic) of Israel's Radical Right (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991). Debresser (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

That source reads:

Rabbi Ginzburg (sic), head of the Tomb of Joseph yeshiva in Nablus, responded to reports of his students' terrorism by saying that there is blood and there is blood and that Jewish blood is not the same as Arab blood. According to Torah injunction, "He who is not a Jew, and throws stones or threaten (sic) Jews goes under the rule 'he who comes to kill you, you should kill him first.'"

Music

Debresser, I see you removed some of the events mentioned under Music and art (and one that was also related to Controversy). Please explain why you think these events are not noteworthy. Thanks238-Gdn (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

One-time events, minor incidents, in which nothing happened that sheds light on essential points in the life, career or ideas of the rabbi. Sorry for repeating the same idea with other words. Debresser (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Most things that happen in a person's life are indeed one-time events, like birth for instance. But I wouldn't suggest deleting the fact that someone was born :-)

Three thousand people packed into Heichal Hatarbut in Tel-Aviv and tickets sold out to hear him speak is not a minor incident. It drew a number of media articles (some of which need still to be cited) from various ends of the political spectrum. World-renowned music artists playing his music has a lot to do with his musical career. I agree that the demonstration was a minor incident, but davka the fact that it was so minor makes a point in the controversy section. There was a flier distributed to the demonstrators in Rabbi Ginsburgh's name, maybe a concise summary of that would be more appropriate?238-Gdn (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I remain with my point of view. Perhaps we should ask a third opinion, to see if according to Wikipedia standards these are considered notable events that warrant a mention in this article. Perhaps you would do the honors of posting at WP:3O? Debresser (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that they are minor matters and should be excluded. The article has been significantly expanded recently, not all of it usefully. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll write it up again with more citations and then if you both still disagree, we can take it further. My aim is to improve this article and bring it up to WP:GA standards. I'll look around at articles that are currently in better shape to get more ideas. I'll also keep on researching the subject for more material. Thanks for your input.238-Gdn (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps propose your text here instead of making an edit to the article. Debresser (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Improving Biography

Nice to meet you Nomoskedasticity.

Please state why you object to the inclusion of the new biographical material. Be well238-Gdn (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

It should hardly be necessary to explain why we can't have statements like "shows astonishing proficiency in Chassidic literature in all its fields and succeeds in elevating mundane concepts to astounding levels, capturing his listeners for hours on end". Do have a look at WP:SOAP. And if that sort of material is what we get support for from "Sha'ah Tova", then it's pretty obvious that that source does not meet WP:RS. That evaluation applies more generally to other sources you are using here as well. In any event, I get the sense you are a devotee, and that's not a great basis for contributing to an encyclopedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand what you're getting at. I have no problem adapting that statement to suit WP:NPOV standards. But, even according to WP:BIASED it doesn't disqualify the rest of the facts mentioned in the article in Sha'a Tova, and certainly doesn't have any bearing on the other additional material that you rejected, much of which comes from other sources. Please be patient. Work on this page is still incomplete and I am aware that more citations are required to bring it up to a higher standard. If we work together on improving this it will be far more productive than erasing one another's contributions.238-Gdn (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey 238-Gdn I've just come over from the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, and have made edits to the "teachings" section of this article. I have no opinion on the truth or falsehood of the statements you'd included. But because they were written in an overly promotional tone, they gave the impression of being unprofessional, and would in my opinion have actually convinced an ordinary reader that the article was unreliable. That is to say, language of this kind makes it appear as though the article is written not by a scholar but by a devotee of Ginsburgh. Please be cautious about employing neutral language and tone. If an article is overly promotional, it goes against Wikipedia policy, and may even hurt the subject of the article by casting doubt on the integrity of the article. -Darouet (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I realize that some of the descriptions may sound promotional. However, they are all well-sourced and not my own words. In fact, I toned some of them down significantly in my translation. I could add in-line citations if that would be acceptable.238-Gdn (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@238-Gdn: It's also possible that some of the sources themselves are promotional, perhaps because they have some relationship to Ginsburgh, or for other reasons. Sources can be used even when biased, but we aren't obliged (and shouldn't) use non-neutral language, even when sources employ them. If you really are dealing with a promotional and/or non-neutral source, consider trying to extract encyclopedic content from it (assuming it can reliably relate non-controversial facts), and leave out puffery that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. -Darouet (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Darouet, very good explanation of how to deal with such sources. Debresser (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Darouet:Thanks for pointing this out to me. I have edited and pruned the article to match criteria as I understand them. Let me know if I missed something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 238-Gdn (talk • contribs)

Infobox Jewish leader

@238-Gdn: You have been doing all this extensive work on this article, but we still need an Infobox. Would you please consider adding {{Infobox Jewish leader}} & adding values for the appropriate parameters? Peaceray (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

added as requested 238-Gdn (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with the infobox. The line "created" doesn't seem to be in the right place. Can anyone fix it?238-Gdn (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Kifl Haris and the Israel-Palestine conflict?

I see no reason for adding the ARBPIA template to this article.

As I wrote to Nomoskedasticity when he posted his request on my talk page recommending that I undo my edit, in the context of Ginsburgh, the incident in Kifl Haris has about as much to do with the Israel/Palestine conflict as a porcupine in a garden of prickly pears...

In any case, like many of the incidents cited in the controversy section against Ginsburgh, this one too is grossly misrepresented. And, since the main issue in the paragraph is Ginsburgh's statement, I see no reason to mention KH. I am looking for additional information about the event (I already found the court hearings, which I realize can't be cited). There's more on the way. 238-Gdn (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure if there is enough justification for the ARBPIA template. In addition, the effect would be stifling in this case, which is not positive unless absolutely needed. Debresser (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Ginsburgh personally plays a role in the IP conflict, by his own choice and his own description. The article clearly matches the criterion for ARBPIA inclusion. Zero^talk 01:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean with "by his own choice and his own description". Debresser (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Ginsburgh is head of the most fanatical yeshiva in the West Bank, darling of an extreme wing of the settler movement, inspiration of the hilltop youth, and an opponent of the presence of Arabs in Eretz Israel. How can you possibly say that he has nothing to do with the IP conflict? Zero^talk 08:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

"Baruch haGever" is rather quite enough to show the connection... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

You both convinced me. At the same time, please be aware that that fact puts restrains on editing this article, so lets no go overboard with it, shall we. Debresser (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

misrepresenting sources

To editor 238-Gdn: You keep inserting this text:

"In 1996, The Jewish Week reported Ginsburgh as stating that, on the theorerical level, if a Gentile is liable of the death penalty due to the transgression of the Noahide laws, it would be permissible to use his liver to treat a Jew who requires a liver transplant to survive.<The Jewish Week, 12.4.96.>"

I have a copy of the Jewish Week article that contains an interview with Ginsburgh, which is incidentally dated April 26 (pages 12 and 31), not April 12, and what it actually says is:

"Later, Rabbi Ginsburgh asked rhetorically, 'If a Jew needs a liver, can you take the liver of an innocent non-Jew passing by to save him.' The Torah would probably permit that."

It is fundamentally different from your version. How do you explain that? Zero^talk 01:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the Jewish Week version, I've been looking for it. I would appreciate it if you could post a link to the article so that we can see the rest of it. Does it say under what circumstances Ginsburgh said it? I was hoping that it would be more faithful to Ginsburgh's actual opinion, which is in line with the wording above. I have the response I quoted, written by Ginsburgh himself, but unfortunately I have not found a published version that can be cited. It sounds like the Jewish Week dissected Ginsburgh's words and took out the liver... Thanks also for pointing out another of Inbari's mistakes (the date of the article in the Jewish Week).238-Gdn (talk) 07:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Wait -- you're using/citing a source you haven't actually seen??? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

You're right. I was relying on the Jewish Week to correctly report Ginsburgh's statement. I will change it accordingly.238-Gdn (talk) 07:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

But how can you "rely" on it if you haven't actually seen it?? This is a mystery... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

You aren't allowed to cite sources via an intermediary that you don't mention. See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Zero^talk 08:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out Zero0000. I fixed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 238-Gdn (talk • contribs)

How is that a fix? You just added a tag, you didn't change the text. Debresser (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Zero was referring to the fact that the Jewish Week was cited without stating that it came from Inbari. I added the missing citation into the footnote. That is what I meant by fixing it. The tag was inserted previously so that when the original (citeable) source is found for Ginsburgh's words it can be added and to make it clear that it is not what was quoted in the Jewish Week or by Inbari.238-Gdn (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why do you assume that he said precisely what it says in the text, when sources say something else? Debresser (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The answer to your question is mentioned above in my reply to Zero's first query.238-Gdn (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hm. It was added in this edit, till you changed it in this edit. You say your source is a written text by Ginzburg? And how do you know that the written text is precisely what he said in 1996? Debresser (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

To editor Zero0000: I now have a copy of the abovementioned Jewish Week article dated April 26 (pages 12 and 31), from the microfilm copy of the original print version. It is not an interview of Rabbi Ginsburgh, but a report by Lawrence Cohler that contains parts of an interview with Ginsburgh. What it actually says is:

"But ask Lubavitch leader Rabbi Shmuel Butman about Rabbi Ginsburgh’s view that the Torah would “probably permit” seizing an innocent non-Jew for a liver transplant to save the life of a Jew..."

This is by no means "a rhetorical question asked by Ginsburgh" as Zero would have it, but a very provocative question asked by the reporter (deliberately omitting the important matter of under what circumstances such a transplant might be permitted according to Ginsburgh). Now, if we are speaking about mysteries, Nomoskedasticity, how Zero's quote of the article differs so greatly from the truth is absolutely confounding (and how Inbari got Zero's version is another mystery...). Perhaps he can illuminate the matter.238-Gdn (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The 1996 article appears to be mirrored in a number of locations. One is here. If this is in fact the article (and it does after all contain the text 238-Gdn quotes), then it also contains the text that Zero said it does. So it is in fact based partly on an interview with Ginsburgh.

238-Gdn, you'll need to retract your accusation of misbehaviour by Zero. One way to do this is with code that "strikes" your comments just above: <strike> and then </strike>, I believe. And then you can get back to explaining why you were trying to make assertions and edit text on the basis of a source you yourself had not seen/consulted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

You're right. I noticed now that the original version does indeed state what Zero wrote. Thank you Nomoskedasticity for pointing out my mistake. However, please note that in her copy, Weir has omitted a strategic quotation mark that appears after the question mark in Ginsburgh's rhetorical question. The statement, "The Torah would probably permit that" are not included as words quoted directly from Ginsburgh himself. The quotation is resumed with Ginsburgh's words, "Jewish life has infinite value."

As for my reference to Ginsburgh's explanation of under what circumstances the transplant might be permitted, this is something that I have seen in a different (unpublished) response of Ginsburgh's to the above accusation, which is the response I referred to above. The response I cited from the Jewish Press does not contain this information (I still hope to offer a WP "kosher" reference that does). As Ginsburgh states in the letter published in the Jewish Press, "To attempt to clear up all the misinformation is beyond the scope of this article, however, I would like to mention a few salient points." He then goes on to state what is quoted in the article with reference to the Kifl Haris incident (and quite a lot more about it).

I hope we can continue to edit this page together in good faith. 238-Gdn (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, @238-Gdn, there was nothing out of line in your commentary. You asked to know where Zero got his version from. That was a legitimate question, and it was formulated without making any assumptions. @Nomoskedasticity As I said below, please stop bullying this new editor. Debresser (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

You could complain about it at ANI if you think I'm out of line. As has been obvious -- the editor was commenting and editing regarding a source he/she had not seen. Why should that be okay? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity Why should I report you? I rely on you to get the point yourself, and be friendly and welcoming to new editors who are making a huge effort to improve this article and adapt to all the rules of Wikipedia. As to the question you ask, I agree with you, but I think 238-Gdn also agrees, so I see no issue any more. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Another one

I've now looked more closely at the sources for the paragraph that said Ginsburgh didn't write "Baruch haGever". For the benefit of other editors, here's a link to a (google) translation of the Arutz 7 source; [13]. It doesn't say that Ginsburgh didn't write it -- it only says that "the title was given by the editor". The other source for that paragraph was a personal blog and doesn't meet WP:RS. I suggest that a number of recent additions to this article merit further scrutiny... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as I remember Baruch HaGever contains a few articles, each written by their own author. Debresser (talk) 06:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, you're talking about the pamphlet. The version in the article (which you removed) seems most plausible. All pamphlets with Ginzburgh's teachings are written by his students. Books is an other story. Debresser (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

We'll need a source for that... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Obviously. Just recounting what I remember. Some of my acquaintances from over a decade ago were pupils of his. Debresser (talk) 08:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I changed the challenged reference source to published article of the same in Haaretz. It is a well-known fact that Ginsburgh's publications are edited by Ginsburgh's students. This is a verifiable fact.

Also, the Arutz 7 source states clearly in the English translation: "[some of his books] were written according to his lessons by students like Rabbi Yisrael Ariel, Yundav Kaplun or Ithiel Giladi... the title [to Baruch Hagever] was given by the editor". Obviously, the pamphlet was edited by someone else (as is stated clearly on its first page) 238-Gdn (talk) 08:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable source?

To editor Nomoskedasticity: Why do you consider "Rabbi Ginsburgh (17 May 1996). "An Answer To A Libelous Article". The Jewish Press." an unreliable source? I have the microfilm copy of the original published letter and it states in no uncertain terms exactly what this Wikipedia article states. 238-Gdn (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll deal with your query after you deal with the mess you made above... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity You do not get to dictate your conditions for answering a legitimate question. Please tone down the rhetoric. Debresser (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I uploaded Ginsburgh's response to the article to Google Drive and added a link. I hope this, and what I stated above has cleared up your doubts and that you will remove the tag. 238-Gdn (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Ginsburgh's own writings are reliable for his own views on something. They are not reliable for any assertion of fact pertaining to the actions or views of others. See WP:SELFSOURCE. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to know why The Jewish Press would not be a realiable source? Debresser (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

what people think.--Moxy (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Who is saying it isn't? Or are you suggesting that having a letter published in a newspaper makes the letter a reliable source? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

If it said, "The case was proven false by an Israeli court" with the same reference, I would agree with you. However, it is not being quoted as a statement of fact, but as a report of Ginsburgh's own words, of which the published letter is a reliable source, by all standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 238-Gdn (talk • contribs) 06:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Either the case was "proved false" or it wasn't -- it's a question of fact, and Ginsburgh's own views are irrelevant. The sentence also asserts that "the villagers failed to produce a corpse" -- another statement of fact. The source is entirely unreliable as per our policy. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The court hearings uphold Ginsburgh report, but that's irrelevant. Whether or not the case was proven false, Ginsburgh said it was. You can't argue with that fact. If you find a source that states otherwise, by all means, include it. 238-Gdn (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

We'll stick with the idea of writing mainly on the basis of reliable secondary sources. Subjects of articles don't get to say whatever they want here via their own self-published statements. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The Jewish Post is a reliable secondary source. A letter published by a media outlet that has no connection to the subject of the article cannot be considered self-published.238-Gdn (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

A letter to the editor of a magazine or newspaper has the same status as a self-published source. The most the magazine contributes to it is identification of the writer (and many don't even do that). It cannot be used a source of facts, but (at most) as a source for an opinion or claim attributed to the author. Zero^talk 11:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Ginsburgh's letter in the Jewish Press is a reliable source of his opinion WP:NEWSORG. I have not used it as a source for facts, except as an additional source for information to back up other reliable sources.238-Gdn (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Time to undo this?!

To editor Nomoskedasticity:Is there some Wikipedia rule I am unaware of that states that after some "time" someone's edits, which newly present information that has previously been deleted for some reason (some by an anonymous editor, I might add), must be deleted? WP:NPOV is upheld, WP:RS has been challenged above, with no satisfactory reply on your part. In the past you have also deleted additional material with the claim "enough of this." You act as if you own this article and that is not accepted Wikipedia practice WP:OWN. You obviously have a very biased opinion about Ginsburgh, which seems to be preventing you from seeing recent editing of this article in a favorable light and that is also not an acceptable reason for deleting information that is clearly acceptable by Wikipedia standards.238-Gdn (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Ha, Nomoskedasticity. I like this guys style. But he does have a point with the WP:OWN accusation. Debresser (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

methodology section

To editor Nomoskedasticity: Please explain why you consider the source for this section to be unreliable. 238-Gdn (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

[14]: For the obvious reason that it's self-published. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Copy-paste from Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works:

Identifying a self-published source is usually straightforward. You need two pieces of information:

Who is the author or creator of the work?

Who is the publisher of the work?

If the answers to these questions are the same, then the work is self-published. If they are different, then the work is not self-published.

In determining whether a source is self-published, you should not consider any other factors.

It is quite clear that the authors of the article (Nir Menussi and Yosi Peli) are not the publisher (Gal-Einai). Neither of them are Rabbi Ginsburgh. Please self-revert your edit. Be good. 238-Gdn (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that we (meaning: you) not play games and dissemble. This newsletter thingy is published by Gal Einai, an institute Ginsburgh founded. In the masthead we have the words "From the teaching of Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh". It's all Ginsburgh Ginsburgh Ginsburgh. In this context, I'm reaching for the right word to describe the authors: disciples? lackeys? Whatever the best word might be, this source does not meet WP:RS, and you'll only embarrass yourself if you continue to insist that it does. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that you take a look at how wikipedia articles are written (I already have done so). Take for example the article on Banana. One of the references there is:

Picq, Claudine & INIBAP, eds. (2000). Bananas (PDF) (English ed.). Montpellier: International Network for the Improvement of Banana and Plantains/International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. ISBN 978-2-910810-37-5. Retrieved 2013-01-31.

Do you see that? All that this article is talking about is bananas, bananas and more bananas! The article is written by people who have obviously studied bananas in great depth. They might even be "Banana lackeys!" And to add to that, it was published by the International Network for the Improvement of Banana and Plantains! Now, is that a wp:rs?! But, you know what? If you have a problem with bananas, I suggest that you leave the banana article alone. But, before you go on to prickly pears or porcupines, please revert your edit. Be good! 238-Gdn (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

More objections to Inbari

I have picked out some of Inbari's source material instead of quoting him directly. This is because Inbari does not appear to be a reliable source for anything about Ginsburgh. Here are some problems:

1. To begin with, he doesn't even spell Ginsburgh's name correctly (this is in both the original Hebrew and the English translation).
2. He misstated Ginsburgh's place of birth, despite the fact that it appears clearly in Ginsburgh's biography in all of his books.
3. He states (p.160) that Kuntres Baruch Hagever was edited by Michael ben Chorin, which is not true
4. He ignores the final section of Kuntres Baruch Hagever, which states that Goldstein's act can also be seen as defying the five "justifications".

Etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 238-Gdn (talk • contribs) 15:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

All of this counts as original research. There is no question whatever that Inbari is a reliable source, even if he makes a mistake sometimes. All sources make mistakes sometimes. Zero^talk 01:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

NOR clearly states, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages."

I only quoted some of his mistakes. Below, you pointed out another one:

5. The date of the article he quotes from the Jewish Week.

I haven't checked all his work to see if it has the same frequency of errors. He might be a reliable source for other information. All I can say is that on the subject of Ginsburgh there are so many inconsistencies that his work cannot be accepted at face value, nor brought as a source for a BLP. 238-Gdn (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

We will of course be using it. We don't have to accept his mistakes, but the idea that he is unacceptable is bizarre -- scholarly sources are to be preferred over the media... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

He also doesn't know where Ginsburgh was born, see one of the sections above. I have long objected against using Inbari as a source on this article. Apart from his academic status, he seems to get nothing right, and in addition he seems to be biased. Debresser (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Debresser: @Nomoskedasticity: @Zero0000: I have posted a request for dispute resolution regarding Inbari here[15]. Be good! 238-Gdn (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: Stating that "We will of course be using it" is heavy handed and not acceptable practice (WP:OWN). True that we don't have to accept his mistakes, but nobody has proven that his opinion is not completely mistaken. If you can offer reasons why Inbari should be considered reliable enough to quote (possibly libelous material about a BLP), despite the fact that he has been consistently proven to be unscholarly, please state your points.

For convenience, here is a link to previous objections to Inbari[16]

And another [17] to the previous discussion objecting to Inbari as a reliable source. Be good238-Gdn (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I refer you again to our core WP:RS policy, in particular WP:SCHOLARSHIP, the second entry, re "material ... published ... by well-regarded academic presses". This is exactly the kind of source we are supposed to use. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Inbari's biggest boo-boo to date: on the Gal-Einai website it states,

"Regarding Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount, Rabbi Ginsburgh refers us to the words of the Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, that there are some places on the Temple Mount where Jews, following the correct purification procedures, are permitted to visit. Nonetheless, following the Rebbe’s response to his query whether or not to pray there, since 5750 Rabbi Ginsburgh has advised his students not to visit the Temple Mount."

This is another glaring fact that Inbari is by no means a reliable source on Ginsburgh. Using him on this page is potentially libelous, an embarrassment to Inbari, and ridicules the intellect of Wikipedia's readers, who view Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. There is no longer any reason to keep him as a source on this page. Be good! 238-Gdn (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Your reply doesn't address the point I am making about Wikipedia policy. So, I'm not all that inclined to address your point -- not that it's even apparent what that point is... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity: Claiming that I am edit warring (as you did in your summary) is ridiculous. Ever since Inbari has been brought as a source in the distant history of this article, long before I came on the scene, his words have aroused serious objections on a number of counts by numerous editors who have deleted it a number of times. You persistently and stubbornly reverted all these edits and until now you have continued to do so, despite ever-increasing evidence that Inbari cannot be relied upon for his opinions on Ginsburgh, because he is clearly mistaken about so many facts.

Your stubborn insistence on using Inbari as the source for Ginsburgh's view on visiting the Temple Mount when it is clear that his statement is not true, is more than absurd. The statement from Ginsburgh's site and his book (Tzav Hasha'ah) is legitimate use of primary sources for this fact and they should be preferred over Inbari's mistaken version. If you want to offer a way in which Inbari's misguided interpretation can be interwoven into the text together with the statements by Rabbi Ginsburgh, by all means, suggest a way in which we can put them both there. Personally, I think it would be an embarrassment to Inbari for misinterpreting Ginsburgh, but if you think otherwise, then go ahead.

As for the statement about extracting livers etc., it is a libelous distortion of the facts. I have it by word of mouth from an impeccable source that Ginsburgh actually said that, theoretically, if a Gentile is liable of the death penalty due to the transgression of the Noahide laws, once the death sentence has been carried out, it would be permissible to use the non-Jew's liver to treat a Jew who requires a liver transplant to survive (as in the case of any other dead person, with no distinction between Jew and non-Jew). Even this is only true at a time when a Jewish king is in rule over Israel, and is not permissible in the current situation. The fact that Inbari quoted the Jewish Week's gruesome report without investigating it further and without any reference to Ginsburgh's letter of response to the article in the Jewish Press a couple of weeks later, is also an embarrassment to him. Since this is a BLP, there is absolutely no place for such reports and if you continue to add it in, I will make all effort to have the information removed, even to the extent of contacting Rabbi Ginsburgh himself to submit a personal libel report. 238-Gdn (talk) 08:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

It is obvious that Inbari is a reliable source by Wikipedia rules, and you are wasting your time trying to prove otherwise. Regarding visiting the Temple Mount platform there is no contradiction since the two versions were written at different times. Instead of edit-warring (which you are doing) find reliable sources that explain when and why Ginsburgh changed his opinion. Meanwhile, legal threats are not tolerated here and I am going to report you. Zero^talk 10:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that both of you are using the Wikipedia rules to justify the insertion of libelous information in a BLP, which is definitely an issue that Wikipedia does not uphold. Considering the frequency of Inbari's currently known mistakes, there is justified reason to suppose that he also erred regarding the liver transplant issue. It is a fact that he chose to bring the Jewish Week's report without inquiring further. In other instances, he quotes from written replies to his questions to Ginsburgh, why did he not do so in this case?

Regarding the Temple Mount, in his book Inbari actually quotes from Tzav Hasha'a regarding similar issues but ignores the clear implications of Ginsburgh's statement there:

בדורנו, גם טהרת הר הבית ... ואפשרות של כל יהודי לעלות אליו בטהרה תבואנה רק לאחר העמדת מלך. כעת טובי עמנו, המצפים לישועת עם ישראל באמת ומנסים בכל יכולתם להחיש את הגאולה, עוסקים, בין היתר, בסוגית העליה להר הבית הלכה למעשה. אליהם במיוחד אנו פונים בקריאה זו להשכיל היטב ולהפנות את עיקר מרצם לנושא הבוער והאקטואלי ביותר - מצות העמדת מלך.

So, it is not true that Inbari did not have the sources available, rather, he deliberately chose to misinterpret them. So, how you can say that he is a reliable academic source is incomprehensible.

My remark about contacting Ginsburgh is not a legal threat. It is accepted Wikipedian practice that the subject of libel has the option of approaching Wikipedia with a request to remove the libelous claims about them as per Wikipedia:Libel. My "threat" was that I would notify Ginsburgh that he has the right to do so.238-Gdn (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Updated list of Inbari's mistakes:

1. He does not spell Ginsburgh's name correctly (this is in both the original Hebrew and the English translation).
2. He misstates Ginsburgh's place of birth, despite the fact that it appears clearly in Ginsburgh's biography in all of his books.
3. He states (p.160) that Kuntres Baruch Hagever was edited by Michael ben Chorin, which is not true
4. He ignores the final section of Kuntres Baruch Hagever, which states that Goldstein's act can also be seen as defying the five "justifications".
5. He claims that Ginsburgh promotes prayer on the Temple Mount, ignoring Ginsburgh's own words in Tzav Hasha'a (which he supposedly uses as a source).
6. He quotes from a libelous article without researching further about its gruesome assertations
7. He misstates the date of the article from the Jewish Week
8. He makes no reference to Ginsburgh's reply to the article from the Jewish Week

Be good! 238-Gdn (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Those items in the list which are not trivial are dubious and you can only "prove" them by quoting Ginsburgh or his inner circle. I have much better things to do with my time, but you have to realise that your massive violation of WP:OWN with respect to this article can't last. For example, your point 4 is a load of codswallop. Everyone with a modicum of morality can see that "Goldstein's act emanated from the super-rational powers of his soul, therefore one cannot rely on logical reasoning to determine whether the act was worthy or condemnable" is a strong statement in support of mass murder and doesn't allow the opposite interpretation. Of course my opinion doesn't count, nor yours, but we we are entitled to present the clearly expounded analysis of the vast majority of reliable third-party sources, and we are not permitted to base the article primarily on himself and his disciples. Zero^talk 11:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Goldstein, the pamphlet states clearly in the conclusion that the five "justifications" can similarly be interpreted as derogatory. "להציג מערכת זו עצמה באופן מהופך, ולדרוש מתוך המצוות הללו גופא את המעשה לגנאי..." (translation: "...to present this system itself in the opposite way and to interpret, via these very same mitzvot, the action as reproachful." p.45). Perhaps that would be a better quotation to bring from there. By the way, the article is not even written in Ginsburgh's name like his other books, but is clearly a student's interpretation of the class given by Ginsburgh.

Having read some of the academic work on him, I realize that because Rabbi Ginsburgh uses many esoteric concepts, the emphases of his words are sometimes misinterpreted by those who do not have a grasp of Kabbalistic concepts. Interpretation of his opinions relies heavily on misguided circular assumptions. As far as I can tell, especially since the writing of that pamphlet, Rabbi Ginsburgh makes a point of closely reading any material that is published in his name. Be good! 238-Gdn (talk) 12:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

No, you can't get away with that. If I say "my opinion is such-and-such but someone else may have another opinion", what is my opinion? Zero^talk 13:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Your comment does not sound very coherent. What are you trying to say? Be good! 238-Gdn (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Multiple authors who have read Ginsburgh's chapter in BH and have the expertise to judge it have summarised it as lavish praise for Baruch Goldstein. It is not our business to question the conclusions of reliable sources but only to cite them. Zero^talk 21:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, has anyone until now asked you what your personal connection to Ginsburgh or his disciples or Od Yosef Chai is? If not, I am asking you now. Zero^talk 13:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Although your question insinuates a serious and aggressive assault on my integrity, I will make it clear that I am an independent volunteer. Be good!238-Gdn (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm entitled to ask you whether our rules on WP:COI are being obeyed. I will accept your answer until proven otherwise. However, I won't let you turn this article into a hagiography. In my opinion your endless defence of the subject goes well beyond the demands of NPOV or BLP. Zero^talk 21:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Attitude to Gentiles

One of the most glaring omissions is any discussion of Ginsburgh's opinion on the fundamental superiority of Jew over Gentile. Tons of good sources cover it. Zero^talk 11:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

There's a bit in the article, re Goldstein. It's evident in Inbari's analysis as well; in fact I was thinking about adding something along these lines to the lead. But if that angle can be expanded with other sources, all the better. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Certainly, the subject of Ginsburgh's attitude to Gentiles is an important one that should be discussed. There are many examples of Ginsburgh's goal to fulfill the bibilical prophecy that the Jews will be a light to all nations. His book "Kabbalah and Meditation for the Nations" (2007) is addressed specifically to non-Jews. In recent years, he has taught profusely about the "Fourth Torah Revolution," which involves teaching Torah to non-Jews. Many non-Jews take counsel from him. Some have visited him in his home. I will see if I can find reliable sources for this. Be good! 238-Gdn (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

"‘It should be recognized that Jewish blood and a goy’s blood are not the same … Any trial that assumes that Jews and goyim are equal is a travesty of justice’." This is a quotation that can be reliably sourced and it is consistent with everything I have read about him. In other words, pull the other leg. Zero^talk 13:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The article of Satherley that is cited first has a lot more citable material on these issues. Zero^talk 13:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem with most of these "reliable sources" is that they have misinterpreted Ginsburgh's words or taken them out of context, in order to make them match the accepted misconceptions about him, so much so that they bear little or no bearing on the truth. So, to use your own metaphor, I will continue to pull the same leg.

Here is a quote from "Kabbalah and Meditation for the Nations" (p. 17), which is just one example of what I wrote above.

As a result of this special assignment from God, the Jews

have a responsibility to be a “light unto the nations”

—this means that they are responsible to teach non-Jews

how to obey the seven Laws of Bnei Noach and by doing so

to lead the entire world to the true worship of the One God,

thus bringing about the final redemption.

If you can find a reliable source that takes this and other such sources into consideration before spitting out grisly fallacies about his views, then by all means, do so. Be good! 238-Gdn (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

All you did is repeat back what I said in different words. Ginsburgh believes in (but of course didn't invent) a classification of living things in which Jews reside in a plane above all the other planes where animals and non-Jews reside. It should be in the article; there are tons of citations. The difference between him and many other kaballists who give the concept only metaphysical significance, Ginsburgh makes of it a theology in which the lives of gentiles are worth less than Jewish lives, gentiles have no rights in Eretz Yisrael, revenge-in-advance against gentiles is praiseworthy and mass-murder of gentiles is kiddush hashem. The question here, indeed the only question here, is whether we will report the facts as per reliable sources or hide them behind fancy words. Zero^talk 21:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Ginsburgh as Chabad expert on Kabbalah

Pretty clear that it's very off base to describe Ginsburgh as a top Chabad authority on Kabbalah.

From Tablet Mag: "Chabad scholars have long dismissed his teachings, considering them to be eccentric and at times even in direct contradiction to Chabad’s scholarly approach."

From the Forward: "to this day he considers himself part of Chabad even though, to a significant extent, he has diverged from the Chabad doctrine and created one of his own."

| MK17b | (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

That is true. On the other hand, he does identify as an adherent of Chabad and is considered one. So even though he has developed some idea and a following of his own, that does not preclude him being Chabad too. Debresser (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

But he is not "Chabad's leading authority" when he has so clearly diverged. | MK17b | (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

That's a 1996 presented as a statement of his current status. I've dated it. Or we could just remove it if there's no current source. Doug Weller talk 17:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Since I frequently hear of him as a leading Chabad kabbalist, I guess this information is still current. I'd leave it in the article as is. Debresser (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

It's possible that people only speak of Ginzburgh as a leading Chabad kabbalist because they read it on Wikipedia and assume it must therefore be true. Ps8v9 (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

A lot of things are possible, however, not necessarily true. In this case, I would say, definitely not true. Debresser (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Typo

The word "unsupervized" is misspelled and should be replaced with "unsupervised". (I haven't made 500 edits yet, so I can't fix this error myself.) Ps8v9 (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Debresser (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Poor sources and biased presentation

The paragraph on Ginsburgh's article "Baruch Hagever" was at some point rewritten to place most of what comes from the only reliable source which is present (Inbari) by the article itself (abuse of WP:PRIMARY) and an article "Response by Rabbi Ginsburgh's Students" (violation of WP:NPOV unless it is presented as attributed opinion). The same non-neutral source is used for a claim that Ginsburgh didn't actually write it, contrary to dozens of reliable sources. It doesn't even matter, since it bears his name and he published it, thus showing that he took responsibility for the content. Nor did he ever retract it. All of this has to be rewritten using the many academic sources which cover it. There are enough good sources in English that inaccessible Hebrew sources are not needed. As well as Inbari, a very detailed account is given in Moshe Hellinger, Isaac Hershkowitz and Bernard Susser, Religious Zionism and the Settlement Project, SUNY Press, 2018. Zero^talk 08:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

And more bias: "The judge declared that the accusations were baseless." -- no such statement appears in the source. The judge said he wasn't a danger to the public, which is quite different. Zero^talk 09:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

It depends where you read in the sources:

1. Jerusalem Post: "Darner said that nothing in the information presented to her could serve as a basis for holding Ginsburgh"

2. Jewish Week: "...the court finally ordered him released, citing insufficient evidence that his statements had incited or would incite anyone"

But true, I did not find this stated explicitly in Ginsburgh's response to the libelous article in the Jewish Week, so I will remove the reference to it from there. Be Good!238-Gdn (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I suggest that 238-Gdn (talk · contribs) should make every effort ensure that edits are accurate (and so do fixes as needed). I don't see much tolerance these days for pushing the boundaries. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Nomoskedasticity. Indeed I try to do my best. Be Good!238-Gdn (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by 238-Gdn

238-Gdn, you really have to stop it. This is an encyclopedia article, not a song in praise of a rabbi you feel obliged to defend from every charge.

• Case 1. Since this is a BLP, it is allowed to use Ginzburg's letter to Jewish Week (not Jewish Press) as attributed response to charges, but letters to the editor are never reliable for facts and anyway the writer has a direct conflict of interest. I can see that the word "baseless" is Ginsburgh's word, not a word that appears in the source. So you can't have it.
• Case 2. You claimed that the source on the April 1994 incident doesn't mention violence, but in fact it says "attack on the security forces". Anyway, Settler News (aka Arutz Sheva) is not reliable for this. For a less biased description, we can turn to JP (9 Apr 2014): "Hundreds of settlers from the Yitzhar settlement in the West Bank rioted and attacked security forces overnight Tuesday after the Border Police destroyed four illegally built structures and seized a caravan. ... Security sources said the violence they encountered was extreme, adding that it included rock throwing, tire burning and blocking of roads." Or we can ask Haaretz (8 Apr 2014): "Hundreds of settlers clashed with Border Police who entered the West Bank settlement of Yitzhar overnight Tuesday to demolish illegal structures. Forces were confronted by hundreds of violent settlers who threw rocks, burned tires and blocked streets. Security forces responded with riot dispersal methods. Six Border Police officers were wounded by rocks; two required hospitalization." In summary: pull the other leg.
• Case 3. You claim that there is "a credible source that states that no girl was shot" but you haven't provided any. If you can't find a source that is not from Ginsburgh or his followers, you can't have it.

Zero^talk 09:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Zero0000 there is no song of praise here. Just statements of facts, which you find incompatible with your view of Rabbi Ginsburgh. I understand that this may cause a certain feeling of cognitive dissonance, but please try to get your head around it.

• Response to Case 1. It is allowed to use Ginsburgh's own words from the letter to the editor. In this case, it is not presented as fact, rather as a defense against other information which may have been misrepresented. Ginsburgh's letter was not published in the Jewish Week (that was the libelous article) but in the Jewish Press.
• Response to Case 2. not all settlers are students of Rabbi Ginsburgh, so those sources are not relevant.
• Response to Case 3 I provided a source, which is legitimate in this case as mentioned. A more credible source is the trial transcript of the event, which are considered a primary source. There are credible news reports, which still need to be sourced from archives. Be Good 238-Gdn (talk) 11:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

(1) You are correct about Jewish Press, but you are not correct about how to use it. You can only use it as attributed opinion (as in "Ginsburgh replies that ..."). As others like him, he says different things to different audiences. We will quote from Baruch Hagever to show that his claim that goyim can only be killed in war is not what he says to his followers. We will also mention his support for The King's Torah which explicitly says that "Thou shalt not kill" only applies to killing Jews.
(2) The meeting of the rabbis that you added was about the violence used against the Border Police. If it was settlers not students, fine, we will write settlers. The actual violence is the only reason for including this incident, so if it is nothing to do with Ginsburgh it should be removed.
(3) The claim that there was no shooting is just typical bullshit. The students claimed self-defence, not absence of shooting, and four of them were charged with manslaughter and made a plea-bargain to reduce it to opening fire in an urban area. Three got 8 months imprisonment and one got a suspended sentence. We will remove the indirect report of Ginsburgh's commentary during the trial and quote directly from JP: "In the corridor the suspects' rabbi, Yitzhak Ginzburg, said the Torah differentiates between Jews and Gentiles and "one must recognize the fact that Jewish blood and a goy's blood are not the same. The people of Israel must rise and declare publicly that a Jew and a goy are not equal, God forbid. Any trial based (on the assumption) that Jews and goyim are equal is a total travesty of justice." Another JP article reported that he said it "loudly and clearly". Zero^talk 13:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)