Talk:Amnon Yitzhak

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikify tag[edit]

I removed the "wikify" tag. If there's no article here explaining what a "baal tshuva rabbi" is, it needs to be created, or the term needs to be explained in this article. There's no mention of the term in the Rabbi article. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 08:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a little more information on context and notability is needed. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 08:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge[edit]

For the moment, I'm pushing for Amnon Itzhak to be merged with Amnon Yitzhak as the second is a far more common spelling and the article has been around for longer. Ayinyud 17:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK for merging[edit]

Shalom and thanks--fivetrees 02:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A controversal figure in Israel[edit]

I think that the English article should discuss Amnon Yitzhak's role in religious-secular relations in Israel, since he had become a symbol during recent years. He is accused as well in murder of teenager who loved to listen to his cassetttes, which worsened his relations with his parents. Please don't delete these mentions, but develop it! Narshavs 21:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the article got a little fussy with the discussion of what other people may or may not think of this person. I have put it more into focus and added details about Amnon Yitzhak. I really do not see why we should expand stuff that is really about other people than the rabbi, and even then unclear. Under the baal teshuva article there is more place for discussion of sociological impacts. Since such impacts are by no means special to Rabbi Yitzhak, there is no need to discuss them over again in every article. On the other hand specific controversies, such as a court case, the suicide, as well as specific discussions about Yitzhak in the better press do have added value for the article. gidonb 14:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, a good article abour a person in encyclopedia should include basic details, the public might be interested. If he is a public figure there should be references on his activity, even if it is controversal. There are very special impacts to R.Amnon, which should be presented here.Narshavs 12:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there are no problems with presenting the Rabbi's activities or possible controversies that are related to him. That is what a biography is about. Regards, gidonb 12:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Orthodox rabbis[edit]

Could you please provide your opinion on the choice of moving living Category:Orthodox rabbis to Category:Contemporary Orthodox rabbis? Thanks --Shuki 21:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have given my opinion. gidonb 00:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion in the Hebrew Wikipedia[edit]

An unbelievable thing happened:

The whole article about Amnon Yitzhak was deleted from the Hebrew Wikipedia.

It happened after Wikimedia Israel received a letter from an attorney representing Yitzhak, which requested to remove allegedly defamatory material from the article.

The article was deleted and recreated without older versions. For the short time that these versions were available, it was possible to see that the article was not any more defamatory against Amnon Yitzhak than an average newspaper or television item about him. Now it's impossible to see that, too (unless one is a sysop there).

Nevertheless, the bureaucrats of the Hebrew Wikipedia chose to salt the article with an explanation similar to WP:OFFICE.

The problem is that it is not a case for WP:OFFICE. Wikimedia Israel is not the main Wikimedia Office, but only a small local association, which is just beginning its life. In any case, as far as my understanding of jurisdiction goes, Wikimedia Israel cannot be held responsible for the content of the article.

This is a sad day for Wikipedia. I'd rather see it go down in flames, than give up to a lawyer. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zionism[edit]

A source for the car: [1]. Mashkin (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that your inclusion of a cat that perhaps violates WP:BLP is of good faith. Either that or you are justifying my edits on the Meretz article, except here one url is brought forth and on that Meretz page, a wide spectrum of sources was provided. --Shuki (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The two issues are not the same. Here the ynet explains precisely in what way he is an anti zionist. It is not an off the cuff remark. There is also the issue of the movie that is described in the article where Yitzhak equates Hitler and Herzl. That is enough for the cat. Mashkin (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it ain't. It is your POV, OR, and violation of BLP. --Shuki (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a well sourced claim. You have never said why you think it is improper. You are not acting in good faith. Mashkin (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are violating WP:BLP as well as specifically Wikipedia:Categorization of people. You are falsely lumping Rabbi Yitzhak in a category. The rabbi might have some controversial views but is clearly not an anti-zionist. --Shuki (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit is clearly in bad faith since you never said why you object to the tag which is compeletly consistent with the article and the sources. He is explicitly described as an anti Zionist in Wikipedia's article. How can you claim that the tag violates BLP? Mashkin (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for pointing that out. I removed that section. Many people do not take part in Israeli elections, does not make them anti-zionist. Many others also criticize the Israeli democracy, does not make them anti-zionist. If you want a comparison, Rabbi Yitzhak is not Neturei Karta or Chomsky. --Shuki (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is probably more anti Zionist than Chomsky (but I will let them debate it). Any case, this is a well sourced and well reasoned claim. do not remove or I will ask that the article be locked. Mashkin (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well sourced indeed...What does 'well reasoned' have to do about it? And get the article locked? Is this another one of the articles you are WP:OWNER of? --Shuki (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His Anti Zionism is explained bot has a historical view (Herzl=Hitler) and current action (boycotting elections). Both of these facts are well sourced as well as the characterization as an Anti Zionist. Mashkin (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Ynet is not a RS when it comes to Jewish issues and boycotting elections does not make one anti-zionist. If you want to include legitimate information that will pass BLP and categorization, you will need to provide better sources and prove how this label is significant in the subjects life. --Shuki (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article, by Avishai Ben Haim who specializes in the religious and Haredi movements is an RS for the purposes of figuring out a movement/person view on Zionism and whether it is anti Zionist. As I said, he explains how he came to that conclusion (we do not have to guess and wonder whether anyone who disagree with him is an Anti Zionist). Mashkin (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your attempt to blacken the rabbi's image will need multiple RS, not one lone doubtful one. --Shuki (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my attempt to "blacken" his image, just preserve the quality of Wikipedia by keeping well sourced info. I have asked a whole bunch of editors interested in Israel to comment. Mashkin (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was asked to have a look at this by Mashkin. It does appear that the statement is properly sourced to a news article (not an opinion piece) by Ynet which clearly explains that the tape is anti-Zionist, and why. The quote attributed to the article also appears to be correct and no misinterpretation has been made. Therefore, I don't see any problem with including the passage, although I think it should be paraphrased. There is absolutely no WP:BLP violation here. --Ynhockey (Talk) 20:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yan, "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources,". Here, it is not. If all we needed was one lone source then 'anti-Zionist' can then be applied to virtually every Haredi rabbi. I am asking for more sources, especially ones related to Judaism, other than this single 'according to Ynet' article to base this claim. And to label this rabbi with the anti-Zionist cat, is a clear violation of WP:categorization. Even if more sources can back up this 'anti-Zionist' can be provided, lumping Rabbi Yitzhak with Satmar and Neturei Karta is skewed and not "relevant to the person's notability". --Shuki (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ynet is a reliable source. It is an independent secondary source with solid editorial oversight. It's pretty much as reliable as a non-academic source will get, and academic sources are not a requirement for BLP. Moreover, Haaretz completely support this claim, and as much as I'm personally opposed to Haaretz, it's also a reliable source. I also do not understand how being anti-Zionist is not relevant to this person's notability. He is known for two things: his anti-Zionism, and his conversions attempts to convert seculars to religion. There doesn't appear to be any undue weight in the article, although if you can write something about his conversions, as someone who probably knows more than me about the rabbi, feel free to do so. --Ynhockey (Talk) 21:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ynet is a RS in itself, but when making controversial claims about a BLP, it should be well sourced. I read the whole article and frankly, the author himself does not mention how Rabbi Yitzhak is anti-Zionist and I explicitly challenge this claim. I agree that HaAretz would not be a RS on this issue since they are anti-religion in general. The Ynet article (read until the end) is a POV piece that is not itself RS.
Yan, you are disappointing me. I expect deeper thought from an experienced editor. Now, is the rabbi really known for his anti-Zionism? OR from what I know, and certainly POV until proven otherwise. When does anti-government become anti-Zionist? Does Rabbi Yitzhak march through the streets and promote boycotting elections (so what, many secular don't vote, not an anti-Zionist attitude at all), destroying the State, draft-dodging (Yesh Gvul anti-Zionist?), and civil disobedience to other Zionist organizations and government offices? Does criticizing the courts infer 'anti-Zionism'? By this justification, if Rabbi Yitzhak is to be labelled anti-Zionist in this sense, than most Haredi rabbis as well as the Lubavitcher Rebbe who certainly was, and all Chabad supporters who do not say the prayer for the welfare of the state of Israel. Above all, anti-government, or anti-institutional does not mean Anti-Zionism. Please read that article and then tell me if Rabbi Yitzhak is an anti-Zionist.--Shuki (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that information regarding Yitzhak's anti-Zionism is relevant. I am not sure that this is a news article per se, it is in a section titles "Parashat Hashavua", so perhaps it should be attributed to Ben Haim and not just Ynet. Also, I found this article, which also considers him an anti-Zionist. -- Nudve (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the 'acclaimed' source is a POV 'gossip-like' column, not a news article. Jpost is an RS, the said column is not. --Shuki (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an RS who is explicitly given as the source. POV is something that articles in Wikipedia should not have, not sources, so your comment is not even worthy of a discussion.Mashkin (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no question that Amnon Yitzhak's views are anti-secular, but whether they are anti-Zionist would depend on your perspective. If the secular government in Israel is referred to as "Zionist", then clearly he is anti-Zionist, but not in the sense in which Arabs, far-left or ultra-orthodox splinter groups are: he is not calling for Jews to give up the land to the Arabs, nor does he have any sympathy for the latter. Clearly, he is only anti-Zionist in a sense synonimous with anti-secular. Eliyyahu (talk)
Thank you for your opinion. I am not sure that I see the distinction between him and other ultra orthodox anti Zionist. Any case, do you object to citing ynet (with an explicit attribution)? Mashkin (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I am not sure there is much distiction with the mainstream ultra-Orthodox, but I wouldn't put him in the same box as Neturei Karta, who explicitly make friends with Israel's enemies. I think a YNet quote may be relevant, but if you read it carefully, it is MK Yuval Steinitz that labels Amnon Yitzhak "anti-Zionist", not YNet. Eliyyahu (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is the ynet reprter Ben Haim whay labels him as anti zionist "הרב המחזיר בתשובה, אמנון יצחק, נחשב לבעל תפיסה אנטי-ציונית מובהקת, עם קווי איפיון קרובים לתפיסה החרדית-קיצונית מבית מדרשה של חסידות "סאטמר". כמותם, גם הוא מחרים את הבחירות לכנסת. השקפה זו חריגה מאוד בקרב הציבור החרדי–מזרחי, ועוד יותר בקרב בעלי התשובה המזרחיים, קהל היעד המועדף של הרב אמנון יצחק." Mashkin (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eliyyahu and Nudve, thank you for agreeing to discuss. In order so that Mashkin and I understand your position, could you please A) make an explicit comment on whether the ynet reporter's claim in a gossip-like column is a good source or if more sources are required and B) confirm that the 'anti-Zionist' cat does not violate Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#Biographies of living people. I would like it to be clear because I think that in order to not have a double standard, we would need to categorize (or not) other people and rabbis with similarly sourced opinions as anti-Zionists as well, perhaps everyone mentioned here : Haredim and Zionism. --Shuki (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Ben-Haim is generally considered an authority on Haredim matters, but since this is more of an assessment than hard fact (WP:ASF), it should be attributed to him. Here is another source, not sure how reliable, that discusses his anti-Zionism. Personally, I usually try to avoid POV categories, so I would support keeping the text but removing the category, if only as a compromise. -- Nudve (talk) 08:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rav Amnon Itzhak is against Religious Zionism as well, he even claims in some events that the so-called "religious zionism" is worst, for trying to represent itself as more "Modern" and "Advanced" than the secular zionism. moreover, they "digest" the religious men into the secular zionism, and both have the same WAY OF THINKING OR PERCEPTION. I'm Israeli jew who is connected with his lectures and initiuative of Kiruv.84.111.208.168 (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TGI[edit]

Mashkin, WP:AGF. TGI is the benchmark the Israeli media uses to compare between each other and to decide advertising rates. [2]. C'mon, do you expect me to add a sentence about TGI in the article? and frankly, the article does not need information you demand, surveys before and after which is irrelevant to this article. You should stick to articles you know something about. --Shuki (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benchmarks of newspaper circulations are problematic in Israel and certainly a single survey is not noteworthy. However, we do not even know what this survey said. The article only says that in Bnei Brak the Arba knafot weekly bypassed *in exposure* (not circulation) the other Haredi newspapers. Mashkin (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A) your OR. B) Tell me Mashkin, when a single columnist thinks something that is fine. Right? C)If you think I made a mistake correct it, don't remove it. --Shuki (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the problematic part - the one claiming that it is the most widely circulated newspaper in the ultra orthodox community. The cited article simply does not support the claim. I also doubt that it is true. Mashkin (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mash, what part of this sentence from the original Hebrew source do you think I am making up: מסקר TGI האחרון, שהתפרסם בשבוע שעבר, עולה כי מכלל כל הקוראים החרדים והדתיים של עיתוני סוף השבוע החרדים במדינה, הצליח עיתונו של הרב יצחק, "ארבע כנפות" לעקוף לראשונה את שני היומונים המובילים במגזר "המודיע" ו"יתד נאמן". Frankly, your accusation is false and your accusation also misleading (not the first time, but who's counting?). I am not claiming that it is the most widely circulated newspaper in the Haredi community, I am merely paraphrasing the Hebrew line above. Literally it means:

From the last TGI survey, that was publicized last week, it was found that of all the Haredi and religious readers of weekend Haredi newspapers in the state, Rabbi Yitzhak's newspaper, Arba Knafot, succeeded in passing for the first time the leading two dailies of the sector - "HaModia" and "Yated Ne'eman".

As for your 'doubt', are you doubting NRG reporting now? Are you claiming that NRG / Maariv is not a RS, or not using relaibles sources itself. C'mon Mash, read WP:V. --Shuki (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading comprehension or integrity problems by Shuki: בבני ברק למשל, קיבל עיתונו מקום ראשון בין כלל העיתונים החרדים. The next sentence says that in "Bnei Brak, for instance, his newspaper received first place among all haredi newspapers". So all we get for sure is that in Bnei Brak this was the case, it does not tell us what happened elsewhere, it does not give us any numbers, so that we will be able to trust the report. This make the whole article, even though published in nrg which is a reasonable source untrustworthy as a source for what was in the TGI report. If you are serious, find the reprot and say what's in it. Mashkin (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uptodate report on newspapers and weeklys in the ultra orthodox community: [3]. Here is a report on a recent TGI survey of the Haredi community. This sort of reporting tells you something about the subject (e.g. it actually gives percentages). Arba Kanfot is not even mentioned. Mashkin (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mash, there is absolutely nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. If you need me to explain it... The last line of the paragraph adds that in Bnei Brak, Arba Knafot even beat out all the Haredi weekend papers. There are other Haredi weekend newspapers. But you would not know that because you have no idea what you are editing. Only here to disrupt an article about someone you do not like. I'm quoting NRG. Oh, and suddenly you are giving credit to TGI? --Shuki (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing disputed statement on circulation

I am removing the disputed sentence on circulation until the end of the discussion. Mashkin (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion ended when I proved that what I inserted was a very good interpretation of what is in the article. Your updated report is irrelevant to this article and frankly you can't even insert a statement like 'in the 2009, the newspaper was not in the survey' because that would be OR. The 'reliable source' reports what happened in 2007. When a soccer player has a high season of goals in 2007 and in 2009 is not mentioned, then you report that achievement in 2007. --Shuki (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot declare unilaterally that the discussion has ended. The report from nrg is very partial and unclear regarding what is in the TGI report. Furthermore, if you look at the globes report from 2009 [4] you will see that they claim that this is the first comprehensive TGI report regarding the Haredi market. Mashkin (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is over because your tactic is to ignore what I claim anyway and especially if you disagree with it. You have a history of refusing to compromise or accept possibly 'losing' a battle you have picked unless someone else comes along and steps in. I know you know, but choose to ignore that WP is a collaboration of many editors and that their are certain guidelines that are recommended, a many that are enforced (as we recently experienced).
The discussion is over because if this article was 56k long, we would want to make things more concise. But when it is still a stub, you have little right to chop out information because you simply do not like it. You have absolutely no wish to improve this article, only to make sure that Rabbi Yitzhak is not portrayed well. That is WP:BADFAITH, not your whiny edit message accusations at me.
The discussion is over because I can't discuss anything with a hypocrite. You wage a war to get Rabbi Yitzhak declared an anti-Zionist based on one gossip column in which a columnist makes a personal analysis, but lo and behold, when a source that is reporting facts from a survey (you are now trying to discredit as 'old') then it's not good enough for you, because it might reduce the quality of the page. I suppose you deserve a barnstar for that. There simply is no use in discussing anything with you anymore. --Shuki (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that Shuki has a case here. The information is not cited as an undisputed fact, but rather attributed to a particular survey from a given date. It is also channeled through a reliable secondary source. Why shouldn't it be mentioned? Of course, more recent information is welcome, to show Yitzhak's newspaper's progress/decline. -- Nudve (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read the nrg article carefully. It does not give enough details about the TGI survey to make the said conclusion. Look in contrast at the Globes report to see a full report of the recent TGI survey. Furthermore, globes claims that this is the first real survey of the Haredi market. So it seems that the nrg report could have been based solely on some survey of Bnei Brak. The reporting is simply too fuzzy to be certain of the claim. It we add a the citation of the recent surey where the Shofar newspapers do not exist, we may be creating an event that did not happen - the rise ad fall of a Haredi media mogul. Mashkin (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to give an external opinion on the inclusion of the TGI figure. I advise against it for the following reasons:

  1. Based on the reading of several other sources, the NRG description of the TGI report seems very confused.
  2. Our article is about Amnon Yitzhak. Unless he is explicitly listed as the publisher, it would be best to confine circulation and exposure data of a publication, which his organization founded, to an article about the publication. Especially the comparison with other publications would become too far removed from our subject (on this very talk page, I have warned against the same with broad social discussions).

BTW, there is nothing wrong with TGI, nor have they just started their survey on the Haredi newspapers.gidonb (talk) 06:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you gidon. Making a seperate new article for Rabbi Yitzhak's 'Shofar' is certainly a good idea. I suppose that is what the other editor wanted as well. --Shuki (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are most welcome. Before creating a new article on Shofar, consider also the downside. Unlike Arba Kanfot, Shofar is only once removed from Rabbi Yitzhak, so it can be covered more extensively in this article. It is an organization around Amonon Yitzhak. You were unhappy with the accent on the anti-Zionistic views of Yitzhak, which are indeed covered beyond proportion with his other views and activities. Most of Yitzhak's current activities are within the framework of Shofar. In other words, keeping the two combined contributes to (or may even be key to) dealing with your additional concerns and improving the quality of this article.
If you would like to cover Arba Knafot more extensively, I would advise on creating a specific article on that publication. It is considered a successful local newspaper and has been noted in the Israeli national press. An article with some data - such as the the name of the editor (Yitzhak Nahshoni) and exposure data - would be an excellent contribution to both our coverage of the Haredi community and media in Israel! Best regards, gidonb (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime I found out that Arba Knafot is closed, apparently because of differences in opinion between the chief editor and Rabbi Yitzhak. The following article from Maariv has some details about recent events in the organization of Yitzhak: http://www.bhol.co.il/forum/topic.asp?topic_id=2485681&forum_id=771. I have only skim-read it so far. gidonb (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the Maariv article that Gidon found to the bibliography and it was removed by Shuki, with no reason. This is inappropriate. Mashkin (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor wishes to contribute properly than s/he would include information into an article and then source it. Merely 'fire&forget' does no one any benefit, especially to a unique 'bibliography' section the article does not really lean on and is more reminicent of a high school book report. --Shuki (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(submitting my original line after a coincidental edit conflict with Shuki) Mashkin, I can see why Shuki was concerned with the extra visibility for this single source. I have changed it into a regular cite news reference. I hope this OK with both of you. gidonb (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, I have done the same with a reference in the external links and expanded the biography with the Strauss boycott. gidonb (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism[edit]

The category is well-sourced (see discussion "Zionism" above) therefore it's inclusion isn't up for debate. Anyone who wants to get rid of it can discuss those sources at WP:RSN or similar, please don't edit war over inclusion in a category that is straight-forwardly justified by sources in the article. Misarxist (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the only source for that claim is some guy that called him "anti zionist" just cause he talk against some "zionist leaders" and its dosnt realy say anything.
he dosnt resist to the state of israel and in the same time very religious and very close to the jewish people so he can't be "anti zionist" like the arab partys.what exactly make him "anti zionist"??.

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Amnon Yitzhak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missing- the fight and rivalry against Shas party[edit]

What is missing here is the great fight against Shas party, the so-called "Sephardi", but aactuly cantered or controlled by morroccean North-African Jews, (with minority of Iraqi leaders). This fight (or rivalry) become of Political dimention. It is being discussed and analyzed in Media, and other Public stages. THe rivalry is important and an echo and expresasion of deeper dynamics of the (Orthodox and general) society in Israel.84.111.208.168 (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amnon_Yitzhak&oldid=1210605062"