On Jan 28, 2008, at 12:21 AM, daniwo59@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%27s%20Tele- rabbi.htm_
Try: <http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RINVol6No2/Israel%27s%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