On Jan 28, 2008, at 12:21 AM, daniwo59(a)aol.com wrote:
Yes, the article is POV and Yitzhak is known for 1) being
litigious, and 2)
twisting facts. Rather than simply protecting it, the article
should be
stubbed first--I doubt he would have a problem with the current
English version
of the article at
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnon_Yitzhak_
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnon_Yitzhak) . For people who want
some sense of who this guy
is, see
_http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RINVol6No2/Israel's%20Tele-
rabbi.htm_
Try: <http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RINVol6No2/Israel's%20Tele-
rabbi.htm>
I dunno how much Israeli culture has dealt with his ilk, in the US,
we have come to expect pederasty, prostitution, tearful confessions,
litigation, and vast financial empires being built this way. It can
be a tricky topic, dealing with the "savior of the day".
That being said, I can understand how other cultures, not used to
frequent savior figures, have to wrestle with such issues, while at
the same time, cultures *with* savior figures argue over their
saviors of the day....
That being said, WP is not the target, as WP should not be the
*source* of information. We repeat what others have said, and we try
to repeat sources which *can be* targets.
If Yitzhak *wants* to be litigious, I suggest he look at the en
[[WP:SCN]] team, where the crew works in the constant threat of
litigation.
Put another way, we let the crazies hoist themselves with their own
petards.
Less work for us that way.
-Bop