Talk:David Luchins

A comment
Luchins, who takes a firm stand against fundamentalism, arguing with Aaron Soloveichik, a dean at Yeshiva University and the head of the Brisk yeshiva in Chicago until his death,[15] that it is against Jewish tradition,[14] names rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik as his rabbi, but also has a strong connection to Chabad Lubavitch,[16] and is a frequent speaker at its venues.[17]

How does FN 14 show this? Where does Luchins say that Rabbi joseph Soloveitchik is his Rabbi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EMESPATROL (talk • contribs) 14:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I've had a look and will take it one referenced bit at a time.


 * "Luchins, who takes a firm stand against fundamentalism, arguing with Aaron Soloveichik, a dean at Yeshiva University and the head of the Brisk yeshiva in Chicago until his death [15]" - The reference doesn't seem to support any arguing with Soloveichik. The only mention of Luchins in that link is him saying "“Using Rabbi Soloveichik in this way is a tremendous disservice to one of the great Torah giants of our generation,” in reference to the way Soloveichik’s words were presented by some within Lubavitch.
 * "that it is against Jewish tradition,[14]" - The link provided with this source doesn't seem to mention him, but a search on google books gave me this which is in the same book. It mentions his views on homosexuality, that it is a sin but that doesn't mean they should be demonized, and that they should be allowed in synagogues. Again this doesn't seem to support his view that fundamentalism is against Jewish tradition.
 * "names rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik as his rabbi, but also has a strong connection to Chabad Lubavitch,[16]" - In this source he says "My Rabbi, Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveichik" so it supports that. the source is an interview with Chabad Lubavitch but I can't see where it says anything that could indicate he has a strong connection with them. Maybe the word strong could be taken out.
 * "and is a frequent speaker at its venues.[17]" - this source states that he was a guest speaker for them but it couldn't be use to say he is a frequent speaker. It could be used to support his connection with them.


 * As for the other bits removed in your edits.


 * "Luchins, who considers himself a "staunch gay rights supporter,"[19]" The source supports that stating "Luchins, who like his boss considers himself a staunch gay rights supporter". I would also consider the Advocate to be a reliable source.
 * "a liberal – or a 'leftist,' as he prefers – in an Orthodox community that is ever-more conservative, and [whose] tart tongue has often landed him in the center of controversy" This is a direct quote from this site and should not be altered unless it is re-worded in your own words.


 * I suggest adding to the problem sources and maybe others can be found to support the claims. If it can't be supported then that first sentence could be taken out or re-worded. The rest of the paragraph should stay in but maybe with the word strong taken out in reference to his connection to Chabad Lubavitch, and frequent speaker could be changed to just say that he has been a speaker. If you think there are issues with the information being selected in a biased way, then you should add more info to balance it out. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have made some corrections. Luchins' connection to Chabad Lubavich does not belong in the career section. As far as sources are concerned, they do not suggest that Luchins is active on behalf of Chabad Lubavich. As for your suggestion to change the wording of the Lubavich-Connection, Sarahj2107, I'm all for it and will change it promptly. It is unfortunate that not all the pages of Luchins short essay about the two Rabbis Soloveitchik are available on Googlebooks, but my guess is, that it is safe to say that they both were Luchins teachers, as EMESPATROL first suggested, but I'll check as soon as I have the time to go to the library. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC) P.S. and thanks, Sarahj2107, for checking the sources.

It is not acceptable to use a personal blog as a source for contentious material about living persons. There is no verification or vetting that the articles in question have been faithfully reproduced in their original, unedited form. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove sources and sourced material. The Jewish Daily Forward is a RS by WP standards. Thank you, Ajnem (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Failed Messiah though is not. You also deleted many changes from others w/o giving any reason. Please give individula consideration to changes made by others if you expect them to do the same for your changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.160.231 (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Any particular reason why there is a whole section dedicated to "Chabad-Lubavitch" on his bio? Isn't that a bit much? He's the VP of the Orthodox Union and that gets a few lines but a family association gets a whole section? &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  01:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

To those with a personal interest
Personal involvment with the subject of an article is problematic, reverting sourced material is not a good idea (see above), neither is starting an edit-war. 216.163.160.231, EMESPATROL and whoever has a personal interest in Mr. Luchins, please read Conflict of interest and explain what you object to on the talk page. Thanks, Ajnem (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see comments in italics and brackets below. This is based on the version that you removed. The version which you would like to revert to was changed by various editors who listed why they made the changes – perhaps the onus is on you to explain why things should be your way? I have taken out the time to include my comments and respectfully ask you to do likewise. Since you question the motives of others I will take the liberty of asking what it is that interested you so much to create this page and spend so much time on it? Luchins was born in New York City, the oldest son of Abraham Luchins and Edith Hirsch Luchins, both well known American Gestalt psychologists.[1][2] ( Dr. Edith Luchins is better known as a mathematician) A political advisor and longtime Democratic activist (I think activist is a biased term, and is not from a source.) who also worked for Republican politicians, Luchins is described as "a liberal – or a 'leftist,' as he prefers – in an Orthodox community that is ever-more conservative" by the Jewish Daily Forward,[citation needed] The Forward also asserted that his "tart tongue has often landed him in the center of controversy. (The 2nd half of this sentence seems like an odd selective quote to begin explaining his views)"[citation needed] After the death of former Senator Moynihan in 2003, Luchins announced that he would quit his political activities, saying “everything I cared about in politics was buried Monday in Arlington [National] Cemetery.”[11] Luchins was Senator Moynihan's point person on the issue of relocating the United States embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (Do not understand why you deleted this).[13] Luchins, who takes a firm stand against fundamentalism, arguing that it is against Jewish tradition,[12] names (in one interview) r(R)abbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik as a rabbi of his, is described as a close student of Rabbi Ahron Soloveitchik,[14] and also has a longtime connection to Chabad Lubavitch,[15] and has been a guest speaker at its venues (This sentence needs work, but I am surprised that you have deleted twice his speaking for 4,000 people at the kinus shluchin which had quite a bit of press coverage.).[16]

(The final 3 paragraphs seem to belong more on the Pollard, Balkany & Aish HaTorah Wiki pages. That being said the source that Mrs. Pollard denies the letters is a personal website which is hard, IMHO, to take seriously when the letter has been printed in numerous sources. Why have you twice deleted a link showing the letter has been published? An editor already has explained that the word controversy does not fit here) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.160.231 (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Please stop deleting material that is reliably sourced, but that you do not like. As already advised, please read WP:COI. WP:NPOV and WP:BATTLEGROUND also seem like pages you might want to read.  We edit here by consensus and editing from the same point of view, jumping from one account to another, or from one IP address to another, is especially frowned upon. As is bringing off-wiki campaigns into wikipedia editing.
 * We try to be especially careful about derogatory information in biographies of living people. Reading WP:BLP might give you some help in figuring out how to frame your arguments in a way to build new consensus here on the talk page. But so far, as best I can tell, your methods are overwhelming your message. David in DC (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So, what it amounts to is that 216.163.160.231 resents it that the article doesn't mention that Edith Luchins was also a mathematician. Well, just change it 216.163.160.231, and while you are at it, you may also add David Luchins birthdate if you know it and if the Luchins have any children please add that too. Thanks, Ajnem (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Controversies Section
The controversies section seems to contain original research. It also seems like it is the site of some serious edit warring. I'm not going to start edit warring, but it should probably be deleted and all the participants blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.17.126 (talk) 05:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Wheel warring
A series of IPs and a single purpose account seem intent on deleting sourced, relevant material from this page. They seem to be wheel-warring so that they avoid WP:3RR, but they don't seem to get it that edit-wars are against the rules, even if they don't violate 3RR. They call sourced material "original reasearch" in edit summaries when, in truth, it comes from reliable, tertiary sources. They delete the subject's account, reported in a reliable tertiary source, describing a key episode in the continuing imprisonment of one of the most notable cases of an American jailed for espionage in the last 50 years. The account describes the attempts of Danial Patrick Moynahan, Ahron Soleveichik and Joe Liberman to have the convicted spy freed by the President of the United Statessubject The story is esinsider account of one of the most notable American spy cases, published in a reliable tertiary. The subject worked for Moynahan for 20 years and is a student and associate of Soleveichick. Both of these facts are alread documented in the article, making his account just about the opposite of the repeated edit summaries justifying the deletion as "just a story" told by the subject and asking why this particular "story" belongs in a wiki-article about the subject.

Help! David in DC (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

David in DC is an interested party with an agenda, who seems to spend most of his day editing this obscure page, in flagrant disregard for the rules. Administrative action is appropriate. I am not a series of IPs, I am a person who does not post from only one location, and does not need an account.

The facts of the editing are precisely as David reports, and flagrantly against the rules. The research is original because David is making the relevant contrasts. The story is not relevant because it is not about Luchins; it is about Pollard and some politicians whom Luchins worked with; Luchins' only involvement is as the storyteller, and this is similar to putting the details of stories reported by a news reporter on that news reporter's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.243.9 (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that "administrative action is appropriate", namely protecting the page from IPs. User:David in DC may be an interested party, but not half as interested a party as the "person who does not post from only one location, and does not need an account." I'm courious to see what will be deleted next. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "David in DC is an interested party with an agenda, who seems to spend most of his day editing this obscure page, in flagrant disregard for the rules." I am not an interested party and I have no agenda other than improving wikipedia, according to its rules and policies. If it seems to someone that I spend most of my day editing one obscure article, that person seems to have a perception problem. Please review my edit history since 2008. I am interested in BLP's.  I came here because I read about the repeated POV-pushing by single purpose accounts on the BLP Notice board.


 * Here's the full quote: "One Jewish activist who agrees Pollard should be freed called the pro-Pollard movement a “cult” that speaks to an ever-narrowing segment of the Jewish community. “Pollard has become a flag of convenience,” said David Luchins, once a top aide to former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.). “He’s become a cause that is picked up by other people and used for their own purposes.”


 * In my judgment, the word "nevertheless" does not magically transform a prarphrase of that quote into original reasearch. The way it was written before I edited it was an embarrassing run-on sentence that did not belong in an encyclopedia. Actually, those are my two main interests on wikipedia, BLP's and improving writing.


 * The story is relevant because Luchins is a notable person with ties to both Moynahan and Solveichik, two of the principal players here, the story was published in an eminently reliable source, and is of a piece with the description of Luchins as a notable Jewish leader whose "tart tounge" often leads him into controversy as an Orthodox Jew who is politically liberal in an increasingly conservative Orthodox world. Not to put two fine a point on it, but his story explains how fundamentists in the Jewish community scuttled an attempt by more "establishment" leaders to persuade a U.S. President to free Mr. Pollard.


 * There's a lot of name calling going on here and a lot of comments shedding more heat than light. I'm not thrilled that, so far, I've been accused of being associated with people who threatened Luchins' life, with violating policies I hold dear and with spending my day in a manner that suggests I'm a pitiful Internet troll. (How else is one to read "an interested party with an agenda, who seems to spend most of his day editing this obscure page, in flagrant disregard for the rules.")


 * I did spend hours last night trying to improve this article and revert the work of wheel-warring SPA's. In my view, the person or persons editing from these IP addresses need for someone to use a trout on them in the manner in which the Creator intended for trout to be used. David in DC (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Yes, the word "nevertheless" does make it original research, because you are putting your own spin on the information by suggesting conflict between the two facts.

2. You are precisely correct about the Pollard story, and that is why it is not relevant. As you say, it "explains how fundamentists in the Jewish community scuttled an attempt by more "establishment" leaders to persuade a U.S. President to free Mr. Pollard"--but this page is about Luchins; it is not about fundamentalists in the Jewish community...

Moreover, the juxtaposition of that story and the death threat suggest a connection between the two, which is original research--particularly because the story has no relevance otherwise.

I'm sorry for the name calling if I am incorrect, but how else am I supposed to read a page about a relatively obscure individual which seems to have drawn passionate interest by editors who want to pull together any relevant or irrelevant fact about him under a heading of controversy and which some might be upset by? Respectfully, this page is objectively a screed. I stumbled upon it and knowing him by reputation, wanted to help normalize it.

And yes, I post without signing in. It isn't against the rules, and it's enough the NSA is tracking everything I do; I don't need google doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.243.9 (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Res ipsa loquitur. David in DC (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm bringing over a post from anjem who made the page, because it really drives home the point that this entire page is ill conceived and agenda driven, and does not belong on WP. "It seems to me that it is obvious that users who seem to be familiar with editing WP but prefer to remain anonymous when e.g. deleting whole sections of articles have a personal agenda. Why not just have the article semiprotected so that only registered users can edit it? The rest is IMO a matter of discussion on the talk page of the article, as there is no BLP-issue involved, just some IPs and one single purpose user calling himself User:EMESPATROL – for those who do not know Hebrew or Yiddish – "Emes" means "truth" – who disagree with the opinions voiced by the subject of the article, namely David Luchins. When I created the article, I had no idea that it would attract attention. Now I know better. As it seems, the description the Jewish Daily Forward, not exactly an Orthodox Jewish paper, gave of Luchins is quite accurate: "a liberal – or a 'leftist,' as he prefers – in an Orthodox community that is ever-more conservative [whose] tart tongue has often landed him in the center of controversy." Well, everybody is not as open minded as Luchins is portrayed to be in the article and its sources, but as long as they act as IPs and the like, I don't think they have to be taken very seriously. It would be different if the Orthodox Union was protesting and deleting whole sections of the article – that would be something to be taken seriously ... Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)"

Respectfully Ajnem, you are not supposed to make pages about people in order to portray a certain theory that you want to portray. Dr. Luchins worked for Senator Moynihan for 20 years and ran however many presidential campaigns, and you reduce him to "a liberal in the Orthodox community"?? If this was a neutral portrayal of him, this stuff about chabad wouldn't even make it into a footnote. And that is why this page is hopelessly messed up, because instead of having the important information, it is dancing around agenda driven portrayals. I think it should be deleted, and if someone wants they can start from scratch and make a page about the real person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.61.24 (talk) 04:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are barking up the wrong tree, 65.96.61.24. It never occured to me to "reduce him to 'a liberal in the Orthodox community'". The article I started looked different from what it looks now (see also my post here). But instead of removing material, if it is you who is removing material, you should and are welcome to add material, provided it is sourced. Which of it stays in and which of it goes out will be seen. You just have to get it out of your head that this page is "agenda driven". That's what Wikipedia is all about: thousands of people writing and editing thousands of articles in their spare time about things and people they know nothing about. And the result is pretty convincing, or so millions of readers think, to my great astonishment. Ajnem (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Dr Luchins himself would like this page taken down RogerSni (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @RogerSni, I'm going to move this into its own section, as you've commented in the middle of a ten-year-old conversation. Valereee (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, except that when it is agenda driven, you end up with absurd results like this, which is why agenda driven editing is not allowed on BLP's, and why this page should be deleted. I don't have the time or care to make a real page about him, but I do think your fake page which you concede was made to promote a certain theory that you like, should be taken down or at least the agenda's taken out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.61.24 (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 65.96.61.24, I suggest you go to the Articles for deletion page and ask for the deletion of the page. Asking for deletion here will not get you anywhere, and you are waisting your and everybody elses time. Ajnem (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on David Luchins. 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://web.archive.org/web/20140726123620/http://jewishvoiceandopinion.com/pdf/200703.pdf to http://jewishvoiceandopinion.com/pdf/200703.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about Luchins' preference to have the article deleted
Copied from above, where it had been inserted into a ten-year-old discussion.

Dr Luchins himself would like this page taken down RogerSni (talk) 1:03 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

(by Valereee (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC))


 * So, @RogerSni, I see you've been asked by Dr. Luchins to edit or ideally get deleted the article about him. I'm willing to help you understand, so you can help Dr. Luchins understand, the relevant policies. Valereee (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)