Talk:Shmuley Boteach

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Added Information[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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)