Talk:Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin/Archive 2

message: Suggest an introduction briefly summarizing what's happening, and a background section discussing the (old) Sanhedrin and linking to Sanhedrin for more info. I'll try to do this later if someone doesn't beat me to it. --Shirahadasha 22:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 3RR Rules: Reverting potentially libelous material. All users are encouraged to remove unsourced or poorly sourced derogatory information about living persons, whether within a biography of a living person or elsewhere, including the associated talk pages. As with vandalism, the repeated addition of such material is best dealt with by blocking and page protection. The three-revert rule does not apply to users making a good-faith effort to enforce this provision, whether they are involved in editing the articles themselves or not.
What is Daniel575 adding his text now for?  The text was supposed to be protected until we reached consensus and he has used the renaming as a pretense to add potentially libelous material. If this is the way things work around here, I am not going to spend day and night working on this.
I request a revert and page protect on both Sanhedrin and Modern Attempts wikipages --Historian2 00:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction and Background 

message: Okay, I have written a simple lead paragraph for this article.  Edit at will.  I think it provides an accurate overview of what is currently in the article.  I have also removed the text from Sanhedrin that we moved here, and left a blurb behind.
Again, I will request that we agree to stop editing the article page until consensus is reached.  If we must, we will turn the article into a stub and just add text sentence by sentence as we agree on it.
Can everyone involved please list here, with one bullet, what sections they believe need discussion?  Title?  Lead paragraph?  "Attempts to re-establish the Sanhedrin in Israel"?  "Criticism"?  No need to list individual paragraphs.  For now please just list sections; there will be ample opportunity to discuss everything in due time.  We will discuss things in one place for clarity, which will be the Talk page section I will start after we determine what article sections need discussion.  Thanks, --Aguerriero (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read your points.  What I am requesting now is a concise list of sections we must go over as a group.  If you are willing to give me a chance to help get this to a good place, I'm willing to help.  If you're not, then there isn't much I can do.  The ball is in your and Daniel575's court. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Busy bees 

message: I really don't understand how this system works, but I'll give it a shot.
IMHO, we need to discuss these points
# Pro and against Rambam's semicha by consensus
# A brief summary of the last six attempts to create a Sanhedrin
# A closer look at the attempt by Rabbi Beirav, and the involvement of the Beis Yosef, which was the model for the current attempt
# The election process itself, and selection of Rav Halberstam
# The formation of a place holder Sanhedrin by Rabbi Levanoni and the debate it stirred (many pro Sanhedrin supporters began to fall away)
# The "Temple Mount Faithful" early days of the "Sanhedrin"
# The acceptance of office of Nasi by Rabbi Steinsalz and the complete change in direction (Sanhedrin on ice)
# The strategy and goals of the current "Sanhedrin" as they have said to "provide a transition from current halachic leadership to a full Sanhedrin"
# Is the current "Sanhedrin" doing anything? (discussions before the discussions, what are they talking about)
# The debate stirred within the National Religious camp
# The debate stirred within the Rambamist camp
# The debate stirred within the Kahanist camp
# The debate stirred within the "Temple Mount Faithful" camp
# The debate stirred within the Hareidi camp
# Other effects and comments by Conservative, Reform and unaffiliated Jews
# The debate stirred among non-Jews, especially Evangelicals and Catholics
There is a lot of debate going on because all these camps are split in varying degrees for and against a "potential Sanhedrin", and see different things in it.  There is a fair amount of information available on all these points, and any decent encyclopedia article worth its salt should at least attempt to address these points.  But then again, I am looking at it from a "historical" viewpoint without any particular viewpoint to push.
--Historian2 19:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terrific! Thanks for taking the time to compile this work list.  It is a great place to begin some serious work on this article. If I may, however, can I ask how much of this relates to the most contested section, which is "Criticism"?  I think it might be in our best interests to address that section first. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What Daniel575 has written relates to #14.  However, I contest his comments because they are not factually accurate. He portrays as if Rabbi Steinsalz has been ostracized by the Hareidi community.  I claim that Rabbi Fischer of the Eda Hareidi of Jerusalem reviewed this incident and declared R Steinsalz had corrected any needed issues.  I claim that any lingering slander is due to litvish-chabad tensions.  The Rabbi in question bent over backwards to "clear his name", and to present it as if it is still open is just plain mean. In other words he is propagating slander, and it shouldn't be in wikipedia. I also claim that this single event, even if factual, does not sufficiently support his claim that the Hareidim vocally oppose this "Sanhedrin" --Historian2 06:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your position.  I would like you to consider a question though: how does your view of Daniel575's text change when you look at it through the lens of verifiability, rather than truth or accuracy? Consider the difference in concepts. Focusing on verifiability will make it much easier to assess what belongs in this article and what doesn't.  Make sense? --Aguerriero (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections needing discussion according to [[User_talk:Historian2|Historian2]] 

message: Let's dive right into this one.  First question: does everyone agree that including a section titled "Criticism" in this article is encyclopedic, disregarding the content of the section for now?  Assume that the finished section will be neutral and verifiable. Please answer concisely and we will move on. --Aguerriero (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism discussion 

message: This means that the author is "constructing" the article in several edits. Please do not delete.  I see that Daniel575 placed a  wiki token, perhaps as if people should hold off editing until I am finished. But that gives me far to much credit. Besides the fact that Daniel said "I don't have the slightest idea of what I'm talking about", and I have less than zero time to work on this, and it is not my area of expertice - I can't do this by myself.  It is only a passing interest and if Daniel hadn't gotten me upset, I wouldn't have written anything.  Feel free to dive in and edit, as Daniel said "its not my page". --Historian2 19:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is currently under construction

message: The Litvish Rabbis where I live oppose the cherem made by other "Litvish Rabbis" working for artscroll on the Steinsaltz shas (note: no one placed a cherem on him or even opposed him as a person) and have made their opinion very clearly by placing a cherem on following any cherem made by those "Litvish Rabbis." The funny thing is a few years later artscroll published their translation to Hebrew... should we place a cherem on artscroll? No because that is not how Jews should behave. 203.217.54.74 06:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Litvish Rabbis

message: Following 3RR rules i reverted Daniel's text, and Daniel's friend CrazyRussian blocked me.  Following AMA advice, I did remove potentially slanderous material to the talk page, and Daniel575 put it back. Then I added the NPOV marker as the AMA suggested and he removed it.  Is this how things work at wiki? --Historian2 09:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was also blocked because of our edit war, just like you. You did not remove "potentially slanderous material" - you removed all of my additions in order to make it seem like there is almost no opposition to this 'Sanhedrin'. The NPOV marker is totally ridiculous. If you want an NPOV marker, I propose one for the whole page, to be placed at the top of the page. --Daniel575 09:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Taking AMA advice

message: This heading is ONLY for discussion of the following passage:
Rabbi Elazar Shach, the primary leader of the Lithuanian Jewish world until his passing in 2001, referred to Steinsaltz in 1989 (although not by name and on an unrelated matter) as "one who has been inspired by the evil inclination (yetzer hora)". (Letter dated Erev Shabbos Kodesh Pinchos 5749, Michtovim Umaamorim vol. IV.)  Within this context, the books of Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, the current president of the 'Sanhedrin', were declared to be unfit for the Haredi public to read because of doubtful material contained in them.  ()  Although it is disputed whether Rabbi Elazar Shach really opposed Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz in his final days, as it is claimed that Rabbi Steinsalz met with the rabbinical court in Jerusalem (Edah HaChareidis) making required changes and thereby resolving the issue, it is clear that Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz untraditional and 'university oriented' approach was at odds with the Haredi approach.
In particular dispute is the quote in which Rabbi Shach asserts thaat Rabbi Steinsaltz has been inspired by "evil".  Is it the context of the quote disputed (in other words, a question of who Rabbi Shach was referring to), or whether the quote is even properly attributed to Rabbi Shach?  I would also like to know what citation exists for this statement, as the only footnote in this passage refers to an article that does not seem to contain that quote. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote is definitely inflammatory, though definitely in style for Rabbi Shach, who was not known for mincing words. In the spirit of BLP, I suggest our mediator remove it ASAP pending a bulletproof source. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, nevermind, I supplied a source from the collection of R' Shach's writings. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, Rabbi Shach was ridiculously influential with the Haredi Lithuanians. If his opinion of Rabbi Steinsaltz was that he was motivated by less than holiness, than that certainly casts a pall on the Sanhedrin which R' S. chairs, n'est-ce pas? - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. see comment above --Historian2 22:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're splitting hair. Statement was made. It may be more properly make in the Adin Steinsaltz article and only referenced here, but it's eligible for inclusion into Wikipedia. This is not a court, and prejudicial things are OK. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though you can easily verify that Eda HaChareidis issued a statement of Rabbi Steinstaltz and there is reason to believe that may have been cleared up, you insist on spreading potentially libelous material. In my opinion this is not the correct thing to do and I appeal to your conscience to not do it. This point aside, as far as wikipedia is concerned it must be necessary for the article.  You haven't convinced me that it is necessary. --Historian2 23:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you said above fits squarely under WP:NPA. Here on Wikipedia the tradition is to discount the opinions of those who buttress their substantive statements with ad hominem attacks. As an professor, you really ought to know that already - it shouldn't take a 25 year old law student to set you straight on this basic issue! - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, this is what I have been fighting with Historian over for a week already. If Rabbi Shach said that this guy is influenced by the yetzer hora, and this guy is the chairman of that 'Sanhedrin', that is VERY relevant, because it means that the Litvishe world (who really see Rabbi Shach, even after his death, almost like a prophet) will NEVER support that Sanhedrin. Some people just cannot be convinced to open their eyes. --Daniel575 00:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Daniel, this guy is an immensely respected Rabbi in many Orthodox circles (not ours) and it doesn't help your argument to put him down in this discussion. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Le sigh, as Pepe Le Pew would say. Historian2, we could honestly do without that sort of remark. I do understand your frustrations, but if no one was interested in discussion or compromise, no one would be posting here. So, can we start with that as a baseline? Accusations of slander or libel (especially containing personal attacks) are not helping us agree on a version of text.  As such, I'm giving you a voluntary homework assignment: Can you write a version of this paragraph that expresses the sentiment as its authors intend, but is less inflammatory? --Aguerriero (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: To revisit this, is anyone willing to propose a rewritten version?  I think that is necessary to work toward compromise. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Note: The reason I have been asking for a proposed version is that is makes it WAY easier to work and agree on in one central place, rather than continuously reverting each other. If I rewrite the section, are you willing to consider my changes? --Aguerriero (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - absolutely. I have offered a couple of rewrites of some of the other disputed issues, but I have been unable to find anything short of the original wording that Daniel575 will agree to. --Historian2 12:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion: Comments of Rabbi Shach 

message: This heading is ONLY for discussion of the following passage:
The newspaper Yated Neeman, which is the official newspaper of the leaders of the Lithuanian ('Litvish') faction of Haredi Judaism and portrays their opinions, in July 2006 published an article strongly attacking Rabbi Yisrael Ariel of the Temple Institute (Machon HaMikdash). While the article does not explicitly forbid buying the books he wrote on behalf of the Machon HaMikdash, it refers to them as 'unworthy of being purchased' and refers to the content of the books as 'poisonous.' 
Rabbi Ariel's website prominently features a picture of "The Admor of Machnubka receives Temple Institute Founder Rabbi Yisrael Ariel". So I guess he forgot to read the Yated. --Historian2 12:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does everyone find Historian2's rewrite acceptable? --Aguerriero (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do. (I do wish he were less bitter/sarcastic. It's tiring to get through all the acrimony.) - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better version of same thing: "Yated Neeman, the official newspaper of the Lithuanian Haredi leadership, has run several articles critical of Rabbi Ariel and the 'Temple Institute'." - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is not better. The articles are not merely 'critical', they are much more than that. Doing away with the content by merely calling it 'criticism' makes it sounds much less harsh than the language the article really uses. Quoting the exact phrases of him and his institute being unworthy of any support, their books being unworthy of being purchased and he himself having poisonous opinions shows the depth and severity of the 'criticism' better than anything else. --Daniel575 00:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Daniel575, are you will to agree to the version first proposed by Historian2? Condemnation is a pretty strong term - does it accurately reflect the opinion expressed?  CrazyRussian may also agree to that version. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I do not. It is like saying "McCarthy was critical of Communism." or "Adolf Hitler disliked Jews". Such statements do not do justice to the strength, the severity of the opinion held by the person in question. I see it as an attempt to make the criticism look less severe than it actually is. --Daniel575 05:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Daniel575, I think everyone respects your right to disagree with the changes, but what is 10 times more useful is a proposed revision for everyone to chew on.  We won't get very far if you are not willing to compromise.--Aguerriero (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion: Comments about Rabbi Ariel

message: Here is a proposed text, no damaged reputations, no slurs, but gets the point across --Historian2 09:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine. --Daniel575 15:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is most definitely relevant. The source material for your claims about Rabbi Halberstam are unreliable. Everything I know indicates that it is a lie, a total and plain lie. There is nothing wrong with noting this. The page says that Rabbi Halberstam was himself involved with this 'Sanhedrin' in becoming its first 'samuch' etc. That does mean that he supported the 'Sanhedrin'. Which is contradictory to everything I know. Thus, this matter needs further attention: did Rabbi Halberstam have anything to with this 'Sanhedrin', yes or no? You say 'yes', I say 'no'. Your source: the 'Sanhedrin' website and other news sources which all base their information on the 'Sanhedrin'. My source: a close associate and personal friend of Rabbi Halberstam. I have not been editing out your version, please do not edit out my version either. --Daniel575 15:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will leave it in for now, but I strongly disagree and think this is invalid and inappropriate. Continue discussion above in its section.
* I want to see the comment about disagreement concerning Rabbi Ariel back in, you can clearly see that Rabbi Ovadia wrote a letter of approbation AFTER the lithuanian declaration, and Rabbi Ovadia leads a Hareidi community probably as larger if not larger than the Lithuanians. --Historian2 14:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Good, you can put the part about Rabbi Ovadia back in. I totally disagree about what you say: there is no way on earth the Sefardi Haredi community is bigger than the Litvish community. --Daniel575 15:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you count only people learning full time you are right, but if you count baalei batim (Haredi does mean ultra-orthodox and not just learners), the haredim of Rav Ovadia are as big if not bigger than Lithuanian. But that is not important to this discussion. --Historian2 08:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not the 'Sanhedrin's' website - it belongs to the 'Friends of the Sanhedrin' which aims to provide accurate information about the 'Sanhedrin'. --Daniel575 15:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is silly.  By the same argument I can delete your comment that Yated claims to represent the Lithuanian leadership. --Historian2 08:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sandbox for proposed compromise text

message: I made some changes, removed a few links, clarified some issues. --Daniel575 13:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine. --Daniel575 15:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is most definitely relevant. The source material for your claims about Rabbi Halberstam are unreliable. Everything I know indicates that it is a lie, a total and plain lie. There is nothing wrong with noting this. The page says that Rabbi Halberstam was himself involved with this 'Sanhedrin' in becoming its first 'samuch' etc. That does mean that he supported the 'Sanhedrin'. Which is contradictory to everything I know. Thus, this matter needs further attention: did Rabbi Halberstam have anything to with this 'Sanhedrin', yes or no? You say 'yes', I say 'no'. Your source: the 'Sanhedrin' website and other news sources which all base their information on the 'Sanhedrin'. My source: a close associate and personal friend of Rabbi Halberstam. I have not been editing out your version, please do not edit out my version either. --Daniel575 15:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will leave it in for now, but I strongly disagree and think this is invalid and inappropriate. Continue discussion above in its section.
* I want to see the comment about disagreement concerning Rabbi Ariel back in, you can clearly see that Rabbi Ovadia wrote a letter of approbation AFTER the lithuanian declaration, and Rabbi Ovadia leads a Hareidi community probably as larger if not larger than the Lithuanians. --Historian2 14:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Good, you can put the part about Rabbi Ovadia back in. I totally disagree about what you say: there is no way on earth the Sefardi Haredi community is bigger than the Litvish community. --Daniel575 15:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you count only people learning full time you are right, but if you count baalei batim (Haredi does mean ultra-orthodox and not just learners), the haredim of Rav Ovadia are as big if not bigger than Lithuanian. But that is not important to this discussion. --Historian2 08:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not the 'Sanhedrin's' website - it belongs to the 'Friends of the Sanhedrin' which aims to provide accurate information about the 'Sanhedrin'. --Daniel575 15:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is silly.  By the same argument I can delete your comment that Yated claims to represent the Lithuanian leadership. --Historian2 08:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on changes

message: We have agreed to make changes in the "sandbox" above and not on the main page.  These are my disputes with the wikipage as of today. Daniel may have his own disputes. --Historian2 08:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Daniel575 11:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it looks fine now. Just two more things: you can put the thing about Rav Ovadia Yosef back in, and I still want to see the section about the Haredi response moved up, to above the 'Temple Mount Faithful' and 'Rambamist' responses, since those groups are so tiny that they are barely worth mentioning at all. I will move it up - if you disagree, discuss. --Daniel575 12:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a strong opinion about section ordering.  Go ahead and move it. --Historian2 13:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute status 

message: Next, the position of the section on Haredi criticism. The Haredi world numbers about 500,000 persons in Israel alone. The 'Rambamist' world numbers at most a few thousand, as does the 'Temple Mount Faithful' movement. That is why I moved the 'Haredi' section upwards, to directly below the 'National-Religious' section. I do not understand why you reverted this. --Daniel575 09:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The intention was to list from the most positive to most negative, but I did not revert the text for that reason, rather because you were begining to add NPOV-section tags to every section --Historian2 09:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Why not the other way around? I would think that listing them in order of size is the most sensible thing to do. In fact, the Haredi camp is bigger than the National-Religieus: 20% of Israel identify as 'religious', while 12% identify as Haredi. Only 8% identify as National-Religious. But since this 'Sanhedrin' is primarily a National-Religious undertaking, I don't mind putting the 'Haredi' section second. But putting it almost last, prior only to 'Reform/Conservative' responses and after the 'Rambamist' and 'Temple Mount Faithful' responses, seems very weird. The Haredi response is MOST definitely more important than those two. --Daniel575 10:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am open suggestions. What order do you propose?  Does everyone reading this talk page agree? --Historian2 10:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Daniel575 that the Hareidi deserves higher priority than the "Rambamists" simply because they are greater in number and represent the most extreme view against these people. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 14:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about ordering them chronologically according to the dates of the references?  I like this method for oft-disputed topics, because it automatically dismisses anyone's claims to POV. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I've just been following this page's history and I think Andy's suggestion a good one. In the lack of a Solomon to order cutting the baby, that seems a good plan to me. -- Eliyahu S Talk 11:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I originally intended to rank from most positive to most negative because it gives some logical flow in reading.  Daniel wanted to press his point and rank by size of community.  Andy's suggestion is good, however each communities opinions are not based on a single event, so there is no real "date" that can be used to rank them. I didn't have a strong opinion, so it stands as Daniel requested. --Historian2 11:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: My order is simply the most relevant due to the fact that 12% of Israeli citizens identify as 'Haredi', which means a total of more than 600,000 people. The 'Rambamist' camp counts perhaps 1000, the 'Temple Mount Faithful' perhaps 2000. Including their views first would be like placing a remark by the leadership of the Republican Party of the US and having as the first comment not the response by the Democratic Party, but the reponse by the 'Party For A Green Bumfuck, Ohio'. Hope that's clear. --Daniel575 | (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ordering of Sections

message: What is this??????? I am now removing this from the article??? In a private phone call to wikipedian User:Daniel575, an associate of Rabbi Moshe Halberstam, Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Ulman, denied that Rabbi Halberstam had ever supported the Sanhedrin or had anything to do with it, and called the claims by the 'Sanhedrin' "lies, total lies". WHAT do you think you are doing??? This is a WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE, an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not your personal playground! Please keep things serious or go back to preschool if you can't! --Daniel575 08:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And he just added it for the second time. STOP THIS. What kind of *CENSOR* nonsense is this? If you cannot behave as an adult, please leave. Stop adding this sort of weird nonsense. What you are doing now is plain vandalism. --Daniel575 08:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the third time. This is plain and clear vandalism. I am not accepting this. --Daniel575 08:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You are the one threatening to delete the text, add NPOV-tags over text you have not even discussed, and remove it from the section we ARE discussion.  You add a private phone calls as source material?  It would behoove us all if you would act in a more professional manner. --Historian2 08:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I am leaving this to Agueirro. A plain look in the history of the page will prove that you are hallucinating. Have fun for the rest of the day, and please leave the page as it was. So will I. --Daniel575 09:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not from a private phone call. Rav Ulman is my personal rabbi and I meet him daily and speak to him extensively every shabbat. I don't know where you got the 'phone call' thing from. --Daniel575 09:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the talk page of Sanhedrin you said you were going to call him.  Perhaps a more accurate documentation of the source would be a "private meeting between a Wikipedian and Rabbi Ulman", or we can simply call it original research -- which is what it is -- and remove it from the page.  Before you threaten to delete "90% of what I have written as original research", prove that it is.  --Historian2 10:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not WP:OR, it's a verification of a fact, and the fact was not not only not verified by the party involved, it was rejected as true, therefore it is not true. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 14:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: August Edit War