Talk:Shmuley Boteach

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

California: Los Angeles Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force.

Judaism Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Parenting (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parenting, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ParentingWikipedia:WikiProject ParentingTemplate:WikiProject ParentingParenting articles

Michael Jackson Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michael Jackson, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Michael Jackson on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Michael JacksonWikipedia:WikiProject Michael JacksonTemplate:WikiProject Michael JacksonMichael Jackson articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Jersey Low‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Tangential details and lengthy lists

it looks like the article is getting updated to include a lot of unnessasry details that burry the more meaningful and on-topic content. The lengthy lists of speakers at LChaim and gala awardees doesn't seem meaningful to the topic of the article. These tangential details inhibit readablity and feel like WP:COATRACK. Some other details also add lots of context but do so in a way that detract from the main topic of the article: like the Divorce Rates graph and listing that he advocated for the medical benefits of male circumcision and listing out those benefits. Readers can follow the links to the respective wiki articles to get a more complete look at tangential topics. Ew3234 (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, there is zero on Wikipedia that is "necessary." Second, this is odd coming from an editor who has been militating for inclusion of information from a self-published blog, with zero editorial oversight. From a disgraced former journalist. That's really strange. Third, the complained about text - in contrast to the text this editor militates for - is actually in each case supported by RSs that report on the subject of the article. I'm open at the same time to discussing the benefit or not of including the graph in question - in that instance, while it does serve the purpose of images at wp, in illustrating a point discussed in the article, in this case the rate of divorce, it is the case that the graph itself does not discuss the subject of this article; that might be reason to consider deleting it. As to the subject's views on male circumcision, in contrast, that is covered - in fact in many, way beyond what this article presents - RSs, covering the subject. Anyway, if you would like to discuss the graph, I'm open to that, and think there may well be something to your point there. By the way, last point, I don't think the discussion of using a self-published source has been concluded .. self-published sources are not looked on favorably at the project, and are never to be used when they relate to a blp. --2603:7000:2143:8500:10EC:F3D6:EA24:8DE2 (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I'm not sure how to respond to this. For the 1st point, see WP:TMI. For the rest, it seems like you've cast me in some poor light and your reponse feels like a personal attack (no need for the "this is odd coming from an editor who..." language). I don't think the topic of Friedman and RS is relavent to what I raised in this section and I would like to instead focus on the subject at hand. Perhaps, a neutral thrid party can weigh in. Ew3234 (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all an attack on you as a person. It is an observation not about you, but about the oddity of your editing seeking inclusion of a non-RS, coupled with your suggestion that we trim RS material. On the one hand, you have been advocating strenuously to include what is clearly a gossip blogger's no-editorial-oversight self-published source as a reference, with associated text. As we know, anyone can create a personal web page. And the rule at wp is never to use self-published sources as third-party sources about other living people. Ever. That I think you would have to agree is the case. You also haven't come back with your further thoughts on the chart, responding to my above suggestion that we discuss it. Anyway, I've taken a hand to making the article more readable, and will do more of that when I have a moment. --2603:7000:2143:8500:10EC:F3D6:EA24:8DE2 (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harrasment of editors and suppression of relevant information by anonymous contributors.

User: 2603:7000:2101:AA00:8463:3822:2153:CF14

conducting suppression of information regarding Shmuley Boteach's highlight public engagements.

Despite sourcing, anon repeatedly deleted information and reported users to administrators as assuming bad faith. then engaged in harassment of administrators as a form of WP:Hounding against user edits they content disagreement with. Smartiest Marty (talk) 04:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

in the edit history of the Shmuley Boteach's page, this is a common pattern of anon accounts editing and sanitising factual engagements and quotes from Shmuley, without libel. Smartiest Marty (talk) 04:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request:

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

New User

Specific text to be added* Reason for the change: To be added under Media Career as this information covers a major event in Shmuley Boteach's history. All information is directly extracted from sources and represented as communicated in sources.

Heading: Conflict with Mohammed Hijab

Shmuley Boteach entered mainstream awareness after his appearance on the Piers Morgan show "Uncensored", to debate, against Mohammed Hijab, the Oct 2023 escalation of tensions between the resistance group Hamas and the Israeli Apartheid Regime. In the course of the interview, Shmuley touched on the topic of owning a sex shop, to which Mohammed Hijab gave Rabbi Shmuley the nickname, "Unholy Shmuley". This is because Boteach co-owns an adult erotic store, Kosher Sex, with his daughter, Chana Boteach, seemingly in contradiction of being a Rabbi, a religious leader of faith.

Toward the end of the segment, Morgan described the 1 hour debate as "the most dispiriting hour" of his career, as the debate was carried out with Boteach veering off into tangents of ad-hominem attacks against Hijab and Palestinians, while Hijab responded in kind while holding up visual aids of Palestinian infants ripped to shreds by Israeli Air-strikes. Smartiest Marty (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-heading: Context

Following the escalation of tensions between the resistance group Hamas against Israel's apartheid in October 2023, Talk TV's Piers Morgan's invited Mohammed Hijab unto his interview-talk show "Uncensored", to discuss the topic, which aired on 17th Oct, 2024. As of 8th Sept, 2024, it has become the 8th most viewed video on the Uncensored youtube channel, garnering 8,432,00 views, and has contributed to increasing support for the Palestinian plight.

Following this, Shmuley Boteach challenged Mohammed Hijab to a debate on X(previously twitter) after appearing on Piers Morgan's show to present the Israeli perspective on the escalation. In this appearance, Boteach debated the topic with Cenk Uygur, a US Presidential Candidate at the time and an established critic of Israel's apartheid, thus setting the precedent to his and Hijab's e. As of Sep 8th, this video has 2,075,00 view on YouTube, making it the 82nd most viewed video on the Uncensored YouTube channel.

Reason for the change: information relevant to person pertaining to their presence in mainstream awareness.

References supporting change:

Piers Morgan Uncensored (November 16, 2023). Mohammed Hijab vs Rabbi Shmuley On Palestine and Israel | The Full Debate With Piers Morgan. Retrieved September 8, 2024 – via YouTube.

"About Us". Kosher Sex. Retrieved September 8, 2024. https://kosher.sex/about-us/

Piers Morgan Uncensored (October 16, 2023). Piers Morgan vs Mohammed Hijab On Palestine and Israel-Hamas War | The Full Debate – via YouTube.

Boteach, Schmuley. "Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's Twitter". Retrieved September 08,2024.

Piers Morgan Uncensored (November 9, 2023). Israel-Hamas War: Piers Morgan vs Rabbi Shmuley And Cenk Uygur Going Head-to-Head In Fiery CLASH. Retrieved September 8, 2024 – via YouTube. Smartiest Marty (talk) 03:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The talk messages are divided due to surpassing the world limit for new-topic/replies. Smartiest Marty (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above content is a reflection of previous edit made which was undid by Anon:IP

Admins advised that an edit request be made due to the segment itself falls under contentious topics.

Previous Edit: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Shmuley_Boteach&diff=prev&oldid=1244771493 Smartiest Marty (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are there no sources independent of the event covering it? —C.Fred (talk) 11:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are third party sources covering the event. Written sources are predominantly tabloid sources from zionist blogs and skynews op-eds, these are however inadmissable by WP:Living Person Biography policies. There are audio/visual sources of various podcasts reviewing/critiquing the interaction, which I have only consumed minorly. As well social media sources of verified thought leaders collectively chipping in their opinions. However the discourse, on both sides of the spectrum, didn't deviate from the critiques already presented in the original media (i.e. the interview itself).

What is on your mind, how can I help? Smartiest Marty (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The events under discussion here are not of encyclopaedic value and no evidence of appropriate sourcing has been provided. Axad12 (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]