Talk:Shmuley Boteach/Archive 1

Family and personal life.

It is common among Lubavich Chasidim to have large families at an early age. Why does the article not make such a reference to Boteach's family; that is common in biographical articles.

Criticisms

The sections about the Hitchens debate and Rabbi Boteach's comments about Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan, and Chirac have been reverted out several times now. These sections were properly cited, are definitelyrelevent to Boteach's body of work, and these edits removing them seem to have been made with no other reason than to remove anything remotely negative about this individual. Therefore I am putting them back in.

Currently, most of the rest of the article reads like a advertising promotion for this particular person: "worldwide recognition", the highly prestigious 'Preacher of the Year Award', the Newsweek's comments, etc. However, at least some of those claims are factual statements (claiming "worldwide recognition" just by itself may not be factual, but the others appear to be factual), and therefore should be kept in the article. Similarly, the Hitchens debate and Boteach's own article on Carter, etc, are equally factual and documented, and should not be excluded as well.

Constructive comments are welcome.

Agreed. I just added it back in, myself. 24.222.132.53 (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The material in question is pure original research, apparently based on a youtube video and a blog. Please read WP:BLP, then find reliable secondary sources discussing this issue, and bring them here to the Talk: page. If I find the material in the article again I will be protecting it and/or blocking the editors adding it. I hope that's clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The youtube video is legitimate. It can be found in numerous places, not just on youtube. It's an actual debate with Shmuley in it. Please watch it, and you'll be more than satisfied that this is legit. Have I been clear? Please revert the changes. If you have a problem with some of the content, then modify SOME of the content, don't just delete ALL of it, including the legitimate information. I am going to keep reverting it as I come back to this page, because it deserves to be there. If you want the truth, you have to accept a video that shows Shmuley speaking is the truth that he actually spoke those words. Would you like me to find a transcript for more proof? Perhaps he has it available on his own site? 24.222.132.53 (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

agree with this. the debate is legit, regardless of being on youtube website 24.224.188.2 (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I do thank you and everyone else participating on this page (including Jayjg) for your contributions. Wikipedia is really dependent upon participation, and most of the criticisms were properly cited. However, please refrain from adding unsourced nicknames such as "White Noise". Thanks. 99.167.105.98 (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

---

I am not certain that the above issues are original research. The wikipedia policy on original research states: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."

The Carter, etc comments are published - and written (though not published) by Rabbi Boteach himself. They are published on Worldnet daily (at "http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41433") and the Jerusalem Post at ("http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1164881982714"). There is also no synthesis present either - the only things included were Boteach's own words. Please note that at that time, this wikipedia article included many of Boteach's own public positions on a variety of topics (such as his criticism of Iran's president, his change of view on Michael Jackson, etc.).

Also, the wikipedia policy states not to use unreliable or self-published sources. For the Carter, etc comments, the sources used are not unreliable or self-published sources either. The Jerusalam Post would be considered a reliable source by most people. Also, although the WorldNet Daily is (obviously) an online source, it is certainly not self-published and is reliable as far as Boteach made those comments. The WorldNet Daily is also an organization that is, in general, in favor of Boteach's positions (from a political standpoint), so it is clearly not a site that is biased against him.

As for the Boteach-Hitchens debate, this is a videotaped debate which is available on Rabbi Boteach's own website (at "http://www.shmuley.com/store.php?cat=debates"), so it is certainly not unreliable information, or original research. Although one could argue that this would make it self-published; however: 1) this debate video is also available elsewhere on numerous other sites (for example, YouTube, as Jayjg noted), and 2) it is doubtful that Boteach himself published the debate (he was a participant in the debate, not its arranger or organizer). A blog was included in the sources (for this debate, not for the Carter comments). However, the debate (and the blog) belong to the 92nd Street Y, a genuine brick-and-mortar cultural/Jewish center in New York City (not, for example, a self-published forum by Boteach or by Hitchens). Would a blog be unreliable if the host of the blog is reliable? After all, Boteach and Hitchens themselves have emailed each other on this blog (http://blog.92y.org/index.php/weblog/item/rabbi_shmuley_boteach_and_christopher_hitchens_the_debate_continues/). Therefore, the debate participants themselves see the blog as reliable enough to answer each other using it - how it is unreliable? Also, (as noted by Jayjg) the debate was videotaped - there is no doubt that the debate took place and what happened during it. So, I do not believe that including the above information would be unreliable or original research. It is merely what Rabbi Boteach has participated in.

Right now, it appears to me that there is no reason not to include them in the article. If I am incorrect, please inform me in a constructive and open way. Thanks.

Your words regarding youtube NOT being the sole source of the hitchens/boteach debate video, and in fact it is published on his own website, was the point I was trying to make. I agree with all you've written. I disagree with an ENTIRE EDIT being deleted because a PORTION of it is improper. Now, that's just lazy and wrong. 24.222.132.53 (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the section again. It seems to be original research patched together from various blogs, a Youtube debate, and the like. If there has indeed been serious criticism then it should be possible to obtain reliable sources. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

AoaNLA above is exactly right. If you want to insert criticism of Boteach, find a reliable secondary source that does so, don't create your own criticisms out of stuff you've cadged from youtube videos, debate transcripts, and blogs. I've protected the article for a month. The next step will be blocking IP addresses. That means you and the "nickname" IP above. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It didn't come from YouTube. YouTube's version is a copy. If you'd look at the links before deleting them, you'd realize this. Is every source that is COPIED to YouTube illegitimate now? 24.222.132.53 (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What are you supposed to do when an admin wants to protect someone from criticism? Why is the Rabbi protected from criticism? Is he a man-god in your religion or something? Do you worship the same invisible man in the sky that he does? Wikipedia is not a place for personal feelings. We don't care what you like. Everyone is subject to criticism. You have to accept the fact that the video is legit. 24.222.132.53 (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The video may well be legitimate but that isn't why there have been removals. The problem is that people are bring their own personal criticisms and ones they have read in unreliable sources, and copied them here. We will definitely publish criticisms that can be reliably sourced (for instance if someone writes an article criticising the subject of a Wikipedia article in The Times, and so on). What has been removed here is criticism that comes from personal blogs. The video was provided as illustration of the content that was being criticised on those blogs. Those blogs are not reliable sources. The section also contained a minor difference of recollection between Boteach and Dawkins, which obviously doesn't amount to serious criticism of Boteach by Dawkins (except insofar as Dawkins has a general objection to religious figures presenting themselves as authorities in science). I very much side with Dawkins on the matter, I think he's probably right to question Boteach's representation of his credentials on the matter by invoking Dawkins' own name; however it's a trivial matter and one on which there can be legitimate disagreement, and if Dawkins hasn't raised this except on his blog I don't think it's (yet) relevant to this article. Indeed Dawkins' piece seems to me to have been a genuine and heartfelt effort to sooth Boteach's ruffled feathers by assuring him that he did not deliberately rebuff him. Since that piece was being represented as serious criticism of Boteach, the article had Wikipedia:neutral point of view problems. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The material does cite reliable sources for Boteach, as I explained in detail above. This is especially true concerning his criticism of world leaders, which are published, written works from Rabbi Boteach himself, such as from the Jerusalem Post and Worldnet Daily. The WorldnetDaily may be considered politically controversial by its liberal political detractors, but that is a whole different thing from being an unreliable, "fringe" or "tiny" minority source for wikipedia). I would like to ask the editors of this page to please read the talk info above before making reverts.

Also, the "Charities Scam" section (concerning his relationship with Michael Jackson) of this talk page was edited out (by AoaNLA). It is one thing to edit the article, but to simply delete an entire section on the talk page (the discussion about the article) is a whole different matter. The Jackson-Boteach relationship and its controversial nature is rather well known and has been documented on a number of reliable sources, such as CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/22/jackson.former.adviser/index.html). Therefore, simply deleting this from the talk page is certainly frowned upon by wikipedia. The talk pages are meant for discussion, not for reversion. I think we can all agree on this. So, I will put the Charities Scam talk page discussion back in the talk page.

I do not believe that Jayjg's and AoANLA assessments of Wikipedia policies on this issue are correct. Jayjg has repeatedly said there are living person, original research, or reliability of source issues on this topic, without explanation. I have explained why I believe there are not. I understand that he/she is a wikipedia administrator, so I would like to respectfully request the opinion of other Wikipedia administrators on these issues. Thank you.

99.136.249.157 (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

Boteach is founder and executive director of THIS WORLD: The Jewish Values Network, a non-profit organization which aims to disseminate Jewish Values to the mainstream American public through every avenue of the media, and to bring the teachings of the Torah to the masses, making Judaism a light to the world. [1]

Graceah (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)graceah

 Not done The organization is barely mentioned in the bio he wrote himself, so it's obviously not a big part of his career at this point.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What the--?!

This looks like it was written by Boteach himself. It's pure fluff. What a load of crap. This is useless as an article. 67.71.140.193 (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Shmuley Boteach is probably the best known "Celebrity rabbi" around, and the media might love him. But within the Jewish Orthodox world he's one of the most controversial, highly critized and perceived as mostly an attention seeking clown. He was such a great "spiritual adviser to Michael Jackson" that the later is said to have converted to Islam. What type of Rabbi would even want to put his name next to Jackson's, a known pedophile. Shmuley, that's who. Lets get some real balance back into this article, Presently it looks warped. Shmuel A. Kam (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Advertisment

This "article" reads like an advertisment for Boteach's business. Proxy User (talk) 02:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Since I last looked here, all the material relating to the circumstances in which Boteach left England has been removed. Why? And should we put it back? --Dannyno (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The lack of criticism section, and the arguments presented against them doesn't make any sense

I have read the argument going back and forth on the Criticism section here and I still don't get why all the information was taken out of Boteach's page. The 92nd Street Y debate is a legitimate source, and anything Shmuley said there is open to criticism because it came straight from his mouth. If he said something that is obviously wrong, like that Stephen J Gouls doesn't believe in evolution, then we came claim that he was wrong on that because we can point to another reliable source, namely Gould's 1981 Disocvery article "Evolution as Fact and Theory", which is available at wikiquotes. The argument that seems to be at the heart of this that by comparing Shmuley's false claim that Gould didn't accept evolution (shown false by Gould's own writing) we are conducting orginial research. When in reality we are pointing out a sourced contradition. I'm not calling for an attack on the guy, just a mention that he was mistaking is fine. He did it twice during the debate (the first time, and again when questioned on it), so it's obviously a view he holds strongly, why can't we point out the warrented falsehood of it? Because as it stands, and as others have mentioned, this whole articles read like an ad.AlexanderCahan (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel and settlements

Added a section on his support for Israeli settlements, including the Hebron settlement, which is highly controversial even by the generally Israel-friendly standards of US debate. The section is sourced but may need some formatting. A mention of his views on Israel seems reasonable, since he writes on the matter very frequently. However, given the debate above it seems this page is being monitored by someone removing criticism, so anyone reading is welcome to keep an eye out for that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.222.30 (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding such a session is indeed a valid topic. But most of the section added doesn't even deal WITH Boteach at all. There are two links, both to Hebron and Israeli settlements in general, both of which cover details of the conflict, so there is no need for the rest of it here. Removed irrelevant details. Shmuel A. Kam (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Balance

This article needs a lot of work and any edits need to be sourced if someone plans to continually remove balance. Jonathanglick13 (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Did no one previously bother to research or spend time ??? Balance and more edits needed and comingJonathanglick13 (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

If sources are removed I ask for debates as this page seems to have been whitewashed previously. Now there is balance. Jonathanglick13 (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• If this article becomes a target for vandals, I'll show you how to revert it and restore your contributions; and the way to ask an administrator to protect it. You've done a great job adding balance, and an extraordinarily job adding references. Keep up the good work!--Hokeman (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Oxford

Should it be the lead and moved up ? Controversy there seems quite high profile ? Jonathanglick13 (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Needed further details and depth Jonathanglick13 (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

As has been done in past, single user account attempts to whitewash information. I'd like to request a lock on the page. Assist ? Jonathangluck (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Quotations

Whoever wrote this wreck of an article has got one hell of a lot to learn about how to use sources. Among other things, you must never take two or three sentences from separate parts of an article and string them together as if they're one continuous quotation. I've found that twice so far and I've only checked two sources. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at BLP noticeboard

Editors of this article are referred to a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Shmuley Boteach. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppets/A block

For a few years someone has repeatedly whitewashed this page may someone check the users and can we lock this page until that vandalism ends ? Jonathangluck (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not helpful to do so as some of the editors making disruptive edits are actually autoconfirmed users which won't be affected by semi-protection. Going to full-protection will be too far for the current situation of the article. For now I can only urge other editors to be diligent in reverting any clearly disruptive edits, and attempt to engage all editors in discussion. --Deryck C. 22:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

11th commandment

This is a juicy quote, and has a place in the article, but it is hardly something that merits being in the lead. I suggest you remove it. Moreover, there is very little controversy over him outside of the Orthodox Jewish community. I, at least couldn't find any. So I suggest that you return the qualifying phrase to the lead. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Later: I have reread your edits. It is apparent that you have strong feelings about this person. That is fine, but you should not let it color your editing. For example, the reason (according to the sources cited in the article) that he lost his position with Chabad was specifically his invitation to Rabin to speak. If you remove that reason from the lead, you should also remove the fact that he was dismissed by Chabad. The quote about the 11th commandment, as I say, is juicy, but giving it such prominence immediately reveals your own bias in the matter. If you read the quote in context, it is obvious that Boteach meant this as a joke, so treating it like it is a psak halacha of his is misleading, unfair, and an obvious distortion. Boteach has said many things that have drawn the ire of the Orthodox community, and it is a little ridiculous to single this out. Offhand, I would say, for example, that his position on homosexuality is more infuriating and more characteristic of him than this quote.

In short: calm down. Put your personal feeling aside, and try to approach this biography as though you were writing about Ignaz Schuppanzigh. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There is very little controversy about him in the Orthodox community ? He's not considered an Orthodox nor Chabad leader... I'd challenge you to even present any ? Am fine with moving the 11th commandment back as you suggest and will do so....but its relevant for a Rabbi without a synagogue, without a following and besides media not sure what he's relevant for. And lastly keep your opinions to yourself - am very calm like a buddhist in fact ? Jonathangluck (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In terms of controversy outside Jewish community, wouldnt the Michael Jackson fan base constitute that ? Or the NY Attorney General ? Or British government censuring his charity ? Thats controversy, no ? In general, am willing to compromise and am fine doing so... and am not against Rabin as reason for his removal being added... but you on the BLP page said it wasnt clear ? Jonathangluck (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I am having some difficulty understanding your comments. Your statement that "He's not considered an Orthodox nor Chabad leader..." is not supported by the very sources you have chosen to rely on in this article:

Observer: "For an orthodox Jewish rabbi, Shmuel Boteach has an unorthodox way of doing things"

Newsweek: "His book "Kosher Sex " introduced this Hasidic rabbi as a cultural phenomena."

JewishJournal.com: "An article published in the L.A. Weekly this week attempts to link the family of prominent Orthodox rabbi Shmuley Boteach with a fraudulent arms dealership in Miami Beach.

As for claiming he is a Chabad leader, I don't see anywhere where that claim was made. However, as you are undoubtedly aware, there appears to be a rapprochement between Boteach and Chabad. Boteach attended the last Kinus, and was widely welcomed there. See, for example, http://chabad.info/index.php?url=article_en&id=20933.

I didn't understand your statement that "There is very little controversy about him in the Orthodox community". All of the controversy I have seen in reliable sources has been in the Orthodox community. There is nothing controversial about claims of possible wrongdoing by either the British Charity Committee or the NY attorney general, once those claims have been resolved. The controversy over his statements, for example in Kosher Sex or about homosexuality, and his initiatives to involve nonJews and liberal political figures in Jewish activities have aroused controversy in the Orthodox community exclusively; I have seen no sources suggesting that secular Jews or nonJews considered these actions controversial. Sensational, perhaps, but not controversial. Moreover, within the Chabad community there has been considerable controversy over the years. See, for example, these discussions on ChabadTalk:

http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/showthread.php3?t=2050

http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/showthread.php3?t=4368

http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/showthread.php3?t=10571

http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/showthread.php3?t=420&page=4

The Jackson fan club sites are not reliable sources, and any reference to them will soon be expunged from the article.

Finally, your post, both in style and in content, clearly indicates that you are involved in the controversy over Boteach, and that you clearly espouse one side in the debate over him within the Orthodox community. If you are unable to set these views aside when editing, I suggest that you refrain from further involvement in the article. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any relation to the other user ? Seperately all of those blog sites you reference arent reliable sources - If you provide reliable sources then can review them. In terms of involvement other than being a proud Jew no involvement... Jonathangluck (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources on Michael Jackson & Boteach choose others before you substitute those. Do you really believe a "rabbi" who is censured for misactivity by both NY State & the government of Britain (both for financial misconduct) isnt controversial ? Or one who is banned from preaching ? Jonathangluck (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources for Boteach's works

Please provide sources for his works or am going to remove them from bio until proof exists. Jonathangluck (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing them will be slightly over the top. This may be a good source to use for the book list? (Bibliographies and other lists aren't usually given inline citations unless they're challenged or are potentially controversial.) --Deryck C. 22:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

So how do we verify whats claimed here ? The TV show and other things ? Do we also include Rabbi Shmuley groupie Tshirts ? http://www.shmuley.com/store/tshirt-i-m-a-rabbi-shmuley-groupie-large.html or bobbleheads which have been referenced in media ? http://www.shmuley.com/store/rabbi-shmuley-bobblehead.html

Jonathangluck (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The Worldcat system has been accepted in other articles as an RS for lists of works. It even has its own template. Here's its listing for Shmuley - [2]. A list of works is par the course for any BLP with published books, and is not considered controversial unless there is self-published stuff involved. The Interior (Talk) 23:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, assuming all of the books and works line up and are accurate with Wiki no issues @all with that and accept Jonathangluck (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Heal the Kids

You have no reliable source for claiming that this is a scandal, and that Boteach was somehow culpable. Friedman's blog is essentially a rant. The MSNBC says the New York attorney general's office asked to suspend the charity not because of financial wrongdoing, but for inactivity: "Heal the Kids, a New York-based offshoot designed to encourage parents to spend more time with their children, has not held an event in three years, and the New York attorney general’s office asked last fall that the charity be formally dissolved if it does not plan any more activities." The third source, another of Friedman's blog entries, claims that Heal the Kids was somehow related to the LeChaim Society, itself highly dubious, but gives no source or supporting evidence for this claim.

I am therefore removing the section. If you find a reliable source (the New York Times, for example, generally reports on scandals of this sort), you can return it.

You now have only one "financial scandal", the Charity Commission investigation. It is hard to call this a scandal, as it was resolved to the satisfaction of all the parties, but in any case, you no longer have a basis for the claim in the lead to "repeated scandals". Therefore I am removing that as well. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 05:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You call it a rant I'd call it a column in Fox News. Discuss before you remove again. Jonathangluck (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

We should not be accusing a living person of financial improprietry if our only source for doing so is opinion pieces from a single individual. If the alleged financial scandal or financial improprietry had been widely reported, it would be trivial to provide an additional source - in particular, one that is not an opinion piece. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that Jonathan has reintroduced the incident, attributing it again to the same sources, and adding additional defamatory allegations. I am removing it a second time. Jonathan, if you again reintroduce it, I will recommend that you be blocked. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Quite the collaborator, huh ? If you remove without discussing and consensus I will recommend you be blocked. Jonathangluck (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Have removed all dubious sources

I have removed all the blogs, opinion columns and other dubious sources that included possibly libellous content. The article now meets Wikipedia standards for biographies of living persons. (I have left one citation to Friedman's article from Fox, because it is the only source for the email from the Charity Commission. I believe the quote is accurate, though the rest of the article is entirely editorial and unreliable as a source.)

If editors want to work more on this article, there is a lot of material that could be added. there is little about his current activities, radio programs, and so on. Also, there is the issue of his relationship with the Chabad movement. He attended the latest kinus of shlichim, suggesting there is a rapprochement between him and Chabad, something that would be worthy of inclusion.

Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Views on Israel and settlements

Jonathangluck, you removed the entire section on Israel and settlements without any explanation - may I ask why? --Deryck C. 17:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Did provide explanation - The sources are all self placed Boteach articles - Not impartial sources for information... Articles which he wrote arent approved content ? Jonathangluck (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

For a biography, everything written by the subject of the article are considered as reliable sources for all purposes of Wikipedia except for establishing notability. --Deryck C. 22:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you feel they were especially relevant and important ? Not sure a Rabbi supporting Israel is groundbreaking ? Jonathangluck (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not too concerned about it. I probably would've gone to restore the text if I really cared about it. --Deryck C. 14:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Family History

There are a slew of sources about Diveroli and Boteach's associated family members. I'd agree a brief mention is enough and surely the source provided is neutral. Jonathangluck (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

He attended event @his own invitation - No repproachment @all. Jonathangluck (talk) 11:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Discuss Issues

No idea @all what the issues are with MSNBC FOX NEWS & PALM BEACH POst - All valid issues. Jonathangluck (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Time for Kids, again

Steve Anderson has tried to clean this up, but it is still a distortion. The sentence "Boteach was accused of misusing charity money in 1999 and paid some back' appears in this context to be referring to Time For Kids, when in fact it is referring to a completely different incident, the closure of the L'Chaim charity two years before. I am, therefore, reediting the paragraph so it is clear. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Further: MSNBC calls this charity "Heal the Kids". The Broward paper calls it (ominously) "Time for Kids".

Are these the same charity? If so, what is its name? --Ravpapa (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

According to Friedman they're alternate names for the same charity. - MrOllie (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

And we're going to accept this as reliable? A charity whose name we don't know, with conflicting stories of why (or whether) it (or they) closed down (bankruptcy? inactivity?), and only vague and contradictory suggestions of who founded it (Jackson? Jackson and Boteach? Divoleo's mother?)? We are going to rely on a source that calls Boteach an "Unrelenting publicity hound" whose activities are "looney"? Friedman writes pretty clearly about his own tactics in the face of lack of information - he writes stories without any. "Frustrated by the lack of information from Boteach's office, I subsequently wrote another story... " he writes.

It seems to me that to include this extremely tenuous web of innuendo in this article is to put our head in a noose. I don't know this Boteach guy, but, from what I read here, he doesn't seem like the kind of guy you want to meet in a courtroom. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, you asked a question, Friedman had an answer. You'll notice that I cited him on the talk page, not in the article. I'm also not sure how Boteach seems in a courtroom is relevant. - MrOllie (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah' I was just venting, didn't mean to dump on you. Anyway, I have reverted this twice, and Steve Anderson has made an attempt, too, at straightening it out. I think it's someone else's turn to expunge this questionable and very dangerous allegation from the article. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ravpapa enough with the scare tactics. Fox news MSNBC and others are reliable sources and so is Guidestar. Jonathangluck (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Fox News As A Source

Would like to introduce additional information from this article but 1st wanted to discuss... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,73709,00.html#2%7Cpublisher=FoxNews.com%7Caccessdate=28 February 2011|date=December 23, 2002

Would propose to state according to Roger Friedman, a Fox news columnist, Boteach's charity with jackson was “bogus”. "To this day there has no been no accounting for the money Boteach and Jackson raised for their Time for Kids/Heal the World Foundation. According to Friedman, at least $203,185 was collected, and "No money whatsoever was spent on anything remotely charitable, just salaries and expenses." No money went to children of any kind. Listed on the IRS filing were an organization president, secretary and treasurer. The latter two, were Boteach’s sister and mother. The New York attorney general's office asked the charity be formally dissolved.

thoughts ? Jonathangluck (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well we already have two published sources saying two different things about the fate of the charity as "news reports", I don't think quoting Friedman adds anything useful, and certainly not anything neutral, since it's only an opinion piece. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If we cite it as an opinion source wont it allow context ? Jonathangluck (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to republish blogs if better sources are available. Which in this case they are. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

So what better sources do you propose ? Jonathangluck (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

His uncle

His uncle's profession and convictions don't seem relevant - both the sources cited to support its inclusion are about the uncle, not about Boteach. Unless it has any significance for Boteach himself, we should leave it out. --Demiurge1 000 (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact, noteable enough for many many media to mention him and his name - Many sources.. Should stay as a 1 liner. Jonathangluck (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

He's notable? There is a Wikipedia article about him? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Demiurge1000 - the uncle isn't notable by Wikipedia's standards at least and his conviction have nothing to do with the subject. Pinkadelica^♣ 21:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

? Not noteable ? He has a wiki page for 3 years ??? Jonathangluck (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Then his name should have been linked which took all of three second to do. Further, please see WP:TALK on how to properly format your responses on talk pages. Thanks. Pinkadelica^♣ 21:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

So when adding it back then you think is ok to link to wiki page and repost ? Jonathangluck (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually no, but I didn't remove the content I simply linked the dude's name. To be honest, I don't think guy is deserving of an article to begin with as he seems to be notable for only one event, but that's a whole different ballgame. Pinkadelica^♣ 22:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone removed his name - Can I readd with your blessing ? He was featured in a multi page NYT story and hundreds of papers - Linked to 300 million arms sales - very high profile Jonathangluck (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

IP Check/Sockpuppet

May I ask that someone check for IPand sockpuppet between Balada555 and shalominthehome and spagettiear ? I dont know how ? Assist ? Jonathangluck (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You need to file a report at WP:SPI. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added a request at WP:ANI to have the three accounts blocked (or blocks extended) per WP:DUCK, since the SPI instructions seem to suggest that an SPI should not be filed for glaring obvious cases. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Full Lock

There should be a lock on this page. Repeated vandalism by multiple users. Jonathangluck (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal

Why dont you use the talk page rather than deleting stuff ? Boteach made tapes of Jackson after he was dead - Its relevant what he said while Jackson was around to defend myself. Jonathangluck (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

These materials are very relevant why were they removed w/o comment. Jonathangluck (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If Jackson was taped in conversation after he was dead, then yes I certainly think that is very significant and worth including - however it would need to be reliably sourced (and not a copyright violation). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

What is the copyright violation ? Boteach said when jackson was alive he wouldnt use the tapes and then when MJ died changed his mind.... Reread the content whats a violation. Jonathangluck (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If copywright was an issue cleaned all up by now.. Jonathangluck (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

11th Commandment

Nowhere does he deny saying it. (A denial is much different than saying I was being sarcastic.) And nowhere does it say it was a joke. Stop adding your own editorial. Jonathangluck (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The full quote from the article: "'God gave 10 commandments at Sinai,' he says, with a smile playing across his lips, 'and the 11th commandment, which they expunged but which has come down orally, is 'Thou shalt do anything for publicity and recognition'."

Is that clear enough that he meant this as a joke? Your attempt to make this sound like a serious statement is simply a distortion.

Moreover, the fact that he later denied saying it ("Do you think I'd actually say that?" is a denial) suggests that it should be removed altogether.

I suggest that you self revert, now that the facts are clear to you. Otherwise, we will need once again to ask for adminstrator intervention. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If the source does not call it a joke, it is arguably not our place to call it a joke. Given his later statements, though, I would support changing the text to 'sarcastically stated' as a compromise. - MrOllie (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Acceptable to me. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

How about something like "In a comment he later described as only having been sarcastic(ref here), he was once reported as saying (the quote)(other ref here)." ? I think it reads better, while also clearly conveying the idea that his position is that he did not intend the comment seriously. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That does sound better. - MrOllie (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright and close paraphrasing - FOX News

From our Wikipedia article Shmuley Boteach -

"a fundraising event was hosted by Jackson and Boteach at Carnegie Hall in 2001, which was intended to raise money for the Jackson/Boteach charity. Subsequent tax filings shows no charity at all was given, and of the $259,432 funds raised, everything but $20,000 was spent on staff salaries and office expenses."

From http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,49808,00.html -

"... money raised by Jackson and Boteach at an event at Carnegie Hall on Feb. 14, 2001.

That event, a panel on child welfare that included TV talk show host Chuck Woolery and lawyer to the stars Johnnie Cochran, was supposed to be raising money for the Jackson/Boteach charity. But the subsequent tax filing shows no money was given to children or any charitable causes at all. What it does show is a total of $203,185 collected from direct public support. At the same time, the charity's expenses totaled $259,432. All but $20,000 of that was spent on staff salaries and office expenses."

This is close paraphrasing (mixed in with some copy and paste) and is not acceptable from a copyright point of view. Please review Wikipedia's policies on copyright, and do not keep re-inserting material into the article if you do not understand the copyright policy.. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Has all been cleaned and if not then assist dont delete so quickly - Its all fine. Jonathangluck (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Time for/Heal the Kids, yet a third time

Jonathan has resolved the copyright problem with this insertion, but the problems of the unreliability of the sources and distortion of sources remain. The paragraph containing the alleged financial dealings of this charity are attributed to an opinion column by Roger Friedman of Fox News, that Jonathan has been told repeatedly is not a reliable source of information, and an article in the Broward/Palm Beach New Times, which makes no reference at all to this data, but includes only a passing one-sentence reference to the charity.

The two reliable source we have on this subject - an MSNBC report and a report in Slate magazine - contain conflicting information about the name of the charity and the reason it was closed. Both sources have been removed or mangled by Jonathan. Neither source hints at fiscal improprieties, as does Friedman, and there is no suggestion anywhere other than in the Friedman column of a link between the Jackson charity and Boteach's LeChaim Society, a link that is completely unsupported or unattributed in the Friedman article.

Under the circumstances, I think it appropriate to remove this paragraph, and restore the original paragraph which presents the situation as described by our reliable sources.

Thanks for your comments, --Ravpapa (talk) 07:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If content isn't supported by the citation that follows it, there's no reason why the text should remain especially if it is in a BLP. We can't string together sources to skew content for or against the subject. If that's what's going on here, I think reverting the article back to a previous version is the best idea for the time being. As it stands now, it appears that the article is in a bit of a sorry state - there are bare urls present (which I previously filled in and really didn't need to be messed with) and malformed citations. I don't know if full protection for the article is needed or if this "issue" is merely a few people who just can't or don't want to wrap their minds around Wikipedia policy. Pinkadelica^♣ 20:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

New controversy surrounding book

The new book, Kosher Jesus is quite controversial and has led to many other Orthodox Rabbis calling for his excommunication. Should cite some sources that discuss this controversy.CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Which sources do you suggest using? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Criticism is not coming from "many other Orthodox rabbis", but from Immanuel Schochet.

The Montreal Gazette has an article, but it does not talk about excommunication: http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/life/6064343/story.html

This one points out that both Boteach and Schochet's son, Yitzchak Schochet, are being considered for the position of chief rabbi of the UK: http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/62607/seconds-out-rabbis-scrap-over-jesus-christ

--Dianna (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone other than the Schochet brothers (father and son, actually) said anything about this book? Or is this about a personal vendetta? Because if this is a strictly personal thing between Boteach and the Schochets, it seems hardly worth including. I think we need other critics if we are going to keep it. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Kosher Jesus

Just wanted to let everyone know that this article now exists and could use some work. I should be back to working on it next month sometime, and will have oodles of reliable sources to work from at that point, but if anyone is interested and can improve it in the meantime, go for it! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if this book meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It seems awfully marginal to me. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

gay marriage

first the article says that he is against gay marriage, preferring civil unions. then later it says he supported it when he ran for office. Unchartered (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• I noticed that too - if his views changed over time, then that should be specifically mentioned, rather than putting forward an apparent contradiction. - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Added Information

Hey everyone, I added some information across the page, and am thinking of adding more. Let me know if you have any problems with the edits I've made, or if there's something specific you want me to look into. Thanks! Adamh4 (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have problems as noted. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Persian and Mizrahi categories?

Why are these categories listed for this subject? There is nothing in the article to suggest them, and, in fact, it expressly mentions being in Ashkenazi schools and the fact that he was affiliated with Chabad all strongly suggest his family came from Eastern Europe. Other than being born in LA there's nothing remotely related to being Persian. JesseRafe (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Good questions. Sometimes people create categories and then go wild with attaching people to them. I'd suggest deleting the cats and putting the gist of your above text as the edit summary. Ckruschke (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Controversy over Rice ad

The current paragraph, which has been gutted, does not show why the dozen or so respected Jewish organizations have roundly criticized Boeteach for taking out the ad associating Rice with genocide. We need to explain why they criticized it, and what their assessment of it is. Secondly, it at first seemed imbalanced because Boteach had not yet responded to his critics. Now he has publicly reponded, and so his reponse can be included in the coverage, providing balance. Furthermore, the paragraph above the one on Rice states that Boteach has criticized US policy as "scandalous" and "disgusting." So it shouldn't be considered a violation of NPOV when Boteach's critics are quoted using similar adjectives in describing his views. VanEman (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Part of what we have to do is look at the long view, avoiding recentism to achieve a balanced article. This one incident should not dominate the article, or it gets skewed, not only toward criticism of the subject, but towards a current event which in the larger scope of things will be a minor event in his career. Therefore I don't feel it's desirable to give a quotation of everyone who criticized the ad. It's enough to say that it was widely criticized. -- Diannaa (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like we don't have consensus, but in the meantime the matter has made it into Time magazine and Boteach has offered first a defense and then an apology. So I will write up a paragraph that covers what the ad said, what the criticism of it was and why, what Boteach said to defend it and what he said in his apology.VanEman (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The current paragraph on the subject is about 150 words. I wouldn't want to see get get much bigger than that, so that the article doesn't get slanted towards the most recent events or this one event becomes the main topic of the article. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that User VanEman is dumping poorly sourced POV negative specifically on articles related to Chabad people. If necessary I will support this objection but just look at his history. Although I did not yet look at the sources, I also see his tone of voice and OR in the last undue lengthy section he added I will try to get back at this when I have more time but per BLP I would support deleting unless a non biased editor says otherwise. Caseeart (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Added response. Summarized. @Diannaa Please take note of my previous assertion. Caseeart (talk) 06:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Views and opinions - Same-sex marriage...No

The article cited as a source does not contend that Shmuley Boteach supports Same-Sex marriage. What it does say is Mr. Boteach doesn’t believe the institution of marriage can be bolstered by preventing gays from getting married or regulating contraception' and furthermore Though he recognizes the Old Testament admonishments against homosexuality, Mr. Boteach believes there’s no religious reason for vehemently opposing gay rights. In another article form the same source The Bible is not vague with regard to homosexuality – it stands in contravention to the divine will, Very simply, when it comes to government, I believe in civil unions for all and marriage for none and For this reason, after the Supreme Court’s decision came out, I issued a statement arguing the decision was “welcome.” Many misread this as an endorsement of gay marriage. In reality, as I said in the statement, I don’t favor states recognizing any marriage. . Finally, It’s not gay marriage but heterosexual divorce that threatens a real end-of-days scenario for the American family (http://observer.com/2012/04/run-rabbi-run-shmuley-boteach-goes-from-neverland-to-capital-hill/?show=all) Mr. Bench Press (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Criticism of Natalie Portman and backlash

This article [[3]] describes Boteach's recent attack on Natalie Portman, having taken out a $50,000 full page attack ad in the NY Times, funded by Sheldon Adelson. In the interview, it claims that Boteach's own spiritual advisors have stated that he is no longer a rabbi, and that it is illegal based on their teachings to listen to him speak. This info, while certainly negative, belongs in the article somewhere. If the Pope was excommunicated, that fact would be in the lede of his article. Since I'm not a long time contributor to this article, I'll step back and let more seasoned editors take this and run with it. Here's another source that's not an interview.[[4]]

From the first source:

"...religious instructors in the Chabad ultra-Orthodox movement have issued basically an edict declaring that it is illegal, it is against Jewish law, to listen to Rabbi Shmuley speak. They declared him to be such a fraud that it is illegal, theologically, to listen to him speak.

So his own rabbinical teachers have basically declared him to not be a rabbi. Part of that had to do with his support for the Jews for Jesus movement, and things he wrote in his book about Jesus. Shmuley's basically been a self-promoter who emerged claiming that he was Michael Jackson's spiritual mentor."

TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

/* Self-promotion section

This section seems on very shaky ground as worthy of mention, let alone a section. Especially in a blp. By the context, it is clearly a joke. --2603:7000:2143:8500:6DC8:71E:DA17:6742 (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Roger Friedman

We could say "fired by Fox" instead of controversial, or refer to his many controversies (not just Fox - many notable accusations of inaccuracy on his part), or the fact that Fox has pulled down one (more?) of his articles. But I believe it is the norm, when the source of an article is controversial, to so indicate, as it bears on the reliability of the source, and gentler to him to simply write controversial. --2603:7000:2143:8500:1131:5E87:C101:54F4 (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking over other references to Friedman in Wikipedia, it looks like other editors refer to him as reporter, journalist, blogger, etc without denoting that he is controversial. I'm not saying that other wikipedia articles are the source of truth on this - but just a point of reference that other editors didn't use that language.

Doing a quick Google search, the only controversy I found was the Fox firing - which was due to him streaming a movie illegally but not a violation of journalist ethics. I don't think that would make him a controversy in its own. But having his articles retracted and publishing falsehood certainly would make him controversial and it would be in the interest of the reader to denote that in this article. However, I didn't find sources that he published inaccuracies or that Fox retracted his articles. Do you have sources for that? If so, I would agree with you that the article should use the controversial moniker. Ew3234 (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. As to him being accused (hence, controversial) of publishing innacuracies, and in general him being - at best (other more pointed terms are used in these articles, such as "disgraced", I was thinking of things like (I've added italics):

• New York Times reporter Sharon Waxman saying "If he spent half as much time checking his facts as he did complaining about people stealing from him, there wouldn’t be so many errors in his reporting!", and
• her adding, referring to Fox: "Do they hold him to journalistic standards, or does he just get to slander people with impunity?",
• and, bringing into question the veracity of his reporting, The New York Observer reporting: "Mr. Friedman ... has been a controversial figure for negative things he’s written.. But more often than not, he’s been criticized for the positive. In the book Down and Dirty Pictures..., Peter Biskind quoted former Miramax SVP and co-head of publicity Dennis Higgins as saying, 'There’s no one in the pocket like Roger. It’s almost, ‘Whaddya want him to write?'"[5]
• Then as you point out him being fired immediately from his freelance position at Fox for illegally downloading a movie (though he denied he was fired-and then sued for being fired); while calling his actions "reprehensible"; - this incident is really the only reason he is notable;
• Fox News removed his article[6]; others I was also unable to now find online;
• He sued over his termination, which was a bit of a controversy in itself, though I have not seen how that ended.[7][8]
• When he was hired at Hollywood Reporter, Matt Goldberg at Collider wrote, focusing on his controversial background: "You know, when you act badly at one place and everyone learns about it, I don't believe its common practice to hire you to do the same job at another place."[9]
• Kirstie Alley wrote: "Please Google Mr. Roger Friedman. He is spreading lies about me and my new business. You will see his history & why Fox fired him. Going to have Mr. Attorney call Mr. Friedman’s Attorney tomorrow . . . Mr. Friedman is treading on thin LIBELOUS ice with my company."[10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:2143:8500:A1A3:633:94F3:E5BF (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

He was a gossip columnist and wrote a lot of negative articles - that his subjects were upset about that does not indicate that the piece being cited in this article has any problems. Fox might have retracted other pieces, but they did not retract this one, so there is no compelling reason to label it with weasel wording. - MrOllie (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the research, 603:7000:2143:8500:1131:5E87:C101:54F4. The only article that I found that was retracted was the pirated movie article. Which given that Fox has a vested interest in preventing piracy, it's no surprise that they reacted so harshly. While downloading a movie and suiting your employer may be a controversy, does it make someone a controversial figure? There's a generation of folks that grew up on Napster guilty of the same thing 100x over. From the other sources, it seems like he made a lot of enemies in the industry; There's a lot of people willing to go on the record and disparage him and accuse him of poor journalist practices but I don't see specific claims of ethic breaches or retractions. Theres a lot of smoke - but not a clear fire. Being a gossip journalist is not a very glamourous job and I imagine that I wouldn't like to work with him but I don't see him as any more of a controversial figure than anyone on the staff of TMZ. Ew3234 (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I added a quote from Boteach to the article that covers the firing while still being relevant to the subject matter. Hopefully this addresses and satisfices both sides of this discussion. Ew3234 (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. That certainly provides some balance, and indication to the reader that perhaps they may want to consider/learn of the reporter's history. Good find.

True, he is a freelance gossip blogger. You said you didn't see any "claims of ethic breaches". Consider the following - I don't know that it is the norm among gossip bloggers for a notable NYT reporter (not notable for being fired for improper behavior, as I believe he is) to say there are "so many errors in his reporting," and to ask his employer "Do they hold him to journalistic standards, or does he just get to slander people with impunity?". And NY Observer to report that he "has been a controversial figure for negative things he’s written.. But more often than not, he’s been criticized for the positive... Peter Biskind quoted former Miramax SVP and co-head of publicity ... as saying, 'There’s no one in the pocket like Roger. It’s almost, ‘Whaddya want him to write?'" That's not someone he criticized pointing that out - It is notable critic/historian Biskind, and a former Miramax SVP saying he wrote whatever he wanted, which is controversial. And then there is actress Kirstie Alley, saying He is spreading lies about me and my new business. You will see his history & why Fox fired him.... Mr. Friedman is treading on thin LIBELOUS ice with my company." Note, the term controversial means just that - not that he is guilty of what the NYT reporter, Miramax SVP, NY Observer, Biskind, and Kirstie Alley all say. --2603:7000:2143:8500:A1A3:633:94F3:E5BF (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, Showbiz411 is not an RS, it seems, per Wikipedia:USERGENERATED. 2603:7000:2143:8500:6825:3E6:E1FF:4C08 (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

While Showbiz411 is a blog, it is not a user-generated site like blogger, reddit, or a forum. It's not a source that allows unvetted users to generate content. It's an site written by a gossip reporter. Blogs written by journalists are not user-generated from my understanding of Wikipedia:USERGENERATED. Ew3234 (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, the rule is not whether the person is a "journalist", or a former journalist (in his case), but whether the content is from a website whose content is largely that of a user-generated personal website blog -- in which case it is generally unacceptable. His has been a personal website blog for a decade now. Earlier it was in fact a newspaper blogs, which was fine - those refs are good, but it is very much not that now, and only a personal website blog not affiliated with a paper or magazine.2603:7000:2143:8500:CC9F:B183:9D34:80D8 (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

t doesn't appear to be a personal blog. It's an online gossip site with a single author but it's not the same thing as joe-schmoe's nip slip blogger account. But I don't even think the source reliable is an issue given the way the source is cited. In the context ("Gossip blogger Roger Friedman accused Boteach of intentionally misidentifying himself as "Jacob Botach" on the organization's Form 990 to make it appear as someone else had collected the salary."), this source is appropriate. The text clearly identifies the author's role that the claims are not a scientific fact but an accusation. If we were using Showbiz411 as a source to say that the sky is blue, that would be problematic. But we're not doing that here. We're using the source to detail the claims made by Friedman (which makes Showbiz411 an exact source). Just like Huffpost Contributor articles are usually not reliable per RS, it's appropriate to cite Huffpost contrib op-eds written by Boteach himself when detailing Boteach's opinions (as is done many times in this article). I feel confident that the showbiz411 source is appropriate given the text it's citing. It enriches the reader's understanding of the topic and does so without implying any falsehoods or misleading claims. Ew3234 (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It is a "user-generated" blog. His personal blog. It's a single author blog - it has not board of editors - that is what distinguishes these (user-generated blogs are clearly not acceptable) from newspaper and magazine blogs - which are clearly acceptable. Zero editorial oversight. showbiz411 is not an RS. If an RS were to quote him - that of course would in fact be ok (despite his past). Plus, where it is a blp accusation, the issue is way more important. This has to go. BLP issues don't even have to await any discussion. And this charge is defamatory, and the source is not a blp. It's honestly not even close. Have you read up on the blp rules, and especially how they apply to blogs? I can get you the links if you need them. They are emphatic. You can't use a non-RS blog to say "I think Ew3234 has AIDS, and gave it to his girlfriend .. and oh, that's just my opinion." 2603:7000:2143:8500:1973:5875:36B9:46 (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

That isn't what a 'user generated' blog means - that is for sites such medium.com that host other people's blogs. However, aside from that I think the 'Jacob Botach' thing should go anyway. It's clearly just an accountant making a misspelling on a tax form, not some nefarious plot, and the only other press outlet that has picked it up is Alternet, which has its own reliability problems. We should probably mention that his birth/legal first name is Jacob at the beginning of the article, though. The nydailynews source we're already using mentions it, for one source. MrOllie (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the 'user generated' blog definition, MrOllie. However, I do question the assessment that it's simply an accountant's typo. I think Friedman's claims do have an arguable level of validity...as the same 'Jacob Botach' spelling shows up in the form 990 year after year. It's hard to imagine that its the same typo that's never getting corrected. When my org made a typo in a board members name in our 990, we fixed it the next year. But I agree that it hasn't been picked up by other media outlets (as you mentioned, the Jacob name is mentioned in NY Daily News article on the org's tax docs but the article does not make a claim of intentionally misleading: https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/michael-jackson-spiritual-guru-rakes-cash-dishes-nonprofit-article-1.961438). Thanks Ew3234 (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Ollie. I don't think it matters whether you set up your own website for zero-editorial-board personal postings, or post them on medium. What we care about is editorial boards vs. zero oversight. His blog falls into the zero oversight category. Not the newspaper/magazine blog category. And its clearly a self-published source. Anyone can create a personal web page, and that's why the rule is we never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people. Ever. As to the subject's first name - awesome research. That can be added to the very long list of slander and libel from Friedman that others have accused him of. He really has an awful record. Not surprising that nobody has picked him up in a decade or so. 2603:7000:2143:8500:791C:F5CD:DBAB:B186 (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)