Talk:Yisroel Dovid Weiss/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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
| Archive 2 →

Contents

weiss is a rabbi

i agree with bsnowball that rabbi weiss is a rabbi please have someone in authority to make a ruling and stop vandalizing rabbi weiss entry thanks Lurgis 07:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

On what basis do you disagree? I have yet to discover if Weiss serves as a Rav, maggid shiur, Rebbi or was even ordained as a Rabbi. I am not here to start a fight, only to ask on what basis you are making the above assertion. I would also ask, and I mean this in sincerity, if Weiss is a homosexual. There is a very strong rumor circulating the New york-New jersey area that he is even a cross-dresser. Is this true?

um, i'll leave this here for now, took me a while to notice we'd gotten the wrong rabbi:
<ref>[http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Speeches/2006Iran-ACohen.cfm Orthodox Jewish Attitude to the 'Holocaust'] by Rabbi Aharon Cohen (Neturei Karta Internation Website) Accesed December 15, 2006</ref>   ⇒ bsnowball  16:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • If you like to call him a rabbi YOU (per Wiki rules) have the burden to prove that he is a rabbi. The fact that on TV interveiws he is called a rabbi is no proof what so ever that he is a rabbi. The TV people call him by whatever title he requests. If he requested to be called "rabbi doctor", they would have called him that.

Even if I had the burden to prove that he is not a rabbi, it is something that is virtually impossible to prove. How does one go about proving that one isn't something. There are no sources as to what a person is not, there are only sources as to what a person IS.

Having said that, there is no legitimate (or even non-legitimate)source that he got Rabbinic ordination or serves in any capicity in a synagouge as a Rabbi.--Yeshivish 05:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree that it is quite reasonable to expect the "he IS a rabbi" claimants to produce a source backing this up. --Stormie 06:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


frummer's vandalism

  • the 'bias' template appears to be just an attempt to discredit, it says on the template that you need to specify what you think is biased here. i look forward to seeing your cogent & well-sourced explanation here.
  • the condemnation is discussed & properly sourced, no need to repeat, esp when improperly sourced. you need a page number for a newspaper, and the paper linked to is canadian, not uk as you claim.
  • nice to see you can be bothered correcting your cut & paste vandalism from 'friedman' to 'weiss'. hopefully you'll improve in leaps & bounds, perhaps finally becoming a useful wp editor.  ⇒ bsnowball  08:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The bias template is so that it can be looked into by others than ourselves. See WP:CSB.
  • the condemnation is discussed & properly sourced indeed and I simply included essential info about the man in the lead since it is befitting of for the lead to have all the essentials. See WP:LEAD>
  • "cut & paste" is a something i do allot especialy when i'm copyediting articles on similar topics, e.g. i may cut & paste infro from one article about a yellow fish to another related article about a yellow fish! It is well sourced and was the headline, as page 1 of the The Jewish Tribune (UK), and generaly well known to most Orthodox Jews do your research... and also see WP:V and WP:CITE.
  • I commend Bsnowball for his vigilence but ask him to stick to topics he knows more about.
frummer 09:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Subjects he knows more about? He knows more about Judaism and the Jewish world than you do. I have seen you calling Yehuda Berg 'rabbi'. That guy is a total heretic, a total idiot. You call that guy 'rabbi' but deny that R' Friedman and R' Weiss are. Now that you don't agree with them, fine. I don't agree with the Iran thing either. They should stay away from Ahmedinejad. But to deny that they are rabbis etc, because you don't agree with them? And at the same time you do call Yehuda Berg a 'rabbi'? Well, then it is you who should start looking for a subject you know more about - maybe you can write biographies of all leading 'Kabbalah Centre' members. --Chussid 10:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I am neither supporting nor contending their views, did I say something that makes you think I do? I simply think there is a WP:V problem with their smicha. In order to be considered a rabbi, it's no good enough to have a quote from a site or even important news piece, rather they must be considered rabbis in their own circles. frummer 11:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Their followers consider them to be rabbis. So your question is answered. --Chussid 11:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
"Their" followers... Friedman was disowned by NK and Weiss is a self appointed PR mouthpice of NK. I have a dif of opin with you on this, which they can't contest, he speaks Enlish. frummer 12:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Correct. That is true. They do, however, have small groups of their own followers. The article really should make it clear that these nutcases do not represent Neturei Karta. NK is a respectable movement which I support and I occasionally daven in their shuls and participate in demonstrations and other events. Weiss and Friedman are isolated nutcases. The Hirsch family consists of a number of weirdos also, though slightly less abnormal than Weiss and Friedman. (I should add that I've spoken to Rav Moshe and his son Rav Yisroel a few times). The position of going to Ramallah or Teheran and saying that we oppose Zionism is perfectly fine. Nothing wrong with that. But when you actually join hands with Holocaust deniers, that's a border. Also, it is obvious that Ahmedinejad is not planning to peacefully dismantle Israel. He wants us all dead. For them it is solely a religious war, against us Jews. For the Palestinians and Lebanese, it is not primarily religious: it is first and foremost territorial. We can live in peace with Ismail Haniyeh and Khaled Meshal. We cannot live in peace with Ahmedinejad. Some people, like Weiss and Friedman, don't understand the difference. Ahmedinejad is an antisemitic nutcase. Have to add though that that doesn't mean that you cannot visit him or say you support him.
The ideology behind it is that we are in exile and forbidden from rebelling against the nations of the world (hisgarus b'umos). Then it doesn't matter how antisemitic the guy is; as long as he is a ruler and has any influence, you're going to have to talk to him. Just like medieval rabbonim would visit anti-Semitic kings, czars etc in Europe and say "oh great lord, you are a wonderful ruler, we love you and we serve you, you are the best ruler the country has ever seen!" Even though the guy might have been an antisemitic SOAB. That of course does NOT mean that you believe him or that you are speaking the truth. You are merely being subservient, subjecting yourself to the rule of the goyim, the umos ha'olam. Which is the principle of golus. And violating that constitutes hisgarus b'umos.
Now the issue of course is that Jews nowadays are not readily going to accept this. We have suffered so much: the churban beis hamikdosh (twice!), golus, the crusades, the dark ages, the shoah - what's next? Now we finally have an army, we are strong, 'never again'! How can you blame someone for feeling that way? How can you blame Jews for wanting to fight for Israel?
Next, of course, it is also entirely true that most goyim who object to Israel are in fact antisemites, as Martin Luther King said. He was right. People who deny Israel and its citizens the right to be a regular country and people leading a regular life, are antisemites.
Hope this clarifies the NK/Satmar/Torah position a little bit. These are basically the principles of chareidi anti-Zionism (as explained by the sefer Vayoel Moshe) in a few lines. --Chussid 13:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, we do have a source for these guys not being mainstream NK:
"“I think it’s a fatal error,” said Rabbi Norman Lamm, the former president of Yeshiva University and author of a monograph on the group. “They went so far out that any rational Neturei Karta member or anti-Zionist would be repulsed”" [1] I'm sure we could use that somehow, in the NK article also. --Chussid 14:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC) The problem is that's a quote from a Yehsivah University guy on his opwn speculation. I'm getting tired of having to be the person to defend people when others are piling on, but "self appointed," is not accurate. He is appointed by Rabbi Moshe Ber Beck, who, like it or not, is respected even among Aggudist poskim as a Talmuf Chocham. Is there anyway we can all calm down, post only sourced material from reliable sources, and remove ourselves from the article when we find the need to bring up cross dressing, homosexual, child molesting, bestiality rumors about people. If these rumors seem plausible to you in their entirety, you are probably blinded by bias. Shia1 04:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Weiss is NOT a RABBI

He is not a Rav. He is not a maggi shiur. He is not a rebbie in a Cheder. He does not have semicha.

HE IS NOT A RABBI!!!

Stop being dishonest. A "Mr." can have views, too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.93.254.200 (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

You are showing your emotionalism. There are a million news outlets that can be sited with his name Rabbi Weiss. SO that is what his name is here. Evidently you do not like him, but all the evidence is that he is a rabbi. Do you have reason to believe those news outlets are being misleading. If you do you should post it. 88.153.142.83 06:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

revert vandalism

reverted yet another FrummerThanThou] copy & paste vandalism back to: "01:51, 31 December 2006 Yeshivish (Talk | contribs) (i believe its more factually correct)" Lurgis 00:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

adl press release url

ADL Letter to Fox News Channel, 28 july 2006 Lurgis 16:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

anti-defamation league acknowledges that weiss is a rabbi

please note that in their letter to fox news that the anti-defamation league acknowledges that rabbi weiss is a rabbi. Lurgis 22:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Provide a source for this. But even if this is true, who is the ADL to know that? Becaus Mr. Weiss said so? What is their criterion? Mr. Weiss himself said to a Rabbi (its on youtube) that a Rabbi who desecrates the Torah is like a dead dog on the street. He is completely against daas torah. Let the dead dog lie in the street. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.93.254.200 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Again you show you emotionalism. Every news outlet and even his enemies admit he's a rabbi. What would satisfy you, him holding a smicha certificate with the Rabbonim who gave it to him presenting two forms of government ID in the photo as well? 82.81.19.174 09:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Wiess has lied to the media so many times that this would appear to be the only way to prove he is a Rabbi.

Beyond Belief

I cannot understand how thoughtful factbased additions to this article are deleted without just cause. He is not a rabbi. That is a fact. And if he claims he is one, this ought to be added in the controversies section. Stop weaseling out of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.93.254.200 (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

beyond beyond belief

its amazing how some so called editors such as DavidCharlesII continue to insert wild unsubstantiated claims, vandalism and POV pushing into this entry yet have the unmitigated gall to accuse me (and others) of doing what they are doing. Lurgis 18:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What is so wild? That he has no semicha? He doesn't. That he is not a Rosh Yeshiva? He is not a Rosh Yeshiva. That is he is not a Rav in a Shul. He is not a Rav in a Shul. I know this. Everyone in Monsey knows this. If you insist with these claims, at least PROVE them. The only other thing Rabbi David Charles keeps adding is the FACT that Eida charedis put him on cherem, too. How is THAT wild? ITS A FACT!!! 66.93.254.200 14:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  • can we please have a source for the claims about lack of semicha? & the other claims about not teaching etc. please refer to guideline Wikipedia:Common_knowledge#When_to_seek_professional_help. we do not accept 'common knowledge' when claim is controversial.
  • given that every source we have on the man is in agreement (even militantly opposed ones like the a d l letter linked above) it does seem reasonable to request that some kind of source (WP:RS of course) be required for this 'not a rabbi' claim.  ⇒ bsnowball  12:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • see the above section on "Weiss is a Rabbi", the consensus there is not to list him as rabbi unless there is legit source that he IS a rabbi.
    • Per Wiki rules, the one inserting a fact has the burden to prove it.
    • Besides, as I wrote above, one cant source something that isn't. One can only source something that is.--Yeshivish 15:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
1) there is a debate here, therefore by definition there is no consensus
2) everything i have added to the article is sourced (as i have said before, there is r s for his being a rabbi, every source i have seen says so)
3) with all the controversy, it should be possible to find r s for your claims about lack of semicha etc. if they are true
i have adequately answered all your claims. if you continue edit warring, vandalism and adding unsourced material, this will have to be taken further (rfc arbitration etc.) you are becoming rather childish, ie reverting my useful edits (links to edah ha charedis etc.) please get some perspective on the matter.  ⇒ bsnowball  16:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Response

1) "Consensus", by defenition means "general agreement". Looking at this talk page and the edit history it is obvious that the general agreement, notwithstanding two editors, is that he is not considered a rabbi
2) As I said earlier, TV shows that call him a "rabbi" are not a source. They call him by what he wishes to be called.
3)As I said earlier, it is pretty much impossible to source something that one claims does NOT exist. I cannot get a source that he ISN'T a cross-dressing pedophile. Does that mean that he is? Of course not. Same was with rabbi. I can't get a source that he is NOT a rabbi, that does not mean that he is. There is a reason for the WP rule that the one putting in a fact has the burden to prove it.

In regard to your personal attack: I think I have been reasonable with you, I don't know why you had to lower the level of argument here and call my actions "childish". I also have no idea what you are refering to with "links to edah ha charedis etc." I don't recall editing links of that nature, nor do I recall editing any links on this site.--Yeshivish 20:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

i agree that there is NO CONSENSUS here. what is apparent to any reasonable minded jew or goy that comes here and views this entrys history and talk pages is that there is a contingent of pro-zionist agents masquerading as wikipedia editors bound and determined to make every entry they disagree with to reflect the zionist view. sadly wikipedia admins arent doing their job and enforcing wikipedia rules etc., thus giving credibility to judicial inc'swikipedia caveat. Lurgis 16:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's funny because to me it seems apparent that there is a contingent of anti-zionist agents masquerading as wikipedia editors bound and determined to make every entry they disagree with to reflect the anti-zionist view. So how about we call a truce, make the article NPV, and only put in facts with LEGIT sources.--Yeshivish 20:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Lurgis is way off. Mr. Weiss has lied about how many support him, and his qualifications as a Rabbi are, at best, dubious. You are an agent for Mr. Weiss or Mr. Weiss himself, as he has perhaps only five other followers in the world.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.93.254.200 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

please yeshivish, on the score of 'personalising' debate, you had already accused me of vandalism for removing unsourced material. if you are prepared to discuss this, then while the title rabbi is not there, surely the sentence "Although he purports to be a rabbi..." is uneccessary? (also per yr argument above, the claims in that sentence are impossible to verify.) otherwise there are 7 sources for 'rabbi weiss' (none of them tv shows, i have made no mention of any tv show) & any number more can be provided. & as i said, surely with all the controversy, why can you you not find a single reliable source disputing his claim? also please stop pretending there is consensus, & that something is nn because you disagree with it. ps re my claim about your last rv of my edit, have a look at what you reverted  ⇒ bsnowball  14:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Snowball,I find it ironic that you are sensitive to the "vandalism" accusation. In the edit history of this article you seem to throw around the "vandalism" accusation at every edit. Indeed, the only reason why I used "vandalism" was because you used the "vandalism" charge when an editor removed the unsourced "Rabbi" from the article. You can look at my edit history, besides for this one time, I have never used the "V" word.

In regard to the removed link: My apoligies, you are right, I did edit the Edah Hacheridis link. What happened was, I just reverted it to the previous version, not noticing the additional change you made which should not have been reverted. There is no reason why it should not be linked.--Yeshivish 01:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

repeated reverting of unsourced opinion is contrary to policy & arguably vandalism with the effect of unfairly denigrating subject of article. you said you were prepared to discuss the article so could you respond to points i raised. that is the now unecessary sentence "Although he purports.." can go while we discuss these issues & how do you justify your uncited opinions (as already stated, if true it shld be possible to source criticism of such a controversial person). regarding the 'burden of proof' arguments offered above, there are multiple cited r s (obviously these are the ones in the references, not your rhetorical 'tv' source). i have requested such justification from you multiple times, i do not think it is unreasonable to expect answers.  ⇒ bsnowball  10:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"Although he purports" seems to be a compromise between the pro-rabbi "group" and the anti-rabbi group. The anti-rabbi group does not consider him a rabbi because the sources are unsatisfactory and/or because it is common knowledge within the Orthodox Jewish community (WP:CN)that he is not considered a rabbi.Personally, I have no problem with the removal of "Although he purports", but it seems to have been accepted as a compromise by the editors.--Yeshivish 19:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

i take this somewhat pathetic deliberate misconstruing of what i said as confirmation of bad faith. since you refuse to engage in debate, i have rv'd the article. next time you vandalise it i shall take this to arbitration.  ⇒ bsnowball  19:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Snowball, I have tried to be reasonable and civil to you, but all I get in return are nasty and insulting comments. I will not have any more communications with you. Anything communicated to me by you will be ignored. Knowing you, you will ge the last salvo, so go ahead leave a really "nice" comment.--Yeshivish 19:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What about tthe rumor that he's gay?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.93.254.200 (talk • contribs) 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, 66.93, there are a lot of questions and rumors surrounding Mr. Weiss's sexual history. Some of them are particularly animalistic, and, because of the amount of people who "are in the know," possibly true. Unless you can support them, though, you cannot add them into the article. It would be like pretending he is a rabbi even though he does not have the qualifications of one. And that goes against Wikipedia policy. DavidCharlesII 20:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

To Yeshivish (who might prefer calling himself Kahanist) and DavidCharles I will not respond too much. Just this I would like to respond to (from earlier):

David Charles keeps adding is the FACT that Eida charedis put him on cherem, too. How is THAT wild? ITS A FACT!!! 66.93.254.200 14:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, 66.93, it is not a fact. In fact it is a lie. There has never been a cherem on them from anybody. Not from the Edah, not from Satmar, not from the 'Chief Rabbinate' even. There have been condemnations, denunciations - Daas Torah against them. But no cherem. Please don't come with plain lies. --Chussid 21:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You are one delusional fool. I am sorry, they were ONLY condemned. They are MERELY going against daas Torah. You have to be as unlearned as a Neturei Karta (from Monsey) to think that is somehow better. There are charomim against them in Monsey, by the way. And it is not a lie if you thought it true. Few think there is a functional difference between the charomim and denunciations urging Jews to stay away from Non-Jews (do we even KNOW he is Jewish?) like Weiss. You, possibly Weiss himself, are in no position to talk about plain lies if you allow words like "Rabbi" to be used with somsone who is not a Rav, Rosh yeshiva, or Talmid chochom. And thank you David Charles, for confirming the extent of the rumors. I have heard from many who knew him while he lived in New Jersey that Weiss is a cross dresser. 66.93.254.200 13:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Rabbi 66, You are correct about the cross dressing rumors, as well. I heard them, too. Sincerely, RabbiDavidCharlesII 20:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh...The B'datz didn't put them in Cherem. They merely told the Jerusalem community to distance themselves from the 7, or 4, depending which sign your reading. I'm not sure if you are knowledgeable in the laws of such a thing, but the B'datz of Jerusalem does not have the power to put anyone outside of Jerusalem in Cherem. Anyone with a news article from a reputable agency saying Weiss is an unindicted cross dressing, child molesting, homosexual bestiality enthusiast should for certain print that here as it is encyclopedia worthy for the reasons of it pertaining very strongly to this particular article, as well as to other articles dealing with sexual pathology. I would be certain this would make him the most sexually pathological individual never arrested for any sexual crime. Shia1 04:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

& beyond is... arbitration?

ok regardless of ones ability to decide who is/n't a rabbi, of my latest rv, the fox vid links (i think) have to stay out as we're not allowed to even link to copyvio material. more importantly...

re the continued vandalism, have asked for consultation Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#10-January-2007 & this, ahem, did not advance the situation. given the above 'discussion' i'm not convinced mediation is particularly worthwhile (tho will participate if anyone else proposes). next time someone removes multiply sourced material and/or adds unsourced material i think applying for arbitration would be appropriate. anyone got any better ideas?12:09, 12 January 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bsnowball (talk • contribs).

The only one adding unsourced material is you, my friend. He is not a Rabbi. You have no sources showing he serves as one or was ordained as one. I am glad to participate in a mediation so that you will be straightened out. If someone can help, I will gladly provide the radio interview where Mr. Weiss yelled at a called for not getting enough respect. He wants Israel to cease to exist, as well. Finally, its a fact that the Edah and Satmar--the fulcrum of the real NK--urged all Jews to distance themselves from Mr. (or are you going to start calling him Dr. or Professor now?) Weiss. We can work on putting in factual information together, or continue taking out your inapparopriate vandalism each time you insist an unlettered eccentric is a Rabbi. Since the ENTIRE Jewish world views Mr. Weiss like this, I would suggest, as an alternative, a reqrite reminscint of the article on Joshua Norton. 15:55, 12 January 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.93.254.200 (talk • contribs).
I personally doubt that the Arbitration Committee would hear such a case: WP:AP says Where a dispute has not gone through Mediation, or the earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, the Arbitrators may refer the dispute to the Mediation Committee if it believes Mediation is likely to help. I suggest trying mediation (or the mediation cabal, which is less formal); I really think it might be worthwhile. John Broughton | Talk 16:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
oops, thnx for signing me, yes, it will have to be mediation not arbitration. have put in on b l p incidents as well.  ⇒ bsnowball  17:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your interest and sincerity, John, but Bsnowball has been vandalizing this article with words like "Rabbi" and vandalizing fact-based edits from the very begining. It is clear he has an agenda. He can very likely be using different user names just to make it appear that Mr. Weiss has a following. At this juncture, I would ask if you think it appropriate for a discussion as to the noteworthiness, so to speak, of this subject. The reality is that Mr. Weiss may be even less noteworthy than any other eccentric (at best) one may found on a street corner. How can I nominate this article for deletion on the grounds that it is not noteworthy? 66.93.254.200 17:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

66, please quit the slander and personal attacks. The fact that you don't like Weiss doesn't change anything. The mainstream media calls him 'rabbi', and so should we. Aside from that, the guy is a misguided fool causing a huge chillul Hashem together with his colleagues who went to Iran. Your comment about Satmar/Edah being the 'real NK' is total nonsense. Satmar and the other Edah-affiliated movements are not NK and have never operated under that name. NK is a totally different movement; the relation between them and the Edah is that most NK people only eat Edah. --Chussid 16:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Chussid, I don't understand why you are so nasty. I did not slander, nor resort to personal attacks; I merely communicated what I heard from many people. If one were to be called a Doctor by the media even though he did not go to medical school or earn a doctorate, it would still be inappropriate to call his a Doctor. The same goes for Mr. Weiss. The world was fooled by a delusional (at best) person who claims to be a Rabbi so that he can have legitimacy. If he is not, techinically, a Rabbi, it should be noted. Second, if the Edah and Satmar disassociated themselves from him, it stands to reason that he is not a legitamite NK member. Mr. Friedman's wife is securing a divorce, too. These are facts. Please do not get so carried away with pro-Weiss emotion that you refuse to see things from a broader point of view. 66.93.254.200 16:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
One last thing, Mr. Weiss, I mean "Chussid," the whole mainstream Jewish world has heard rather unnerving rumors about Weiss's sexuality. According to you, that would make them true. 66.93.254.200 22:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
66 - Regarding notability, if you really think the article fails the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (people) (I'm not going to express an opinion, other than to say that there are certainly sources that meet WP:RS standards, which implies that he is notable - but I've not read the sources or the article in any detail), then I suggest starting a new section on notability, to get other opinions. If you remain convinced that there is no notability here, then the next step is to start the AfD process - see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.
As far as disputes over content ("rabbi" or not), no one can force anyone into mediation. And if no one wants to propose mediation, then presumably you all will continue to argue and revert until - well, until one side or the other gets tired and leaves. In any case, my point, above, was that until someone formally proposes mediation, and others formally reject it (by silence, if nothing else), the Arbitration Committee is unlikely to be interested in resolving this, and quite frankly I don't see anything less than that - given the lack of cooperation here - as resolving the situation. I will note, for what it's worth, that the Arbitration Committee wields quite a hammer - it's certainly common to assess penalties to most of the participants in a case, and to block some or all of them permanently from editing articles for which they have a history of what the Committee decides is disruptive editing and disruptive comments. Arbitrators, on the other hand, don't have any hammer - they're simply trying to help find a compromise acceptable to all. If a large number of folks here believe that no such compromise is possible, then, again, the alternatives are eternal wrangling, abandonment of the article by one side, or the Arbitration Committee hammer. Your choice. John Broughton | Talk 21:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Weiss' resume (apparently compiled by Weiss)

Taken from http://www.islamonline.net/livedialogue/english/Guestcv.asp?hGuestID=ELk1V5

All the following are subject to confirmation:

Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss

1996 - Present: Talmud Instructor, Yeshiva Beis Yehudi (Monsey, New York); Associate Rabbi, Neturei Karta International; Speaker and Lecturer on Zionism and related matters;

1989 - 1996: Rabbinic Fellow and Talmud Instructor Kollel Ayeles Hashachar (Monroe, New York);

1987 - 1988: Rabbinic Fellow and Student of Ritual Circumcision, Kollel Chofetz Chaim (London, England)

1985 - 1987: Talmud Instructor and Rabbinic Fellow Yeshiva Beis Yehudi (Monsey, New York); Received Rabbinic Certificate in Yeshivas Beis Yehudi;

1983 - 1985: Rabbinic Fellow, Kollel Bigszahd (Brooklyn, New York);

1979 - 1983: Rabbinic Fellow, Nitra Kollel (Brooklyn, New York);

1974 - 1979: Rabbinic College Chasan Sofer (Brooklyn, New York)

1970 - 1974: Yeshiva Be’er Shmuel High School (Brooklyn, New York)

1960 - 1970: Tiferes Torah Elementary School

Born October 28, 1956

-- 00:45, 17 January 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.132.240.226 (talk • contribs).

I did a google search on "Rabbinic College Chasan Sofer" - only one result. "Rabbinical college" seems to work slightly better, and I think I saw one reference to "Rabinical Seminary". But a really low profile regardless - small school, part-time students? John Broughton | ♫♫ 18:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeshiva Ch San [sic] Sofer

1876 50th St, Brooklyn, NY 11204

Brooklyn is full of tiny yeshivas (talmudic seminaries). There is no accrediting organization and each has their own standards (or lack of them) in handing out rabbinic ordination.217.132.237.5 19:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

We certainly need to make sure that this cv is accurate. We have to find Yeshiva Beis Yehudi (never heard of it and I doubt it exists) and work from there. Notice how he does not say who give it to him; that says a lot. If he gave it to himself or had another am ha'aretz friend give it to him, it is a sham. Finally, how did YOU obtain it? Are you Mr. Weiss himself? Are you a cohort of his? Maran Hagaon66.93.254.200 23:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, I obtained the resume from the Islamonline.net website via a Google search. The address I found using Yahoo Yellow Pages. Yeshiva Beis Yehudi is in fact the Neturei Karta HQ in Monsey, NY. And I am most definitely not Weiss or a "cohort" of his.89.138.35.176 16:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Assuming in arguendo that you are not a cohort of Weiss's, it remains to be seen what kind of institution "Yeshiva" Beis Yehudi really is--if it is a legitamite one, if there is a semicha program there, if those individuals in that insitution really learn at all, etc. Hagaon Moreinu v'Rabbeinu66.93.254.200 19:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

John, do not be surprised if you cannot find the institutions cited in this cv. This is coming from the same man who lies about having HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of followers when in reality he is regarded as an eccentric by the entire Jewish community, including anti-Zionists communities like Satmar. He has no legitamicy or integrity. Maran HaGaon HaGadol66.93.254.200 23:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You are being idiots. Just because you don't like somebody doesn't mean everything they say is flase, and implying smallness doesn't mean the movement is illegitimate. In the Book of Kings there were only 7000 Jews who had not worshiped Baal at one point. In any case, its quite easy to believe there are 100,000 Neturei Kartaniks. I live in Beit Shemesh, over the hill in Ramat Beit Shemesh are about 1,000 families of Neturei Kartaniks. That's the police estimate. Calm down. Your so emotional your attacking people on nonsense. You are requiring proof of his smicha to a much greater degree than you require it of anybody else. 82.81.19.174 09:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Beis Yehudi is the Neturei Karta Beis Midrash in Monsey. All the others are fairly well known. I hope that helps. Shia1 04:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

rabbi yisroel dovid weiss history comment bsnowball

hi -- i think that in the speech rabbi weiss variated slightly from his prepared text. although his "admonishment" to president ahmadinejad is in the audio version its not in the transcript so i dont know what to do either as far as its inclusion in the wikipedia entry. i would think the quote is acceptable since it is accurate. i guess we will have to see what other editors think etc. Lurgis 21:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  • right, sorry. (cool, i did like that quote) assume the way to go about it wld be just to source it directly to the audio, perhaps pointing out that difference in the reference
  • yeshivish rv while refusing to comment or discuss (twice now) is pointless & will look very bad when this goes to official mediation.  ⇒ bsnowball  09:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

justification for reversions

  • yeshivish, the claim r. weiss believes "the Jews there should not be afforded any rights" is as far as i know a fabrication. goes until a source is found per WP:RS
  • otherwise i've cleaned up & properly referenced your additions (congratulations, the 1st time you've sourced any of your additions), if you don't like the bit about the counter-demo, please discuss it. simply stopping another editor from editing the article is not acceptable behaviour.
  • charles, we've covered the rabbi thing before. every source uses the title, therefore it's in. if you wish to dispute it, find WP:RS for that, and we could put in a sentence or two about that dispute. also note among haredim there is not necessarily a formal granting of 'semicha' so the whole thing is arguably irrelevant.
Of course his lack of semicha is very relevant. As a Charedi myself, I can attest that the other exception would be where Mr. Weiss is an outstanding scholar. He is not. Were he to be someone like R' Moshe or Rav Shach, I would agree that his lack of semicha would be irrelevant. The source only indicates that Mr. Weiss insists on being called a Rabbi, not that he actually is one. It should be our, or, at the very least, you should insert a sentence explaining the truth.
  • the claim "met with anger and scorn by the entire Jewish world, both Zionist and anti-Zionist" is untrue, even the nytimes article doesn't claim this, therefore its out.
It is true. It is a fact. The entire Jewish world spoke out against him. You obvioously have no idea about the facts or you are perfectly obfuscating the issue. EVERY single Jewish group denounced him and his group. That the New York Times didn't cover it (1) means NOTHING (2) should demonstrate that the response of genuine Jews to Mr. Weiss is as relevant as a cop giving a loiterer a ticket. How a people deals with its eccentrics is just not newsworthy. But the FACTS remain: EVERY SINGLE JEWISH ORGANIZATION reprimaneded them. You have no RIGHT to take out a fact like that.
  • there is also no need for all the 'he claims' etc. when we have sources for his statements.
We have sources that there are at least other NK groups which consider him illegit. Look at the neturei karta discussion page. 66.93.254.200 15:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • generaly i will not revert further additions which take account of these points & which follow WP:RS, WP:V etc. & if anyone makes changes which they are prepared to discuss here i will not rv while there is discussion. thnx. next is mediation, i guess.  ⇒ bsnowball  12:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 66.93 i am prepared to discuss this. but if anything about dispute of his use of the title is to go in, it has to be reliably sourced. ie written source, preferably web so its easier to check etc. i will add it in myself if you can provide it here.
  • condemnation: the version i reverted to lists all the condemnations, with sources. if you want suggest some wording that spells out that this means pretty much all haredim except for his faction of nk (if this is what you mean) it can be adjusted. though as far as i know (can't read yiddish) satmarer condemned him purely for attending the conference.
  • more generally, i realise the protection cuts you out of editing, but i asked for it back as there is reason to assume the libelous edits will continue.  ⇒ bsnowball  17:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No group of Neturei Kartaniks think he is illigit. Stop this silly stuff. All your little Modern Orthodox friends will tell you it's true, but anyone who knows these people knows you sound really really silly. There are in Israel two groups of NKniks, both following different sons-in-laws of Amram Blau the founder. One group doesn't like that the other has a website and speaks with the Western Media. They feel these things are immitations of non-Jewish culture. They do not dissaprove of meatings, and their founder met with Khomeini in the 70s. Shia1 09:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The dispute between the two NK branches hinge on more than the fascination Weiss and Beck have with the Western Media. Be that as it may, the entire frum Jewish world--not just the Agudah, but also Satmar and the Edah Charedis included--strongly opposed what Weiss did. Accordingly, it matters not one wit how one faction of illegitamite, ignorant parasites think of another group of fundamentally unworthy individuals. Furthermorre, this is not a modern orthodox issue. It is a Jewish one. I, for example, am more Charedi than Weiss (I don't shake women's hands, for example) and I, along with many others like me, cannot fathom how some people can unilaterally (that is, without the support of the gedolei torah of today) take it upon themselves to "represent" the Jewish people with words of deceit and empty dialogue, all while (unwittingly) serving as a tool to legitamize a sonei Yisroel's agenda in showing to the world that even Jews question the factual veracity of the Holocaust. Regardless what Weiss says (or claims to have said) at the conference, the world did not listen to his speech, they saw what appeared to be a frum Jew, who calls himself a Rabbi, attended a convocation of anti-semites to state that the Holocuast never happened. And the entire Jewish world, with the exception of an evil am horetz who accepts money stained by the blood of innocent Jews from Arafat himself, condemned him and his fellow ignorant boors for what he did. I still cannot understand how he has the chutzpah to say he represents hundreds of thousands of Jews, let alone call himself a Rabbi (and demand that someone have respect when he respectfully calls him "Mr!"). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.83.90.10 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for listing in such eloquent fashion all the reasons you are not impartial and should not edit this article. The fact, apart from your opinion, as it stands right now is that every media outlet he appears on refers to him as rabbi. Those are all sources. Others have said that they should not be considered valid sources, but by Wikipedia policy CBS, and FOx are valid sources. Also, if you could present who in NK does not consider him legit, who is there leader, where are they located, you would have an arguement. Right now you have a quote from a former teacher at Yeshivah University, which to my humblest knowledge has its own problems with legitimacy in the Orthodox world. 82.81.103.16 02:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how Harav Hagaon 67 is not impartial. He was stating that it is inappropriate to call someone Rabbi--even though he himself insists on calling himself Rabbi to the uninitiated (and therefore is called one)--when he has been seen shaking women's hands, has been ostracized by all gedolei yisreol, and has followers (like Friedman) who violate the Shabbo b'farhesya. All fox is stating is that Mr. Weiss calls himself Rabbi. NO news outlet stated he recieved smicha. Accordingly. Moreinu Hagaon Rabbeinu 67's opinions are very legitamite and important.
Because there are sources for these problems (this is the way I am reading Maran Harav Hagaon's brilliant points), some qualifying language (if he is to be called a Rabbi at all) MUST be drafted if Mr. Weiss is to be called "Rabbi." You would not argue this if Hitler was called Rabbi by the New York Times. I don't now who Maran Rabbeinu Hagaon Rebbi 67 is quoting from YU, but a source is still a source (how do you know people from there?). Just like Fox does not know what one needs to know and be in order to qualify as a Rav (and who are we kidding here when we are talking about the pechusei am like Mr. Weiss), YU can also be a source, according you, as well. The op-ed piece is valuable and legitamite, because its written by a famous academic, attorney and commentator who has observed that Mr. Weiss was over aveiros chamurios (at least for a Charedi Rabbi) b'rabim. And that is a source. DavidCharlesII 15:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
==Should it be mentioned==

Should it be mentioned that the ashkenazi chief rabbi is not a posek, has no smicha in dayanus (and thus his opinion on the kashrus of a chicken is valid, his opinion on cherem is not), is an indicted child molestor, and has admitted to struggling with his own homosexuality. Just to give balance to the article so everyone knows who is calling for cherem? 88.153.98.99 11:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

We can mention it. After we mention that Mr. Weiss, the actual subject of this article, is not either a Rabbi or a posek, has not semicha in dayanus, is rumored to be a child molester and is struggling with his own homosexuality. The rumors with regard to Mr. Weiss, after all, the subject of this article, are far stronger. This would certainly add balance.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.83.90.10 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but with Mr. Weiss they are rumors; and yes he does have smicha as every news media outlet he appears on and the ADl attest to by calling him rabbi. To my humblest knowledge he is not a dayan, but then again he does not occupy a position that calls for it, wheras the Ashkenazi chief rabbi is the first chief rabbi of any nation not to be a dayan. With the Ashkenai chief rabbi it is fact that he has been INDICTED, and was forced to step down as a candidate for chief rabbi of Tel Aviv due to his sexual meanderings. If there is a source other than Ynetnews which says that Satmar or the B'datz put out anything critical, I'd be surprised as there are no signs up here. Also, if Weiss is ever indicted formally for any of the sexual proclivities you accuse him of, you should put it up. The ACR has been indicted formally and forced to step down from a candidacy because of it. That merits mention. 88.154.27.69 13:43, 1 February 200::7 (UTC)

I would have to find the source for his being indicted. Needless to say, that does not mean he was convicted or found guilty of anything sexually different. So he is in the same position as Weiss, whose cross dressing habits are renown. I guess you can try to add the indictment on the article on Yonah Metzger, but it has nothing to do with Weiss. Weiss to my humblest knowledge does not have semicha. He merely claims he has semicha from an institution which, with all due respect, is not quite Ponovez or Brisk, to put it mildly. He has also lied a lot about his support. And everytime Rabbi David Charles (I guess I have to call him Rabbi because he calls himself Rabbi) puts that FACT in (among others, like the FACT that Mr. Weiss does not act in accordance with the Shulchan Aruch by shaking women's hands), it gets erased by anti semites like bsnowball who are pro the immediate destruction of Israel and the five million people who live in it. The fact that outlets call him a Rabbi does not mean he IS a rabbi, it means he calls himself rabbi, or insists upon being called as one, on interviews and in the pr pieces they write about him. Don't be naive.
I thank you for your comments, but need to point out that, yes, according to wikipedia policy, him being called a rabbi in several media outlets does make him a rabbi. Also, Yeshivas Chasam Sofer, is a very respectable hungarian yeshiva. No problem there. Do you have a source for him shaking women's hands in anything but an Op/Ed? If you do, you should add that piece of information. Also if you have a legitimate source for the cross dressing rumor being anything but a rumor about a controversial figure, you should certainly add it as well. These things are important. 82.81.103.16 02:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
He CLAIMS he went to Chasan Soffer, but that is beside the point. Even according to his dubious resume, he claims to have recieved "ordination" from an unknown Yeshiva--an institution which houses "thugs" according to all the gedolei yisreol. And let's be honest, that insitution is made up. You are obviously very biased. Second, why, aside from the obvious, did he attend unknown or no-name yeshivas after Chasan Soffer? Because he was thrown out, and you know it. We don't even know if those yeshivos exist, or if he really learned them. WE don't know what he does there or if he really recieved ordination there. We know what he claims. But he also claims to have hundreds of thousands of followers. He claims he represents the true Jewish opinion even though all the gedolim are against him. There is no need to treat every lie he states as truth, especially given how obvious the lies are. The cross dressing rumor has been circulating for almost a decade, and it is as rampant as rumors of Liberace's homosexuality. Obviously, Mr.Weiss has shown himself to be a very hostile man (and obviously ignorant or uninterested in basic halacha) so well-meaning indifividuals have been intimiditated from exposing him to the full extent. Schlissel obviously does not care. And not merely because she is a national commentator who was quoted on Fox (therefore, she is an excellent source). People who dont observe basic halacha cannot be called Rabbis. They are not Rabbis, even when Fox was forced to call him one on his insistence. The bottom line is that if he is to be called a Rabbi, it must be explained that he is not, essentially, a Rabbi. Oh, since Rabbi 67 calls me a Rabbi, you have to call me one, too. DavidCharlesII 15:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

to david charles

I am not David Charles, but I will come in here to talk about how I feel about your points. First, it is apparent that you know NOTHING about WEiss, Charedim or Judaism (with a decidedly anti_Israel of Jewish bias, or that you are Weiss (or a cohort of his his) pretending to be a concerned editor. Second, Rabbi David Charles calls himself Rabbi, I also call him Rabbi--therefore YOU have to call him Rabbi.

Rabbi 67, your brilliant and knowledgable comments were derailed by bsnowball as "rants." his bias is apparant. DavidCharlesII 15:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

justification for my changes

  • if you wish to make statements about r. weiss's beliefs please reference them to the easily available sources, there are any number of his speeches available for instance at [2] also prefacing every quote or statement with 'he claims' is entirely unecessary (WP:WEASEL)
Mr. Weiss represents in HIS OWN BUSINESS CARD that he wishes for the "immediate peaceful dismantling of Israel." His cohort, Mr. Ahron (called Achmed by all Jews and banished from Manchester) Cohen said "hopedully peaceful." That video is on Youtube.
Seriously, does he have to say more? This is sourced. You have no justification to take it out.
  • personal opinions such as "Mr. Weiss's allegations are completey disregarded by all Jews (with exception to his tiny following who have been labeled as outcasts) in light of the fact that he is committing the same wrong he accuses Rudolf Kastner of committing" are WP:OR & therefore inappropriate. (also his marginal status vis a vis most haredim is covered & properly sourced.)
This is not a personal opinion. With respect to Weiss's tirades against the Jewish people, Fox and other news outlets have captured the disbelief and bewilderment of Jews throughout the world as to how he can unilaterally make the proclomations he has made, and meet with someone who is reported to have stated that he will wipe Israel off the map (and that the Holocaust is a myth) on numerous occassions. I would be willing to quibble over how to structure the sentence with you, if you would like, but the idea is sourced--Jews throughout the world (that is, everyone EXCEPT Mr. Weirss and his small group of followers who have been called "bandits", "thugs" and the like even by anti-zionist organizations like Satmar and the Edah) cannot understand how he can encourage the destruction of so many people to someone who stated he will destroy Israel. This is not comparable to Kastner simply because Kastner, at worse, is responsible for the relocation and death of 450,000 people, Weiss is bent on 5 million. His marginal status is not covered. It is inserted all the way at the end. Who he is, what he is, cannot be a mere footnote. The fact that he is a bandit who cannot enter into a Jeish synagogue shows that he cannot represent the hundreds of thousands of JEwish people. Your refusal for that to appear more as part of the article shows your bias.
This is not a personal opinion. I can find Fox News's article on the subject. The entire Jewish world was completely astounded. The Agudah, America's largest right-wing Orthodox branch issued the following statement:
There should be no need to state the following, but to avoid any misconceptions in the media or among members of the public, Agudath Israel of America proclaims strongly and unequivocally that the visibly Jewish men who regularly appear publicly with virulent anti-Semites and claim to represent Jewish Orthodoxy not only do not represent anyone but themselves but are a disgrace to the Jewish people.
Most recently, they presented themselves at the much and properly vilified Holocaust denial “conference” in Teheran, where widely-disseminated photographs captured the pitiful spectacle of their greeting and shaking hands with Iran’s demonic president. Neither their professed determination to protect the interests of Jews nor their haredi garb can obscure the fact that all they accomplish is to offer succor and support to people who eagerly wish to do grave harm to Jews.
There are many groups within the Orthodox community, and they represent widely differing positions on the concept of political and religious Zionism. All responsible Orthodox groups, however, have condemned the group at issue in no uncertain terms. Agudath Israel joins in that condemnation and declares that the group is not only deeply misguided and misleading of the public but dangerous to the true interests of the Jewish People.
This can be found on http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/?p=4204.
The bottom line is there is Mr. Weiss and the rest of the Jewish people. He is not a "representative" of the "Jewish" voice, as he claims. He claims he has the backing of hundreds of thousands of Jews!!! He is either delusional or a liar. Why do you insist on taking the fact as to how the entire Jewish world looks at him when he claims to be Jewish, when he claims to be a representative of Jewish beliefs? When he act in flagrant contravention of Jewish law? One of his follower, Mr Friedman, is seen on video--publicly desecrating the Sabbath. They cannot be Rabbis. Don't you get that?
  • the web-site [3] obviously does not meet WP:RS, author is clearly biased, and certainly has no authority to decide who is/n't haredi
She is cited simply to cite a fact: She saw Mr. Weiss openly and flagrantly violate Jewish law. This, obviously, means he is not a Charedi. Schlussel is just as much a Jew as Mr. Weiss, in fact, she is not ostracized from the entire Jewish world, so she is arguabl more of a Jew. There are many other examples of his failure to comply with Jewish law, the fact that he shakes hands with women, however, is sourced on this page. I apologize if this goes against your agenda, but she is a famous lawyer, academic and commentator, and she is quoted on national telvision. Go through the site, and you will see this is not a hate site (as much as you wish it were) Which gets to another point:
This cannot be overstated. She is a famous authority quoted throughout the world. She is not an expert on Charedism, but she is an expert on WHAT SHE SAW. How can you take that out? She is a very credible source becasue she is frequently quoted.
  • once again, if you wish to question rabbi weiss's right to use that title, please provide sources. also the formal granting of semicha may not be particularly relevent. & remember that even the a d l claims he's a rabbi
The formal granting of semicha is not neccessary for the truly outstanding. Exmaples would include Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, Rabbi Shach, and the like--individuals of such outstanding brilliance and achievement that there is no doubt as to their scholarship. Mr. Weiss has never published anything on Talmudical law. He avoids talks with Rabbis (ostensibly because he cannot hold conversations with them) and ONLY talks to the those who know nothing about Jewish law to "prove" his points. It is obvious unique exception does not apply to Mr. Weiss. The ADL never announced that Mr. Weiss is a Rabbi. It merely referred to him as Mr. Weiss INSISTS (this interview is also on Radio) upon being called by. If you are not Weiss or a supporter of his, you would recognize how unlikely it is that WEiss got ssemicha. The fact that he does not keep basic halachos shows either that he is not special enough to be called one, or would have it renounced anyway because he cares not one wit for the basic principles of Jewish law. While some modern orthodox Jews (and others) have found dispensations for shaking hands, a RABBI, certainly a CHAREDI rabbi, WOULD NEVER, EVER do it--under no uncertain terms. Seriously, the fact that you don't get this shows that you are extremely biased or very, very ignorant about this issue. If the latter is the case, you really have no business editing over issues of this nature in the first place.
This is something you refuse to wrap your head around. These are facts. Semicha is neccessary. If you are exceptional, you are called a Rabbi, regardless. Mr. WEiss is not only unexceptional, he was ostracized from every Jewish synagogue in the world!!! This is akin to calling someone Doctor because he feels he is a Doctor, even though he never did anything to deserve it. You can state in the article that he is called a Rabbi, or, more accurately, that he insists on being called one (this obviously gives him legitamicy which he sorely craves). But you should at least add some qualifying language so as to justify these obvious concerns. I would be more than willing to work on drafting the appropriate language together with you, especially since you obvioualy know so little about Mr, Weiss and Rabbinics. DavidCharlesII 15:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • finaly, please learn how to edit wikipedia properly, you've left the page in a complete mess, with substantial sections of the text unreadable. it would also help if you paid more attention to what you are reverting, as much of it is useful cleaning up, fixing of other messy edits etc.  ⇒ bsnowball  17:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material"

Everyone should read this before adding more unsourced material. And this is even more important. The upshot of these policies we can't add unsourced negative material to biographys of living people. Users can eventually be blocked for doing so. This bit's particularly interesting: "In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule."  ⇒ bsnowball  18:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Pray tell, how is a woman who is frequently quoted on television an inappropriate source for something she saw? DavidCharlesII 15:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Her website would be considered a hate site by most individuals. She is, in this case, as reputable a source as David DUke is on othe Jewish issues. I think much of this needs to be brought before the arbitration commitee so they can ban users who have been taking liberties with wikipedia policy in order to further their own political or religious agendas. I for one am voting for arbitration. Shia1 19:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Perspective

Okay I'm basically neutral here. Basically because I have no feeling for ZIonism and am neutral towards Rabbi Weiss, neither hating him nor showering him with affections. Here's my neutral POv. He is a rabbi as far as the article is concerned. Why? Because that is how he is presented to the public on various news outlets., so that is how we present him unless there is evidence to the contrary. I know this upsets some, but the fact is we have equal evidence he is a rabbi, as we do that his real name is Weiss. About the handshaking, there are two major issues. First, the woman who says she saw it, says so in an op/ed, which is not a source by encyclopedic standards. I'm sorry. Secondly, to assert that he broke a Jewish law by doing so it would need proven. The problem with that is Rabbi Weiss or Mr. Weiss, or whatever you want to call him, claims to be Hungarian. Hungarian Jewry is made up of Hasidim and Uberlanders. The Uberlanders are Yekki by origin, like the Chasam Sofer. FOr thos unfamiliar with Yekkis, they have a tradition that a handshake is not "pleasurable" enough to constitute pleasurable physical contact, and will shake. My 2 cents. BTW, I added his holocaust comments because they seemed germane. Shia1 01:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You have a very profound pro-Wiess (or anti-semetic) agenda. Mr. Weiss claims to be a Charedi Rabbi. No CHAREDI Rabbi has ever used the derech chiba dispensation when it comes to shaking hands of a woman he is not related to. The source is reliable enough to be quoted by Fox News and others nationally syndicated programs. She is legitamite.
Before you ask questions, I have NO bias against Weiss, only a very strong knee-jerk reaction to pro-weiss or anti-semetic vandals who attempt to neutralize facts which they find repugnant to their agendas. DavidCharlesII 15:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
my dearest charlie, people who lie about anti-semitism only play into the hands of real racists. it's also not the best way to continue a reasoned discussion. as for the actual topic, just read those policies and stick to them. NO UNSOURCED CRITICISM is probably the most important. learing to edit properly & realizing that people can disagree with you without being evil or deranged might also help. (on which note, a source that goes on about muslim social clubs, & federal government agents!!!!, being 'hizbollah' fronts or accomplices arguably isn't reliable)  ⇒ bsnowball  16:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It is Rabbi Charlie.
I am not lying about anti-semetism. That is number one. I don't lie(unlike Mr. WEiss who knowingly misrepresents the facts). Number two, unsouced criticsm do NOT include a sourced comment from the Agudah (not that you know what that is, I cannot understand how you can edit or coment about something you don't know) about what Mr. Weiss is and represents, and it does not include his business card and the fact he has been seen shaking women's hands and has followers who don't observe the Sabbath (which is on video). My god, what kind of world are you living in, these are facts. Third, I am not calling someone who disagrees with ME (as though that is an issue for me!) deranged, I am stating that Mr. Weiss is either a liar or deranged because he is stating he represents the Jewish people when the entire Jewish people disavowed themselves from him. You obviously have an anti-semetic bias or, at the ever yleast, care so little about the issues and facts, that vandalizing this page became a hobby for you. DavidCharlesII 16:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Bsnowball is obsiouly a vandalizing lunatic who is doing this for fun. He has not made an effort to read the comments and work with anyone in the Wikipedia community who know the facts. His arrogance is disgusting. Especially toward Rabbi David Charles. Rabbi67.83.90.10 17:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
So, Bsnowball, you have nothing to add aside from insults? After vandalizing this page, and demanding explanations, you cannot even respond reasonably and without sarcasm? 67.83.90.10 18:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am again voting for these matters to be brought before the arbitration committee so that those who are the real vandals can be banned from using or abusing wikipedia anymore. Also, anti-semite and lunatic are epithets, and you are abusing other users because you disagree with them. Please refrain from thse activities or you will be reported. You should add your Aguddah reference if it is germane. That is sourced, and a valid source. YOu may not add things from hate websites. The same website also claims Weiss is the chief rabbi of Hezbollah. To my knowledge Hezbollah does not claim a chief rabbi. Shia1 19:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Same here. Debbie Schlessel is quoted in the New York Post and on Fox News. How can you defame her? She can sue you.
Ok, I added in the Agudah remark. There are some other important, salient facts I must add. Before I continue, however, I want to reach out to you to work on appropriate wording to qualify his being a "Rabbi." Obviously, he is not a Rabbi in the ordinary sense of the word. Anyone have any ideas? Thank you.DavidCharlesII 20:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, I don't think Schlessel's site is a hate site, though it is interesting that you mention David Duke, another attendee at the conference. Why was THAT taken out? DavidCharlesII 20:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
i explained in the comment. you need a proper source for it. then it can be mentioned along with the other denunciations. it doesn't need to be quoted in full as they aren't either. and it's hardly news that agudat don't get along with nk, whearas the satmar denunciation is a new development. re 'appropriate wording to qualify his being a "Rabbi."' the appopriate wording is "Rabbi Weiss". there will be no unsourced criticism. if you can provide a reliable source questioning it, this can be added. next time you add unsourced material there will be warnings, & eventually you will be block.  ⇒ bsnowball  20:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I didn't get to see the Aggudah addition. I think it probably belongs in brief as another denunciation, perhaps quoting the main idea, or the sentance that most sums it up. That seems fair if it is sourced, as well as informative and good for the article. I'm not against it being mentioned Duke was at the conference, as long as it is not implied the 7 agreed with him. I think as long as we leave Rabbi Weiss's statement up, it would be okay. It highlights why people objected to their attendance. About him being a rabbi, as he is presented as a rabbi, and is accepted as a rabbi by every news outlet, it would take a reliable source (and I'm placing religious zionist publications outside of reliable on this one) saying this is false and demonstrating how for it to be mentioned he is not. COuld you calmly explain why you believe he is not. Shia1 03:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../y/i/s/Talk%7EYisroel_Dovid_Weiss_Archive_1_a4ed.html"