In a message dated 1/28/2008 2:13:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, amir.aharoni@gmail.com writes:
On 28/01/2008, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
That said, having looked at the current Hebrew article, and being
familiar
with the most of the incidents, the article is highly POV. That is to
say, it
may be sourced, but it is still POV. For any Israelis reading this list,
Shach
and Ovadiah Yoseph made no less outrageous comments in their time, but
their
articles seem to be far more balanced.
The current article also suffers from all the brouhaha around it. It has been edited by several new accounts, which are most probably operated by experienced users whose reaction to the situation is part encyclopedic, part tongue-in-cheek. Certainly not the right way to handle it.
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%27s%20Tele-rabbi.htm_ (http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RINVol6No2/Israel%27s%20Tele-rabbi.htm) . Right now, the Hebrew version is essentially a two-line introduction, followed by a list of all the controversial statements he made.
Danny
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489