Talk:Yosef Mizrachi/Archive 1

Warning
I warn all pro-Kiruv activists that removal of sourced information from this article will be stopped. If need be, the community will ban all editors engaging in such activities! I hope I made it clear, that Wikipedia is not censored, and this behavior will not be tolerated. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have semiprotected this article so that all may contribute, but they must have accounts and be responsible - and can discuss issues on the talk page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I have an account and want to add a link to a new article that appeared today in the Jewish Chronicle: ‘Ignorant and offensive’ rabbi visits UK but even though I have an account, I don't seem able to edit. Is there something else I need to do? Thanks SpiderJrslm (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The account needs a little bit of time and edits to ripen so it can edit semiprotected pages. I will just look up what the prerequisites are as I forget...... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Aaah yes, it is 4 days and 10 edits. Look, I think this is a good case where everyone attaches an account to an edit and goes from there. Then discussing on the talk page is easier.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I have no desire to get caught up in the storm, merely try and help make the whole thing a little clearer and with more references. But as you say, no rush. SpiderJrslm (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Always remember that the more robust the sourcing, the harder it is for someone else to remove material. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

What are we going to do about this article?
Dear all,

Seeing as I made the first edit in what has turned out to be a dreadful edit war, with administrators having to step in, I feel a certain responsibility to find a solution that everyone can be happy with.

As you will note from the history of changes to the article, I felt that it was more like a cv or advert, and I attempted to fix that by removing the superlative adjectives, retaining factual information, and adding two sourced sections to give balance. I also made some grammatical and typographical corrections.

Unfortunately, the resulting carnage has led to a much worse article than we started with.

The problems I can see are:

1. Some grammatical errors.

2. An overall sense that some of the information here is promotional, or at least intended to impress rather than inform.

3. The article is not really about The Kiruv Organisation, but rather about Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi.

Here's what I suggest we do:

I can easily fix point 1. Point 2 is a little bit more difficult, and might lead to some more battles, but if no-one else wants to do it, I'll have a go. If we just stick to facts, without presenting them in the golden light of technicolour superlatives, we will be fine.

Point number 3 is a bit harder to work out. In terms of the clarity and accuracy of our encyclopaedia, it would seem that the right thing to do would be to give Rabbi Mizrachi an article all of his very own (aw) and link to that from here. I see two problems with this however; firstly a new page might become another tedious battleground and we will have to go through the whole saga again, and secondly that this page, when devoid of the amazing Rabbi Mizrachi is, well, empty...

I look forward to hearing what anyone else might have to say about all this, but won't be doing anything about it myself until after Shabbat...

10:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Baalmaloche (talk) 10:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The main thing is that this needs material that is cited in reliable sources - see WP:RS - especially if it's gonna upset someone else and everyone ends up armwrestling here...which won't be any good at all. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Point 1 is easily addresses, as you say. Point 2 is a general problem with many Wikipedia articles. Judiciously removing, adding or changing a word here or a word there should be able to take care of the most serious issues. Point 3 is better left the way it is, or we will have two of these promotional articles. :) In any case, he seems to be the motor behind the organization, so let it be. Debresser (talk) 12:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * My suggestions - and they are only suggestions as an univolved administrator, are simple.


 * A lot of the time, the problem is that it takes a bit of experience to guess what form an article could, should, or might better be put in, when mature, and the kinds of sections and aspects it should (or would, or might best) probably cover or pass by. Given some idea what the article might be directed to, even inexperienced editors often have little trouble suddenly getting the hang of how to make it work to a good standard. So I think that's a good starting point. See below. FT2 (Talk 13:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Example of one possible set of ideas how this article could be handled, and the kinds of content coverage that could be useful and relevant
Here is my effort as a passing administrator with no personal knowledge of the topic at all, to second guess how this article could be structured and what it might approach, and how - essentially what I'd expect to find as a lay reader, at minimum. Hopefully it will help others by acting as a kind of draft framework that can be used to improve it better.

Is this enough to give good initial ideas for both "sides" on what might build a good article, or belong in one, if cited or citeable?Not everything belongs, but hopefully this moves it outside the simple issue of "one controversy". I hope this helps. FT2 (Talk 12:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Introduction: - should briefly explain the key points covered in the rest of the article - that this is a Jewish organization, founded when and by whom, its key goals, and an overview of the rest of the article. It should sum up the article fairly which means if there is a significant controversy its fair to mention it, but it should not need to be more than a brief mention, so a "skimming" reader isn't left ignorant of the fact.
 * Controversies are hard sometimes to sum up fairly, so I'll try to give an idea of an approach. Please take this only as a working example of how one might word it, not how one must or should word it. You'll have to figure the exact wording between those who know the topic better. One might cover the existing controversy something like this in the introduction: "Kiruv has (been criticized | come under attack | come under widespread criticism) from (whomever) due to (it's views | the views of Rabbi whoever) on controversial topics such as (whatever), which are based in (whoever's) view upon plainly stated views in Jewish law."
 * 1) Background (OPTIONAL, CAN BE USEFUL SOMETIMES): - optional but if a reader needs some key background knowledge, such as that Judaism includes many jews who believe that the biblical writings and rabbinical writings are to be taken as literal and followed as nearly as possible, or whatever essential background might be, some articles have a "background" section first to bring a lay reader who's never heard of "orthodox judaism" up to speed in a few sentences by concisely summarizing key pre-requisites for this article (eg for a non jewish researcher needing key context pointers first). May be needed, may not. Can help.
 * 2) Mission and philosophy: - does it have a brief summary of how it sees itself, or is seen, or its focus/niche as a jewish organization? Even some religious bodies have a "mission statement" or statement of purpose. Some organizations do, some don't. What are its philosophies or principles? (and worth noting sometimes - are these disputed by others, in the sense of, would other people fundamentally describe Kiruv differently, or with different emphasis,  than Kiruv describes Kiruv? If so, say so.)
 * 3) Origins and history: - where do its organizational and religious/spiritual/rabbinical roots lie? What led up to its formation? Would a reader understand how it came about, and how it then grew? Did it suffer setbacks, or stagnate, was it criticized for things on its journey, historically? How did its approach or activities develop and grow or change over time? Were there "phases" or "stages" within its history? What did third parties say about it - both supporters and critics - at key points (not just today)?  What controversies or schisms if any existed? What has it reached wide media coverage for, both within very religious Judaism, general jewish culture, and the wider (non jewish) world?
 * 4) Structure and activities: - How is it run? What is its legal organization structure? What does it run, or otherwise organize and what do they do? Who does it work or affiliate with? What does it actually "engage in" day to day, and how? What does it "get up to" in the world, and in any other matters that it covers? what is documented about those that belongs in an encyclopedia?
 * 5) Followers (OPTIONAL, COULD BE PUT IN OTHER SECTIONS TOO): - what do followers believe, and what are the main kinds of views that seem to exist and be represented among non-followers, about followers?
 * 6)  Perceptions: - how is it seen - by "both supporters, critics (a better term than "detractors"), and the external media? How do analysts analyze it, when it's covered by impartial media or observers, or in a controversy?
 * 7) Controversies: - describe them, don't try to re-fight or rewrite or win them here. What was the issue that gave rise to controversy? Who disagreed with whom? What did each side feel/believe/say, which put them in disagreement? What was the resolution or outcome, or status quo or consequences, if any, through the eyes of insiders, critics, jewish general media, world media, or others (not just one preferred view, we educate on how ALL "significant" views saw it!)
 * 8) Usual sections: - references, "see also" and "external links" etc.
 * 9) Rabbi (if not covered elsewhere and needed: - Separately, if the Rabbi mentioned is almost alwayss seen in the context of his Rabbi's role, or this organizaation, as seems possible, then a section covering him might be worth including - a brief biography not a hagiography though!! (It could go as a subsection under "origins and history" or a main level section there, if it were added.)


 * Some thoughts froma driveby editor.

SPACKlick (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Introduction, from the sources it doesn't seem there's much more to say than it's an organisation founded by this rabbi to teach mursa to jews in and around new york
 * I'd put background (any information on the formation of the group and activities engaged in) Second
 * Then I'd put the detail of Work engaged in.
 * Then I'd put a section on the controversies. And that section has seen some pretty good revisions among the recent wars.

My attempt at a complete overhaul...
So, as far as I understand it, the best way for us to procede is for me to put my attempt at a reworked page here, and see if anyone has anything to say or do about it. I hope that is right, and I shall wait and see. Baalmaloche (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

A few words about what I've done:
I've gone through and corrected any grammatical or typographical errors that I could see. I've removed or edited some sources that turned out to have nothing to do with the statements they were supporting. I've added some more sourced stuff to achieve greater balance. I've hammered the page into the best shape/structure I could think of to convey the information that is contained here.

I hope this all makes sense, and look forward to seeing what happens next. (article follows)


 * Kiruv Organisation

The Kiruv Organisation was founded in 1995 by sefardi Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi in Monsey, New York, for the purpose of teaching Musar and connecting Jews to Judaism and Torah. The Kiruv Organisation acts to promote the activities of Rabbi Mizrachi, and does so mainly through their website DivineInformation.com.

The Kiruv Organization provides DVDs, Audio CDs and MP3s free of charge. Films such as Divine Information, Torah and Science, The Debate: Christianity vs. Judaism, and Life after Life are amongst the titles available through their website DivineInformaton.com. Kiruv Organisation has supplied thousands of these audio and video disks for free.
 * Work of the Kiruv Organisation

Mizrachi claims to have made thousands of Baaley Teshuva through his activities, which he states are not motivated by any desire for personal profit or self-aggrandisement.

{{quote|All the workers of Kiruv organization are volunteers, there are no mortgages, rent, or money wasted in any way. All funds are used 100% for the very Holy cause of Saving Souls and bring Jewish men and women back to Hashem our G-d. Please know that according to the Torah the best investment a person can make is helping others learn Torah and know Hashem. Every mitzvah that is kept thanks to your donation will bless you for eternity and you will inherit a world to come in the highest level as Hashem promised in the Torah.|Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi

In 2002 a movie called Divine Information was produced by Rabbi Yosef Mizrahi and Yuval Ovadia, a former Movie Director with HBO.
 * Divine Information

In 2004 Rabbi Mizrahi launched a website named DivineInformation.com offering hundreds of audio and video recordings of his lectures in English and Hebrew, some with subtitles in Turkish, Español or Russian, free for download. Followers of these lectures are from more than 50 countries. As of 2013, Rabbi Mizrachi’s FaceBook page has over a million visits per month and more than 56,000 followers.

In 2001 Rabbi Mizrachi opened a Kollel and a Yeshiva in Alfandari Street, Jerusalem.
 * Yeshiva

Rabbi Mizrachi's teachings as represented by his substantial volume of video and audio presentations appear to be strongly influenced by various streams of thought within Jewish writings.
 * Influences

{{Main|Musar movement}} Rabbi Mizrachi offers an extended ethical audio and video lecture series, called "The Path of the Just", based on the classical musar text Mesillat Yesharim ({{lang-he|מסילת ישרים}}) composed by Moshe Chaim Luzzatto. {{quote|The Orthodox Jewish community spawned Musar to help people overcome the inner obstacles that hinder them from living up to the laws and commandments —the mitzvot— that form the code of life."
 * Musar

His lecture series on the Pirkei Avot (engl. Ethics of the Fathers) also draws on Musar and practical ethics.

Rabbi Mizrachi and others advocate the study of Musar for everyone, Jews and Gentiles alike. For Gentiles this means the observance of only seven Noahide laws, for Jews and Jewish Baalei Teshuva, this means the acceptance, practice, study and learning of all the 613 mitzvot. Musar today has been incorporated into the curricula and lectures of various rabbinical schools and teachers.

{{Main|Kabbalah}} Rabbi Mizrachi's teachings also seem to be strongly based in the work of the Kabbalist Rabbi Isaac Luria (also known as Ari Hakadosh)as authored by his student Hayyim ben Joseph Vital. Rabbi Luria is reported to have considered a belief in reincarnation as integral to Jewish though and practice. {{quote|'Behold, after a person’s death, he is repaid for his sins before he is entered into purgatory, through many kinds of punishment, all termed reincarnation. This means that he can be reincarnated as a mineral, vegetable, animal or person. Almost all people have to reincarnate in these ways. The reason being that [a person] is unable to receive his punishment, until he is an embodied soul, at which time he can suffer and feel this pain, and thereby be atoned of his sins. But the extent of his sinning determines the kind of reincarnation he will have, whether it be as a mineral, vegetable or animal, etc...'| Chaim Vital (attributed to Ari Hakadosh) (1543-1620), Sha’ar HaGilgulim (The Gate of Reincarnations), 59}}
 * Kabbalah


 * Controversy

In early 2014, prior to a lecture tour in London, concern was expressed about statements by Rabbi Mizrachi in his previous lectures relating to the behaviour of secular & religious Jews during the Holocaust, suggesting that Down's Syndrome and autism are punishments for sins committed in a previous life, and the psychology of homosexuality, among others. Detractors criticised Rabbi Mizrachi for views that he maintains are explicitly Torah sourced. His views as represented by his lectures also include the use of Torah Codes to explain the Holocaust.

Rabbi Mizrachi was the subject of criticism by the facebook group MOO-Modern/Open Orthodox. Concerned that that such views are neither authoritative nor representative of mainstream contemporary Orthodox Jewish thought, some members of the group campaigned to stop his lecture tour. As a result, at least one of his planned lectures in London was initially cancelled. Rabbi Mizrachi replied to members of this group via his Facebook page to answer some of their criticisms:

{{quote|to all my fans and supporters !!! after an amazing shabat that i spoke in 3 different shuls here in London and a lecture last night (Saturday night) ,i spoke today in the morning in the "od yosef chai shul" (the shul that originally cancelled but changed their mind after they realized that everything that they were told by the evil wicked enemies of hashem and the torah was all pure lies )...-the conclusion of this trip is that this evil wicked people try to cancel lectures but not only they cant cancel anything they actually dabble the amount of my lectures here from 4 to 8 and the newspaper that they got to write against me asked to do an article about my kiruv work so i am getting a huge publicity all over England for free thanks to this evil monsters -hashem is wonderful and always help the in the best possible way and the 2 people that was trying to ruin the lectures here are burned out for good they are not welcomed anymore in any community here after everyone found out here what evil liars they are they expected now to have a veruy difficult time here -this news is to all the people that love torah and musar love hashem to see how this horrible people prepared a tree for me and they are getting hang on is just like haman -hashem runs the world and their real eternal punishment did not even start yet but soon we will all see how they get destroyed for eternity just like the torah promised !!!|exerpted from Rabbi Mizrachi's Facebook page for 3 February 2014 }}

Rabbi Mizrachi holds the view that those who dispute the idea of reincarnation as a punishment cannot be Orthodox and that such ideas are universally held as part of Orthodox Judaism.

Following these events, the Jewish chronicle ran another article entitled "'Jews brought Holocaust on themselves' rabbi visits UK ".


 * See also
 * Orthodox Judaism outreach

{{Reflist|2}}
 * References


 * External links
 * Official website
 * Rabbi Yossi Mizrachi - on TorahAnytime.com
 * Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi's Latest Shows on Radio Arutz Sheva, Israel National News
 * MizrachiWatch blog

Category:Jewish organizations Category:Orthodox Jewish outreach Category:Religious organizations established in 1995 Category:Giving Category:Orthodox yeshivas in Jerusalem Category:Baalei teshuva institutions

17:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Baalmaloche (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I doubt we should have the blog in the external links. Debresser (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, how about having a sentence referring to it's existence in the Controversy section? 14:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Baalmaloche (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Why in the Controversy section? I think the Divine Information section is more appropriate, sine that also mentions his Facebook page. Debresser (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The blog was started by one of the MOO group to 'monitor' content they found offensive. Definitely not part of Kiruv organisationBaalmaloche (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Then why have it at all? Debresser (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What I mean is they started the blog to monitor content from Mizrachi that they found offensive. It's definitely relevant. Follow the link and you'll see. Baalmaloche (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It may be relevant, but we don't usually have blogs on Wikipedia. See WP:SPS. Debresser (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:SPS (thanks for that, I'm totally a newbie) I see the point. On reflection though, I'd still advocate for its inclusion. I think its relevant to state that the blog was initiated by detractors of R. Mizrachi as a part of their side of the controversy, and it seems odd not to have a reference to that. The WP:SPS policy seems to be a warning to be cautious not to refer to SPS as factual. This wouldn't be doing that. Rather, it would be referring to the fact that the blog exists, which I think is a good idea. Baalmaloche (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That I think would be fine. It could indeed be mentioned in the controversy section. Especially if a quote from the website could be shown as a reference to the fact that it is monitor content from Mizrachi that they find offensive. Debresser (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Great, I think it's time to put this into action now.Baalmaloche (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2016
Please update the last post to remove "reminiscent of claims of Holocaust deniers" comment as this is personal opinion of the last editor, not fact. Also please add "In his January 2016 lecture, titled "The Number 1 Threat To Our Nation – Gossip, False Hate, The Media Murder Machine, 31 Violations Of The Torah On Each Loshon Hara", the Rabbi clarified that his comments were twisted out of context and disseminated throughout media to ignite controversy." He clarified his statement to more accurately reflect his opinion.

The reference to this lecture is here: http://www.divineinformation.com/the-number-1-threat-to-our-nation-gossip-false-hate-the-media-murder-machine-31-violations-of-the-torah-on-each-loshon-hara/

Tzar Bomba 1961 (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll leave the second part of this request for somebody else, but I refuse to do the first part: "reminiscent of claims of Holocaust deniers" is a fact, not an opinion. Debresser (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Any reason you want to "leave second part" to someone else? What I requested is to add an update and a link to the reference. Doesn't this kind of defeat the purpose of Wiki by you not updating the page with a hard reference? Do you by any chance have an agenda on this page to discredit Rabbi Mizrachi's work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.212.175.30 (talk • contribs)
 * That reference is not a valid reference. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * IP user 204.212.175.30, pretty stupid of you to start by antagonizing editors and insinuating personal agendas. Please read the Wikipedia guideline on assuming good faith. I am not a judge, that I have to rule on any case I see. Debresser (talk) 07:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is the reference: http://www.divineinformation.com/the-number-1-threat-to-our-nation-gossip-false-hate-the-media-murder-machine-31-violations-of-the-torah-on-each-loshon-hara-2/

By the way, you as an editor are violating the laws of neutrality in Wikipedia. Read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
 * Request denied. The rabbi's clarifications don't shed new light on the text of the article as it is presently. In addition, editor is not here to contribute positively, just to insult anybody who doesn't completely agrees with his point of view, so I am not particularly inclined to go the extra mile for him. Debresser (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement about 1 million Jews killed in the Holocaust
I removed the paragraph because it was a complete misrepresentation of what Mizrachi said, which looked like Holocaust denial. He never disputed the well-known figure of six million people killed by the Nazis in the Holocaust. He said many victims killed back then weren't Jewish at all (from an halakhic definition), since having one single Jewish grandparent was enough to be considered a Jew according to German law. Therefore, he said we don't know how many people of those six million were actually Jewish. This is why he said "I explained in my lesson that it is possible that 5 million Jews died or 3 million or even just one million..." (but he never disputed the well-known fact that the Nazis killed six million people because they considered them to be Jewish, even if they weren't in reality). He explained it in this video: youtu.be/X55T2aD7IXA?t=1233. And he even issued an apology for exaggerating the estimation (since intermarriage in Poland was rare). See also here.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And you were summarily reverted. Reliable sources say what they say, and you should not try to censor Wikipedia according to what you would like them to say. If you want to add a source that claims what you say, please go ahead. Debresser (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Ordination
This article seems to lack information on where Yosef Mizrachi has his rabbinical ordination from. Althepal (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * On this topic, trying to find information online, I have found people claiming that Mizrachi refuses to say where he got ordination/smicha from, and others claiming that unnamed rabbis have vouched that he does have ordination. Does this article's statement that he is a rabbi deserve a citation needed mark? Does it deserve mention in the Controversies section? (My feeling is yes to the first, no to the second, but I won't make the change.) Althepal (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a tag that a citation is needed, but not of the mention in the lead. Feel free to add a tag to the lead mention. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed that tag.. The same issue is already tagged in the appropriate section of the article, so there is no need to tag it in the lead again, especially since that looks bad. I do agree it is about time somebody find a source for this. Shouldn't be that hard. Debresser (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct, it should have citation, be it in the top or middle. You would think it wouldn't be hard to find where he had his rabbinical education and ordination, but I have failed to find this information online, even on his bio on DivineInformation. I certainly do think this article deserves to include more about his rabbinical education and ordination information, provided he actually has one. I would admit that for some rabbis, Wikipedia seems to just take it for granted without discussing that they are a rabbi, e.g. "Rabbi So-In-So is an educator in America who writes books," with no further discussion or citation. But there are other rabbis that have more in depth articles (I would say like this) where it does describe their education and ordination. So while on one hand it does feel slightly strange to require a citation to say he's a rabbi when a large portion of the Orthodox community treats him as though he is, considering that there is this level of doubt and contraversy around it I do think that it is fitting to have some sort of reference and citation to the statement he's a rabbi. (And if it's in the main body of the article rather than the top, I suppose that is okay, though I didn't realize convention was to not cite the opening summary paragraph.) Althepal (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * For reference, his DivineInformation bio is on http://www.divineinformation.com/about-rabbi-mizrachi/ . What is weird is that he only says he was in the IDF, worked in finance in America, and started making lectures about Judaism. In fact, I recall watching a video of his where he told his story, and if I recall he basically told about his being in the Israeli Air Force, moving to New York and working in finance or something to make some money, but being secular, and then a family member got him interested in being religious, and ultimately he started giving classes which he said were popular which led to what he is doing now. I don't remember him saying anything about his education or ordination. To be honest I think the title "rabbi" may just be something he gave himself, but my speculation does not belong in the article itself, but I certainly think this article needs more information on if he is actually a rabbi and where he was educated for that. Althepal (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I found http://dusiznies.blogspot.com/2016/01/yoisef-mizrachi-mocks-rabbonim-that.html which claims that on a radio interview, Yosef Mizrachi admitted to not having smicha. I believe that interview is https://www.mixcloud dot com /zevbrenner/talkline-with-zev-brenner-with-rabbi-yosef-mizrachi-on-secular-israeli-soldiers-not-going-to-heaven/ or https://www.mixcloud  dot com  /zevbrenner/talkline-with-zev-brenner-with-rabbi-yosef-mizrachi-on-holocaust-denial/ (links altered, apparently on a Wikipedia blacklist) but it would take some time to listen and try to find the exact location where he says this. Althepal (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * More information. on (correct the .com in the URL:) mixcloud [dot] com /zevbrenner/talkline-with-zev-brenner-with-rabbi-yosef-mizrachi-on-holocaust-denial/ direct link (correct the .com in the URL:) https://stream3.mixcloud dot com /c/m4a/64/b/2/2/4/ed7a-c560-4d3a-84e4-30c07c274a74.m4a at 59 minutes and 54 seconds right after the interviewer Zev Brenner asks him which rabbis Mizrachi goes to when he needs a psak, this is the dialog: ZB: And what do you have Smicha from? YM: So here is the point now, now when I learn in Yeshiva, for many years in Yeshiva, I don't have the kind of Smicha to be a rabbi in the Young Israel synagogues that in order for you to get it you need to go and bring certain documents that they tested you on such and such things. But when I started to learn in Yeshivot, and I learn- taught 10 years Gemara in Yeshiva, I got a certificate after they saw my knowledge that I have more than 10 big rabbis including the Av Beit Din signed on it that not only I'm a rabbi I'm a very big one and I'm—. ZB: Which Av Beis Din what's the name. YM: Rav Eliyahu ben Chaim. ZB: Chaim— YM: Now I want to tell you something. I have another document but I don't want to say the name, and the reason I don't want to say the name is because you know what's gonna happen. As soon as I say his name he's a very very big chacham, they're gonna kill him, they're gonna start all these people, their Lashon Hara, they're knocking on his door, driving him crazy, did you hear what he say and this person that doesn't leave the book one minute of the day, all his life is Torah Torah Torah and holiness, I don't want to get him involved.
 * So for one thing or another I think that interview is a pretty good resource with some new information. We need confirmation from Eliyahu Ben Chaim if that's possible to see if it's rabbinical ordination or if it's just a "good student/good teacher" certificate. It may be a judgment call to trust how Mizrachi describes his certificates if that's good enough for the article. I do not personally trust that he is reliable about the specifics of his history.
 * What we did learn from this, besides who he claims a certificate from, is that he said he does not have the sort of Smicha/rabbinical ordination that rabbis, such as those who lead Young Israel synagogue congregations, do have. The sort of smicha they have is basically any kind of recognized smicha so if he says he does not have that, he does not have ordination and is not a rabbi. The only thing he claims to have is a certificate that says he's a "very big" rabbi, and maybe he's putting is own meaning into the word rabbi there like he's a good teacher or a good student or respectable. The fact that he says the certificate says how big of a rabbi he is makes me more suspicious of understanding it to be an actual rabbinical ordination. I don't know how this should be worked in to the article, if we can get some sort of third party information. But Mizrachi's beat-around-the-bush answer that basically has him saying that he does not have Smicha like normal rabbis do, the kind that you take a test for and that qualifies you to lead a synagogue such as Young Israel, is enough for me to support having the article drop reference to him as a rabbi except in context of his claim for some vague certifications.Althepal (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll be OK with removing rabbi, he's not one, or put in self-claimed rabbi Sir Joseph (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. I would advise care in re-writing the article in that context though. I've already provided a transcript in this talk page as you can see above which should be useful, and the links to the reference. I would take care if you change it to self-claimed rabbi that you do explain what that means, that he says he doesn't have typical smechia but does claim some sort of certification he considers equivalent from Ben-Chaim and another unnamed person. Among the various things that need to be re-written in this article (see above too about the name of his Kiruv Organization. Althepal (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Also if you need more information about the radio interview, it was conducted Saturday night, January 09 2016. Althepal (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * @Sir Joseph It would be wrong to remove the title "rabbi". As I explained many times already, and as you undoubtedly know yourself, the word "rabbi" can be either an academic title for one who has rabbinical ordination, or the name of a function in a Jewish community. It is possible for one to have rabbinical ordination, and not have a function in a Jewish community, and that happens often. What happens more rarely is the opposite case, where one does not have the ordination, but still is a teacher of Judaism, and therefore a rabbi. This seems to be a case of the latter. Debresser (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say, if you're planning on editing/re-writing it regarding the term "rabbi", that it is true that there are some people, I think particularly in Israel, who are like unofficial rabbis, like they learned well, they're allowed to teach, they're recognized for their knowledge, they're commonly called "rav". I don't know how much of that is the case for Mizrachi. I don't know to what degree the certificates he says he got mean anything, but I don't think they should be ignored. Maybe I would suggest to say what Mizrachi said, that Mizrachi said he did not get official rabbinical ordination with the tests like rabbis normally have but that he said (or claims) he received certificates recognizing his qualifications in Torah. Whether it would be appropriate to totally remove the term rabbi, I suppose it isn't so simple. I don't think the article should say "he is a rabbi" without immediate qualification that he lacks ordination. I question using the term as a title for him if it's not totally necessary, because if he is a rabbi it's unofficial. I certainly think this should be discussed in his bio so the matter is clear to people one way or the other. Althepal (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Lots of sources call him rabbi, and he is after all a teacher of Judaism, that's a fact, so I don't think we can remove the title. The only thing we should do is explain that he is not ordained, if that can be reliably sourced. In view of the WP:BLP issue inherent, that source would have to be very good. Debresser (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Debresser Although I don't agree that teaching Torah alone is what gives the title or rabbi, I did not remove the title rabbi from the article, I just added a section describing his status as not being ordained. Can you explain why you are not satisfied with the source? In the section that you removed, which I hope you will consider restoring, all I did was paraphrase what Mizrachi himself said and then directly quoted him saying it. What better source is needed? As much as I looked I could not find anything that indicated otherwise either. Regarding citation to include a direct link to the interview, I mention in the talk here above about where to find that exact interview. The difficulty with linking, rather than just describing the source, is that it is a blacklisted domain name. If you think this citation is what would be needed, please try to get the appropriate URL white listed or prepare a citation with some alternate means. I am not in a position to go through that process right now, but I definitely think that the section should be restored. However I think that the source is very clear and as good as anyone could want, and I think it is unnecessary to leave the section out meantime and only leaves the article worse off and somewhat misleading. Althepal (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The quote said he does not have a certain kind of smicha. He specifically said that he has something else. The quote does not support the unequivocal statement you added to the article. In addition, primary sources are not good sources on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Since we can't confirm his ordination, other than he saying he has ordination, is it right to have him listed as a rabbi in the lead without any qualifications? I think we should remove the word rabbi from the lead. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not right. Because rabbi is not just an academic title, but also a function. First and foremost a function. A teacher of Judaism is a rabbi. And a teacher of Judaism he is. Debresser (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think the section I added on ordination was as unequivocal as you make it out to be. And not to go on a tangent but you are using your own definition for rabbi. And while you are perfectly correct in saying that simply being a teacher of Judaism is a standard that many people go by, it is not universal. The fact is that when this article says he's a rabbi, that implies to some, if not most, readers that he has rabbinical ordination. Since whatever certification he has is not exactly that, it is certainly appropriate to cite what he has said on the matter, that he said he doesn't have this type of ordination and that he said he rather has something equivalent from such and such Beit Din/rabbi. Primary sources are useful in many situations here, and I think this is one of them, particularly since this is the only relevant information accessible on the topic of his ordination, and particularly if it is not used beyond what it is appropriate for, used only as a reference for "he said XYZ in such and such an interview (remarks beginning at the X minute mark)." I think discussing this is absolutely relevant and appropriate, and I would hope this moderated approach should be suitable for you (you did agree that it's about time someone sourced the article's statement that he's a rabbi), and there does not appear to be anyone else sharing your original concerns about even what I originally had posted. I would like to add to the article a modified and reduced version of what it had, no separate section, a sentence or two that simply will say that he said that he doesn't have the standard Smicha ordination that involves testing that Orthodox Rabbis typically get, that he said he has something equivalent from the person he said. To not have it, I think, would be unjustified and mislead readers. To have it would to further discuss the subject of the article in a fair, useful, and substantiated way. Regarding citation of the interview itself, I have requested that the URL be whitelisted to directly link to the audio, but I may be able to have an adequate citation formatted without the direct link as well. Althepal (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, we can't just say rabbi and not have his ordination. I don't think we have that in any other case, where it is controversial. This is a BLP issue and his rabbinic ordination is an issue and therefore it should be removed. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You admit he is a rabbi, and that that is sourced. Just not that he is an ordained rabbi. Those are two different things.
 * I don't admit he's a rabbi, he claims he is but there is no source of that. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no source that he is an ordained rabbi, but even the most superficial Google search shows you lots of pages where he is called "rabbi". Debresser (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Start with https://www.facebook.com/RabbiYosefMizrachi. Reliable sources:, and even his opponents (!): titionsite.com/365/450/941/demand-from-torahanytime.com-to-remove-yosef-mizrachis-shiurim/. Debresser (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * He is called "rabbi" mainly because he claims he is a rabbi and people generally don't check such claims. He became known as "rabbi" Mizrachi, and that is how he is identified and how people refer to him, whether or not they don't think he is a "real" rabbi. So I don't think your links necessarily prove anything (and one of them was to his own page). I will concede, there are people use your definition and don't care about having smicha. But it is also true that other people, and in my experience most people, consider someone to be a real rabbi if and only if they have smicha. An analogy is in the Simpsons, people talk about Dr. Nick even though his education is from Hollywood Upstairs Medical College and he lacks an accredited medical degree. He is called "doctor" even when he is not considered a "real" doctor. I'm going to leave my opinion out of that. However, due to this dynamic, it is inappropriate and misleading to say he is a rabbi without elaboration, but I can see that considering how he is popularly known that it may also be inappropriate to have the article outright say that he is in no way a rabbi, and it could have his explanation of his "certification". As the interview resource has now been authorized for use, I do intend to add to the article the paraphrased information based on that interview. And don't worry, it will say what he said and not say that he is categorically not to be called a rabbi. I think what I have planned will be acceptable to all perspectives on the point. But if after I have posted the update you do take any issue with it, I would ask that you do not simply revert it without consensus, and that if you have any issue with it to edit it in a fair way or to actually discuss it to reach a consensus of how it could better be written. Althepal (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In certain circles perhaps the term "rabbi" is handled stricter than in others, but the common use (WP:COMMON) is definitely anybody who has certain function of teaching Torah and giving guidance. Those functions he fulfills, so he is a rabbi. Debresser (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * At this point in the discussion, whether people would "commonly" consider a rabbi to be a Torah teacher or a person with smicha appears to be a difference of opinion. But it will be a somewhat irrelevant difference anyway. My intended edit of this page will not seek to explicitly define rabbi but rather to describe what he has said of his qualifications so readers will be able to understand the meaning of the word "rabbi" in this article accurately. Althepal (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. Let me give my two cents. Having a smicha is not a prerequisite to be a rabbi. Ovadia Yosef never got a smicha, and he was the biggest rabbi of the generation, or one of the greatest (I think rav Eliashiv didn't have a smicha either, but I'm not sure about that). A smicha is usually for specific purposes, such as mesader gittin in Beth Din or mesader kiddushin. Those are specific jobs in the religious world that need a formal title. Most rabbis working in kiruv don't waste time getting a smicha. They are rabbis because they teach Torah, and multiple sources describe Mizrachi as a rabbi.--MoraBitoun (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. I recognize that there are people who have that perspective. I also recognize that there are great rabbis who never got smicha, like the Chafetz Chaim in the earlier part of his life. It is certainly true that the term "rabbi" has sort of a wish-washy meaning. In some circles anyone who learns in Yeshiva is called "rabbi" and the term has very little meaning. In Modern Orthodox circles that I'm familiar with, "rabbi" is generally tied with smicha. And for those people, Rav Eliashiv (and I would note you didn't use the title "Rabbi Eliashiv") or the Chafetz Chaim who are exceptional are universally considered to be rabbis just because their authority is so widely respected. (And though I know people who affectionately call local scholars "rabbi so-in-so" in private they also say "he is not a rabbi", yet when one of their friends gets smicha, they say, "he's a rabbi".) For these people, they will say "Rabbi Mizrachi is not a rabbi", and for them they don't see someone on Mizrachi's level as being worthy of the term "rabbi" without smicha. Again, there are different perspectives, but this point has been belaboured beyond necessity. I am fine with leaving the article as referring to him as a rabbi since that is what many people do and how many people see him (be that out of ignorance or indifference of his smicha status), so that is not really a point we need to discuss. This article simply needs to explain itself on this point so that those with the other perspective are not deceived by the article's use of the word. Althepal (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: I see why you were sharing that opinion, there appears to have been a slight edit war about whether there should be a dubious tag on the point of the article saying he is a rabbi. What I have done now though is add the details to the article that were lacking and which were needed to clarify the point in question. I think that with this information, the article is no longer misleading (if read in its entirety anyway), and I think it is fair enough to leave the term rabbi. On the point of the dubious-discuss tag that Sir Joseph wants, although I think it was fair enough to leave that tag as it was indeed being discussed, I don't think that tag is, at least anymore, especially needed. Nevertheless I won't get in the way of further discussion or debate on whether this article should say he's a rabbi or clarify the point any further, but I don't think it is really needed anymore. (To me it's like a debate on whether an article can call someone a doctor who medically treats people, maybe with homeopathy, and so who people refer to as a doctor despite not having an MD from an accredited medical school. Would I say he's a doctor? No. Would I be okay with others doing so? I suppose. What would Wikipedia's practice be in that case? I really don't know.) I'm okay leaving the term as it is, but frankly I am okay without it too. I don't feel strongly either way, but I do encourage that discussion and consensus be reached on the talk page as opposed to doing edit wars over the word rabbi. Althepal (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am fine with having both "rabbi" and the explanation. Debresser (talk) 11:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I am fine with that too. (Not to say I fully endorse that, but I recognize the need to balance representation of perspectives. Again to me it's akin to an example of a medical practitioner without a medical degree, and I don't know what Wikipedia's practice is for that. Maybe it would be a more widely-accepted thing to say in the article that Mizrachi is a "Torah educator" than to say he's a "rabbi" since that is how you define "rabbi" and it would be a term everyone will accept. But again I'm fine with any outcome here since the article does explain the point so that use of either term would be understood by the reader in context.) Althepal (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggested change of title from Kiruv Organization to Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi
It seems to me that this article would make more sense and be more in line with similar articles if it were about Yosef Mizrachi directly with Kiruv Organization being a sub-section, rather than the way it is now which is the other way around. Most of this article is about him, and from what I've seen "Yosef Mizrachi" is more well known and notable than "Kiruv Organization" or "DivineInformation". Furthermore the current title is misleading, as "Kiruv Organization" would often make the reader think at first glance that this article is about Kiruv organizations in general. Althepal (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I would make this change myself, but can anyone tell me if there is a reason it's the way it currently is or if there's a reason why it should not be changed? Althepal (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Huh? The rabbi already has his own article. Debresser (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * He doesn't. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Funny I didn't noticed I got redirected to this same article. Debresser (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Support renaming. I agree with what you've said here. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I will rename if the system allows me to, otherwise I'll request a name change. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I made the request to move since I don't have access to do the move myself. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Althepal (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Clarification needed regarding the name of Mizrachi's Kiruv organization
Currently, this article says that Yosef Mizrachi founded a Kiruv organization which happens to be named Kiruv Organization. I believe that this is based on a misunderstanding for the following reasons: MIzrachi's native language is Hebrew, not English. Looking for "Kiruv Organization" online does not reveal information about a group with such a name other than on Wikipedia and the text on http://www.divineinformation.com/about/ which is his website for his DivineInformation.com organization, which appears to be his main, if not only, organization. I suspect that in writing the text on that webpage, he simply did not use proper English and said he started Kiruv Organization rather than saying he started a or the Kiruv organization. It is also written there "Mizrachi's Kiruv Organization" which seems like a wording that suggests it means it is his Kiruv organization, and it would be more awkward if it meant "it is his group called Kiruv Organization". I would also note that he doesn't always capitalize the O in Organization, which further suggests it may not be a proper name. So I believe that he started a Kiruv organization in 1995 or whenever without any particular name, and it took the title of Divine Information from one of his popular works, which eventually became used as the domain name for his website too.

Unless anyone responsible for this article knows of any reason to say it was ever actually named Kiruv Organization other than the likely miswritten About page on his actual Divine Information organization's website (and considering the lack of citations I don't expect that there would be), then I would recommend clarifying and re-writing the relevant parts of this article to say that he created a Kiruv organization and currently runs DivineInformation.com, and his webpage can be used for citations for that. Althepal (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that he means to refer to his organization as “Kiruv Organization”. A quick glance thru his site, including the listed address for donations, Paypal methods and bio all deliberately refer to “Kiruv Organization”. It’s also unlikely that that’s a legal name but that’s why I’d fall back on some sort of reliable source for the naming of his org. A website is not really an organization. &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  06:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Mention of petitions in Controversies section?
In an above discussion on whether Yosef Mizrachi should be referred to as a rabbi here, one user referenced a change.org petition to illustrate that many of his detractors refer to him as "Rabbi Mizrachi" to support use of the title here. I was not aware of that petition, and I saw that there are others petitioning him: A lot of the things that the petitioners take issue with are discussed in the Controversies section, but it doesn't seem to discuss these actual petitions. At least two of them I would consider notable as they have several hundred signatures. I thought it would be potentially appropriate to mention these petitions in this section of the article. I have no intention of adding this myself, but I am bringing it up for consideration. Althepal (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * change.org/p/jewish-communities-worldwide-boycott-rabbi-yosef-mizrachi-from-our-communities
 * change.org/p/protest-the-hateful-views-of-rabbi-yosef-mizrachi
 * thepetitionsite.com/365/450/941/demand-from-torahanytime.com-to-remove-yosef-mizrachis-shiurim/

Statment about one million jews killed in the holocaust
This statment was never even mentioned by Yosef Mizrachi and was made up by a group who has much personal interest i insist that you remove this paragraph of the artical enless you want to be in the center of much controversy Thank you. And good day Shem namo (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Improvements, changes, additions and revert
I worked multiple edits to this article including adding newer coverage of more recent controversies, cleaning up multiple duplicate references when same reference appears more than once, splitting controversy section by category, cleaning up references overall and the like. All the edits were summarily removed by Aroma Stylish with the given reason "undiscussed changes".

Simply adding coverage, or cleaning up references does not necessitate 'discussion' but in the interest of avoiding an edit war, would appreciate input on how to move forward with changes and improvements as the community sees fit.

My changes + a few bot edits here -> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yosef_Mizrachi&type=revision&diff=971198260&oldid=965367335 &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  22:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

- as other users who have been involved with his page, would appreciate your input re the above. Thanks! &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  01:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I reverted. Divine Information should not be used as a source, as you say, it's a SPS. Also, as you point out, you don't need to discuss changes before editing. In any event, I concur with your edits. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply! Honestly, with so much of the article relying on SPS it's kinda worthless. Though hard to find any other sources to corroborate. For example, no reliable source has published that he began his career in Kiruv in 1994. Similarly no source has reported on the name of his organization - which is unclear even on his own published site. Looking up in public records I was able to find a "RABBI MIZRACHI KIRUV ORGANIZATION INC" filed in 2015 and a "DIVINE INFORMATION OUTREACH INC" filed in 2016 but again no actual reporting to point to about the organization or it's history. &#124; MK17b &#124;</b>  (talk)  05:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the policy on self published sources here. Can it not be said that there is "reasonable doubt as to its authenticity"? As per above, I've scoured the web and have found nothing to point to the establishment of this organization - which seems quite odd - beyond the recent filings above. <b style="color: darkblue;">&#124; MK17b &#124;</b>  (talk)  19:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed the LinkedIn reference after the first sentence of that paragraphs per your objection. I have also added a source, which is actually the same source that was already present a bit later on in the paragraph. Debresser (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2020
Hello, there're lots of changes I would like to make, since this article is very biased and doesn't put the whole picture, I have reliable sources to balance out the claims made in this article. Therefore, I would like to make the proper addition to the page. Jerusalem26 (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. <b style="background:#304747;color:#BED6D6"> Seagull123 </b><b style="color:#304747"> Φ </b> 17:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2021
I'd like to edit the following opening sentence of this page, as follows:

Yosef Mizrachi (Hebrew: יוסף מזרחי‎, born 1968) is a Sefardi Haredi rabbi and founder of Divine Information Outreach, an Orthodox Jewish outreach organization, based in Monsey, New York.[3][self-published source]

This remove the wording contained within the { – } below.

Yosef Mizrachi (Hebrew: יוסף מזרחי‎, born 1968) is a Sefardi Haredi rabbi and founder of Divine Information Outreach, an Orthodox Jewish outreach organization, based in Monsey, New York.[3][self-published source] Zevlamm (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Both sources given in that sentence call this person "controversial", so you should try and discuss your proposed edits before using this template. <b style="background:#304747;color:#BED6D6"> Seagull123 </b><b style="color:#304747"> Φ </b> 18:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2021 (2)
Please change X:

Yosef Mizrachi (Hebrew: יוסף מזרחי‎, born 1968) is a controversial[1][2] Sefardi Haredi rabbi and founder of Divine Information Outreach, an Orthodox Jewish outreach organization, based in Monsey, New York.[3][self-published source]

To Y:

Yosef Mizrachi (Hebrew: יוסף מזרחי‎, born 1968) is a Sefardi Haredi rabbi and founder of Divine Information Outreach, an Orthodox Jewish outreach organization, based in Monsey, New York.[3][self-published source] Zevlamm (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You appear to have requested the same thing as you did in the edit request above. <b style="background:#304747;color:#BED6D6"> Seagull123 </b><b style="color:#304747"> Φ </b> 18:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Both sources given in that sentence call this person "controversial", so you should try and discuss your proposed edits before using this template. Debresser (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2022
There are plenty of accusations to the rabbi which I cannot find substantiation. In all the accusations there is NOT one citation. If there is not way to back it up, it should be eliminated, they were hear say only. SocialMedia.416 (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I removed a couple things, but everything looks reasonably sourced. Do you have any specifics? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2022
The information provided in this description is not correct, poorly sourced and when sourced, it is taken from biased sources only. Footballphile (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Change this: "Yosef Mizrachi (Hebrew: יוסף מזרחי, born 1968) is a controversial[1][2] public speaker and Jewish conversion agent, whereby he directs prospective converts to learn and adopt Jewish observance. He has been widely denounced and is held to be misguided by leading Orthodox Jewish authorities.[3] Contrary to popular misconception, Yosef Mizrachi is not an ordained rabbi.[4] Yosef Mizrachi is a resident of Monsey, New York.

He is the founder of Divine Information Outreach, an Orthodox Jewish outreach organization, based in Monsey, New York.[5]"

to this: "Yosef Mizrachi (יוסף מזרחי) is a Sefardi Haredi rabbi and founder of DivineInformation.com, an Orthodox Judaism outreach organization, based in Monsey, New York. Source: "
 * I made some changes to the lead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Quick run through
I did a quick once-over of the article, and cleaned up some BLP/sourcing issues. I'd appreciate that if there are any objections it's brought to the talk page for discussion before reverting. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Yosef Mizrachi is not an ordained rabbi.
Yosef Mizrachi is not an ordained rabbi. Bukharian (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2022
The page about Rabbi Yosef Mizrahi is incorrect. He was not denounced by any religious Jewish organizations, let alone, “widely denounced.” There are no religious organizations which denounced him. Any organization other the Orthodox is not considered religious, this would include (modern orthodox, conservative, and reform.) 23.240.43.213 (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2022 (2)
This source is incorrect, unethical, and intellectually false. The claim the Rabbi Mizrahi has been “widely denounced” by religious orthodox is defamation and slanderous. He has never been denounced by an orthodox group, and the only source of proof shown here is to a non-religious source. Shmuley Boteach is not even considered a religious figure let alone a rabbi. He is furthest from being a religious Jew. Therefore, without further proof from an actual religious orthodox organization this claim is false and should be taken down.

It creates false belief because, while Mizrahi is controversial for many, he is never in contradiction to any religious orthodox group and if the claim is being made, then there should be proof. 23.240.43.213 (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. I feel your contention that only orthodox Jews are religious will not find much support. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)