Talk:Marc Gafni

Undue Weight and NPOV

Looking at this page two years ago vs today the article appears seriously in violation of NPOV. For example 3/4 of the opening paragraph is now undue weight towards details of his ongoing sexual allegations, and a lot of details have been removed. 75% of the article now deals with the allegations and there's only one or two sentences about his rabbinical/mystical theological teachings, which Idel and many other thinkers have commented and written about being important works, even if they later denounced Gafni due to his allegations. This page has had a history of vandalism, but it doesn't look like an admin has reviewed in quite some time. Are there any current moderators in-review of the page? Seraph.dat (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Sadly, per WP:BIO, Gafni is not notable for his teachings. He is not covered in "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" for his work on integral theory and eros. His notability stems almost exclusively from the multiple and ongoing sexual misconduct allegations. Therefore, their prominence is actually necessary. We go through painstaking detail to ensure that the sources pass WP:V and WP:RS] and that we use neutral wording or quote the articles in question. But we cannot hide the very element that supports Gafni having a Wikipedia article in the first place. Hagiography is just as bad a violation as is smearing. Neither are neutral. -- Avi (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Avi, thank you for all the great work you have done on this page. I am chiming in on this subject as I noticed the opening paragraph has significantly changed over time, adding information about the sexual assault allegations. It seems that you wrote under "Placement of sexual assault claims paragraph" the following: "Undoubtedly, the sexual assault claims are a significant component to Gafni's notability, but as for article chronology, they naturally belong after the basics: his bio and his philosophy." And:"Classically, we would describe the person's birth and upbringing before their notability. As for putting teachings before or after sexual issues, since they are both elements of Gafni's notability, I don't see the harm in putting the teachings first." Also the article shows Gafni's notability in many area's other than the accusations (published several books of which some won awards and the television show for example). So his notability does not stem mostly exclusively from sexual misconduct allegations. I am confused why you say this? Could you explain? It would make sense to take create more balance in the first paragraph. Please let me know what you think? Netanya9 (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Certainly not exclusively, but I do not think without them he would pass WP:PROF or have multiple stories written about him in mainstream news media or other reliable and verifiable sources. -- Avi (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Avi, I have a great respect for you as a veteran editor, and I've seen your influence on this page. I requested the page be deleted because in my browsing of pages, it came across as specifically toxic comparitively. Especially for a person who was called the 'Oprah Winfrey of Jerusalem in 2001, and whose academic work 'Radical Kabbalah', and who authored an important kabbalistic work celebrated in its own right, 'Gafni’s work may well become the definitive work on this thinker, a thinker I might add who may become highly relevant in the next stages of Jewish theology and is already an important theologian in the contemporary Neo-Hassidic movement." - by Rabbi Moshe Idel in the introduction to Radical Kabbalah. Lets document this at the same time as documenting his scandal, they are interestingly interwoven. Seraph.dat (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi. One quote doth not notability make. If you search for Gafni on the standard portals and mainstream publications (as opposed to personal blogs or the like) you see that the notability comes from the allegations, his reactions, the reactions to those, etc. I think the teachings belong in the lede too, and before the allegations, but they alone do not allow him to pass WP:NOTE or WP:PROF, in my estimation. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree the lede is too specific. I am going to redo the lede to make it more general and redo some of the text to make it more chronological. -- Avi (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I cleaned up the lede to make it more general and put the teachings first. I tried to clean up the text by putting items in chronological order within the sections, combining most issues that relate to the allegations in the allegation section, removing subpar sources and finding better ones when able. For those for which better sources could not be found, the sentences were removed. These were minimal, like the actual Schechter-Shalomi quote. I think it addresses, at least to an extent, the issues raised here. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

You have done some incredible work here Avi! Thank you for sharing your experience & wisdom. Since we all seem to agree that the opening paragraph needs to be more balanced, I have added two sources. It seems fair to me to use sources of both sides of the controversy for his biography and not only use articles about the allegations to cite his contributions. Please discuss here if you think otherwise. Thanks! WP:BLPSELFPUB, WP:BLPSPS, WP:BLPBALANCE Netanya9 (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Netanya9. I don't see material issues with your edits, but some of those sentences need sources. For example "visionary thinker, social activist and passionate philosopher" is an opinion unless we can find a verifiable and reliable source for it. Also I'm not sure Gafni himself can be the source for "He is known for…". Others acceptable sources are needed for that recognition. Not at the moment, but I will try and read through the sources we have to see if any of those claims, or similar, are supoported. Thank you! -- Avi (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Given the absence of sources for the new material, I've reverted it for now. If it becomes clear that the passages are supported by good sources, I'm happy to reconsider. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Could we please keep the content up, and give it some time, as Avi suggested, so we know what to find sources for? If so, could you please revert the revert? Also, for biography of BLP I understand it is OK to cite subject as a source? Could you please explain? Much thanks! Netanya9 (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Wow great community effort here. Reads much better, good with the bad. The allegations are a significant part of the story but it was leaning pretty far over, props Avi and Netanya9 and Nomoskedasticity for your contributions. I agree with 'philopsopher' as a universally understandable designation for his functional work and I also disagree that 'passionate' and 'visionary' are unnecesary fluff. But overall big jumps in page quality. Time will tell but his contribs to Integral theory, the Renewal movement could get expanded a tiny bit to inform non-jewish readers. There is a Q mark on the page as to his current works. TYTY finally got back to work after Covid and finally had a moment to check back in here and felt bad I couldn't follow through immediately with proposed changes earlier. Seraph.dat (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I have added the template for WP:NPOV WP:BALANCE on this page, per recent edits of adding allegations back into the lead, and me being reported for WP:3RR.

Changing content on controversy/allegations (especially in the lead of WP:BLP) need consensus on talk page.

Will make note on NPOV Notice board to request review of this article.

Netanya9 (talk)Netanya9 Netanya9 (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Specifically referring to edit: [1] which is not conform WP:NEUTRAL and WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:IMBALANCE

And edit [2] where controversial text is copy/pasted from article in the lead. Unnecessary and not WP:BALANCE Netanya9 (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Please reply under the new post on the topic. We do not continue discussions that are 3 years old when new ones have been started. Skyerise (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course the thread of previous consensus around these issues are relevant. Netanya9 (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't relevant. I said we don't carry on current discussions on 3 year old thread. This thread should have been archived a couple years ago. Skyerise (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit requests

• What I think should be changed:
• Why it should be changed:
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

1. Summary/right side bar, under Children: What I think should be changed: Delete “Zion” and “footnote 1” “Zion”, and “footnote 1” should be changed to “Four children” or “four children from prior relationships”;

Why it should be changed: Zion is a minor, singled out among the subjects 4 children, and incorrenctly footnoted to “Leadership” in Marc Gafni’s personal business page, and verified only by Marc Gafni's peronsal current business page.

2. Under "Integral Theory" section under "Teachings" What I think should be changed: Delete “Mariana Caplan” from this sentence.

Why it should be changed: Mariana Caplan did not found this organization. The source/footnote for this fact is only verified by Marc Gafni’s current business page, where Mariana Caplan is inaccurately referenced and without consent as a founder to his current business. Mariana Caplan has no relationship and involvement with Integral Theory or any of Marc Gafni’s organizations.

References: There are no accurate references online or offline besides Marc Gafni's personal business pages to verify this information

Mariana Caplan (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

References

@Mariana Caplan: Done. Actually, I noticed (1) myself and did it, and only then noticed this request. I have now also implemented your second request. Skyerise (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my previous request to edit the page that was primarily sourced with the subjects personal web page. There is one small additional edit I would like to request.

What I think should be changed:

Under "Teachings" and the subsection "Integral Theory" delete Footnote 33 both in the body of the text as well as from the Reference section.

Why I think it should be changed:

1) It quotes a source from the subjects personal page that does not correspond to anything stated in the first 2 sentences before the reference; 2) The article sourced links to a page where the "file is not found." The origional publishers of the article being referred to deleted it from their own archives long ago, and it only exists on the subjects personal web page as a photographed PDF. On this page it is not linked to any source.

Thank you for considering this.

• What I think should be changed:
• Why it should be changed:
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Mariana Caplan (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Not done. We don't delete sources just because the link is dead when the rest of the citation is valid and clearly identifies the source. In any case, I found a live link and updated it. Skyerise (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Article lead is too brief

The one sentence on the controversies in the lead was too short and also intentionally inaccurate. I've expanded it with cited material from the section. Skyerise (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worthwhile to read the earlier sections on the lead on this talk page. These things have been previously discussed under WP:NPOV WP:BALANCE WP:BLP.

It is also worth learning more about how to create a good lead here: WP:CREATELEAD, "It is usually a bad idea to revise a lead unless changes in the article demand it. This is one of the most common mistakes made by newbies who read the lead and think "that's not good enough" or "that's not true." It is often a very controversial thing to do and is usually not worth it."

In general, copying and pasting long content from the article in the lead is not a good practice. Also adding controversial information to a WP:BLP usually requires consensus on the talk page first.

Since your edits in the lead were quite substantial and controversial, I reverted them for now, according to WP:BLP.

Thank you so much! Let me know if you have any questions.

Netanya9 (talk)Netanya9 Netanya9 (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

You are misusing Wikipedia policy. The lead should summarize the article proportionally. If a third of the article is about accusations of sexual abuse, then a third of the lead must be about the accusations as well. Also, the sentence in the lead doesn't represent a neutral point of view. First, Gafni has admitted to relationships with minors while he was 19 or older. He claims they were consensual, which is an admission of guilt. Children are not legally capable of granting consent. This is pointed out by the experts in one of the Forward articles, but not mentioned in the article. He also fled Israel to avoid prosecution. That is not the act of someone confident they did nothing wrong. Not to include these details in the lead leaves the lead unbalanced in support of the subject. Skyerise (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

1. Skyerise is clearly a biased editor, using Wiki to cause damage to Gafni and his family, there is nothing additive, they are just moving things up from the controversy section into the lead with obviously malicious intent.

2. They are sloppily cutting and pasting content, literally leaving half sentences in there and splicing together sentences that don’t fit together.

EXAMPLE: “Because of the allegations, and because Gafni fled the country to avoid prosecution, he was dismissed from Bayit Hadash, which closed within days. In 2016, triggered in part by an article in the New York Times, as well as by a petition from over 100 rabbis denouncing Gafni.“

Beyond the point that these are factually wrong assertions, skyerise splices the two sentences together (see [3] ), confusing dynamics from 2006 when Gafni left Israel, which dynamics from 2016 (which as numerous well-documented articles pointed out was a smear campaign initiated by the same people who organised the attack in Israel.[4]https://www.whoismarcgafni.com/2017/01/marc-gafni-smear-analysis-expose/

Another example, the page has stated correctly for many years that Gafni denies any claim of sexual misconduct: “Gafni has been the subject of multiple allegations of sexual misconduct over many years, which he has denied.” The editor adds to that statement of Gafni’s denial: “which he has denied as abusive” (See [5] ). Which of course makes no sense. The sentence now reads to say that he denies that relationships of sexual misconduct were “abusive”, which is obviously absurd. What he denies of course, is the actual claim of sexual misconduct itself. Again, we have an obviously biased editor, sloppily cutting and pasting information in order to cause damage without adding new information of any kind.

3. He did not ‘flee’ Israel to avoid prosecution, this is simply made up. As has been well documented, there were no police complaints. See this article.

4. Gafni has denied and refuted any claim of an illegal relationship with Sara. The teenage necking when they were both teenagers in New York in 1979 was not illegal. See this short article or this longer version.

5. The intention in changing the lead, which has been there by consensus for a very long time, is self-evidently malice and not to “balance” something.

Please keep this in mind when further edits are made.

Jalansukma3!? (talk)Jalansukma3!? Jalansukma3!? (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jalansukma3!: what's your affiliation with the subject? Skyerise (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Author vs Writer

Per discussion and edits changing 'author' to 'writer' [6] Please cite wikipedia source that says professional best seller authors should be listed as 'writers'.

Here's some general knowledge of use of these words: "Both author and writer refer to a person who writes. In general, the word author is used to refer to a person who writes professionally, especially someone who writes published books. The word writer is typically used more generally to refer to someone who writes anything, including works besides books."

Netanya9 (talk)Netanya9

Our category system labels writers as writers, not as "authors". Typically, someone is an author of something that they have written. You might want to choose your battles more wisely. But see also WP:BATTLEGROUND. You still have a pending block, you know. It is not correct for you to try to own and gatekeep the article, objecting to every little change for no good reason. Skyerise (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Allegations section

Controversy sections are discouraged. I suggest that the biography be chronological, which it currently is not. In the religious career section, his ordination in 2008 is put ahead of the retraction of another ordination in 2006. So when was he first ordained? Since the allegations are discussed as the reason for giving back or having ordinations retracted, the allegations should be integrated into the time line.

1. Ordination 1, presumably before 2004
2. 2004 allegations
3. Withdrawal of 1st ordination in 2006
4. Ordination 2, in 2008
5. giving back the ordination because of (more? or the same?) allegations

Putting all the negative material at the end of the article is problematic, since it leaves his ordaining and deordaining, his establishment of centers or organizations and their disestablishment, completely out of context referencing material that has not been presented to the reader yet. Therefore it should all simply be presented in chronological order. Also, calling it out under a heading listed in the tables of contents could be considered a biased form of presentation. If the material is presented chronologically, and if the lead fully summarizes the article, there should be no need for controversial section headings. Skyerise (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Current ordination

I've removed the information about Gafni's claimed current ordination, which was sourced only to Gafni, after searching for and not finding any third-party verification. This cannot be sourced to Gafni's self-published website, because it makes a claim about another living person, the Rabbi he claims ordained him, which isn't permitted under WP:ABOUTSELF. Skyerise (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

LEAD issues

The weight given to explanation of allegations in the lead is probably undue. Should be summarized. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: opinions on the revised lead? Skyerise (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I think I would do more like this. Note that I do not know who the article subject is, just a new editor here. I just dont like all the weight given to allegations in the lead, it tends to run afoul of BLP rules. Does the subject have any actual conviction, or are we just talking about allegations? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you read the whole article. Subject would most likely not be notable if it were not for the allegations. Centers were closed, ordinations retracted. WP:LEAD says that the weight in the lead should reflect the weight in the article. Minimizing it in the lead would be whitewashing, especially considering there was coverage in The New York Times! Skyerise (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we could summarize it as you have done here just now. The lead currently doesnt really touch on the points you raise, that the subject is primarily notable due to the allegations and rather just names the allegations in excessive detail in the lead. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

That's just how the paragraph is structured. It notes the allegations, then the specific effects the allegations have had on the subject's career. That's precisely what it touches on, the retractions of ordinations, the closing of the center, and that there was additional subsequent fall out. The subject was a rabbi: the lead needs to make clear that exactly why he is now a former rabbi. That's unusual. His alleged offenses were at or involved students or members of organizations he worked for or founded. His actions led to criticism from those very organizations as well. It's all complexly interwoven with his career and career problems, and shouldn't be glossed over in the lead. Skyerise (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, the allegations are not unconfirmed. Gafni has confessed to several of them, acknowledging that the State of New York would consider his sexual activities with teenagers in his 20s as "misdemeanors" - see the several Dr. Phil episodes now linked from the external links section. He also admits to practicing a "polyamory" - while he was married - in which he kept his sexual partners (who were members of his congregation) and his wife in the dark about his other partners (which is technically not polyamory). Skyerise (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)