Talk:Hershel Schachter

message: I added a section on the recent imbroglio about RHS calling for assassination of the Israeli PM as well as repeating earlier controversies that have been very important in MO about women reading the kesubah at a wedding.  I tried to have NPOV but would love to see people improve it!  I think there should be something more substantive about the back and forth with Adler, Avi Weiss etc on women's prayer groups and the related denigration of Edah and later YCT by RHS.  Please help me include this in the most unbiased way possible.~~Josh~~
:I have rewritten it.  If you can give me source relating to the "back and forth with Adler, Avi Weiss "  I can integrate into the section for you. Jon513 (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Adler article is cited on the bottom of this page.  Weiss is from his "Women at Prayer."  There are several detailed discussions of this issue on various blogs such as hirhurim.  The original article of Rabbi Schachter is his famous צאי לך בעקבי הצאן from the eponymous book.  In addition to this someone might want to note RHS's role in the recent conversion brouhaha as the lead arbiter for the RCA of all American conversions. ~~Josh~~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.30.16 (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Took out the blockquote and incoporated its gist into the text; I do not see why we need a hanging blockquote of Larry kaplan on RHS.
~~Josh~~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.30.16 (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I disagree; this quote is not really anything that cannot be included within a short sentence.  Why do we need PROFESSOR Lawrence Kaplans long exposition on the central philosophical position of women's learning in the Rav's weltanschaung?  Its not really a great piece of writing, nor is it informative.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.30.16 (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cut down the cardinals section and eliminated quote.  Your additions to this page are very reflective of TorahWeb, which is great but we need to incorporate some citations of this man's many ספרים as well.  In addition I think he was not the most vehemently opposed to the cardinal's visit though he did quietly walk out of the Beis Medrash.  He did not, for instance, write a letter to the Commentator as some RY's felt was necessary.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.30.16 (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies Section

message: i started this section but now I think this article is getting bogged down w/every stupid statement RHS ever made that offended someone.  The Jlem statment was reported in many news sources and notable, as was the monkey comment.  The others just serve as a gathering of insinuations and character assassinations.  Yes; he says a lot of dumb stuff.  Is this really relevant though?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.30.16 (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies Section Unbalanced

message: I think that some thought has to go into the difference between "Controversies" and "Halakhic opinions" sections.  The is some overlap as he has made some controversial halakic pasasks.  
Firstly, obviously not all of his halakhic opinions are going to make it into this article.  The ones that are mentions are the ones that are unusual, controversial, or notable in some way.  I disagree with Josh that these need to representative.  I don't even know what that would mean (one for each sedar?!).  There is little reason to mention a pasak that does not have interest for most people reading the article.  A controversial halakhic opinion is not a "controversy".  Any criticisms of his pasak should go in "halakhic opinions".  Currently "women's issues" and christains and art are in both sections.  They should be move entirely to the "halacha" section.
The controversies section introduces itself to be about "infelicitous but extemporaneous statements" (btw why use "infelicitous" - I had to look it up! - what's wrong with politically incorrect?) and yet only mentions a few, and then a bunch of "person X disagree with R' Schcachter".  This section should be only for his "off the cuff remarks."
Also the section need to be in paragraph form.  It may be easier to write in bullet, but it is not easier to read. (also it is unencyclopedic - would brittanna have bullet!?) Jon513 (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with the Controversies and halacha sections 

message: I think that these two opinions are not representative of this broad thinker's vast and unremitting output of Halakhic and political opinions on issues like territorial concessions, brain death, kashrut of all dairy products and urban eruvin.  I really would like to see this section either broadened into a representative survey of the literature not just from the interwebs but also from בעקבי הצאן and elsewhere or totally gone.
~~josh~~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.30.16 (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Halachic Opinions Section

message: No mention has been made in this article of Rabbi Schachter's Tanach based haskafah.  I think that this deserves some fleshing out from shiurim and primary sources.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.30.16 (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hashkafah, Tanach

message: While a controversies section is appropriate for this article, please keep WP:NPOV and WP:BLP in mind as to prevent the article from being overly weighted to the negative, despite the presence of sources. Also, everyone should please remember that edit warring may lead to measures being taken to protect the project. Thank you all. -- Avi (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 1] I agree with you that he should not sound like a crazy but since this got started this week through a controversy let's handle it. Lets take the 2003-4 controversies and produce another 2-3 lines that are respectful- because if I found them quickly than so can others. I do not think that they should be taken out entirely. Also the Prof. Kaplan article is on the web and will certainly return to the entry by another editor. Dont take it out, please find a proportional way to include it. --Eat-more-radish (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 2] May I recommend starting a new section on the article's talk page with your suggested changes, asking for comments from the regular editors, and working out an acceptable solution? I think hammering out revisions on the talk page will defuse a lot of the tension that arises with revert wars. If you do put some suggested text on the talk page, drop me a line, as I would be interested in it too. Thanks~ -- Avi (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Except they were all infelicitous, and thats why we are discussing them, inasmuch as they got some folks very angry and that was reported in the press.  And they were all off-the-cuff.
So there you have it.--Chakira (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:Biographies of living persons]]

message: Hey. I'm not really sure why a third opinion is needed here; I don't see any recent discussions between two users. What is the problem here? If anon IPs keep interjecting the same text, you may want to have the page protected. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if Im something of a neophyte, but can I protect the section that keeps getting attacked?--Chakira (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sections can't be protected, but whole pages can. See WP:RPP. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks so much.  I think semi protection will keep us from having an edit war here.  I strongly suspect sock puppetry in reverting this page to note Schachter's ebullient and highly allusive, allegorical and never-meant-to-be-taken-literally style of hyperbolic symbolism.--Chakira (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. If you need more help, let me know. Also remember that sock puppetry doesn't usually count for anon IPs, only registered users. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  In any case it seems as if the vandalism/edit warring has died down.  Thanks. --Chakira (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks as if, after a short hiatus, the vandals have returned.  If this continues can we reprotect the page?--Chakira (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  Is there any indication from their IP addresses whether they are parrots or monkeys? Yudel (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even an anonymous IP address can read the kesubah!--Chakira (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: Removed because of recent major edits by Avi.  --Chakira (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unbalanced Tag

message: Someone keeps writing that he allows women to be rabbis in extenuating circumstances (footnote 8). This is not what the source cited indicates. He says that one opinion in tosafot theorized that women can receive a limited form of semikha ordination on an ad hoc basis, but Schachter himself states that we reject that theory in practice in ALL circumstances. I'm not sure why someone keeps trying to write otherwise, I've edited this out a few times already. Whoever is making this change please identify yourself so this can be debated openly  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.47.200 (talk) 05:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  He does not allow women rabbis in any circumstance 

message: Someone added back some of the controversy (sp?). I believe he misquoted, both times.Mzk1 (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, since there appears to be an edit war (in which I am uninvolved) going on, I will just state that the Jewish Week is questionable as a reliable source.Mzk1 (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misquote 

message: There seems to be a bit of a war over Schachter vs. Rav Shachter. Since the Talmud does consider it an insult to cll someone by his last name (as per Ben-Yishai in Samuel), perhpas a good compromise would be to use "Herschel Schachter". Would this violate policy?Mzk1 (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for compromise on honorifics 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hershel Schachter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130501032832/http://www.jta.org/news/article/2013/03/15/3122161/yeshiva-u-dean-warns-reporting-sex-abuses-can-kill to http://www.jta.org/news/article/2013/03/15/3122161/yeshiva-u-dean-warns-reporting-sex-abuses-can-kill
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified