Talk:Gil Student
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] New article
Hello, I have written a totally new article. I had not known about the previous "goings on" about this person. I am fully certain that this person is notable enough to have an article about him in Wikipedia (I can cite many cases of far less notable rabbis or persons who have their own articles if need be!) Gil Student has written, and continues to publish, much that has gained a lot of attention from many quarters and his name continues to be associated with a number of important controversies that deal with modern-day Jewish life, particularly as relating to Modern Orthodox Judaism; Orthodox Judaism; Haredi Judaism; and Hasidic Judaism. Thank you. IZAK
- P.S. I would like to make it VERY clear: I am not an "admirer" of Gil Student. I do not know him personally and I have never met him. It is also immaterial that someone spoke to him and that Gil Student allegedly claims that he "does not deserve" an article on Wikipedia (some people are modest by nature). The stark fact remains, that almost anyone who has read about the controversies surrounding Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson or Rabbi Natan Slifkin, or has read about some of the controversies surrounding the Talmud and it's views on Jesus has in all probability read or learned from, and even utilized, what Gil Student has written. To sum up, at this stage of the game, the "public" Gil Student, especially the one who writes so much on the Internet is a famous enough and noteworthy person by now, and there is absolutely no reason to delete or ban an article about him from Wikipedia for any reason whatsoever. IZAK 11:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gil Student and the very doubtful decision to delete. There was really no consensus there. JFW | T@lk 11:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Frisch High School?
Rabbi Student is an alumnus of Frisch High School? Of what possible relevance is this? Jayjg (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, it should go. IZAK 04:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- His education has influenced his thinking, see http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_hirhurim_archive.html and the section that starts off with "Thank God for the Modern Orthodox World" where he writes "Looking back now in my post-BT days to my pre-BT days, many years ago, it seems that I had two major questions on Orthodoxy that I had assembled during my nine years of Solomon Schechter elementary education. They had nothing to do with biblical criticism, which I had been taught with my aleph beis (actually, aleph bet), because I had never bought into the whole enterprise. The questions were on the authenticity of the Oral Torah, and they were killer questions:" --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "former" Lubavitcher Rebbe
I'm not sure why this designation was removed. Is the assertion here that he is also the current Lubavitcher Rebbe? Jayjg (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes Lubavitcher Chassidim consider him to still be leading them, much like the Breslover Chassidim still consider Rabbi Nachman of Breslav to be their Rebbe. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Got it. Still, the current wording is confusing; would you object to it saying "the last Lubavitcher Rebbe", as he is described in the article about him? Jayjg (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- "last" will be fine. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] critiques
How about critques on Gil and some of his methods? Like the famous letter by the famous tzadik and talmid chochom of note, Dr. Stern? I think this is relevant--or at least as relevant of so-called controversies surrounding individuals like Rav Eliashiv. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidCharlesII (talk • contribs).
To clarify, wikipedia is not the place to do a critique of anyone. (Wikipedia has a policy against original research, which would include your own review of any subject, either positive or negative). However, since Student is no stranger to controversy, mentioning some of the people who have crticized him in public forums and their arguments would not be out of the scope of the article. I'm not familiar with the letter or person in question who you're mentioning, but if you can find sources for things, feel free to add to try and improve the article. --Bachrach44 15:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)