Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mordecai Tendler


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep. The articles claims are quite limited, and all the negative ones are backed up by the References in the article. (I'm not sure the bit about his brother is sourced, but that is not negative BLP matter so far as I can see.) Thus the BLP argument is not dispositive for deletion. The question of deletion thus turns on the usual issue of notability. The sources clearly demonstrate that his story received coast to coast coverage in the U.S. and some coverage internationally. This is probably why the consensus below was that he is notable, and thus, that the article should be kept. As my advice, editors on the article's talk page should consider WP:BLP1E, whether his notability is currently for only one event, and if his notability is only for a single event, how to write an article about that event that this article can be merged to and redirected.

Additionally, in reviewing the history, I found that a cut and paste move occurred back in July, so I'll be temporarily deleting the article solely in order to fix that problem with GFDL compliance. GRBerry 04:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Mordecai Tendler

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Serious problems with WP:LIBEL as well as WP:BLP since this is an article about a living person who is still in the middle of various litigations. The allegations in the article are not even fully borne out by the sources that were subsequently added. Furthermore, prior to the alleged misconduct it is doubtful that this young congregational rabbi would have merited a biography of his own. His main claim to fame was that he was the son and grandson of some famous rabbis. Thus this is also WP:NN. IZAK 18:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete for above reasons. IZAK 18:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.   IZAK 18:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning towards not very strong delete on this one. The fact that there is current litigation and the only sources in the article are regarding his alleged misconduct, I wouldn't keep this on here. Then again, he is a rabbi who allegedly did some bad stuff. Bad enough that the RCA would throw him out. That might be notable, in and of itself. Yossiea (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep The individual involved has been extensively covered, albeit in Jewish-oriented media, and the circumstances of the charges, his departure from the RCA and other circumstances regarding the overlap of Jewish and secular litigation systems make this a notable article. Any potential WP:BLP issues need to be considered, but the high-profile nature of the charges and counterclaims does not detract from notability. There is no need to wait until any litigation is settled, as all claims must be supported by reliable sources. Alansohn 19:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reluctant delete I, like IZAK and many other people in the Jewish community, am aware of the allegations against Rabbi Tendler. I don't think he is notable for these allegations, and he is certainly not notable for his role as a community rabbi or his being the son of Rabbi Moshe Tendler.  Nothing has ever been proven against him.  I certainly understand that the authors of this article were well-intentioned, wanting to place on Wikipedia a summary of the sexual harassment allegations with a link to an external website that discusses the case in detail.  However, Wikipedia generally frowns on such articles because of BLP, and I think BLP should win here.  Note that Baruch Lanner, another disgraced rabbi, does not have a Wikipedia article even though he was convicted and is serving a prison sentence (whereas Rabbi Tendler was never tried in court, and perhaps never will be tried in court).  Note also that sexual harassment allegations, in and of themselves, are not generally notable. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Aside - There's now an article on Baruch Lanner. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as somebody who has written his grand fathers books Igros Moshe he is a very notable rabbi--יודל 20:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment He didn't write it, his grandfather did. He was only the go between his grandfather and the printer. Einsteins helper doesn't get credit for the "theory of relativity". Itzse (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep. The incident received a substantial amount of press coverage and led to changes in the way the Rabbinical Council of America handled sexual harassment allegation cases as well as to notable halakhic (Jewish religious law) consequences. See the description of the incident in Role of women in Judaism for a discussion of the impact of the case on the issue of the acceptability of women's testimony in a Beit Din (Rabbinical court) in cases involving allegations of sexual harassment. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but source in more detail. There is sufficient documentation from RSs that this is more than gossip. BLP is the policy for writing such articles, it does not necessarily say to delete them. sounds like we need an article on Lanner--there are lots of missing articles.DGG (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment In a previous edit dispute involving the The Awareness Center (See Talk:The Awareness Center) it was noted that because the Center is an advocacy organization it would be inconsistent with WP:RS to consider it an uninvolved source for the allegations it makes, so would not use it as a source for any of the claims involved. However, the newspaper clippings etc. reproduced in the Awareness Center's article on the subject can be cited directly and used as sources. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't think this violates WP:LIBEL but it is presently in violation of WP:BLP and should be removed or referenced post haste. Should its statements be referenced I see no reason to delete, but it cannot be allowed to stand as is. Handschuh-talk to me 03:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Added a few references. --Shirahadasha 08:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sourcing the actual statements would be required really. Especially those relating to the accusations leveled against him. Handschuh-talk to me 09:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you identify a specific "actual statement" the article makes that you believe is unsourced? Since the specific allegations don't provide the primary basis of notability -- notability is based primarily on the religious and secular legal issues the case raised and how they were handled -- why is it necessary to go into any detail in specifics about them? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

*Delete, Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and this article violates the do no harm principle of WP:BLP. -- M P er el 22:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC) changing my mind, see below
 * Comment Rabbi Tendler claimed that because a woman's testimony is not traditionally acceptable in rabbinical courts, there were no valid witnesses against him. The legal analysis involved in refuting this claim represents a signicant development in Orthodox Halakha. The notability of the incident from a Jewish point of view depends primarily on Rabbis Tendler's arguments and how they were handled. Every legal case involves allegations. The issue of how Orthodox Judaism handles harassment allegations in light of its rules regarding the Role of women in Judaism is simply not a tabloid issue. As the general media references show, the allegations which formed the basis of the Jewish-law issues received enough independent mainstream media press coverage to address WP:BLP concerns. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * noooo! cummon thats nothing to do with this. Do no harm is for Brian Peppers type stuff, if its in the papers it is fine, i mean how can an article do harm if it is only quoting news sources. I mean thats obvious no? Did he really say that Shirahadasha? That is messed up! As much as theawrenesscentre is run by a raving loon, almost all its pages could have wikipedia articles. Lobojo (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, changed my mind. As Shirahadasha has pointed out, the case is prominently in the news and has impacted Halachic interpretation. -- M P er el  03:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, though he is a nobody, there are multiple sources. So what can you do? Lobojo (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If he is a nobody then he is Not Notable. There are multiple sources about the allegations against him, not his importance. Please reconsider. Itzse (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * delete non notable. Shirahadasha's pointed out that this article relates to the development of Jewish law may be true.  nevertheless the material would be better suited to an article about the development of Jewish law.  This reminds me of the allision stoke AFD about a girl who was only notable for having her picture posted across the internet, which was deleted (any relevant material was merged into an article about internet privacy).  BPL is clear, when a person is notable for only one thing - talk about the event not the person. Jon513 (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is factual and involves the main editor of Igrot Moshe, as stated in the article. Very notable. Goeie (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The main editor of Igrot Moshe, is the Igrot Moshe himself. His role was minor. Itzse (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Izak wrote "prior... it is doubtful that this young congregational rabbi." I disagree, He was on his way to importance. He taught in the YU Rabbinical school, had noted legal positions of his own, and engaged in various major debates on Kashrut and family law. In addition he was claiming the mantle of his grandfather on many issues. If one gets past the scandal- after page 10 of gooogle on him- there was quite a bit on him. It is unfortunate that the article is mainly about the scandal --Jayrav (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. First, this person is not a random congregational rabbi, he is the grandson of the most important American authority on Jewish law in the last 50 years (Rabbi Moshe Feinstein) and he played a pivotal role in editing R. Feinstein's highly influential Igros Moshe. Unfortunately, the scandal has raised questions about his interpolations of Igros Moshe (e.g. vol 8) and work with R. Feinstein. Secondly, while it is unfortunate and unpleasant, this person's scandal is well-documented and covered by notable sources. (Also, pls be sure when you look at the article you check history to make sure the sources and notable text haven't been deleted by an anon IP.) The case has raised questions about, besides the handling of sexual harassment, the plurality of juridico-administrative power within Orthodox Judaism. HG | Talk 17:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:Not Notable. Even if all the allegations against him are proven true, I think it would be improper to have an article on him. Although I'm generally an inclusionist; I believe that people who are alive need to be really notable to merit an article; with the exception if it's needed for completion of a series (i.e. all Chasidic Rebbes, notable or not). In this case I think he is not notable at all. His claim to fame is being a grandson of a great man; so, we have many grandchildren of great men who are Rabbis and nobody would think of having an article on them. As to him being the editor of Igros Moishe; his role was minor, something like a copy editor compared to the real editor who was its author. I would describe his role as a midget compared to a giant. BTW, we would be better off, if he would have been less involved and just printed what his grandfather gave him. I think that the only thing notable about this article is its salaciousness (as in man bites dog). Shall we have an article on every clergyman who is caught disgracing his robe? If it has some historical content then maybe yes; but if not, I would say that Wikipedia is not the place to document someone’s wrongdoing just because he is a Rabbi or a Priest. Itzse (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Itzse, welcome back. I won't repeat why I think he's notable, except to dispute your statement that "his role was minor" with Igros Moshe, one of the most important contemporary works of halakhah. On the contrary (aderaba), he played a fairly important role in working with Reb Moshe on the teshuvot and the books. See pp.1-4 of vol 8. HG | Talk 05:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by working with Reb Moshe? Would Reb Moshe even think of asking him for his opinion on how to rule? Besides, I think that Jon513 has it right; that he isn't noteworthy; but if the event is, then this event should go in those articles dealing with the development of Jewish law or in an article about the RCA. BTW I don't see anything here in the development of Jewish law, but in the politics (the social part) of how the issue was dealt with. No Halachic changes took place. Itzse (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * First, Mordecai Tendler worked intimately with Reb Moshe on his responsa work, helping him deal with his correspondence, etc. Second, Mordecai Tendler was pivotal in editing Igros Moshe. (Reb Moshe was not the editor, contrary to your statement above.) For instance, he bore responsibility for putting in the headings and structuring of the responsa -- which, as we all know in Wikipedia, is quite important for how people read a text. In addition, Tendler wrote many interpolations within the Igros Moshe texts. Just look at volume 8, please, you'll see that there are two fonts used in the responsa -- regular font and a small font, which shows Mordecai Tendler (and S. Rappaport's) interpolations. These constitute extensive annotations and hence interpretive moves within Igros Moshe. From what I hear, there was pressure on the editors to publish the annotations in a different font (pressure due to Mordecai Tendler's situation, maybe?) because the published responsa differed so much from the handwritten manuscripts. This difference is noted carefully on p.1 by the senior generation (incl Moshe David Tendler, Mordecai's father). Third, you can speculate about whether the interpolations will influence the halakhah or are merely political. But the fact that they've made this unusual change in volume eight, the last volume, surely reinforces the notability of Mordecai Tendler's role as editor and his controversial status. Notability need not be halakhic, it can be political, too. HG | Talk 18:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Working intimately with Reb Moshe by helping him deal with his correspondence, and even his role as editor, is quite a far cry from helping him on formulating his responses, which were of monumental importance. I admit that I wasn’t aware to what extent Tendler was involved in editing, as I have never read the prologues and introductions, I only glimpsed in Igrot Moshe here and there. I heard first hand from people who were involved, that Tendler published some responses which Reb Moshe had retracted or didn’t want published (I alluded to that before). So fine, I now agree that Tendler had a pivotal role in publishing and editing his grandfathers’ writings; but how does that make him an important person? Was his editing of great scholarly importance or was he merely the "bocher hazetzer" (typesetter in Yiddish). Are his interpolations of any earth shattering importance to make him important? If not for the allegations against him, do you think that many people would have heard of him? I wasn’t referring to the political and social aspect of the Tendler case; I was referring to the RCA where their actions might be noteworthy. As far as I see Tendler as a person remains non-noteworthy. Itzse (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, he was moderately well known within Orthodox circles before the allegations because of his family and his various work (see the Forward on his agunah prayer). Of course, he's better known because of the scandal, which has drawn attention to his role with Igros Moshe and -- though this hasn't been put into the article yet -- it became a friction point between Israeli and US rabbinical institutions (Sample coverage). So, yes, there are various unfortunate ways that he is more notable than he would have been absent the allegations. HG | Talk 21:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that he is now more notable due to the allegations; but the question remains; is he notable enough to warrant an article or should the notability of the allegations and its ramifications go in different articles. Itzse (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * BLP requires two not-trivial press mentions. I don't understand what all this discussion is about. Lobojo (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * BLP reqires two not-trivial press mentions about the man not the event. If not for the event; the press wouldn't have found him news worthy. Itzse (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are multiple aspects of this case. For instance, did you know about the Sept. 7, 2007 article in the NY Daily News? Lead quote: "A controversial rabbi has fended off a lawsuit that charged he seduced a woman in his congregation by telling her she needed "sex therapy" to help find her a husband. A divided appellate court ruled 3-2 that Adina Marmelstein's "thinly veiled claims of seduction" against Rabbi Mordecai Tendler are prohibited by civil rights law, and therefore she has no grounds to sue him." Maybe somebody should add this to the article, too? HG | Talk 21:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a different opinion on that too. Take for example the article on Shlomo Carlebach. The article is about the accomplishments of the man not his failings. To give the picture as a whole it also has a paragrah for the controversy surrounding him. I'm not sure that it belongs there, and if it was up to me, I would remove it; but atleast I can understand the argument for it. In our case; what's so great about the man. It's not as if a great man has fallen from grace; he never was there. The only thing noteworthy about the man and the event is its salaciousness. Do we really want to have such an Encyclopedia? Even Meir Kahane's personal life is not in his biography, because it's irrelevant to what made him notable. Itzse (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are too many press mentions. Here is the Google News Archive. There are clearly many many more as GNA is maybe only 30% comprehensive. And as to the argument about the "man"/"issue" dichotomy, you would then need to support a "Tendler Sex Scandal" article in its stead. You also ask..."What is so great about the man?" The answer is nothing. There is nothing great about him - he sucks. Wikipedia is not a almanac of great men, it is a collection of information on notable people, and that is defined by "multiple non-trivial". And that is that. This shouldn't even be under discussion. Lobojo (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me change my question; What is so great notable about the man? So he edited a scholarly book; big deal. Itzse (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The press he has got makes him notable. House rules say "multiple non-trivial", are you saying that they are not multiple, or do you think they are trivial? It must be one or you have no case. Lobojo (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say that they are trivial. I gotta go; I'll leave the discussion to others; thanks everybody. Itzse (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Look Now even Mordechai Gafni has his own page. Lobojo (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not funny. See Articles for deletion/Mordechai Gafni. THanks, IZAK (talk) 07:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * NOTE: From Articles for deletion/Mordechai Gafni and Articles for deletion/Aron Tendler: There has been a recent tendency to post articles on Wikipedia about disgraced and defrocked rabbis (similarly, see the Rabbi Mordecai Tendler article.) Hopefully this trend is not motivated by antisemitism. This is an entirely WP:NN individual, who practiced as a rabbi, but was forced to resign because of alleged sex scandals. This may be WP:LIBEL and even WP:NOR because not everything has been proven in a court of law and the intent of the article appears to be a one-sided smear to tar and feather this person online, with Wikipedia as the webhost, a violation of WP:NOT (in the sense that Wikipedia is not the place to act out a grudge) and which also violates the writ and spirit of WP:NPOV as well. Note that Category:Sex crimes only has a sub-category of Category:People acquitted of sex crimes and it does not have a sub-category Category:People accused of sex crimes or Category:People convicted of sex crimes and certainly not Category:Rabbis accused of sex crimes. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is not antisemitism, but that these people pass WP:N and should have articles. Lobojo (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, that is just one issue -- as anything that touches upon attacks on Jews may intersect with the subject of antisemitism, that is not my imagining, and it's not the main issue. So there are many considerations, but why create one-sided articles? There is more than one lense to take pictures, and it does not always have to be the "attack, attack" one. IZAK (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable. • Lawrence Cohen  18:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.