Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Use of the term "fundamentalist"

To equate Orthodox Jews with Christian or Islamic fundamentalists is appalling, misleading, disgusting and insulting, particularly since a number of people present here may be Orthodox and intellectually academic at the same time. Dr. de Wolff JFW for one is both a competent medical doctor and an Orthodox Jew and is rational and capable of NPOV to the hilt in spite of his Orthodoxy, and has accordingly been chosen by Wikipedia as an admin. Please apologize to him now! IZAK 17:06, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Izak, no one may work on any Wikipedia article unless they adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, which demands that we all adhere to scholarly modes of discussion. The word fundamentalist has a very specific and technical meaning in the study of religions, and it is this specific, technical meaning that we use this word. Orthodox Judaism, by definition, is a fundamentalist religious denomimation. All of our articles state this. Please see the Wikipedia article on this topic so you can lanr how and why this word is used. The word fundamentalist is not an ad homenim attack nor an insult, and we can not rewrite our entire encyclopedia to appease the fears of people who don't understand this. RK 21:36, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Your citation "proves" nothing. One paragraph on a Wikipedia page about what Orthodox Jews "believe" does not give you the right to make sweeping judgments or cast aspersions on the Wikipedian capabilities of Jews, who may be Orthodox, to espouse a NPOV. Are you saying that only non-Orthodox Jews are capable of being Wikipedians? Probably you wouldn't mind it, unfortuantely for you Wikipedia is far too broad a tabula rasa for anyone to dominate it, INCLUDING non-Orthodox fundamentalists. Have you not heard of the phrases "Fanatical Reformers" or "Extreme Secularists" or "Dyed in the wool Conservatives" or "Confused Reconstructionists" are they also not FUNDAMENTALISTS too ??? IZAK 06:37, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

IZAK, (A) You must stop your ad homenim attacks. That is a serious violation of Wikipedia etiqutte. (B) My citation does prove something...the problem is that you admit that you are essentially ignorant of the real world reading on this issue. In the real world, scholars of religion use the word "fundamentalism" in this way. Any claim to the contrary is unconnected with reality. If you cannot handle using the English langauge properly, without imaginging slander being hurled against you, then you are not yet ready to work on these articles. Please approach this project as a scholar of religion, and learn the terminology.

RK 12:30, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Ah yes, the "real world"...which "world" is that exactly? Judaism does NOT, and has never relied on "scholars of religion". Judaism relies on its own ChaZaL (Our SAGES of Blessed Memory) and it is from them, and those present sages who are able to correctly and authentically interpret and teach the Torah that Jews learn what Jews and Judaism are about, not from "scholars of religion" who come and go with the (academic) fads of each decade. That is "Judaism 101" I think. Which yeshiva is it that teaches with the "commentaries" of "scholars of religion"? Do we want to convey synthetic and false information about Judaism concocted by professors or by the learned and scholarly rabbis over the millenia who have always been the accepted and acceptable teachers of the Jewish traditions? IZAK 01:11, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If that is your point of view, then you may not contribute to Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles may not be written in accord with your (or my) personal religious beliefs. If you think that our articles must teach Judaism the way that Orthodox Jews do, then every on of your edits will be reverted on sight. You still don't get it, do you? This is not an Orthodox Jewish project, and we are not here to convert people to Orthodox Judaism. This is an NPOV encyclopedia. That means we include more than one point of view. If you can't handle this, then work elsewhere, on an exclusively Orthodox website. RK 14:47, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary, when one has had an all-around education, one is aware what the 3,300 year old traditions of Judaism are about, which academic scholars may miss. One has greater perspective, not less. Is it a "crime" to have been educated in a yeshiva? Then if that is your attitude, your are guilty of the same cultural anti-Orthodox anti-Semitism that you are so fond of accusing so many others of when they say thing that you don't like. Who said anything about writing articles that are "in accord with your (or my) personal religious beliefs"? And who said anything about excluding other points of view? The discussion is about how to organize, present and package all those contradictory views without confusing the intelligent reader. After all, we are not out to create animosity towards traditional Judaism either by advancing self-defeating viewpoints if they arise, after due discussion. The point was being made that one can quite safely provide the views of classical Jewish scholars within Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Wikipedia is NEUTRAL but it is NOT "ANTI" anything. And no-one can be "forced" via your POV to accept that what "scholars" think is a brand of Judaism they don't like is "Fundamentalist" just because they have invented that term out of the thin air. IZAK 03:08, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Izak is now not only abusive, but ranting and raving about people accusing him of some sort of "crime". He is so clearly out of touch with reality, that he is hysterically attacking statements that no one has made. RK

Yawn!IZAK 00:17, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• 1)Are you equating Anti-Semetism with Anti-Orthodoxy? 2)RK has never claimed it's a crime to be Yeshiva educated. 3) You're missing RK's point. The Secular POV is not going to be kicked out just because the Orthodox POV says differently.--Josiah 05:24, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

1)When someone issues serious threats against a person because they praised Orthodox rabbis it may be a form of cultural anti-Semitism, as anti-semites also hate Orthodox rabbis. 2) So then no need to get hysterical when one cites the insights of the yeshiva world. 3) Who said anything about "kicking out" anything. We are talking about creating balanced informative articles on Judaism that should at least do justice to the topic and NOT serve as vehicles for back-handed swipes aimed at the subject at hand, which would be self-defeating.IZAK 05:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am wondering if Izak may have some sort of mental illness. As readers of this page can see, no one is threatening him, or anyone else. His hysterical rants are totally out of control, and he may need to be temporarilly banned until he pulls himself together. RK

Ugh!IZAK 00:17, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

IZAK might have interpreted this statement of yours "If that is your point of view, then you may not contribute to Wikipedia." as threatening. In any event, I don't think accusing people of mental illness is productive or appropriate. Jayjg 18:05, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Izak is acting unhinged. He has been screaming at other users for months, has been making up statements and attacking these non-existent statements, and lives in a state of self-created persecution. I haven't seen anyone able to reason with him. Until he calms down, he should excuse himself. RK 18:46, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Anything else you would like to add...can't get worse can it? IZAK

IZAK, saying that the Rabbis are the only ones "who are able to correctly and authentically interpret and teach the Torah" shows extreme POV by saying that no one else can. Remember, this is not an Orthodox Judaism project. This is supposed to be a NPOV project. Futhermore, Rabbis have not "always been the accepted and acceptable teachers of Jewish traditions". The fact that the Pharisees numbered only 7,000 out of 2,000,000 during the 2nd temple times is sufficient evidence of that.--Josiah 03:24, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

First of all this is the discussion page, and we are free to air ideas openly. I am NOT a Karaite and I am not a Conservative either. We are who we are, period. That is the world. Sure, you are personally free to quote whoever you like. Anyone can go ahead and quote Maddona on Judaism if they like, she is also a person with views on Kabbala, but would that be smart or responsible? Or whilst they're at it, a contributor can cite the New Testament's diatribes against the Pharisees in a Judaism or Torah article, if they like, but would that help the articles if they quote every last Christian's view of rabbis (Pharisees)? Please be serious Josiah, this is not a game of some sort. What is wrong with quoting rabbis as long as it's done in a NPOV fashion? Does one have to "convert" to being a Karaite or a Conservative before being "qualified" to give opinions? Obviuosly not. You are quite set in your own Karaite ideology yet seem to think that you are able to espouse a NPOV. How is that? If you and RK, an avowed Conservative, can do it, so can anyone else have their own personal views yet also be serious NPOV scholars on Wikipedia. Please do not confuse Wikipedia's NPOV policies with notions of PC: "political correctness" as each person comes with their own background to the table. IZAK 03:08, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• IZAK, 1)I never said there's anything wrong with quoting Rabbis. Don't put words into my mouth. 2)How do I espouse an NPOV? By working with others. Something that you still haven't gotten a grasp on.--Josiah 05:24, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Again, Izak is putting views in Josiah's mouth, and attacking him for beliefs that Josiah does not have. This is rather disturbing. RK

1) Ok good, we are making progress. 2) We have ALL been "working with others", in spite of what you may think or want to believe, for along time on Wikipedia, otherwise we would have left Wikipedia a long time ago. IZAK 05:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The word fundamentalism has become so utterly loaded I would abstain from using it in any context. JFW | T@lk 17:30, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What can we say? This is not an Orthodox Jewish publication. Outside of Orthodoxy, scholars of religion use the word in this way. If your religious beliefs prevent you from using the same technical religious terminology that everyone else uses, then you may not yet be ready to work on these articles. Izak already is having serious problems, seeing these words as personal atacks against him and his religion, even though he has repeatedly been told otherwise. RK 12:30, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Even the word "Jew" has become utterly loaded with negativ context; but we do not stop using the word "Jew". Instead, we educate readers by explaining what it really means. RK

I agree with you completely, JFW, and I wonder how anyone with common sense could think otherwise. Sorry, RK, the best academic scholars don't describe people and movements by throwing around loaded terms like "fundamentalism." I will also try to refrain from using it in any context, and to remove it if and when I see it. This, by the way, is despite the fact that I know certain Orthodox Jews personally who are proud to be called "fundamentalists" (but I know a great many more who are horrified by the thought). In a way, it is kind of like the term "Orthodox" itself - what began historically as a prejorative term used by reformers eventually became adopted as a badge of honor by Rabbi S. R. Hirsch himself! But I think that this is not likely to happen with the term "fundamentalist" for a variety of reasons. Better that it be avoided, and that we find more careful, nuanced terms to describe individuals and groups.Dovi 03:42, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Dovi, who told you all that nonsense? What sources did you learn this from? These people lied to you. All the best scholars of religion, both Jewish and non-Jewish, often do use the word "fundamentalism". This is an indisputable fact, and only a hysterically ignorant, or dishonest, person will tell you otherwise. You really need to spend a few years reading through multiple journals and books by scholars of religion. You will find thousands of such referenences; and these references are non-polemical, non-hateful. The word "fundamentalism" is used by them in a technical sense. RK 14:47, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

RK, please provide some citations for your assertion that Fundamentalism is currently used in multiple journals and books by scholars of religion. Thank you. 153.90.199.52 17:41, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dovi, this is not funny. Unlike you, I have studied in the real world. Countless thousands of religious journals and scholarly books use the term "fundamentalism" in precisely this way. The way you deny this is sort of like claiming that scientists don't write boks that say that the Earth revolves around the sun. They do write such books. You must take the time to learn about the topic you are talking about. I've spent years doing studying in univerisities on this topic, and these thousands of jouranals and books exist despite anything anyone claims. RK

RK, I feel that you are evading the question. If there are thousands of references, then you should find it easy to provide citations to a handful. Please provide references for your assertion that "fundamentalism" is used as you claim in scholarly research. Thank you. 153.90.199.52 18:18, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dovi, you know you are lying. Stop it. This isn't a matter of debate. You are now clearly harassing me, in order to stop me from editing articles, so that you can push your religious beliefs. I will not allow you to do this. RK 18:46, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

RK, you have claimed multiple times on this page that you have thousands of scholarly references that use "fundamentalism". I request that you list several of them (perferably with the relevent portion quoted). You have claimed that you own books that have this use. Perhaps you could walk over to your personal library that you have and list the titles and authors of those books that use "fundamentalism" in this way? If you have listed multiple sources for your claim in other places, than I request that you provide a link to this, and I apologize in advance for not finding it myself. I have not found such list of references, despite your repeated claims of being able to back up your use of the term "fundamentalism". I request that you back up your claim with evidence, and when you have provided good evidence for your claim I will be happy for you to go back to editing. Thank you. 153.90.199.52 19:10, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The above nutcase is simply harassing me. I never claimed to have thousands of references with me. I live in a home, not an academic library. RK

The person above does not appear to be either a "nutcase" or harrassing you, but is rather making a reasonable request that you support your claims. I strongly object to your abusive language towards his rather mild statements, and in particular to your censoring his comments from this Talk: page. I will be restoring them. Jayjg 16:53, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dovi, RK is correct. Many of the Orthodox pages that I have visited use the word "fundamentalist" in describing Karaite Judaism. Do they mean we are known for perpetuating terror or for damning everyone to "hell"? No. They use it in it's true, correct, scholarly meaning and I have absolutely no disagreement with it. I have even used the word to describe my beliefs before.--Josiah 22:42, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

RK, I may be a nutcase, but I am not Dovi. You have claimed: "You will find thousands of such referenences; and these references are non-polemical, non-hateful. The word 'fundamentalism' is used by them in a technical sense.", "Countless thousands of religious journals and scholarly books use the term 'fundamentalism' in precisely this way." and "In fact, come to my personal library and you will find many books by Orthodox, Reform and Conservative authors specifically referring to these rabbis as "fundamentalist". And they are not doing this as an ad homenim attack, but merely as a technical description." I intepreted this to mean that you knew of thousands of references and that some of those references exist in your own home. So, since you have claimed that there exist thousands of references that use "fundamentalism" and that some of those references are in your own home, I again request that you provide some evidence for your claim that "fundamentalism" is used scholarly. Thank you. 153.90.199.52 03:30, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) (Updated: 153.90.199.52 13:36, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC))

RK, thank you for providing the below sources for your claim. 153.90.199.52 12:17, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Academic sources which use the word "fundamentalism"

The following are a brief list of academic sources which use the word "fundamentalism" to describe certain forms of Judaism. These articles use this word in a technical and scholarly fashion, and not as an ad homenin attack. RK 15:49, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

The Battle for God Karen Armstrong

The Jewish Study Bible Ed. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettle, Oxford Univ. Press, 2004

Encyclopedia of Fundamentalism Ed. Brenda E Brasher, Routledge, 2001

A Living Tree: The Roots and Growth of Jewish Law, Elliot Dorff and Arthur Rosett, SUNY Press, 1988

Matters of Life and Death: A Jewish Approach to Modern Medical Ethics Elliot Dorff, JPS 1998

The Dynamics of Judaism: A Study in Jewish Law, Robert Gordis, Indiana Universoty Press, 1990

Rereading the Rabbis: A Woman's Voice Judith Hauptman, Westview Books

A False Prophet Armed Arthur Hertzberg, Reform Judaism Magazine March 1996

The Halakhic Process: A Systematic Analysis Joel Roth, Ktav, 1986

Conservative Judaism and Jewish Law Ed. Seymour Siegel, The Rabbinical Assembly, NY, 1977

The Lonely View From the Middle Ground: An Orthodox Leader's Work Argues for the Compatibility of Tradition and Modernity Review by Lawrence Grossman, The Forward, May 31, 2002

One People, Two Worlds : A Reform Rabbi and an Orthodox Rabbi Explore the Issues That Divide Them Ammiel Hirsch and Yaakov Yosef Einman, 2003

A Tree of Life: Diversity, Flexibility and Creativity in Jewish Law, Louis Jacobs, Littman Library of Jewish Civilization

God, Torah, Israel: Traditionalism Without Fundamentalism Louis Jacobs, 1990

Piety & Power: The World of Jewish Fundamentalism David Landau, Hill and Wang, 1993

The Beginnings of Orthodoxy, in Modern Judaism, Moshe Samet, Vol.8, No.3 October 1988, pages 249-269

The Sinai Argument Shlomo Tal, 2001

Rachels Daughters: Newly Orthodox Jewish Women, Debra Renee Kaufman, Rutgers University Press

Tradition and Change, Ed. Mordecai Waxman, The Rabbinical Assembly, 1958

OOOOPH! (That is modern Hebrew for Yiddish "Oy Vey" or English for "Why do I get involved in these things?") I've been "lied to" by "hysterically ignorant" or "dishonest" people? I need to spend a few more years in an academic library?

But to the point at hand: "Fundamentalism" is a relatively new term with deep roots and very heavy baggage in American political discourse. As time goes on it, like any new term, gets used more and more, including by academic writers both in the social sciences in general and by those who study Jewish communities in particular. And then it is indeed given a "technical" sense that is indeed meant by many writers to be non-polemical and non-hateful. But academic writers are not all the same. I once again assert that the "best" scholars are careful, nuanced, and usually avoid bombastic, laden terms. (In other words, they strive for "NPOV" in the academic world, for even there it all too-often remains an ideal that is not always real.) RK and I may very well disagree as to whom the "best" scholars are, or what the "best" kind of academic writing is (even by the very best scholars). In any case, I challenge RK to cite serious researchers in either the social sciences or in Jewish studies who would glibly label the following people as fundamentalists (this is completely ad-hoc): Yechiel Weinberg, Joseph Soloveitchik, Abraham Isaac Kuk, Moshe Feinstein, Isaac Hutner, Meir Bar-Ilan, Ben-Zion Uzziel, Nechamah Leibowitz, Norman Lamm, Shlomoh Riskin, Emanuel Rackman, Yehezkel Cohen, Nachum Rabinovitch, Yuval Sherlow - can one do justice to any one of them with "a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles"? It's ridiculous.

No, it is not ridiculous. You are mistaking your own bias for facts. In the real word, many scholars of religion, including Jews, describe the viewpoint of all those Orthodox rabbis as fundamentalist. In fact, come to my personal library and you will find many books by Orthodox, Reform and Conservative authors specifically referring to these rabbis as "fundamentalist". And they are not doing this as an ad homenim attack, but merely as a technical description. Your claims that these quotes do not exist is hystercially false. You can't just deny that books exists if they disagree with them. In the real world, you are going to have to find a way to deal with poeple who have others points of view. If you can't then, you will spend the rest of your life believing that people are insulting you (when they really aren't) and you will continue to be defensive when you do not need to be. RK 17:30, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

I am not going to continue debating this, especially since it has not remained civil. I am in fact quite peeved with myself for getting involved in the first place. The common sense of JFW's suggestion that we avoid the term is clear to me (also see further comments below). If and when this comes up for a vote, I will vote "No" to the use of "fundamentalist" as an objective, descriptive label for streams within Judaism.

There is no vote. Wikipedia NPOV policy demands that we note when a religion's beliefs are defined as fundamentalist. You may not censor are encyclopedia to push your religious beliefs. If you do this, you will eventually be bannned. Of course, we can also note that many Orthodox Jews do not approve of this terminology. This is not an "either or" situation. We can do both (and NPOV policy demands that we must do both.) RK 17:39, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

As I have yet to see a NPOV use of the term fundamentalist (at least in relationship to Judaism), nor have I seen any evidence of its use in a consistent way in academic literature (again in relationship to Judaism), nor have I seen any real justification for its use to described Orthodox Judaism in the fundamentalism article, I'm afraid I cannot currently agree with its use. And just so we know what we're talking about here, in the Fundamentalism article the Judaism section has the following text:

Jews believe that the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible, Old Testament) cannot be understood literally or alone, but rather needs to be read in conjunction with additional material known as the oral law; this material is contained in the Mishnah and the Talmud. Orthodox Judaism, especially Haredi Judaism, is a fundamentalist Jewish denomination, as opposed to Reform Judaism, Reconstructionist Judaism, and Conservative Judaism, which are theologically opposed to fundamentalism. No Jews, even the Orthodox, read the Tanakh in a literal fashion, but most Orthodox Jews read the Mishnah and Talmud in what may be termed a fundamentalist way. All Haredi Jews, and many Modern Orthodox Jews, hold that these texts are divine and infallible. Hasidic Jews usually ascribe infallibility to their rebbe's interpretation of the traditional sources of truth.

I see every single sentence in this description as being at best inaccurate. The first sentence is wrong because plenty of Jews do not believe in the oral law. The second sentence is merely an assertion, which does not explain how any of the movements express either their theological approval for or opposition to fundamentalism. The third sentence is again incorrect, as many Jews do read the Tanach that way, and concludes with hand-waving; what the heck is "what may be termed a fundametalist way". The fourth sentence is inaccurate, since Orthodox Judaism of any kind does not consider the Mishna and Talmud to be either divine or infallible. The fifth sentence is another unsupported assertion. Jayjg 15:21, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that you misunderstand what NPOV means. If you think that there are factual mistakes, then we can work on correcting them. I have no problem with this, and in fact I appreciate the time you take to help improve all of our articles. NPOV is about an entirely different issue; it means that we say that "According to one group, such and such is true, while according to another group, such and such is true." NPOV only means that we fair present different points of view, without the article taking a particular side. RK 17:39, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

However, I disagree with your last sentence. A great many Orthodox Jews do consider the Mishna and Talmud to be divine and infallible! In fact, I have received much personal abuse on Orthodox Jewish discussion lists due to just this point. I (and several other Modern Orthodox and Conservative Jews) were slandered as heretics precisely because we did not have this point of view. I guess we can change the paragraph to say that man Orthodox Jews feel this, but others do not. Again, presenting the full diversity of POVs witin Orthodoxy is part of NPOV. I am glad that you mentioned this, because this reveals an opportunity to illustrate the spectrum of beliefs within Orthodoxy itself. RK 17:39, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Notice to Dovi about RK's "tactics"

Dovi please do not be intimidated by RK's personal insults, attacks, threats or bullying tactics. Unfortunately RK has a poor reputation on Wikipedia when it comes to respecting the rights of others on Wikipedia in general. For examples, even though the contexts were different, but RK always functions in controversial ways that have seem him partially banned at times. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK: "user:RK's aggressive editing tactics in the Wikipedian community of reverting articles, engaging in personal attacks in edit summaries, trying to goad editors into flaming him, trying to goad editors into wasting time engaging in edit wars over his reverts, and RK's use of editing tactics that should be classified as vandalism, even if they are currently not classified as vandalism. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 05:22, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)". And see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK2: "This user frequently engages in slander, distortion of issues, distortion of history of and reasons for edits, repeated insertion of non-NPOV material, and time wasting edit wars without rational or agreeable discussion. Description: This user has 1) repeatedly called users anti-Semites or accused them of spreading anti-Semitic viewpoints 2) misrepresented user views on Talk pages and maliciously spread libel about users on the Talk pages of various other users 3) engaged in rapid edit wars without adequate discussion 4) all subsequent discussion has consisted mostly of misrepresentation of other user views and of libel 5) made it difficult for users to focus on other work by maligning them and obliging them to respond 6) continued to emphasize opinionated, inaccurate and non-NPOV material in articles and rejected all differing views 7) repasted the same material in several places in the same article 8) when requested for sources, repeated the non-verifiable material as a source and claimed censorship upon removal of latter material." See also: "Eloquence temporarilly banned RK for "vandalizing" other contributors' user pages, and talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation, blanking them and replacing them with personal attacks. RK apparently did this in response to other contributors' leaving messages on his user talk page. User:AxelBoldt un-banned RK the next day. RK announced on the WikiEN-l mailing list that he was leaving Wikipedia." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RK/Departure#Ban_RK.3F And so on and so forth. IZAK 04:22, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Also Dovi, read IZAK's post a second time and replace "RK" with "IZAK". It's equally applicable for the majority of the writing.--Josiah 05:26, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Josiah, now what a great JOKE that is!!! What would you call that in psychological terms, inversion or projection? Pretty pathetic Josiah when you begin to "imagine" that I am someone else out there. Wow. Shows how out of perspective you are. Too bad. So far my record on Wikipedia is excellent. I work hard at it and do my NPOV job. IZAK 05:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gentlemen:

איזהו חכם? הלומד מכל אדם.

הווי מתלמידיו של אהרן הכהן: אוהב שלום, ורודף שלום, אוהב את הבריות ומקרבן לתורה.

First and foremost to remind myself.Dovi 12:43, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

IZAK spamming his arguments to his blog

Pardon me if i'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the discussions of this project (and other wikipedia discussions) were supposed to stay on Wikipedia. Is it appropriate to put it on a blog, without notification of the people involved? http://simshalom.blogspot.com/

Well, all contributions to Wikipedia are protected by the terms of GNU Free Documentation License. IZAK has the right to use the content as long as he follows the rules of the license. - Gilgamesh 2:07, 17 July 2004 (UTC)

• The use of the word "spamming" is not applicable or justified. It is not even accurate. What on Earth can be wrong with placing verbatim PUBLIC discussions on a Blog, as no changes are made to the words of anyone? IZAK 20:51, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, maybe nothing. I'm fine with it. I keep in mind that everything I post anywhere on Wikipedia becomes subject to the GNU Free Documentation License. In short (but not complete details), it means that you are free to copy content here, as long as you adhere to the terms of the license (requiring it to be free information), and make the license readily available in all derivative works. So, if you post it on your blog, you need a copy of the license and adhere to it. And anyone who copies that blog will need a copy of the license too and adhere to it as well. The GNU FDL ensures that free information remains perpetually free, so it restricts making it proprietary. All information posted at Wikipedia becomes covered under the GNU FDL as a condition for it being posted. So I suppose all you need to ensure is that the logs you post on your blog are posted with a disclamation of the GNU FDL, and a requirement that anyone who copies the text must also read it and adhere to it. - Gilgamesh 23:17, 19 July 2004 (UTC)

Gilgamesh: Done. Thank you for your gracious insight. I have placed the applicable links for info on GNU Free Documentation License at the start of the relevant articles. IZAK 00:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'll be honest IZAK. Mainly I'm annoyed because you lied to me when you said you had only posted certain argument about Karaism a while back on my user talk page, and the Jew talk page, when in fact you also posted it to your blog as I recentely found out, and other areas.--Josiah 03:25, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Josiah face it, if all you can resort to is name-calling and acting like a cry-baby about public posts that inherently do NOT have "privacy" restrictions on them, then it's just nit-picking. I think that what YOU are doing on Wikipedia is far more serious: Every reference to Karaism is being twisted and altered to reflect YOUR own POV which is a very narrow and limited interpretion of the TRUTH, if it's that at all, (time will tell, I guess). IZAK 03:36, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Practicing Ad Hominem again? Assuming I twist every reference to Karaism (which I don't), you are accussed of the exact same things in regards to Orthodoxy often. However, the fact is that I've worked with others on the Karaite pages I work on to show *both* sides. The current Karaite Judaism page is a perfect example. This shouldn't have spilled on to here, and for that I apologize to everyone. All I ask is, in the future IZAK, tell me the truth when you tell me something. [even if it "is a very narrow and limited interpretion of the TRUTH, if it's that at all, (time will tell, I guess)"] --Josiah 05:14, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Josiah, you make it sound like we are in some sort of "relationship" or something. Is there anything else on your personal "menu" for me? I guess you must get a kick out of talking with me, a cute little "rabinite" as you call them elsewhere... IZAK 05:20, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Not even in my worst nightmares would that happen. You must get a kick out of putting words into my mouth.--Josiah 05:31, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)