Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:15, 30 November 2006

With regards to your comments on User:Daniel575: Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Archive 1 - Archive 2

Come back, Daniel !

Dear Daniel: Please do not let the normal tug-and-pull of life on Misplaced Pages get to you. What do you expect, you are a controversial editor, and why would you imagine that you would not face strong opposition from other editors who also have strong views? That's life, as they say, get over it! I do not believe that anything thus far that has happened should warrant to drive you away. Sure, Misplaced Pages editors face all sorts of pressures and stresses. There are a few articles devoted to this subject at Misplaced Pages:Wikiholiday (aka wikibreak, or wikivacation) "...a period when even a wikiholic must be parted from the Misplaced Pages - though, it is hoped, only temporarily." See also Category:Wikistress and the definitions of Wikistress: "i.e. Wikipediastress is stress caused by Misplaced Pages and its sister projects, or, more specifically, caused by vandals, trolls, edit wars and incivility (behavior that creates an atmosphere of animosity and disrespect. Incivility is a source of conflict and a cause of wikistress)." So may I respectfully suggest that you re-consider your rash move. Take your time to relax and refresh yourself, and come back soon, because Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. Misplaced Pages is meant to be FUN and enjoyable! Lehitra'ot and COME BACK, you still have much more good editing and information to contribute. IZAK 09:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

All those who agree, sign below:

• IZAK 09:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• --Shuki 21:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Taking a break is always healthy, but please do not leave, we need you. At least add a 'bli neder' to your parting words.
• Chavatshimshon 02:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• --Shaul avrom 22:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock|changed my mind, I can't stay away anyway...}}

Unblocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so, I'm back temporarily. Only for the Zionism-related wars here. Especially the articles 1929 Hebron massacre and Haredim and Zionism. --Daniel575 | (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. Did I hear "edit-wars"? Did I hear "only here for edit-wars"? (rummaging through my cupboard to find some makeup and a banhammer...) -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What I hear is vandalism and blanking information from articles without giving a good reason. After these two issues have been solved I am going to leave forever. --Daniel575 | (talk) 11:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Increasingly, practising Jews are going public about the threat that the Zionists present to the Jews. Have a look at this article - THE MILLIONS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED - By I. Domb, chronicles of Rabbi Michael Ber Weissmandl ... published in New York in 1961 in Hebrew. "Rabbi Weissmandl and his colleagues read the letter, but they could not believe it had been written by fellow Jews. ....... a further letter. It fully explained the first. But it was more deadly and more devastating. It disclosed the bottomless abyss to which born-Jews can sink - the responsibility of Zionism".

The contribution of people like yourself is becoming more important, not less ........

PalestineRemembered 19:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

1929 Hebron massacre

Hi Daniel,

I'm not really sure why you are insisting on including the Kaplan passage. While I don't think the site that you are quoting from is a legitimate RS (

Kaplan's quote seems understated, a bigger and more specific clip seems required: "I would like to describe the error that has circulated in Jewish communities – a horrible error, that accuses the Arabs in Hebron of being murderers who attacked the Jews simply because the Arabs were “bad people.” In order to correct the record, this error must be corrected. The Arabs were very friendly people, and the Jewish People in Hebron lived together with them and had very friendly relations with them. They worked for Jews, and everybody got along just fine."

Kaplan goes on "Today’s wicked Zionists are just like their predecessors, who were responsible for causing terrible suffering in Palestine with their wars with the Arabs, may G-d have mercy.", I'd think that was fairly plain.

If you need a Reliable Source for this kind of thing (though not, in this case, refering to Hebron 1929), look up this new book: "A threat from within" (sub-titled "Jewish Opposition to Zionism") by Yakov M. Rabkin, Professor of History, University of Montreal. Published in French 2004, translated 2006. p136 The memoirs of a German general attached to the Ottoman troops in Palestine during World War I present a point of view distant from intra-Jewish polemics: "How curious that the war has brought about an upsurge in the struggle between the Zionists and the non-Zionists, a battle that has turned ugly and done little to further the interests of Jews in general. The non-Zionists, that is to say those Jews who had no political objectives and who belonged to the Orthodox current, at the time the preponderant majority in Palestine. The Zionists residing there represented no more than 5 percent of the population, but were very active and fanatical, and terrorized the non-Zionists. During the war, the non-Zionists attempted to free themselves from the Zionist terror with the aid of the Turks. They rightly feared that the activities of the Zionists would destroy their good relations that prevailed amongst long-time Jewish residents in Palestine and the Arabs" (Von Kressenstein).

PalestineRemembered 07:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any opinion about whether the Kaplan statement should go in or out. On the one hand, it could be conduit POV (getting POV into an article by sying it through someone else). On the other hand, it is a 1st person account of the event and the aftermath. My tendency at this point is to agree with Daniel, but I'm staying out of the discussion for now. What I do object to is labeling the JewsNotZionists website "illegitimate." What makes it illegitimate? The fact that you don't agree with it? To my knowledge, nobody has ever credibly accused that site (or any of the other sites to which Daniel frequently cites) of including inaccurate facts. --Meshulam 17:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

To tewfik why don't you think it is an RS? Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 18:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It would also be interesting for Tewfik to explain why he does consider the "Jewish Community of Hebron" (ie, of the Israeli settlers there) a RS. Or a 'journalis/historian' living in Kiryat Arba. Or the ultra-right wing 'Professors for a Strong Israel'. And yet has the guts to claim that JewsAgainstZionism is not a RS. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to be politically correct or anything, but when we have one group alleging there is/was racist hatred going on, and another group claiming this is not the case (or, as here, was deliberately caused by outsiders and even bombers), I feel that the "good-faith" position is to offer the "tolerance" message at least equal-weight with the "hatred" message.

Sadly, at this length of time people's memories because much less reliable. Maybe Kaplan suffered such discrimination in his new life that he remembers the old through rose-tinted spectacles. However, I suspect it's those who recall the "hatred" message who are the less reliable of the two groups. Times are bound to be much, much better in modern New York or Tel-Aviv than they were in (likely?) poverty-struck 1920s Hebron. It would be a big mistake to let this be translated into "Arabs hated us and we hated them".

PalestineRemembered 18:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Daniel575, is it possible that you can find the book in which Rabbi Boruch Kaplan's remarks are recorded? Then you could quote them directly and arguments about the website would become irrelevant. Actually there is another similar case involving the article Chaim Michael Dov Weissmandl. See the talk page there. I got into a small dispute by linking to the well-known "Ten Questions for Zionists" article copied on the same j.a.z. website. I wanted to link to this because otherwise it is difficult to convey the depth of emotion Rav Weissmandl felt on this issue (whether or not he was correct on the facts). I decided to track down the original document and found that it appears in the original Yiddish in the book "Mishkenos Haro'im". However I don't have that book and can't read Yiddish anyway. Any chance you can find it? Cheers, Zero 12:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC).

Question

Why in an article about a massacre is there a comment on Zionists having provoked it? Is it relevant!? Is it important for readers of all backgrounds to know this detail in a plain historical context? As religious Jews don't we all know this fact without having to argue on its inclusion in this article?! All the guys talking back and forward here are frum, and know that 'zionists', though not present in Hebron might have had some responsibility in causing that incident. Its just not relevant in this article. nuff said. I propose for it to be moved to a separate article on the subject, if there is one.Chavatshimshon 21:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Most people do not know it. Only frum people, chareidim, know it. Others don't. The vast majority of Misplaced Pages readers are not chareidim. And no, there is not and cannot be a separate article on that. --Daniel575 | (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you said you won't be coming back, I don't know who I'm talking with, but are you implying that only charedim are frum? That is how your sentence above now reads. Yossiea 22:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

H.com #2. There we go again. 'Frum' in Yiddish/chareidi-speak is not the same as 'frum' in Anglo-Modern Orthodox speak. Frum to me means a black hat and jacket and white shirt. That's the same definition which most chareidim that I know use. I do not know any chareidim who would call modern-orthodox 'frum'. I'm not going to discuss that any further. It's not in any way related to the subject we are talking about. --Daniel575 | (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This exchange between you two has lots its objectivity. Chavatshimshon 01:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really, this proves all of us right. Debating with Daniel is not possible. He believes that only people 100% like him are frum. Anybody else's opinion can therefore be disregarded as the rantings of a non-frum person. Yossiea 14:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't know any charedim who would call MO people 'frum'? I'm sad to say that I think you're hanging out in the wrong part of town. If frum to you means a black hat and jacket and white shirt, what do you call religious Jews who don't wear a white shirt? Are you saying that your religion is based more on what you wear than on how you act? That is very sad. Yossiea 14:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, your right about it being H.com#2(I saw that on H.com, I'm signed up for it but lost my password)But, with what you are saying, you are making yourself out as a modernish Yid. By the way, white shirts are way better when it is hot out(Chabadtalk post)--Shaul avrom 01:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Sholom Oleichem, Mine Chaveirim Hak'doishim

Sorry for the confusion

I'm not familiar at all how one stops being a Jew via the Halacha. I hadn't realized that some Christian believers do not believe baptism is a requirement for salvation -- in particular, the Methodists who's forbears, the Methodist Episcopalians published the 1894 source which our earliest evidence of Mr. Lichtenstein. Please note that the older traditions are a little more clear on who is a Christian and who is not; that's where I was coming from on that. -- Kendrick7 09:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I liked your link; although, I had forgotten how long-winded a cleric can be without actually saying anything, I think the Rabbi's next to last paragraph makes a good suggestion (vis a vis how a Jew views the holiness of other Jews) that hadn't occured to me. In leiu of a baptism or something akin to a Jewish excommunication, there's still no clear definition there of when exactly the conversion would have taken place in the case of Lichtenstein. It's not really clear -- whatever it is that the Messianic Jews have to say decades later -- that, even if Rabbi Lichtenstien declared Jesus the Messiah, whether he meant that in the Jewish sense of the word, or the Christian one, such that he in anyway condemned Jews who had not come to his point of view. I have no idea what the Messianic Jews' general view on that would be, but we can't project their biases backwards on this gentleman. And while maybe American Methodists might have decided he was a Christian merely through a profession of faith, there's little indication that any Hungarian Christian would have viewed him as such. -- Kendrick7 23:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just saw your message. Guess you didn't like my clarifications? Anyway, if this is going to become an article content dispute, and if Isaac Lichtenstein survives its AfD, we should pick this up at Talk:Isaac Lichtenstein. -- Kendrick7 23:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:NotJudaism

The template you created, Template:NotJudaism, has been speedily deleted, by me, under CSD criteria T1. Misplaced Pages is not a place for polemics, nor is it a soapbox. Please do not recreate this template again. Proto::type 10:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hi guys: Just for the record it was me who created the template originally and it was later recreated by User:Daniel575. So now it's blanked, like thousands of othe templates. What's the big deal? IZAK 20:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Recreation..

Please do not re-create this template again, it will be speedily deleted. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Jew becoming aChristian

You said that when Jew becoems a Christian, he stops being a Jew ac. to Halacha. Where is that law written? I'm about 100% sure that it is the opposite.--Meshulam 11:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Daniel

Please refrain from describing your fellow Wikipedians as 'anti-semitic British akum' - it is derogatory (). Consider this a warning for incivility. See WP:CIVIL. Proto::type 13:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

In addition, I consider your posting on your page to be a personal attack against me. That is certainly not the behavior I expect from a Charedi Jew. It is also against several Wiki guidelines. Yossiea 16:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Oh, the humanity! I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for yours, and I hope I'll still have it the next time around. Kafziel 13:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please chill

Daniel, please chill. You've clearly got lots to offer the project but you're going to get yourself blocked by edit warring and name-calling and that would be a shame (and btw there are very few ovdei kochavim in the UK). --Dweller 16:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please keep the following in mind

Rambam, Mada, Hilchos Teshuva, Perek Alef, Halacha Daled -- Sof D'varav. V'hamayvin Yavin -- Avi 00:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

וכן כל מחוייבי מיתות בית דין, ומחוייבי מלקות--אין מתכפר להם במיתתם או בלקייתם, עד שיעשו תשובה ויתוודו. וכן החובל בחברו או המזיק ממונו--אף על פי ששילם לו מה שהוא חייב לו--אין מתכפר לו, עד שיתוודה וישוב מלעשות כזה לעולם: שנאמר "מכל חטאות האדם"--Dweller 08:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you referring to with this? --Daniel575 | (talk) 08:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The above quote is actually mistaken, in that the printed versions of the Rambam have Perek Alef parsed into four halachos, not 12. However, I was referring to this:

-- Avi 15:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Guys, all of you cool it and stop the (over)-dramatics with all the Rambams and whatnot. Stop picking on Daniel just talk to him calmly! Talking of which, did any of you notice that the List of Messianic Judaism important figures article lists Maimonides as one of them and I just removed it because the Rambam writes against Jesus specifically in the Yad HaChazakah. Your attention is needed over there where outright lies are being presented as "facts" and not here, tearing Daniel to shreds. He has improved over time, and no doubt will continue to do so with encouragement and not threats gleaned from the Rambam or wherever. The rules of Misplaced Pages are just fine without bringing in Hilchos Teshuva etc. Thanks. IZAK 21:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Request

Daniel to be blunt, many of your comments on the messianic articles are if anything just making the non-Messianic editors look bad. This is aside from the policy problems with them. At this point, I think you would help the most by staying out of the topic. JoshuaZ 22:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)