Jump to content

Talk:Elazar Shach

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by IZAK (talk | contribs) at 03:44, 20 September 2010 (→Archived off-topic chat: '''The case at ANI, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive637#Elazar Shach talk page was closed "Smurf Shach" was changed and removed.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Information from two recent books

The following two books published by Feldheim have a lot of relevant info which I'd like to add on to the Elazar Shach page:

1) In Their Shadow: Wisdom and Guidance of the Gedolim Volume One: Chazon Ish, Brisker Rav, Rav Shach [Translated from the Hebrew title B'Mechitzasam Shel Gedolei Hador #1]- By Rabbi Shlomo Lorincz - Published by Feldheim Publishers, 2008. 453 pages. - ISBN 978-1-59826-207-0

2) Path to Greatness - The Life of Maran Harav Elazar Menachem Man Shach, Vol I: Vaboilnik to Bnei Brak (1899-1953) - By Rabbi Asher Bergman. Translated by Yocheved Lavon. Published by Feldheim Publishers, 2009. 634 pages. - ISBN 978-1-59826-440-1

Does anyone have a problem with me adding more to the page? Yonoson3 (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Were the books to be bonafide research, it would be debatable on the merits. However, Rabbi Shach's grandson is hardly a source of any original or new discoveries, in fact, there isn't much new to be 'discovered' about a rabbi who lived in the twentieth century, whose works have been printed, and whose positions on major issues are a matter of record. Shlomo Lorincz has a well-deserved reputation as a blatant liar. This reeks of a backdoor attempt to get the same style nonsense as the 'Deiah veDibbur' staples back onto the page, and that is unacceptable. Inserting this type of revisionist material would be a violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_researchWinchester2313 (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's stuff in the biography ("Path to Greatness") that I have never seen anywhere else, and I'd like to add it in. Regarding Lorincz, do you have anything substantial to back up your accusation? If not, this is pure motzi shem rah. Be careful what you say.Yonoson3 (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proving my point. Things that first appear in hagiographies and which you've "never seen anywhere else" don't belong in an encyclopedia. Even when these things were first 'discovered' by the article subjects grandson.... No.Not even when the new information arrives courtesy of the article subjects political handler - Shlomo Lorincz. If you insist, I will write more, but the point should be clear - Wiki rules certainly are. Why not find an article from an independent newspaper or journal printed while RS was still alive, telling us how great he was. Shouldn't be too hard, if the man was such a superstar, should it?Winchester2313 (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now go ask mechila by Lorincz's kever for what you said about him.Yonoson3 (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now be nice Yonoson (or is it 'Rabbi' Rosenblum...). You know Lorincz will be eternally thankful for anyone setting the record straight (as elaborated upon in the Reishis Chochma). Pity we can't say the same for the mess he left behind.Winchester2313 (talk) 03:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though I agree that Artscroll, Feldheim, and similar fluff has no place in an encyclopedia and would only lead to more edit-warring, theres no need to get snippy about it. Winchester should ease up his/her attitude, and Yonoson hopefully gets the message that spam cannot be dumped here unchallenged - hopefully things will stay quiet now.Csteffen13 (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the stuff you keep dumping here, Yonoson, does not belong in an encyclopedia. This is not a referal source for KOL HASHIURIM, nor do any of their links belong here. If you'd like to put a single link to a site carrying his shiurim (a la the Lubavitcher Rebbe page) I'd have no objection.Csteffen13 (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bookspam

I have removed more bookspam by Yonoson on this article, as per talk and as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam#Bookspam. I wonder whether Yonoson has bothered reading the stuff he dumps here, or is he programmed on 'autopilot'? Just a few facts and examples; 1. The material in the Yeshurun journal is mostly stuff already printed in the Avi Ezri, as is most of RS's stuff.(Even the Avi Ezri wasn't all written by Shach himself, as he writes in the book.) 2. Being that R Shach never really spoke or wrote much apart from his weekly shiur on the Talmud, the Avi Ezri & Michtavim, the other stuff is mostly just extrapolation and creative interpretation by other people. This stuff does NOT belong here. If you want to add his grandson (Asher Bergman)s historical fiction - ask first, and if others object DO NOT POST IT. 3. Likewise for a hagada 'written' by Shach when he never wrote anything about the hagada. His grandsons recollections of Pessach stories and other tripe have no place in an encyclopedia. 4. Shach never wrote any of the Machsheves Mussar/Zekeinim/Yegia Erev etc. either, so why do they belong here? 5. Asher Bergman will, no doubt, continue to 'discover' lots of new stuff his grampa knew/said/did which hasn't been known, but his fantasies still don't belong here - maybe on that blog you created Yonoson, but not in an encyclopedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam#Bookspam Csteffen13 (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look Yonoson, I can only imagine that you are a brainwashed robot programmed to dump silly spam here repeatedly, in spite of being warned repeatedly to STOP! The latest garbage you deposited here informs us of the 500,000 or-so people at Shachs funeral, of R' Kahaneman selecting him to head the yeshiva alongside Rabbis Povarsky and Rozovsky, and is riddled with other errors. If you can't justify inclusion on this page as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTLINK#LINK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion then please go somewhere else - Artscroll maybe...? I have likewise removed the silly 'eulogy' by R'Beeri - it has no place here, and again, merely repeats silly nonsense like the lie that the Brisker Rav only wrote two approbations in his life. There is no reason for every article ever written about Shach to be dumped here. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links before attempting to dump more spam on the page. Winchester2313 (talk) 04:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What other seforim did the Brisker Rav write haskamos to?Yonoson3 (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He definitely wrote one for the sefer 'Divrei Yashayahu' (a copy is printed in 'Zichron Mordechai' at the beginning) and probably a few more. I ask you again, nicely, to stop plastering the page with stupid eulogies/articles/impressions/fantasies and whatever else some rabbi on planet earth had to say/feel/imagine about RS and his monumental achievements. If you cannot present a compelling reason for something to be in an encyclopedia, then it does not belong here. Winchester2313 (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What sefer are you referring to? Couldn't find it here (http://hebrewbooks.org/41412) or here (http://hebrewbooks.org/33570). Yonoson3 (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm restoring a bunch of seforim which are packed with Divrei Torah from R' Shach which are NOT already recorded in Avi Ezri. If you don't believe me, go learn the seforim yourself. Yonoson3 (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is unacceptable, unverifiable and untrue. It is irrelevant who actually brought the AE or the Michtavim to the printer, what is relevant is that they were both actually written by Shach himself. All the tripe that some student / son-in-law or other claims to have heard, divined, or otherwise extrapolated from Shach does not belong in an encyclopedia. This has already been discussed and resolved earlier, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BURDEN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WWIN. I am reverting your spam edits, and reminding you of the burden for inclusion in an encyclopedia yet again. Winchester2313 (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, is this any different: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubavitcher_Rebbe ("Unedited compilations of his talks and writing")Yonoson3 (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is very different. What those are are actual verbatim transcripts of the LR's talks, not some re-extrapolated nonsense. If the 'External Links' section on the LR'S article included every book or article written by others about the LR's teachings, it would likely run many tens of pages - and that would be the same type of spam you keep dumping here. Winchester2313 (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archived off-topic chat

Collapsing thread of no relevance to improving the article

Smurf Shach I am sorry, I do not mean to be disrespectful, but in the external links section, there is one leading to a page with photos ([1]), and in one of these photos, the Rav is, literally, blue in the face. Yes, blue. What on earth is that picture? Insert coins (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the picture was taken during one of his typical tirades castigating some person or group he disagreed with? Winchester2313 (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Debresser (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it looks more like either he was in disguise for Purim or dead. Seriously. --Insert coins (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look now. It is just an old picture of bad quality. Nothing special. Debresser (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil, at all times, even in sub-headings on talk pages

Kindly avoid deliberately violating WP:CIVIL; WP:LIBEL etc by using derogatory descriptions meant to insult and flame (see Flaming (Internet): "Flaming [also known as bashing] is hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users") such as "smurf" that is absolutely not called for here or anywhere. If you want to say a photo looks blue or green or purple, say so, but crude jokes and put-downs based on Chabad POV hatred of this rabbi is not called for at any time or place and will be deleted, per WP policies. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No jokes and no POV. This is the title given and used. The user doing so specifically states no insult is intended. Please do not censor Wikipedia. Also please assume good faith. Failure to comply by these policies and guidelines will have to be brought to the attention of the proper authorities. Debresser (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be ridiculous. Smurf is one thing, and Rabbi is another. Check it out. To call a WP:NOTABLE rabbi a "smurf" is blatantly uncivil and provocative and lowers the level of this encyclopedia to being a stupid place instead of a serious place for discussing and creating articles, because language and how it's used is important. When was a Nazi even called a "smurf" on a WP talk page but here you think it's ok for a big rabbi? Can you even see such a discussion taking place in any serious circle? Sorry you don't see the difference. Also please stop your constant threats to run to ANI instead of being able to discuss things at talk pages and resolving them. How about asking editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM for their opinions and let's see what they have to say! IZAK (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, I'm rather defending the misnaged POV by stating the obvious: why does a website allegedly devoted to honouring the rabbi put up such a bad, and I think it is even more than bad, photo of him? Note that most of the other photos are only scarcely better. I suggest removing the link altogether. The page in question is amateurish and, as I said, the blue photo is shocking. --Insert coins (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about any photos here. It's the use of bad language that must go. I don't care about about "misnagid" or "chosid" my concern here is about WP:CIVIL and proper use of language and that this hot topic should NOT degenerate into a theater of the absurd, in spite of the irrational Chabad hatred of this rabbi, which is something they just cannot let go of. IZAK (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of POV and 'irrationality', IZAK, I think the various viewpoints / controversies would be best clarified by the posting of additional statements by RS himself, so 'rationality' can then be judged objectively.... I'll be happy to update the page with many sourced and accurate quotes soon, which should help clarify any misunderstandings. Since controversy is a significant part of Shach's notability, I think more information about his true stand on things would be enlightening, as I'm sure you agree....Winchester2313 (talk) 07:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insert Coins asked his question respectfully, but Winchester2313's comment above is silly and crude.Yonoson3 (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you find the facts and history so uncomfortable Yonoson. Perhaps you can start another blog dedicated to 'The Real Rav Shach - Gentle Man With Nice Things To Say About Everybody' ? Winchester2313 (talk) 07:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted IZAK (talk · contribs) on WP:ANI for his continued changing of the header above, which IMHO constitutes censoring. This is just for your information, but please let's not discuss it here. The WP:ANI link is meant for that. Debresser (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The case at ANI, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive637#Elazar Shach talk page was closed with the result that the thread name "Smurf Shach" was changed and removed. IZAK (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen in the collapsed section above, the link to one of the photos on that link evoked a sarcastic observation. In fact, some of the photos are even uglier than that one. I cannot believe someone was taken to task for pointing out the ugliness of the photos as "demeaning", while continuing to post the site. The site itself demeans its subject by presenting him so poorly. A 5th-grader with nothing but magazines, scissors and construction paper could do better than that website did. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please , then don't try to censor those who bring it to our attention. P.S. There is no such word as "commentate". Maybe you didn't get that point. But since you don't understand the point about the photo either, that could be par for the course. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)remember WP:CIVIL. Unfortunately, there ARE some very unflattering pictures of him on that page, but they are still of him. Can you provide a clear reason on why you want to remove them, besides that they are "ugly"?Ishdarian|lolwut 08:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Civil to who? The rabbi? He's dead, so he doesn't care. If you want to use ugly photos, that's up to you. But to come down hard on another editor, because he pointed out they were ugly, is absurd. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks to Ishdarian's insistence on retaining that link, I have once again re-opened the complaint at ANI. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reopening the ANI shouldn't be an immediate step. I wasn't coming down hard on you and saying 'No, don't remove it!' You removed the link without an kind of explaination other than they were ugly pics. That seems to fall under Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Ishdarian|lolwut 09:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCENSORED, being unflattering is not a reason to remove the link - if the images were used to ridicule him in the EL then, yes, that would be a reasonable objection. Please quit taking this to AN/I unless you have complaints on editors behaviour. I recommend an RFC --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 12:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then don't complain when people ridicule the picture. If you want to link to that ugly thing, then it's fair game for ridicule. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry what? These are not mutually exclusive policies; the EL seems fine as it has images of the person. And it is inappropriate to ridicule or in any other way (good or bad) commentate about this person on the talk page - which is exclusively for discussing article improvement. I recommend you drop this per WP:STICK, it seems to be going in circles. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 12:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see me "commentating" on the rabbi? This about the photo. And the reason it's going in circles is because we can't seem to get that fact through to you all. The photo makes him look stupid. That's not my fault, it's the fault of whoever posted that photo. ←Baseball at the source, by dropping that link. And since when do we link to foreign language sites anyway? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see me "commentating" on the rabbi? - nowhere, sorry I thought it was clear I was replying to your comment of Then don't complain when people ridicule the picture.. Please let me know if this is still not clear. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 12:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And where do you get the idea that "commentating" on THE PHOTO equates to "commentating" on the subject? That's where IZAK was dead wrong. Maybe some of the followup comments to the OP's were closer to that. But it is THE PHOTO that demeans this guy, not some editor's criticism on a talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And where do you get the idea that "commentating" on THE PHOTO equates to "commentating" on the subject? the photo is of the subject. Even if it were not then commentating on it is still not appropriate on this talk page. But it is THE PHOTO that demeans this guy, not some editor's criticism on a talk page. - rubbish. regardless of what the photo is like (demeaning or not) the commentary was also demeaning, again, this is not a mutually exclusive thing. :) I'm afraid I cannot make it any more clear so will be unwatching this page, if you are still unclear on why it is inappropriate to commentate on the photograph as was done here then please ask someone else to explain it to you. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 13:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The photo makes him look like a Smurf or like the Violet character in the Willie Wonka movie. If you're OK with those facts, then don't try to censor those who bring it to our attention. P.S. There is no such word as "commentate". Maybe you didn't get that point. But since you don't understand the point about the photo either, that could be par for the course. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh...

  • The photo makes him look like a Smurf or like the Violet character in the Willie Wonka movie. If you're OK with those facts, it is not a fact, clearly failing the definition of a fact. Please quit using such terms to describe the photo; a point that has been made already.
  • P.S. There is no such word as "commentate" - yes there is
  • But since you don't understand the point about the photo either, that could be par for the course., that is just rude and uncalled for. Really, just droip this whole thing, you're verging on being disruptive. Referring to the photo as "smurf" is not required to discuss the issue of whether it is an appropriate EL. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 13:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Commentate" is poor usage, like "orientate". He has a bluish face in that photo, which invites ridicule. So don't complain when that ridicule arrives. Fix the problem at the source, by dropping that link. And since when do we link to foreign language sites anyway? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Commentate is, actually, exactly what I meant (rather than "comment", which you may have thought I intended). He has a bluish face in the photo - that is factual. It might invite ridicule - is not necessarily factual but certainly a reasonable comment. "He looks like a smurf in the photo" - is not factual. So, the latter of those is inappropriate commentary here on WP. Is that more clear? --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 13:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Izak could have asked the OP to change the heading, but instead he changed it on his own, with a bogus-argument edit summary: "Smurf Shach: fix sub-heading for better language that is not offensive." Izak is the cause of the escalation of this matter. A Smurf is a cartoon character. If an editor thinks a photo looks like a cartoon character, then do something about the photo, don't hassle the guy who pointed it out." My thoughts exactly! That being said though, why not remove the ugly photo link and be done with the whole debate? While we're at it, the redundant obituaries section should also be removed, as they don't belong in an encyclopedia, even as EL's. No other major rabbinic figure has them (at least not thatI can see)? Londoner77 (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Welcome Londoner: You are dead wrong when you allege that "Izak is the cause of the escalation of this matter. A Smurf is a cartoon character." Simply because it was User Insert coins (talk · contribs) who started this entire problem by inserting the heading "Smurf Shach" -- while a quick perusal of User Insert coins (talk · contribs)'s edit history shows that he edits almost exclusively in Church and Christian-related topics and articles, and just once when he gets involved on the talk page of a prominent Jewish Haredi rabbi, he resorts to a very controversial adjectival "honorific" which is actually a deprecating mocking put-down that was uncalled for. He has in the ANI discussion admitted that he did this to give himself "smiles" and it was pointed out to him that that is not an excuse and he needed to find other healthier ways to cheer himself up. Perhaps he should find ways to say humorous things to caricaturize the subjects that are near and dear to him and leave alone this subject that he relishes making fun of and that you defend as if it was the most "normal" thing in the world like a fresh morning walk. Wake up, people take this subject seriously and will obviously take offense if offensive and demeaning descriptions are used. Just because Alfred E. Neuman is in Mad Magazine comics does not mean that any person we dislike or is not photogenic gets called by that demeaning and loaded insult. IZAK (talk) 07:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. BB, you are starting to go over the line. The initial issue was that IZAK changed you heading. You are now trying to say that the pictures need to be removed because people will make fun of them. Of course they will, but Wikipedia is not the venue. Making fun of pictures on Wikipedia constitutes as disruptive editing. Your arguments for the link's removal are hinging on your own personal opinion. Also, you are becoming uncivil and are beginning to attack other editors. If you want to continue arguing about it, please use a civil tongue. Attacking editors will not be tolerated. Ishdarian|lolwut 00:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with the photos of Rabbi Shach presented here. I am not sure what criteria apply here. Verisimilitude would come to mind. Does it look like the man? As the several pictures all give a basic ballpark similarity of appearance I'd say that collection of pictures pass that test. I really don't see anything particularly undignified in any of the poses the camera has caught him in. I'm a little at a loss for words and thoughts to address quality issues vis-a-vis the photographic images found at the above linked to web site. So far I have only heard that the blue coloration on the face in one of the images was objectionable. This may be so. Are there any other detracting qualities that anyone can point to in the assortment of images presented there? Does anybody find any of the photographs particularly good in any ways? Be specific, please. Bus stop (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Baseball Bugs: This is the second time that you refer to me as a "nanny" (why should I be surprised if you think it's kosher to refer to Rabbi Shach as a "smurf") that only reveals that you have no clue about what WP:CIVIL means, not to mention that it is now the second time you crossed the line by violating WP:NPA against me with blatant name calling and insults simply because we have a disagreement. You are crossing into dangerous ground. Let me ask you bluntly, would it be ok to call Jesus a "bloody mess" or "nailed" or "screwed" when he is depicted hanging on the cross after his crucifixion? Or would it be ok to call Budha a "fat blob" or "lump" or "couch potato" as he is depicted in his statues? Not even Hitler and Nazis gets called insulting names in talk pages about them, he is not called "french fries" or "crispy" since he was cremated outside his bunker. Goering's and Himmler's photos after they poisoned themselves makes them look like "ghouls" and "dead vipers" -- yet obviously no sane and respectful WP editor would call them such names on their WP talk pages while you see no harm in excusing and fighting for absurdly-named insulting headings or worse, but you fail to see that once you allow name-calling and snide descriptions of subjects in photos or art to be "acceptable" in discussions and talk pages about subjects on WP, then you open a whole can of worms and start a destructive process that leads nowhere. So you are well-advised, as you have been told by quite a few other editors here and at ANI, to back off, stop falling into the WP:SPIDERMAN syndrome, and APOLOGIZE for your rudeness and open violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL not just to me but to many other editors who are trying to be reasonable and consider this as your last warning from me, or I will ask that you be stopped from your uncivil and insulting tirades simply because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IZAK, well, I do primarily edit articles on churches but for a reason entirely of my own and having nothing to do with Christianism but everything to do with Alsace where these churches stand. As a matter of fact I am Jewish myself, but of the "Kulturjude" kind only. This certainly doesn't make my case better, does it? Because misnagdim here, chabad there, it is always haredi vs. secular. But this is not the point. I had read a book making many mentions of Rav Shach, looked up the article, followed the external link, saw the photo. I never saw such an unflattering photo of a rabbi in my life and was struck by the colour but also the facial expression and the position of the head. I asked - why does he look like this? Could it be a disguise for Purim? Could it be him on his death-bed (Jews don't make this kind of photo, usually)? I never got any satisfying answer besides "the photo looks lousy because it is lousy", because I was unfortunate enough to have made an uncalled-for joke. And now you are litterally after me, begging that I reassure you that I didn't mean to call the rabbi a smurf. I didn't call the rabbi a smurf. I didn't even intend to call him a smurf. I found that he looked like Le Grand Schtroumpf on that particular picture that some supposed admirators of his have unearthed who knows where, and why. And I wanted to know more. About that picture. That's what talk pages are for. To ask for explanations. Explanations that could tell you something. About the man. And his life. Like they should.--Insert coins (talk) 10:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify some points. The photo is blue because the color balance has been modified; you'll note that other areas of the picture are yellowy. I have no idea why that was done. On a seperate matter the talk page is only really for discussing improvements to the article - not for questions about the article subject. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 11:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before IZAK entered the picture the edits in the area in question represented a basically incorrect use of the Talk page. This edit started the ball rolling. This edit was hardly proper. Nor was this edit. And I don't see how this edit constitutes proper use of the Talk page. Finally IZAK came along and made this edit. In my opinion IZAK's edit restores to the Talk page a proper working atmosphere. Subsequent to IZAK's edit were this edit and this edit, essentially restoring disorder to the Talk page. I have to defend IZAK because the edit history vindicates him of any of the charges that some have leveled against him. Bus stop (talk) 11:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bus stop: What you are pointing out is part of a far larger pattern of all manner of attacks, some subtle, some direct, by pro-Chabad POV editors against personalities and topics that they deem as "enemies" of their movement, and it was why there was a case brought against them for just this type of negative and disruptive editorial behavior at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement, see in particular Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence, and why pro-Chabad POV warriors, such as User Debresser (talk · contribs), have been put on notice by the ArbCom: at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Proposed decision#Future proceedings: "...However, if user-conduct problems worsen, then a request to reopen this case may be filed." Feel free to do so and feel free to ask for additional diffs to update that case since January 2010 when the ArbCom's Chabad-movement case was conditionally closed, that prove the ongoing disruptive behavior of the pro-Chabad editors, often under the guise of misapplication of WP policies and guidelines to suit themselves, when they find an opportunity to push their obvious POV, or, when an editor who does not share their outlook tries to intrude on their "own" articles that they guard in violation of WP:OWN even against other Judaic editors, and where they would never for an instant permit the type of usage of demeaning descriptions like "smurf" on talk pages to describe any of their many rabbis, many of whom look quite similar, with their white beards and aged faces, to Rabbi Shach in this article. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have no axe to grind here, IZAK, but I read that case you were involved in and think that you may see conspiracy theories where none exist. Chabad is a controversial movement, so strong feelings spur the debate on both sides - this is normal. Shach was probably more controversial than Chabad, likely made more enemies, and therefore engenders strong feelings when he is discussed. I feel you've overreacted here, and that calling someone a "smurf" is not really a big deal, especially when all someone did was say that a certain picture made him LOOK like one. Big deal - let it go. Londoner77 (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Londoner: You are playing loosely with facts and with logic, please stop it. Rabbi Shach was one man, while Chabad is a movement. Your arguments are absurd. The world at large has long forgotten what Rabbi Shach said or did, while in the yeshiva world they only study his classic Talmudic works. It is only some in Chabad that cannot let the past go and keep the "flames" alive because they resent Rabbi Shach's honest and fearless direct and unashamed critiques of their controversial movement and its underpinning ideology. So instead of offering a more positive view, the best that Chabad can do is to keep on attacking a rabbi who is dead, as they keep on attacking the Vilna Gaon, while they revere their own last rabbi who is dead as the messiah, while the world has long moved on from all this pettiness and has better things to do than to worship a dead rabbi as the "messiah" or attack his dead ideological opponent as a "smurf" and far worse if so allowed. But at least WP will not tolerate this offline battle that it cannot and will not solve or take sides in from destroying the required adherence to WP decorum and policies by you or any other pro-Chabad POV defenders. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 05:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Than you IZAK, for making very clear what shameless revisionism you seek to promote, and for exposing yet again your paranoia and conspiratorial bent. Can you substantiate your slanderous claim that Chabad "keep on attacking the Vilna Gaon"?? The Vilna Gaon is quoted in many Chabad texts, and in various major issues (zmanim) concurs with the Ba'al haTanya. Rabbi Shach was not an 'ideological opponent' of Chabad - he was little more than a fickle puppet used by Shlomo Lorencz to attack Chabad, nothing new there. Predictably, Shach's vicious (and unsupported) attacks were met with scorn and derision by his many targets. Shach never authored a single philosophical work of any kind, and to the best of my knowledge, never managed to textually support any of his many attacks on Chabad and other groups. Rather, his way was always to scream insults and expect his positions to be accepted ipso facto as it were. Please cease making baseless and slanderous accusations without presenting any supporting evidence - it exposes your conspiracy theories for what they are. Winchester2313 (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winchester: I have no desire to get into a war of words with you. You are the worst violator of WP:BATTLEGROUND on this article and its talk page as any examination of its history would show. Try your tactics somewhere else and see how far you'll get. Stop being the self-appointed accuser-prosecutor-jury-judge-executioner all in one to keep on attacking Rabbi Shach on WP in any way you can. If you do not move on from this page and display a better grasp of and adherence to WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, WP:WAR you will only harm your own blatant pro-Chabad POV course that you never tire of displaying (just read your own intemperate words right here above) as you accuse others of the very things you are guilty of yourself. Consider this a warning, it's time this page was not turned into a literal madhouse every time you show up to do battle causing utter bedlam! IZAK (talk) 05:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, IZAK, to your obvious dismay my focus on this article has been, and remains, to keep it in compliance with WP:V and WP:SOURCE. A review of your comments in this discussion, as well as in your earlier lengthy conspiracy claim, shows that you are focused on blindly forcing your agenda while constantly ignoring guidelines such as WP:IRS, WP:AGF and WP:EQ. Your above paragraph illustrates this problem clearly, and your threats and 'warnings' directly violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Perhaps you can substantiate your earlier claims on this page, and clarify the following, again as per WP:V. 1. Do you have any evidence that, in your words, Chabad "keep on attacking the Vilna Gaon"? 2. Can you offer any evidentiary support of your "Rabbi Shach's honest and fearless direct and unashamed critiques of their controversial movement and its underpinning ideology" statement ? 3. Your claim that "the best that Chabad can do is to keep on attacking a rabbi who is dead" is likewise pure slander and libel. Can you offer any WP:SOURCE that might support your statement, or any evidence of same?

If User:IZAK insists on simply continuing their slanderous attacks without engaging in a WP:CIVIL discussion of the actual issues, perhaps we would be best served by an administrator taking a look at this sorry saga...? Winchester2313 (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winchester2313—but wasn't this your edit? Bus stop (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it was. Your point being...? Winchester2313 (talk) 04:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Winchester, the point that User Bus stop is making is that you were inflaming the situation and acting improperly and not in keeping with the decorum befitting a WP user on a WP talk page. I will repeat, I will not get into a war of words with you, and there is no need to back up what is common knowledge and obviously known, as you well know. Yet you ALWAYS come here and to a few other Chabad-related pages with your guns blazing, and you scream and shout and worse, and when called on it, you act self-righteously saying "what me?" and "what of it?" Come on now, do you think people are that stupid or don't notice or don't care? Just look at this talk page and see how you talk while you accuse others of all sorts of the same things you think it's ok for you to violate. To quote your words above (highlighting mine), when mentioning the WP:NOTABLE Rabbi "Shlomo Lorincz has a well-deserved reputation as a blatant liar" (is that a way to talk about a subject? was he a Nazi that you write like that about him?); "Lorincz will be eternally thankful for anyone setting the record straight...Pity we can't say the same for the mess he left behind" (he was a notable politician, but you can't help injecting WP:IDONTLIKEIT); attacking User Yonoson3: "you are a brainwashed robot programmed to dump silly spam here repeatedly" (violates WP:NPA; WP:CIVIL; WP:EQ; WP:BATTLEGROUND); "please go somewhere else - Artscroll maybe" (how disgusting to disinvite a valuable editor who is unfailingly courteous and never talks to you the way you insult him); "merely repeats silly nonsense like the lie that the Brisker Rav only wrote two approbations in his life" (using words like "lie" and "liar" when you disagree is so childish); "stop plastering the page with stupid eulogies/articles/impressions/fantasies" (calling points you disagree with "stupid etc" is again a display of your arrogance that has no place on WP); "All the tripe that some student / son-in-law or other claims to have heard, divined, or otherwise extrapolated from Shach does not belong in an encyclopedia" (using the word "tripe" to demean and devalue a subject under discussion is a clear display that you have no grasp, yet again, of WP:CIVIL; WP:EQ; WP:NPA; WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND); "not some re-extrapolated nonsense" (your arrogance on display again making it impossible to cooperate) and there is lots more of this on other pages. Each and every one of those violates WP:CIVIL; WP:EQ; WP:AGF and quite obviously WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and more. There is no way anyone can cooperate and work in harmony with an editor who speaks, writes and acts like you. I warn you once again to refrain from this sort of language and behavior and I can assure you that not one admin would be amused to read what you have been up to on this page and a couple of others that you have taken it upon yourself to edit in keeping with a blatant and aggressive pro-Chabad POV, while you hide behind a curtain of misapplying WP policies, of "sources" and "verification" to cover up your terrible behavior in blatant acts violating WP:LAWYERING. Perhaps you should take the advice you gave User Yonoson3 and "please go somewhere else" if you cannot control your urge to WP:CENSOR and flaming this page. IZAK (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. Winchester: Because you sound like one or more of the editors that were involved in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement and you feel so safe behind your present identity to throw all your verbal assaults here and elsewhere, and so far you have failed to fill in even a minimum on your WP:USERPAGE it might be the right time to request Wikipedia:CheckUser to see if you are not also in violation of WP:SOCK. IZAK (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Londoner77—you say, "Big deal - let it go." This issue was fully resolved as of this edit. With that edit IZAK corrected the situation, in accordance with Wikipedia policy found at WP:TALK. IZAK should not have had to correct that situation again and again. Bus stop (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Bus stop. Please do not head IZAK's comment. He just sees Chabad conspiracies in every Judaism-related edit he doesn't like. I have tried to point out in that ArbCom discussion that IZAK is irrational about this. Debresser (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser: You are making the illogical allegation yet again, that if your faulty edits and questionable editing habits are pointed out, that that is somehow an "attack" on Chabad, or that an editor must somehow be "prejudiced" against Chabad, which in my case is just not true. When it is just your pattern of attacking and editing that is being questioned, time and again. Notice how dismissive you are when facts and the truth is being pointed out to you. You need to realize and admit that it is your uncivil behavior that is the problem, that you feel you have every right to be a POV-warrior to attack anyone and anything the Chabad party line hates and defend anything that Chabad approves of, but that in reality it has nothing to do Chabad itself or with how WP should function, it's just you "personalizing" and claiming to "embody" Chabad on WP which YOU DO NOT!, and "therefore" you allow yourself the "liberty" on WP to do as you wish in this mission ignoring the input of fellow Judaic editors who also know a thing or two about this subject and can back it up. Sorry, but you need to look in the mirror first before making false allegations against other editors. IZAK (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have responded fully to Insert coins's above comment on his talk page. IZAK (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi IZAK and Debresser—I focus on core issues. If a photograph is to be discussed one must use incisive language. One must avoid references that result in extraneous associations. In a moment of levity someone types something and hits the save key. But after another editor comes along and reins in the jocularity, that should be the end of it. IZAK shouldn't have needed to revert the extraneous reference additional times, and fend off a slew of accusations. At the point that he (IZAK) made his initial edit he was 100% correct in doing so. An argument ensued that lasted extensively with charges and countercharges being strewn over more than one page. The allusion was a poor choice of words because a photograph has core qualities that can and should be referred to specifically. Bus stop (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion, and no more than that. It is shared by others, but no by all. Anyway, I see little good coming from this thread as well... 22:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) [2]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elazar_Shach&oldid=385848700"