Talk:Manis Friedman

Comments on sexual abuse

In order to avoid cluttering Wikipedia with a biased perspective, someone else should probably mention how he told a victim of sexual abuse to "get over it" and that "everyone gets abused" and that not saying ALAMICKHKHKHYUH was worse than BEING HORRIFICALLY AND VIOLENTLY SEXUALLY ABUSED!!!!!

The end.208.102.160.123 (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

    Thank you. 208.102.160.123 (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Why was it removed? ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.160.123 (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope! Wrong! Until this blew up, his website advertised him as a counselor, and he is unlicensed, therefore he is an unlicensed counselor. Additionally, his statement about diarrhea is entirely true and well-sourced. Finally, it's more relevant what he said than what some other rabbis said about what he said. QUIT WHITEWASHING!!! 208.102.160.123 (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to add a separate paragraph, next to the one about Gutnick, that details the Chabadsker interpretation Shakla vetarya that took place between his making the statements and his "retracting" them, then be my guest and Go right The fuck Ahead.

Otherwise, please try to have your edits reflect the transcript and video/audio proper as closely as possible. If you can't do that, then perhaps we will just have to put the whole fucking transcript in block quotes. 208.102.160.123 (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC). Yechi Charlie

Please! Please! For the love of Christ! I am trying to edit an encyclopedic article here! If you have a problem, or feel that my contributions are too verbose or are unencyclopedic or violate some policy, then say so! Right here! On this very talk page!208.102.160.123 (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Again! We are kindly requesting that those who are removing information from the article make some attempt to explain their edits. 129.137.168.136 (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Promotion

Wikipedia is meant as a NEUTRAL ENCYCLOPEDIA, meant for factual information. Please do not turn this article into some kind of nearly commercial article. The text looked like it was taken straight from his own website, or something like that. I edited things some, deleted a few phrases which were merely irrelevant praise for the rav, and will try to find some time to do more work on it in the future. Thank you. --Daniel575 23:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Various neutrality problems with the article

I just looked at this article and noticed that it has severe problems with favorably biased language, a promotional tone, and a complete lack of sources. Additionally, the article says little on his views and teachings, which seems to be a significant omission.

I'm not going to work too much on the article now, as I am admittedly biased by having just read his response to the question, "How should Jews treat their Arab neighbors?" (near the bottom of the page). To quote: "The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle)." It seems the article should at least mention this and his other notable statements, in a neutral manner of course.

As a start, the whole article needs to be neutrally reworded and properly sourced.

As I was typing this, I noticed that Friedman's response was quoted in the article in a past revision, but had been removed. I've restored it, but that section could still use more detail. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw the problem with the quote was that it was taken out of context and he later apologized that it was misleading. He was responding to how Jews should react in a time of war when women, children and holy places are being used as human shields. See[1]Stringgame (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the npov tag after carefuly checking over the article twice with a few months in between. If you feel the tag should be reinstated, please do so and explain here. Joe407 (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Family

Do we need a section detailing what each of his children are doing? I cleaned it up a bit but still... Thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC) i agree, it seems there only to fluff up the article, i a say delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.91.55 (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition, much of the info is incorrect. I'm going to clean it up a bit, but really, is there a purpose to having it at all?Oh! (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

A family member has specifically requested that the family information section be removed. He/she is not comfortable having the names and locations of each family member listed. The omission of this content does not compromise the quality of the entry. As a representative of the family, I ask that contributors to this page respect the wishes of this family member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danyafree (talk • contribs) 13:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Danyafree, thank you for explaining the section blanking on the talk page. Joe407 (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Disgusting Behavior

Or, more neutrally, further controversial remarks by Manis Friedman. http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2013/01/video-dangerous-idiotic-and-insulting-rabbi-manis-friedman-explains-child-sexual-abuse-234.html 129.137.39.79 (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like you are not neutral on the matter at all. Controversialist are both a fact of life, and occur through history. If you are angry and raging, then it isn't time to edit Wikipedia, well not the article that has you inflamed. WP:NPOV! — billinghurst sDrewth 00:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! At last, someone who actually cares to collaborate.208.102.160.123 (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S. My criterion for asserting that FM is a reliable journalistic source is the article about the journalist in question, Shmarya Rosenberg. 208.102.160.123 (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Where does that article imply that FM is reliable? Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Having read the article, I can come to one of two conclusion. Either Shmarya is a serious and influential journalist, or that article is full of gaping holes, lies, fluff, and weasel-words.

Thus, your options are either to go edit that article, or to allow citations from FM to be used in this article.129.137.39.79 (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

In regards to 129.137.39.79's recent 2 edits:

1) While pastoral counselor can be an appropriate designation (following WebMD's description), there is no reason to remove the modifier 'unlicensed' and the given reference should not disqualified on without more extensive discussion than your spurious assertion of bias. If you think that it is wrong, please link to a particular reference for his licensing and include that information in the article.

2) There has been discussion on this talk page about the mention of his family members, please leave a note there if you wish to add information about them.

In regard to 2.55.115.254's edit

The audio in question does not support your interpretive edit to the paraphrasing, as the speaker uses the passive voice when referring to the sins in question. It seems that the previous editor assumed that the agent of the sin in question was the abuser, but it is quite possible that the speaker believes that the abused individual is the sinner, and thus his use of the passive voice can be interpreted as you do. However, given that the purpose of the paragraph is to describe the event of the release of the audio file and its impact, it would be best to use neither language and stick as closely as possible to the speaker's use of the passive voice.

I will revert these 3 edits, but leave the 'pastoral counselor' term, and edit for the passive voice, as mentioned.87.95.20.165 (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There are many references on this page from sources with questionable reliability. See here WP:SOURCES These quotes can be deleted by other editors. Veronika53 (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Have you made any contributions to Wikipedia, other than on this page? Have you read the comments above your own, regarding the credibility of Failed Messiah as a source? I have reverted your edit, as it removed important and relevant information, and was also rendered in some sort of incomprehensible gibberish. The lack of clarity, in fact, leads me to suspect that you may have been "educated" in Oholei Torah. 208.102.160.123 (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

For the record, you weren't fixing the language. You were breaking it. Please review some sort of guide to English grammar and style, and please do not remove or truncate sourced and cited quotes.208.102.160.123 (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Before you start accusing me of coming here with an agenda, by taking a quick look at your user contribution edits, everyone can clearly see that you are a POV user. In fact, you have only made changes to this page, all hiding behind an anonymous ip address, and I should say, very POV ones at that. See here WP:NPOVD.

I have read all that it says above, and on other talk pages about the use of other "reliable" blogs. Let me put I t down here very clearly, blogs are not reliable. I did not however, try delete all the information, as there were other reliable secondary sources (i.e. hufington post). According to Wikipedia standards, any editor may delete any information quoted from blogs. See here WP:SOURCES, here WP:NEWSBLOG and here WP:NOTRELIABLE. This might also be helpful WP:PAGEDECIDE.

I would also point out to you, that according to Wikipedia standards, original research (and its decisions) are not acceptable. Your biting behavior is also unacceptable on Wikipedia, and I would advice you to reread the Wikipedia rules. Knowing that you are a new Wikipedia user, I will not be biting you. See here WP:BITE.

Just by the way, and for the record, not Ohlei Torah, but Hadar Hartorah, the same yeshiva where Shmarya (you?) learned. Veronika53 (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I am not Shmarya. Now, please see my discussion with Yehoishaphat Oliver (you?) above, regarding whether Shmarya's website is a blog, per se; and my contention remains that his website is, indeed, a serious and influential journalistic outlet.208.102.160.123 (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Your discussion above does not prove that Failed Messiah is a valid source. It is a blog. Also, in the future, if there is ever such a dispute, according to Wikipedia standards you should have a consensus of other editors. Only properly, sourced, secondary source materiel may stay on a page of a LP, see here: WP:BLP, this also excludes all original research, see here: WP:NOR. In accordance with the Wikipedia rules of conduct and standards, I have edited much of the materiel previously posted here, and better sourced any materiel I can find a proper, secondary source for. Veronika53 (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I'm not directly making accusations, but User:Veronika53 and User:Vunderbahr have only edited this page, and are pushing some sort of agenda aimed in the direction of removing or minimizing this negative blight upon Friedman's character. Vunderbahr's edits are particularly notable.208.102.160.123 (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your accusing me of sock puppetry. For the record, you have wrongfully accused me of having three user accounts. Veronika53 (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

User 208.102.160.123

Please clearly explain your edits in the future. Also, please refrain from edit wars and nast comments on the talk page to other editor. Generally, a page's content is decided by 1) reliable secondary sources 2) consensus of other editors 3) NPOV. You seem to be breaching all of the above, plus more errors as already pointed pointed out by myself and other editors on the talk page. Veronika53 (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Veronika, your concern is understandable and your desire to correct these problems is commendable, However, your edits are too broad, and your replacement texts make very little grammatical sense, do not comply with the most basic editorial policy (see grayfell's comments below), editorialize even more egregiously than had previously been seen on this page, and leave large gaps in the story. A minimal summary of the nature of the remarks (as reported on numerous outlets, and as can be seen in the videos and transcripts) is necessary in order to explain the nature of the controversy. Reducing it all to "zei a mentcsh" is at best uninformative, and it is easy to see why some other editors have objected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.93.1.225 (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

User 208.102.160.123 admitted to having an agenda

I would like to thank user 208.102.160.123, an anonymous user who has been involved in bias edit wars over the past few weeks, for admitting that he has come to Wikipedia with an agenda. He has also said that he would now stop his behavior, and I hope he actually will. In a message that he wrote on my talk page on 23:09, 21 February 2013, he wrote, "You win. I'm done fighting with you. Congratulations!". Honestly, I'm not sure what fight there was, or what I did, as most of the edits were edited by other users who were just trying to act in accordance with the Wikipedia standards. P.S. I would also like to point this to the attention of other users and editors or administrators who will be looking into this page, including perhaps User:HJ Mitchell and User:Wifione. Veronika53 (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing quotations

A review of WP:QUOTE might be in order. Regardless of whether or not a source is reliable or warrants inclusion, it is important to give direct quotes proper attribution. Saying that "His remarks were reprehensibly callous and chillingly dismissive -- especially to those still struggling with an aftermath of depression, fear, feelings of worthlessness and sometimes even suicide, as well as mourning the loss of a precious and fundamental part of their psyches and souls." without giving attribution to the author, Chaim Levin, is misrepresenting both Wikipedia, and Chaim Levin. Grayfell (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of controversial material

I've removed and blanked out large portions of controversial material. I'll encourage any editor wishing to reinclude the same to first read EXCEPTIONAL and BLPPRIMARY. This a non-negotiable policy of Wikipedia. If you wish to include exceptional material like controversies, get multiple secondary sources. Opinions/Editorials/Blogs are primary sources and unacceptable in such situations, unless they are used to simply augment the secondary sources. Please do not include the controversy section or controversial statements again unless you have secondary sources ready. Please do contact me on my talk page in case you need any assistance in understanding how to include such statements. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 18:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You had no right to do so. You came in with no knowledge of understanding of the matter at hand, nor any knowledge of the Yiddish-English pidgin being used in the sources, and heavy-handedly removed several sections of material. You have since ignored any requests for clarification on your talk page. 208.102.160.123 (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of moment magazine event section.

Why was this section removed? The article along with numerous responses can be found in moment magazine, and the event was discussed in numerous publications of note, including JTA and haaretz Oysvorf (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

References

Oysvorf picked up where 208.102.160.123 left off

I am asking administrators to look into this user, who I believe is either 208.102.160.123 himself or someone coordinated by him. I make this assumption on the following basis. 1) Message posted by User:Oysvorf on Manis Friedman page. 2) Message posted by User:Oysvorf on User_talk:Wifione page in response to Wifione's answer to 208.102.160.123 about Manis Friedman. 3) User:Oysvorf deleting my comments to his user page. 4) User:Oysvorf only making edits to talk page of Manis Friedman (the reason this account was opened, as Manis page was blocked by administrators), and to the only other page that 208.102.160.123 had previously made comments to Oholei Torah. 5) User:Oysvorf adding sources to comments made while using the anonymous IP address on Oholei Torah page. All this clearly shows that User:Oysvorf is a WP:POV editor, who only opened an account to be able to make bias edits to certain pages, specifically the page of Manis Friedman. When 208.102.160.123 saw that administrators temporarily locked the page, he opened himself or coordinated the opening of an account under the name User:Oysvorf (which means outcast in yiddish) from which he would be able to continue his bias and repulsive attack. Veronika53 (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

- My response to these unwarranted attacks can be found on my talk page history, these is no need to clutter this talk page with a discussion about me, as I am not the subject of this article Oysvorf (talk) 06:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

|}

As I mentioned above, Oysvorf opened an account for the sole purpose of attacking Manis Friedman page with untrue propaganda. I have reverted Oysvorf's edits, and I am asking administrators to look into this user. Veronika53 (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

1) Your edit of comment "Not in source" Template:Wp-diff is clearly untrue, as can be readily confirmed both online and off. If you have read the book, and wish to provide a real explanation for your revert, please do so here.

2) Your edit #541822521 restores a statement that I removed with the explanation that Davidman does not discuss Friedman's role in any quantitative fashion. If you have information to the contrary, please provide a page number.

3) Given that about half of Davidman's fieldwork was conducted at Bais Chana, and that Davidman discusses Manis Friedman's views and activities at length, it would seem that some mention is in order. To my knowledge this is non-controversial, as Friedman has never indicated dissatisfaction with Davidman's methods and/or findings.

4) I will revert the two edits mentioned above. I request that anyone finding fault with them discuss their content here, and refrain from making false remarks about me in the process.

PS. Veronika53's continued off-topic and off-colour attacks on me are still not appreciated. For any editor looking into this matter: please see Template:Wp-diff where Veronika53 accuses me of falsifying quotes, and then look up the appropriate pages in Davidman's book.Oysvorf (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Lynn Davidson's ethnography.

Once again, I am removing the statement about Davidson's assessment about the magnitude of Friedman's impact. Do not replace it without providing a page number, as I have read the book, and have not noticed any quantitative discussion of the like. I am kindly requesting that Veronika53 quit evading discussion and ignoring the sources.Oysvorf (talk) 09:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)