This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Hershel Schachter be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() |
This Rabbi was the subject of an Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week. |
![]() |
|
|
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~~
Im trying to fix up the grammar in this section and make it sound less like the esteemed Rabbi's shiur and more like an article. I think it was an especially poor word choice to say that he came "under fire" for his recent remarks about the Israeli PM. In addition he was not criticized for his comments at Yeshivat haKotel; he made the comments at Kotel. Please help keep this NPOV and amicable so we can build a higher quality article that reflects both the importance of and the strong feelings engendered by this Rabbi.
~~Josh~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.30.16 ( talk) 20:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Let us worry about proportion and dangling after the article and section is finished. A lot more may be added by then. Dear 72.229.30.16 I dont know the books you cited on my talk page- you should add them.-- Eat-more-radish ( talk) 21:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
took out all but the three main controversies reported in the press and those disgusting bullet points. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.229.30.16 (
talk)
12:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I think taking out the section on controversies really takes away from the article. Many of the off the cuff remarks give a fuller view of who he is and how he is perceived. Plus I haven't heard a shiur about kesuba in YU/Riets in which the rebbe didn't make a joke about a monkey reading the kesuba. Some of his comments have really had an impact at YU. especially at the purim shpeils —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
66.234.35.236 (
talk)
05:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The 2008 Jewish Week article on Rabbi Schachter referred to a series of prior press controversies from 2003-2006. The goal was to add them. This is how the Rabbi shows up in a newspaper search. I have no intention of adding any more controversies. The section is large enough. Since, the Rabbi had a controversy this week that section was written first. In fact I worked on the opinion section also so that it would not be unbalanced. Every line had a source. The edit war is not over WP:NPOV but over the WP:NOR that another editor is engaged in by presenting non-sourced materials and taking out the sourced. Thank you for looking into the article. -- Eat-more-radish ( talk) 17:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I wrote message 1] on Avi's talk page and he responded with 2] on mine. For those of us who got involved in wikipedia through rubber necking a controversy, I think we need to include the controversies of 2003-4 because they show up in newspaper search. can we produce another 2-3 lines that will include the earlier ones? Also the Lawrence Kaplan article is online and will be added, in time by others. Can someone find a proportional way to add both that does not violate WP:BLP? I am not sure that I can meet the wiki editor standards of BLP but if I found those reliable sources in a few minutes of web search then so can others. Let us take care of this now to head off future debates over include or exclude. Let us include them now, but within guidelines.-- Eat-more-radish ( talk) 19:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
"has been criticized for a series of infelicitous but extemporaneous statements"
This seems both passive voice and a POV. I changed it to the more objective and requiring sources "newspapers have cited him for rebuke" but it was reversed. -- Eat-more-radish ( talk) 19:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
has been criticized for a series of infelicitous but extemporaneous statements
So there you have it.-- Chakira ( talk) 03:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
Per WP:BLP text such as "lambasted" etc. is inappropriate unless this is sourced reliably. Furthermore, even if it can, biographies of living people must be written extremely carefully with respect to how they are portrayed. I am certain that the controversies can be discussed without excoriation and vitriol. Please work out proper text here before restoring inappropriate material. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 04:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I have also re-written the Halacha section as prose (thanks for the corrections/improvements, Chakira). What are the thoughts abouut the article now? -- Avi ( talk) 08:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
(<-)All it says of import is:
R' Schachter is the posek for the YU eruv, and thus certainly supports the concept of eruvin in Manhattan. He declined to be the Rav Hamachshir for this eruv. However, members of the eruv committee have been in touch with him regarding the eruv. here are some minor differences of opinion between him and Rav Wosner, and the eruv follows the psak of Rav Wosner. However, we are open to accomodating as many shitot as possible, and are looking for ways to adjust the eruv to address any difference of opinion. Everyone is encouraged to consult with his or her posek in terms of a decision regarding the use of any eruv.
— Mt Sinai Jewish Center of Washington Heights
There is absolutely no mention of any controversy or inconsistency as to R' Schachter's position, so the text that was there was original synthesis. -- Avi ( talk) 17:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I have never heard of this entire controversy (since removed) except on this page, but reading the quote here, it strikes me as a simple halachic statement. Use of a "monkey" is a basic halachic concept saying that a task may be automated. I see nothing that anyone with knowledge of Halacha should be offended by, except for the hyper-sensitive. If we held any Rosh Yeshiva to that standard, he (pronoun intentional) could not give a class. Mzk1 ( talk) 09:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Removed because of recent major edits by Avi. -- Chakira ( talk) 01:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
Someone added back some of the controversy (sp?). I believe he misquoted, both times. Mzk1 ( talk) 19:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, the word "shvartse" means "black" in Yiddish. That's it. When English speakers use it, it's mostly (always?) used in a derogatory way, but I'm not aware of any other way to say it in Yiddish. See also the definition in this article in Jewish Currents ("considered insulting although it literally means 'black'") or this article on the Orthodox Union website ("not inherently offensive; it just means 'black.'"). Neither of those articles condone or approve of its use, by the way. In any event, The Forward does not refer to it as an "offensive Yiddish racial slur"; it doesn't characterize the word at all. Meanwhile, our article has a direct quote from the YU spokesman describing it as a "derogatory racial term". Why must we inaccurately gild the lily here and violate WP:IMPARTIAL, when we already have a direct quote from the YU describing the term and condemning Schachter for its use? Jayjg (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Schachter cited concerns that if the child's story was a fabrication, it could result in a Jew's being locked "in a cell with a shvartze, in a cell with a Muslim, a black Muslim who wants to kill all the Jews." Yeshiva University condemned the use of the term shvartze (
a racially loaded Yiddish word that means blackthe Yiddish word for black, racially loaded when directed at a person): “The recent use of a derogatory racial term and negative characterizations of African-Americans and Muslims, by a member of the faculty, are inappropriate, offensive, and do not represent the values and mission of Yeshiva University,” a YU spokesman stated.
When English speakers use it, it's mostly (always?) used in a derogatory way. StonyBrook ( talk) 15:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)