Talk:Marc Gafni/Archive 1

Archive 1

Oxford doctorate

I've not been able to find any third-party verification that Gafni indeed did receive his doctorate from Oxford. All assertions are linked back to him saying that it is true. When stories quote it, it's based on him saying that it's true. Given that this person has had two ordinations revoked and has been accused of sexual assault twice, shouldn't this be verified? This seems sketchy. I'm not signing because I like to edit anonymously on a wide variety of topics. 4 tildas in spirit.

Here are two sources and anyone is free to call the number directly to confirm. https://www.lukeford.net/Images/photos/gafnioxford.pdf And his official Academia.Edu profile under the verified Oxford account. https://oxford.academia.edu/MarcGafni

No more vandalism. Either this man is notable for his contributions and the scandals are a point in the story, or he doesn't deserve a wiki page. No one is famous for sexual assault alone, and the undue weight towards scandal and obvious history of abuse has led me to request ongoing protection for this page.

Thank you for these sources. These are not the sources cited in the article. I will update the sources accordingly. In the future, I think the best course of action would have been to update the citations in the article, rather than suggesting that a good faith, long-time editor (writing anonymously) is a vandal and suggesting that the article should be deleted. 4 tildas in spirit

Added Academia.edu source mentioned above. Netanya9 (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

His personal web site

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

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

--Avi (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Catalyst letters to the editor

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

+1— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:102:8b:c145:6af6:229a:dcfc (talk) January 23, 2016‎

Recent edits

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

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

All of the citations surrounding Gafni's writing were either dead links or they went to Gafni's own site, or to an article that was not related to the content of the sentence. I removed the dead links or the links that were unrelated to the content of the sentence and replaced them with citation needed. I was disturbed by this because it has citations and appears to be legitimate but then it was either dead or immaterial. Not once, not twice, it was a pattern throughout the section on his writing. Annaproject (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent additions

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

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

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

2011 on Controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Formatting

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

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

Teachings

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

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

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

See Also

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

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

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

Summit 3.0

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

Allegation

Although I added some earlier articles about the "allegations", including the info about the formal police investigation, etc. which was missing before, I do not like this addition and I plan to remove it. Disregarding the likeness of these newest allegations, I think that these have not been vetted by third-party reporters against e.g. police reports or other interviews, and thus are WP:Undue. Please discuss, taking also into account that it is a biography of a living person, so we have to be extra careful here. Zezen (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Very likely it the matter (such allegations or us publishing the details on Wikipedia) was reported to (by their lawyer?) and discussed by the Volunteer Team, under The OTRS ticket 2008072510003397, as per above, but we do not have access thereto, nor has the VT mentioned it here explicitelyZezen (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC).

No, that is a 2008 ticket and can not have discussed the opinion piece. Personally, I'm not sure it belongs in the text either, as it is an anonymous opinion. On the other hand, the Times of Israel is a reputable source, and while they state that the piece is not their opinion, I do not think they would not have stated this was an ex-wife without checking. This wasn't posted on Blogger or Wordpress. -- Avi (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Avi - Thank you for your (polite) voice and sorry for my mental shortcut. I amended my comment hereabove. See the talk history of the article for the sockpupets, suspected WP:COI and the usual admin hullaballoo some years back. Zezen (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Zezen:, I've looked at the ticket and it spans communication over the years 2008–2010. I was involved in part of it, but there were a number of OTRS respondents who worked on trying to keep this article in the confines of Wikipedia guidelines: neither improperly accusatory nor improperly apologetic. Regardless, the paragraph in question here was not mentioned by Marc or people working with him as it did not exist at that time. Perhaps this is a question to be posed at WP:BLP: what do we do with anonymous/pseudonymous opinions or editorials posted in reliable sources which are very pertinent to the subject, but are the personal opinions of the author. Personally, I would say that if this woman posted this under her own name in a reliable source, there would be no problem with some mention thereof. Regardless, I think there may be too much and I intend to pare down the section somewhat. We have the source; the interested reader can follow the link and read her entire post should he or she desire. -- Avi (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Placement of sexual assault claims paragraph

Undoubtedly, the sexual assault claims are a significant component to Gafni's notability, but as for article chronology, they naturally belong after the basics: his bio and his philosophy. They are not hidden at all where they are, and there is no good reason encyclopaedicly speaking to change the natural ordering of a biography article to "make a splash" that is really just as apparent where it is now. If you disagree, please explain why. -- Avi (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey Avi, I hadn't read this before I made that change. Given the flurry of articles recently written on this, I moved it up because it appears that it is becoming increasingly relevant to his biography. If you decide to change it back, I understand. Thanks for your attention on this article and your NPOV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:102:8b:c145:6af6:229a:dcfc (talk) January 23, 2016‎

Classically, we would describe the person's birth and upbringing before their notability. As for putting teachings before or after sexual issues, since they are both elements of Gafni's notability, I don't see the harm in putting the teachings first. It is not as if Wikipedia is trying to whitewash his actions. We have to balance whitewashing with criticism, and as long as both sections are properly sourced and cited, I think it is fine to put the sexual assault section second. The article isn't long enough, IMO, that moving it down will "hide it." I would welcome other thoughts on this as well. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Avi, nice to meet you. It looks like you've done a lot of work on this article and represented the facts well. I have a question. I recently noticed a change.org petition in which 3,556 people (mostly Rabbis, it appears) signed a petition denouncing Marc Gafni and asking three institutions to cut off financial support to him. Is this the kind of thing that would go in the article? I'm asking about this particular case, but also about NPOV and biographies of living persons in general. In this specific case, it is somewhat compelling in the sense that these are recognized spiritual leaders in the tradition that Marc says he represents (or formerly represented?) but I'm not clear how to think about this case specifically or this type of source generally. Annaproject (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

When I attempted to link to the petition, it gave me an alert that Change.org is a blocked site, so that might answer some of my question :), but I'm wondering if you could still impart some knowledge for me here. Annaproject (talk) 05:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Polygraph placement

Hello Avi (talk). I'm confused and could use a bit of help. When I went to the polygraph test, it was not about the women at Bayit Hadesh, it was about the allegations of the 13 year old, some 30 years prior. But the citation here makes it seem like this was relevant to the Bayit Hadesh. Were there two polygraph tests? If not, this polygraph information, which is very relevant, is in the wrong place. It should be related to the claims of the 13 year old. I erred on the side of likely too long of a quote because we can always slim it down later. Thoughts? Annaproject (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Annaproject. It's report 1b that relates to the Haifa issue, not 1a and 2, which relate to Sara and Judy. We should clean up that section. -- Avi (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems like you understand the two separate issues and will clean it up over time. I'll read up more and I'll help as I can. :) Annaproject (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure. I don't think we need to bring the Barland disclaimer from 2. We don't quote Gafni referring to it directly in the article. While he does bring it in his response to Kabakov in the Forward (citation 7 as of now?) the inherent issues with polygraphs (and possibly the wrong questions) are already brought by the expert opinion in that very piece, so I think we're OK for now. Can you review it as well, please? Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Medium.com quote

Normally we don't allow self-published sources, but in this case we are using it as a link to Gafni's own writings about the allegations so I think it is OK. My concern is that he seems to be responding to a sequence of writings by his ex-wife, Chaya Lester, and we don't have any links to those. Well, she is probably the anonymous author of the Times of Israel piece, but we cannot say that ourselves, that would be WP:OR. So I think it would be appropriate to at least mention what Gafni is responding to in the Medium piece. -- Avi (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Avi. Actually, WP:SELFPUB allows us to use self-published material as sources in an article about the author, provided the source meets certain criteria ("the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim", "it does not involve claims about third parties") that may not be satisfied in this case. But I agree with you: if we allow Gafni's column, titled "The Missing Facts, Motives, and Hidden Malice in My Ex-Wife’s Articles about Me, Marc Gafni: A Response by Marc Gafni", we should include—at a minimum—reference to some of the "missing articles" about Gafni by his ex-wife to which he is claiming to reply. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marc Gafni. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130411081027/http://www.marcgafni.com/video_audio/video/series-1-4-spots-dubbed-in-english/ to http://www.marcgafni.com/video_audio/video/series-1-4-spots-dubbed-in-english/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Noted. -- Avi (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Phil show appearance

How are we handling Dr. Phil Show appearance? Gafni went on the show, refuted his antagonists' claims, and Dr. Phil appears to have investigated and clarified a few points. 174.47.44.30 (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Separately, the related source on the polygraph shows four questions related to BH. 174.47.44.30 (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

You seem not to understand the difference between "refute" and "rebut". In any event, the main policy for you to consult is: WP:BRD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Gafni has repeatedly denied the allegations made against him. The article says so. It should not be padded with every additional denial Gafni makes. If Gafni says something new, it may belong in the article. If he repeats that he didn't do what he is accused of... well, he's said that before and the article says so, so why repeat it? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's address the issues I raised. There were "four" or "one" question(s) related to Bayat? I count 1-2-3-4 questions. 64.61.20.98 (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I removed that sentence; it added nothing of value to the article and only served to confuse. If anyone is interested in reading it for themselves, they can follow the link. -- Avi (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

And who went on the Dr. Phil Show? Gafni, or someone else? (Right now we represent Sarah, the accuser, went on the show. I don't see her in the chair though.64.61.20.98 (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Read the source... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection may be needed again

There has been a spate of improper edits recently. If we have to, we will semi-protect the page again. Neither whitewashing nor slurring is allowed. Edits must conform to policy and guidelines. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Has this article been recommended for deletion for undue weight?

68.231.204.2 (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Seraph, thank you for contributions on Wikipedia. You mentioned in the history that you have recommended this article for deletion for undue weight. This is one of the only properties on the internet that neutrally describes the serious allegations against Gafni. If you delete, you may well be serving another aim. Also, I don't think it's appropriate to say that you will lock a page because an experienced editor decides to participate anonymously. That doesn't yet sound like an appropriate course of action. It also doesn't sound appropriate that supported points of view that differ from yours are vandalism. Further, yes people can be famous for sexual assault. I struggle to understand how anyone can assert otherwise. I think a better course of action than deletion would be to add and cite relevant works.

Seraph, thank you for contributions on Wikipedia.

Thanks, just trying to make mysticism accessable. Which is what brought me to this page, seeing it in contrast to other major influential kabbalists as basically purely a hit-piece. Look at the 2018 article compared to now: unreferential to Gafni's celebrated theological intrepretations; Absolutely notable in their own right. But I have a solid source in 2001 that portrays Gafni's influence: https://nypost.com/2001/07/27/starr-report-41/. 'The Oprah Winfrey of Jerusalem'. We cannot tell the story right unless we tell the story right, and Gafni was obviously famous before the allegations; which is what makes them so important that they need highlighting on this page, absolutely. I recommended the page for deletion because I didn't see you active for a while, and thougt you left the page to the vandals. Thank you for being here!. Seraph.dat (talk) 07:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually the purpose of wikipedia is to catalog the worlds knowledge, what you are saying with the statement 'this is one of the only properties on the internet that neutrally describes the serious allegations against gafni' you reveal your bias, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Here is a great example of a notable figure and how their sexual assault allegations are fairly represented and with good weight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Robbins.

For clarity and for all on this site, were putting this article back into objectivity now. 80% of the introductory paragraph is about the allegations. Details do not belong in the opening paragraph, it doesn't cover even the basics of his career and goes into microscopic depth on the allegations for several sentences, really rubbish, no mention of his books or teachings or shows or integral anything. Bad undue weight. Changing it and reorganizing.75.25.117.156 (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Change of image

I would like to use the updated image dating from 2021. Could you please let me know why you reverted it Nomoskedasticity together with another revert, without explanation? The Rome picture is very outdated: 2013! This picture is from 2021. Please keep it or explain. What do you think Avi? Netanya9 (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity just reverted back to the last revision prior to the possibly unacceptable prose and the image got caught up in the change. The image is on Commons as a free-use image (CC-BY-SA) so whould be acceptable for Wikipeida. Nomo, any disagreement? -- Avi (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

No, the image is fine. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! That happens! Netanya9 (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Ordination in article

In reliable sources we know that Gafni received Orthodox Semikha from Shlomo Riskin and Reconstructionist semikha from Zalman Schachter-Shalomi—both of which have been retured or revoked. If I recall correctly, he has non-demoninational semikha from Gershon Winkler which allows him to continued to be referred to as a rabbi instead of a "former rabbi". I'd like to put mention of that under education, where I think it belongs, but that would mean putting some mention of the revovation there too, and I think we should try to keep the bulk of the allegation fallout to the allegation section. I'll try to write something accurate, sourced, and wiki-appropriate. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk)

Gafni on his own website says Winkler gave him ordination in 2008. Being that it involves Winkler too, I'm concerned that it fails element 2 of WP:ABOUTSELF. Especially as in that very webpage gafni is making claims that argue on what is found in other sources. -- Avi (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

This is the only news source I have found which references Winkler re: Gafni, but no mention of semikha. I may change text to "Gafni states he has ordination from Winkler" and use his own site for that. -- Avi (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Changed text to read "Gafni states" so I think it passes ABOUTSELF. -- Avi (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks great to me! What do you think about starting the paragraph with his current ordination? Since this is not up for debate there is no need to say "gafni states" on this one? This link published proof. https://www.marcgafni.com/resp/ordination-dr-marc-gafni-by-rabbi-gershon-wrinkler/ Netanya9 (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

That is published on MarcGafni.com, which is a self-published site and is unusable for almost anything other than WP:ABOUTSELF. Since saying that "winkler ordained Gafni" is a purported factual statement about someone other than Gafni, it fails to be an acceptable source, which is why I made the sentence read "gafni states" so now it's solely about Gafni, and we can use Gafni's own blog, carefully, to support Gafni's own statements per WP:ABOUTSELF. -- Avi (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Since there is debate whether Zalman ordained Gafni, we should include both views. Suggest to add here: Gafni claims he was a peer to Reb Zalman Schachter-Salomi in the Jewish Renewal movement but was never his student and Zalman was never the source of his ordination." own website Netanya9 (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

That's reasonable. The question is where. We expand on Riskin and Shalomi in the sexual allegations section, so I think that is where it belongs. We could move it all up, but I personally would argue to make references to the sexual misconduct as self-contained as possible. -- Avi (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

What do you think about this: changing heading to CONTROVERSY and then having subheadings that say SEXUAL ASSAULT ALLEGATIONS and ORDINATION. This is an example of what it can look like per year and issue, that I think looks cleaner that what is here now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Robbins. Maybe this reorganization needs a new discussion on this talk page though? It can solve our ordination issue. Make short statement under education and longer explanation of all views under "controversies". What do you think Avi Netanya9 (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The ordination issues are a direct result of the sexual allegations. Splitting them doesn't make sense to me. As for splitting the allegation section, how? Do we have it by time of alleged abuse (80s, 90s, 00s, 10s) do we have it by accusation? Currently, I've tried to make it chronoloical without explicit headings, but it certainly can be improved. -- Avi (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Dear Avi, would you please take a look what you think about this direction and lets discuss further under allegation section on talk page? I think this gives us a clear start to improve it over time. Worked on this for hours. Please forgive me if I made any mistakes, or if I messed up citations. I tried to do it in small steps so you can easily see my changes. Ill be back tomorrow to fix and clean up what is needed. Thanks! Netanya9 (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I have added the information discussed above to include both views. Since the Who Is Marc Gafni site is the only source for the other view, I have used this publication as source. Please discuss other suggestions here.

Author in lede

Netanya9, we call him an author already in the first sentence. We have a Bibliography section in the text. We have a Writings section in the text. I can see adding "award winning" to author since he woone an award, but moving the biography ionto the lede doesn't make sense. -- Avi (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Never mind; that's one sentence. I may have to move the sources around, but I'm OK with that one sentence. Nomoskedasticity , what about you? -- Avi (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Netanya9 You did mess up the citations with your edits so that they no longer support some sentences and appear improperly by others. I'll work on fixing them, but please becareful or ask for help in inserting them. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for messing up the numbering, I will be more careful in the future. Thanks for your help! Netanya9 (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Avi, I think I messed up again, so sorry! Please could you tell me what I am doing wrong or how I can fix this? Please let me solve this in the morning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netanya9 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Repetition

"In early January 2016, Judy Mitzner alleged that she was one of two teenage girls whom Gafni allegedly molested in New York City in 1986". Why is this not repetitive User:Netanya9 You, twice now, have put in the word "allegedly" when it already says alleged earlier in the sentence. Nerguy (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey Nerguy, great to meet you here. Yes you are right, the way I did it is actually repetitive. However the first "alleged" refers to Judy Mitzner. The way it is phrased now it literally says "whom Gafni molested", and since this is an allegation and not a fact, we can't state it like this. So I would suggest this: "In early January 2016, Judy Mitzner claimed that she was one of two teenage girls whom Gafni allegedly molested in New York City in 1986." What do you think? Netanya9 (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Netanya9 Agreed that sounds much better. Nerguy (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Use of denied or refuted

Hi guys, what would be the best word to use in opening paragraph to state Gafni "refuted" the allegations? According to dictionary: "Deny"= state that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of. Refute: "to say or prove that a person, statement, opinion, etc. is wrong or false." 'Deny = Refuses to admit' to me sounds guilty, and not appropriate for WP:BALANCE. Also Gafni's website shows e tried to prove with evidence that the allegations are false. So therefore "to say or prove that a statement is false' seemed more appropriate to me. Happy to change this to what is most neutral. Is there a better word to use? Thoughts? Appreciate the help. Nomoskedasticity Avi Netanya9 (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem with "refute", of course, is in the idea that the allegations have been "proven" false. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I apologize Nomoskedasticity, I am not a native English speaker and go by what the dictionary tells me. If you think deny is better then totally fine of course! Thanks for your quick response! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netanya9 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Netanya9. Nomoskedasticity is correct. "Refute" means to disprove. Gafni did not disprove anything. He merely contests it and provides an alternate explanation. Therefore, the proper word is "deny". Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Clear, thanks so much for clarifying! How can we archive this question? Netanya9 (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Hi, Netanya9. For some of the text you added, you simply copy-pasted the text out of the website or source. This is plagiarism and often copyright infringement as well, and is grounds for censure. Please see Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Please be very careful. If you are not sure how to add something, please ask on the talk page. Otherwise, measures may need to be taken to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia. Thank you for understanding. -- (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Apologies and understood Avi ! I did exactly that, copyied text. Sorry I was not aware this is plagiarism, I thought with the source added it would be ok, although this totally makes sense now. Thank you for cleaning it up. Will read more about this. Netanya9 (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Re-organizing Controversy Section

I made quite some changes here, did my best to do in small steps so it is clear to see what I did. Please discuss before reverting. See talk page "ordination in article" on previous discussion on reorganizing this section (and archive). This is a first draft, open for suggestions. Thanks! Netanya9 (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem with pure chronological is that it interleaves Bayis Hadash with Mitzner/Kabakov. I've separated those and made them chronological within the sections. If another independent allegation has adequately acceptable sourcing, it should be its own section too, probably chronological. So if between 1980 and 2006 goes before Bayis Hadash, otherwise afterwards. -- Avi (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Avi, thanks so much for all the cleaning up you have done. Diving deeper into these allegations, I think me putting the years in the headings was a mistake, it makes it look like there are many different allegations, while there are only two that re-surface in the articles in different years. The distinction between teenage and Bayis Hadash you made makes way more sense. What do you think about my last edit taking out some of the years? Netanya9 (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Using shitty sources

See WP:SELFPUB to understand why we can't use something from medium.com for the text you are trying to add. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much Nomoskedasticity. I see Medium is considered a blogpost, does that mean it can never be used as a source? I am using this page as an example and noticed this Medium link, that is why I thought it would be admissible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netanya9 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Correct, outside of WP:ABOUTSELF, blogs are unacceptable sources for anything. Please review WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR for more on the basic requirements for sources. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Avraham not to nitpick since there's a lot happening here, but blogs can be used in the case of WP:SPS, i.e independent subject experts who write somewhere. That's not the case here, but just wanted to mention that important exception. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Reference Refactoring

With the amount of references in the text, I'm considering refactoring the references to make every entry in the actual article text to be a "short" entry ala <ref name = "ABS" /> and moving all the full citation templates to the Reference section in alphabetical order. The appearance of the article would be exactly the same; just that the full references would all be in one place instead of interspersed through the article. Any reason why not to do this? Any other thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree Avraham. I cleaned up a few duplicate references. Could you let me know what else I can do, I would love to help make this happen. Netanya9 (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Integral Center in Lede

Hi, Netanya9. I think putting the Integral center in the lede, especially with a roll call of founders, is not appropriate for a lee. We have that in the teachings section already too. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I went in the current sources, to find more info on him to balance the lede, as discussed above. That's why I put this in. Next to his books and television show, the Center seems to be one of the main projects he is known for. Therefore it made sense to me in the lede. Perhaps without the other names, like this? "Dr. Gafni is the co-founder together with Ken Wilber, of the think tank called the Center for Integral Wisdom." Wdyt Avi? Netanya9 (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

We mention he is a teacher of Integral wisdom in the lede. I'd put it out there for more discussion if we should mention his co-founding. Especially as Wilber disavowed him and then reconciled. We have the details in the text. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Great idea Avi to put this out for discussion, how would we do that? I do not know the basic Wiki guidelines for opening paragraph. Many of the sources cited there, mentions he is the founder of the Center for Integral Wisdom, together with Ken Wilber. That is why this seems like one of his core contributions. I am not sure what would be the best way to decide on this? Netanya9 (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I did find some other sources on Google, can we use these Avi ? Netanya9 (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ethical-wisdom/201509/evolutionary-love-interview-dr-marc-gafni.
https://benbellabooks.com/authors/gafni-marc/
This one says "president of the Center for World Spirituality":
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelellsberg/2014/01/12/john-mackey-marc-gafni/?sh=5763b583207d
"Gafni's think tank, the Center for Integral Wisdom,":
https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/.premium-former-rabbi-accused-of-improper-sexual-conduct-now-spiritual-guru-1.5382689

I added above to lead paragraph, as discussed many sources state the center for integral wisdom as one of his core contributions. Netanya9 (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Wisdom Council

I'm not sure how important its activity is. It appears CIW underwent radical restructuring around the time they switched websites. The article is about Gafni, not CIW, so I think we can leave out unimportant matters. -- Avi (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Gafni has a history of dropping names of prominent people as a way to bolster his reputation. I know that his Wisdom Council" (a long list of well-known authors/teachers on his website) dissolved in 2016 after it was revealed that many of those listed had no idea they were on it and thus being viewed as implicit supporters of Gafni and his work. Tony Robbins, Warren Farrell, and Lori Galperin, at the least, would likely be upset if they knew they were mentioned here. Sorry, no news source to reference here, though here's an example of one of the teachers who was surprised and dismayed to find out she was on the list: https://www.facebook.com/cynthia.bourgeault/posts/10153339924833785. Helpfulhope (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, CIW IS Gafni, so it does feel important and relevant. CIW is merely a website Gafni created to display his own writings and teachings, creating the false implication that there's a large group of people working together in this "center", rather than this primarily being just another Marc Gafni website. Helpfulhope (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Pertinent points, but we still have to hew to the required standards of WP:NOR and WP:RS especially because this is a living person. Even if true Wikipedia cannot say Gafni namedrops or misuses information for his own benefit, since that would be OR. And a facebook blog post wouldn't pass WP:RS, which is why without reasonable sourcing we need to err on the side of caution. The allegations are impeccably sourced. We can use Gafni's own words as a source for what Gafni states—really nothing else. -- Avi (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi editors, I came in to restore some recent deletions. Tagging some experienced editors on this page as you might want to keep an eye out for vandalism. Thanks! Avi Nerguy Seraph.dat Netanya9 ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menke1986 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

You'll need to get to grips with WP:SECONDARY. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

"Primary, secondary and tertiary sources may all be used in Wikipedia"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Handling_primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources_(proposed_guideline)#:~:text=Primary%2C%20secondary%20and%20tertiary%20sources%20may%20all%20be%20used%20in,of%20topics%20covered%20by%20Wikipedia.

Please clarify why you delete relevant information, before I revert this edit.

@Avi @Seraph.dat Netanya9 (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you really not know? Then why are you editing BLPs at all? Everything we need to know is right here: WP:BLPSPS, "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person". You might also consult WP:BURDEN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware self-published sources are generally not allowed on BLP. Considering the controversy of the topics, we have previously discussed on this talk page, that self-published sources can be used as "Gafni states". See for example @Avi's comment in previous topic "We can use Gafni's own words as a source for what Gafni states".

Second, you can not delete 3 entire sections with several good sources and call them all self-published, when only one links to the BLP's website. I can agree to remove that, but all the other sources still make the point. If you have another argument for deletion, please communicate this here.

Let's discuss your deletions one by one:

1) YOU DELETED: "In February 2017, the National Coalition for Men published an article by Gafni in which he defended himself, calling the allegations "a long-standing smear campaign"."

SOURCE:

https://ncfm.org/2017/02/news/uncategorized/ncfm-member-marc-gafni-fake-facts-unchecked-falsehoods-that-destroy-lives/

2) YOU DELETED: "Your Unique Self was published by Integral Publishers."

SOURCE:

https://integral-publishers.com/portfolio-items/cc/?portfolioCats=10

3) YOU DELETED: "The board of directors of the Center for World Spirituality, an organization co-founded by Gafni and of which he is CEO, issued a statement of "unequivocal support" for Gafni. Wilber first separated from Gafni, but the two reconciled and Wilber rejoined Gafni at the Center for World Spirituality."

SOURCES:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120209231457/kenwilber.com/blog/show/701

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/christianityforthesbnr/2017/01/speaking-out-for-integrity-and-dr-marc-gafni-part-i-of-iii

https://www.marcgafni.com/resp/ken-wilber-statement-on-marc-gafni-and-the-center-for-integral-wisdom/

https://web.archive.org/web/20130709005615/http://integrallife.com/member/ken-wilber/blog/ken-wilbers-response-marc-gafni-debacle

So suggest to restore these sections, and if it would make you feel more comfortable we can of course remove the Marc Gafni source. Netanya9 (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

You've got it backwards. We can make judicious use of Gafni's own website; WP:BLPSPS makes that clear. What we can't use is material supported only by sources referring to themselves. That's why I deleted the NCFM passage. Likewise with "integral life". This is why it's better to stick to secondary sources. I think previously you've understood "self-published" to mean published by the subject. That's not what it means. NCFM is "self-published" because they are publishing stuff by/about themselves. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Great, points well taken.

These are my arguments for restoring the text:

1) We then agree we can make judicious use of MarcGafni as a source. Which published Ken Wilber letter stating he rejoins the Wisdom Council.

2) NCFM is primary source we can use, per your point we can make judicious use of primary sources to state Gafni's opinion, WP:NPOV, WP:BALANCE.

3) Use Integral Life as primary source, as this is the actual letter by Wilber stating he rejoined Gafni's Board, which is totally relevant. We can change text to the fact that Ken Wilber published a letter stating his rejoining.

5) Integral Publisher is secondary source, we can use. No need to delete this section.

5) Patheos is a secondary source we can use. No need to delete this section.

Looking forward to get your response.

Netanya9 (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

None of this takes seriously what BLPSPS says, nor does it show any engagement with WP:RS. As an example: it doesn't matter that Gafni published Wilber's letter -- because Gafni's website is not a reliable source in regard to anyone other than Gafni (so, it can't be used to support assertions about Wilber). We can't use the NCFM website at all, because it doesn't meet WP:RS. The patheos.com blog is a SPS and cannot be used here at all. You seem intent on finding ways to ignore BLPSPS, which is not going to fly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Netanya9. This content has been up for ten years. Should NOT be deleted without consensus of other editors. Jalansukma3!? (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out for help in our editing community, I trust we will get this resolved easily.

Some points in response to yours :)

1) The public statement by Ken Wilber on his site is still a good source.

2) You are not responding to detailed statements above, but simply revert ALL edits without conversation.

3) The sections you delete are up for ten years and have been heavily debated in talk page archive.

4) Your editing history on this page over the years is clearly biased.

4) Considering the controversy, deletions of one POV like this need to get consensus on talk page first.

5) We agreed above that on BLP we can use primary/ self published sources for WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE. Also, Wikipedia:BLPSELFPUB clearly states this. Netanya9 (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

FROM BLPSELFPUB:

There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

it is not unduly self-serving;

it does not involve claims about third parties;

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and

the article is not based primarily on such sources. Netanya9 (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Undue Weight and NPOV

Looking at this page two years ago vs today the article appears seriously in violation of NPOV. For example 3/4 of the opening paragraph is now undue weight towards details of his ongoing sexual allegations, and a lot of details have been removed. 75% of the article now deals with the allegations and there's only one or two sentences about his rabbinical/mystical theological teachings, which Idel and many other thinkers have commented and written about being important works, even if they later denounced Gafni due to his allegations. This page has had a history of vandalism, but it doesn't look like an admin has reviewed in quite some time. Are there any current moderators in-review of the page? Seraph.dat (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Sadly, per WP:BIO, Gafni is not notable for his teachings. He is not covered in "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" for his work on integral theory and eros. His notability stems almost exclusively from the multiple and ongoing sexual misconduct allegations. Therefore, their prominence is actually necessary. We go through painstaking detail to ensure that the sources pass WP:V and WP:RS] and that we use neutral wording or quote the articles in question. But we cannot hide the very element that supports Gafni having a Wikipedia article in the first place. Hagiography is just as bad a violation as is smearing. Neither are neutral. -- Avi (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Avi, thank you for all the great work you have done on this page. I am chiming in on this subject as I noticed the opening paragraph has significantly changed over time, adding information about the sexual assault allegations. It seems that you wrote under "Placement of sexual assault claims paragraph" the following: "Undoubtedly, the sexual assault claims are a significant component to Gafni's notability, but as for article chronology, they naturally belong after the basics: his bio and his philosophy." And:"Classically, we would describe the person's birth and upbringing before their notability. As for putting teachings before or after sexual issues, since they are both elements of Gafni's notability, I don't see the harm in putting the teachings first." Also the article shows Gafni's notability in many area's other than the accusations (published several books of which some won awards and the television show for example). So his notability does not stem mostly exclusively from sexual misconduct allegations. I am confused why you say this? Could you explain? It would make sense to take create more balance in the first paragraph. Please let me know what you think? Netanya9 (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Certainly not exclusively, but I do not think without them he would pass WP:PROF or have multiple stories written about him in mainstream news media or other reliable and verifiable sources. -- Avi (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Avi, I have a great respect for you as a veteran editor, and I've seen your influence on this page. I requested the page be deleted because in my browsing of pages, it came across as specifically toxic comparitively. Especially for a person who was called the 'Oprah Winfrey of Jerusalem in 2001, and whose academic work 'Radical Kabbalah', and who authored an important kabbalistic work celebrated in its own right, 'Gafni’s work may well become the definitive work on this thinker, a thinker I might add who may become highly relevant in the next stages of Jewish theology and is already an important theologian in the contemporary Neo-Hassidic movement." - by Rabbi Moshe Idel in the introduction to Radical Kabbalah. Lets document this at the same time as documenting his scandal, they are interestingly interwoven. Seraph.dat (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi. One quote doth not notability make. If you search for Gafni on the standard portals and mainstream publications (as opposed to personal blogs or the like) you see that the notability comes from the allegations, his reactions, the reactions to those, etc. I think the teachings belong in the lede too, and before the allegations, but they alone do not allow him to pass WP:NOTE or WP:PROF, in my estimation. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree the lede is too specific. I am going to redo the lede to make it more general and redo some of the text to make it more chronological. -- Avi (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I cleaned up the lede to make it more general and put the teachings first. I tried to clean up the text by putting items in chronological order within the sections, combining most issues that relate to the allegations in the allegation section, removing subpar sources and finding better ones when able. For those for which better sources could not be found, the sentences were removed. These were minimal, like the actual Schechter-Shalomi quote. I think it addresses, at least to an extent, the issues raised here. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

You have done some incredible work here Avi! Thank you for sharing your experience & wisdom. Since we all seem to agree that the opening paragraph needs to be more balanced, I have added two sources. It seems fair to me to use sources of both sides of the controversy for his biography and not only use articles about the allegations to cite his contributions. Please discuss here if you think otherwise. Thanks! WP:BLPSELFPUB, WP:BLPSPS, WP:BLPBALANCE Netanya9 (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Netanya9. I don't see material issues with your edits, but some of those sentences need sources. For example "visionary thinker, social activist and passionate philosopher" is an opinion unless we can find a verifiable and reliable source for it. Also I'm not sure Gafni himself can be the source for "He is known for…". Others acceptable sources are needed for that recognition. Not at the moment, but I will try and read through the sources we have to see if any of those claims, or similar, are supoported. Thank you! -- Avi (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Given the absence of sources for the new material, I've reverted it for now. If it becomes clear that the passages are supported by good sources, I'm happy to reconsider. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Could we please keep the content up, and give it some time, as Avi suggested, so we know what to find sources for? If so, could you please revert the revert? Also, for biography of BLP I understand it is OK to cite subject as a source? Could you please explain? Much thanks! Netanya9 (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Wow great community effort here. Reads much better, good with the bad. The allegations are a significant part of the story but it was leaning pretty far over, props Avi and Netanya9 and Nomoskedasticity for your contributions. I agree with 'philopsopher' as a universally understandable designation for his functional work and I also disagree that 'passionate' and 'visionary' are unnecesary fluff. But overall big jumps in page quality. Time will tell but his contribs to Integral theory, the Renewal movement could get expanded a tiny bit to inform non-jewish readers. There is a Q mark on the page as to his current works. TYTY finally got back to work after Covid and finally had a moment to check back in here and felt bad I couldn't follow through immediately with proposed changes earlier. Seraph.dat (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I have added the template for WP:NPOV WP:BALANCE on this page, per recent edits of adding allegations back into the lead, and me being reported for WP:3RR.

Changing content on controversy/allegations (especially in the lead of WP:BLP) need consensus on talk page.

Will make note on NPOV Notice board to request review of this article.

Netanya9 (talk)Netanya9 Netanya9 (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Specifically referring to edit: [3] which is not conform WP:NEUTRAL and WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:IMBALANCE

And edit [4] where controversial text is copy/pasted from article in the lead. Unnecessary and not WP:BALANCE Netanya9 (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Please reply under the new post on the topic. We do not continue discussions that are 3 years old when new ones have been started. Skyerise (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course the thread of previous consensus around these issues are relevant. Netanya9 (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't relevant. I said we don't carry on current discussions on 3 year old thread. This thread should have been archived a couple years ago. Skyerise (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Article lead is too brief

The one sentence on the controversies in the lead was too short and also intentionally inaccurate. I've expanded it with cited material from the section. Skyerise (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worthwhile to read the earlier sections on the lead on this talk page. These things have been previously discussed under WP:NPOV WP:BALANCE WP:BLP.

It is also worth learning more about how to create a good lead here: WP:CREATELEAD, "It is usually a bad idea to revise a lead unless changes in the article demand it. This is one of the most common mistakes made by newbies who read the lead and think "that's not good enough" or "that's not true." It is often a very controversial thing to do and is usually not worth it."

In general, copying and pasting long content from the article in the lead is not a good practice. Also adding controversial information to a WP:BLP usually requires consensus on the talk page first.

Since your edits in the lead were quite substantial and controversial, I reverted them for now, according to WP:BLP.

Thank you so much! Let me know if you have any questions.

Netanya9 (talk)Netanya9 Netanya9 (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

You are misusing Wikipedia policy. The lead should summarize the article proportionally. If a third of the article is about accusations of sexual abuse, then a third of the lead must be about the accusations as well. Also, the sentence in the lead doesn't represent a neutral point of view. First, Gafni has admitted to relationships with minors while he was 19 or older. He claims they were consensual, which is an admission of guilt. Children are not legally capable of granting consent. This is pointed out by the experts in one of the Forward articles, but not mentioned in the article. He also fled Israel to avoid prosecution. That is not the act of someone confident they did nothing wrong. Not to include these details in the lead leaves the lead unbalanced in support of the subject. Skyerise (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

1. Skyerise is clearly a biased editor, using Wiki to cause damage to Gafni and his family, there is nothing additive, they are just moving things up from the controversy section into the lead with obviously malicious intent.

2. They are sloppily cutting and pasting content, literally leaving half sentences in there and splicing together sentences that don’t fit together.

EXAMPLE: “Because of the allegations, and because Gafni fled the country to avoid prosecution, he was dismissed from Bayit Hadash, which closed within days. In 2016, triggered in part by an article in the New York Times, as well as by a petition from over 100 rabbis denouncing Gafni.“

Beyond the point that these are factually wrong assertions, skyerise splices the two sentences together (see [5] ), confusing dynamics from 2006 when Gafni left Israel, which dynamics from 2016 (which as numerous well-documented articles pointed out was a smear campaign initiated by the same people who organised the attack in Israel.

Another example, the page has stated correctly for many years that Gafni denies any claim of sexual misconduct: “Gafni has been the subject of multiple allegations of sexual misconduct over many years, which he has denied.” The editor adds to that statement of Gafni’s denial: “which he has denied as abusive” (See [6] ). Which of course makes no sense. The sentence now reads to say that he denies that relationships of sexual misconduct were “abusive”, which is obviously absurd. What he denies of course, is the actual claim of sexual misconduct itself. Again, we have an obviously biased editor, sloppily cutting and pasting information in order to cause damage without adding new information of any kind.

3. He did not ‘flee’ Israel to avoid prosecution, this is simply made up. As has been well documented, there were no police complaints. See this article.

4. Gafni has denied and refuted any claim of an illegal relationship with Sara. The teenage necking when they were both teenagers in New York in 1979 was not illegal. See this short article or this longer version.

5. The intention in changing the lead, which has been there by consensus for a very long time, is self-evidently malice and not to “balance” something.

Please keep this in mind when further edits are made.

Jalansukma3!? (talk)Jalansukma3!? Jalansukma3!? (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jalansukma3!: what's your affiliation with the subject? Skyerise (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)