Talk:Rubashkin family

Started article
This is the successor to Rubashkin crime family. That was a bit narrow, and the title was rather strong. --John Nagle (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * They are not a "crime" family. They are a notable family, that over the years was not involved with crimes, unfortunately some of them stepped over the mark and became involved with matters that resulted in crimes. But over-all, their achievements, on balance, are not just about "crimes", otherwise it looks like you have an axe to grind and are violating WP:NPOV. So try to stay balanced and not act like this is advocacy journalism, or yellow journalism and you for sure do not wish to come across like Der Stürmer. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Music video
I'm going out. Please play nice and avoid middle-of-the-night deletions. There's a music video out in support of Sholom. Enjoy. --John Nagle (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed citation problem. All links are now to reliable sources: the New York Times, the Forward, and the U.S. Department of Labor, plus some Jewish newspapers. --John Nagle (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please justify this deletion
This deletion deleted references from the New York Times, The Forward, and the National Labor Relations Board. The deleted material is a bare list of criminal convictions and arrests, with minimal commentary. Claiming non-notability is unreasonable. WP:BLP prohibits mentioning unsubstantiated allegations, but once there's been a conviction, that's part of the public record and is permitted, if cited to a reliable source. Please justify the deletion, citing specific reasons for each reference deleted. Thank you. --John Nagle (talk) 04:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Related to this, I've been trying to find reliable sources that say good things about the family. Google News archive searches don't turn up much.  Almost all of the notability is related to criminal activity. There are blogs and web sites which say good things about the family, but most are non-notable and some  are paid PR. Is there any member of the family who is notable and hasn't been in trouble with the law? --John Nagle (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reverted it -- if there are articles, then they are notable, and if someone thinks they are not notable then AfD is the place to go. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Rubashkin un-family
Hello. It really is quite funny. Until not so long ago, the Rubashkins were treated as royalty, even three year old members of the clan got an article (see ). Now suddenly, the mere existence of such a family is denied, at least in the English Wikipedia. Every trace of it gets up for deletion or is deleted right away (s. also ), without any explanation or comment. Aaron Rubashkin, father of nine, grandfather of probably more than fifty mostly adult “children”, not to mention great grandchildren, many of them in business-relation with him and his companies (s. e.g. ) becomes a one-man show: no patriarch, no dynasty, no family → no notability → no notoriety, got it?

But there are good things to be said about them, family or not: they are big charity-givers, mostly Jewish and probably Lubavich-causes, and they are also contributors to political causes, mostly Republican. I don't know where they stand in the Messias-question, but there probably are no reliable sources about that anyway.

My suggestion is: Let's focus on the companies and sort out the many family-members (three generations at least) who have/had a business position or business interest in them. Not all of the family members are notable, but they don't have to be, to be mentioned, if they are part of the family-business-network and/or family PR-network, I guess. The difficulty is of course, to find all the companies and the Rubashkins, and Rubashkin-in-laws, connected to them. And don't forget to save a copy of every edit, chances are, that it will get deleted, and that you have to start all over again. Cheerio, ajnem (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"See also"
IZAK, I'm curious to know the relevance of the three people you have added to the "See also" section. Are they connected to the Rubashkins somehow? I'm not convinced they should be here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The last two don't seem to have much connection to the United States. Boymelgreen is a real estate developer in New York who's not doing well in the recession  and was involved in some obscure political dispute with the Rubashkins over the Crown Heights Community Council, but he's not part of the family, as far as I can tell. Levlev had financial dealings with Boymelgreen .   But the Rubashkin connection seems weak.  --John Nagle (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The local flap in Crown Heights back in 2006 seems to have involved Boymelgreen, the Rubashkins, and some other parties fighting over control of a local Jewish organization. The hits in Google are to blogs and sites run by one side or the other. Much ranting, no reliable sources.  Whatever it was, it seems to be over; the blog entries stop in 2006.  The involved parties now have bigger problems to deal with. I suggest we take those refs out of the article.  --John Nagle (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The point of "See alsos" is to help readers not familiar with material they are reading get a better context. "See also" do not have to be a 100% exactly connected to a topic, they are meant to be general links to related subjects. In fact they put the topic into greater context and perspective, and show that the Rubashkins were not unique in being stupendous businesspeople and simultaneously Chasidim of Chabad and mega supporters of its work and reach, there are other families, headed by their patriarchs or family leaders who do the same. Rubashkins in their glory before their financial demise were on a par with the three other Chabad tycoons with whom they shared the distinction of supporting the work of the Chabad movement worldwide. It also shows the fallacy of painting the Rubashkins as only "guilty" when they, together with others on their financial level, have contributed much positively. Interestingly the others were involved in huge financial problems and challenges. The connection should be obvious to anyone familiar with this topic so it it's surprising to hear any questions about it. IZAK (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that answer might lead to further thoughts on what else should be linked under "see also". If the point is provide context by linking to other people holding similar characteristics, then we would need to link not only to other Jewish business people but to other Jewish criminals; it's true that the Rubashkins were not only criminals, but it's also true that they were not only business people.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are too much focused on a limiting "either/or" hinge or formula that will get you nowhere, just spinning your wheels and people will be angry at you for your simplistic depictions, while I am trying to put the Rubashkins in context of the greater Chabad movement and its big-time financial and philanthropic movers and shakers who also happen to be strict disciples and adherents of their Rebbe and the Chabad ideology. I think that would shed light on the Rusbashkins' complexity and their real paradoxes and complexity, their philosophy and outlook, of how they could appear to be and act so "devoutly" religious yet also undertake stupendous business ventures that often blow up in their faces and land them in jail! It's not as if they were: (a) born Jewish + (b) got caught doing criminal acts, "therefore" "all" they are, are "Jewish"+"Criminals" which sounds simplistic and does not reflect deeper factors and more complex real flesh and blood people. One has to see the Rubashkins in context of the Chabad movement and how they are like other Chabad tycoons, that is why comparing them to others in the "see also" is important, and from that will emerge a picture that is far more complex and will shed both lots of positive aspects about them, and also explain some negative aspects, that would explain why they do what they do and still have no insight into themselves and feel that the world is "misunderstanding" them or "persecuting" them. IZAK (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, granted, they are not only Jewish business people and Jewish criminals, they are other things as well. But that's really my point: if we're going to add people who are similar on one dimension, we might add people similar on other dimensions.  The question is, how wide do we want this to get?  It won't do to focus only on one dimension.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Nomoskedasticity: Trying to paint the Rubashkins as a "crime family" was already shot down as waste of time and violation of WP:CSD G10. Their whole life was not spent being "criminals" and their convictions are for financial fraud primarily. They are not murderers, they are not drug dealers, they are not Fascists and skin heads, they are not wife beaters and child abusers. Yes, tax cheats and businessmen convicted of fraud are "criminals" but that too needs to be into perspective because not all crimes are equal. The Nazis are also criminals, because they tortured and murdered over 6 million innocent Jewish civilians, the drug cartels are also criminals and they have ruined tens of millions of lives, Richard Nixon and the Watergate plumbers are also criminals, guilty of political spying and break ins, doctors who get sued and lose their licenses are also criminals guilty of malpractice, teachers who have sex with under age students are also criminals, etc etc etc, -- the point being of all these examples is they should not all be thrown into the pot, and that everything requires context and it's not "one size fits all" when it comes to the "criminal" label. In the case of the Rubashkins, their convictions speak for themselves and there is no need to throw in every last example of "criminals" to prove any points with your overkill and as if to flog a dead horse. Step back, and one must try to see the great good in them as well. They are not the devil and evil incarnate because that has already been rejected at Articles for deletion/Rubashkin crime family and rightly so due to problems with WP:CSD G10. IZAK (talk) 08:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Why Shaya Boymelgreen? He has enough problems that he's probably not a good example. .  There is a tie to the Rubashkins, but it's an ugly one.  Do you really want to get into the internal politics of the Crown Heights Community Council, the two competing Beth Dins, the embarrassing Din Rodef, the struggle over control of approved kosher slaughterers, and all that? At least he's part of the Crown Heights community.  Leviev is certainly notable, but he's not close to the Rubashkins or that community at all. He's the richest man in Israel, has close ties to Vladimir Putin, and put money into Boymelgreen's New York real estate operations until they had a falling out. Gutnick seems to have no significant connection to the Rubashkins at all.  --John Nagle (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi John Nagle: Again, you are viewing the "See also" function in too narrow a light. The point of "See alsos" is to provide any sort of related subject a link. It may be a general or a specific relationship. In this case, the inclusion of Leviev, Gutnick and Boymelgreen (there may be a few more names we have not heard of below the radar) is to point to other Chabad tycoons, who while they don't have articles about their families, they do represent and embody Chabad businessmen on the scope of the Rubashkin family. In the case of Leviev and Gutnick there are in fact key family members helping to run his conglomerates, and they are similar to the Rubashkins in that way. By the way, Leviev has left Israel and is now based and lives in London. IZAK (talk) 08:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see the point. Is there some article in Category:Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism where this would be more appropriate, though?  This isn't an article about Chabad tycoons. A useful source: "The Rebbe's Army" .  There's material for a good article in there.  I had no idea how evangelical the Chabad movement had become. --John Nagle (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest keeping Boymengreen, who does have strong ties to the Rubashkins and Crown Heights, and dropping Gutnick, who's out in Australia and seems to be two degrees removed from them. Leviev could go either way.  Comments? --John Nagle (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not the Madoffs
Hello. In my opinion, none of the three qualify as “see alsos”. I don't think that the Rubashkins ever played in the same league as Joseph Gutnick, Lev Leviev or even Shaya Boymelgreen, besides, the article about the latter is so poor, and doesn't even mention his being a Lubavitcher hasid, that linking to it makes no sense. I'm not sure I understand what IZAK's point is, but his explanation for why he put the links there “In fact they put the topic into greater context and perspective, and show that the 'Rubashkins were not unique in being stupendous businesspeople and simultaneously Chasidim of Chabad and mega supporters of its work and reach, there are other families, headed by their patriarchs or family leaders who do the same. Rubashkins in their glory before their financial demise were on a par with the three other Chabad tycoons with whom they shared the distinction of supporting the work of the Chabad movement worldwide'” sounds more like paid advertisement, than anything close to reality. The Rubashkins are not tycoons, they never were. As I've mentioned before, I, living in Switzerland, had never even heard of the Rubashkins. They never got into the newspapers outside of America and Israel. In their good days, they were known in their own world (and in little Postville, Iowa, of course), and only played a role there and for Jews - kosher eating Jews at that. They only became known outside of the ultra orthodox Jewish world in the US thanks to PETA and the Forward, and later ICE. Yes, they also did business outside of the restricted Jewish world, with their textile factories, but very little is known about that, and it didn't make them famous. And, lets face it, it doesn't look like they ever were all that rich, Aaron Rubashkin mentioned that he had managed to get 4 millions of his own money after the raid to save the business - well, I don't want to sound snobbish, but if 4 millions is all he could get his hands on, that's not a lot of money for a guy who is supposed to be rich. The Lubavich-issue is interesting and may be important, but it is tricky. Are the Rubashkins Mishichists or not, or which of them are and which aren't? They all behave as if they were quite sure, that Moshiach is just around the corner, and that they therefore ... But on the other hand, there are other hasidim, not Lubavichers, but Satmarers, e.g, who are running businesses, en famille, I'll bet, just like the Rubashkins. And the orthodox Syrian Jews in New Jersey are very much business and family people, not to mention the Madoffs. Lots of possible “see alsos”... And IZAK, your resumé of the Rubashkin crimes is very faulty. There is a long history of abuse - of their workers, non Jewish workers, I presume, that's what got the Forward interested in them, remember? And Moshe Rubashkin has a history of violence, his son Sholom doesn't seem to be very level headed either, and, yes, there is even a caught child molester among them, that nobody seems to object to. So, dear IZAK, why don't you put what you say you want to make clear with the “see also”-links, into the article itself? That would make it a lot clearer than a hundred links to other Wiki-articles could, don't you agree? You want to show that the “Rubashkins in their glory before their financial demise were on a par with the three other Chabad tycoons with whom they shared the distinction of supporting the work of the Chabad movement worldwide”? Well, if you have reliable sources for your claim, nobody will object to it. But “see also”-links to billionaires and philantropists, no way, ajnem (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge Rubashkin Family to Sholom Rubashkin page
The Rubashkin_family appears to be a rehash of the Shlomo Rubashkin page, and creates a NPOV. I'm recommending it be merged. A very brief subsection can handle what little differing information exists between the two articles.Edstat (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * oppose, there is sufficient notability as a family. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are at least six notable Rubashkin family members, and only three (maybe four) are associated with Sholom R. and the Agriprocessors debacle. The family, as a group, has received substantial press coverage as a New York dynasty. --John Nagle (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The Rubashkin family-article is only a stub yet. A lot more to come. The main article so far still is Agriprocessors, by the way, and the head of the family is Aaron Rubashkin, not Sholom Rubashkin. ajnem (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

New developments - family members fined $2 million
"Members of the Rubashkin family, who operated the now-defunct Agriprocessers kosher meatpacking plant, must pay a total of more than $2 million after defaulting on loans. A federal judge ordered Dec. 16 that Abraham Aaron Rubashkin and sons Sholom and Tzvi must pay the money to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and Value Recovery Group. " --John Nagle (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Waterloo Valley-Cedar Falls Courier has more detail.. It's not a "fine", payable to the court.  It's an order to pay various debts, unpaid rent, etc. The bank to whom they owed money went bust, so the FDIC and a collection agency became involved. It's Agriprocessors-related, and three members of the family were held responsible for the debt as individuals.  --John Nagle (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

THERE IS A CONSPIRACY TO CENSOR SOCIETY OF THE TRUTH ABOUT THESE CRIMINALS.

WE MUST DO SOMETHING !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.157.209 (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Use of the term 'Ultra-Orthodox'
The term 'Ultra-Orthodox' is widely considered to be offensive and the preferred term is 'Haredi'. See the talk page on WikiProject Judaism that establishes this as the consensus. This article from The Forward expresses a common sentiment regarding the offensiveness of the term. --PiMaster3 talk 15:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That discussion has seven participants, three of whom adopt the view that the term is offensive and so should not be used. This is not a consensus.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)