Talk:Ovadia Yosef

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

Not "Orthodox" - He was Sephardic[edit]

The labels Orthodox, Reform, Conservative/Masorti, etc., are all Ashkenazi Rite traditions. Yosef was SEPHARDIC! We do not have these multiple religious traditions in Sephardic Rite worship, so he should not be identified as "Orthodox Judaism". Instead, the better label would be "Judaism (Sephardic Rite)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.244.28 (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Family History[edit]

What about adding his family info. How many sons/daughters, what do they do? Names? Wife's name? etc.Gavhathehunchback 04:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity[edit]

'Mizrahi' is not a religious culture; it is a collective ethnic designation for Jews whose ancestors never left the Middle East. They might be Arab Jews, Persian Jews, Egyptian Jews, even Yemenite Jews are sometimes described as 'Mizrahi'. Yosef's religious affiliation was Sephardic Rite Judaism. The Sephardim as an ethnic group, however, are the Jews historically associated with Spain and Portugal, prior to the expulsions of 1492 (Castile & Aragon) and 1497 (Portugal).

The term "Arab" also has multiple meanings. It is first a term of trans-national identity, referring to the modern nation-states that were historically part of the "Arab Empire" (i.e., the two Caliphates) that was eventually conquered by the Ottoman Turks. It is second a term of linguistic identity. The designation "Arab nation" also includes any nation that has Arabic as an official language. The third meaning is the original one, which is the ethnic designation. Ethnic Arabs are the people whose ancestors originated in the tribes of Arabia (which comes from the Semitic root meaning "wilderness").

Many, if not most Arab tribes and nationalities claim descent from "the Father of the Multitudes" or Ibrahim/Abraham, who is also ancestor of the Yehudim/Jews, the Samaritans, the Bedouin, etc.

Note: Syrians and Assyrians are NOT Arabs. Notwithstanding Syria is a member of the Arab league, and there are a lot of people of Arab descent in Syria, Syrians as an ethnic group are distinct from Arabs as an ethnic group. Likewise, Kurds and Persians are not even Semites - they're Indo-European peoples related to Greeks, Armenians, Irish, Swedish, Bengali, Baluchi, Pujabi, etc. - so they definitely are not Arabs. 216.31.244.28 (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article fail to mention what his ethnic background is... Is He Kurdish or Arabic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.241.131.23 (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His ethnic background is mentioned: he is a Mizrahi Jew. Sstr (talk) 03:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The set of religious cultures is different than ethnic background. So going back to the question...What is his ethnic background. Lets say he remained in Iraq, what would he describe himself as? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.203.194.50 (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A corpse probably, if he kept saying those things out loud ;p Simanos (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His ethnic group is Asiatic sub grouping Semitic Tribal Hebrew-ISRaelite. [Descendants of Jacob aka Israel]

Historically known as Jews or Israelites (Non convert in origin). Jews generally tend to look close to the native ethnic group, but revert to the native "Sabra" look when born in Israel within one or two generations.

Arabs are generally (though not always) Asiatic sub grouping Semitic Tribal Hebrew-ISHmaelite

The first Hebrews were Terah [Abraham's Father] and his family. Hebrew means on the other side and is a reference to either the eastern side of the Euphrates or possibly even The Tigris. Sources: Asia and Its Peoples, Talmud (regarding Abraham's origins) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.85.196 (talk) 05:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy of quotes[edit]

Someone emailed me and said that the quotes on this page are out of context and unfair. Some cursory looking around on the web suggests that, at the very least, we need to track down precise original sources and additionally give some context. I encouraged the person who emailed me (apparently new to Wikipedia) to edit the article, but I hope others will as well. Jimbo Wales 10:09, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why people think that you're personally responsible for Wikipedia's content! Reminds one of the Great Kat, uh?
I'm not familiar with the quotes, but one has to bear in mind that Israeli political discourse is a lot tougher than Michael Moore vs George W. Bush. Whoever introduced the quotes (User:MathKnight and User:Liftarn) might be willing to provide online links or other context. There might be grounds for removing them - they shed little light on Rabbi Yosef's influence in ways not discussed in the article body. JFW | T@lk 12:11, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
You can find the many quotes of Yosef in Hofesh site. However, note that Hofesh is an extreme anti-religious website with clear (and ugly) POV against Haredi Jews. They chose only Yosef's ill-wishes and put it out of contex. The quotes are real (they were reported widely in the Israeli press). You are welcome to add your addition and Shas reaction to the aforementioned queotes. MathKnight 20:58, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This quote and the sentence that it is part of is almost meaningless:

"Prayers according to Yosef's verdicts are the most common in Sephardic synagogues..." --Bo Basil 17:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page moved[edit]

Why was the page moved? Everyking 11:50, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Someone (User:MathKnight) felt that the page should incorporate the Rabbi's title. This is in violation of policy, so I moved it back. JFW | T@lk 09:32, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

maybe i don't understand the wiki rules but i have problem. you request a source to prove a saying. but you didn't noticed that there is no positive related press to harav yosef. so all of the sources are problematic!

and there is a bigger problem, wikipedia in hebrew is completly not objective! for example the page about "a brief history of time" (by Stephen Hawking) in hebrew is almost intended not objective. whan they repet the on the times Stephen Hawking says thers's no god, while Hawking refers in the book many time to god as phisical solution as he did at the end of the book, which wasn't noted at all there. and if you'll look at the english page you'll find it much more accurate.

this is a small example of the alltitude towards religion in israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.171.225 (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translations of works[edit]

Have any of Rav Ovadia Yosef's works been translated into english?

Not to my knowledge. JFW | T@lk 09:32, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sections of Yalkut Yosef have been translated, but his own work is really too technical for someone who doesn't understand Hebrew to even bother with. It would take an extraordinary person to be familiar with the intricacies that he deals with while being unable to read Hebrew. I considered translating Anaf Etz Avot. If you are willing to publish it, give me a buzz. I am still up for the task:P User:PhatJew

Dirty laundry[edit]

When the "controversy" section gets longer than all the "positive" sections on the page something must be amiss. Is this the result of constant negative media attention? Is it because the media don't understand that this man has also done good things, such as address the plight of improverished Sefardim? It is a great evil if Wikipedia content is determined solely by someone's negative exposure in the media. JFW | T@lk 07:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the addition of the line: According to an eyewitness at the lecture: ("I personally was there sitting in bet kenest tiferet yerushalayim adat yazdim & rav didn't say that.").

- I am currently sitting next to a man who overheard my conversation regarding the Rabbi and he claims to have been at the lecture in question. He claims that Rav Ovadia has not said that and was sitting in the Persian synagogue during the lecture. [Anonymous] Upon clicking on the source cited at the bottom of the article, http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/12/1664849.php, I noticed that Indymedia was itself quoting another source. The source cited is actually a reposting of libel from AlJazeera. I was redirected from Indymedia to AlJazeera. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/2943BEB3-FF4E-4436-B5E8-91C494187230.htm Please do not quote LIBEL in the future.

Al Jazeera is unlikely to be (1) informed (2) neutral about this topic. I'll see if this can be removed. JFW | T@lk 23:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But it's also allegedly quoting Maariv. A better tactic would be to see if we can find the original Maariv article, or some confirmation of it. ShalomShlomo 23:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Found confirmation of it in a cached site quoting Ha'aretz, as well as an Arutz-Sheva op-ed criticizing the remark. ShalomShlomo 23:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was reported to Al Jazeera by Dovid Feldman, a Neturei Karta spokesperson. Whether it's true or not, we need to go for more reliable sources. We can safely say that Al Jazeera is not a useful outlet for impartial information about Israel, Jews etc. JFW | T@lk 23:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Neturei Karta is that they actively work towards the destruction of Israel. I wouldn't trust any organization that was on the payroll of Arafat. [Anonymous] There's also a translation issue. Ashkenazis means Germans or could also refer to German Jews. "You were in Ashkenaz, in Hell, you did what you did there - What do we care?" would really mean, You were in Germany, in Hell, you did what you did there - What do we care." And "all the troubles came from the Ashkenazis", a separate quote, would mean, "All the troubles came from the Germans." but could also refer to German Jews. As both are cited out of context and separately, putting them together into a single quote is a quote dishonest.December 12, 2005.

All of these issues and concerns are irrelevant given the sources and quotes in Haaretz and Arutz-Sheva. In the part of the speech quoted, Yosef was talking about Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews. If you look at the two articles, this seem fairly clear given the other quotes, particularly since A-7 is not known for having the anti-religious bias some accuse Haaretz of having. ShalomShlomo 00:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

165.123.155.86- I've modified your changes to make them less POV and to reduce redundancy. Let me know if there's an issue with the changes I made. ShalomShlomo 20:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Thought it was fair and reasonable to add, under external links, the following:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2013/1007/Rabbi-Ovadia-Yosef-in-his-own-words

Which is an article examining the 'controversial' statements from a very well respected magazine. I think this is better than adding to the controversy section, but I do think it belongs, given the sorts of links I'm seeing on articles. If someone removes, would ask for an explanation why. Figures like this are interesting, clearly there was more to the man than the controversy. I do think the Christian Science Monitor article elaborates on some views that arguably should be addressed here, but without "piling on" this one issue. Thanks 50.136.54.23 (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)jpt[reply]

Footnotes[edit]

There is a strong indication that footnotes are to be preferred over inline external links. Why were the footnotes removed?[1] JFW | T@lk 22:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JFW- That was me. I wasn't aware that footnotes are preferred. I'll change them back. ShalomShlomo 22:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina[edit]

"blamed the tragedy... on black Americans for not studying the Torah" This is totally laughable and out of context.Ortho 02:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was also widely publicized, making it note-worthy. What is the context? Why not feel free to share it here, and provide background to the quote, as other quotes of his have gotten on the page.ShalomShlomo 05:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, I doubt Rabbi Yosef believes black Americans should be studying Torah. I dont think that any orthodox rabbi believes that any non-Jew has a requirement to study Torah.160.39.138.14 05:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it a bit. He was most definitely not saying that non-Jews should be studying Torah. That is ridiculous, as anyone who knows anything about Orthodox Judaism would understand. PhatJew 21:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jamieod, I've reverted your latest edit to the theodicy section. I've tried to modify and explicate the Katrina section further, hopefully it's a little better now. I appreciate you wanting to maintain the rabbi's dignity, etc., but I think we're better off trying to explain what he actually said than inaccurately paraphrasing him. Regards, ShalomShlomo 04:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LASHON HARA[edit]

THIS PAGES HAVE A LOT OF LASHON HARA OF RABENU OVADIA, AND MOST OF THE THINGS ARE HERE ARENT TRUE, JUST ARE STUPIDS THINGS. PLEASE, DONT SAY LASHON HARA OF A TZADIK LIKE THIS. HE LOVES THE ASHKEANZIM A LOT, LOVES THE HASSIDIM SO, HE CANT SAID THAT THE HOLY SOULS OF THE SHOA WERE EVILS, THIS ISNT TRUE..PLEASE, YOU BELIVE MORE IN MAARIV/HAARETZ/YEDIOT THAN THE POSKIM? COME ON THE STUPIDS THINGS MUST BE DELETE FOR A BEST WIKIPEDIA. Bresolver 13:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the above discussion reg. dirty laundry. You liking a person doesn't invalidate their negative press. If you have information that something is out of context, write it into the article or mention it here so others can try and fix the problem. But if Yosef is in the news because he's said something (or something that was interpreted) as offensive, then, yes, it should be mentioned, particularly, as in Yosef's case, when they are a prominent individual, and their comments will get major reactions. Using you argument, the Pat Robertson and Louis Farakhan pages shouldn't have any quotes or controversy sections, either. Either help with practical solutions or suck it up. Waving the lashon hara flag is unproductive. ShalomShlomo 00:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
YES, I HAVE INFORMATION, THAT RAV OVADIA LOVES ASHEKENAZIM Bresolver 01:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simply saying something doesn't make it so. Feel free to put up some information here on the talk page. Until then I don't see how we can do anything about your concerns. Don't get me wrong; I have no interest in slandering rabbis, but at the same time, it's not like wikipedia's job is to do Eli Yishai's work for him. ShalomShlomo 04:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bresolver: Your feeling is commendable and you are on the right track because it is important to show that Rabbi Yosef is a positive leader, especially to the millions of Sephardim who follow him and the many Ashkenazim who admire him and respect his scholarship. But the only way to do this on Wikipedia is to find sources and write more in the article that will support the valid arguments you are making here. IZAK 06:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That Yosef has expressed racist views is widely known. It may uncomfortable for some people here to face that, but hopefully it will prompt some introspection into their prejudices. And by the way, CAPS LOCK rants aren't very convincing.

I don't really know about the neutrality of this article... :-/ MiniMary12 17:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Kashrut Citation[edit]

I Hope very soon, someone will translate it into English, for the meantime - my apology.

בתור מי שעוקב שנים אחר הרב, אני מוכרח לומר שנעשה כאן עוול עצום לכבוד הרב כאשר חדשים לבקרים מגיחים להם עיתונאים בורים! שלא שנו מימיהם וכעיתונות צהובה במיטבה, מיטיבה להוציא דברים מהקשרם ולעורר "כאילו-סערה" בהקשר לפסיקות תמימות למדי מתוך דרשתו של הרב. אחד הבולטים שבהם, שמחקתי אותו כליל מתוך המאמר, הוא כאילו התקפתו נגד האשכנזים, שהם כביכול שורש כל הרע וכו'. ובכן, א"א לצפות מעיתונות חילונית שבמקרה הטוב אינה יודעת להבחין בין סידור לגמרא שתוכל "להתעמק" ולו ברמה כדי להבין את הביקורת של הרב שהיא מוצדקת בכל קנה מידה לגבי העוול שנגרם לכשרות הספרדית על כל ההיסטוריה הטעונה של מחלוקות הכשרות בין האשכנזים לספרדים. הרב השמיע את דברו בקונטקסט מאוד ברור של "בשר כשר" שהוא טריפה גמורה לדעת מרן הב"י (כמוסכם בראשונים) ולא עוד שאף גדולי האחרונים מליטא ובראשם הגאון מוילנא הזהירו נגד ההתפשרות של הרמ"א בענין סירכות, והמנהג בארץ ישראל -שהיה מיושב ברובו ככולו בבני עדות המזרח- היה פשוט וברור שזה בשר טריפה עד שצצו להם ניצי עלייה אשכנזית שהעיזו לערער על מנהג ישראל קדושים והציתו ריב ומדון על ידי השקת מונופול כשרותי משלהם. ומכאן זעקו של מרן נגד המניפולציות ב"שוק" הכשרות, בישיבות ובחתונות שבהן מתארחים גם בני ספרד ועוד ועוד, שלא היה שום אזהרה ונפנפו ב"בשר כשר" על אף הסירכות, ורק הבדילו בינו ל"בשר חלק" כאילו מדובר באיזו חומרא למהדרין ולא היא, כי באיסורי תורה עסקינן! כמובן, שדעתו של הרב שבארץ ישראל, אתרא דמר של מרן הב"י ולכן אף האשכנזים מחוייבים לדעתו. בפרט שהגאון מוילנא ותלמידיו כאמור הזהירו מאוד בעניין, ודבר זה ידוע בשער בת רבים. כמובן שהנושא מתרחב לשאר דיני כשרות, כגון ברכת בורא פרי הגפן על היין בהכשר בד"ץ העדה החרדית (לדעת הרב יש לברך שהכל ואף נהג כן הלכה למעשה), בישול נכרים ועוד ועוד... ואז צץ לו עיתונאי בור שבו ברגע הוא בטוח שגילה הסקופ של חייו, כאילו איזה רב עירקי משובש משתולל ביזדים (איזה התנשאות מגעילה...אבל זוהי מהות העיתונאות בישראל, לצערי) ומשתלח ב"אשכנזים", מיד ממלאים עמוד שער עם כותרות ענק וזעקות שבר על "התקפה ברברית" של רב ספרדי חשוך ומיד מביאים לאולפן כל מיני פוליטיקאים אופורטוניסטים שיותר מששים כמוצא שלל רב, כדי להרוויח הון פוליטי ובלי שידעו ויבינו את שפתו של הרב הם עוקבים אחר הכתוביות על המסך או ב"ציטוטים" המרושעים (ממש כך) בעיתונות הרדודה ומתחילים להתסיס את ההמון...ממש הבערות במיטבה

לכך אני זועק לא עוד! לא ייתכן שבוויקפדיה המכובד יתנו לכך במה, ולא עוד אלא שטרחו לצטט 4 שורות שלמות מתוך דברי הבל ומשפטים טרחניים ומשעממים להפליא מפי איזו עיתונאית מזדמנת באתר שולי, למה, מי היא? מה נתן לה הזכות כדי לבקר את הרב בדברי הלכה? יש לה מושג בכלל על מה מדובר?

Again, I hope someone will translate it into English, if not I hope to rewrite it myself in English later this week, but I hope someone will take the trouble and translate the above or at least a summary of the above.Zadil 00:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll summerize in brief. he says that the people who wrote this article aren't religious & since then they can't criticize the rabbi.They're absolutely like the newspaper's writers in Israel that don't understand anything in the Judaism. The quotes of the rabbi that were written in the article are proving that the people who wrote the article are'nt religious. He is writing up there that somebody just wanted to create a bad name to the rabbi. He writes that there isn't a grain of truth in few quotes. He continues to justify the rabbi with his Kashrut ideaology.He finishes and says that it's respective that in a so famous website like wikipedia people can write everything like a gossip newspaper espacially when people who are'nt religous write's it. I hope this translation will satisfy you. Talsardar 07:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for the translation, Talsardar.
Zadil- It's really quite simple; if the stories are false and so easily disproved, all that needs to be done is to refute them. We can then change the stories and gloss them as we have others on the page, saying, "Yosef was accused of X by Y, but the explanation was actually Z." However, this can only be done when there is actually an explanation that we can write about, such as saying "this quote is from Ovadiah and is talking about Esau's children" or something. But we can't just say things like "didn't happen" and delete the whole thing, particularly when there's been significant press about an incident (or when it creates ripples in the Jewish community, either secular or religious, as in the case of the Rav's alleged Ashkenazim comment, which earned him a harsh response from the hardline mafdal Arutz Sheva).
This is all the more relevant to a public personality like Rav Yosef because part of his notoriety (particularly in non-Jewish audiences) comes from his controversial statements. People hear about something some Rabbi said and want to find out if it's true and the details of the incident, etc. At least if Wikipedia has some information about these things people can get accurate information about what he said, when and in what context, and separate his real views from things falsely attributed to him, or to misinterpretations. However none of that can happen if we have no information about such things here. It's like trying to censor the Internet so that one gets no information about Hitler or the Nazis- if someone can't find it in one place, they'll go somewhere else, and "learn" God knows what. At least here we can hold people to some sort of standards regarding sources and set some quality for the information given. Shalom, ShalomShlomo 08:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well put, ShalomShlomo! Rather than trying to ignore negative information we need to set it in context and explain it. That is true encyclopedic work. --Eliyahu S Talk 06:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rav Ovadia Yosef: Hardal or not?[edit]

I already foresee a big discussion starting about this, due to his importance. I say that he is not. As a side note and full OR: it seems that the Shas and Lubavitch attitudes towards the State are completely identical. Both seem to support a "new kind of Zionism" which includes replacing this state with a Torah-based state, which will seek to have a "greater Israel" - but, emphasizing, that this state is not the means through which that goal will be achieved. Thus, both Shas and Lubavitch strongly support the state and oppose land withdrawals - but do not say any prayers for the state.

Praying for the state?

Initially, he ruled that one should say the tefilah for the medinah. However, soon after, he reversed this ruling. My understanding, based on personal knowledge from friends who are Shasnikim, is that no follower of Rav Yosef says any tefilah for the medinah.

Land withdrawals

Shas supports land-for-peace arrangements. But only when there is an agreement. Not unilateral, such as last year's disengagement. See http://meria.idc.ac.il/news/2006/06April10news.html "As a non-Zionist force, Shas does not rule out the possibility of territorial concessions." (=scientific article) I propose that there should perhaps be a new article specifically on the issue of Sephardic Haredim. --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's not at all. Shas in its entirety isn't. Hardal doesn't mean zionist Haredi, it means haredim involved in the same aspect of religious zionism, i.e right wing map, or even more extreme. Mordechai Eliyahu is the best example to Hardal. Amoruso 22:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I most certainly agree. He doesn't say any prayers for the state and he agrees to land-for-peace arrangements. Hardalim would not consider either of those things (well, some of the extreme-right ones do refuse to pray for the state now - but that has wholly different reasons). However, I am sure some right-wing R-Z will show up here and claim that the Satmar Rebbe was Hardal, let alone they will claim that about Rav Yosef. So I figured I might as well bring up the issue myself. --Daniel575 | (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly... but I don't think Shas is ANTI zionist though since they're so active in politics and everything. that's why I think hardal doesn't deal with zionism that much but more about right wing map zionism. Amoruso 22:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed. See my above comparison of Lubavitch and Shas. They seem to have very identical views. I think Rav Shapiro does also qualify as Hardal. Most, if not all of the "Sanhedrin" (see Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin) also qualifies as Hardal. Rav Eliyahu's shul (oops, I mean, beit knesset) is only 300 meters away from my home. I can say that 90% there wear a knitted kippah, colored clothing, and no jacket and hat. He himself does. --Daniel575 | (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rav Ovadia is definitely haredi, not hardal. We tend to associate haredi only with streimel wearing ashkenazim, but white-shirted, black pants sepharadim do not serve in the army, and do not have tv's.--Shuki 23:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for land withdrawals, the famous 'land for safety' ruling by Rav Ovadia, it was unique to its time and has since been retracted by him as irrelevant. --Shuki 23:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because there is no partner for bilateral agreements. He would only agree if there was a viable plan for it, with a certain guarantee that it would work. That is absolutely not the case in the current situation. --Daniel575 | (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your basis for saying that he would consider peace "agreements"? I had understood that he changed his mind and has ruled out any "peace" deals in principle. Yehoishophot Oliver 15:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no comparison between Shas and Chabad. Shas betrayed the Jewish people by voting for Oslo, enabling it to pass, and for various other atrocities. They were willing to enter Olmert's mass expulsion coalition.

The Rebbe holds, based on clear sources in Halacha, that we cannot surrender land to non-Jews under any circumstances, both because it endangers Jews and because of the prohibition of surrendering Land in Eretz Yisroel. Obviously, since Jews should follow Torah, the Rebbe holds that the state should be run according to Torah. As for "greater Israel": If we can find a legitimate way of gaining control of more land in Eretz Yisroel, then we should, both because that involves liberating Jewish land, and because the more land we have as a buffer zone, the safer we are. Don't give an inch; every slight concession will be viewed as weakness and increase their desire to pressure and murder Jews G-d forbid. That's the Rebbe's view, light years away from Shas'. Yehoishophot Oliver 15:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[[Media:Example.ogg]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.237.36 (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the biography?[edit]

I downgraded the ratings because this is the most lopsided article I've yet to see on Wikipedia. It seems to just love sinking its teeth into every juicy, controversial quote that Rabbi Yosef ever made, and not saying much of anything about his Torah scholarship or why he is considered THE halakhic authority for Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews the world over. Can some of this rabbi-baiting be taken out or moved to a separate article? Yoninah (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with you that the "rabbi-baiting" stuff should me moved elsewhere. These controversies are intrinsic to Rabbi Yossef's biography. But I do agree that much more weight should be given in this article to his huge outstanding decades-old dedication to Torah, his hatmada (perseverance), his phenomenal memory, the admiration of MANY great Jewish leaders (Ashkenazim and Sefardim) toward him even at a very young age, etc. etc.--Deep Guy (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fan of Obama, or of the United States[edit]

What do you make of this? [2] [3] Stonemason89 (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete Ovadia Yosef quote[edit]

The complete quote should be added to the article: "All these evil people should perish from this world ... God should strike them with a plague, them and these Palestinians," [4] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the type of length of quotes which can be inserted. Chesdovi (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Written as advertisement for Ovadia Yosef[edit]

There is glaring POV the introductory section of this article. So the POV tag was applied. It should be noted prominently in intro section Yosef's status as 'shas party spiritual leader' and specifically his controversial 'death to Palestinians' 'show no mercy' statements. See here [5] and here [6] for a start.Haberstr (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article already mentions these controversies explicitly under the section "Controversial remarks regarding Arabs and Palestinians". By the way he said that his sermon was misquoted, and clarified that he was referring to annihilation of Arab terrorists and not to all Arab people, so this entire controversy apparently was blown out of proportion by the media. As an encyclopedia we should not give undue weight to media controversies since this is not at all reflective of his career or opinions. In fact according to the article "Yosef has long been a distinguished rabbinical authority advocating peace negotiations in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and has done so since the late 1980s." Marokwitz (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason he is in the international news is because of his 'death to Palestinians' and similar statements. That should be reflected in the lead paragraph or should at least be the primary topic of the second sentence. It strains credulity to think this was a matter of misinterpretation, it was not an isolated event, and such strong pro-Israel publications, people and entities as the Jerusalem Post, Martin Peretz, the ADL, and the U.S. Dept. of State have condemned his remarks (I believe they would've given him the benefit of the doubt, but they still condemned his remarks).Haberstr (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the Jerusalem Post: "While outlining customs during Rosh Hashana dinner – such as dipping an apple in honey – to petition God for a sweet, successful new year, the nonagenarian halachic authority added a personal prayer: 'May our enemies and hate-mongers vanish, Abu Mazen [PA President Mahmoud Abbas] and all those evildoers be lost from the world, may God smite them with the plague, them and the Palestinians, evildoers and Israel-haters.'" Any reasonable person should have a hard time believing the Jerusalem Post bungled the translation, and and should have a hard time believing the rabbi was really speaking about terrorists (rather than, say, Abu Mazen, who he explicitly names).Haberstr (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it was indeed a mistranslation, BBC translated the sermon as referring to "Palestinians who persecute Israel". Marokwitz (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However the translation is nuanced, the remarks in any of their varying forms were virtually universally condemned.Haberstr (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So? It's already detailed in the article. This is not a reason to detail this controversy in the lead. The lead should summarize the most important aspects of this person's career. For a person highly active since 1924, giving undue importance to this controversy which is entirely based on dubious quotations of a single sentence, and clearly according to him does not represent his views, is clear case of WP:RECENTISM. I have no objection to having a sentence saying that he made controversial remarks during his career, but emphasizing media controversies and gossip rather than more serious parts of his career only because they are recent is non encyclopedic. By the way, on a personal note I have no special sympathy for Yosef and reject his views on almost every topic. However I believe that in an encyclopedia we need to accurately emphasize the most important aspects his career and properly recognize controversies that the press is blowing out of proportion in order to sell more newspapers. Marokwitz (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are there important aspects to his career? Apart from insulting everyone who didn't follow his particular strand of fundamentalism what did he ever do? Make important rulings about how much hair women are allowed to show?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 22:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you pull your eyes away from "controversies" section and read the rest of the article. It notes his efforts for peace, his work on reducing the burden of religious observance, promoting equality in Jewish society and uspport of suppressed Jewish populations. I'm pretty sure there were a few dozen more, but I only read the full article twice. Dovid (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reattached POV tag.Haberstr (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

63.143.226.254 (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)== Yosef: Gentiles exist only to serve Jews ==[reply]

This article misses the whole context of Rav Yosef's statement. What he means to say is that in the Messianic era, by providing financial support to the nation that is solely focused on Divine Service, the other nations will also be elevated and connected to the Divine. That is a fundamental belief of Judaism. There is nothing controversial about what the Rabbi said.

http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=191782 Is there any truth in the above article? Can it be included in the criticism section? Simanos (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait it's already mentioned: In a sermon in October 2010, Yosef stated that "The sole purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews". He argued that gentiles served a divine purpose: "Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why gentiles were created."

I still think a better quote is: “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel,” [he said in his weekly Saturday night sermon on the laws regarding the actions non-Jews are permitted to perform on Shabbat.] Or add both Simanos (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haaretz's US correspondent reports on the ADL's condemnation of Yosef's remarks in this article.     ←   ZScarpia   20:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


BBC - Rabbi calls for annihilation of Arabs, 10 April 2001: The spiritual leader of Israel's ultra-orthodox Shas party, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, has provoked outrage with a sermon calling for the annihilation of Arabs."It is forbidden to be merciful to them. You must send missiles to them and annihilate them. They are evil and damnable," he was quoted as saying in a sermon delivered on Monday to mark the Jewish festival of Passover.     ←   ZScarpia   05:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:BIO#Opening_paragraph -- Place of Birth[edit]

Yosef's place of birth has been deleted from the Lead section using MOS:BIO#Opening_paragraph and MOS:Dates and Numbers as an argument: Places of birth do not belong in the lifespan brackets per MOS:BIO#Opening_paragraph. I think that the argument is invalid. Nothing in the rules prescribes that the place of birth cannot be mentioned in the date brackets or in the Lead. The MOS:Dates and Numbers is concerned only with how birth and death dates should appear, not with legislating about what information can appear. Under Context, MOS:BIO#Opening_paragraph says that, in most modern-day cases, specifying the location, nationality, or ethnicity of the subject will mean listing the country of which the person is a citizen or national. Note that it says most, not all. Presumably, most people are nationals of the country where they were born, so mentioning the place of birth is superfluous. Since the Manual of Style does go on to say, birth and death places should be mentioned in the body if known, and in the lead if they are relevant to the person's notability, you could argue that Yosef's place of birth shouldn't be mentioned in the Lead because it has nothing to do with his notabilitiy, but, presumably, other editors could use the counter-argument that Yosef's status as an immigrant is important enough to keep it there. I suspect that you'll find that the articles on many notable people who have immigrated to the U.S., say, will mention in the Lead that they are immigrants.     ←   ZScarpia   09:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have really any problem mentioning his place of birth in the lead (although I don't particularly find much value in doing so), but I don't see why it's being mentioned in the lifespan brackets instead of as part of the prose. It used to be the case that the MOS had prescriptions against it at WP:DATE, but those were removed over a year ago. Based on the discussion, my understanding is that it was not removed based on consensus against it, but on the fact that it shouldn't be a part of WP:DATE. WP:MOSBIO, however, still links to the place where it used to be, and none of the examples include a POB or POD within the brackets. It may be a discussion worth bringing up on the talk page to clarify/create consensus, however, unless you know of somewhere where this has already been discussed? Canadian Paul 06:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved mention of Yosef's place of birth into the prose.     ←   ZScarpia   14:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date[edit]

According to the official Rabbanut website: http://www.rabanut.gov.il/show_item.asp?itemId=105&levelId=61624&itemType=0 Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef was born in תרע"ח) 1918) not in 1920. I have also seen his date listed as תרע"ח in the book שמן ששון מחברך by Rabbi Shalom Dov Wolpo. Can this be updated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levikleh (talk • contribs) 21:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Yoninah (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just found this interview] with Ovadia Yosef in 1972 in which he states explicitly that he was born in 1920. I'm inclined to look at the Rabbanut website year as a typo. Yoninah (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag restored[edit]

I've restored the tag. The tag, according to Wikipedia policy, should remain until there is resolution of the POV problem, recognized by a consensus on this talk page. Considerable revision to the page is needed to make it a balanced page in part reflecting the international (not just Israel-specific) noteworthiness of Yosef, rather than being a pro-Yosef whitewash. I've taken a very small step in the right direction by attaching a sentence summarizing his various bigoted statements, which are the only things (by the way) that make him internationally well-known, to the end of the lead section.Haberstr (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, that doesn't wash. If the previous discussion resulted in no follow-up, then the status quo is that it is accepted as NPOV. You certainly have the right to dispute it again, but given the previous lack of consensus, ping-ponging the NPOV status is just inviting ocntrovery. Instead, you did the right thing by trying to add balance to the article. Note that the controversy section is quite large, and already verges on WP:UNDUE, so adding to it may push POV the other way. As the various WP:NPOV articles state, most NPOV disputation is itself a POV problem.
Also, please be careful with the tone of your arguments. Stating his various bigoted statements, which are the only things (by the way) that make him internationally well-known is pretty incendiary, and not really relevant, as WP has a policy of noteworthiness of subject, not noteworthiness of content. That area is covered by UNDUE, which I already mentioned. I surveyed a fair bit of material that is not about his death, in well-known news sources, and did not find a preponderance of coverage of controversy. it is there, but so is a lot of material about his positions as chief rabbi, political leader, community, etc.
I would leave the POV tag up in some other circumstances, but given the "corrections" you have already made, and the status quo lack of consensus that there is a need for a POV fix, and that it is only one aspect of POV, I think the tagging should come off until there's been some time to cool off, and for the flurry of activity after his death to settle. If you want to revisit it in a week or two, please look at the article again at that time, see if there is a problem, and then consider whether to accept it, add it to the POV list without visible tagging, tag it for POV review, or tag it as POV dispute again.
I'd really hate for this to become flame war. I'm only trying to make sure this is addressable, without it becoming a catfight.

Dovid (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of my statements on the talk page is just fine. It is your tone that is problematic, for discouraging me from speaking freely on the talk page and for introducing words and phrases like "catfight," "flame war," and "that doesn't wash." Yes, I believe Yosef has made bigoted, racist, homophobic and so on statements. But if you disagree on my characterization, please, I am looking forward to a civilized discussion with you on that. However, one thing can't be questioned: for these statements, he has gained worldwide 'fame', among numbers of people far in excess of those who know him for his religious noteworthiness. Among Arabs and Muslims he is known and loathed by a great many people. And noteworthiness and numbers _worldwide_ are what matters regarding what is put into a Wikipedia entry and where you place it. Anyway, things are pretty straightforward: the article is pro-Yosef POV until it is balanced in its introductory section. My balancing sentence is being removed even now. Finally, the POV tag says, right on the POV tag, that consensus should be reached on the talk page before it is removed. In other words, a POV tag is not placed on an article by consensus, it is _removed_ by consensus. Well, I placed a POV tag, let's leave it up and talk and reach consensus and THEN we can remove it.Haberstr (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing controversial from the opening section[edit]

Does anyone know one religious leader that would not be defined "controversial" by some? In Israel he was accepted as great spiritual leader and scholar by virtually all religious and traditional Jews. Given that, there is no justification for the "controversial" (conflict between religious and secular views doesn't make one "controversial") it's POV and I remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.90.2 (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the world, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the world and not for one religion or country, his statements disparaging various groups are quite famous and noteworthy. In fact they are far more noteworthy on that stage than his religious talents.Haberstr (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
His disparaging statements are famous but are not noteworthy. They do not display a bias against one group or another. Much of the media coverage stemmed out of misquotation by the press or due to controversial re-interpretation by others. He reversed his own position on many of these statements so while they are on record they cannot be considered a definitive view.
The most controversial aspect of his career was his role in the politics of shas and this garnered 95% of his press coverage, another 4% covered many of his odd rabbinic rulings and only about 1% involved these controversial statements. Cato The Censor (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cato, you can't do OR: you don't get to decide which things Yosef is famous for are 'noteworthy'. That is the job of RS. As I'm sure you know, every major RS news media retrospective article on Yosef, after his death, discussed in general his 'bigotry', alleged racism, and controversial statements.Haberstr (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haberstr wants to make out as if he was a hate-preacher, that's why he only adds remarks he made against Arabs/Muslims/Iran to the lead. This is not acceptable. The fact is, he probably offended everyone at some point along the way, Jew and Gentile alike. But he was no hate-preacher. He will be remembered in Israel and the Jewish world for stirring other controversies which related to matters of religious law, to things which really made a difference to people lives, not for a few off the cuff audacious comments mostly made in his later years. Chesdovi (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to "make out" anything in particular. I want to reflect the overwhelming RS, which should therefore generate one sentence in the small intro section. All mainstream international news articles on Yosef's funeral have prominently featured his 'allegedly' (I personally don't think there's any ambiguity) racist and bigoted statements. So far I haven't seen a response on this Talk page to my argument based on RS. And please, remember this article is not about how his religious or political followers will remember him, it's about how the RS remember him.Haberstr (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your concerns should be addressed in the same way such issues have been dealt with for the likes of Mahmood Ahmedinijad and Yussuf Al-Qwadari, levadil elef vriverei revavos havdalos. i.e. whitewashing his various bigoted staements with the 'controversial statements' ghetto. (ghetto?) Chesdovi (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All biographies should strive to be written chronologically, and 'controversial statements' should be integrated into the main biography. This is standard good Wikipedia writing practice.Haberstr (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Having a section with each and every comment he made which was seen as controversial is unseemly. (Where is the section with each and every novel Torah interpretation he made?) These should, as you say, be woven into the article. What we need is someone who has many hours to spare researching his life and then re-writing the whole article to adhere to policy. Chesdovi (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It will take time, and I'm not sure I have it ... Also, it's not just the non-chronological problem. Yosef and Shas were a huge social, political and cultural phenomenon, little or none of which is covered in the Wikipedia article. For example, almost all the RS news retrospectives highlight that he was a 'kingmaker' in Israeli politics.Haberstr (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't have the inclination or time to do the research you must recuse yourself from being "a champion of neutrality"? You last edits is a synthesis of a number of sources aimed at distoring the truth and make it seem that 50% of the article discusses Yosefs's bigotry. Your statement also makes a false generalizations that Yosef was a bigot when he was frequently representing a ultra orthodox point of view and he regularly avoided the hard line prefered by other rabbis. When given the leeway he regularly chose the more enlightened choice. Many of his so called controversial statements are in fact a reflection of the religion he represented. Since this is explained in the article you obviously did not bother to read it. Another indicator that you are unqualified to write this lede is that you refer to Shas as representing the interest of jews from the North Africa and the Middle East. However, I don't know of any jews that do not claim an origins from North Africa and the Middle East so you are just paraphrasing a source you do not understand. I therefore suggest you remove this attack before others do so. Cato The Censor (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The RS, in particular the NY Times writer (who was in line with all other RS), 'wrote' the lead sentences you are referring to. I just paraphrased. That's how Wikipedia works. I was thinking of modifying the sentence on representing interests to also include his representation of religiously orthodox Sephardim Jews. Perhaps a discussion rather than an attack is in order? Also, instead of removing material from the very small intro section, why not add sentences or a paragraph expanding on his religious and religious law contributions?Haberstr (talk) 08:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument would be worth more if you presented source evidence, preferably English-language and the more mainstream the better, to back up your opinions. It would also be nice if you bore in mind the principle of 'write for the enemy.' As far as being a racist or bigot is concerned, the fact is that there are people, as stated in reliable sources (see the Telegraph obituary for instance), who believe that Yosef was such. Just because you are expressing views based on your religion does not mean that you or your views are not racist or bigoted (see the Haaretz opinion piece which says: "Yosef also represented a racist version of Judaism, claiming that non-Jews were born only 'to serve us. Otherwise, they have no place in this world.'").     ←   ZScarpia   13:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about write for the enemy. I believe that Wikipedia should represent what is considered the encyclopedic opinion, not the yellow tabloid version, which is what has been cherry picked in this case. Also an editor should not just rewrite an oped he should immerse himself in this subject before making this type of an attack. Like I said before the lede is slanted. I did not make claims on the quality of the sources since that is not the issue. I point out again that H breaks policy by adding new material and by kidnapping the lede. The composition of lede paragraphs are based on DUE. The lede now summerisses an external source which included an attack. Since H has synthesized the this version (selective inclusion) and completely removed the balance in those sources the lede and the article constitute an attack. WP has policy on words to avoid clearly you ignore this as well. Also there is the point that h has called this article defensive, but then made a defensive edit himself - one that syntheses and pov from 3 sources not included in the body of the article. The previous version was far better. I have no issue if this material is moved to the body and the previous lede restored! Cato The Censor (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Write for the Enemy: "Writing for the opponent, also known as writing for the enemy, is the process of explaining another person's point of view as clearly and fairly as you can, even if you strongly disagree with it, and also giving it proper weight in the article relative to its significance. The concept is similar to that of playing the devil's advocate. The point is to satisfy the proponents of a perspective that you understand their arguments and are willing to present them in a disinterested way."
  • Which sources are you referring to when you refer to the "yellow tabloid version"?
  • Which words are "words to avoid" and how does their use here breach that rule?

    ←   ZScarpia   16:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was told on another bio page not to include a controversy section, so why is this one different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.17.147 (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The biography basically stops at 1973[edit]

Except for one paragraph on a 2005 assassination attempt, and then an undated section on his 'later years', the biography stops at 1973. Before the rise of the Shas party, which he founded, his and the party's movement to the right, and so on.Haberstr (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I added a small section about the Shas partyHavradim (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on his founding of Shas as a national party[edit]

Incredible. The Shas Party -- its power in the Knesset, his king-making and the concessions he gained -- was the vehicle through which he had such a profound impact on Israeli society.Haberstr (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Lead and Defence of Yosef's Comments[edit]

Currently, the Lead finishes with the following sentence: Yosef himsefl, and others, have defended his comments as being misquoted, taken out of context, retracted, or for other reasons. This sentence is problematic in a number of ways:

  • Summarisation of the body of the article: The body of the article gives the impression that only certain of his comments have been defended in the way described, yet the Lead gives the impression that all of them have.
  • The sources used, 9 and 10, are in Hebrew when, this being the English-language Wikipedia, Hebrew sources should only be used if none are available in English and there is good reason to use them. (This also applies to source 11.)
  • The sources date to 2001 and therefore cannot refer to any of Yosef's subsequent comments.

    ←   ZScarpia   16:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your first and last points are really the same, and can be resolved by adding the words "at least some." As far as sources, that's not problematic to this statement, really, as they are long-standing sources in the article. It is problematic only in the existing placement. Personally, I wrote that sentence, and I dislike it, but it seemed the best compromise against edit warring, and I can live with it if it prevents churn.Dovid (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So the use of those particular sources has survived much past discussion? My objection stems from a belief that there are English-language sources that the material could be cited to instead. Could you explain what the placement problem is? I think I can guess correctly, but it would be nice to have a confirmation.     ←   ZScarpia   18:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you are asking for. I didn't put in the original citations. However, when I tried to make the lede NPOV by NOT removing the controversies statement (but possibly toning it down) and INSTEAD saying that there was a response by his camp, I referred to the same sources the article already used in claimed defenses. It isn't my job to go hunting down better sources when the sources are already present. If you like, find better English-laguage sources. If you can't, then the Hebrew sources are actually allowed under the cite guidelines. Dovid (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first question was asked because I was trying to figure out why you should think that the fact that the sources have been used in the article for a long time should make a difference to whether they should be being used or not. I thought that perhaps you meant that there had already been a discussion of their usage. If there has, then it might mean that a consensus has already been established that they can be used; if there hasn't, then I've opened one now.
The policy on citing non-English sources: "Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page." Could I therefore have translated quotations from the two sources please?
Also, could you explain what the placement problem is?
    ←   ZScarpia   19:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm still hoping that someone kind will translate the relevant parts from the YNet articles for me, particularly as edits using those sources are currently being made and providing translations does seem to be a condition of using sources in languages other than English.
Searching back through news article archives I haven't come across any sources in English which say that Yosef was misrepresented etc. yet, though I have come across:

  • This JTA article which seems to show Josef completely reversing a comment that he'd made.
  • This JTA article which shows Yosef narrowing the focus on the group of people who he'd made a comment about.

    ←   ZScarpia   03:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The JTA briefs are tricky as RS for the defense facts. They can certainly be read as supporting some of the defenses mentioned. However, the context is incorrect. You would have to study the situations as they were occuring to know this. In the case of Meretz, it is really just a clarifying statement, not a defense. He is still sticking to his "controversial" statement that they are evil, just clarifying who he was referring to. Further, that statement might not be so controversial. I'm sure we can find many examples in politics throughout the world where a political operative had something done against him, and his supporters called the opponents evil. So, this may be a bad example of controversial, and a bad example of defense. OTOH, at a superficial level, it seems to be a decent RS. For the other one, it isn't clear whether he is retracting, or layering. He may still have believed (controversially or not) that Holocaust victims were reincarnated sinners, yet also believe that they are pure an innocent, either because in their reincarnated lives they are so, or because the Holocaust did the purification. Hard to tell, because the subtleties of both comments are not explained anywhere that I can find. It is, OTOH, similar to one of the sources already cited, I don't remember if it was Hebrew or not. Dovid (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you unable to provide translations of relevant parts of the YNet article or do you just not want to do so?     ←   ZScarpia   13:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I probably could, but am not a native Hebrew speaker, so I'd rather leave it to someone who is. Dovid (talk) 05:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section is becoming more balanced, now let's move on to article[edit]

In my humble opinion, Yosef as a phenomenon could be summarized as a third or more religious, a third political, and a third (or less) 'controversial statements'. Remembering that 'controversial statements' sections are bad Wikipedia form, it would be nice to reorganize this article with that sensibility. I suggest organizing basically by decades, but modified by making his decade as chief rabbi one section, and the very significant 1984 founding of Shas another section. The controversial statements should be subsections of the decades that they were a part of. His major religious law rulings should also be subsections of decades. Major elections where he (and Shas) played a 'kingmaking' role should be subsections. Well, that's my dream, people. I will take action on it when I get out from underneath RL obligations. However, if someone else wants to beat me to it, go right ahead! This is very challenging, and has to be a team effort. The article in fact needs more detail on his religious importance and most important rulings, for example, and I am not familiar with best sources for that but some talk page readers are.Haberstr (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you are really proposing is an outline. My suggestion would be to format it as such, get some agreement to that, and start chopping up the article content to fit into the headings. While that's in progress, it probably needs to be tagged as undergoing major rework, so other editors are aware they may lose their edits. FYI, I wasn't comfortable with your lede reversion. If you like, we can discuss separately. Dovid (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


--- Edits on another page were rejected because we cant add sections on controversy. therefore, i removed the controversy page from here as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.17.147 (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reverts[edit]

@Avaya1: Your explanation for your two recent edits does not adequately explain them. You gave reasons that material was not sourced, and that it seemed like an editor was taking sides. I don't see how that is borne out. In one case, there was a short introductory paragraph for material that was adequately sources. The introduction did not introduce any material that was not in the text that followed, so it is sourced by that material. Article openers are not supposed to be sourced, so long as they are supported by the article itself (which must be adequately sourced). The same applies here, where the introduction is to a section. If you believe otherwise, fix it by referring to the same sources instead of just deleting material.

The other claim was that we should "stick with the quotes," i.e., literally quote the sources. That goes well beyond the requirements of Wikipedia. So long as the text is supported by the article, it isn't original research.

Finally, you mention "taking sides." I believe you were referring to the statement about "clarification." I don't see how that can be construed as violating WP:NPOV. The statement was a clarification, whether you believe it to be a contrived clarification or a legitimate one. Dovid (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After an additional revert cycle sans discussion (after the above was posted), I added the following to Avaya1's talk page:

Avaya1, Your multiple reverts on Ovadia Yosef bear discussion. I started a talk page section for this, but rather than engage, you reverted again without discussion. Please weigh in on the talk page before making further changes. FYI, you violated WP:1RR in effect on this article. It would be in your own interest to have self-restraint when editing this article.

Dovid (talk) 05:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Link Dead[edit]

This link:
Oster, Marcy (18 October 2010). "Sephardi leader Yosef: Non-Jews exist to serve Jews". Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
http://jta.org/news/article/2010/10/18/2741341/rabbi-yosef-non-jews-exist-to-serve-jews
...is dead. 98.247.126.245 (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

Seriously, can i remove or at least edit this? It's biased, a bunch of it isn't relevant, and there's not supposed to be controversy sections on people, i was told. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.17.147 (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ovadia Yosef. 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 01:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ovadia Yosef. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Ovadia Yosef. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Birth name[edit]

There is a problem with listing the birth name for Ovadia Yosef as "Abdullah Youssef", as we do in the infobox, because "Youssef" (or "Yosef") was not his name at birth. The family surname was "Ovadia" - presumably in Arabic "Abdullah". Unfortunately, changing the birth name to "Abdullah Abdullah" also doesn't make sense, as we point out in the early life section that the family only adopted the surname in Palestine, when Yosef was at least 4 years old.

So the question is, what was his surname at birth? On the Hebrew wikipedia, this reference points out that that most Iraq Jews used their father's name as a surname (e.g. Ovadia Yosef's father would have been Yaakov Ovadia).https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%91%D7%93%D7%99%D7%94_%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%A3#cite_note-3 It seems to me that the only coherent option to have as a birth name would be Ovadia Yosef Yaakov, or Ovadia Yaakov ("Abdullah Ya'aqub"). But given we don't actually have a source that ever refers to him that way, that seems like WP:OR. So what I'd like to do is remove the name from the infobox, unless there's a source that specifically addresses his name at birth. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ovadia_Yosef&oldid=1214329900"