Misplaced Pages

Talk:Elazar Shach: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:42, 22 April 2015 editMalik Shabazz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers106,163 edits Ideologue and Zealot: comment← Previous edit Revision as of 05:10, 22 April 2015 edit undoDebresser (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors110,467 edits Ideologue and Zealot: Mus have those words.Next edit →
Line 79: Line 79:


:I think you're right, ]. ], part of the Manual of Style, says that "Value-laden labels ... may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. In some cases, in-text attribution might be a better option." If it is necessary to use the words "ideologue" and "zealot"—and I don't believe it is—we should say something like "''Haaretz'' described Shach as an ideologue and zealot". —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 03:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC) :I think you're right, ]. ], part of the Manual of Style, says that "Value-laden labels ... may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. In some cases, in-text attribution might be a better option." If it is necessary to use the words "ideologue" and "zealot"—and I don't believe it is—we should say something like "''Haaretz'' described Shach as an ideologue and zealot". —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 03:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

:: I strongly disagree. I think this is another case of censoring Misplaced Pages (the first being when ] was not called "controversial", despite multiple reliable sources saying precisely that). The strange thing is that some editors prefer removing factually correct, neutrally worded, relevant and reliably sourced information from articles, and there is no outcry. Well, at least I want to register my strong disagreement with this approach. I think the words "zealot" and "ideologue" must stay. ] (]) 05:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:10, 22 April 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Elazar Shach article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLithuania Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconJudaism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIsrael Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government / Science and Academia
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).
Note icon
An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Elazar Shach article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days 

Quote from book "Raising Roses Among the Thorns"

Please see Fladrif's comments here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_146#Quote_from_book_.22Raising_Roses_Among_the_Thorns.22_regarding_Rabbi_Elazar_Shach

Assuming no valid objections are raised, I will be restoring the information shortly. Thanks

Yonoson3 (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem here. An interesting quote. Although not sure how important. Debresser (talk) 07:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

In agreement with Yonoson, and it is very important particularly since the question of drafting Haredi yeshiva students is now even more a key topic of public discussion in Israel, after the latest Israeli elections with the Haredi leaders now in opposition it has become one of the biggest and most divisive hot potatoe political and religious issues in Israel. IZAK (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree. If that what it is about, then that is important and actual. Debresser (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: Per WP:RSN: "Resolved: Clearly a reliable source. Underlying disputes should be raised at another DR board. Fladrif (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC) " Thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi IZAK, thanks for the input.
Just want to clarify something, though. The quote from the book "Raising Roses Among the Thorns" (1) is not about the Haredi draft. That is from a different book, "Israel and the Politics of Jewish Identity: The Secular-Religious Impasse" (2).
But either way, Fladrif agreed that the quotes from both books are reliable. Yonoson3 (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Quote from book "Israel and the Politics of Jewish Identity: The Secular-Religious Impasse"

This was discussed at length here. Fladriff's conclusion: "Resolved: Clearly a reliable source. Underlying disputes should be raised at another DR board."

Assuming no valid objections are raised, I will be restoring the quote shortly. Thanks. Yonoson3 (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Edits and restoring previous version.

I've restored some information and undone a few of IZAK's edits of March 2013 which make no sense and had no consensus. If anybody wants to make major changes to the structure of a controversial article they should seek consensus first and that way we can avoid a lot of the wars that went on here in the past.--C Steffen 21:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talkcontribs)

Position on territorial compromise

I've removed the statement added by Yonoson3 claiming that Ovadia Yosef 'concurred with Shach's opinion' on this issue since the sources provided don't even mention Shach so its pure wp:synth. Please don't put back any info that isn't properly sourced and really, PLEASE don't fabricate sources!--C Steffen 02:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talkcontribs)

Ideologue and Zealot

These people are NOT described in their Misplaced Pages summaries as ideologues and zealots: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Hassan Nasrallah, Osama Bin Laden, Louis Farrakhan.

Apparently, these biased, hateful words are reserved by Jewish Misplaced Pages editors to use against learned rabbis only. I removed them and they were replaced. I removed them again. This is not the encyclopedia style that is supposed to be maintained here! MosheEmes (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, the editor who replaced those words claimed that they were "sourced" (from a Haaretz article, which is a newspaper generally unsympathetic to Haredim). I can't find the original online but I reworded it to sound more neutral and kept the source reference. I see no problem with that. MosheEmes (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right, MosheEmes. WP:LABEL, part of the Manual of Style, says that "Value-laden labels ... may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. In some cases, in-text attribution might be a better option." If it is necessary to use the words "ideologue" and "zealot"—and I don't believe it is—we should say something like "Haaretz described Shach as an ideologue and zealot". — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 03:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. I think this is another case of censoring Misplaced Pages (the first being when Shlomo Sand was not called "controversial", despite multiple reliable sources saying precisely that). The strange thing is that some editors prefer removing factually correct, neutrally worded, relevant and reliably sourced information from articles, and there is no outcry. Well, at least I want to register my strong disagreement with this approach. I think the words "zealot" and "ideologue" must stay. Debresser (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Categories: