Talk:Eliezer Berland

"The 'Torah path'"

Can't wait to hear the rationale for this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Restoring sourced information which is reliably sourced and 100% likely to be true. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, get consensus for inclusion. Start an RfC, perhaps? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

This is relevant information and reliably sourced, so the burden is on you to show why this should not be included. Debresser (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

(a) At Jewish religious clothing‎, Debresser you removed a key historical fact from a strong academic source as 'superfluous', and continued to remove it. Remove superfluous sentence

Here (Eliezer Berland) you are challenged for including material from a so-so source, which the other editor thinks acceptable only for bare facts.

• The source is RS for bare facts only, not for this sort of claim

You insist on restoring what N regards as a superfluous sentence stating

• Not OR, since this is in the source. Now stop being disruptive and discuss, or be reported

Well, by the same token (logically) what you removed at the other article was also in the source, and therefore, esp. since it was high quality historical material, should not have been removed. There is no policy coherence in the two edits. In one you can expunge a sourced statement as superfluous, in the other, you revert a challenged statement from a middling source by asserting it is in the source and therefore must stay.Nishidani (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The disputed content is referenced to the website of Shuvu Bonim, an educational institution that Berland founded and completely controlled for many years. The core content policy of Verifiability covers this at the section WP:SELFPUB, which excludes content that is "unduly self-serving" and that certainly applies to this non-neutral "draw closer to the Torah path" content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nishidan Don't poison the well.

On a point of logic, demonstrating a contradiction that points up a failure to exercise uniformity of judgement in otherwise identical cases cannot be An informal logical fallacy. To the contrary, it underlines the subjectivity of the judgements in either instance. Wiki is based on a coherent application of policy principles across the board, which cannot be interpreted in humpty dumpty fashion, as here, from case to case. Nishidani (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328 The statement is obviously true, and therefore not "unduly" self-serving. I would be fine with tagging it for a better source, but why remove this? Debresser (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

"Obviously true", Debresser? You must be kidding. This lying criminal deceived his followers and had them travel all over the world, wasting their time and money, spewing lies on his behalf, all in an effort to deny his crimes and keep him out of prison. How does that amount to drawing closer to the Torah path? Ridiculous reasoning. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

He ran a yeshiva with tens or even hundreds of pupils at any given time. Surely he must have done some other things besides what you mentioned. Debresser (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

You should find truly independent sources for the "other things", not a website controlled by the devious criminal himself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The text Debresser wants to add is obviously unacceptable. Meanwhile, with careful consideration of the BLP rules, there is a lot of stuff missing from the article: [1] [2] [3] etc. Zero^talk 05:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Debresser, please read the three sources that Zero0000 brought forth, especially the first article titled "The ex-aides of a messianic, sex-convict rabbi fight from within to cast him out: Bratslav hasidic leaders have issued a rare ban on Eliezer Berland, a cult leader seen as a modern ‘Sabbatai Tzvi’; the rest of the Haredi world is proving reluctant to follow suit". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I saw that yesterday. What does that have to do with the fact that during over four decades he has had thousands of pupils?

The Shuvu Bonim (previously Roni BaLalya) yeshiva exists for over 40 years now, and during that time literally thousands of students have learned there and have grown closer to Torah, some even becoming influential rabbis themselves. That is a fact.

You seem to think all is either black or white, and that is not true. Whatever he did wrong, he did good things as well. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, you seem to equate students growing close to the Torah with doing something good, which is only true from a particular point of view, and secondly that there is any evidence that the article subject has achieved this, which can't be claimed without an independent reliable source. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger 1. Teaching people is universally accepted to be something good. 2. At least good in the context of this conversation, as opposite to his crimes.

That point I have already conceded. Logic, however, dictates it to be true. Debresser (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Teaching people the scientifically accepted truth is fairly widely accepted to be something good, at least in the Western developed world. Teaching people a particular religious viewpoint is not. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

1. That's nonsense, it depends entirely on what's being taught. Math is universally accepted of being good to teach, but teaching someone how to steal cars is universally not. Religious teachings fall somewhere in the middle. 2. It's one thing to claim he's had a lot of students. Anyone who's been teaching for 4 decades is going to have had a lot of students. But if you want to make the subjective claim that his teaching has had a positive impact on those students (or that it's had any effective impact at all, for that matter), you need an independent source stating it. 199.247.44.170 (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger It is generally considered a good thing to teach people religion. Your objection seems more personally motivated, and we shall not continue to go there.

@199.247.44.170 The statement that was removed said nothing about good or bad. The statement was about bringing them closer to Torah, and that is so ibviously true, that I am very unhappy with the majority view here, that demands an independent source. Debresser (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

"Closer to Torah" is a phrase with deep meaning for you, but it doesn't mean anything to most people. It is definitely not the type of expression we should use in Wikipedia. Would you like an article on a priest to say in Wikipedia's voice that he brought thousands of people closer to Jesus? I can assure you that such statements are very easy to source. Zero^talk 15:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I note that our article about Abu Hamza al-Masri doesn't say that he has brought many people closer to the Koranic path, although I'm sure that you can find sources saying that, and, going by an interpretation of the Koran followed by a small minority of Muslims, that is almost certainly true, just as it is almost certainly true that Berland has brought many people closer to the Torah path as interpreted by a small minority of Jews. This doesn't mean that we should abandon our requirement for independent reliable sources for statements about either subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear but it actually doesn't matter whether "bringing them closer to Torah" is a good or bad thing, in any case it's a subjective claim about the effects of his teachings and as such it needs to be independently stated if it's to be included at all. 199.247.44.170 (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Zero I don't understand your point. Nor do I understand what "deep meaning" you are referring to. I think that "bringing people closer to the Torah" is pretty self-explanatory, jus like the example you provided. Debresser (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

"Closer to the Torah path" is, florid, heavily POV, and tells us nothing that saying that he was a religious teacher doesn't tell us. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2020

There was a recent decision by three Charedi Jewish courts which included (Rabbi Shriel Rosenberg. Rabbi Shmuel Eliezer Stern, Rabbi Yehuda Fisher, Rabbi Yitzchak Tuvia Weiss, the head of the Eida Chareidis, Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch, and Rabbi Chaim Meir Halevi Vozner, Rabbi Shevach Tzvi Rosenblatt, Rabbi Yehuda Silman, and Rabbi Menachem Mendel Lubin.) Basically saying that what Eliezer Berland does is incorrect and that people should distance himself from them. They also said it is hearsay that his followers say that he can do as he wishes. 01234567editor (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)