Talk:Aish HaTorah

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Judaism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

60% claim removed after it was removed from their website.

Shalom,

Thank you for writing to us and pointing this out. This has been corrected on our site.

All the best,

-- --

• Hello everyone, kindly register with Wikipedia and obtain official user names so that you can sign all your comments with the four tildes ~~~~ Thank you. IZAK 16:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning Spielberg's inconsistency with the ideals of Aish HaTorah is relevant. Aish HaTorah uses his endorsement, and as I recall he dedicated something which bears his name in the Jerusalam yeshiva. Spielberg is married to a non-Jew, and his new movie "Munich" has been subjected to a torrent of criticism for its inability to make a moral distinction between the terrorist murderers of Munich and the Israeli hit team that tried to enact justice and kill them. That's not the kind of man that Aish should be trotting out of evidence of their success.

For now, try to integrate that context (with wikilinking), because that specific passage is untenable in isolation; it is simply too confusing and unclear as per relevance, and otherwise. Please keep the average reader in mind. Thanks. El_C 08:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed one person's criticism of one aspect of one activity by Aish. We know Barry Simon is opposed to the use of Torah Codes, which point should be developed in

Barry Simon claims that "virtually unanimous opinion of those professional mathematicians and statisticians". He is a respected mathematician in his own right, and the Discovery program that uses these codes is one of Aish's biggest items. Perhaps the criticism belongs here, where the claim "Discovery Seminar ... uses scientific methods of research to explore the authenticity of Judaism" is made. This is challenged by scientists such as Barry Simon.Hyim 21:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This organization recieved a total of one star (out of four) from Charitynavigator.com. (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/search.summary/orgid/3925.htm) This similarity between this name and the Jerusalem Foundation has led some to believe that Aish used this name fro deceptive purposes. The nomenclature was challenged in a 1999 article in Globes Magazine.Hyim 04:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has felt it necessary to insert an URL to Mayim (literally "water"), a blog dedicated to critiquing Aish UK.

However, it's not critcism in this blog. It's bleating and aimed at "exposing" this or that. It only criticises the UK branch, which is only a small part of a much larger organisation.

I see no reason why this blog should be linked here. JFW | T@lk 03:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article relating to Aish is not balanced and provides no criticism to the organization at all. Whilst I think this is proganda, I am not opposed to the article but think there needs to a balance to it with the criticism that is felt by many people. I do not have enough sources to write the critiques myself but this article should be flagged as a very one-sided piece.

I don't have a reference to back this up, so I won't put it on the main page, but this passaage:

"However, the accusation is not only commonly dismissed by Aish HaTorah members and staff, but also the majority of religious Jews, who see the controversy surrounding Aish HaTorah as rooting from secular Judaism in an attempt to taint Aish HaTorah's name, and their outreach work"

is just false. Most orthodox Jews cringe when they hear the name "Aish Hatorah" because they know the place is wacko. I highly doubt anyone with smicha from Aish would be taken seriously in a serious religious setting. But I dodn't have documentation so I leave it on this rarely-viewed page.

This whole page read like Aish propaganda. It ought to be cleaned up from a NPOVHyim 05:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hyim: what do you propose? Say it here on the talk page and then it can go into the article. Please do not suggest
  Chabad-Lubavitch propaganda as an "antidote" to Aish's propaganda because it will sound just as silly and foolish. IZAK 07:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The whole page is propaganda. I have sprinkled some citations and references to their wacky beliefs and tried to beef up the Controvery section. It's such a shame that this organization can't just try to produce committed Jews instead of zealots adi67 17:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

–Hmm... I know lots of 'committed Jews' who are graduates of the Aish yeshiva and programmes abroad. Garry Wayland 18:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a source for the last statement of the controversy section re 'standard psychologic pressure'? Thanks Garry Wayland 17:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Controversy section is an unsourced editorial and thus is forbidden by the rules against

original research. It has to be either propery sourced or deleted. The correct way to add criticism is to locate a published source of criticism and report what it says. We aren't allowed to write our own. McKay 14:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I have added a 'Controversy' label at the start of this discussion; it seems clear to me that there those with both very positive and very negative views of the organisation making edits, based on a lot of hearsay, personal opinion, and making relatively emotive comments. The first paragraph is a good example of this - much of it is false (especially in the various branches of the organisation with which I have personal experience), and dubious at best; and the controversy section is an ongoing conversation between various editors. I don't see the point of editing as based on current trends it will be gone within a few days... Garry Wayland 17:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an article that may shed some light on the Aish controversy. [1] Here is a an individual's take on Aish's recruitment. [2] Hyim 06:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the endorsements paragraph to reflect, I believe, the best of Wikipedia policy: a statement of the facts with sources. I corrected the text that compared Aish's endorsements with those of Scientology and Kabbalah Centre because there were no sources provided. In fact, I went to those websites and could not find ANY endorsements, celebrity or otherwise, nor did I find any with a google search. Therefore, I believe that the intellectual reputation of some of Aish's endorsements is one useful piece of information in this section. It alone doesn't prove anything, nor is it irrelevant. Narcissus14

You were right to remove the Scientology and Kabbalah Centre claims, but your own edit was a clear violation of the

reliable sources. McKay 04:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

You are making a strong argument for editing, but not for deleting the entire chunk. In fact, the statement "this is an accusation of which the organization is aware" which you left intact is very un-wikish - it has no source. Moreover, how can an organization be aware of something? I'm going to edit, taking into consideration your point (above) and challenge you to repair rather than delete if you see any problems. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Narcissus14 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply

]

Your text is Original Research, simple as that. Everything you wrote is your analsysis. It is you claiming "these sources do not make the case" (btw, have you read Tapper's article?). It is you claiming "The Wiki on NRMs would appear to fully invalidate". That's not allowed. Even if you personally were a world-renowned expert on cults, it still wouldn't be allowed. Please read the policy! You have to find a published reliable source where that analysis appears, then you can quote (or paraphrase) it. McKay 07:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the entire section was removed. Is there a reason. Right now the article is an advert. I'm not going to touch it, but it should be fixed. Basejumper 00:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the controversy section should be readded, perhaps with a citation tag. Yodaat 23:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, so where is it? Also, I recall Aish puting out a call for people to edit wikipedia in a political way. Should or cuold this be added as it seems very relevant. (Let me declare a possible COI. Groups that try to manipulate wikipedia annoy me, and I have neutral feelings for this group to begin with.) Basejumper2 04:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a problem with the fact that 10's of 1000s of people are frum to the extent of modern orthodxy because of Aish Hatorah. Even if no one would be accepted as a Rabbi in the Frum community, if there are people that are Shomer Torah U'mitzvos because of them, they deserve a very big Yasher Koach. If they are not exactly the type of people you enjoy being around, well no one asked you to join the Yeshiva. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.136.156.64 (talk) 06:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not mention the fact that a large part of Aish's output is political polemic. Examples: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Such articles form between 1/3 and 1/2 of all output nowadays. I added a very weak mention to the article but I don't really want to edit it. Someone should add more, including a description of Aish's political position (somewhere around the Netanyahu point). McKay 00:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to Aish's call for editing of wikipedia. I think the information certainly belongs in the article, but won't add it without discussion. http://www.israelactivism.com/index.php?mode=newsletter#article11 If nobody discusses in the next couple of days, I'll assume it's okay to add. Thanks. Basejumper2 08:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone deleted the following subsection:

Aish HaTorah's methodology and impact on some people has led to comparisons between Aish and

New Religious Movements (sometimes referred to as cults

)<ref>Tapper, A. The "cult" of Aish Hatorah: Ba'alei Teshuva and the New Religious Movement phenomenon". Jewish Journal of Sociology, vol 44, nos 1 and 2, 2002.</ref>. This is an accusation of which the organisation is aware, and counters by claiming it is intellectually honest <ref>[http://www.aish.com/spirituality/foundations/How_Can_We_Be_Sure_of_Anything.asp Aish.com] - "How Can We Be Sure of Anything?"</ref>.

That deletion was justified. First, the description of Tapper's paper is woefully inadequate. Second, the page of Aish linked in reply does not mention Tapper at all, so the charge "honest" (presumably supposed to be "dishonest") is unsourced. (Google cannot find Tapper mentioned at aish.com at all, which is what I would expect.) I don't want to write on this subject in the article, but if anyone wants to study Tapper's 25-page academic paper and use it to improve our article, send me email by the link on my home page and I'll send it to you. As well as discussing the nature of Aish, Tapper gives a lot of historical and other useful information. McKay 06:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nive hasbarah. But since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an website of the Israeli Information Ministry or the kiruv movement, the section had no reason to be deleted. 82.81.104.93 06:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a common mistake but aish did not produce or were in any way involved in Obsession & Relentless. I can't seem to edit that area at the bottom where it says so. Can anyone do it for me or tell me how it's done?

Thanks, Yuval —The preceding

How do you know that? Who did produce those films? I was also under the impression that they were from Aish. What info do you have? Narcissus14

Here Aish says that the producer of the films is an Aish staff member. McKay 10:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"HonestReporting is proud to have been a former marketing partner during the initial production of this award-winning documentary." http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/Reviewers_Reject_The_Israel_Lobby.asp

Honest Reporting is the media watchdog arm of Aish HaTorah.

They are "proud to be partners," according to their own website.

In addition, the involvement of several full-time employees of Aish HaTorah in the film's production and distribution is indicative of a much broader relationship.

There is no public record of where the money to distribute 28 million copies of this film as newspaper inserts during election season came from. The self-described "marketing partner" is, perhaps by happenstance, the sole suspect. Bustter (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The speed dating claim is pretty astonishing, it would be nice to see it cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.219.123 (talk • contribs)

It's correct. See Speed dating. --John Nagle (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this article does sound like an advert (IMO, as someone who has never heard of Aish HaTorah). I would appreciate it if the relevant bits could be referenced or I will start deleting unreferenced content. P.S. I have tried to remove some of the "advertising-speak" without causing offence. All the best.Mmoneypenny 16:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An anon changed "stated mission" to "mission", and I changed it back. Aish does far more than its stated mission, especially in the advocacy area, and the cites reflect that. --John Nagle (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever put a rating of B-class on this article would be advised to compare it with other B-articles that are much better written. This still reads like a propaganda piece, and is nowhere near encyclopedia quality in terms of the presentation and writing. I downgraded it to start-class. Yoninah (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This article needs a ton of work. It has serious POV problems, and needs more references. Enigmaman (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]