Talk:Yoel Kahn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judaism Portal
Yoel Kahn is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Distorted representation

Whoever wrote this article clearly doesn't have the 1st clue about Yoel Kahn, and never went to the trouble to ask anyone who does, and has no interest in writing a NPOV article. There is no mention by the article creator of Kahn's phenomenal genius, his photographic memory, the scholarly books he authored and countless audio cassettes of his classes that have been distributed worldwide for decades, his regular articles in the Kfar Chabad magazine. No mention of his role as mashpia to bochrim, his shiurim in Boro Park with Heichal Menachem, of his role as choizer, his role as maniach, etc. If the article creator even knows what those words mean. Everything about this rabbi is defined according to a certain controversy, because nothing more exists in Chabad in the minds of some people. Yehoishophot Oliver 15:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You know very well who wrote this article, so please moderate your tone. I wrote the article based on the few reliable sources I could find about him. If you have any sourced materail you would like to add that would be fantasitic. It really would be. All the stuff you mention above would be great to add to the article as I believe it to be true, and take you word for it - but i don't have any sources for it. Nothing can go into a biography of a living person without a good source. Please find sources and add stuff. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 15:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You wrote the article without taking an interest in anything but a certain controversy.
I need a source that he's a famous author and speaker?! Just go to any bookstore that stocks Chabad literature! Yehoishophot Oliver 15:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you do. A didn't see any books that he has writen. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
He authored sefer Haerchin Chabad, an encyclopedia on Chabad chasidus. Plus many many more things. Shlomke 00:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you've never heard of any of his books when he's a prolific writer shows your total ignorance and lack of serious effort to research a personality you are making an article about.Yehoishophot Oliver 13:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I find that quite offensive, I come here to add what I can. Rather than attacking me personally why don't you get the info on his writing and add it. That would be more productive. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My edits

  • No one in Chabad suggested Kahn as Rebbe. That's nonsense. I'm sure the reporter quotes no source for that, and anyone who quotes that nonsense in all seriousness has no clue what the Chabad concept of a Rebbe and a Tzaddik is. Which is aside from the fact that such info. doesn't belong in the intro.
  • Histalkus does not mean concealment; check a dictionary, it means departure, though the meaning of that requires explanation according to Chabad chasidus.
  • Butman is not "the leader of the "messianists."" A leader to some, maybe. But to all?! This is nonsense. In fact, many of them do not think highly of him at all.
  • The debate about what it means that the Rebbe is alive in Chabad is conceptually unrelated to the debates about whether to identify the Rebbe as Moshiach, and even if so, to what extent this ought to be done. So I have separated these matters.
  • The links to the articles about Steinzaltz, Krinsky, etc. are silly. There's no specific connection between Kahn and these other figures other than that they're also famous Chabad figures.

Since I've added a lot of info. as requested, I'd appreciate it if others who wish to make edits would work with this version of the article rather than reverting it. Thanks. Yehoishophot Oliver 17:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm really sorry but sources are sourcesm and these ones are very good ones. The reporter says that there are rumors we write that he says that. No, the links are no silly, they are about similar people per wikipolicy. Don't remove htem please. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 17:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly who told this to the reporter? Since when is a report in a paper fact??
What's the similarity between these people?! If you'd know more about them, you'd see that there's very little other than that they're famous chabad personalities. Steinzaltz is a teacher, but he's not known for teaching Chasidus, but for teaching Talmud, though he teaches Chasidus as well. Steinzaltz is a baal teshuva, Kahn is from Chabad lineage. Kahn was a choizer and prepared the sichos for editing, Steinzaltz never did any of that. But fine, they're both teachers. But Krinsky is a secretary and communal worker. How's that related to Kahn, who's a teacher and author? You really know nothing about these people. Yehoishophot Oliver 17:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Your edits are pushing a POV and confused the article no end. I am going to revert you edits and we can take it more slowly one point at a time from there. We do not care about facts we care about sources. You cannot remove reliable sources because they disagree with your own POV. The external links are not ruled by any hard and fast quidelines but are mere suggestrtions to readers about what they might find interesting. I am really sorry, but I simply cannot make any sence of your restructuring of the article. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 18:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The division of the artilce is expliciply based on your POV and your own OR intepretation of the history of Chabad. The article is certainly not long enough to be divided up in that fashion. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 19:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Unless I am missing something, it does not appear that Yehoishophot removed any sourced material. He reorganized the article in a logical order, dealing first with his life and after that whatever his view were on various controversies. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the Yoel Kahn becoming Rebbe, see WP:RS#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources, you will need multiple sources to make a claim like that. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
He removed some sourced material about his life and role with the rebbe and replaced it with unsourced and POV stuff. He removed a source from Yediot. He divided up a very small amount of text into three divisions making it look daft. He removed a number of the see alsos. His version is worse in every possible way. If we are going to get Chabad articles in shape we have to strict about not adding unsourced materail, we already have plenty of that. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 00:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I added back the source that he was the Choizer or "Repeater". Regarding the dividing up, it is logical now we just need to find more material on his life. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the see also's they are not being used the right way. Berger is linked in the article and Butman and Steinzaltz have nothing to do with him. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I support Yehoishophot's version. David I think you simply don't know enough about this rabbi, and starting from scrach form newspapers is not giving an acrurate picture about him. I do commend you on making an article about him is he is definitely deservirng for one. I agree with Pinchas and Yehoishophot that you cannot put such a claim about khan as "rebbe" in the article it's total nonsense, no one ever thought of such a thing in Chabad. Shlomke 00:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The see also section has no sources. It's just putting some rabbi's together. Shlomke 00:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

All I know is that no unsourced statements are going to go into this article and no good sources are going to be removed. I don't mind what goes in the see alsos as long as there are a few. Look the article says that there were rumors - it is from a very good source and so this article will quote that source and mention that there were rumors. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 00:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Pinchas what are you going why have you removed the source again? I dont mind if you want reorganise the material, but the material that was there before has to stay, and since no sources have been added nothing new can go in. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 00:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read my comments above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
David, please respond to the points of others on the talk page before reverting the edits of others without consnensus. Thanks. Yehoishophot Oliver 12:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Look I went to great efforts to keep te information that you added in, even though it was not sourced. You then reverted me again, again removing the sources that you dont like, simply because you dont like it. I have no new points to respond to, I can merely reiterate that there is no good reason to remove the good sources and replace it with baltant POV. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 14:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do not remove valid sources

I you three users continue to remove good sources from this (and other) articles, and persist in adding unsourced material to these articles I will lodge an RfC against you. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Justification was given on the talk page for the removal of both sources. The 1st source, the one on the alleged candidacy of Kahn as Rebbe was removed by PinchasC and others per wiki policy that an outlandish claim must have several sources. The other source, where Kahn is quoted as saying that the Rebbe is alive, was removed because it was quoted out of context. You did not address either of the issues raised with your misquotes. On the other article the source was removed because its relevance had not been justified. Report us all you like. Yehoishophot Oliver 05:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Locked

Please contact me when you stop edit warring and reach a consensus and I will be happy to re-open the article for you. —Pilotguy (go around) 14:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kahn as successor

The article given as a source (linked here) does not say there was speculation about Khan being the next rebbe. What it does say is that there was speculation about the existence of a seconed will which names a succsesor. Then the Jurnalist goes on to say how kahn "is mentioned frequently by Chasidim as a man of immense spiritual stature". What's clear is that he does not say the rummors for a successor focus on Khan (or anyone else). I hope this clears up the confusion. Shlomke 01:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)