Jump to content

Talk:Yitzchak Hutner

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


History

[edit]

IZAK, I imagine it was you that wrote this. Just a little trivia for you: Rav Hutner's connection with YU actually began in Hebron. Belkin, who was later president of YU, studied with him in the Yeshiva. Also the relationship with Rav Kook was a little more complicated than that. In fact, he may even have gotten smicha (ordination) from him. Danny

Ok, sounds fine to me. I know that he was extremely close with Rav Kook. About Belkin, I'm not sure. I thought Dr. Belkin learnt in Telz and then came over to America, I was unaware that Rabbi Belkin was in Hebron. But that needs to be researched in an entry for Rabbi Belkin himself. IZAK

While it is not a written source, I know that Belkin was my grandfather's roommate in Hebron (and my grandfather did get smicha from Rav Kook at the same time). Danny

Can't argue with your primary source...so you must have a treasure of information about those timesIZAK

Last years in Israel

[edit]

The reference to his last years in Israel mention that the Yeshiva hs founded was Pachad Yitzchak. I have heard that when he moved to Israel he co-founded Yeshiva Beis HaTalmud together with R' Schwartzman the ex-son-in-law of R'Aharon Kotler. I was told that the partnership was extremely unsuccfessful. If someone has some more info on this time and could add it to the article, it would enhance the end of his bio and make it sound not so vague.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.218.124 (talk • contribs)

Misleading sentence

[edit]

I removed the following since I don't know the subject and the sentence is easily misinterpreted since it is not gramatically correct. If you know how to fix this, please put it back.

Neither of these two however consider themself as countinuing in Rabbi Hutners path, or that he would approve of there doings.

Mrendo 6 July 2005 18:49 (UTC)

Rabbi Hutner was Haredi

[edit]

It seems that User:Nesher seems to think that Rabbi Hutner was not Haredi because he went to university for a brief period as a young student (it was not more than one year according to reliable biographies!) BEFORE he ever imgained that he would be famous at all in any way, or was once close to Rav Kook (who died in the early 1930s -- before the advent of the State of Israel, and again, when Rabbi Hutner was a young yeshiva student), and so he reverts him to Category:Orthodox rabbis. While Rav Hutner certainly had an eclectic backround in his YOUTH, yet he was SUBSEQUENTLY -- many years later-- best known as the rosh yeshiva of the Haredi Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin for fifty years, and in the last twenty years of his life he was a leading member of the Moetzet Gedolei HaTorah of the Haredi Agudath Israel of America. He then moved to Israel to establish a new Haredi yeshiva in Israel, and was regarded as a Haredi sage by all the other leading Haredi leaders in Israel. It seems that User:Nesher is unaware that in the United States many non-Hasidic Haredim go to college and become professionals AND that they do so, or have done so, when at the same time attending Haredi yeshivas such as Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin, Yeshiva Torah Vodaas, Yeshiva Ner Yisrael: Ner Israel Rabbinical College and others. This may be unusual to some people's self-annointed "defintions" of what being "Haredi" means, but the heads of these institutions, like Rav Hutner, and their students and graduates are Haredim, whether they remain in the United States or move to Israel. By the way, would anyone say that the Baal Teshuva yeshivas IN ISRAEL Ohr Somayach, Jerusalem and Aish HaTorah are "not Haredi" since almost all the faculty, including its rosh yeshivas and ALL the students previously went to college and/or university in America? Obviously not, since they actually "produce" newly-minted Haredim! Seems that User:Nesher is confusing the attendance of university by Haredim with the members of Modern Orthodoxy who are rightly NOT Haredi because of the centrality of Yeshiva University to them which is an entirely different kettle of fish in comparison to the policies of those Haredi American yeshivas that allow their students to go to college and are even recognized to provide part of the credits towards the secular degrees. This can be a confusing issue but it needn't become a surrogate battleground for other ideological issues that have nothing to do with the Haredi American yeshivas and their leaders who are Haredi and at the same time have a positive attitude to secular education. This is a long subject indeed. IZAK 07:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Position paper?

[edit]

Unfortunately, this article reads like a position paper. There is no justification for the numerous un-sourced speculations. I would list them, but they are so obvious that there really is no point. If I had the time, I would correct the more egregious ones. It is pretty sad that Wikipedia is dominated by bored agenda-driven people. 38.117.213.19 10:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Amen, No agenda should be displayed here[reply]

  • You can always go to ArtScroll to read hagiography, if you have time in between your busy life. Be constructive, please list your points and then a proper discussion can ensue. It would also help if you would bother to get a user ID and then your credibility will rise otherwise you come across like a grumpy troll. IZAK 09:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Hutner and Chabad Lubavitch

[edit]

I've removed some unsourced statements regarding Rabbi Hutners supposed criticism of Lubavitch and the Lubavitcher Rebbe. The Chabad library has recently published a volume of interesting historical documents from their archives, among which are letters of RH to the LR. Both the reverence with which RH addresses the LR, as well as the substance of the exchanges put the lie to this supposed 'fierce criticism' rather unequivocally. I hope to add more interesting information to the article from these documents shortly. Winchester2313 (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored this obviously true material, with a reliable source. It is well known that, despite any person feelings he might have had towards Schneerson, Hutner was a very fierce critic of the movement and its adoration of Schneerson. And please don't bother bringing primary sources for the purpose of original research. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the material is so 'obviously true' - you shouldn't have any trouble sourcing it accurately. The reference you quoted does not, at all substantiate the claim. Same goes for your spurious claim that this is 'well known'. At best, what Jayig has attempted here is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position. I have therefore reverted his edit. Winchester2313 (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by "you shouldn't have any trouble sourcing it accurately. The reference you quoted does not, at all substantiate the claim." Can you explain further, or why it would be a "Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position"? I had already provided the very page and footnote numbers, so the sourcing has been very accurate. Here are the exact quotes in the article:

p. 79: "Rabbi Hutner relentlessly sustained a biting critique of the Lubavitcher movement on a number of grounds...", p. 187 footnote 41: "Rabbi Hutner was opposed to the personality cult built up around the Lubavitcher Rebbe, and to the public projection of both the Rebbe and the Lubavitch movement, by the movement, through public media-print and broadcast journalism, books, film, and the like."

That would seem pretty clear; what "Synthesis" do you allege? Jayjg (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding the article discussions

[edit]

Please discuss points and information you may dispute, and your reasoning, but do not remove material by blanket reverts that are counter-productive. If you wish to request more sources etc please do so by contacting other editors or by placing a note at WP:TALKJUDAISM for example. Please adhere to: (1) Wikipedia:Civility; (2) Wikipedia:Etiquette; (3) Wikipedia:No personal attacks; (4) Wikipedia:Assume good faith; (5) Wikipedia:Edit warring. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Points about Yitzchok Hutner in the article you AGREE with or SUPPORT:

Please state your reasons in as much detail as possible:


Points about Yitzchok Hutner in the article you DISAGREE with or DISPUTE:

Please state your reasons in as much detail as possible:

I have no problem discussing valid points for either inclusion or deletion, but suggest that you refrain from making large edits which include highly debatable, unverified, and controversial assertions before achieving consensus. I have cited a few examples below.Winchester2313 (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable information and accurate quotes from sources.

[edit]

USER:IZAK has recently made a significant number of edits to this page, which do not conform to the WP:VERIFIABILITY rule, and imho, also violate wp:nor and wp:npov. I will cite only a few of the most egregious examples below, and request that USER:IZAK refrain from further adding any further wp:unsourced and wp:challenged information to the page.

1. Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin was NOT founded by Rabbi Hutner, in fact its existence preceded his arrival to the US by more than thirty years!

2. Aaron Schechter cannot be listed as Hutners 'designated successor' as the matter has been the subject on a never resolved ongoing dispute with Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach and others, which has involved various legal summonses etc., including the involvement of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein. The way the paragraphs inserted by USER:IZAK read are misleading and definitely wp:unsourced.

  • Shlomo Carlebach was only a mashgiach ruchani and never the rosh yeshiva. Hutner rejected Carlebach and his claims in his own lifetime. That's just the way it was, but obviously you are ignorant of this. Carlebach, as was his right, went to an outside beth din to fight for his claims, but HUTNER did not appoint Carlebach an heir and in fact he FIRED him. The only claim Carlebach has is that he should still be the mashgiach but not that he wished to be rosh yeshiva. Carlebach wanted to keep his job as mashgiach but lost his gamble to the two roshei yeshiva, the old one (Hutner) and the new one (Schechter). Such is life and them's the facts. Schechter has headed the place for 30 years without dispute. I notice you say nothing about Hutner's son-in-law Rav Yonason David being the other designated heir but meant to mainly run the yeshiva in Israel as rosh yeshiva while also retaining his right to being rosh yeshiva in Brooklyn permitted by Halacha, as the chasana debei nesia exactly like the 7th Lubavitcher Rebbe took over from his father-in-law the 6th Lubavitcher Rebbe. IZAK (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on whom you ask - many CB old-timers will tell you that Yonoson David was shunted off to Israel because he was made to feel VERY unwelcome by RAS & Fruchthandler, and didn't want to stay and fight like Carlebach (look where that got him). The fact remains that Aaron Schechter today is a 'lo tsayis dina' as per R'Moshe, so please don't lecture me with presumptuous ignorance. Regardless, none of this can go into the article, nor can your opinions about designated successors, until they are credibly sourced. Winchester2313 (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is simply untrue, and was the subject of the summons to a din-torah sent to Rabbi Schechter and Mr. Fruchthandler by R' Moshe Feinstein, which they simply ignored. This is all well-known history, and your choice to ignore same does not qualify it for insertion into an encyclopedia. Your version is simple POV, highly debatable, and therefore needs sources to be included. Winchester2313 (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mention disagreements and it will go into the article when you stop with your vandalism and blanket reverts. You should try discussions before reverting. What do you know about all the disputes and dinei torah of Rav Hutner? Can you name them all? There were many disputes. Should they all go into this article? Some will violate WP:LIBEL, the parties are still alive, and because WP does not have the freedom of a blog. And it's funny how while you complain about the Carlebach dispute, at the same time you wish to utterly cover up Rav Hutner's long-standing disputes and disagreements with Chabad and the 6th and 7th Rebbes. IZAK (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, IF you have credible sources, put it into the article, and nobody will revert you. Winchester2313 (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. One might assume that the primary value of references is that they provide the reader with the ability to see what was actually said. Goldbergs book quite clearly quotes an anonymous (pseudonym) 'Saul' as the sole source for Hutners supposed 'fierce criticism' which seems to fly in the face of much conflicting evidence. So it is correct to cite Goldberg as quoting "an anonymous source" which is exactly what he does.

  • NOPE: Goldberg, makes his OWN statements and ALSO uses a source. I rely only on Goldberg's own words! I have the book in front of me and I can read. Get a copy will you! IZAK (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. Likewise when USER:IZAK modifies actual quotes from both Hutners work and the 'Mibeis Hagenozim' sources quoted, this amounts to vandalism and is another violation of wp:ew. Winchester2313 (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any more tripe you want to come with? You are now an official VANDAL for reverting ALL my good faith work while I am still in the middle. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have not provided a source for;

"Hutner had a mixed attitude to the Chabad movement. While he had positive personal relationships and friendships with the sixth Rebbe [[Yosef Yitzchok Schneersohn] and his son-in-law who became the seventh Rebbe of Chabad Menachem Mendel Schneerson, he nevertheless would often openly critique the leaders and the movement to his closest students."

"He would not allow them to attend Chabad farbrengens (celebrations) and it was rare that a disciple of Hutner would cross over to Chabad even though they shared the same neighborhood in Crown Heights, Brooklyn where Hutner's Kollel Gur Aryeh Talmudic graduate school was located from 1956 to 1966. " This paragraph looks like blatant POV, and should be removed if it cannot be sourced. Winchester2313 (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for "Hutner conveyed this to his own followers and they have retained Hutner's antipathies to Chabad." Unsourced POV ? Winchester2313 (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • So you think Hutner's talmidim are pro Chabad? Is that why they all support Rav Shach? You have a real problem with the facts it seems and it's a great pity that you are abusing WP:LAWYERING to get your way, but not for long. IZAK (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This too sounds like more unsourced POV;

"Hutner discouraged students from attending Yeshiva University although he welcomed a number of Yeshiva University studnets into his own yeshiva. He reportedly forbade his students from attending any lectures given by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik while at the same time apponting Soloveitchik's younger brother, whom he had tutored in Warsaw, Rabbi Ahron Soloveichik (later to head his own yeshiva in Skokie near Chicago, Illinois) as head of his own Yeshivas Rabbi Chaim Berlin. Ahron Soloveichik completed a Doctorate in law at New York University at the same time that he lectured in Hutner's Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin."

and should be removed pending verifiable sources, as per WP:VERIFY. Winchester2313 (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have a great source for this, from William Helmreich's book "The World of the Yeshiva" but you are not letting me do my work by reverting, as well as from Goldberg's book. Two books with good information that you are now violating with WP:NOTCENSORED. IZAK (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite fair, talking while an ANI case opens

[edit]

First I try to add in material. Then Winchester swoops in and blanket reverts. He says he'd like "sources." I work on adding sources, he still reverts everything. Then I try again by adding more material and while working on sources, all very good, Winchester blanket reverts everything I try to add and wipes it out again. I try to put the material in with sources to improve the article and I ask Winchester to take it to talk. He refuses to talk and reverts everything 3 times getting to the verge of WP:3RR. Then out of the blue, Winchester decides to talk about stuff he has reverted that is not in his version of the article. So if he cuts it out, Winchester has the best of both worlds, he cuts and demands talk after the fact, like a surgeon who wants to discuss how well he has done amputations. That is not the way it works. Material is included and then discussed, requests can and should be made for sources, but not with hot air threats in violation of WP:CIVIL, everything is NOT chopped out in bulk by blanket reverts and then put on the butcher block for "discussions" for me to "defend" while Winchester holds on to his revert button and has already cut everything he does not like out. He is acting like a literal gatekeeper violating WP:OWN as he frazzles those he disagrees with by abuse of WP:LAWYERING and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, not to mention his lack of WP:CIVIL and WP:E, known in mama loshen as derech eretz. I have had enough of this for now until it can all be resolved. It is pointless to debate with an automatic habitual reverter now, (a) because I don't like edit wars (I hate them as I am sure most normal people do to avoid confrontations) and so I avoid them like the plague!, and (b) because Winchester has slashed the material he disputes, a lot of it, out of this article so the discussion is hypothetical, it's not about what should be in the article, it's about what Winchester decides should go into the article since by inclination and habit I am an inclusionist, and (c) the deeper ramifications of Winchester's antics are in question now that I have opened a case against Winchester at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Winchester2313, so let's deal with that and then see if we can at a later time get back to normal editing here. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. When your edits involve posting critical information about individuals and organizations, provide the sources FIRST, and then add the material. WP:VERIFY is quite clear, and you know that the information you keep trying to add here is controversial. I will remove those paragraphs you've added now, and have no objection to your restoration with credible sources. Winchester2313 (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Goldberg was very credible, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is a lame excuse and you know it! There is no "rule" about writing articles. I am not a robot. No one can do everything at once. What are you so afraid of that you keep on fighting, fighting, fighting. IZAK (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not what this is about. Controversial statements and blatant POV like;

1."Hutner had a mixed attitude to the Chabad movement" (which is also grammatically incorrect...)

2."he nevertheless would often openly critique the leaders and the movement to his closest students"

3."He would not allow them to attend Chabad farbrengens (celebrations) and it was rare that a disciple of Hutner would cross over to Chabad even though they shared the same neighborhood in Crown Heights"

  • Both Hutner's Kollel Gur Aryeh and Chabad were in Crown Heights. Not one known Lubavitcher was a former Hutner disciple. There is no record of such, in spite of all the cheek by jowl closeness. IZAK (talk) 07:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, wp:nor. For a veteran editor, you certainly seem determined to avoid some basic rules, not to mention that your claim is simply false- yes, a lie. Yitzchok Dovid Groner (for one) was a star disciple of Rabbi Hutners, and left to Lubavitch, although he maintained contact with Hutner for the next 30-odd years Winchester2313 (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do not use that word LIE, it is a violation of WP:NPA. Groners are a Lubavitch family. It was they who came to Hutner. They name their kids for Shneur Zalman, the first Rebbe, that precedes Hutner by six generations. You just want to fight, fight, fight. IZAK (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4."Hutner conveyed this to his own followers and they have retained Hutner's antipathies to Chabad"

5."Hutner discouraged students from attending Yeshiva University although he welcomed a number of Yeshiva University studnets into his own yeshiva. He reportedly forbade his students from attending any lectures given by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik ..."

all require credible sourcing. Winchester2313 (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your "objections" are moot for now because: (a) You have in any case chopped all this out without letting me put in the sources. (b) You are violating WP:OWN and WP:NOTCENSORED; (c) You have reverted my edits 4 times now in 24 hours in violation of WP:3RR, despite my multiple pleas to discuss. (d) You are only talking now because I opened a case against you at ANI. (e) Your multiple violations of WP:HARASSMENT since you joined under this user name for almost one year, long before we even crossed paths, is under review at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Winchester2313, so (f) no point to spinning my wheels with you until the dust settles at ANI and let's see what they do. IZAK (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tags?

[edit]

Jayjg has recently tagged part of this article with WP:OR and WP:RS. Which particular sources are you questioning, and on which basis ? Thanks, Winchester2313 (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources given are "Igros Kodesh, Kehot 1986-2008 Volumes 7- pgs.2,49,192,215, 12- pgs. 28,193, 14-pgs.167,266, 18- pgs.251, 25- pgs.18-20, & 26, p'485, Mibeis Hagenozim, S.B. Levine, Kehot 2009, p.88-98". Which of these you think meet the qualifications outlined in WP:RS, and why you think they do so? Note, not which you personally believe to be reliable, but which you believe meet the qualifications outlined in WP:RS. Also, which of these sources state that Hutner "corresponded regularly with Schneerson over the years, seeking his views on a variety of halakhic, chassidic and kabbalistic subjects, and occasionally seeking his blessing"? Please quote them "directly and explicitly" doing so. Jayjg (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the exact words in 'Mibeis Hagenozim' are;

"Over the years he had several private audiences with the Rebbe, and continued to correspond with him, requesting the Rebbe's explanations on subjects of Halacha, Chasidus and Kabbalah. Some of these replies appear in collection of the Rebbe's letters Igros Kodesh...... Of note is Rabbi Hutner's obvious deep respect for the Rebbe and for his valuable time, his requests for the Rebbe's blessings...." There is more in that same chapter, but this should suffice. Kehot Publication Society meets the standards delineated at WP:RS. Winchester2313 (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly doubt either this book or Kehot qualify as WP:RS, particularly when they're writing about a known critic of Chabad. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your doubts notwithstanding, the book clearly makes the WP:RS cut, and although 'Mibeis Hagnozim' is a secondary source, its substantiation by presentation of original documentation deem it highly credible. Your claim that R' Hutner was a 'known critic' of Chabad is meaningless lacking much serious documentation. One author citing an anonymous source doesn't exactly create precedent. Taken to its logical conclusion, your theory would be that material published by any religious group relating to themselves fails WP:RS - if that's what you're saying then half of Wiki becomes unsourced?! Winchester2313 (talk) 06:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree totally. Kehos is a reputable publishing company, and Rabbi Levin is an authority on matters of Chabad history, on which he has written many well-researched books. Concerning Rabbi Hutner, although over the decades he expressed some critique of some things, the utmost respect in which he held the Rebbe is apparent from the correspondence printed in Igros Kodesh, the precise references for which are given! Or do you not understand Hebrew?? Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Hutner was NOT a "disciple" of the Lubavitcher Rebbe

[edit]

To both Winchester and Yehoishophot:

  1. Firstly, no need to insult User:Jayjg who has ben around a long time and knows Hebrew quite well, so don't violate WP:NPA and WP:AGF.
  2. Secondly, yes, it is true that Rav Hutner, like Rav Shach, were not personal "enemies" of the Rebbe, that is not in question, even though almost all pro-Chabad POV editors on the Rav Shach talk page unfortunately try to depict Rav Shach as one notch below Hitler ym"sh.
  3. Thirdly, while Rav Hutner was friendly with the Rebbe and respected him, it does NOT mean to say that he supported Chabad and the Rebbe either with his shittos (attitudes and views) or with his hashkofas (outlook and philosophies), and that is the big mistake you are making and the confusion you are generating.
  4. Therefore, fourthly, for you to insinuate that somehow or other that Rav Hutner was a "supporter" or even a "chosid" (disciple) of some sort of the Rebbe is a pure fabrication and you know it, or at least you should and would know it if you weren't so fanatical about being pro-Chabad POV editors and constantly misusing WP:LAWYERING to manipulate arguments and spin your wheels to no end.
  5. Fifthly, the great rabbonim and their disciples did NOT go around and publish all of their sharpest views, but any person who ever met or heard Rav Hutner or was his student for any decent length of time, knows for a fact that Rav Hutner issued constant streams of criticisms of both the Rebbe and his movement, even though he was still a personal friend and would stay in touch with the Rebbe, this is what is called a "machlokes leshem shomayim" (dispute for the sake of heaven) and it IS a machlokes, NOT for the sake of machlokes (dispute) but based on hashkafic (philosophical outlook) foundations.
  6. The fact that at least two sources exist, so far, in reliable books, written by reliable scholars that document, NO MATTER HOW BRIEFLY OR SUCCINCTLY the criticisms by Rav Hutner of both Chabad and YU, does NOT make them "lesser" citations that you dismiss.
  7. It is no use coming up with letters FROM CHABAD !!! that Rav Hutenr wrote to the Rebbe (Kehot is THE ULTIMATE PRO-CHABAD POV SOURCE!!! in any case) because (a) those kind of sources can be questioned, see WP:NOR, and (b) obviously in any case that was part of the personal friendship between them.
  8. For you to make KEHOT the basis of this article would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:POV, because quite simply, on the public policy level so to speak, Rav Hutner was an opponent of Chabad and the Rebbe on many points, in spite of his admiration of much of what they were doing in Jewish outreach and their mesorah (tradition) in Chasidus and Tanya.
  9. It is also utterly bizarre and ludicrous that pro-Chabad POV editors have perched themselves on non-Chabad rabbis' articles, such as on Rav Shach's and Rav Hutner's and have taken upon themselves a cute job of revisionism to re-paint Rav Shach and Rav Hutner in ways that no one who knows or knew them outside of Chabad would recognize.
  10. All this, while it is known that the Chabad party-line, that in effect you constantly represent, views both Rav Shach and Rav Hutner as true rivals and therefore tries to depict them as either morons and ogres (in the case of Rav Shach) or as fans and supporters of the Rebbe and Chabad (in the case of Rav Hutner) which is just an utter fallacy and delusion on your part.
  11. Please try to understand the above, even better, why not edit in so many areas where you could truly help, like improving articles about Tanach, Chumash where you could add KEHOT's views to counter the invasion of non-Torah views, that is better than the road of constant WP:WAR and WP:LAWYER that just shows your tendentious pro-Chabad POV editing and warring over and over and over again ad nauseum, as I have amply demonstrated many times. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no place where anyone implied that Rabbi Hutner considered himself a chossid of the Rebbe. Could you please quote me the phrase that you think implies that? This is very exaggerated, and deliberately so, it seems. All that was said was that he was not the opponent that some make him out as. Kehot in this case is simply the secondary source for the fact that these letters exist, so that quoting the letters won't be considered OR. The letters themselves are freely available for reading to anyone who knows Hebrew, and the exact references have been cited. Your claim that even on this simple reporting of fact that we can easily confirm to be true, Kehos must not be quoted, is ludicrous. As are your other claims, but I'm not interested in playing your game of turning every single article into a forum for you to violate numerous Wikipedia rules such us NOTSOAPBOX and so on to promote your anti-Chabad POV. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yehoishophot, no one is saying that KEHOT is not reliable, but the problem is that KEHOT is the official publishing and propaganda arm of Chabad and therefore, as an analogy, it would be like trying to understand Communism (lehavdil) by relying mainly on Das Kapital, the writings of Trotsky and Lenin and Pravda, that works for Communists but is useless to the outside world, and is therefore an exercise in futility as far as intellectual honesty and free thinking is concerned. So sure, feel free to cite Tanya, KEHOT and the Rebbes' sichos (talks) and iggros (letters), but even if that is 99% of what is available in print on a topic, it still does not solve the problem of figuring out in a WP:NPOV fashion what the subjects themselves, not related to Communism, believed and practiced, and for that sometimes one must go searching for other leads that may even be small to get the facts and the total and true picture of what is really going on. Otherwise you are just trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. So I do not share Jayjg's view entirely, but there is great merit to what he is saying. IZAK (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, IZAK, but I lack both time and incentive to respond to your angry screed in point-by-point fashion, and will therefore address only the key points here, which you seem determined to ignore, namely WP:V and WP:NOR. If in fact, as both IZAK and Jayjg keep insisting, Yitzchok Hutner's criticism of Chabad, the Lubavitcher Rebbe,(and other groups) is so "well known", then it should be easily verifiable as per WP:SOURCE. If reliable sources cannot be provided, then it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia as per WP:VERIFY. And please don't put words into my mouth - I never claimed that R'Hutner was a "disciple of the Lubavitcher rebbe" or anything of the sort. My work on this page has been strictly limited to information that can be reliably sourced, notwithstanding the fact that my family was very close to R'Hutner from his arrival in the U.S through his final illness, and I'm confident that I possess vastly more reliable information about the man and his real views than most. Let us simply abide by the rules in a WP:CIVIL manner, and the wider community of wiki-users will be best served. For the record, the letters of R'Hutner that are presented in the source I quoted are actual copies of the originals, published as part of an article in a reliable secondary source. Statements such as "Rav Hutner was an opponent of Chabad and the Rebbe on many points" do not belong on Wiki if they cannot be reliably sourced. Winchester2313 (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winchester: So you are affirming my observation that you intend to violate WP:UNDUE by flooding this article with extraneous material. In addition, please don't pull the shtick on me that you did at the Rav Shach article driving editors there crazy with absurd twisted "conclusions" that run on the false premise that somehow, because (as is well known and as you know as well!!) great rabbinic sages did NOT talk or write about controversial matters, yet those views were known, that they must be "insignificant." You know, you try to have it both ways, when someone cites a source, such as from Hillel Goldberg you say it's not good enough, and if someone says it is well-known then you ask for a source, proving that all this is just a game for you to promote your blatant pro-Chabad POV agenda no matter what the facts may be, even if they can be verified from reliable sources which you take it upon yourself to delete on sight. This is all just wasteful WP:LAWYERING on your part that just drives other editors crazy as they see your game plan. IZAK (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a bizarre rant... Why not simply keep your edits in line with the rules - and forget the conspiracy theories for a bit?? Winchester2313 (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Winchester: The pot calling the kettle black is no argument. It's not a "rant" or a conspiracy theory, it's a fact, that when I informed you and worked on citing from reliable sources and authors, namely Hillel Goldberg and William Helmreich proving Hutner's difficulties with Chabad and YU, it was you that over-reacted emotionally and reverted everything, and you justify your line of action by alleging that in your family's attic there are reams of letters from Hutner that will somehow "prove" that Hutner was the biggest fan of Chabad and the Rebbe as if he were one of the "followers" -- now if that isn't a distorted view of Hutner, then nothing is. IZAK (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK's behavior on this page has been so horrendous it's hard to know where to start. Just quouting a few of his more outrageous comments, I think it's fair to say he tries to intimidate and threaten any other editor he doesn't like. Here are some of the obvious examples on this page. I actually took the time to read through all the history, and can't believe IZAK's rude attacks. As other editors keep pointing out to IZAK, the guidelines apply to everybody equally, but he seems to think that information with no attributable source can still be stuck on a page. WP:SOURCE says that "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I guess that means that if all your wild theories about Yitzchok Hutner can't be sourced, they don't belong here. As has already been pointed out, others saw through IZAKs stealth editing of October 27th and the fact that the sources he cited supportde almost none of what he stuck onto the page.Reading through the mad attacks by IZAK above, I have to wonder :- WINCHESTER never said he/she was going to 'flood' the page, as IZAK claims, "So you are affirming my observation that you intend to violate WP:UNDUE by flooding this article with extraneous material. In addition, please don't pull the shtick on me that you did at the Rav Shach article driving editors there crazy with absurd twisted "conclusions" that run on the false premise that somehow, because (as is well known and as you know as well!!) great rabbinic sages did NOT talk or write about controversial matters, yet those views were known, that they must be "insignificant." and he/she never said they have any letters of R' Hutners, so why does IZAK screech that "and you justify your line of action by alleging that in your family's attic there are reams of letters from Hutner that will somehow "prove" that Hutner was the biggest fan of Chabad and the Rebbe as if he were one of the "followers" ??! Calm down, IZAK, stop attacking and threatening other editors, and stop telling them where they should and shouldn't post. Last I checked, you don't own Wikipedia. Why not try acting civilized for a change, and playing nicely by the same rules as all editors ? There is so much more evidence on this page of the crazy conspiracy theories IZAK seems to be hooked on, but this needs to stop. C Steffen 06:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  • User Csteffen13 (talk · contribs) is rather hilarious. He shows up late in the day, when nothing is going on and himself introduces a tone of combativeness and confrontation without saying anything positive or contributing anything substantial to the subject, just wanting to defend a fellow-pro-Chabad POV editor by attacking another user. Based on his past short history on WP, a couple of edits here and there, he is a provable pro-Chabad POV WP:WARRIOR who has made a tiny amount of pro-Chabad POV edits [3] and he now shows up here ranting and raving violating WP:AGF, WP:ETIQUETTE, WP:NPA as he refers to an editor he does not like as "crazy"; "mad"; "screech". He will have to do a lot better than that to move this page forward POSITIVELY and not turn it into yet another WP:BATTLEGROUND. He also seems to have selective reading capacities because as I have made clear quite a few times here, I was in the midst of adding information to this article, by writing and citing, when I was attacked by User Winchester2313 (talk · contribs) who revered all the edits, even the solid citations. At this time, I have chosen not to move forward and have been discussing the situation on this talk page. So far the responses have been few and very lame. Lots of stomping up and down as if I was not aware of WP rules and policies, while I have been writing and editing WP articles for eight years without too many problems, having to listen to lots of WP:LAWYERING and not much talking to the point, emotional reactions, but not a scintilla of discussion on the facts and the merits of the case, while at least Winchester seems to be settling down a bit, Csteffen wants to fight, fight, fight. Note to Csteffen: You will have to do a lot better than lecturing me with narishkeit (WP:NONSENSE) in order to make some headway here, and if you do not really have anything to add here beyond joining in attacking me, please stay away or else you come across looking like a troll (see What is a troll?). Thanks so much. IZAK (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weight loss

[edit]

How could Rabbi Hutner have lost 20kg of body weight during 20 days of PFLP captivity? That is completely impossible! -- Y not? 18:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that sentence as per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Winchester2313 (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing unreliable sources

[edit]

I have removed information sourced from 'Chasidic Historical Productions' which is an obviously biased and self-published imprint with only a single controversial[1] work, 'Larger than Life' by Shaul Shimon Deutsch to it's credit. Also please note that single-party interviews with no supporting sources also fail WP:RS as well as many other policies, eg. WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:NOR among others.

I would have thought that Kehot, the partisan non-peer reviewed Chabad publishing House, would fail NPOV and would also question its use as a RS in contentious matters. Also, please read WP:RSSELF carefully: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications; Deutsch's work has been cited by numerous scholarly papers. Can you please identify which "interviews you refer to. I am unsure why material published by Chaim Dalfin and independently reviewed in print has also been removed. Chesdovi (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kehot is one of the oldest and largest recognized publishers of Jewish literature in the world. Nevertheless, if they were the sole source for an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, that would be problematic. Prominent sources don't need to be peer reviewed, unlike self-published works by generally unknown authors. Deutsch's work hasn't been peer reviewed or even reviewed at all, for that matter. Being cited as the source for a few unique claims by some research papers doesn't go very far in dealing with his status as a highly WP:QUESTIONABLE source. Dalfin is somewhat better known as a researcher/historian, but I'm not sure whether a single-party interview would be enough of a source for anything unusual. Winchester2313 (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Eisenberg, Charles. The Book of Daniel: A Well Kept Secret. Xulon Press. 2007. Page 103.

Spelling

[edit]

Reliable sources spell Hutner's anglicized Hebrew name as Yitzchak, including two English articles of his own from 1970: [4] has both spellings (one in toc and this one on the first page of the article); [5] has "Yitzchak" 2-3 times.

The New York Times [6] spelled his name "Yitzhak" in 1970, as did the obituary in JTA in 1980 [7].

His letterhead had Isaac.

Since he spelled his name in English "Yitzchak" in his own publications (see above), and had "Isaac" on his letterhead, I can't understand why anyone decides to change it on their own (without any evidence that he would have written his name with an "o"). 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:B11F:5D42:37F5:B8B (talk) 10:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another contemporary indication: [8] 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:FCB9:64E:9B76:6A52 (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC) And an essay by a student of his. [9] 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:FCB9:64E:9B76:6A52 (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone brings evidence that he used an o in his name, it needs to be changed to the spelling he used himself in his aforementioned articles. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:64E2:4227:8085:C429 (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous editors don't tell what 'needs' to be done. Nerguy (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous editors have as much right to be here as you do. Unless you address the actual concerns voiced above, I believe the article should be edited to reflect as the anonymous user has suggested. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have a right to say what needs to be done. Just to suggest User:Catfish Jim and the soapdish. 204.128.182.35 (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a collaborative platform. Contributors here would do well to read WP:OWN. Thus far I have seen the IP editor in question raise salient points that have been ignored and even deleted by other editors. This is not on. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barring evidence to the contrary, I will change the primary spelling throughout to Yitzchak. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:BC60:CE9:6B30:9FE1 (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do it, and I'll move the article if there is no argument against it that is sourced. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks User:Catfish Jim and the soapdish. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:BC60:CE9:6B30:9FE1 (talk) 09:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Page moved. This is without prejudice to it being moved back if there is evidence that Yitzchok can be regarded as the primary spelling. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yitzchak_Hutner&oldid=1207677522"