Talk:Yosef Mizrachi/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Recent changes to lead and career section

The changes to the lead, which have had multiple different sources tied into it, do not seem to be covered by any of the sources provided. Statements like When asked to state his greatest life goal, Rabbi Mizrachi said: “To make as many Jews as I can become religious and observant – loving and fearing G-d. After 23 years of hard work around the clock, I can say my kiruv efforts have brought thousands of Jews back to living according to Torah.” cannot be used to state things as facts in wikivoice per WP:ABOUTSELF. The changes to the early life and career section also need reliable secondary sources, rather than ABOUTSELF sources to demonstrate that the information is noteworthy, and actually true. Additionally, the tone comes across as fawning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the assertion that discussing milestones in the rabbi's career should be considered fawning. In its current state, the article lacks any biographical information and appears more like a slanderous piece. It would be more appropriate to include both the controversies and verifiable biographical data, as well as objective career milestones.

I didn't suggest the removal of controversies, it was with the intention of not excluding biographical information. On the contrary, I believe that presenting a balanced and comprehensive account of the rabbi's life and achievements would be more beneficial. Unfortunately, the current version of the article neglects to mention much of anything about his career, and when I attempted to add relevant details, it was removed. I will provide a draft below with the biographical changes so we can work on it together. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I have updated the early life and career to include a sentence about his childhood and early career. Please let me know if you have any issues with it.

Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi was born in Israel. His father was Moroccan and his mother was Persian. As a young man, he performed mandatory military service in the Israel Defense Forces, later moving to New York in his 20s to pursue a career in the financial sector. In 1997, he began learning and later teaching Torah at the Ohr Yeshiva in Monsey, New York, and later producing kiruv or Jewish outreach videos that began appearing online in 2004. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I have updated the introduction with the inclusion of sourced evidence for his prominent standing as a leading rabbi and a recent endorsement from the Chief Rabbi of Morocco lends strong support to the assertion that his outspokenness has garnered praise within the Jewish community as well and not only criticism. Please let me know if you have any issues with it.

Yosef Mizrachi (Hebrew: יוסף מזרחי; born 1968) is a Haredi rabbi and public speaker. His outspokenness has earned him both praise by leading Orthodox authorities and criticism from Modern Orthodox and Reform Jewish authorities. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I included a one sentence statement backed by credible sources that highlights endorsements from various notable figures, including the Chief Rabbi of Morocco.

He has been endorsed by many leading rabbis over his career in kiruv including the Chief Rabbi of Morocco, the Chief Rabbi of Israel, and the Av Beit Din of Queens. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 08:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I've appended pertinent biographical details in one sentence about his career into the career section, emphasizing his primary involvement in outreach to non-religious individuals and his main focus on utilizing social media platforms.

Rabbi Mizrachi is a leading kiruv rabbi that has revolutionized the use of social media for religious education, and made a point of speaking to irreligious audiences, looking to bring them back to the faith.

Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nycarchitecture212 I can see that you've made an effort to source things like the Rabbinic endorsements. However, these sources (the youtube videos) do not meet with Wikipedia policy - specifically Wikipedia:Reliable sources. One source is an audio clip on a basically anonymous and unknown account, and the other is Rabbi Yaron Reuven's page. I don't know what the policy would be about citing the endorsements from the actual book itself - I think that might be more likely to be wiki-compliant.

Re: the line about "both praise by leading Orthodox authorities and criticism from Modern Orthodox and Reform Jewish authorities."

I'm sorry but I don't think this belongs in the article. First of all, the source you've cited (the Boteach opinion piece, which is a weird one to choose) doesn't mention anything about criticism or praise. The article cited itself criticises Mizrachi harshly, but that doesn't qualify it as a source for the statement. Secondly, and on the meat of the issue, the previous incarnation of this line on this page talked about Orthodox praise and Reform condemnation. So it seems like you've compromised, and added Modern Orthodox condemnation. This is just tendentious - it makes it out as if progressive Jews are criticising Mizrachi, and traditional ones praise him. That's just not so. If it were so, you'd need a secondary source, that says clearly, that Orthodox leaders praise Mizrachi, and Reform/Modern Orthodox criticise him. Not a source that shows criticism (but not praise) of Mizrachi, as if you're concluding half the sentence from the source itself (because that would be Wikipedia:Original research). I don't think such a source will exist, given that this (non-wiki RS source, but indicative of reality nonetheless, shows a much broader condemnation of Mizrachi https://cross-currents.com/2016/12/07/on-rabbi-yosef-mizrachis-form-of-kiruv/).

I get that you're a relatively new editor, but Wikipedia has policies and your edits will just keep getting removed if you don't pay attention to them. I saw that @ScottishFinnishRadish already talked to you about this on your talk page and you deleted their comment. They are completely correct - whether what you wrote is right or wrong, you need to find actual, reliable, secondary sources that explicitly make all the claims that you include in a piece. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

There's certainly a lot of information to consider, but let's focus on discussing the endorsements for now. I have provided reliable sources for endorsements from the Chief Rabbi of Israel, the Chief Rabbi of Morocco, and the Beit Din of Queens. The endorsement from the Chief Rabbi of Israel is available in written form, and the video clearly shows the content of the letter, making it a highly authentic and verifiable source. If you have difficulty reading the Hebrew in the video, I understand, but it's essential to note that the responsibility for interpretation lies with the reader.

The endorsement is expressed in clear and unequivocal language, leaving no room for doubt. Additionally, a photograph of the endorsement letter and a video of an individual endorsing him should provide more than enough evidence.

Furthermore, the endorsement from the Chief Rabbi of Morocco is also verifiable. It's worth considering that prominent figures like these Chief Rabbis often lead private lives and tend to avoid involvement in secular media. As a result, their endorsements are typically communicated through letters or videos rather than blogs or op-eds in newspapers.

Given this context, I believe it would be unfair and biased to exclude these endorsements from the article. I value the importance of presenting a balanced and accurate representation of the topic at hand. Regardless of personal opinions, I believe that diverse perspectives and endorsements from reputable sources should be included to ensure the article's integrity. I am open to further discussion and clarification if needed and look forward to your reply before addressing the other items that were deleted. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not a question of what's verifiable as a point of fact or what's verifiable, it's about what appears in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This is wikipedia, so it has to conform to wikipedia policies. I understand that this can be frustrating, if, as you point out, some types of material are by their nature less likely to appear in the kinds of sources that Wikipedia policy says should be used, but this isn't the place to negotiate WP policies.

I'll just point out that factualness is not the only reason to limit ourselves to the WP definition of reliable sources - the notability and relevance of a piece of information has to be evaluated in some way to warrant inclusion. The Wikipedia:Due weight policy says that articles must "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". If reliable sources have reported on criticisms or disputes, or praise and endorsement, of the subject of a wikipedia entry, then it merits inclusion. If they haven't - even if those criticisms or endorsements exist in the world - they cannot be judged to merit inclusion in the encyclopaedia.

As I say, I have no problem including praise or endorsement in principle. It's clearly a fact that some people really support Mizrachi. It just has to be compliant. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I completely understand where you're coming from and don't worry, I'm not frustrated, I took the time to explain my edits neatly because I want to show my dedication to collaborating constructively. I'm not frustrated with Wikipedia policy, and I hope we can work together to resolve any differences instead of getting into an edit war.

Regarding the three endorsements mentioned, I would be grateful for more clarity on the specific requirements for their inclusion in the article. Additionally, it would be beneficial if you could explain precisely why you believe the photo and videos of the endorsements that I included are not satisfactory for you, and what specific criteria would be considered acceptable.

Please assume good will and that these endorsements are real, and assist me in incorporating them into the article. This would make the discussion more straightforward and showcase our good intentions in resolving this matter amicably. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Re: In 1997, he began learning and teaching Torah at Yeshivat Ohr Yisrael in Monsey, New York.[better source needed

I'd like to focus on addressing the omission of endorsements with you on the page. However, I also want to point out that when you reverted all of my edits, you inadvertently removed the updated sourcing for the statement about him teaching at the yeshiva. I had found a newspaper article that mentioned this, but it was reverted back to a citation from his own website, which now requires the "better sourcing" tag again. It's essential to consider each edit independently, and I believe it's crucial to review and discuss them on their individual merits rather than wiping them all out due to confusion or disagreement with one of them. Collaboration and careful consideration of each contribution are vital to maintain the article's accuracy and reliability. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Re: the line about "both praise by leading Orthodox authorities and criticism from Modern Orthodox and Reform Jewish authorities."

With endorsements from prominent figures such as the Chief Rabbi of Israel, who holds the esteemed position as the head of Orthodox Judaism worldwide, and the Chief Rabbi of Morocco, among others, it's evident that he has received recognition from leading Orthodox authorities. Thus, including this sentence in the article would be a valid contribution. Presently, the article lacks any mention of endorsements or praise, which can be seen as surprising and potentially misleading due to the deliberate omission. Including this sentence would rectify that and provide important context.

Let's maintain a collaborative approach as adults, valuing each other's contributions based on their merits rather than making judgments based on account age or personal remarks. Your insights are valuable, and I appreciate your commitment to ensuring a balanced representation of the subject matter. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

On the merits, the Chief Rabbi of Israel does not hold the position of "head of Orthodox Judaism worldwide" - and I don't think I know any Orthodox Jew who would claim this. Secondly, we need to specify which Chief Rabbi of Israel.

That said - if any current or former Chief Rabbi of Israel is reported as endorsing or praising him in a reliable secondary source - I think that would certainly warrant inclusion. A reliable secondary source is not a youtube video from Yaron Reuven showing pages in a book that purport to carry endorsements of the book. It is not reliable, and it is not secondary.Samuelshraga (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I used all of your suggestions and have updated early life section with early biographical information from Times Of Israel article by Wootliff and Forward article by Chizhik-Goldschmidt. Updated lead in to describe as leading kiruv rabbi as described in a Israel National News/Arutz Sheva Media Group article by Rosenberg. Used same source to describe his career in kiruv speaking to irreligious audiences and his use of media. Added sources for 2 statements of support as published by the offices of Elbaz and Amar and not the Reuven video. Updated lead in to include mention of both praise and criticism. If you have any questions about the edits, please provide specific comments for each edit. Instead of reverting all changes at once, let's discuss each contribution individually since they may not be related to one another. For instance, the biographical information from Goldshmidt is unrelated to the statement by Rosenberg. It would be more reasonable to address each edit separately rather than undoing them all at once. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia article about Shmuley Boteach, it was written in the introduction that "his outspokenness has earned him praise and criticism." Similarly, the article is updated with the same statement here, but I went further to provide sources for both the praise and the criticism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmuley_Boteach

Both statements of support are backed by official letterheads from their respective offices, making them primary sources. Rabbi Mizrachi included photographs of these letters, featuring the official letterheads, in his book "Yosef Chochma." There is no reason to doubt their authenticity, and no one has ever made such a claim. If preferred, I can cite "Yosef Chochma" as the source instead of directly referring to the office itself. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

... making them primary sources. This has been the problem with most of your edits. Have you read WP:PRIMARYSOURCE? Havradim leaf a message 06:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The removal of the sentence about his kiruv career speaking to irreligious audiences was wrong. It's quoted in the Israel National News/Arutz Sheva article by Rosenberg. You kept it in the lead but deleted it from the body without explanation. Also, it's widely known he is a rabbi, not a maggid. Doubtful statements on his halachic status are inappropriate. The two statements of support, on official letterhead, remain unquestioned in their authenticity, even by critics. Verify this by calling the respective offices if needed. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

"Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia". Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 11:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The actual quote is this: "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Leaving aside the omitted aspects about "easy to misuse" (though it's very applicable) - reputably published means in a reliable source - as defined by wikipedia guidelines. I think the onus is therefore to prove that Yosef Chochma is a reliable source.

Secondly, the edit-warring is tedious. I'm just going to revert some of the egregious things (like citations in the lede that are the names and addresses of people who purportedly endorse Mizrachi).

Thirdly, the sentence in the lede: "He is a leading kiruv rabbi whose outspokenness has earned him both praise by leading Orthodox authorities and criticism." I think we've already discussed this. You can't pretend that Orthodox Jews endorse him, and others criticise him. I see your 'one former Chief Rabbi of Israel and Chief Rabbi of Morocco, who haven't published their praise in a reliable source', and raise you 'the Chief Rabbi of the UK and Commonwealth, the head of the Sephardi community in the UK, Rabbi Avi Shafran of Agudath Israel of America, Rabbi Shalom Baum (former president of the RCA), Rabbi Daniel Feldman (Rosh Yeshiva at RIETS at Yeshiva University), Rabbi Gedalia Dov Schwartz (when he was alive the Av Beit Din and Rosh Beit Din from the Beth Din of America, the CRC, and the RCA)'. There are more. Their condemnation is found in reliable sources! (see for example https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2016-12-08/ty-article/.premium/u-s-rabbi-with-cult-like-following-slammed-by-orthodox-leaders/0000017f-f554-d460-afff-ff769ff90000).

Re: the point about Shmuley Boteach, if you think that the sources on that page don't justify saying that "his outspokenness has earned him praise and criticism", then edit that page. I don't understand how you can extrapolate that because some people have praised and criticised Shmuley Boteach in reliable sources, the same must be true of Yossi Mizrachi. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

My purpose in discussing the Shumely Boteach article is to highlight the need for equal application of Wikipedia's rules to all individuals. It is evident that this particular article faces excessive scrutiny when attempting to include anything positive about the subject as much as even saying that he has both criticism and praise or a well sourced statement about his career. This unequal treatment strongly implies bias in the handling of the content, even though such bias may not be explicitly prohibited by Wikipedia's guidelines. I want to clarify that I never implied the same should automatically apply to Rabbi Mizrachi; that would be a bizarre and unwarranted interpretation of my argument.

There's alot to unpack here so I want to focus on just two edits for now.

1/ Firstly, the edit describing Rabbi Mizrachi as a leading kiruv rabbi who has made a career from speaking to irreligious audiences, it is puzzling that it continues to be reverted without an explanation. This information was sourced from an article in Israel National News/Arutz Sheva by Rosenberg, which is considered a valid and reputable source. I'm genuinely interested in understanding your specific concerns about including this detail. It is crucial for you to explain why you disagree with this description and what evidence you have to support your stance that this should be omitted from the article.

2/ Regarding the letters of endorsement, I believe it would be helpful if you could explain why you find them not to be authentic and suggest how I can verify them for you as acceptable. What if I provide emails from the people who wrote the statements, confirming their legitimacy? Alternatively, if you prefer, I can cite the book 'Yosef Chochma' instead of relying on the offices that made the statements. Please let me know what information you would need to consider the book a reliable source for the letters. It's important to note that publishing a fake letter of endorsement is a heinous crime with extremely embarrassing repercussions, and there has been no accusation of such wrongdoing. Therefore, I don't think there's any reason to make an original claim that the letters are not authentic.

I've taken the time to explain every edit and source, with the hope that you can reciprocate by engaging in a constructive discussion to resolve any disagreements. I kindly ask for the same consideration in return, with the hope that you can engage in a constructive discussion about each point of disagreement to resolve any issues amicably. I believe that this approach is reasonable and will lead us towards a well-balanced and informative article on Rabbi Mizrachi. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I reinstated in the lead that Mizrachi is a leading kiruv rabbi based on the Arutz Sheva source. This is an uncontroversial fact that even his detractors concede to, so I think it belongs there. It is balanced by the criticism later in the same sentence. Havradim leaf a message 06:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I know you want each edit to be considered on its merits. Sorry but this is unfair to ask at this point. I'm going to revert to the page as it was before your edits. What I suggest it that we can try and reach consensus on any changes you want to make, on a case-by-case basis, here on the talk page (this is how it's supposed to be done). When an edit has consensus here, it can be added to the main page. Agreed? Samuelshraga (talk) 08:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I fully support your removal of the atrocious primary 'sources' added by Nycarchitecture212. I do not agree to the removal of Arutz Sheva though. Havradim leaf a message 06:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

While there is progress being made, the emphasis placed on italicizing the term "kiruv" is superfluous and the italicization has been removed. It inadvertently implies that a kiruv rabbi holds a lesser status, which is not accurate.

Moreover, the same Arutz Sheva source also described his engagement in kiruv activities primarily with religiously indifferent audiences, which has been omitted from the early career section. The decision to include the Arutz Sheva source solely in the introduction but to delete it from the body of the article seems arbitrary. I am genuinely curious about the rationale behind omitting this fundamental and non-controversial biographical detail.

As for the references to the letters cited in Yosef Chochma, I strongly disagree with the characterization of this source as "atrocious." Citing a letter that originates from a rabbinical office should not be subject to such a negative judgment. I am currently awaiting guidance on the appropriate citation method that would meet Samuelshraga's standards. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, atrocious, because there was no hyperlink for anyone to check what the source says, and also because it's a primary source, as explained by Samuelshraga. Extraordinary claims, such as support of chief rabbis, require independent, reliable sources, which these aren't. The problem here is it seems from the reliable sources that more rabbis oppose him than support him. And all we have to go on are the reliable sources. Also, there was no ... decision to include the Arutz Sheva source solely in the introduction but to delete it from the body.... This article is a minefield, and in minefields you have to proceed slowly. Your comment ... italicizing the term "kiruv" is superfluous and the italicization has been removed. It inadvertently implies that a kiruv rabbi holds a lesser status ... shows again that you are casting aspersions about other editors here, and you need to stop it. Italics in this case is for the foreign term. Havradim leaf a message 10:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Let's narrow our focus exclusively to the matter of italics. It's important to highlight the unintended impact that italicization might inadvertently have on how we perceive the status of a kiruv rabbi. To clarify, my critique was solely directed at the edits themselves and the potential consequences of using italics. I want to assure you that I assume your intentions are well-meaning.

The accusation you made against me might involve projecting your own concerns. By attributing a personal intent to my critique of the italicization, it could imply casting aspersions, which I'd like to clarify I don't appreciate. My earlier response, which you quoted, strictly addressed the italicization issue and had no personal implications. Let's refocus on the discussion itself and avoid unnecessary accusations or misunderstandings.

Recognizing that the Arutz Sheva source does not use italics is noteworthy. This prompts us to delve into the rationale behind their inclusion and explore ways to minimize any unintended hierarchical implications that may stem from their use.

As I eagerly await Samuelshraga's response to the two points I previously raised, I hope we can continue our discussion in a constructive manner about the possible inclusion of italicization without straying from the core matter at hand. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The core matter is how to edit a Wikipedia article according to Wikipedia guidelines. You said that It's important to highlight the unintended impact that italicization might inadvertently have on how we perceive the status of a kiruv rabbi. I'm not sure I understand you. Are you implying that all italics confer a lower status on the word they are applied to (including the word "all" in this sentence)? Are you implying that all foreign terms that Wikipedia guidelines require italicising are also conferred a lower status in this way? If so, I suggest you take that contention to the appropriate talk page and see how far you get with that. Havradim leaf a message 23:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Italics are a typographical tool commonly used for emphasis or highlighting. However, their impact on perception can vary based on the context in which they are employed. While italics are generally meant to draw attention to specific words or phrases, they can inadvertently convey a sense of lower status or unfamiliarity, potentially affecting the reader's interpretation. Here are two scenarios where italics might confer a lower status:

1/Skepticism and Irony:

In some cases, italics can be used to suggest skepticism or irony, indicating that the emphasized word or phrase is not to be taken at face value. For instance, consider the sentence: "He's such a genius when it comes to fixing things." The italics here suggest a degree of sarcasm, implying that the person's genius is being questioned.

2/ Highlighting Errors or Unconventionality:

Italics can also be used to emphasize errors, unusual usages, or unconventional terminology. In the sentence "The article contained several spelling mistakes," the italics draw attention to the mistakes, potentially implying a lower quality or credibility of the content.

Reiterating the point, it's worth noting that the absence of italics in the Arutz Sheva source holds significance. This observation encourages us to further examine the reasoning behind incorporating italics in an original way, and to strategize ways to mitigate any unintentional hierarchical connotations that could arise from their application.

While italics are a valuable tool for emphasis, their potential to influence perception should be considered to maintain a balanced and objective tone. It's crucial to approach the use of italics with care, particularly in contexts like Wikipedia articles, where neutrality and accurate representation are paramount. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I read He's such a genius when it comes to fixing things to mean emphasis, that he is a true genius. So you are just making stuff up. And this is not the Arutz Sheva newsroom, so we don't care a hill of beans about how they run their operations there. We only care about Wikipedia's guideline's and policies. Kiruv is a foreign term; most English speakers will be confused by this word since they don't recognise it, so Wikipedia seeks to differentiate words like this from English so as to allay that confusion. Yet you seem to have concluded that this is somehow about "lower quality" or "credibility", as if to say The English Wikipedia disparages all foreign languages. It is interesting how in your entire wall of text you managed to avoid my question about how you think this position of yours squares with the Wikipedia guidelines, so now I am asking again. Havradim leaf a message 10:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

When you quote my grammar explanation and say "So you are just making stuff up", what do you believe I am fabricating? I must express my disappointment in your apparent inclination to cast aspersions on my statements. I strictly addressed the italicization issue and had no personal implications. Let's refocus on the discussion itself and avoid unnecessary accusations or misunderstandings. Furthermore, I find it concerning that you have characterized my response as an extensive block of text. I took a considerable amount of time to provide a thoughtful answer to your inquiry, carefully considering each word.

Let me try again. Regarding your query about the use of italics, particularly in the context of the sentence you referenced, let's delve into the matter more deeply. In line with the principle of common sense outlined in Wikipedia's guidelines WP:COMMON, it becomes evident that the utilization of italics in this particular instance could potentially convey the hierarchical implication we are actively attempting to avoid. Thus, the responsibility lies with you to elucidate your rationale behind the insistence on including italics in that sentence. It is incumbent upon you to clarify how the article's quality is compromised by the absence of such italics, which it is not.

It is worth noting that Wikipedia's policy aligns with exercising common sense in editing, which inherently supports the exclusion of the emphasized italics you advocate for. Editors should not ignore reasoned explanations because they don't reference a bunch of shortcut links to official policies. If you still believe the article's quality is compromised by the absence of such italics, I look forward to your reasoned explanation that takes into account the fundamental guidelines and the overarching aim of preserving the clarity and comprehensibility of Wikipedia content. Do you disagree that in certain situations italics can inadvertently convey a sense of lower status or unfamiliarity, potentially affecting the reader's interpretation? Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort to try to understand Wikipedia's rules. WP:COMMON is an WP:ESSAY, while the Manual of Style is a guideline, which takes precedence over essays. Wikipedia's policy aligns with exercising common sense in editing, which inherently supports the exclusion of the emphasized italics you advocate for. It is not common sense to ignore the Manual of Style, which was written over a long period of time through a consensus of many editors, simply because you don't understand it or choose to agree with it. Pending your acceptance of the italics, I went ahead and added an explanatory link to the foreign term, so that readers won't be confused. Also, please read Help:Talk pages#Indentation. Thank you. Havradim leaf a message 02:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe that the edit you made to split the content into two sentences effectively resolves the issue. Additional modifications are unnecessary, especially given the presence of the readily accessible hyperlink you included. Are you comfortable with maintaining it that way? When a word like "kiruv" is italicized before a word like "rabbi," it may unintentionally suggest a sense of distinction or even a hint of exoticism. This could be perceived as implying that the concept of "kiruv" is somehow foreign or separate from the core practices of a "rabbi," which it is not. By refraining from italicizing "kiruv" before "rabbi," the sentence maintains a balanced and accurate representation of the concepts it discusses. In Manual of Style at the top of the page, it is noted that exceptions occasionally arise. In this context, I suggest that the addition of italics should be omitted to prevent suggesting any negative implications or hierarchical distinctions between terms. I approve of your edit otherwise. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Samuelshraga Hi Sam, I hope you're doing well. It's been a couple of weeks since we last discussed, and I wanted to reconnect. I would greatly appreciate your insights on a couple of points that have been on my mind.

Firstly, I'm curious about your perspective on the suggestion to exclude the Arutz Sheva quote that discusses his lectures. This quote is a well-sourced and factual aspect of his career, providing a dry and foundational understanding. Including it seems pertinent to a comprehensive overview. Secondly, I'm interested in understanding the criteria that you consider essential for Yosef Chochma to be considered a credible source for the letters in question. I did previously attempt to reference the letters as primary sources offline, but it seems my approach didn't quite align with your expectations. Given that there are photocopies of the letters available in the book and their authenticity remains unchallenged, I am contemplating using Yosef Chochma as a secondary source. This would acknowledge the balanced reality that a prominent figure like him naturally garners both support and criticism. Such a neutral observation shouldn't be a point of contention. It's worth noting that the article already contains a substantial amount of criticism, so I'm a bit uncertain about the concerns you might have. Additionally, there haven't been any claims challenging the authenticity of the letters, making it seem unnecessary to delve into this unless there's concrete evidence suggesting otherwise. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 03:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Nycarchitecture212. As regards the Arutz Sheva source:

I removed the Arutz Sheva reference because I was restoring an earlier version, I'm not against including it per se - seems like there is consensus on that. I think the term "leading Kiruv rabbi" is potentially misleading in this context (are we talking about someone who is a leader amongst Kiruv Rabbis?)

In general, I think the second sentence of the lede as it stands now has issues. The first part: "Considered a leading kiruv (Orthodox Judaism outreach) rabbi," leaves open the question of by whom is he considered leading?

The second part is problematic because of the sourcing: The Boteach piece is not the right source for him being denounced by leading Orthodox Jewish authorities, the Haaretz one addresses that far better [1].

That said, what do we think about this version, which I think is fair:

"A prominent kiruv (Orthodox Judaism outreach) rabbi with a large online following^[1], Mizrachi's outspokenness on certain issues has led to him being widely denounced and characterised as being misguided by leading Orthodox Jewish authorities.^[2][3]"

[1] Arutz Sheva article

[2] Forward article

[3] Haaretz article

Samuelshraga (talk) 06:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Samuelshraga We are discussing an individual who is widely recognized as a leading kiruv rabbi, as explicitly mentioned in the Arutz Sheva article. This specific term is used in the accepted source to accurately portray him as one of the most prominent kiruv rabbis today, and it should not be a point of contention, as it is unambiguous and grammatically correct. If there are concerns about the accuracy of describing him as such, it's important to provide an explanation for questioning the information presented in the Arutz Sheva article. Until such concerns are addressed, the information should be considered as it stands.

I'm fine with updating it to "large following" but the term "online" might inadvertently suggest a disproportionate focus on the digital space. While his online presence is noteworthy and can be mentioned in the career section, it should not dominate the lead section, as it misrepresents the true extent of his support. I disagree with the notion of describing his following as primarily online in the lead. His support extends beyond the digital realm and includes a significant offline presence and all of his lectures are live in person, across hundreds of venues and synagogues.

To ensure a well-rounded article, I plan to add a sentence acknowledging that any prominent figure naturally attracts both support and criticism. This balanced perspective recognizes the diverse opinions and a more complete picture.

I'm actively considering utilizing the Yosef Chochma book as a source to substantiate the inclusion of a sentence acknowledging his support. Notably, there has been no challenge to the authenticity of the photocopies of letters contained therein, which would indeed constitute an original claim. While I previously attempted to reference the letters directly as primary sources offline, it appears that my approach didn't align with your expectations. It's crucial to maintain a clear focus on the content and implications of the letters, rather than being diverted into unnecessary debates about authenticity.

The article already includes a significant amount of criticism, that is being retained, and I want to include a sentence about support. This would acknowledge the balanced reality that a prominent figure like him naturally garners both support and criticism. The addition of such a neutral observation shouldn't be a point of contention and is a straightforward way to improve the quality of the article. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 09:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Nycarchitecture212. If you are going to insist on using the exact term from the Arutz Sheva article, you should put it in quotation marks. I do not think we need to argue over using the term "prominent". An alternative would be to try and survey the reliable sources which describe him and reach some kind of consensus description on the back of it.

To be honest, I regret the term "large online following" - it is unclear what we are comparing it to for size. If there are reliable sources that quantify his influence or following, I would be interested in using them here.

"I plan to add a sentence acknowledging that any prominent figure naturally attracts both support and criticism." Please refrain from doing so until you can find any indication that this is standard (or even extraordinary) practice on wikipedia. Compare it to people who are viewed as controversial such as Katie Hopkins, J. K. Rowling or Noam Chomsky. I dare you to try and insert a similar sentence contextualising the criticism of them. If you can get it accepted by consensus to any of those pages, I'll raise no objection to doing it here. Frankly, the idea is laughable that he "naturally attracts" this criticism because of his prominence. Name me an Orthodox Rabbi with smicha from any known Orthodox institution who has had an article like this written about them in Yeshiva World News (or is YWN now pushing an anti-religious/anti-Orthodox agenda?). If you can't take the criticism of Mizrachi seriously, then you have no business editing this article.

As for balancing that criticism with haskamot from Yosef Chochma - who is the publisher of Yosef Chochma? Was it self-published by Yosef Mizrachi? I don't know if there is a wikipedia practice about using haskamot as a source in BLP entries. If it is the normal practice, that's one thing. However, a haskama printed in a self-published source is not reliable. Why? Because Wikipedia:SELFPUBLISHED. Can a self-published source be reliable as a source of information about the person who published it? According to Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF, not if the "the material is neither unduly self-serving" or includes "claims about third parties", both of which would apply here.

As for your final point about balance, I think it is worth quoting the Wikipedia policy on due and undue weight of differing opinions:

Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

Samuelshraga (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

As per your earlier statement, you conveyed that if I could "insert a similar sentence contextualizing the criticism of them (Katie Hopkins, J. K. Rowling or Noam Chomsky). . and can get it accepted by consensus to any of those pages, [you'll] raise no objection to doing it here." Interestingly, such sentences already exist in the lead sections of Wikipedia entries of controversial public figures. For instance, J.K. Rowling's Wikipedia page within the lead section includes this sentence: "These have been criticized as transphobic by LGBT rights organizations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals." Additionally, on Shuley Boteach's page, a renowned rabbi, the lead section contains this phrase verbatim: "His outspokenness has earned him praise and criticism." Given your prior affirmation and the presence of such statements on J.K. Rowling's page, I am proceeding with the addition of a straightforward and uncontroversial sentence in Mizrachi's article. This sentence will adeptly contextualize his criticism by acknowledging both the support and criticism he has received. Additionally, I will proceed with restoring the biographical information from the Arutz Sheva source, as we've reached a "consensus" that it shouldn't be omitted.

Mizrachi issued an apology for his comments, and the YeshivaWorld article you referenced predominantly centers on critiquing those remarks rather than delving into his personal character. It's somewhat puzzling that you would interpret it as a personal critique. Regarding your other question, should you require examples of rabbis who have faced negative articles, a quick Google search will yield numerous instances for reference.

Concerning the inclusion of accolades from rabbis in Mizrachi's career section, intended to offset the extensive criticism sections, I have located such accolades in one of his books, "Preparation for Eternal Life - The Truth of the Holy Torah, Judaism, Ethics, and Repentance," published by the reputable HaKeter Institute. This institute has published works like "Yalkut Yosef," authored by the Chief Rabbi of Israel. Therefore, establishing this as a credible source, I strongly insist for the inclusion of these accolades in a sentence in the career section, as they contribute substantively to a well-rounded portrayal of Mizrachi's career and reputation, unless you beleive that HaKeter Institute is not a reliable source.

Finally, I recommend consolidating the "condemnation/banning" and "controversies" sections into a single "criticism" section. This will enhance the article's overall structure. Please share any objections you may have to this suggestion. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

You are conflating two issues. Yes, there is a sentence in the lede saying that JK Rowling has support. That's because prominent individuals and groups have publicly declared their support, in reliable sources. If you look at the relevant section of the article (under Views -> Transgender people), you will find what is currently reference 456, a collection of a half-dozen article-length declarations of support that are both from prominent individuals and were published in unquestionably reliable sources. You will not find someone contextualising the criticism (or even the praise, but especially the criticism) of Rowling's views and statements by saying "any prominent figure naturally attracts both support and criticism". I don't actually suggest you try, but if you did it wouldn't last five minutes.

Similarly, I think the difference is that Shmuley Boteach may have received some actual praise published in reliable sources. If he hasn't, feel free to correct that page, not this one.

Re: the YWN article, you don't think it was personal? I re-read it. Seemed very personal to me. My point was not that Rabbis do not get articles written about them, it's that I don't know of YWN attacking one in such terms.

"Concerning the inclusion of accolades from rabbis in Mizrachi's career section, intended to offset the extensive criticism sections"

This, @Nycarchitecture212, is the problem. You're seeking (at every turn) to offset the criticism. Not to include factual and reliably sourced information. I can find little or no information on Haketer Institute online, so I don't know how they got to be reputable. Please attach sources to their reputability and we'll talk. I won't blanket revert your edit of today, although I think it's wrong to make these changes in the middle of the discussion. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Incorporating accolades into the article would be helpful in demonstrating support in the early career section, and not only criticism and controversy which is the bulk of the article right now. It's important to clarify that the suggestion isn't rooted in the general notion that "prominent figures attract both support and criticism." Instead, it stems from your previous statement that you'd have no objections if a similar sentence contextualizing criticism were accepted for figures like Katie Hopkins, J.K. Rowling, or Noam Chomsky. Given this agreement, I believe it's only fair and consistent to include such statements here. To reiterate, I want to update the lead to mention he has both criticism and support. If it's true and possible to prove that he has significant support as well, we must not omit it.

Regarding Mizrachi's status as a prominent Rabbi, Arutz Sheva/Israel National News, a reputable Israeli newspaper, clearly recognizes him as such. As @Havradim another editor agreed, this is non-controversial and an obvious statement. Therefore, tagging the statement with "citation needed" behind the word "leading" or behind the word "rabbi" is redundant. I'm open to modifying "leading" to a different descriptor, but I'd appreciate clarity on the citation you're seeking and why Arutz Sheva isn't considered sufficient in this context.

The sentence about Mizrachi's groundbreaking use of social media for Jewish education is entirely warranted as it's both properly cited and factual. He was among the first to utilize social media for this purpose, starting as early as 2004 as cited in the previous sentence. The sentence from the article undoubtedly pertains to rabbis in general, but it's also applicable to him specifically.

Furthermore, I believe there might be a misinterpretation. My intention isn't to exclude criticism but rather to provide a more balanced view. To label my efforts as "not to include factual and reliably sourced information" is an inaccurate characterization. My goal is to strike a balance by incorporating both praise and criticism. I would appreciate clarity on your concerns. We can maintain the criticisms while also including a sentence or two of support, which is properly cited and is no longer from a self-published source. I insist on including the accolades in a simple sentence in the early career section, pending any objections you have, if you have original research suggesting that HaKeter Institute is not reliable.

Regarding the HaKeter Institute, it's worth noting that they serve as the publishing house for the Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rishon Lezion Yosef, which significantly bolsters their credibility. https://sites.google.com/a/haketer.com/yalkut-yosef-v2-0/who-we-are "HaKeter Institute aims to present, in an organized and comprehensive format, the practical halakhic decisions that are vital to Jewish life for Sefardic Jews everywhere. These rulings follow the decisions of Maran Harav Yosef Karo as set forth by Maran the Rishon Letziyon, Harav Ovadya Yosef, ZT"L." They also have their books available in Eichlers. https://www.shopeichlers.com/vendor/haketer-institute-yerushalayim/212

We no longer have to debate how to cite self-published sources as I've found a more straightforward citation. I'm moving forward with proceeding with citing this source unless you maintain that Rishon Lezion Yosef's publishing house is not reliable. If there are concerns about their legitimacy, I'm open to hearing them.

Regarding your negative comments and labeling things as "laughable," let's keep the tone constructive and respectful. We're here to collaborate and improve the article together. Remember, healthy discussions lead to better articles. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Havradim we had reached a consensus, I believed, that in some cases, italics could be used to suggest skepticism or irony, indicating that the emphasized word or phrase is not to be taken at face value. For instance, consider the sentence: "He's such a genius when it comes to fixing things." The italics here imply a degree of sarcasm, suggesting that the person's genius is being questioned. Once again, when a word like "kiruv" is italicized before a word like "rabbi," it may unintentionally suggest a sense of distinction or even a hint of exoticism. This could be perceived as implying that the concept of "kiruv" is somehow foreign or separate from the core practices of a "rabbi," which it is not. By refraining from italicizing "kiruv" before "rabbi," the sentence maintains a balanced and accurate representation of the concepts it discusses. In Manual of Style at the top of the page, it is noted that exceptions occasionally arise. In this context, I suggest that the addition of italics should be omitted to prevent suggesting any negative implications or hierarchical distinctions between terms. I noticed you reinstated the italics, after I thought we came up with something that works, so I am reverting it to our prior agreement and want to discuss any concerns about it on this talk page to reach a consensus. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I never agreed to any such thing. You removing a transliteration template because WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not acceptable, nor is reverting to your preferred version against consensus. Your insistence that a letter in a book is a reliable source because it is published by the same institute that publishes books of the Chief Rabbi (and you can buy it in a Jewish book store) is indeed quaint, and a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Since almost 3/4 of your edits on Wikipedia have had to do with Yosef Mizrachi, may I ask if you have or have had any conflict of interest about him, such as being related in some way or working for him? Havradim leaf a message 10:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, I did not remove the transliteration template or revert to a preferred version simply because I "didn't like it." We spent weeks deliberating in the thread above regarding updating the lead sentence, and its current form is almost exactly as you originally intended.

We spent several days discussing the italics; otherwise, I left your edit almost exactly intact. I believed previously we had reached a consensus that your previous edit, which explained the meaning of the word "kiruv," by adding the words "Orthodox Judiasm Outreach" with a link would be sufficient. You didn't respond for three weeks, and the page remained unedited during that time, leading me to believe we reached a consensus on that.

Now that I'm aware that this isn't the case, I kindly request that you address my points. Just two days ago, when another editor added a "citation needed" tag, you made edits without prior discussion on the dedicated talk page thread for italics usage. I found this disappointing, and you have yet to respond to the points I raised, all of which were presented in good faith. Without your response, it's unreasonable for you to make accusations, especially when I'm actively trying to engage in a discussion that you appear unwilling to participate in. The responsibility to explain your position in a clear and coherent manner is not solely mine; it's a shared responsibility.

Regarding the source I found, it's important to clarify that I am not citing a letter; that was related to a previous source discussed. Currently, we are discussing citing the "accolades" section of a different book, specifically the first few pages. The purpose of that discussion in the other thread is to determine if it qualifies as an acceptable source according to Wikipedia's standards and guidelines.

Furthermore, let's focus on the content and avoid making assumptions about my motives or affiliations. Accusing me of a conflict of interest or suggesting a connection to Yosef Mizrachi is unfounded and potentially harmful. I have a full-time job and limited time to work on Wikipedia articles. My contributions are made in good faith and adhere to Wikipedia's content guidelines.

In Wikipedia discussions, it's vital to uphold a civil and constructive tone, avoid unfounded accusations, and focus on content and sources rather than speculating about personal motives or affiliations. Let's carry forward our discussion with a presumption of goodwill, placing emphasis on content excellence rather than engaging in unwarranted criticisms. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nycarchitecture212 Sorry I haven't replied for a while. Given that the uncertainty here seems to be about whether approbations constitute a reliable source, and when a publishing house confers reliability on the contents of a source, let's ask for some help. Would you agree to a Wikipedia:Requests for comment? Or a post on the Wikipedia:Reliable Sources Noticeboard? Samuelshraga (talk) 06:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Another good venue could be the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism - they may be more familiar with haskamot and Jewish pubishers and how they've been treated. @Havradim you might also want to weigh in? Samuelshraga (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Samuelshraga, No worries, I hope your new year is off to a great start. I'm feeling a bit puzzled, to be honest. Regarding the source's reliability, are you implying it's unreliable, or is your concern primarily related to the policy surrounding citing accolades? Your position isn't entirely clear, and I would appreciate some clarification first.

Secondly, does Wikipedia currently have a policy in place to differentiate accolades from other aspects of a book? If not, could you please explain the reasoning behind not including the accolades in the article for the time being while you petition to get the rules updated? If, in fact, including the sentence aligns with Wikipedia's policies, it would appear counterintuitive to argue for its omission. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I want to ask for comment on both:

1. Whether this book should be considered a reliable source (on the basis that we are relying on this publisher to fact-check the content).

2. If it is WP policy to use approbations (not accolades, which I think are somewhat different). In standard non-Jewish books, I think the closest thing would be dust-jacket quotes given by third-parties and used by the author/publisher to promote the book. I don't know if there is policy about these, but if there is, in the absence of any more specific policy it seems to me we could follow it.

It may be the case that the approbations in religious Jewish books, which tend to be longer and printed inside the book - but conversely are not normally drawn from reviews published elsewhere - are viewed differently, hence why I suggest asking WikiProject: Judaism if there is a more specific approach to these. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it's worth investigating if Wikipedia has a specific policy about using approbations (or their equivalents) in articles. However, it's important to remember that our primary concern should be whether including such information aligns with Wikipedia's existing content guidelines. If there is no explicit policy against including accolades or approbations, and if doing so doesn't violate any other content guidelines, it would be counterintuitive to argue for their omission solely on the grounds that there might be different standards for religious Jewish books.

Regarding your suggestion to consult WikiProject:Judaism for a more specific approach, that's a reasonable step to consider in the future. However, it should not be used as a way to delay or avoid addressing the core question of whether the inclusion of accolades or approbations in this specific case aligns with Wikipedia's general content guidelines. While expert input can be valuable, it should complement, not replace, our analysis of existing policies.

If there are no specific policies against including accolades or approbations, and if the source checks out as reliable, it would seem logical to include the relevant information. If you have further concerns or objections, please feel free to share them so we can address them directly. Otherwise, I'd like to move forward with the inclusion of the sentence in the career section. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

In light of careful consideration, it is evident that the HaKeter Institute, the publisher of the Chief Rabbi of Israel and the recipient of prestigious awards like the Rabbi Toledano and Rav Kook Prizes, can confidently be recognized as a reliable source. The incorporation of accolades from this source into the article's career section rectifies a prior omission and contributes to a more well-rounded portrayal of the subject by including both expressions of support and criticism.

It is important to note that the HaKeter Institute serves as the publishing house for the Chief Rabbi of Israel, and the significance of the Rav Kook and Rabbi Toledano prizes further substantiates the reliability of this source. I kindly urge fellow editors not to revert this edit without engaging in constructive discussion on the talk page.

To maintain the article's integrity, it is crucial for those who disagree with this update to present a compelling case demonstrating either (1) why the source is unreliable, supported by concrete evidence, or (2) cite relevant Wikipedia policies that justify treating accolades differently from other aspects of the source. If you opt for option (b), please be transparent about whether you consider the source reliable or not.

At this juncture the trustworthiness of the source has been affirmed. Therefore, it falls upon those who contest this edit to clarify why they believe the article is lacking in its current form, where statements of support are now adequately represented. The current state of the article encompasses an ample amount of criticism, while support is meticulously sourced. Let us work diligently to reach a consensus, as I have adhered conscientiously to the established criteria and successfully located a properly sourced statement of support from a Chief Rabbi of Israel, as was previously requested on the talk page. Given that accolades are the appropriate means to cite such information from a book, and the form in which statements of support typically appears in a book, it appears unjust to question the legitimacy of this source at this stage. It's time to acknowledge the credibility of this source and move forward toward consensus. I respectfully request that we avoid further disputes regarding the inclusion of statements of support, as my contribution merely consists of one sentence and a quote, aiming for a more comprehensive and balanced article. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't agree with you about confidently recognising Haketer Institute as conferring reliability on all books it publishes. I can at most stipulate that it's a question. The idea that because a notable person published something in one publishing house, content in all other books published by them must be reliable, seems to me highly dubious. I have asked in WikiProject Judaism for some help with clarifying this issue. If we don't get response there, I'm happy to ask in the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

I'll also note that adding the honorific Rabbi as you have done in your last edits is definitely not standard wikipedia practice, I believe is contrary to policy or the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I'm not going to revert you now - I don't want to edit war. I don't think we're going to agree on anything to be honest, so I think we must go to outside forums for input. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Addressing the claim that we can't find common ground: it's contentious and doesn't reflect my willingness for constructive discussions. My concern is that you've posted on the board without involving me in drafting, which doesn't align with Wikipedia's collaborative spirit.

Consider a diverse group working on an article about a historical figure. If a contributor consistently opposes mentioning positive aspects, the article becomes unbalanced. Wikipedia's core principle is a balanced perspective, covering achievements and controversies.

Suggesting that publishers don't confer credibility on the books they publish seems illogical. If not the publishers, then what other factor would confer credibility to these works? It's a fundamental aspect to consider when evaluating the trustworthiness and authority of a source. Reputable publishers, in many cases, confer credibility on the books they publish by following rigorous vetting processes. Their involvement and track record adds to the trustworthiness of the work.

To promote cooperation, involve me in drafting and posting questions on relevant boards. Provide a link to your post on the Judaism Wiki page. Let's clarify your concerns with the source. If accolades are an appropriate way to cite such information, reconsider your opposition. I found a properly sourced statement of support from a Chief Rabbi of Israel, meeting the criteria you previously suggested. It's time to acknowledge this source's credibility and move towards consensus. Given that accolades are the appropriate means to cite such information from a book, and the form in which statements of support typically appear in a Jewish book, it appears unjust to require it in a different form.

Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Revolutionized the use of social media

I modified a sentence added by Nycarchitecture212, which went

Rabbi Mizrachi has revolutionized the use of social media for Orthodox Jewish outreach, and has made a point of speaking to irreligious audiences throughout his career.

The problem is, the source says no such thing. Rather:

These "kiruv" rabbis revolutionized the use of social media for religious education, and made a point of speaking to irreligious audiences, looking to bring them back to the faith. [2]

The source says nothing about Mizrachi in particular, only kiruv rabbis in general, of which he is one. Nycarchitecture212 themselves noted that this might be a problem on Sep 5, when they said The sentence about Mizrachi's groundbreaking use of social media for Jewish education is entirely warranted as it's both properly cited and factual. He was among the first to utilize social media for this purpose, starting as early as 2004 as cited in the previous sentence. The sentence from the article undoubtedly pertains to rabbis in general, but it's also applicable to him specifically. [3] The problem is, the sentence as originally worded gives the false impression that he was the one who revolutionised it, when really he wasn't. The version I inserted reads

He is one of the rabbis who revolutionized the use of social media for Orthodox Jewish outreach, aimed especially at non-religious audiences. 

Also, the language was a bit too close to the original, so I paraphrased it to avoid plagiarism. Havradim leaf a message 07:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Havdarim: We are currently waiting for input from other editors. I restored some things you deleted again. Please refrain from injecting further changes in the meantime, as it can be perceived as aggressive, and hinders the consensus-building process. I don't expect us to suddenly agree on everything, but I thought we had agreed to wait for input from others. I will leave the info box, and the other edit to address your concerns about clarifying that he alone didn't revolutionize online kiruv, but the other edits need to wait, unless you want to keep going back and forth.

I have concerns about other parts too, but expect you to reciprocate the restraint while we wait for input from Wiki Project Judaism on the career section. Unless that is all going out the window and I should move forward with my edits on other sections. I'm sure we will disagree on more, but I just want you to have a little respect for the process and wait before we address other sections.

Also, it distracts from the careful deliberation needed for other sections pending and I think the other points I made need to be addressed by you before you open up a new can of worms. This is distracting as you made half a dozen edits tonight on the article despite the consensus I thought we had to wait for input from Wiki Project Judaism. If you keep it up, it will just be an all out edit war. Hang tight, and wait for the other editors to provide input. You'll have a future opportunity to make contributions. I have concerns about other parts too, but expect you to reciprocate the restraint while we wait for input from others. Does that make sense or not to you? Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 07:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

What makes sense to me from the above reply is that it is a classic example of WP:OWNERSHIP. And this is not aplhabet soup either, since I've actually spelled it out for you so that it would be crystal clear. Especially this sentence: I will leave the info box, and the other edit to address your concerns about clarifying that he alone didn't revolutionize online kiruv, but the other edits need to wait So thank you, dear owner of this article, for your acceptance of my infobox, even though you initially rejected it. I shall be eternally grateful to you. Havradim leaf a message 09:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Every other editor that has made a statement has disagreed with your edits. Your continued filibustering with walls of text just makes people unwilling to engage as to avoid wasting time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Why do you believe this is a waste of time? In my view, we've made significant progress with the article by clarifying what kind of sources are needed, which brought us to this point. When you mention 'every other editor,' it's important to note that we're a relatively small group, perhaps just three or four individuals. We're currently awaiting input from additional editors, and I find it disheartening that you're labeling my efforts as a waste of time and as some of my responses as walls of text, makes me think you didn't bother to read them when I thought over every single word.

I genuinely believe that we're making progress, especially as we await input on accolades and the influence of publishers on a work's credibility. I got there only by discussion with Samuelshraga and don't regret a moment of discourse. I'm not sure why you don't see this as productive, and I'd appreciate not shaking the boat and just waiting for an update on those two items before approaching other sections of the article. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 09:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Havradim that it fails verification and should be removed. DFlhb (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)