![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
Clearly there is a whole lot of history missing from the article. Some random snippets (both the starting sentences of longer articles):
-- Zero talk 13:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
What is the relevance of the latter quote? Debresser ( talk) 13:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I will try to add more historical details as time permits. -- Mgenuth ( talk) 14:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
"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)
The book certainly is connected to Ginsburgh. There were two publications of Ginsburgh's essay, with small changes between.
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)
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)
Thanks for the input. m656 ( talk) 22:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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 [1]. 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Yitzchak_Ginsburgh.
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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.'"
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. Thanks 238-Gdn ( talk) 19:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Nice to meet you Nomoskedasticity.
Please state why you object to the inclusion of the new biographical material. Be well 238-Gdn ( talk) 14:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
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)
To editor 238-Gdn: You keep inserting this text:
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:
It is fundamentally different from your version. How do you explain that? Zero talk 01:30, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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:
Etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 238-Gdn ( talk • contribs) 15:41, 29 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)
@ 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 good 238-Gdn ( talk) 12:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
"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)
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.
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)
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)
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.
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." [1]
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." [2]
| MK17b | ( talk) 05:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
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.
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.
Zero talk 09:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
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)
An editor removed the following sourced content from the controversy section:
In an April 1996 interview with The Jewish Week, Ginsburgh spoke freely of 'genetic based, spiritual superiority over non-Jews,' stating that Halacha would “probably permit” seizing an unwilling non-Jew for a liver transplant to save the life of a Jew, because "Jewish life has an infinite value,” and “There is something infinitely more holy and unique about Jewish life than non-Jewish life.”
The stated reason given was that it's addition: "seems not to take into consideration previous discussions that took place regarding his page from the outset. In fact, it also repeats claims that already appear in the text."
1) After wasting time reading thru the archived talk page (due to lack of link to section), I did indeed find some interesting things:
Conclusion: Nothing on the page supports the reversion, and on the contrary, all I see is that:
2) As far as the argument that it "repeats claims that already appear in the text". It is mentioned in a quote about another incident. However:
Yaakovaryeh ( talk) 08:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Yitzchak Ginsburgh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the title of the students, the order should be changed a bit, so that the doctors will appear first, and the people without the academic degrees will appear at the end. There is no reason to precede "Meir Ettinger" for example, to "Dr. Shloma Kalish" or "Dr. Daniel Shalit". In addition, it is worth adding to this list the names of his old students who edit his books and pamphlets:
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
Clearly there is a whole lot of history missing from the article. Some random snippets (both the starting sentences of longer articles):
-- Zero talk 13:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
What is the relevance of the latter quote? Debresser ( talk) 13:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I will try to add more historical details as time permits. -- Mgenuth ( talk) 14:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
"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)
The book certainly is connected to Ginsburgh. There were two publications of Ginsburgh's essay, with small changes between.
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)
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)
Thanks for the input. m656 ( talk) 22:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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 [1]. 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Yitzchak_Ginsburgh.
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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.'"
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. Thanks 238-Gdn ( talk) 19:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Nice to meet you Nomoskedasticity.
Please state why you object to the inclusion of the new biographical material. Be well 238-Gdn ( talk) 14:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
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)
To editor 238-Gdn: You keep inserting this text:
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:
It is fundamentally different from your version. How do you explain that? Zero talk 01:30, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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:
Etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 238-Gdn ( talk • contribs) 15:41, 29 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)
@ 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 good 238-Gdn ( talk) 12:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
"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)
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.
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)
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)
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.
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." [1]
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." [2]
| MK17b | ( talk) 05:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
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.
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.
Zero talk 09:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
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)
An editor removed the following sourced content from the controversy section:
In an April 1996 interview with The Jewish Week, Ginsburgh spoke freely of 'genetic based, spiritual superiority over non-Jews,' stating that Halacha would “probably permit” seizing an unwilling non-Jew for a liver transplant to save the life of a Jew, because "Jewish life has an infinite value,” and “There is something infinitely more holy and unique about Jewish life than non-Jewish life.”
The stated reason given was that it's addition: "seems not to take into consideration previous discussions that took place regarding his page from the outset. In fact, it also repeats claims that already appear in the text."
1) After wasting time reading thru the archived talk page (due to lack of link to section), I did indeed find some interesting things:
Conclusion: Nothing on the page supports the reversion, and on the contrary, all I see is that:
2) As far as the argument that it "repeats claims that already appear in the text". It is mentioned in a quote about another incident. However:
Yaakovaryeh ( talk) 08:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Yitzchak Ginsburgh has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the title of the students, the order should be changed a bit, so that the doctors will appear first, and the people without the academic degrees will appear at the end. There is no reason to precede "Meir Ettinger" for example, to "Dr. Shloma Kalish" or "Dr. Daniel Shalit". In addition, it is worth adding to this list the names of his old students who edit his books and pamphlets: