Talk:Leib Tropper/Archive 1

Comment
This appears to be a vanity post and should be deleted immediately. -- User:68.195.32.69 (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Scandal coverage
Rabbi Dr Daniel Eidensohn, the owner of the Daat Torah blog is a scholar whose integrity is beyond doubt.

The UnOrthodox Jew (UOJ) was referred as source by the New York Times several times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/nyregion/14abuse.html

The UnOrthodox Jew (UOJ) served as a source for the New Yorker Megazine http://nymag.com/news/features/17010/index6.html

Truth Transparency (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read the following policy carefully: Biographies of living persons. It explains why blogs are not acceptable sources for claims of this kind. Jayjg (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is in now covered by a real news source: http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c36_a17497/News/New_York.html
 * Please restore the information; I don't know how to post sources -- Zachen3 (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Calling this Jewish Week article a real news source is just wrong. (see http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2009/12/exclusive-the-story-behind-the-tropper-scandal-345.html#more where the BLOGGER says he wrote the story for the jewish week.) The Jewish Week is not a news source any more than any of the anti-religious blogs are...
 * Thank You. -- ChillulHashem (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The Jewish Week does seem to satisfy RS, since it does have an editorial staff, though how much fact-checking it actually does is very questionable. Still, the same is true for the NYT and LAT, which have been caught out many times with egregious errors that basic fact-checking would have caught.  More troubling to me is that this particular story attributes some of its information to the notoriously unreliable scandal-sheet blog FailedMessiah.  In this case all the fact-checkers would have done is verify that the allegation does indeed appear on the blog, and that does not satisfy BLP.  And the same rule must be applied also to the information that the Jewish Week attributes to the more respectable Daat Torah blog; it's still the work of one person, and nobody has fact-checked it, so it shouldn't be included in the WP article. -- Zsero (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Zsero, you assert that the blog FailedMessiah is (a) unreliable; (b) notoriously unreliable, and (c) a scandal-sheet. The burden is on you to provide reliable sources for all three claims. I do not suggest that the blog FailedMessiah itself can be used as a source for a Wikipedia BLP. I suggest only that your attempt to discredit the blog lacks foundation, as does your assertions that things were not fact checked. Anomalocaris (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, FailedMessiah is a scandal-sheet; one need only read it for a while to see that. And yes, it's notorious for that.  I didn't assert as an established fact that the Jewish Week did no fact-checking, and I admitted that since it is presumed to fact-check it counts as a RS, but I very much doubt that it actually did any serious fact-checking here, beyond verifying that the blog made the allegation.  And if they got Rosenberg to write the article himself then my doubts are upgraded to near-certainty that they didn't check it. I can't write my view of Rosenberg here, since that would itself violate BLP, but I advise you not to believe anything he says without independent corroboration.  -- Zsero (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, you didn't say it was notoriously a scandal sheet, you said it was notoriously unreliable. Your attempt to discredit the blog still lacks foundation. "Notoriety" is fame for something bad. If you could establish that the blog in question was famous for its unreliability, perhaps then you could say that it is notoriously unreliable. But if a "scandal sheet" is a news source that reports on scandals, and if a given scandal sheet reports news as news, credible allegations as credible allegations, and opinion as opinion — and is famous for doing so — it's just fame, not notoriety. One might say that journalists George Seldes, I. F. Stone, or Jack Anderson wrote scandal sheets, but unless they were famously bad journalists, one would not say that they were notorious. Anomalocaris (talk) 04:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I finally read the blog post ChilulHashem linked to just above, and I have to say I share his concerns. Scott Rosenberg claims to be the author of the Jewish Week article.  While the article was certainly edited after he was done with it, it is very troubling that they turned to such a source to write it in the first place.  Imagine if a newspaper were to ask someone like Glenn Beck to write an article reporting on salacious rumours about, say, Nancy Pelosi &mdash; and what's more rumours originating on his own blog.  It's at least unseemly, and tends to degrade the credibility of the whole newspaper, and certainly of this article, no matter how much editing it had.  I'm not going to delete it and everything sourced to it, because it is after all in a RS, but I'm soliciting opinions about it, and in the meantime asking people to treat it with extreme caution.  -- Zsero (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Shmarya Rosenberg is not "someone like Glenn Beck." He interviewed a woman who made allegations about Leib Tropper and the claims of the woman have been corroborated by audio tapes of the woman and Tropper. There is no basis for attacking the Jewish Week article on the basis that it was authored by Rosenberg. Anomalocaris (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What makes Rosenberg more credible than Beck? Yes, he makes these claims; are they true?  Who knows?  But if a newspaper were to get Beck to write such an article about a prominent Democrat it would raise eyebrows, and would damage the paper's credibility.  This is no different.  -- Zsero (talk) 04:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

BLP reminder
This is a BLP, and we have to stick very closely to what the reliable sources say. Let me remind people that the recordings are not authenticated; I know of no reliable source that even mentions them let alone claims to have verified that the voice is Tropper's. The allegation about the revoked conversion is just that &mdash; an allegation; no reliable source states it as a fact. Even the claim that he was a major player in the Slifkin ban seems to rest mainly on Slifkin's self-published account, which is not a reliable source; I very much doubt that the Jewish Week verified it from an independent source. -- Zsero (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * JTA mentions the recordings: http://jta.org/news/article/2009/12/17/1009796/eternal-jewish-family-head-resigns -- Zachen3 (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not good enough. JTA is just repeating Rosenberg's allegations, and he is very much not a reliable source. -- Zsero (talk) 05:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The statement that the recordings are purportedly Tropper is proven true as soon as we find a few sources purporting them to be Tropper, which we have. -- Zachen3 (talk) 05:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you haven't. Come back when and if you have a reliable source that reports this in its own voice, having presumably done its own research.  -- Zsero (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Frankly, other edits you have made to other articles show that you are a Hareidi ideologue. IMHO, the sources which have been posted satisfy Wikipedia's BLP guidelines. Zachen3 (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My ideology is none of your business. But if you've somehow divined from my contribution log that I'm some sort of fan of Tropper's then you display very poor deductive reasoning.  The sources adduced so far are not reliable, and since this is a BLP I will go on deleting allegations not adequately founded.  Remember that 3RR does not apply to removing poorly sourced defamatory material, which this certainly is.  -- Zsero (talk) 05:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm going to go with Jayjg on this one. You are deleting material which is properly sourced. Reverting.Zachen3 (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, and I will continue to delete any such material so long as it comes from the same unreliable sources, no matter who relays their words. Only when and if a reliable source agrees with them will we have something to discuss. -- Zsero (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A reliable source saying they got information from a non-reliable source should still be reliable yes? Just as if a reporter states a fact in a newspaper as being attributed to someone there's still a reliable source for the claim. So I fail to see what is wrong with using the JTA. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) How does scurrilous information from an unreliable source become admissible and no longer scurrilous simply by being relayed by a reliable one? It's still the same story, with no more backing than it had before; it still rests on the unsupported word of an unreliable source. The JTA piece changes nothing: all we know after reading it is that Rosenberg is saying these things; but we knew that just as certainly before the JTA piece, because we could see it on his blog. That fact wasn't reportable in a BLP before, and it isn't reportable now. -- Zsero (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * just like the Hamas spokesman's scurrilous information becomes inclusion worthy once he is quoted in a mainstream source. Per the sensitives of blp, the fact that this all originates from one blog should be noted in the main text, but once something is mentioned in a RS it's good to go.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 22:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that makes no sense. RS isn't some kind of "hechsher", like ???? ????? ????? ??????.  The whole point of RS is to increase the likelihood that something is true.  When an RS merely quotes an un-RS all we know is that the un-RS said it, which we already knew; it adds nothing.  If it wasn't reportable before it isn't reportable after.  Perhaps you're confusing this with notability; the fact that a blog said something may not be notable, but when a major news source reports that the blog said it, and suddenly the whole country is talking about it, that can make it more notable, but not more reliable. -- Zsero (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The whole point of RS is to increase the likelihood that something is true. Not true. See Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." (bold in original).-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That means mere truth isn't enough, not that truth doesn't matter. The whole point of verifiability is to verify that it is true, or at least likely to be true.  Sources are reliable to the extent that it is likely that what they report is true, i.e. they've got editors and fact-checkers, and a reputation for getting things right.  This isn't some sort of game; it's an encyclopaedia, and the whole point of an encyclopaedia is to record facts; otherwise we have Uncyclopaedia.  -- Zsero (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In WP, the point of verifiability is to verify that it was published, irregardless of truth. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The point isn't truth or likelyhood. The point is that the presence of the accusation has been noted by reliable sources. We can thus source the statement that blogs said b lah and that it was picked up in mainstream sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course the point is truth, and the likelihood thereof. What does "reliable source" mean?  Reliable for what, if not telling the truth?  WP:V says we need "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are needed to substantiate material within articles...".  What does that mean, if not that we do, very much, care about the truth?  It disturbs me that so many people take the statement that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", and twist it to mean that truth isn't necessary or relevant, rather than that truth isn't enough.
 * In the current case, all the JTA has said is that the blog said X; if that's all we need then we don't need JTA, we could look directly at the blog itself. Blogs are reliable sources for the fact that they say something; they're just not reliable sources for the truth of what they say.  -- Zsero (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because there would be no good argument for inclusion. The point is that reliable sources are actually discussing that the blogs have made the accusations. To use an example, I have a personal blog. If I say "X" there's no good reason to include that on any Wikipedia article. But if the New York Times says "Joshua Zelinsky said on his blog that X" that is a whole different ballgame. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Alleged revocation of conversion
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has deleted this paragraph, and I really don't understand why. It is sourced to the Jewish Week article. Now above I expressed my serious misgivings about using this article as a source; is HW just agreeing with me, and therefore removing the claim? If so everything else sourced to it should go as well. But I don't get the impression that's HW's objection; so I don't understand what it is. Could you please explain here, in more detail than an edit summary affords? -- Zsero (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * it's sourced so it is inclusion-worthy, but it may not be notable enough. as an aside, it doesn't really make sense. a conversion can't be "revoked." -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's sourced only as an "allegation," without any indication as to the underlying source, which generally isn't enough to satisfy WP:BLP, especially since the incident doesn't have a strong connection to notability. See my comments at WP:BLPN as well. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "A conversion can't be 'revoked'". That's the whole point; the impression his critics want to create is that he has been overturning people's lives right and left, by retroactively canceling their conversions.  Remember that an essential element of conversion is a sincere commitment to accept "the yoke of the commandments".  If that commitment is insincere then the conversion is invalid, but how do we know it's insincere without telepathy?  The general rule is that we can't, and so if the court doing the conversion is convinced then nobody can come later and undo it.  But some people have lately been saying that if the convert's immediate behaviour shows that she never meant it, rather than that she did mean it but later slipped, then the conversion is now known never to have been valid, and can be retroactively canceled.
 * The allegation, therefore, is that Tropper did so to one woman, on the basis of his being informed by her husband that she would occasionally go out bareheaded and wearing trousers. That makes him part of this new phenomenon that converts have come to dread, and will tend to make modern Orthodox people hostile to him.  The thing is, though, that as Hullaballoo said the Jewish Week only reports it as an allegation, and more troubling is the fact that this allegation comes from the same source as all the others: Scott Rosenberg, whom I wouldn't trust to tell me whether it's raining.  So I'm OK with deleting it on that basis, but the edit summary didn't really explain it very well.  -- Zsero (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, let me make something clear, if only because one editor above has already drawn the wrong conclusion: I am not a fan of Tropper. If these allegations turn out to be true, I will admit a certain degree of schadenfreude.  But that doesn't mean I can't evaluate the claims logically and impartially, and so far the evidence is thin.  It needs to be borne in mind that he has recently acquired an enemy with vast financial resources, and has claimed that he has already threatened him with physical violence.  There is no question that Aguilar could manufacture such evidence as we have so far seen against Tropper; that doesn't mean he did, but until we can rule it out we must consider the possibility.  I certainly don't think it's a pure coincidence that this is coming out shortly after their fight. -- Zsero (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You Tropper's people try to protect your master to the end!

The conversion in question was revoked in 2006 and reported in 2009, before Guma and Tropper went separate ways.

EJF responded that time to the allegation saying that the woman did not keep shabbos and that why her conversion was revoked.

So the issue is what the woman did to have her conversion revoked, and if you have Tropper against the Failed Messiah and the husband. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth Transparency (talk • contribs) 20:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Transparency, it would help if you tried to be a bit more civil. Zsero and the other editors here are long-term editors at Wikipedia. We are interested in making the best article we can under Wikipedia policies. We might disagree on the exact details but that doesn't make anyone a servant of Tropper. Now, more substantively, you make claims above that the EJF actually responded on this issue. Do you have a source for that that we can use? If you could provide one that would be very helpful. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Editors keep reinserting this paragraph; I'm not at all sure I agree with Hullaballoo that it's inappropriate (it is largely my work, after all), but what is inappropriate is reinserting it without participating in this discussion. If you have an argument to make for its inclusion, make it here. Two more things: if you do insert it, use "trousers" rather than "pants", which is ambiguous. And bear in mind that while the Jewish Week is an acceptable source, Jewcy is not. -- Zsero (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to take the Jewish Week references from the Baruch Lanner entry ? --Truth Transparency  —Preceding undated comment added 05:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC).
 * What anyone does at another article is irrelevant here. The paragraph in question was objected to by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, and we are discussing his objections here.  Until there is a consensus for restoring it, it should remain out.  -- Zsero (talk) 06:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Whoa! you mean, if I don't like a something in a Wikipedia article, all I have to do is object to it, and it stays out until there's a consensus? Anomalocaris (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * While there is an ongoing discussion about it, it should stay out until there is a consensus one way or the other. The default state in a BLP is to omit, not to include.  And it's not just one objection; Brewcrewer seems to be against including it too.  At the very least, repeatedly inserting such material over others' objections is edit-warring.  -- Zsero (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This the EJF response to the Jewcy article, there was a conversion that was revoked or as Tropper says nullified. Maybe he wanted to see her without pants. http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/05/ejf-responds-to-accusations_30.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth Transparency (talk • contribs) 06:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Blogs are not reliable sources. -- Zsero (talk) 06:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP says "Never use ... blogs ... as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." The rule against blogs is not necessarily because they are not reliable, and I don't believe there is a Wikipedia policy stating that in general, blogs are not reliable sources. It's just that they are not to be used as sources for info about a living person, with exceptions noted. Anomalocaris (talk) 07:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is such a rule. Blogs are not WP:RS. They can only be cited for statements of opinion, or for facts about the blogger himself. -- Zsero (talk) 07:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:RS says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." As it happens, Shmarya Rosenberg is an established expert (with numerous citations) on the doings of the Haredi community and has been published in reliable third-party publications. But we still can't include his blog as a source for info about a living person. Anomalocaris (talk) 12:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a laugh. Rosenberg is absolutely not an established expert, and anyone who takes him for one shows his own ignorance of the subject.  One may as well say that Fred Phelps is an expert on the doings of "the homosexual lobby", or that Michael Savage is an expert on the doings of the British Labor Party.  Expertise is not proved by being cited by people who know nothing about the subject, and pick somebody at random to explain it to them. I could say more, but not without violating BLP. -- Zsero (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

FailedMessiah as a source
Maybe for the ultra orthodox FailedMessiah.com is not a reliable source but for others it is

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth Transparency (talk • contribs) 06:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That so many outside media have been fooled into taking this blogger seriously is a sad commentary, but it doesn't add to his credibility. They don't know the Jewish world, they don't know who this person is, and just make fools of themselves. He is notoriously unreliable, even as bloggers go.  More to the point, blogs in general are not reliable sources, and you're not going to change that. -- Zsero (talk) 06:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Zsero, please do not continue to assert without evidence that Shmarya Rosenberg or his blog is notoriously unreliable, meaning that both that he is unreliable, and also famous for his unreliability. Mere responses from those criticized in his writings saying "It's not true" don't count; the allegations of unreliability have to come from reliable sources, which those criticized and their organizations necessarily are not; they have a vested interest in casting doubt on his reliability. Also, please do not continue to assert that blogs are not reliable sources. Some blogs, such as Language Log, are well respected and could be used as sources for Wikipedia articles, but not in violation of WP:BLP.

The NY Post article
Well, we now have a reliable source that mentions the recordings, so the fact of their existence and a neutral summary of their contents is admissible. But the recordings themselves are still not authenticated, nor do they come from a reliable source, so links to them are not. Nor can we state as fact that they are what they are claimed to be. Also bear in mind that the Post is a tabloid and WP is not; lurid reporting that is appropriate for the Post has no place on WP. -- Zsero (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You're really trying to fight this one to the bitter end, eh?
 * For instance, what constitutes authentication? The Post mentions the recordings' existence and that they can be found on Youtube; I'm not sure what's wrong with linking to them. Also, what do you mean by "lurid"? -- Zachen3 (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Go read up on WP's standards. Start with WP:BLP and WP:NOT.  So long as you keep inserting defamatory material that does not come from reliable sources, I and other editors who are not single-purpose accounts will revert them.  The fact that the alleged recordings exist, and a neutral summary of their contents is in the article, now that the Post has mentioned them.  But Youtube is not a reliable source, and so long as the recordings have not been authenticated I will continue to revert all attempts to link to them.  If you don't know what "lurid" means, try a dictionary.  The Post is a tabloid; WP is not, and you will not turn it into one.   I notice that you haven't edited anything else for over a year; why don't you go improve some other article?   -- Zsero (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that Youtube is not a reliable source. We have no guarantee of whether these tapes haven't been modified for example. I could easily change one of the tapes and stick up a different version. Youtube videos put up by anonymous individuals aren't acceptable. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not just that these might not be the recordings in question. It's also that the "genuine" recordings have not been authenticated, and we have no reason to believe that they are what they purport to be. Aguilar has both the means and the motive to create such recordings in order to destroy Tropper, so their mere existence proves nothing. Until and unless they're authenticated they must be treated with extreme caution.  -- Zsero (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please remember that Aguilar is a living individual also. Let's be careful throwing around comments like that. He certainly isn't Tropper's only opponent. Moreover, Tropper's immediate resignation isn't what one would expect if these were faked. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly well aware that Aguilar is a living person, and I have in no way implied that he did fake the recordings. I merely noted that he has both the means and the motive to do so, so the possibility must be borne in mind when evaluating the recordings' credibility.  It means that when I say we must wait for a proper authentication I'm not just pulling a lawyerly trick, or dealing in paranoid conspiracy theories; it's a real possibility.  His sudden resignation certainly gives the impression of guilt, but that's not evidence. -- Zsero (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Screwed Up
So I haven't done serious edits on the Wiki in awhile so please forgive the mess of edits I did that can be viewed in the "history." Please ignore my edit summary from 14:37 and refer to the one at 14:44. Also, at 14:44 I meant to put in a template, but I accidentally turned half the article into a template, so I corrected that mistake at 14:45. --Yodamace1 (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Citations to blogs
I remind the editors here that citations to blogs are unacceptable in WP:BLPs. If I see people citing blogs directly again, I'll start blocking the offenders. Please take WP:BLP seriously. Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Notability and sourcing
I saw this article referred to on BLP/N. I don't feel comfortable enough with the subject matter to tag it myself, but I have a real problem with whether this person meets the notability guidelines. Also, obviously, there is scant sourcing for much of the article. This is in addition to the larger issue of whether blog-originated allegations belong here. I'm not going to nominate it for deletion, but if someone else does I'll support. I think that may be the best route.Stetsonharry (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a lot of material on Tropper that simply isn't in the article. Reliable sources that could be incorporated include: . And that's just the first page of google news hits. He's clearly notable. I'd help add these sources in but I'm very busy right now. And making sure that people don't add BLP problems to the article is about all I have time for now. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's helpful. If sourcing was added it would resolve any notability concerns. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that the article was created a while ago, though it didn't get much attention until last week. -- Zsero (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Satisfactory
I just wanted to register my satisfaction with the article at 15:26. Even though I would probably prefer that some more things were in there (e.g. the posters), I am fine with it as it is. When I have time b"H Thursday, I would like to start an Eternal Jewish Family article; I was surprised that one hadn't already been created. --Yodamace1 (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It remains to be seen if it will gain any notability apart from Tropper. If it never takes on a life of its own then it's part of Tropper's story, not an independently notable organisation.  -- Zsero (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It has indeed had a life of it's own. It was banned by the Badatz, numerous controversial statements were made by them and their critics, and it is a well-known (some may say notorious) international organization in the Orthodox world. But I'll start it when I have time and if you don't like it, you can nominate it for deletion. --Yodamace1 (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ps -- I would like to register my apology. In some hasty edits, I made some errors when I was editing. However, between Zsero and my own rehashing, I believe they have all been corrected now. --Yodamace1 (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. I don't believe the Badatz banned it. I've seen the poster that supposedly did so, and it doesn't say that.
 * 2. Until now it has been an extension of Tropper. All of its notability and notoriety derives from him and the way he has run it.  Other people have been roped in on an ad hoc basis, but it's been Tropper's show.  I think that without him it has no better than a 50% chance of surviving.  If it does, and continues to have the impact that it did over the last few years, then it will have established independent notability and it will be time to create a WP article for it.  But until then I think it belongs here on Tropper's article.  -- Zsero (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to your opinion. R' Sternbuch in an approved translation said "such a program is absolutely prohibited by the Torah." The context of said paper made it clear that it was referring to EJF. --76.172.180.187 (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Refs
three and four appear to have gone from the website, are they on wayback and are they supporting any content, if so and they can not be found sothing needs to be done. Off2riorob (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Bear in mind that archive.org has a 6-month delay, so even if they grabbed a copy of the 14-Dec press release, it won't be up until the middle of next year. And they don't seem to have a copy of the May 2008 release about the conversion allegations. But the release is still a valid reference, even if it's not accessible online at any reliable source.  Remember that references do not have to be available online.  Links to sources are only for the reader's convenience.  If you want to read it, a copy is available at a blog which was linked to above on this talk page.  -- Zsero (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, they can't stay like that as dead links...considering as it seems to be supporting controversial content and the people that put it on the web have retracted it and the material is no longer accessible I would say it better if we did not use the content cited to the website...here is a link to where it was but they removed it, why would they do that? This story stinks imo. Off2riorob (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We have plenty of dead links on WP. The sources are valid no matter what the links' status is.  The 14-Dec press release was obviously removed because it was replaced by the 20-Dec one, so why should they keep it around?  But it's possible that archive.org managed to grab a copy while it was up, and it will show up there some time next year, at which time we can replace the link.   I don't know why the 30-May-2008 release was deleted, but again EJF is under no obligation to keep its press releases around forever.  It's still a valid source, and if the allegation (which is sourced to the Jewish Week article that Rosenberg wrote) is to remain on the page then Tropper's response must remain too, whether the link is alive or dead. -- Zsero (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that we have plenty of dead links on wikipedia is irrelevant. Can the comments not be cited from another place? As for why they have taken it down, they are plenty of older press releases, I would say they clearly have an issue with the content and have taken it down for some specific reason, perhaps a legal issue..imo we should not link to it either and find another place where it is not a dead link. I don't think any of it should be presently included for now as there are many issues with this story. Off2riorob (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, there are no other reliable sources online. Blogs are not reliable sources and cannot be cited; better to cite a valid source that's unavailable than an invalid one.  But clarify one thing: which story are you talking about?  The resignation story that is still unfolding now, or the conversion story from 2006?  -- Zsero (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the now story. Off2riorob (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, this is what happened. They issued one release on the 14th, then Rabbi Wachtfogel released his letter, then they took it down and issued a different one on the 20th.  The old release was there on their site; it's a valid source and surely it can't become invalid just because they took it down.  -- Zsero (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the people that released it have retracted it, we know not why but, they have done it for a good reason, I just think that under the circumstances as it is very controversial and disputed at present it would be better if we didn't use the content...I was of the mind that at the discussion at the BLPN there was not a lot of support for inclusion as yet of this content at all? Off2riorob (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that was about the sex allegations, which at the time were sourced only to blogs, and the alleged recordings, which are still only found on unreliable sources.  Here we're talking about the EJF's own press releases.  There is no dispute at all that what is described in the article is what happened: that EJF issued one release on Monday, saying that Tropper had resigned and that Blum and Wachtfogel would take over his positions, then Wachtfogel released a letter denying it, and then EJF issued another release on Friday which is still up.  They may wish nobody would know about the earlier release, but we have no reason to go along with that coverup.  The recordings are a different matter, because there has never been a reliable source for them; even now all we have are reliable sources that say the bloggers claim to have these recordings. -- Zsero (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * mmm, ok....This comment from the article ..Soon after, bloggers circulated a recording of a conversation between a man alleged to be Tropper and a woman whose conversion he is alleged to have been supervising, and which appears to show that the two were having a sexual affair .. cited to this fluff piece seems to add two plus two to the reader that this is the reason he resigned. Is this comment really worthy of inclusion at the moment, considering that these are claim and allegations only and emanate from these blogs Off2riorob (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it undoubtedly is the reason he resigned. We can't say so, but we can report the order in which things happened and let the reader draw his own conclusion as we all have drawn ours.  And the NY Post is a reliable source, which does a bit more than simply cite the bloggers as the JTA piece did. -- Zsero (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So, it is designed to be leading...I have removed it again, I didn't see a consensus to add it at the BLPN, and it is nothing more than a claim that it is him, there is no verification at all. Off2riorob (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Reports that the woman has confirmed making the recording
Okay -- here I am. A perfectly respectable source (the Jewish Chronicle), used for a single restrained sentence. Anyone who objects ought to make the objection clear. What exactly is the problem? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well there was a discussion at the BLPN and also as you can see here, the whole story is related to the blog comment which are being reported in other places, this content adds nothing but titillation, I don't see the value of your addition at all, it is the stuff tabloid gossip pages are made up of, not encyclopedias, I don't have any position in this, I am not Jewish or orthodox and I don't have and position apart from a BLP one and that is saying to me that this content adds nothing of value. Off2riorob (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If this seems like titillation to you, then I can only say that it must not be apparent what kind of meaning these events have in the context of the Orthodox Jewish world. I might agree with you if we were dealing with some idiot celebrity -- sure, who needs to know about a sex scandal?  But this isn't an idiot celebrity.  In any event, I did read the discussion at BLPN -- and I don't see how addition of this sentence (which after all uses a source that wasn't even available at the time of that discussion) contravenes it.  As far as I can see, there is no problem at all here with core policies and guidelines -- RS, N, BLP, anything else.  I'm not trying to add lurid details -- far from it.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, please allow some time for other involved editors to join the discussion and lets see, there is no hurry is there. Off2riorob (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The woman whom Tropper was helping to convert has acknowledged recording calls between her and Tropper. http://www.thejc.com/news/world-news/25321/sex-tapes-rock-orthodox "Sex Tapes Rock the Orthodox"], The Jewish Chronicle, 23 December 2009

I would just ask, who did she acknowledge this to? And what did she reportedly say? Also do we have a name for this woman? Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. The NY Post. 2. I don't know.  3. Why would this matter?  I figure we wouldn't name her, out of BLP concerns.  But her name is in the JC article if you're interested.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you provide that NY link please. Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This was in the NY Post article that's already linked. The JC adds nothing. But the fallacy should be obvious: a woman told the Post that she made the recordings, that she's the female voice on them, that Tropper is the male voice, and that the conversation is genuine and describes something that really happened.  So before we had Scott Rosenberg's word for all this, and now we have him plus some woman we've never heard of before.  How does that change anything?  The recordings still haven't been authenticated, AFAIK.  We still have no basis for believing them.  "Some woman said so" isn't evidence of anything.  -- Zsero (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That was more or less my feeling Zsero, thanks for commenting, imo the little comment we have is fine for now unless the situation is enlarged with some stronger detail. Off2riorob (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that the possibility of the recordings being faked is not some paranoid conspiracy theory to be dismissed out of hand; just a month ago Tropper acquired a powerful enemy who certainly has both the means and the motive to concoct something like this. That doesn't mean he did so, of course; but the possibility must be considered.  The timing certainly seems unlikely to be pure coincidence. -- Zsero (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you want to add that conspiracy theory to the main article? Do you have a source for this powerful enemy? TIA --Tom (talk) 23:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's already in the article, and very well sourced. -- Zsero (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

These objections are beyond absurd. The resistance to inclusion of this episode in the first instance arose from the notion that the only "story" here was something a blogger wrote. What the sentence I added does is to show that there's actually more to it than that: the woman with whom Tropper is alleged to have had an affair has confirmed directly to the newspaper that she made the recordings and that the man in question is Tropper. This isn't just blog stuff, folks -- this is normal newspaper reporting. Now, we can do this the hard way if you like -- RfC etc. -- but there's nothing out of line in the sentence I've added/proposed: no lurid details, no unsubstantiated claims, etc. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why you think this comment you want to add is of any value, it has been clearly pointed out here how little value it is. Why you seem as you say prepared to go the hard way in an attempt to add such a comment is beyond me. Off2riorob (talk) 08:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 08:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already indicated the value it has: it shows that the woman in question has acknowledged making the recordings, thus taking us beyond mere blog posts and rumors. The article here speaks in terms of "allegations" about the identity of the people on the recordings. The NY Post article (deemed reliable enough for relaying in the JC) makes it clear that one party here acknowledges being the person "alleged" to be on the tape and confirming that the other is Tropper. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth pointing out as well that the NY Post article doesn't speak in terms of "allegations" at all for the core of this story: it identifies Tropper in no uncertain terms and makes positive claims without hedging them at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry but your position is untenable, the content you want to add is of no added value at all, the woman is not named it is worthless speculative tabloid titillation. You may want for whatever reason you have, to assert that this is all perfectly true and that it is all guaranteed fact but we have a duty of care to tread carefully especially with living people in accusatory circumstances like this. Off2riorob (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What on earth do you mean, the woman isn't named? Have you actually read the articles?  Your post is highly misleading in saying that my proposed addition asserts the whole thing is true.  What are you on about? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your personal position is that it is all true, the comment is assertions of this woman says this, who is she, sorry as I said it is of no value at all, except to add more weight to the ''accusations, as I said I am a neutral here, I care less about orthodox and the other side, whoever they might be. Just read the discussion we have had here to understand what I am on about, I am involved in multiple articles, not just this one. Off2riorob (talk) 09:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As am I. On what basis would you assert that I am not neutral?  "No value" is a pretty weak argument, especially in the face of multiple reliable sources confirming a set of incidents without hedge.  But I can see that you are not open to persuasion on this -- so, shall it be an RfC, then?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There was also support for my position regarding this here from the editor Zsero and also at the BPL noticeboard, you are of course welcome to seek further opinions. Off2riorob (talk) 10:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC
I have proposed adding the following to the final paragraph: Two other editors have objected, immediately above -- one with an unfounded conspiracy theory, the other with what in my view is an excessively restrictive reading of BLP. For background: this business started with blog posts, and a discussion at BLPN, here, properly took the view that the blog was unacceptable as a source. However, the story in question has now been picked up in numerous reliable sources, including the NY Post, the Jewish Chronicle, Haaretz, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, etc. I think some editors are having a hard time moving beyond an approach that was initially properly cautious but which has been overtaken by the cascading coverage. The particular problem with the current version -- what my proposed addition is meant to remedy -- is that it is couched in terms of allegations, suggesting that nothing has been confirmed. This isn't true: the NY Post story, here, identifies everyone in no uncertain terms. Even so, I don't propose to having Wikipedia asserting that it is all true; I merely want to indicate that the woman in question has acknowledged recording calls between her and Tropper. The main objection above is that this has "no value" -- not exactly a good policy-based argument, given the quality of the sources and the restraint of my sentence. BLP-based caution is one thing, but there is also such a thing as excessive soft-pedalling of a story confirmed by multiple reliable sources. Additional sources:, , , ,. Any comments appreciated. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The woman whom Tropper was helping to convert has acknowledged recording calls between her and Tropper. Paul Berger, "Sex Tapes Rock the Orthodox", The Jewish Chronicle, 23 December 2009.


 * I won't comment more, the discussion on this talkpage above regarding this situation is a clear reflection of my position. Especially this position in respect of BLP protection....

''This was in the NY Post article that's already linked. The JC adds nothing. But the fallacy should be obvious: a woman told the Post that she made the recordings, that she's the female voice on them, that Tropper is the male voice, and that the conversation is genuine and describes something that really happened. So before we had Scott Rosenberg's word for all this, and now we have him plus some woman we've never heard of before. How does that change anything? The recordings still haven't been authenticated, AFAIK. We still have no basis for believing them. "Some woman said so" isn't evidence of anything. ''

These are still clearly unsubstantiated allegations, and we need to err on the side of caution especially in regards to accusations regarding living people. Off2riorob (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

 Request for Comment'''-I think that both the existing text and the proposed text are confusing. Why not openly report the sources and quote them? This maintains accuracy to the source, minimizes editor conflict, and protects Wiki. I would suggest the following text which is supported by the two reliable sources and meets the BLP guideline that criticism be well cited and in a neutral tone:
 * You say "the woman in question" has acknowledged the story. But there was no "woman in question" before the NY Post story.  A woman told the Post that she was the female voice on the recordings, that she had made them, that the male voice was Tropper, and that the conversation was authentic.  She could be absolutely anybody.  It's not as if she was already known to be the subject of the allegations.  So her confirming Rosenberg's story means nothing.
 * I also object to the term "unfounded conspiracy theory"; this is BLP and we must consider all reasonable explanations before assuming that a report is valid. It is uncontrovertible fact that Tropper very recently acquired a powerful enemy who has the means and the motive to fabricate just such a scandal.  That one so conveniently crops up so soon afterwards is unlikely to be a coincidence.  Of course that doesn't mean it is fabricated; personally I think there are far more likely explanations.  But in a BLP we can't go beyond what we can prove, and we can't dismiss this perfectly plausible possibility.  And at the end of the day, what have we got?  The JC and Haaretz rely on the Post, which in turn relies on Rosenberg and this woman whom nobody's ever heard of.
 * One last thing: Even if you dismiss all of the above, the language you want to insert, "the woman whom Tropper was helping to convert", is unacceptable, because Tropper has been helping many people to convert, both men and women; it's what he did until a fortnight ago. It's like saying "the woman whom Dr Smith treated", when Dr Smith sees 20 patients a day. -- Zsero (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * According to a December 2009 article in the New York Post, Trooper “has been caught on tape discussing his apparent love affair with a shiksa he was converting to Judaism”. An article in the Jewish Chronicle online, refers to the incident as recordings “disseminated on the Internet” of  “sexually explicit conversations, apparently between a strictly Orthodox rabbi and a woman he was helping to convert to Judaism”. The Jewish Chronicle goes on to say that the “ Rabbi on the recordings is “reported to be Rabbi Trooper”.-- — Kbob •  Talk  • 18:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I totally dispute that such a comment is appropriate. Off2riorob (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Without reasons, naturally. Anyway, I support it as appropriate per BLP and an improvement over the current version.  It has the distinct virtue of being close to the sources.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is pure speculation and as such reporting it like that in a BLP is totally excessive. apparently and  according to  and is reported to be is not the way we add controversial content to BLPs. Off2riorob (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You would prefer that it be phrased as fact without the words that hedge it?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rob, thanks for your comments. I am not suggesting that we use vague weasel words like "apparently" or "or some people say". Instead I suggest that we explicitly cite the source and use quotations direct from the source. Then the reader can decide how to take the information. This is in accordance with the Wiki guidelines: I am not aware of an Wiki policy or guideline that says that the source cannot be cited in the text by saying "According to an article in the New York Times etc." If there is such a policy please show me the link as I always want to learn more about the guidelines. Thanks. The second sentence, by the way, where I am suggesting we quote the JC article, is there to add balance and acts as a qualifier to the NY Post article quote.-- — Kbob • Talk  • 16:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:QUOTE essay says: Quotations should be used when "dealing with a potentially controversial statement. Using the actual spoken or written words can help avoid controversial statements by editors."
 * WP:MOS guideline says: "When preceding a quotation with its attribution, avoid characterizing it in a biased manner."
 * WP:WTA guideline says: "To avoid using 'said' too often, look for creative ways to rephrase the sentence instead" [such as] "According to Mayor Bimbsly, it is simply a matter of faith."
 * Controversial disputed content in a BLP that is so weakly cited should be kept out of the article, what can be the benefit of adding such content to a bio of a living person? We have a duty of care to people especially living ones that could be harmed by content we include. Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)