User talk:Danezra

If you want to see the whole article about it, see Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin. I have been involved in a huge conflict with -mainly- Historian2 there. This 'Historian' claims that Rav Eliashiv, Rav Moshe Halberstam zt'l, Rav Ovadia Yosef etc support them. Read the talk page there and join in if dare. --Daniel575 | (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am familiar with the article. Historian2 is actually the webmaster of thesanhedrin.org and he is using wikipedia to promote the false agenda of this organization.--Danezra 17:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your basis for this claim? --Shirahadasha 22:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wikiuser historian2 is Binyomin, webmaster of thesanhedrin.org. This is very clear in light of the fact that the vast majority of the contributions of historian2 are taken verbatim from the contents of the website thesanhedrin.org and from the posts of "sanhedrin webmaster" in the "Sanhedrin" forum (http://thesanhedrin.org/forums/index.php?c=1). To give you just one quick example, this is what Binyomin writes in the website:

"The current attempt to re-establish the Sanhedrin is the sixth attempt in recent history, but unlike previous attempts, for the first time there seems to be wide consensus among the leading Torah sages living in the Land of Israel for the pressing need for such an institution at this time. Support for such an institution has only been increased due to various actions by the State against the interests of the various religious communities."

(http://www.thesanhedrin.org/en/main/authority.html) (9th paragraph)

Compare this to one of historian2's contributions in wikipedia:

"The current attempt to re-establish the Sanhedrin is the sixth attempt in recent history, but unlike previous attempts, there seems to be wide consensus among the leading Torah sages living in the Land of Israel of the pressing need for such an institution at this time, due to the moral climate created by actions of the State of Israel which have been perceived by communities around the world both Jewish and Gentile as inappropriate."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semicha)

There are thousands of additional examples I can bring to your attention. See, for example, the paragraphs about the "Attempt by Rabbi Jacob Berab, 1538" and the "Attempt by Rabbi Yisroel Shklover, 1830" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semicha and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_attempts_to_revive_the_Sanhedrin#Rabbi_Beirav.2C_the_model_for_the_current_attempt) and carefully compare them to the contents of the "Sanhedrin" website (http://www.thesanhedrin.org/en/main/rabbibeirav.html). I don't have the time to go over all of historian2's contribution right now, but the evidence seems to be overwhelming that historian2 is cutting and pasting his own materials from the website thesanhedrin.org and is using wikipedia to promote the false agenda of this organization. An organization that has claimed the title of "Sanhedrin" despite the lack of evidence thereof, and the refusal of our rabbinical leadership to recognize them as such. --Danezra 22:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, that's very funny, my name is Andrew and I can fax my passport to anyone who wants to see. I am in touch with the webmaster and we are on good relationship, but he is not pleased that I have included so much negative material, especially the article by Rabbi Kaganoff and Chayas.com. As I have entertained the idea of possibly publishing a book on this subject, he has provided me material and pointed out many things that I would not have otherwise known, but I only have included in the wikipage what is publicly available.

As the record shows, originally my only interest reducing the slander against Rabbi Steinsaltz and Rabbi Ariel. I am not pushing any agenda, only quoting sources. Unlike you Daniel who says "This 'Sanhedrin' consists of a bunch of heretics, whose activities should immediately be put to an end in any possible way." --Historian2 07:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was Danezra who wrote the piece claiming that you are the thesanhedrin.org webmaster, not me. And what do you mean by 'sockpuppet'? Are you claiming that I am Danezra? I am not. How nice of you to just accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a sockpuppet of me. --Daniel575 | (talk) 07:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are not a socketpuppet, but it is being checked. --Historian2 08:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get your medications. This accusation is making me sick. I have no idea who Danezra is. You have a very big mental problem if you start seeing ghosts, which you apparently do. Most probably Danezra lives 7000 km away from here, somewhere in the US. --Daniel575 | (talk) 08:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let the facts on this matter speak for themselves:

Fact #1: Propaganda materials from thesanhedrin.org (the website of this controversial organization) are constantly flowing to wikipedia, promoting and giving undue weight to a specific POV. historian2 is reponsible for this propaganda. I would say that about 90% of the "modern attempts" article constains materials that were originally generated by the webmaster of thesanhedrin.org.

Fact #2: The writing style of historian is amazingly similar to that of the webmaster of thesanhedrin.org, and this is clear to anyone who has taken the time to review the posts of the "sanhedrin webmaster" in their forum (http://www.thesanhedrin.org/forums/)

Fact #3: The "sanhedrin webmaster" also claims to be a historian (see http://www.thesanhedrin.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=191, where he explains that his background is history, not dayanus). --Danezra 12:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is all utter nonsense, and frankly quite silly. I would be happy to provide information about myself, Ben of the new Sanhedrin's website and our mutual friend Rabbi Joe Katz of Brooklyn, the "history" projects they are working on and have asked me to participate in. But I don't know what purpose this would serve. I have attempted to not make any copyright violations and attribute everything to its source. Even the pictures that he sent me, I double checked the copyright before allowing them to be posted. If you don't like the material, fix it, change it, do what ever you want - just play by wikipedia rules. There is no "flow" of propaganda materials. Only when Daniel575 made repeated unsourced slurs on Rabbi Steinsaltz, that I became seriously involved. I wrote what I wrote from all the sources that were available to me. Since then I have just sat back and defended it from Daniel575's POV as well as his lack of regard for Sefardim and Yemenites. It seems that if you don't read the Yated, you don't count, at least not as a Hareidi. Welcome to wikipedia, I invite you to make changes. Lets all work to make the pages better & without POV (I'm talking to you Daniel575). --Historian2 17:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Danezra. Also, Historian2 refuses to name the "major university" with which he is associated. Andrew, if you are so sure that you are a historian at a major university, why not publicize your university email address and your personal university website here? Every scientist at a major university has his own website on the university domain. FYI, my email is daniel.vandalen###gmail.com and my name, accordingly, is Daniel van Dalen. You can see this on my user page also, I think. I see no reason to be anonymous here. Your insistence on not allowing us to know what 'major US university' you are associated with is not increasing your credibility, to say the least. So, what 'major US university' are you affiliated with? Harvard, Yale, Boston? Enlighten us. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historian, you are a biased bigot. There are approximately 500,000 Ashkenazi Chareidim in Israel. There are perhaps 10,000 Orthodox Yemenites, maybe 1000 'Rambamists' and maybe 1000 'Temple Mount Faithful'. So, yes, the view of (Ashkenazi) Chareidim is most definitely more important than that of these groups. My remarks about Steinsaltz and Ariel are not unfounded and are not slurs. They are straight from the Yated and are the words of Rav Eliashiv, Rav Nissim Karelitz and Rav Aharon Lein Shteinman. Further, I have no "NK anti-Zionist POV". (If you would check my contributions, you would see that I am seen as one of the main 'pro-Israel' people on the Israel article.) It is you who has a non-neutral POV. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to count the Sefardim - again :-)

And I think you greatly underestimate the number of Hareidi Yemenites, too. They are not as small a group as you suggest. --Historian2 18:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not address Daniel's question regarding your university e-mail & website instead of changing the subject? We are interested in learning about your credentials . . .--Danezra 2:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Danezra, you might want to check this also: Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/September 2006/Historian2. He decided to set this up behind our backs. How nice of him. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely pathetic that he's now crying like a girl and requesting help from an anonymous "wiki-advocate" instead of addressing the issues here. There are many issues that must be addressed by historian2 regarding the source of the materials flowing from thesanhedrin.org and his university contact information. The public is entitled to know about this . . . --Danezra 3:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Specifics on who does and does not support what belong in the Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin article. The Haredi leadership shouldn't be mentioned without mentioning everyone else too-- a lot of people -- and that's what the other article's for. Please discuss in that article. Thanks. Shanah Tovah!! --Shirahadasha 03:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you have decided to appoint yourself as the arbiter of all discussions. To my humble understanding, the Haredi community constitutes the vast majority of the world's observant Jewry, and therefore their views and attitudes will play a decisive role in the future of Orthodox Judaism. Non-observant Jews are not considered part of klal yisroel and therefore their views are not relevant.--Danezra 17:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GO, GO, GO. Thanks for joining us. Cannot explain in words how happy I am to have you joining us here on Wikipedia. I completely agree. Be aware that your last sentence (in which you exclude Reform and Conservative Jews from Klal Yisroel) will not get you many friends aside from me on Wikipedia. See WP:ORBCW and WP:OJ also, by the way. --Daniel575 | (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia WP:NPOV does not permit giving undue weight to the views of only one group. In addition, opinions must be consistent with the Reliable source policy, and you provided no sources for the view you expressed. You are welcome to present your views in a manner which complies with these policies. If you disagree, perhaps we should pursue one of Wikipedia's dispute resolution avenues. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this be better to be discussed on the relevant "talk" page? --Historian2 18:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danezra: see Modern_attempts_to_revive_the_Sanhedrin#The_debate_stirred_within_the_Haredi_camp this. It is shocking but true that the article simply repeats that Rav Eliashiv, Rav Moshe Halberstam zt'l, Rav Zalman Nechamia Goldberg and others gave their brochos to the 'Sanhedrin' thing. This is slander, lies. I have been involved in a very large fight with Historian2 about this, but to no avail. The slanderous lies against the gedolim persist. Would you feel like helping along in getting this reference to the gedolim removed, or balanced with the truth? --Daniel575 | (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]