Talk:Shmuly Yanklowitz

Recent changes

On 5/5/18 I added edits to this page to include statements Yanklowitz has made about homosexual marriage, transgender issues, the messiah and rebuilding of the third temple, and re-writing a prayer for the welfare of the US Government following the election of Trump. Also, changed his page to remove him as a member of the Human Relations Commission of the city of Phoenix (according to their website, he is not a sitting member). All references were sourced, typically from publications written by Yanklowitz himself and ever edit has been removed by "Stop Vandalizing This Page". Attempting to talk to editor has led no where and Teahouse suggested writing here. FactChecker18 (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)FactChecker18 FactChecker18 7 May 2018

On 1/7/2016, someone added a section entitled "Controversies" and provided well-sourced statements from many leading rabbis and commentators regarding Shmuly's controversial statements and positions. Later that day or the next, someone deleted this section, asserting to Wikipedia that the section was false or misleading. This is obviously not true, and Wikipedia pages should be there to inform the public of balanced facts and true information. Wikipedia pages should not be free advertising and self-promotion, only promoting the positive of a person when the person has been involved in numerous controversies. Shmuly calls himself "open", but openly criticizes other Rabbis, and censors information when it deals with how other Rabbis disagree with his positions! There seems to be some challenge to moving the links to other websites out of the body of the article. The Wikipedia guidelines on external links says that we are to avoid having them in the body of the article. I have moved them all to the appropriate spot, the "External links" section.

There also has been some effort to switch where he was born from the borough and into Toronto. The borough was not made into part of Toronto until after Yanklowitz was born, so if he was born in the borough, then that is the appropriate place to list; a wikilink will lead to the information on the borough, and it's current placement, if that's of interest. If the editor is trying to claim that he wasn't born in the borough but in Toronto, we need a source for that. Since I'm not sure that that is the claim being made, I've removed the claim of any specific birthplace. If there truly is a conflict about the supposed location, we should hold out for sourced information. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I originally added more detailed information on his education than the article had before. I added references/citations that verified my changes. These changes were watered down or eliminated by an anonymous user with the IP 98.223.8.94. If there is some reason that Yanklowitz's educational information should not be presented with accurate and thorough details, please explain here. Thanks. Poldy Bloom (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

An anonymous user with the IP 12.196.0.61 removed my detailed and accurate information about Yanklowitz's education. Yanklowitz has an Ed.D. from Columbia University's Teachers College, and I provided the information on his dissertation. IP 12.196.0.61 scrubbed that information and just wrote, "has a doctorate," but that is undifferentiated and imprecise. Poldy Bloom (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Orthodox?

I am in Phoenix where Yanklowitz resides. I strongly doubt that the label of Orthodox be given to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.113.64 (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yanklowitz received his rabbinic ordination from Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, which calls itself "open modern orthodox." He also leads Uri L'Tzedek, which he calls an orthodox jewish social justice organization. He has also had rabbinic internships at several different orthodox synagogues, and most recently was the senior rabbi at a modern orthodox synagogue. Smntstatus (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Smntstatus

Based on these comments my changes to open orthodox (which I did source so your edit comments were incorrect. I will update.

Blacklisted Links Found on Shmuly Yanklowitz

Cyberbot II has detected links on Shmuly Yanklowitz which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• https://www.change.org/petitions/jews-petition-congress-authorize-the-president-to-stop-chemical-massacres

  Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Shmuly Yanklowitz

Cyberbot II has detected links on Shmuly Yanklowitz which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• https://www.change.org/petitions/jews-petition-congress-authorize-the-president-to-stop-chemical-massacres

  Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Question for administrator

<Your Question> (refactored) Yanklowetz appears to be paying his staff to delete all statements that do not paint him in a 100% positive light, although the controversies section is balanced, researched, and sourced. "Because of Wikipedia's popularity, it has become a target for folks looking to promote their sites, which is against Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform."

1/8: It appears Yanklowitz is paying his staffmembers of Valley Beit Medrash to monitor his Wiki page to make sure it only contains self-promoting, advertising-like, positive information about him. [Someone] and others keep deleting sourced information that discusses the controversies Yanklowitz has been involved in. Wikipedia: how do we prevent this??— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fropals1 (talk • contribs)

This is already being addressed by multiple admins. Mkdw^talk 06:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible source for article

Here's a source about him donating a kidney.

Lots of detail - clearly significant coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Yanklowitz is now God

I heard he has now ascended the heavens and has become a God. We should add that to this wonderful article. I also heard he helps his wife take out the trash. If we find a source for that, we should include it. He does also give money to charity, and he once let an old lady cut in front of him at the grocery store. I haven't found RS for it, but we need to include that in this article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Appropriateness of "Yanklowitz is now God" comment?

I am new to Wiki editing and still learning the ropes, but the above comment by user Sir Joseph seems highly suspect. It seems this editor may have a bias against Shmuly Yanklowitz. Judging by the content of the above post from October 2017, it seems that user Sir Joseph holds a negative view in contrast to the neutral view that Wiki editors should hold. WHOtarDis77 (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

And it seems a bit that you hold the view that anything Shmuly Yanklowitz "calls for", however trivial, can and should be added to the article, as you did here. The article has for a long time been edited in a promotional way by single purpose accounts and IPs, all seemingly new to Wikipedia, and Sir Joseph was obviously expressing his frustration with that, and with the resulting hagiography of an article. He showed that frustration in an easily grasped analogy above, back in October 2017. I can't say it was either neutral or polite, but it was a criticism of the way the article looks, not of the person. Anyway, neutrality of articles is the important thing (talkpages are never neutral, as they consist of discussion), and experienced Wikipedia editors have been struggling to keep this article more neutral and less like a promotion piece. Please don't add Yanklowitz's opinions and activities in such excruciating detail; a Wikipedia article isn't supposed to be like a cv, but this one is always trying to become one. If you look at the article history, you can see that Sir Joseph reverted your recent addition, which you had made without an edit summary explanation (please use edit summaries), and he gave an explanation for it. You can also see me removing further fluff, and being reverted (without explanation) by an IP, 68.228.74.239. May I ask if you are connected in any way with that IP?

Anyway, speaking now to the IP; please come to the talkpage and discuss the appropriateness of the material I removed and you restored. Bishonen | talk 07:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC).

Thank you. You might also recall this page was brought to ANI (that might be why it's on your radar) and this is actually the cleaned up version. I don't really care for Yanklowitz one way or another, if I do have to say a criticism, and one that could eventually make its way into the article is that he has 1)paid people to edit this article and 2) more appropriately for a Rabbi and someone in the public sphere, he blocks anyone who disagrees with him from conversing with him, so that if you view his social media accounts, you will only find people agreeing with him. In any event, an article has to be neutral, but also relevant to an encyclopedia. In 100 years from now ask yourself what would be important to write about him. That is what gets put into an encyclopedia, everything else is just trivia. Furthermore, just on a strategic point, the more you edit an article and more eyes come to it, the more other people will edit and input their own opinions and news items they found about the subject. And because we need to be neutral, it won't all be hagiographic as it is now. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Update: the IP who reverted me never gave an explanation, nor have they engaged here, so I've restored my edit (=my removal of overly detailed material). User:WHOtarDis77 hasn't commented on my question whether they're connected with the IP. Of course that may be because they don't log on very often, and haven't seen it. Bishonen | talk 12:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC).

Bishonen I am only just seeing your comments now. Sorry, I haven't gotten back to you. Yes, you are right. I don't log on very often. I am also not connected to that IP in any way. I've never seen it before and don't what that's all about. Thank you and Sir Joseph for helping me navigate the no-no's of wiki editing. I shall use your advice well in the future. WHOtarDis77 (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, WHOtarDis77. You're not obliged to log on more often than you wish, so that's completely fine. Bishonen | talk 19:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC).

Identify as MO vs OO?

Hey there Sir Joseph! Saw your reversion of my edits, which is all good. I didn't just want to revert your revert. Instead, just wanted to reach out and ask something (and respectfully challenge you too) regarding the designation of modern Orthodox versus your reversion to the original version that said "Open Orthodox." From where I am, it is hard to distinguish the differences between the two. I see that the source that was used for claiming Yanklowitz as OO was from an Op-ed he wrote in 2013 . Fair enough and totally reasonable to use there. When I went in earlier to update the entry, I used two third-party sources that described Yanklowitz as "Modern Orthodox" (there are others, didn't want to go overboard WP:EL, because that would be pointless). But, if I am following your logic correctly, there are pieces where he refers to himself as MO, see here and here where his identification as Modern Orthodox is clear. So that would seem that he ID's himself as MO. And as these sources are more recent than the "Proud to be OO" piece, they seem more relevant to how Yanklowitz identifies his denomination, right? Furthermore, it also seems that Yanklowitz's seminary of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah also identifies as Modern Orthodox (though they did have OO language at some point in the past). I feel my editing that Yanklowitz is MO is warranted. Also, as compared to a few months ago, the fluff has really been dialed down. Thanks for your work on that. IMO, entry doesn't read like an advert and its way more neutral now. It's certainly no WP:CHERRY that it once was. Thanks for your — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtj16 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

No, he is not MO, he is OO. Besides him identifying himself as OO, others do so as well. He is far from MO and we can't say that he is MO, and you are using opinion pieces which is anyway not necessarily reliable source. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm really confused right now, so let's get this straight. The source stating that he is OO is also an opinion piece (not necessarily a RS?) and I'm just following the logic of what was here before in my earlier edit to the entry. I've seen just as many third-party articles from others stating that he is MO and pieces where Yanklowitz himself identifies as MO. I'm only looking at the sources. I mean, in one he states plainly "As a Modern Orthodox Jew..." and in these instances, his affiliation with MO certainly seem more relevant than some op-ed from five years ago. Whatever the nuance between OO and MO, he self-ID's as MO. Dtj16 (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The YU piece was his own piece, so it's RS for his identity. Also, most other sources call him OO, indeed that is his claim to fame, he is an OO rabbi doing all his SJW stuff. YCT is an OO school, and nobody seriously considers it MO at all. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Ok. Is that a value judgment by you, or is there an objective consensus that "nobody" considers it MO at all? But if somebody seriously considers it MO, would that negate your statement? (Honestly asking!) I'm just going by the words on their website, which I feel reflects their identity. Maybe they *were* OO and some point in the past, but they now self-identify as MO. At the same time, I'm just reading the words Yanklowitz has written about himself recently, which lead me to logically think that he's self-id'ing as a MO rabbi. And even going back to that YU piece, he writes "Modern/Open." (Can't be sure he wrote that headline, you know?). Dtj16 (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

In all my reading, nobody considers him or YCT as MO, and certainly not anymore if they did at one point. Remember that the RCA recently had a falling out with them and there is now a growing distinction between YCT and MO where synagogues affiliated with the OU are not allowed to hire YCT graduates, IIRC. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, that's interesting. Because in all my reading I'm getting the exact opposite response because I'm finding articles left and right saying that Yanklowitz is MO. I'm not taking into account the political aspects of the designation which might be a larger discussion (like, the SJW stuff or what the RCA thinks or believes because I have no idea). I'm only trying to be direct: "Subject says he is this, that must mean his this." A = A and all that. I'm just going by what he is self-ID'ing as while avoiding what other groups or institutions might believe. Dtj16 (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

And, FWIW, here are instances of Yanklowitz ID'ing himself as MO on social media Dtj16 (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

References

material about views that was removed

On 5/5/18 I added edits to this page to include statements Yanklowitz has made about homosexual marriage, transgender issues, the messiah and rebuilding of the third temple, and re-writing a prayer for the welfare of the US Government following the election of Trump. Also, changed his page to remove him as a member of the Human Relations Commission of the city of Phoenix (according to their website, he is not a sitting member). All references were sourced, typically from publications written by Yanklowitz himself and ever edit has been removed by "Stop Vandalizing This Page". Attempting to talk to editor has led no where and Teahouse suggested writing here. FactChecker18 (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)FactChecker18 FactChecker18 7 May 2018

That would include this edit, this edit, this edit, this edit, this edit, this edit, this edit, this edit and subsequent similar edits. Each was reverted by an IP editor, apparently the same one. both parties were edit warring and could have been blocked for doing so. Both parties questioned the reliability of the sources beign cited, and suggested conflicts of interest. I hope that we can now more calmly and peacefully move towards resolving this matter. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh "Stop Vandalizing This Page" was part of the edit summary, not the user name of the reverting editor. The edits were apparently made in a sincere desire to improve the page, whether one agrees with them or not, and so were not technically vandalism. That does not mean that they should be reinstated, of course. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors do not get to cherry-pick quotes out a BLP subject's writings, to highlight things that the editor really likes to make the subject look good, or to highlight things that the editor dislikes, to make the subject look bad. That simply isn't allowed, because it is original research. Instead, we rely on summarizing what independent reliable sources say about the subject's writing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Advert tag

So, the advert tag has been there for nearly a year, and the article has been drastically cleaned up since then, though it still needs some work (I find the book review part kind of sketchy, and tone is still an issue). Can we resolve it? I don't want to make major unilateral changes because of the edit wars here, I think consensus by admins / senior editors would be ideal. Thanks. Moshe Schorr (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

What did you have in mind? Because I agree with you. The advert should come down now. The page has been scaled back considerably. I think this is something worth pursuing Dtj16 (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

It's been several months since I last wrote. I still believe that after much work on the page, it is up to the standard of not being read as an advert. What do you think? Dtj16 (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)