Talk:Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin

message: Gentlemen, we need to get a couple things out here if we are going to continue this in a civilized manner.  I request that each of you sign below this text that you agree to the following statements.  I consider these to be essential and mandatory to our progress here:
* Anything you add to this article has to be verifiable through reliable sources. Adding unverifiable text to this article is useless to serious readers.
* Adding and removing text from this article to make a point is plain disruptive, and likewise useless.
* Protecting pages harms the encyclopedia when it can be prevented through thoughtful discourse - that's what we're supposed to be doing here.
* We are not going to edit disputed sections of the article until we agree on wording here on the talk page.
I'll be the first one to agree. :)
* --Aguerriero (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction and Background 

message: Under 'controversy', it says that '...Rather than a source of religious division, G-d forbid, it is a vehicle...' Is the 'G-d' realy necessary, or even correct, or did he actually say 'God', enouncianting the 'o'? Becuase if he didn't literally say 'G-d', then this is incorrct and, I suspect, not in line with Wiki policy, as it would be an example of religious bias.
Secondly, do the sections under contovery realy need to all be called 'the debate stirred within the ...camp'? As they do not literally have tents, they are not camps but groups, and the phrase is very cumbersome, looking ugly on the contents page. Wouldn't it be better to simply name the group?
And are we really quoting from some random person's blog? If the are important, this should be acknowledged. Larklight 20:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote appears on their website with almost exactly the wording as it appears here.  They say it is from Arutz-7, but I couldn't find it.  As far a the second question, about the relevance of the sections under contoversy, I tend to agree with you.  They seem to add something, but not in proportion to the space the take up. --Historian2 07:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Amazing there would be so much controversy over this article.  Still, as for the important scholars of the Haredi community, shouldn't they make some kind of statement regarding the attempts at restarting the Sanhedrin?  Their silence could be interpreted as either tacit support, or as ignoring an "irrelevant" movemnet.  Wiki is a great tool in fostering broad consensus about this issue.  Also, why is Sanhedrin automatically pooled with extreme right-wing Religious Zionists, and/or Kahanist elements?  The Kahanists are listed as terrorists by Western governments; it would be shameful for such a noble effort to restart the Sanhedrin be associated with such movements. 130.91.98.31 02:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Haredim are not silent on this. They actually have made much comment about it. This is another case of Wikipedia rewriting reality. 124.168.28.42 21:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have been through this before, see the archives.  Do you have a source with "much comment"? --Historian2 11:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor Issues

message: "They blew the shofar on Rosh Hashanah in September 2006, which fell on a Shabbat. This was essentially a claim to the rights and authority of a true Sanhedrin."
No the so-called sanhedrin did not blow the shofar on Rosh Hashanah. Some members went on their own to blow the shofar. I would share more details but most of them are not public. I hate to do this but I am going to link to an anal website for a source of what I said above. This by no means I support their methods. However, it is the only public source of information on the issue. There are issues of privacy that the website takes into no consideration and I do no recommend it to be directly included in the article.  124.168.28.42 21:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording "they blew" is based on Haaretz, what wording would you suggest? --Historian2 11:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with the wording of "they blew." Please re-read what I said. 124.168.28.42 15:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't follow.  Please suggest better wording. --Historian2 09:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The shofar blowing had no relation to the sanhedrin. Media is not an accurate source. They feel free to call whoever whatever they want. Just like JPost calls 300 or so homosexual Jews wearing European clothes ultra-orthodox. Imagine me arguing on the Charedi article because JPosts calls these people ultra-orthodox the view of ultra-othrodoxy is tolerant to homosexuality. 124.168.9.180 04:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  They blew the shofar 

message: Are these the same guy? Please pick one spelling & stick with it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.182.210 (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yakov Berav or Jacob Berab 

message: :Image:Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz.jpg

message: :Image:Sanhedrin in session.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Sanhedrin in session.jpg

message: I see the  tag has been added, but I don't think this is appropriate.  While many religious zionists may support the new sanhedrin, many don't.  The group itself does not self-identify as a Religious Zionist organization, but rather as an organization of Jewish law.  If support of the State of Israel is any measure of zionism, then the "new sanhedrin" doesn't come close. --Historian2 (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I added this article to the template because it seems (to me) to espouse the movement for further entrenching of Jewish religious law and custom into Israeli governmental institutions, or at least that's what I think the goal of Religious Zionism is all about. But you're right, the group is, at the moment, more religiously-functioning than politically-active. Oh, and I notice that at least one of the articles on the Sanhedrin website and this Wikipedia article share the same or similar text, but their stuff is copyrighted rather than GFDL'ed. --Toussaint (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think their intention is to replace Israeli governmental institutions. That would make them more closely aligned to the anti-zionist views of Neturei Karta.  The original article was here . Their new article is a rip of the wikipedia from 21:22, 26 February 2008. See here  I will write to them and tell them to indicate their source. --Historian2 (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Another thing, the article mentions Rabbi Yisrael Ariel as being a former Kach member who calls for transfer of the Arabs from Israeli territory; being a (former?) Kahanist, wouldn't that also place him within the scope of religious Zionism since Kahanism is categorized as a derivative wing of the ideology? Not that it would make the whole provisional Sanhedrin a religious Zionist organization, just mentioning that he identifies as such. --Toussaint (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Their members seem to be a mix of all sorts of streams of Judaism: Rambamist, Yemenite, Chabad, Breslov, Litvish, so I don't know how I would categorize the group as a whole. --Historian2 (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find any source with identifies the "sanhedrin" with the National Religious. Do you have one? --Historian2 (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I guess this isn't necessarily or explicitly a Religious Zionist movement, and probably just stirs the interest of the Religious Zionists at best. I just removed the template. --Toussaint (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious Zionism tag?

message: Hi Historian: Can we get a list of all past and current members of this modern day self-declared "Sanhedrin" and from that it will be easy to see the ideology of the rabbis involved in it. In the menatime, it's worthwhile quoting from the following articles from Haaretz; Last update - 28/02/2007 in full because of the Religious Zionist names and that of Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz of Chabad. I have linked the names in these article to names of people and institutions with links to the Religious Zionist ideology. Click on each link in Wikipedia to see the obvious Religious Zionist connection of all the parties.:
:"...The modern Sanhedrin was established several years ago and is headed by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz...Professor Hillel Weiss, a member of the Sanhedrin...Rabbi Menachem Froman, far-right activist Moshe Feiglin, and Nativ editor Arieh Stav will participate in the conference. The guest of honor will be Makor Rishon publisher Shlomo Ben-Zvi."
See JPost, Jun 25, 2008:
:"In Jerusalem recently interviewed Rabbi Yeshayahu Hollander ("a Ram in Yeshivat Hesder"), a member of the nascent Sanhedrin responsible for relations with the gentile world and reestablishing the other functions performed by the Sanhedrin."
In the world of Torah Judaism, besides some Chabad rabbis, no known posek, rosh yeshiva or rabbi from any known Haredi and Hasidic sector has approved of this effort. The sole Religious Zionist and Chabad leadership in this controversial move is very strongly indicated and proven. There are many more sources like this. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Solely Religious Zionist and Chabad involvement

message: Believe that the a citation needed should be added after this paragraph and am looking for a consensus as I see this page has become quite contentious. Also if a source for the Radvaz's concurring with the Ralbach can be added. Menachemsdavis (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rambam semicha by consensus: Chazon Ish's view 

message: It is really strange that this article mentions the 2004 ongoing attempt, but does not actually discuss it at all. MikeR613 (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  2004 attempt