Talk:Yitzchak Hutner

message: 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) 
* You have the facts right it seems. IZAK 09:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Last years in Israel

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rabbi Hutner was Haredi 

message: 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)
thread_title: Position paper?

message: 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)
replies: text: Please state your reasons in as much detail as possible:
*My latest expansion of the article is accurate and based on WP:RS, more sources will be forthcoming. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Expanding the article discussions 

message: 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!
*The high school was founded by him in 1936 and then the main yeshiva in 1940, he took over an elementary school and built it up! Can't you read! IZAK (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiable information and accurate quotes from sources. 

message: 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)
thread_title: Not quite fair, talking while an ANI case opens

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Tags? 

message: To both Winchester and Yehoishophot:
#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. 
#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. 
#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. 
#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. 
#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. 
#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. 
#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. 
#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. 
#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. 
#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.
#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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Rabbi Hutner was NOT a "disciple" of the Lubavitcher Rebbe

message: 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)
thread_title:  Weight loss 

message: I have removed information sourced from 'Chasidic Historical Productions' which is an obviously biased and self-published imprint with only a single controversialEisenberg, Charles. The Book of Daniel: A Well Kept Secret. Xulon Press. 2007. Page 103. 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)
thread_title:  Removing unreliable sources 

message: Reliable sources spell Hutner's anglicized Hebrew name as Yitzchak,
including two English articles of his own from 1970:
 has both spellings (one in toc and this one on the first page of the article);
 has "Yitzchak" 2-3 times.
The New York Times  spelled his name "Yitzhak" in 1970, as did the obituary in JTA in 1980 .
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Done.  Thanks User:Catfish Jim and the soapdish.  2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:BC60:CE9:6B30:9FE1 (talk) 09:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Spelling