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)

Unfortunately five years later we are back to square one - all your work from 2009 is was undone. The controversial phrase is again being misquoted and without his response. I am re-thinking if the entire controversy section should be removed do to all the POV and bias editing. Check what I wrote later in this talk page before noticing this conversation.Caseeart (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2014 (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)

User Veronika53 is correct Failed Messiah is:

• A blog. It is not a newspaper. -Thus it is not fit for BLP
• It is a single purpose blog: To write against Jewish Religious people. Thus anything from that blog on Religious Jews is not WP:NEUTRAL
• Much of the claims on that site are are not WP:VERIFIABLE

Therefore all failedmessiah citations and material should be removed from this BLP article unless the same material is found in other reliable sources.

In regards to 129.137.39.79's claims that Shmarya Rosenberg's Wikipedia article claims that he is a valid journalist: A. Wikipedia is not a valid source for claims about an individual B. Rosenberg's article is very biased - it twists around and misquotes reliable sources like the New York Times making him sound like a good journalist who is hated, but with all thos POV pushers and guards - it is very hard to edit. Caseeart (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed a lengthy WP:ATTACK section that

• Is based much on blogs such as Failed Massiah and JCW,
• Includes original research for example "His comments were widely published on a variety of social media websites" (followed by blogs and one news) is clear original research with POV intent.
• Is repeated info with WP:UNDUE length.

I will remove this part and correct other parts.Caseeart (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The more I edit and look through the sources - the more I see bias and POV pushing. On one hand, when it came to criticism of a molestation comment - there was undue length which included blogs, plagiarism, original research, and misquotations of some of the sources. On the other hand the comment about homicide of civilians we see the opposite kind of POV pushing. The comment was briefly quoted - skipping out essential parts of the quotation (=misquotation) - it also did not mention his later clarification. Both cases seemed POV to attack the subject.

• I did not even look at the other parts yet - this article should probably be closely watched. Caseeart (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2014 (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" 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 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)

I have changed "Controversial Items" to "Left wing criticism" which is what it is. 81.156.3.13 (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC) MS

Revocation

Friedman is still listed as a Chabad Shaliach at https://www.chabad.org/jewish-centers/118004/West-S-Paul/Yeshivah-for-Beginners-Women/Bais-Chana. News article is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpfulguy101 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

correct. will be updating Helpfulguy101 (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

No place on Wiki for hate

I have striped the article of large sections the have no place in a Wiki article. They were written by a person who hase a hate agenda against Mr M Friedman. The should be kept on ones own Blog and have no place on a Wiki article. 109.158.27.169 (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC) ms

I know what you mean. Perhaps someone can clarify why wikipedia tends to be this way, which exact confluence of the rules and practices lead to there being a preponderance of biographical articles where there is a disproportionate amount of information about the controversies of the person? It almost seems that this entire page was put up with an agenda to defame the Rabbi. Given the man has been in the public sphere for several decades, has written several books, speaks about a lot of topics, has been involved in a lot of programs, events and much more, has huge following people who would describe him positively and having had a positive impact on their lives, apart from the basics, the entire article seems to only discuss things that are deemed his controversies? If one were to edit the article to try and change this, it would be immediately changed back, with reprimands and calls for protected edits etc. This isn't just here, I see it all over wikipedia. There's always some rule or standard practice or something quoted in the reprimander's response. It's why I don't bother donating to wikipedia. It seems the rules are in favour of the bitter and angry, who like to use wikipedia as a weapon against those they dislike. Thankfully, it seems most people take it with a pinch of salt and see it as likely pettiness and wikipedia maintains its "encylopedia that can't be trusted for anything important" status. Such a shame81.106.120.36 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Manis Friedman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100702022233/http://www.nme.com:80/artists/avraham-fried to http://www.nme.com/artists/avraham-fried

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Manis Friedman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100504094248/http://www.baischana.org/content/view/13/124/ to http://www.baischana.org/content/view/13/124/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140523235748/http://books.google.com/books?id=nYCjAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA138&lpg=PA138&dq=why%20doesnt%20anyone%20blush%20anymore&source=bl&ots=Uexd9j74np&sig=ELPqHaFMycG913sErv7UlwTfKSI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4Uh_U5ibG8KryASYx4GYCA&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAzgy to http://www.books.google.com/books?id=nYCjAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA138&lpg=PA138&dq=why+doesnt+anyone+blush+anymore&source=bl&ots=Uexd9j74np&sig=ELPqHaFMycG913sErv7UlwTfKSI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4Uh_U5ibG8KryASYx4GYCA&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAzgy
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140523232857/http://books.google.com/books?id=UWCL28nWMoEC&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=why%20doesnt%20anyone%20blush%20anymore&source=bl&ots=rXP-j83aqt&sig=TeBM0t-oRsnnHgHtNQVYY0h8ASE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4Uh_U5ibG8KryASYx4GYCA&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBzgy to http://www.books.google.com/books?id=UWCL28nWMoEC&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=why+doesnt+anyone+blush+anymore&source=bl&ots=rXP-j83aqt&sig=TeBM0t-oRsnnHgHtNQVYY0h8ASE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4Uh_U5ibG8KryASYx4GYCA&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBzgy

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

February 2024 Revision

Your edit was reverted. Time to discuss. You might consider in particular trying to explain why you removed the entire section about 'victims of pedophilia' -- something you did not 'move to a different section'. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

🙄

The edit as a whole adds valuable, sourced information to his biography, including early life, and more recent activities. It also transfers information from the "Controversial Statements" section to the biography. In my view, this information is clearly conveyed in the adjusted section, and removes an entirely superfluous section. In addition, a separate section for this may violate Wikipedia guidelines.

There was a complaint that some of the material is unsourced. A, I don't know which section this complaint refers to. If there is such an issue, that section can either be sourced or removed. Reverting the entire edit is unnecessary.

I don't see it necessary to include all controversial statements; not all aspects of his life and views are covered, as that would probably be viewed as superfluous. If, however, a user thinks it is necessary, again, reverting the entire edit due to a single, or even a handful, of issues is counterproductive. Helpfulguy101 (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to unpick your errors and implement what is defensible in a big edit that does multiple things. That's not my responsibility. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The page, as it is, has numerous flaws and deficiencies. My edit fixed a lot of those flaws, and filled in some of the deficiencies. At the same time, it may have introduced some new flaws and/or deficiencies. Reverting it to its previous state is unhelpful. It's the responsibility of no one in particular to "unpick [my] errors", but that doesn't make it helpful to just undo the entire edit. The proverbial draining the baby with the bathwater. Helpfulguy101 (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The most recent edit is extremely unhelpful and inaccurate. The sections you coped and pasted regarding his controversial statements do not represent his views at all, as he has clearly stated in articles sourced in the page. They were either taken out of context or apologized for. That is an extremely dishonest edit. Helpfulguy101 (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

You proceeded again to make changes that were rejected, without seeking to gain consensus here. You removed a number of reliable sources connected to the pedophilia incident, and you removed the entire section about his comments re Holocaust victims. You haven't even tried to explain why you want to edit the article in that way. It's clear to me that those are undesirable edits. I genuinely don't understand this behaviour. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe the edits I made were rejected. If I removed reliable sources related to the pedophelia incident, that was unintentional and could and should be fixed. I removed the section on Holocaust victims, because the only source was one article, admittedly from an assumedly reliable source, but written more than thirty years after the fact.

Either way, they definitely don't belong in the views section. He has made it clear those are not his views. Helpfulguy101 (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm getting the sense that you don't know how to edit effectively. You removed sources/references. If you don't know you did that (in the pedophilia section), then I can only suggest that you stop editing until you figure it out. You recognise that you did remove the source in the Holocaust section -- along with removing the entire section, and the reason you give is incoherent with respect to Wikipedia policies. Finally: the way you can know that your edits were rejected is because they were reverted. Please take a look at WP:BRD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't just copy/paste the sections. I rewrote them, as I felt there was room for more conciseness. In the process, I may have overlooked some sources that could've been copied over, as I did my own research into the events to write about it more accurately.

The edits that were rejected were dissimilar to the more recent edits. The more recent edits were better sourced, even if some sources were removed, and that seemed to me to have been the main complaints about those edits.

I will, I suppose, refrain from making further major edits until a consensus is reached here, or until discussions here on the matter end, and would ask and expect the same from others.

That said, I do think the two sub-sections on his controversial statements should be removed from the "Views" section immediately, as I think those clearly and obviously do not represent his worldviews. Helpfulguy101 (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

What you appear not to understand is that your own thoughts (e.g. re whether some text in our article represents his 'worldviews') are not a basis for editing the article. His views were reported by reliable sources. It's not up to you to decide that those sources are wrong (and then remove them and the text they support). What we can do (and in fact are doing) is to report any responses he might have made. But those responses themselves are not grounds for removing the passages already there as supported by reliable sources. This is all very basic on how to edit Wikipedia properly... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The view I was trying to express is that it does not seem to have been an overly notable event. This is supported by the fact that, seemingly, the only article on the topic was written thirty years later. The source article itself does not quote any reports from the time of the incident, and only found out about the incident and wrote about it in the follow up to the pedophile incident. That does not imply a notable event, and Wikipedia is not the place for people's travel itineraries and random speech transcriptions. Helpfulguy101 (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

ok. I think the following changes should be made. If there are any objections, please say so.

A) The subsection "On victims of pedophelia" should be removed, and its contents and relevant sources moved to the proper paragraph in "Career". I don't think it necessitates it's own subsection, and definitely not under "views", when he has clearly apologized and retracted it.

B) The subsection "On victims of the Holocaust" section should be removed entirely. It does not appear to have been a major incident, and was not widely reported at the time, or at any later point (one article written thirty years later). Not every minor grievance anyone ever had with Friedman's speeches qualifies for mention on Wikipedia.

C) More work should be done to explain Friedman's views on topics other than Marriage and Femininity. He has well-defined views on a wide range of topics, which should be noted clearly, accurately, and concisely.

If there are any objections to any of these, please explain what they are, so a consensus can be reached.

If there are no objections, I will make the above changes. Helpfulguy101 (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I definitely object to A and B. An apology and retraction does not mean that these things did not happen. The right way to address it is to include coverage of the apology and retraction. What I would suggest is that the section heading likely should be changed: the text refers to 'child sexual abuse', not pedophilia. We'll have to check to see what term the sources use. As for the section on the Holocaust: there is no general rule saying that having a single source means we don't include coverage of the incident. For both of these, it seems to me that you are being led by your own sense of these as 'minor' incidents and would prefer to bury them (partly or entirely). That's not how it works here...

No objection in principle to C -- as long as the sources we use are WP:SECONDARY sources (and not just his own writings). Best to propose something here, certainly if you are inclined to try to use his own writings. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

With regards to A and B in general, no one is implying they didn't happen. But when we're discussing his views, and those were obviously, either a slip of the tongue or a one-off mistake, which he certainly wouldn't claim to have held those views, they don't belong in the "Views" section.

With regard to A, what I said is we should include "include coverage of the apology and retraction", just that I view the proper place for that to be, not in it's own subsection, but in the paragraph in "Career" which discusses his speaking career.

With regard to B, I haven't found a clear guideline for what would count as a significant event. Therefore, yes, I am using my own common sense to judge the significance of these incidents. Not every time someone complains should there be an entry about it on Wikipedia; there are two YouTubers, in particular, who have plenty of negative things to say about Friedman. That does not, in itself, make it a significant event. If there was very limited coverage of B, and that limited coverage wasn't even at the time of the event, I don't see how that would qualify as a significant event.

With regards to C, that is definitely a good idea. I will try to work on something and put it here first for comments. Helpfulguy101 (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to resolve this. With regard to A, I'm just saying it shouldn't be listed under views, because he's clarified, and apologized for that incident, and it's not a "view" that he holds. Instead, it should be mentioned in the paragraph which talks about his speaking career, because that's the context in which it occurred.

With regard to B, it appears quite obvious to me that it wasn't a significant event. It was written about once, and even that was decades later. If, even so, there's a consensus that it should be mentioned, again, it shouldn't be under "views", but in the paragraph about his speaking career. Helpfulguy101 (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

You are holding an opinion about whether something is or is not his view, currently. That opinion really doesn't matter. Nor does your opinion that something was a "slip of the tongue" or a "one-off mistake". Take a look at WP:5P2. This is an essential part of moving forward here. Expressing your opinions in this mode is a real distraction here in part because it signals an incorrect way of thinking about these questions. In practice what it amounts to is that we use the sources we have -- we don't decide on the basis of our own opinions. The sources make it clear what he said. So, first he said something, and then he apologised for it. We would then report both. There's no implication that this is what his view is now; we are just reporting what happened (where he certainly was expressing his views in the moment). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree it should say that he said, and that he apologized for it. What I think is obvious, and I wouldn't even consider it my opinion, is that the "Views" section is where his Views are shared, for those wanting to know what his views are. If he's apologized or otherwise revoked that statement, then that doesn't belong in the Views section, because he's made clear they aren't his views.

In the Jewish Journal article referenced, Friedman apologized for the use of language, not for the View he holds or held. It seems strange to demand it appear in the views section. Helpfulguy101 (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah. You are assuming that in "Views" we would only include what his current views are. That's not true -- we couldn't possibly know what his current views are. For anything we include in such a section, we would be using references which by definition exist in the past. We wouldn't be using any language that says 'this is what he currently thinks'. We just report what he said, as per the sources. Again this includes reporting what he said earlier and then reporting what he said later about what he said earlier. No implication of anything current. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

No. I'm assuming it obvious that those were never his views. He misspoke or was taken out of context and he apologized for it. With regards to the Holocaust "incident", its wasn't an incident at the time, and was barely, if even, an incident at one point decades later. Seems ridiculous to insist it appear there. Helpfulguy101 (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm assuming it obvious that those were never his views. Hmm -- you're back to your opinions. We're not getting anywhere...