Template talk:Rabbi-stub

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Judaism (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


Do we really need to argue about this? When the pic was of Reb Lazer Gordon nobody objected or tried to change it. I changed it recently because that pic's copyright status came under question, and if we end up having to assert fair use for it then this template is obviously not eligible. I had actually considered using the Vilner Gaon's pic, but rejected it because the hat dominates it so heavily. Instead I went with the Alter Rebbe's pic, which everyone will surely admit is a classical demus of a fartzeitiger rov. So why change it again? -- Zsero (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Best to keep it NPOV and not drag either Litvish or Chasidish rabbonim into disputes. Everyone can agree on an artist's impression of the image of the RAMBAM, now inserted. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
What exactly is POV about the Alter Rebbe's pic? It seems to me that changing it is inherently a POV move. After all, does anybody challenge his position as one of the greatest rabbis in history? As I noted above, when Reb Lazer Gordon's pic was being used, nobody thought of changing it until the copyright question came up. And I'm sure that if I'd used the Vilner Gaon's pic nobody would have challenged it (and I would have used it, if not for that enormous hat!) So why is the Alter Rebbe's pic suddenly controversial?!
It also seems to me that the Rambam picture (especially with no pe'os) evokes a somewhat exotic demus, rather than that of a generic rov. -- Zsero (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The chasidim would not approve of the picture of the Vilna Gaon and I for one (the creator of the template)was not happy with using the picture of the baal hatanya because of my litvish upbringing. I am not arguing that he was not a Gadol, but I agree with IZAK that one of the Rishonim should be used, since they are more acceptable by a wider spectrum of jews.Nerguy (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
And what was wrong with the original picture of r' Shimon Shkop. Nerguy (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
On what basis do you claim chasidim would not have approved of the Vilna Gaon's pic? Name a chosid who would have objected. And where do you get the chutzpah to be "not happy" with the Alter Rebbe's pic? What is this nonsense about the rishonim being "more acceptable" than the Alter Rebbe? To whom are they "more acceptable"? Name one honest Jew who does not accept the Alter Rebbe as one of the world-class poskim. But if you're going to make an issue of it then fine: I object to the Rambam. If you can object to the Alter Rebbe then I object to the Rambam. What will you do now?
As for the previous pic, first of all it was never R Shimon Shkop. Second, can you not read? I've already explained why I changed it, both above and in the change log. What exactly do you not understand? -- Zsero (talk) 04:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Calm down.If you look at the history of the template you will see that it was r' shimon shkop before it was a mogen dovid. I created it. I know which picture I inserted. Secondly are you completely ignorant of the quarrel between the chasidim and the vilna gaon. Also when you look at what has become of the alter rebbe's movement today (aka meshichitin and elokistin I think you will understand why I am more entitled to object to his picture than you are to object to the rambam, who is accepted by all religious jews as one of the greatest, as well as one of the best known, jewish leaders since the advent of rabbinical portraitsNerguy (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, the picture of R Shimon has the same problem as the one of R Lazer; its provenance is unknown, and therefore it may be copyright to someone, in which case a fair-use claim will have to be made for using it to illustrate his own article and that about Telz, but obviously no fair-use claim could be made for this template.
I am certainly aware of the history of the Vilner Gaon, and his war against the chassidim. There was never a "quarrel between" them - the chassidim never did anything to him; he made a terrible mistake, was misled by false testimony, and issued a cherem without giving the targets the opportunity to confront their accusers. This was a breach of halacha, but the chassidim accepted that he acted leshem shomayim, and didn't stop respecting him for it. He is universally regarded by chassidim as a "go'on vechosid", despite his error. There are no chassidim who would object to using his picture as the demus of a rabbi, and indeed I seriously considered using it when I had to replace the pic of R Lazer; the only grounds on which I rejected it were aesthetic.
As for your nonsense claim that your political problems with some factions of Chabad today entitle you to make some sort of objection to the Alter Rebbe, it's difficult to dignify this with a response. We are talking about one of the greatest poskim, universally accepted, indeed in some ways more accepted than the Rambam who according to the GRA was נמשך אחרי הפילוסופיא הארורה, and whose views on things like hashgocho protis are not accepted at all today.
My real problem with the Rambam's pic, though, and my reason for preferring that of the Alter Rebbe, has nothing to do with their personalities or shitos, but simply as pictures. The Rambam pic does not look like any rov we would recognise. Forget the turban and the styled beard; just consider the lack of peyos. The artist who imagined the Rambam like this was obviously not Jewish, and didn't think to include them, and the pic is familiar enough that including it in the article on the Rambam is justified. But to use it as a generic image for a rov? The AR's pic, on the other hand, is the very image of a fartzaitiger rov, whether chosid, misnaged, sefardi, or any other kind. There is no costume to distract from the hadras ponim, and without knowing who it is you can know that it's a talmid chochom and not some Arab merchant. Reb Lazer's picture was good in this respect too; there was some detail of costume, enough to place the subject in a particular geographic area, but the costume did not distract attention from the face. If we can ever determine its copyright status (and I am trying to do so) I would have no objection at all to going back to it.
-- Zsero (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

R Shimon Shkop and R Boruch Hager[edit]

R Shimon's pic is not usable, for the same reason as R Lazer's: its copyright status is uncertain. Unless you can prove that its author died more than 70 years ago, or that it was published anonymously more than 70 years ago, or that it was published before 1923, it can't be used. R Boruch's picture has a PD-50 tag on it, but no source, so we have no way of knowing that the tag is valid. How do you know that the author died more than 50 years ago? And even if he did, how does that make it acceptable to use? No, we have to have a photo that 1. Is definitely in the public domain; 2. Evokes the demus of a rov; 3. Is dominated by the hadras ponim rather than by garments, hat, or background. (On these grounds, R Lazer's pic is far preferable to R Shimon's; if we were to use R Shimon's it should be cropped.) Looking through the commons I found File:Shlomo malachi.jpg which appears to me to be suitable, with a very slight cropping to eliminate the frame; but I'd like to make sure of the copyright status first, and accordingly have asked someone with OTRS access to retrieve the entry for me. -- Zsero (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I want someone without curly peyos. How about the Rabbi from the Seinfeld episode with the bris? (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
1. That is certainly copyright! 2. Peyos, whether straight or curly, short or long, are part of the expected appearance of a Jew, and certainly of a rabbi. Having clearly visible ones, and yet ones that don't draw undue attention, is a plus, not a minus. -- Zsero (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Stick with Maimonides[edit]

Having the RAMBAM is the best solution. I am totally against having the photo of ANY known rabbis of recent years because as you see it will automatically ignite passions over nothing. But everyone can agree that Maimonides was the greatest of the rabbis, miMoshe ad Moshe ein kaMoishe so guys stop bickering and agree on the RAMBAM, like all Briskers, Lubavitchers, Yeshivish, Chasidish, Sefardish, Misnagdish, even Reform, Conservative, secular and gentile agree on the fame and centarilty of the rabbi as an all time great rabbi. So I shall now reverse lichvod HARAMBAM. IZAK (talk) 07:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

But this is not about who features on the picture of the stub. What is needed is the best image which evokes the appearance of a rabbi. For this I feel the Baal Hatanya is the perfect candidate. (The image of the Rambam does not even have peyos!!) Chesdovi (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with IZAK that universal acceptance is an important factor as I have noted previously noted on this page. Also, Chesdovi many current rabbis do not have long peyos and the Rambam did not necessarily have peyos because shitas harambam is that you need to leave only 40 hairs (which is quite a small radius) and he holds that they me cut with scissors; the only prohibition being with a razor.Nerguy (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Not all rabbis have long and curly peyos like Mari Saliman, but all have visible peyos, and who would accept a rov who didn't?! The Rambam certainly did have peyos, and the lack of them in the famous pic is simply an artifact of the artist's ignorance — unless the pic was not intended to be the Rambam at all, but rather some Arab merchant! Nobody really knows how this pic came to be associated with the Rambam. -- Zsero (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Maimonides no peyos.jpg

There are definitely no peyos on the image of the Rambam. He would no doubt be rolling in his grave. We could, on the other hand, always have an image of a woman rabbi. That would solve the problem of peyos. Chesdovi (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

She's got peyos! -- Zsero (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Image possibilites[edit]

Chofetzchaim1.jpg Solomon Judah Rapoport.JPG Mathias Strashun.JPG PikiWiki Israel 4406 Rabbi Nathan David Rabinowitz of Partzwa.JPG Schneur Zalman of Liadi.jpg 30px Shlomo Malachi crop.jpg Please add any others. Chesdovi (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ari Raskin needs to get some years on him before I'd consider him the very model of a modern major general rabbi in a synagogue. I'd also object to maskilim such as Shir and Strashun; חזיר כשר פיסל. -- Zsero (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The Parchever Rebbe's picture is of very uncertain copyright status. My guess is that it is copyright, and it will be deleted from the commons. -- Zsero (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • All you lot have got it all wrong! The obvious choice of Image is Akiba ben joseph a.jpg Rabbi Akiva, perhaps head-enlarged&cropped. In academia Rabbi Akiva was the central "founder/figure" of Rabbinic Judaism (development of Perushim-Pharisees). Before the Rabbinic Era, Jewish religious authority was Prophetic/Judges/Kings/Priests. With the Sanhedrin/Rabbis it became scholarly. Other than this, the best recommendation so far is Rambam, but in academia he is sometimes/commonly understood as anti Proto-Kabbalah (eg. Maimonides' Confrontation With Mysticism by Kellner). Rambam's rationalist views lost the day in traditional Judaism, and Rambam can only be considered mainstream in respect to the Mishneh Torah. Most traditional Judaism ignored his Moreh Nevuchim when they weren't opposing it. It's a little ironic that Haredim celebrate Rambam, when Orthodox rationalists like Dor Daim use his philosophy to attack Kabbalah! (though a few Kabbalists claimed him as covertly one of theirs). Other than Rabbi Akiva, Rashi would be a more appropriate mainstream choice, but his picture is not good. I think image should be chosen on 2 factors: 1) aesthetic/representational Rabbinic quality, 2) conceptual paradigm. The Hafetz Haim fails the latter factor dismally, representing only a minority of Judaism's Rabbis (narrowly Haredi). It's also ironic to see his image stub on a non-orthodox Rabbinic page. In contrast, Rabbi Akiva's choice includes Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Rabbis. In Orthodoxy, he incorporates Modern as well as Haredi. He even incorporates Jewish mysticism to boot! Result! Someone please cropp his image and replace it here - quick! April8 (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)