Talk:Joey Allaham

Legal issues published by the New York Jewish Week

According to the same sources, legal issues published by the Jewish Week on Allaham seem to have been a "spoof". The media outlets have since taken down the articles and released this statement:

A “news” item in our Purim Spoof section (“The Jewish Weak,” March 2) was about “a legendary restaurateur of the New York kosher food scene” and an organizer of Passover programs, references to Joseph Allaham. The piece was intended as parody; some may have read it, falsely, as accusing him of unethical business practices. As a Purim Spoof, there were no facts on which to base an accusation and no such accusation was intended. We apologize to Mr. Allaham and his family for any harm or embarrassment that the article caused him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.255.179 (talk) 07:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

That section has five different sources. That's no spoof. FlamesElite (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That section is a complete spoof. The media group deleted all five of those sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BhasSpeak (talk • contribs) 16:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@FlamesElite: The five sources you're using are all from the same Jewish Week newspaper, which is the source that declared this a fake story, and has since taken down all their articles related to this (which is the reason why you're using web archives and not live articles). If you keep posting this on to the page I'll have to report you to ANI. 203.111.255.179 (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

That correction refers to a March 2, 2018 article. None of the articles cited in that section are even from 2018. FlamesElite (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Jewish Week has removed of all their articles relating to Joey Abraham, which is why you're using web archives to back up these claims (which have been reverted by the source). These sources cannot be considered reliable as they've been extracted and taken down. 203.111.255.179 (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Continued Vandalism

@Oshwah: FlamesElite has added the content again despite your warning not to do so. As you can see above, it was explained to FlamesElite that the source he's consistently using (Jewish Week) removed of all their articles relating to Joey Abraham, which is why he's resorting to using web archives to back up these claims (which have been reverted by the source). However, FlamesElite won't listen and keeps adding this info. 203.111.255.179 (talk) 08:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

203.111.255.179, you haven't provided any evidence that the five sources provided in the "Legal issues" section dated March 16, 2016 to November 21, 2017 are invalid. You keep just providing a link to a retraction for an article on March 2, 2018 which doesn't cover any of the aforementioned articles. And articles are archived all the time. You also appear to be sockpuppeting, using User:BhasSpeak if not other accounts. FlamesElite (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

FlamesElite, the five sources you're using come from the same media, which is Jewish Week. The source itself does not meet WP:RS requirements for the sort of accusations you claim they support, and on top of that Jewish Week has taken down all their articles about the subject (they have not been archived, they have been taken down), which is why you're resorting to using web archives. Web archives from a source that does not meet WP:RS (and that has taken down their articles on the subject and issued a retraction statement) cannot be used to support these types of accusations. If you find other more reliable sources that support these claims (or at least that are live somewhere) you are welcome to use them, in the meantime, by continuing to add these, what you're doing is vandalizing a BLP article. You have been warned already to stop, but you continue to vandalize the article. 203.111.255.179 (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

These articles are all available via Proquest -- so they have been archived, NOT taken down. Do not remove this properly-sourced information again. FlamesElite (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

If these articles are available via Proquest, then provide the Proquest sources. Until then, by using web archives of a source that isn't reliable you're vandalizing the article. Stop or I'll have to report you. BhasSpeak (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

That's not vandalism. One is permitted to use archived links. Report me for whatever you want but you've already clearly been sockpuppeting. FlamesElite (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

FlamesElite as 203.111.255.179 mentioned it before that "Web archives from a source that does not meet WP:RS (and that has taken down their articles on the subject and issued a retraction statement) cannot be used to support these types of accusations.", you are actually trying to vandalize this article. Also be specific to answer or provide valid proof of what you are mentioning. Please provide the Proquest sources. Otherwise, mentioning the invalid archive sources doesn't make your points valid. Go ahead to report me as sockpuppet if you can prove that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BhasSpeak (talk • contribs) 19:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Facts in dispute

I am not sure what facts are in dispute here. I did not find a retraction of the story about problems with the 2017 Passover event. I did find a number of other sources that talk about it, for example from "Page Six" of the New York Post, Kosher Today, Vos Iz Neias, JTA (Jewish Telegraph Agency), Col Live and others including this note "San Diego Hilton cancels Passover trip for 700, tour operator alleges" from the Times of Israel. @BhasSpeak: Please, could you clarify what facts are disputed? --Bejnar (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bejnar: Thanks for your input. I can't find a mention of legal issues concerning Allaham in the references you've provided, which is what the debate here is mainly about. The text that FlamesElite is including to support accusations of legal issues have been taken down by Jewish Week (which is in itself a questionable source for this sort of thing). As such, as it stands, these accusations cannot be properly verified, so including them in the way they're being included is a BLP violation. If we find other sources that we can use to quote concerning this matter, then let's do that, but as for now we should only include facts that can be properly verified. BhasSpeak (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Just because a news site does not maintain an archive of its own, which apparently the Jewish Week does not, that is not sufficient reason to believe that any stories they may have carried have been retracted. See WP:Link rot and Help:Using the Wayback Machine. That is why, I am interested is each specific fact that is being contested. I found several, as I mentioned above, articles that covered the passover trip cancellation problems. That was one of the items deleted. I found another article, I believe in the NY Post's "Page Six", that discussed the problem with a waiter charging excessive tips on credit cards, and how the community had reacted. Verifiability is why I am asking for identification of each fact in dispute; since apparently many of them can be verified. --Bejnar (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Isn't Page Six a tabloid? If Page Six is considered WP:RS, then we should quote from there or any other WP:RS that is available. Also, serious accusations on a BLP article should only be included if there are more than just one source available (per WP:BLP). BhasSpeak (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

As Bejnar said BhasSpeak, "Just because a news site does not maintain an archive of its own, which apparently the Jewish Week does not, that is not sufficient reason to believe that any stories they may have carried have been retracted." As such, there does not appear to be any valid reason to remove the Jewish Week sources. Their factual validity is not in question. FlamesElite (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

For serious accusations such as the ones made here, we need to use reliable sources per WP:BLP. Jewish Week does not meet WP:RS requirements for this type of information, and on top of that, they've taken down these articles. If you can find other articles that qualify as RS, then I urge you to use those to back up these serious claims. Until then, these should not be included on the page as they'd constitute a BLP violation. BhasSpeak (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@PccU2: Stop! Before you edit the article read the conversation in talk page. Please refrain from spreading false news on Wiki.

BLP violations

@Shannya Sabru: please stop adding contentious material to this BLP. You keep reverting edits without any dialogue anywhere.

• A statement like "Allaham has faced a number of lawsuits" requires multiple reliable secondary sources. The reliability of the source you are citing for this is dubious at best. Besides that source says "critics claim ... has been involved in numerous lawsuits". Such claims have no place in a BLP and only independently verified facts need to be added. Also see WP:UNDUE.

• As for the Broidy allegation, read WP:BLPCRIME. Accusations must not be added until and unless it is proved in court of law. As per sources, Broidy's lawsuits have been dismissed in court of law. See this Reuters article which clearly states that the lawsuit has been dismissed twice last year (August and December). There are multiple reliable sources confirming this.

Once again I am reminding you to take care while editing any WP:BLP (do read this thoroughly) as it requires "a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies". Please stop violating these policies or else you may face discretionary sanctions per WP:BLPDS. BhasSpeak (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

This is the first time you've started dialogue about this, before you've just made baseless accusations of sockpupettry and meatpupettry, which basically constitutes WP:ASPERSIONS. The fact that lawsuits may have been dismissed does not mean they should not be mentioned. The statement reads "Allaham has faced a number of lawsuits" and presumes just that, that Allaham has faced a number of lawsuits. If you'd like more sources, then I'll add more sources. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to remove well-sourced information. The information has enough references to make it well past WP:DUE. Shannya Sabru (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, the issues remain unaddressed as none of the sources mention it as a fact that Allaham has "faced a number of lawsuits". The first source is the "critics claim" one discussed above, while the other two are related to the same Broidy lawsuit which was heard twice in court. I have removed that sentence as it falls under WP:SYNTH. IDONTLIKEIT? Did you even read the message posted above? I have pointed out multiple policies which prove BLP violations on your part whereas I can not find a single policy-based argument in your response and yet you accuse me of IDONTLIKEIT. My actions do not come under ASPERSIONS as there was "reasonable cause" (blocked sockpuppet's edit, your edit 1, your edit 2) to accuse you of sockpuppetry. You added the exact same text and sources as a blocked sockpuppet did several months ago and continued to re-add it multiple times with similar non-policy-based arguments. That behavior is all too familiar to be ignored in spite of assuming good faith. BhasSpeak (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I will add more sources about the lawsuits to satisfy your request. Shannya Sabru (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Again none of the sources verify the "multiple lawsuits" claim. Please take part in the DRN thread I have notified you about. BhasSpeak (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

"In the past, Allaham has faced a number of lawsuits, charging everything from stolen tips to defaulting on investor payments." Shannya Sabru (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

And its reliability is questionable as it is a WP:UGC. See [1]. Looks like anybody can mail their "story" and it gets published. Also this story seems to be the only one to be taken down from that list of user-submitted articles. In the meantime, you have ignored my suggestion to wait for the DRN discussion to conclude and reverted the edit again displaying a clear disregard for Wikipedia processes. BhasSpeak (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Jewishweek.Timesofisrael.com meets Wikipedia's reliable source requirements. Stop making false accusations against me, consider this a final warning. Shannya Sabru (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Libelous content ??

I just restored a section that was being labeled as libelous. User:HarrietMWelsch originally added it in on Aug 29, it was then removed by User:BhasSpeak on September the second on the grounds that it violated {{WP:LBL]] (Libel). Since then HarrietMWelsch has added the content back in and BhasSpeak has removed it again with the same complaint.

I've checked the links (New York Post, New York Times & Gothamist are reliable) and the links show exactly what HarrietMWelsch says they say. Since the sources are reliable and since the facts are being reported just they way they are stated in these reliable sources, I would say BhasSpeak cannot state this is libel at all and I have put the content back in. I *DID* remove the last section which refers to a tax document over at the state of NY offices as that's considered WP:PRIMARY and should be used with great care.

That said, I've pinged both BhasSpeak and HarrietMWelsch. BhasSpeak, please explain why you think this content is libel? Necromonger...We keep what we kill 16:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

the links show exactly what HarrietMWelsch says they Really? Did you even open the links?

1. The New York Times link doesn't even exist.

2. Page Six describes itself as "source for celebrity news, gossip, entertainment, pop culture". Clearly a WP:TABLOID source and comes nowhere close to being a WP:RS. It is being falsely tagged as New York Post in the citation template.

3. The reliability of Gothamist has been discussed several times before and it is not used to support any political controversies

4. The Jewish Voice source uses the words "allegedly" and "claimed", while you are saying "attested" in the article. Clear-cut SYNTH and LBL. Claims and allegations are not added to a WP:BLP in any case.

I noticed that you recently joined Wikipedia. Please spare a moment to read WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:NOT (specifically WP:NOTNEWSPAPER) before making more edits, especially controversial ones. BhasSpeak (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Nice --- let's not assume good faith , shall we. I did tell you I checked the links.

Surely the NYT link did open up then? BhasSpeak (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

A quick search on the New York times shows the story's in their archive. So yes it is there. Also, I never mentioned the Jewish voice as I wasn't sure of them, so I steered awayt from them. As far as I know, Gothamist is a newspaper , not a tabloid, and is therefore reliable. Also, it was used to point to a legal proceeding, not a political one. Page six is part of the New York Post and it doesn't mention what you're saying, and New York Post is reliable. You have yet to prove why this is libelous.

Now that doesn't mean I'm going to revert you, I know enough about Wikipedia to know that's editing warring. So far, two people want to include the information, only you want to not include it, so that's not consensus nor have you proved libel. I move that the information be re-added back. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 22:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not about how many people want what. See WP:NOTAVOTE. It's about making policy-based argument. I have stated several valid policies to back my stand whereas I can't, for the life of me, see a single policy-based argument from your side. Great that you know about edit warring. Moving on... BhasSpeak (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

User:BhasSpeak, let's look at your argument

1. The New York Times link doesn't even exist. I've proven that to not be true - it does exist, but is archived.

2. Page Six describes itself as "source for celebrity news, gossip, entertainment, pop culture". Clearly a WP:TABLOID source and comes nowhere close to being a WP:RS. It is being falsely tagged as New York Post in the citation template.

Actually according to the website it's part of the same network as the New York Post and includes items from the New York Post, so it's not deceptive at all.

3. The reliability of Gothamist has been discussed several times before and it is not used to support any political controversies

Actually, what it says is:

4.We discussed this quite recently. It seems to me that they count as local newspapers, fine for establishing notability of films, shows and exhibitions. I would be a bit wary about using them for any political controversies. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC) So that's not what you're saying at all.

and finally:

5. The Jewish Voice source uses the words "allegedly" and "claimed", while you are saying "attested" in the article. Clear-cut SYNTH and LBL. Claims and allegations are not added to a WP:BLP in any case. I never mentioned the Jewish Voice, I actually steered away from using it because when I search Wikipedia about it The Jewish Voice doesn't show up as either notable or non-notable.

.... So, all four of your points fall flat..... oh yeah about this comment : It's not about how many people want what. See WP:NOTAVOTE. It's about making policy-based argument. I have stated several valid policies to back my stand whereas I can't, for the life of me, see a single policy-based argument from your side. Great that you know about edit warring. Moving on...

I hate to break it to you, but consensus is very much the majority opinion, it always is. That's obvious, so even though Wikipedia says it's not a vote, it really , truly , at it's core is. If 10 more people agree with you and none with me, then the stuff I wanted to add in , doesn't get add in. I doubt you'd be real thrilled if I came back with "It's not a vote", you'd tell me consensus has been made and that's that, ergo, it's a vote. I've taken the libery of requesting a third opinion's since HarrietMWelsch isn't participating and you and I are at loggerheads at this point. Pinigng User:BhasSpeak, User:HarrietMWelsch so everyone's in the know. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

1. Can you provide the link then? Just saying it exists doesn't make it so.

2. Where did I say Page Six is "deceptive"?

3 & 4.Thanks for quoting the OP and proving that it is exactly what I said it is.

5. I did not comment on the Jewish Voice's notability but on your SYNTH violation ie, combining one or more sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated in any of the sources.

Your poor understanding of WP policies displays Wikipedia:Competence is required concerns. BhasSpeak (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hi. I've never edited this article before, have no relationship nor do I have an interest in Joey Allaham. All three paragraphs strike me as minor business disputes. He fought an eviction notice. He got into a financing/construction dispute. He had a hotel reservation cancelled. Businesses get into disputes and sue each other all the time. A single day's coverage in a newspaper or two does not establish notability. Nor do these events help define his career. So including them gives undue weight to their importance. There are other concerns I have with the paragraphs. I read the first article from the NY times.[2] The paragraph gives Sony's side of the dispute. It does not discuss Allaham's argument. Specifically, the building was purchased by a real estate developer "who supports the eviction because of plans to turn the building into a hotel-condominium tower with a different retail mix." Giving only one side of the dispute violates wp:npov The NY post reference is a "Page Six" article. "The New York Post, which is known, in part, for celebrity gossip with its famous "Page Six," but which covers national and international news, financial news, political news, etc., and could not be called an unreliable "tabloid." [3] Is true for the post in general, but not "Page Six". -- Work permit (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hi, User:HarrietMWelsch here. To begin: User:BhasSpeak has cited competence as required for Wikipedia editing. I would argue that competence is not the same as perfect mastery and that the mission of Wikipedia was not to restrict access to editing only to those deeply knowledgeable about all policies and formatting methods. There are inconsistencies in how User:BhasSpeak interprets and applies other Wikipedia policies, which I will address in a bit. 1. I disagree with Third Opinion's view that the business disputes mentioned were minor. Business disputes covered by the New York Times and New York Post are by definition not minor. The Career section contains a number of minor articles, but favorable ones. To provide an accurate overview of Allaham's career, including information on important disputes is not irrelevant. A Wikipedia article is not supposed to be a press release. How is Third Opinion a more reliable arbiter of what is minor and major than the New York Times and Post? Is this not the point of having reliable sources, so that we Wikipedia editors do not alone decide on what is significant or not in business disputes? Or have a war of credentials to prove who is right? You must establish consensus. That is a wikipedia policy wikipedia:Consensus. ---- Work permit (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC) I believe that Third Opinion also applies Wikipedia's sourcing policy too stringently to the New York Times article about the Sony Building dispute. Allaham was clearly given the chance to speak and have his point of view reported. One reason the Times is considered a reliable source is that generally the paper can be relied upon for accurate sources. This is not a red-hot topic but clear cut reporting of a dispute. Perfect 50-50 balance in voices and opinions in news articles is not the standard for reliability. I don't understand what you are saying. Did you bother to read the source? Allaham did give his point of view. His point of view was not included in the wikipedia edit.---- Work permit (talk) 04:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC) For instance, an article from The New York Post -- not Page Six -- speaking to the dispute with Lincoln Square Synagogue is evidence that this was not a minor dispute. When I have time, I will cite this article and summarize the dispute. Allaham is given plenty of opportunity to give his side of the dispute in this article. The length and detail included also refutes Third Opinion's view of this as a "minor" business dispute. In the largest city in the US, does the Post cover minor disputes or did the paper view this dispute as significant? I have read the article. The article is from the gossip page of the New York Post. ---- Work permit (talk) 04:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC) 2. User:BhasSpeak is very stringent about sources when it comes to less flattering coverage of Allaham. However, sources such as Tablet, The Jewish Source, and a site called Algemeiner are acceptable, apparently, when they provide complimentary coverage. These citations go beyond simple announcements, which is when sources need not to be quite so reliable. For example, User:BhasSpeak has left stand the statement (not provided by me) that "Allaham has managed to collaborate with a number of government and international officials, as well as other prominent business people through his restaurant businesses." The link is to an article in Tablet magazine. How is this source acceptable for information complimentary to Allaham but for later articles that are less flattering, such as disputes with these prominent business people, User:BhasSpeak takes down that information? 3. User:BhasSpeak called my edits "libelous." This strikes me as extreme and unwarranted, and suggests an over-advocacy on the part of User:BhasSpeak. One might question the sources and wording. I am not a frequent Wikipedia editor but I have been editing here for many years. Most challenges to my edits have struck me as understandable and reasonable, even if I disagree. Libel implies a degree of falsehood and hurtful intention that is out of place with the edits I made. Given the vigilance of User:BhasSpeak where this article is concerned, and what appears to be concerns only with less-than-positive information about Joey Allaham, and given the extreme accusation of my edits as "libelous," I question the disinterestedness of User:BhasSpeak as an editor on this article. Why is User:BhasSpeak so quick to take down my edits and so strenuous in his upholding of standards only on less-than-glowing reports about Allaham? 4. I will speak to my interest in this article. I have read about and followed Allaham's career for some time. After the Qatar news, I was interested in seeing what the Wikipedia article had to say. I found the Career section reading more like a curated press release than a genuine entry that provided a full and accurate picture. Whenever I have had this experience when reading Wikipedia, I corrected the record. So that is my interest in the Allaham article. What is the interest of User:BhasSpeak with the Allaham article? HarrietMWelsch (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC) References