Talk:Marc Gafni

His personal web site

Seems appropriate to link to his personal site [1], and additionally citing his views from sections of his personal site that responds to the various controversies [2]. Seems to me appropriate to include his latest views whenever claims or accusations are mentioned here, even though they are a primary source. Just leaving things as 'accusations' yet knowing what his specific response or claim is with regard to each seems unbalanced to me - like it implies guilt if we don't include his attributed viewpoint or lack a secondary source to attribute his view. Does that sound reasonable to cite his views on each point of accusation? - Owlmonkey (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I added those, but happy to discuss any changes here. I don't have the time now but seems appropriate to include summation of his views, how neo-orthodox has been defined or how he fits into modern trends or does not, or generally what makes his viewpoint distinct and notable. There is a brief mention of sexuality and spirituality now. Seems like he's notable for unusual views so we could expand that aspect. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Catalyst letters to the editor

These are not ipso facto notable, and should not be added to the article as we are not adding letters to the editor that are anti-Gafni. Why should support letters be given any more credence, especially as they are from a publication which is known to have a potential conflict of interest in that Gafni was a contributor to it prior to their articles on him? -- Avi (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

Please review WP:UNDUE, WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:V, and especially WP:NOT before adding more unacceptably sourced and improperly weighted material to the article. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agree. Weasel words. 70.130.155.195 (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent additions

We already reference the catalyst piece in the article, and Gafni's own site cannot be used for anything other than Gafni's response, not as a statement of fact. I would also counsel User:Aengus66 to follow the links on User talk:Aengus66 regarding conflicts of interest. Wikipedia is not to be used as a vehicle for either smearing or whitewashing Gafni's record; it is to be a neutral record. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Note 17 includes a dead link. The correct link is: http://www.shma.com/2006/12/genug-time-for-a-change/. Could someone change that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.43.56 (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I fixed that. -- Avi (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

2011 on Controversy

http://www.thejewishweek.com/blogs/gary_rosenblatt/marc_gafni_again "Marc Gafni, Again Submitted by Gary Rosenblatt on Wed, 09/14/2011 - 08:02" This appears a reliable source with new information relevant to the Controversy section. 124.170.46.137 (talk) 09:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is. I have updated the article. -- Avi (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Right now, from what I could find in digging pretty deep, this section is hinging on the comments of one person, Tami Simons. Her statement was then repeated. I could not find actual complaints or allegations by any victims in this particular case, only disapproving comments by Simons. There were other comments by Gafni supporters who called out her motives. I agree these are too close to the source, and there is little reason to play he said she said, but currently the section is far to expanded based upon the actual evidence I could dig up. Also, the Integral Life site was not mentioned anywhere, then receives undue attention in this section. If we are going to condense from the wording that outlined both parties pleading their case, then let's be fair with our weighting of materials available. Steazz (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Steazz. While the following is not necessarily a RS for facts in the article, see here for mention of how integral (pun intended) Gafni was to Integral life. For example, it says (emphasis added is my own): "(a)s mentioned above, it seems that Gafni has been removed by Integral Life from his usual leadership role of ISE3." Or here where Gafni is described as (emphasis added is my own): "…director of the Integral Life Spiritual Center of Integral Life." Whereas "Integral Life" the community of people may not be notable as relates to WP:V or to have its own wiki article, it played a notable role in Gafni's life (he was its director of the spirituality center) and his removal from it is certainly notable vis-a-cis Gafni's own life. And as we have it sourced properly per Wikipedia, NPOV requires us to keep it. -- Avi (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to Gafni's old profile on Integral Life thanks to wayback, where he is described as: "He serves as the founding co-director of Integral Life Spiritual Center, the founding co-director and teacher in residence of iEvolve Global Practice Community." -- Avi (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

To respond to the paragraph above, the section depends not only on Simons, but on IL's CEO forcibly removing one if its founding directors from his position AND deleting all of said director's contributions. This is verified not only in Smith's own words, but in the Jewish Week piece, which is subject to both editorial review and is a sufficiently reliable source to report fact. It is mentioned in both September 2011 articles by Rosenblatt; please see the links. If anything, there is no corresponding reliable source defending Gafni, only the self-published statements of co-workers and co-writers (Perez, Willber, etc.). -- Avi (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Formatting

I've noticed a lot of dated links that are now dead/404 throughout the article as well as a few formatting issues that could be easily fixed to improve the encyclopedic structure of the article. I'm going to start fixing a few of the dead links. Steazz (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we got rid of all the dead links. -- Avi (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Teachings

I am noticing that the page has a bunch of wording about past teachings and things, but there is no real section/information on what he actually teaches/does today? There is a brief mention in the bibliography part about eros, then the "recent work" which just names organizations, not what they actually ARE or do. What does everyone think about making a section summarizing more of these details to incorporate them all. "Teachings" or similar heading. Steazz (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hasn't he changed over time? We can use his own website as a source for a synopsis of his current teachings, but we should stick to the sources we have for past teachings. -- Avi (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree. There were a couple mentions of what he moved into in some of the sources there, plus found a couple more. Past things you're right, I was just thinking adding a couple notes about whats going on now. See what I put up and let me know if you think it is in the right vein. Steazz (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

See Also

I'd like to post a See Also section on this page. Is anyone opposed to that? Mercureal (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The article already links to enough people internally. Not needed. Steazz (talk) 07:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Steazz. -- Avi (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Summit 3.0

I do not see why this venue required special handling, and so moved it into the section which listed other examples of Gafni's speaking. Moreover, the sources were either inadequate or were primary sources, so better sources are needed. If, in time, no better sources are found, the information should be removed per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)