Talk:Shmarya Rosenberg

NPOV

I tried to keep this article as neutral as possible. Chances are that this article may get vandalized a few times. . . Before making assertions or major changes, outline them in the talk page. Cheers --Avi15 (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed according to WP:BLP some unsourced negative comment. It is possible there is a source for just who in the Jewish community made the comment removed about his mental health, but it must be exactly sourced, & it must have appeared under the byline of an eminently respectable publication--and be exactly quoted. Even then it would be extremely problematic, and I want to see it here on the talk page before it gets inserted. It is exactly the sort of negative BLP that is exactly the purpose of the BLP policy to keep out of Wikipedia. The material about his having been a frequent guest of the Rubashkins also needs an exact citation, not a general reference to his blog. I've put a fact tag on it for the time being. I've also put a fact tag on something that is fairly obvious, but also does need to be specifically sourced. DGG (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not neutral to refer to Rosenberg as a "crybaby." I deleted that reference.Jaxn2 (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

that was recent vandalism. But you did not restore the original text, which I just did. Additionally, the line about whom he dated is a BLP violation with respect to the girl.And all whistle-blowers are self-appointed. DGG (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There are two features that bring into question the neutrality of the Shmarya Rosenberg article. This is why I've made a few changes.

1) The insinuation or implication was there that Rosenberg was definitely right and Chabad was definitely wrong because the the black Ethiopians ARE DEFINITELY JEWISH. Wrong. The Ethiopians Jewish identity is questionable and Chabad's action should not therefore be portrayed as unreasonable. The article gave the impression that they (Chabad) were the bad guys however well intended the author.

2) No-one can deny that Rosenberg's work is seriously biased. It focusses only on the negative side of a certain community that he singles out. He doesn't ever state anything positive so far as I can glean. In fairness and for the sake of neutrality it is strongly suggested this article owes a duty to caution readers regarding his blog.

The above are commonsence points that need to be dealt with if simple objectivity is to be maintained. Roy Grant (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

His notorious grandfather

I propose adding to the article Shmarya's illustrious ancestry, namely, his grandfather, Leon Gleckman, the Al Capone of St. Paul. His notoriety should make him be relevant to be mentioned in the article of his grandson. http://benatlas.com/2011/01/the-subliminal-legacy-of-the-al-capone-of-st-paul-leon-gleckma/TheTruthMan11 (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The link does not appear to meet out WP:RS standards.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not the link that I am suggesting as the source, it is the documents that the link contains that clearly prove it.TheTruthMan11 (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

untitled

See the thread on his own blog where he admits he has no funds. See also the article about Berel Lazar and how he cannot get to New York or Russia because he has no funds. My information about him being destitute is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.182.194.193 (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No, your information violates the WP:BLP policy and it has been removed on that basis. Please read that policy and comply with it. Compliance is mandatory. Repeated non-compliance will result in you being reported, your IP will probably be blocked or a range block will be imposed and the article will probably be protected from edits by unregistered users. If you cannot comply with the policy, don't edit the article. There are millions of other articles to edit. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Destitute is not defined by whether you can take international flights, or have sufficient revenue to run a website. That would make most activists who raise funds to keep their efforts afloat "destitute." It just doesn't follow. If he can clothe, feed, and house himself while keeping the Internet on he's not destitute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.235.119 (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Relatives

Hello. I have let the part about Rosenberg's notorious grandfather stay in, although I think it is OR and a possible WP:BLP issue. Or am I mistaken? Ajnem (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note clearly the BLP issue that you are referring to.--208.53.73.133 (talk) 00:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

@ 91.215.55.200, 208.53.73.133, and possibly Mogism. Well, out to get blocked? Go on with it, and you will get blocked. And the rest of the users should be a lot more careful than they are, Shmarya Rosenberg is not loved by everybody, Ajnem (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

And in view of what's going on here, and the use that is made of it (see e.g. here), I'm going to change the sentence about Rosenberg's grandfather, too. It is OR, I did not find any RS to confirm it, contrary to the Haaretz piece, which mentions the grandfather's grandfather. Ajnem (talk) 12:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I have changed it. It should be BLP-conform now. Please watch the page. If the IPs don't stop, a range block would imo be in order. Ajnem (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is it now BLP-conform? Because you hid it in a paragraph? Why does (unusually) putting his defense of his grandfather make the article more BLP-conform? Can you honestly say that you have no hidden interests here?

208.53.73.125, I certainly do have an “interest here”, but it is not “hidden” at all, quite to the contrary: It is called WP:BLP, among other things. Rosenberg's bootlegging grandfather has nothing to do on his grandson's Wikipedia page, as there is no connection between his and his grandson's activities, contrary to the grandfather's grandfather, who, as Haaretz puts it, shows that “Rosenberg has a family history of run-ins with Chabad.” Mentioning Rosenberg's grandfather without excellent RS therefore is a BLP issue, because it serves to smear Rosenberg's reputation which is a BLP-violation. I had the intention to delete it (see above), until I saw the piece about him Rosenberg had put on his blog, which makes it obvious, that what and who his maternal grandfather was, plays a role in his life, therefore it becomes a fact of his, not his mother's or grandfather's life, and can imo be included in the article as such, but only as what he means to Rosenberg. But I have no objections if the whole passage is removed. If you are interested in Leon Gleckman, why don't you start an article about him? He certainly is notable enough. But if you do, please don't forget that WP:NPOV also applys to dead people. Ajnem (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Response to users Sean.hoyland and Ajnem

It is nice to see people acting as bodyguards for Rosenberg. I rarely see such "BLP protectioners" even for Living people like Michael Bloomberg who has millions of enemies in NYC.

Furthermore, Shmarya Rosenberg dedicates his life to defame and to hurt productive hard working living people. Most of these people contribute to society by spending their time and lives raising large families, working hard to make a living and running businesses and organizations.

He is hurting them merely because they are observant Jews.

More often than not he is hurting their reputations on the basis of accusations. Recently, an accused religious person which also showed up on his blog (-only because he was an observant Jew-), committed suicide[1].

But if anyone dares to write anything about Rosenberg - comes running the "bodyguards" threatening to block their IP based on BLP. Branters (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Bodyguard ? My edits were simply to bring the article inline with WP:BLP because it's a mandatory policy. It's not my fault that there are people who are petty and vindictive enough to unethically exploit a charity by trying to use Wikipedia to fight their inane battles over things I couldn't give a shit about. I have hundreds of articles about living people on my watchlist because those articles are subject to disruption. The degree of protection is not a function of my personal views about the subject. If you can understand that there are editors who don't care in the slightest about things you think are important, editors who take action simply protect the encyclopedia from disruption, Wikipedia will make more sense to you. There are many people like that editing Wikipedia, not enough, but many. Unfortunately they are necessary. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Article cleanup: Missing basic information and appears to be one sided.

We need to add more information about his main notability which is his blog. After reading this article we barely know what his blog is about. Some sources are misquoted (for example we are missing the main point of the NYT article). This article seems single sided but It will take time to look into the sources since we need to follow BLP rules. ( - P.S. I previously edited this page under Branters -). Caseeart (talk) 05:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

A quick look at the article and it's sources already pointed out multiple BLP and POV issues related to the subject.

Here are a few points:

• Many sources are blogs which is against policy especialy BLP. (Furthermore the blogs were written by the subject himself which is like writing a blog about yourslef and basing a wikipedia article on your writings.) In some cases the blogs even contradict controversial information from the reputable sources.
• There is made up information (or original research) with a false citation to the NYT. (for example that he is a whistle blower etc.)
• Some sources are misquoted. The main point of the NYT source is missing. (For example the leade cites from the NYT that "he is fiercely hated" but the title and main point of that NYT article explaining "why he is hated" is missing).
• The leade is missing the well sourced point that he is a major critic of Chabad and of orthodox Jews. Instead the leade just states that he is hated by them (again -without reason?). The leade also cites and is much based on a blog written by the subject himself.

(This was a quick view - please excuse if I was not 100% accurate)Caseeart (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

From a practical perspective it's probably better to propose specific changes to the article together with an explanation as to why they should be made. Regarding using his blog as a source about himself, see WP:BLPSELFPUB. It's allowed within quite strict constraints. The information should include attribution rather than use Wikipedia's narrative voice. Some blogs may be acceptable per WP:NEWSBLOG e.g. [2] but it always depends on context, how the information is being used etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

As you could see in my comment - I was not talking about News blogs which are reputable sources. I was talking about controversial information from his own blog that is not inline with the reputable sources.

There were other points I mentioned, including information that falsely leads to sources such as NYT. (That information was not removed/corrected, which seems like POV pushing to post false positive information and remove anything controversial). Caseeart (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but we don't decide who is right. We are meant to provide readers with enough information so that they can make their own minds up. There are almost always differences between how people, organizations etc describe themselves and how they are described by reliable sources. Without specific details about what concerns you and proposed changes I can't really make a useful comment. Perhaps you could describe exactly what it is that you think doesn't comply with WP:BLPSELFPUB and provide the information/reliable source that contradicts it so that it can be included ? Or you could go ahead and make WP:BOLD edits to fix things. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not sure that describing him as a "whistle blower" can reasonably be described as made up information. It seems more like a fairly straightforward description of what he does. It could be sourced to "US Immigration Reform and Its Global Impact", Erik Camayd-Freixas, ISBN 978-0230105850, quote: "...the popular blog FailedMessiah.com, by disaffected Chabad-Lubavitcher Shmarya Rosenberg, a watchdog and whistle-blower of misdeeds and dubious business practices linked to Orthodox rabbis..." Sean.hoyland - talk 03:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Your first point "but we don't decide who is right" is correct and exactly what this article needs.
• Your recent edits are a good start.
• Your second point about whistle blower is inaccurate. You may now come up with many new sources that state that that he is a whistle blower (example the one you showed me).

However to falsify cite a and quote a long commentary in the name of the New York Times and change the wording

From "Blogging on the site FailedMessiah.com, Mr. Rosenberg, 51, has transmuted a combination of muckraking reporting and personal grudge"

To "covering the largely under or un-reported Haredi/Hasidic sector, Rosenberg reports as a journalistic watchdog and whistle blower in “a combination of muckraking reporting and personal grudge""

Adding words like "un-reported", "journalistic", watchdog" and "whistle blower") - seems more like POV pushing and vandalism.

• Further researching showed that this misquotation was by user Ajnem in | this edit.

What is more disturbing is that this same user Anjem is constantly accusing other users of vandalism and having an interest. The user also removed sourced material, and threatens to block other users.

- I have not even looked into this user's other large edits in the article.

This misquotation, is only one detail and I don't want to be carried away. Instead of discussing past vandalism - Let us focus on building this article based on the reputable sources as you started doing. Caseeart (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Vandalism is described in WP:VANDAL. It's worth reading because what you describe is not what Wikipedia regards as vandalism.
• Content in articles like this tends to get shredded and smeared over time unfortunately. You're assuming that the NYT was used as a source and therefore misused/misquoted, but as you can see from my recent edits, content in the article often comes from sources that aren't cited next to the content. Editors are always doing this, separating the information from the sources that verify the information. It's Wikipedia's version of entropy. That's why I try to provide a citation for every single sentence in contentious articles.
• I agree, what happened in the past doesn't really matter.
• I wanted to ask you something about your statement "but the title and main point of that NYT article explaining "why he is hated" is missing" because I've read that article a couple times and I still don't really understand what you think is missing exactly.

Sean.hoyland - talk 16:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me for using the term "vandalism" for falsified and POV edits. I mistakenly used the term "vandalism" in line with Anjem's repeated accusations of "vandalism" at users that were putting in information that he disagreed or were un-sourced or did not belong in this article.

• Take a look again at the single example I brought on Anjem's misquotation. You will see that the edit intentionally integrated that POV information as part of the NYT article. It does not look like a "mistake". In addition how could we ever remove un-sourced/false information - maybe there is another source somewhere else?.
• Regarding your last question (why)- since you already removed that POV edit from the leade - I think we spent enough time on my comment - let us now spend time trying to fix up this article.
• Anjem restructured and changed the entire article [3], with POV pushing, falsified sources, plagiarism etc. Anjem did all this without discussing anything on this talk page WP:CAUTIOUS, He barely explained anything in the edit summery WP:UNRESPONSIVE and even lied that he was adding info when he was also removing a large amount. Most of his edits were never removed/corrected. I did not yet bother looking into every single edit. It might be quicker, easier and less POV to begin before this edit (and include any information that was added later).

• Do you agree with Anjem's edits and edit behavior including the one I showed you? Caseeart (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Uncovered a series of disruptive PR editing, and fraudulent cover ups by Ajnem

Ajnem - A user that was previously blocked violating wikipedia rules[4], blanked out and restructured this entire article creating a wide range of un-sourced POV changes, as PR WP:PROMOTION for Mr. Rosenberg. Ajnem managed to conceal his editing behavior an remain unnoticed. Most of the edits remained until a few days ago.

We are focusing on these four consecutive edits

• Concrete examples, Vandalism, Falsifying sources and other wikipedia violations by Ajnem

• WP:VANDAL

Ajnem blanked out a few sections of sourced controversial material. Some of the material already had discussion consensus on THIS talk page to retain the material[5]. Ajnem failed to mention his removal anywhere (neither the edit summery nor the talk page), which is a form of Vandalism. [6]

• WP:CAUTIOUS, WP:UNRESPONSIVE

Ajnem restructured, re-wrote and changed the entire article in this edit [7], without discussing anything on this talk page WP:CAUTIOUS, He barely explained anything in the edit summery WP:UNRESPONSIVE. He even lied in one edit that he was adding info when he was also removing a large amount.

• Falsifiying sources, POV, WP:PROMOTION, WP:OR.

First Example:

The NYT describes Rosenberg a Muckraking Blogger and states "Blogging on the site FailedMessiah.com, Mr. Rosenberg, 51, has transmuted a combination of muckraking reporting and personal grudge".

Ajem changed it to "covering the largely under or un-reported Haredi/Hasidic sector, Rosenberg reports as a journalistic watchdog and whistle blower in “a combination of muckraking reporting and personal grudge". Instead of "muckraking blogger" Ajnem added "un-reported", "journalistic", watchdog" and "whistle blower" - and integrated all of that as part of the NYT article.

Second Example:

Anjem added a made up PR and POV information and falsely pointed to The Daily Beast as it's source:

The article previously stated "Rosenberg also writes a weekly column for Heeb Magazine called "Crimes and Misdemeanors"".

Ajnem changed it to: "Rosenberg also writes for the Jewish Daily Forward, Tablet Magazine, Moment, Sh'ma Magazine, Guilt and Pleasure, Jewish World Review, Jewcy, the Minneapolis StarTribune, the Daily Beast, and a weekly column for Heeb called "Crimes and Misdemeanors".[8]" Citation [8] points to this source.

(Although it is possible that at one point in time Rosenberg wrote for some/all of these magazines but he is not a writer for those papers except for the Heeb.)

• Using the article opening leade (WP:LEAD) as POV & WP:PROMOTION.

Here is what Ajnem added to the leade: "Rosenberg, who was described as “without doubt one of the Jewish blogosphere's most respected and erudite commentators” by the Israeli daily Haaretz,[2] was the only American Jew listed both among the Jewish Daily Forwards 50 and Heeb's 100 in 2008.[3]"

• Ajnem Falsely accused, harassed and threatened a legitimate user.

• WP:PERSONAL, WP:HARASS

One Jul 20, 2012 Ajnem blanked out an entire section of sourced material on Rosenberg's Grandfather [8], despite the consensus in earlier THIS talk page to retain the material[9]. Ajnem failed to mention his removal anywhere (neither the edit summery nor the talk page). Which as noted is a form of Vandalism. [10]

User 208.53.73.127 (rightfully) restored the material explaining his edit in the Edit summery and the talk page. Ajem then Attacked and harassed the user – with a false accusation of vandalism and a threat to block.[11] (Only later (Aug 2) did Ajnem explain his edit).

• Cover Up:

Ajnem covered up these actions by: 1- Mixing up sourced and un-sourced material followed the citation. 2- Combined edits of both legitimate and illegitimate, both adding and removing of material. 3- Misleading edit summaries. 4- Diverting the discussion/argument back and forth away from the edit summery into two separate sections in the talk page. 5- Including user 208.53.73.127 in a list with other users that were creating wrongful edits 6- Falsely accusing and threatening the user who challenged the edits.

There were additional reasons why it was difficult to detect I won't wont get into it now.

I therefore propose restructuring the article to meet WP:NPOV standards Caseeart (talk) 06:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

In rebuilding this article here is what I propose we should focus:

• Give each source it's due weight.
• WP:NPOV "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources".
• A clear article that is more organized, divided into sections and readable.
• A WP:LEAD that summarizes the article and includes all POV.

Let me clarify what it means Give each source it's due weight.

This means that we focus more on widespread sources as stated WP:RSUW "in proportion to the prominence of each", and as stated WP:NEWSORG "News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable".

NYT source that is a biography article on Rosenberg is the most widespread, and thus by far most reliable source. It is also a WP:SECONDARY source which is what Wikipedia articles are supposed to be built on.

Later comes the Haaretz source which is a much less widespread newspaper. In addition, Haaretz is a secular Jewish Newspaper - which would be considered "opinionated in this topic" since Rosenberg focuses on criticism of religious Jews. Haaretz also includes an interview which is more considered a primary and self published source. The other sources should be taken with even more caution. These include the Forward, Dailybeast, and JDUPDATES which all have bias (Some of these sources were Rosenberg's employers or published articles from Rosenberg, others represent the view of the Orthodox Jews - the ones who Rosenberg writes about).

Last is Rosenberg's own blog which has strict rules when we could post. I will try to minimize. Most of the information could be found in the reliable sources. Caseeart (talk) 05:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

folow up: Over the past few months there were a few constructive edits (by other users) that removed much of the PR and the unnecessary length. However there are still editors that are constantly removing any controversial information. (Sometimes they are legitimate removals but other times the information is properly sourced and relevant). I propose putting it in a controversies section we could then analyze every peice of information and it's source.Caseeart (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I am proposing to put back the two controversial sources that were repeatedly removed. One source from a journalist[12] in Front Page Mag who labels the website "failed messiah" "anti semitic".[13] Another is from the small religious newspaper JP updates that presents a concrete example with ample evidence of the website "failed messiah" downplaying a crime against a Hassidic child.[14] The first source is from a writer in a widespread magazine. The source discusses the website "failed messiah" and does not discuss rosenberg. The source is valid to make such statements. The second source JD updates which is a bit less reliable - however it provides a non disputable concrete example. Therefore we could focuse on the example rather than the statement calling Rosenberg a bigot. Newrepublic.com writes [15] "Shmarya Rosenberg, proprietor of a blog, Failed Messiah, devoted to exposing alleged corruption in the Hasidic community primarily in the United States". I am not sure the reliablity of that website. Please discuss here any removals I would like to reach a consensus. Caseeart (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I just took a look at jpupdates.com and I see that it is a regular online journalism style site with multiple editors. It is definitely a valid source to make claims about the blog (which is less of BLP since it is about the blog). Also it's claim is backed with concrete evidence and verifiable. I will add that as well in reference to failedmessiah (not in reference to Rosenberg).

Generally failedmessiah.com could probably also have a wikipedia page - we need to make sure that there are sources that discuss the blog exclusively.Caseeart (talk) 05:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the frontpagemag controversial topic that was removed on the basis "that the writer is a "well known activist"", and that "opinions in magazines belong to the writer". I am assuming that the editor did not really look too deep at the article. Here is my response -A- The claim "the writer is a well known activist" was unexplained (what kind of activist) and was not sourced or backed. -B- No explanation why "a well known activist" is banned from wikipedia. -C- This individual writer seems to have written 1000's of widely read and commented articles in the Front page mag,[16] and seems to be an author as well. My main claim -D- Much of the PR written in the article including the unbacked unverifiable claim Haaretz about "without doubt one of the most respected commenters" - is "opinions" on Rosenberg. If the user is so concerned - why did the user not remove that claim of Haaretz (which is also an opening statement rather than a summery of the article)? What did you only move the summery of the frontpagemag (which could be supported in the content of the article)?Caseeart (talk) 06:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Defamation Lawsuit Widely read sources such as New York Post discuss a defamation lawsuit brought against Failedmessiah.[17][18] It seems notable since Notability goes according to the sources. (Lawsuit was dissmissed primarily do to lack of Jurisdiction. - However I was not able to fine secondary sources stating that lawsuit was dismissed).Caseeart (talk) 06:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)