This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography 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 Alternative Views High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I would like to use the updated image dating from 2021. Could you please let me know why you reverted it Nomoskedasticity together with another revert, without explanation? The Rome picture is very outdated: 2013! This picture is from 2021. Please keep it or explain. What do you think Avi? Netanya9 (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomoskedasticity just reverted back to the last revision prior to the possibly unacceptable prose and the image got caught up in the change. The image is on Commons as a free-use image (CC-BY-SA) so whould be acceptable for Wikipeida. Nomo, any disagreement? -- Avi (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the image is fine. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update! That happens! Netanya9 (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Netanya9. I think putting the Integral center in the lede, especially with a roll call of founders, is not appropriate for a lee. We have that in the teachings section already too. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I went in the current sources, to find more info on him to balance the lede, as discussed above. That's why I put this in. Next to his books and television show, the Center seems to be one of the main projects he is known for. Therefore it made sense to me in the lede. Perhaps without the other names, like this? "Dr. Gafni is the co-founder together with Ken Wilber, of the think tank called the Center for Integral Wisdom." Wdyt Avi? Netanya9 (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We mention he is a teacher of Integral wisdom in the lede. I'd put it out there for more discussion if we should mention his co-founding. Especially as Wilber disavowed him and then reconciled. We have the details in the text. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea Avi to put this out for discussion, how would we do that? I do not know the basic Wiki guidelines for opening paragraph. Many of the sources cited there, mentions he is the founder of the Center for Integral Wisdom, together with Ken Wilber. That is why this seems like one of his core contributions. I am not sure what would be the best way to decide on this? Netanya9 (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did find some other sources on Google, can we use these Avi ? Netanya9 (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ethical-wisdom/201509/evolutionary-love-interview-dr-marc-gafni.
https://benbellabooks.com/authors/gafni-marc/
This one says "president of the Center for World Spirituality":
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelellsberg/2014/01/12/john-mackey-marc-gafni/?sh=5763b583207d
"Gafni's think tank, the Center for Integral Wisdom,":
https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/.premium-former-rabbi-accused-of-improper-sexual-conduct-now-spiritual-guru-1.5382689

I added above to lead paragraph, as discussed many sources state the center for integral wisdom as one of his core contributions. Netanya9 (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Netanya9, we call him an author already in the first sentence. We have a Bibliography section in the text. We have a Writings section in the text. I can see adding "award winning" to author since he woone an award, but moving the biography ionto the lede doesn't make sense. -- Avi (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; that's one sentence. I may have to move the sources around, but I'm OK with that one sentence. Nomoskedasticity , what about you? -- Avi (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netanya9 You did mess up the citations with your edits so that they no longer support some sentences and appear improperly by others. I'll work on fixing them, but please becareful or ask for help in inserting them. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for messing up the numbering, I will be more careful in the future. Thanks for your help! Netanya9 (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avi, I think I messed up again, so sorry! Please could you tell me what I am doing wrong or how I can fix this? Please let me solve this in the morning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netanya9 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In reliable sources we know that Gafni received Orthodox Semikha from Shlomo Riskin and Reconstructionist semikha from Zalman Schachter-Shalomi—both of which have been retured or revoked. If I recall correctly, he has non-demoninational semikha from Gershon Winkler which allows him to continued to be referred to as a rabbi instead of a "former rabbi". I'd like to put mention of that under education, where I think it belongs, but that would mean putting some mention of the revovation there too, and I think we should try to keep the bulk of the allegation fallout to the allegation section. I'll try to write something accurate, sourced, and wiki-appropriate. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk)

Gafni on his own website says Winkler gave him ordination in 2008. Being that it involves Winkler too, I'm concerned that it fails element 2 of WP:ABOUTSELF. Especially as in that very webpage gafni is making claims that argue on what is found in other sources. -- Avi (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only news source I have found which references Winkler re: Gafni, but no mention of semikha. I may change text to "Gafni states he has ordination from Winkler" and use his own site for that. -- Avi (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed text to read "Gafni states" so I think it passes ABOUTSELF. -- Avi (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great to me! What do you think about starting the paragraph with his current ordination? Since this is not up for debate there is no need to say "gafni states" on this one? This link published proof. https://www.marcgafni.com/resp/ordination-dr-marc-gafni-by-rabbi-gershon-wrinkler/ Netanya9 (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is published on MarcGafni.com, which is a self-published site and is unusable for almost anything other than WP:ABOUTSELF. Since saying that "winkler ordained Gafni" is a purported factual statement about someone other than Gafni, it fails to be an acceptable source, which is why I made the sentence read "gafni states" so now it's solely about Gafni, and we can use Gafni's own blog, carefully, to support Gafni's own statements per WP:ABOUTSELF. -- Avi (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is debate whether Zalman ordained Gafni, we should include both views. Suggest to add here: Gafni claims he was a peer to Reb Zalman Schachter-Salomi in the Jewish Renewal movement but was never his student and Zalman was never the source of his ordination." own website Netanya9 (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's reasonable. The question is where. We expand on Riskin and Shalomi in the sexual allegations section, so I think that is where it belongs. We could move it all up, but I personally would argue to make references to the sexual misconduct as self-contained as possible. -- Avi (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about this: changing heading to CONTROVERSY and then having subheadings that say SEXUAL ASSAULT ALLEGATIONS and ORDINATION. This is an example of what it can look like per year and issue, that I think looks cleaner that what is here now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Robbins. Maybe this reorganization needs a new discussion on this talk page though? It can solve our ordination issue. Make short statement under education and longer explanation of all views under "controversies". What do you think Avi Netanya9 (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The ordination issues are a direct result of the sexual allegations. Splitting them doesn't make sense to me. As for splitting the allegation section, how? Do we have it by time of alleged abuse (80s, 90s, 00s, 10s) do we have it by accusation? Currently, I've tried to make it chronoloical without explicit headings, but it certainly can be improved. -- Avi (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Avi, would you please take a look what you think about this direction and lets discuss further under allegation section on talk page? I think this gives us a clear start to improve it over time. Worked on this for hours. Please forgive me if I made any mistakes, or if I messed up citations. I tried to do it in small steps so you can easily see my changes. Ill be back tomorrow to fix and clean up what is needed. Thanks! Netanya9 (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the information discussed above to include both views. Since the Who Is Marc Gafni site is the only source for the other view, I have used this publication as source. Please discuss other suggestions here.

"In early January 2016, Judy Mitzner alleged that she was one of two teenage girls whom Gafni allegedly molested in New York City in 1986". Why is this not repetitive User:Netanya9 You, twice now, have put in the word "allegedly" when it already says alleged earlier in the sentence. Nerguy (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nerguy, great to meet you here. Yes you are right, the way I did it is actually repetitive. However the first "alleged" refers to Judy Mitzner. The way it is phrased now it literally says "whom Gafni molested", and since this is an allegation and not a fact, we can't state it like this. So I would suggest this: "In early January 2016, Judy Mitzner claimed that she was one of two teenage girls whom Gafni allegedly molested in New York City in 1986." What do you think? Netanya9 (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netanya9 Agreed that sounds much better. Nerguy (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made quite some changes here, did my best to do in small steps so it is clear to see what I did. Please discuss before reverting. See talk page "ordination in article" on previous discussion on reorganizing this section (and archive). This is a first draft, open for suggestions. Thanks! Netanya9 (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with pure chronological is that it interleaves Bayis Hadash with Mitzner/Kabakov. I've separated those and made them chronological within the sections. If another independent allegation has adequately acceptable sourcing, it should be its own section too, probably chronological. So if between 1980 and 2006 goes before Bayis Hadash, otherwise afterwards. -- Avi (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avi, thanks so much for all the cleaning up you have done. Diving deeper into these allegations, I think me putting the years in the headings was a mistake, it makes it look like there are many different allegations, while there are only two that re-surface in the articles in different years. The distinction between teenage and Bayis Hadash you made makes way more sense. What do you think about my last edit taking out some of the years? Netanya9 (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, what would be the best word to use in opening paragraph to state Gafni "refuted" the allegations? According to dictionary: "Deny"= state that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of. Refute: "to say or prove that a person, statement, opinion, etc. is wrong or false." 'Deny = Refuses to admit' to me sounds guilty, and not appropriate for WP:BALANCE. Also Gafni's website shows e tried to prove with evidence that the allegations are false. So therefore "to say or prove that a statement is false' seemed more appropriate to me. Happy to change this to what is most neutral. Is there a better word to use? Thoughts? Appreciate the help. Nomoskedasticity Avi Netanya9 (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with "refute", of course, is in the idea that the allegations have been "proven" false. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize Nomoskedasticity, I am not a native English speaker and go by what the dictionary tells me. If you think deny is better then totally fine of course! Thanks for your quick response! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netanya9 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Netanya9. Nomoskedasticity is correct. "Refute" means to disprove. Gafni did not disprove anything. He merely contests it and provides an alternate explanation. Therefore, the proper word is "deny". Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clear, thanks so much for clarifying! How can we archive this question? Netanya9 (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SELFPUB to understand why we can't use something from medium.com for the text you are trying to add. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Nomoskedasticity. I see Medium is considered a blogpost, does that mean it can never be used as a source? I am using this page as an example and noticed this Medium link, that is why I thought it would be admissible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netanya9 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, outside of WP:ABOUTSELF, blogs are unacceptable sources for anything. Please review WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR for more on the basic requirements for sources. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Avraham not to nitpick since there's a lot happening here, but blogs can be used in the case of WP:SPS, i.e independent subject experts who write somewhere. That's not the case here, but just wanted to mention that important exception. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Netanya9. For some of the text you added, you simply copy-pasted the text out of the website or source. This is plagiarism and often copyright infringement as well, and is grounds for censure. Please see Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Please be very careful. If you are not sure how to add something, please ask on the talk page. Otherwise, measures may need to be taken to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia. Thank you for understanding. -- (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies and understood Avi ! I did exactly that, copyied text. Sorry I was not aware this is plagiarism, I thought with the source added it would be ok, although this totally makes sense now. Thank you for cleaning it up. Will read more about this. Netanya9 (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the amount of references in the text, I'm considering refactoring the references to make every entry in the actual article text to be a "short" entry ala <ref name = "ABS" /> and moving all the full citation templates to the Reference section in alphabetical order. The appearance of the article would be exactly the same; just that the full references would all be in one place instead of interspersed through the article. Any reason why not to do this? Any other thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Avraham. I cleaned up a few duplicate references. Could you let me know what else I can do, I would love to help make this happen. Netanya9 (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how important its activity is. It appears CIW underwent radical restructuring around the time they switched websites. The article is about Gafni, not CIW, so I think we can leave out unimportant matters. -- Avi (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gafni has a history of dropping names of prominent people as a way to bolster his reputation. I know that his Wisdom Council" (a long list of well-known authors/teachers on his website) dissolved in 2016 after it was revealed that many of those listed had no idea they were on it and thus being viewed as implicit supporters of Gafni and his work. Tony Robbins, Warren Farrell, and Lori Galperin, at the least, would likely be upset if they knew they were mentioned here. Sorry, no news source to reference here, though here's an example of one of the teachers who was surprised and dismayed to find out she was on the list: https://www.facebook.com/cynthia.bourgeault/posts/10153339924833785. Helpfulhope (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, CIW IS Gafni, so it does feel important and relevant. CIW is merely a website Gafni created to display his own writings and teachings, creating the false implication that there's a large group of people working together in this "center", rather than this primarily being just another Marc Gafni website. Helpfulhope (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pertinent points, but we still have to hew to the required standards of WP:NOR and WP:RS especially because this is a living person. Even if true Wikipedia cannot say Gafni namedrops or misuses information for his own benefit, since that would be OR. And a facebook blog post wouldn't pass WP:RS, which is why without reasonable sourcing we need to err on the side of caution. The allegations are impeccably sourced. We can use Gafni's own words as a source for what Gafni states—really nothing else. -- Avi (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi editors, I came in to restore some recent deletions. Tagging some experienced editors on this page as you might want to keep an eye out for vandalism. Thanks! Avi Nerguy Seraph.dat Netanya9 ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menke1986 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to get to grips with WP:SECONDARY. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Primary, secondary and tertiary sources may all be used in Wikipedia"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Handling_primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources_(proposed_guideline)#:~:text=Primary%2C%20secondary%20and%20tertiary%20sources%20may%20all%20be%20used%20in,of%20topics%20covered%20by%20Wikipedia.

Please clarify why you delete relevant information, before I revert this edit.

@Avi @Seraph.dat Netanya9 (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really not know? Then why are you editing BLPs at all? Everything we need to know is right here: WP:BLPSPS, "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person". You might also consult WP:BURDEN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware self-published sources are generally not allowed on BLP. Considering the controversy of the topics, we have previously discussed on this talk page, that self-published sources can be used as "Gafni states". See for example @Avi's comment in previous topic "We can use Gafni's own words as a source for what Gafni states".

Second, you can not delete 3 entire sections with several good sources and call them all self-published, when only one links to the BLP's website. I can agree to remove that, but all the other sources still make the point. If you have another argument for deletion, please communicate this here.

Let's discuss your deletions one by one:

1) YOU DELETED: "In February 2017, the National Coalition for Men published an article by Gafni in which he defended himself, calling the allegations "a long-standing smear campaign"."

SOURCE:

https://ncfm.org/2017/02/news/uncategorized/ncfm-member-marc-gafni-fake-facts-unchecked-falsehoods-that-destroy-lives/

2) YOU DELETED: "Your Unique Self was published by Integral Publishers."

SOURCE:

https://integral-publishers.com/portfolio-items/cc/?portfolioCats=10

3) YOU DELETED: "The board of directors of the Center for World Spirituality, an organization co-founded by Gafni and of which he is CEO, issued a statement of "unequivocal support" for Gafni. Wilber first separated from Gafni, but the two reconciled and Wilber rejoined Gafni at the Center for World Spirituality."

SOURCES:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120209231457/kenwilber.com/blog/show/701

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/christianityforthesbnr/2017/01/speaking-out-for-integrity-and-dr-marc-gafni-part-i-of-iii

https://www.marcgafni.com/resp/ken-wilber-statement-on-marc-gafni-and-the-center-for-integral-wisdom/

https://web.archive.org/web/20130709005615/http://integrallife.com/member/ken-wilber/blog/ken-wilbers-response-marc-gafni-debacle

So suggest to restore these sections, and if it would make you feel more comfortable we can of course remove the Marc Gafni source. Netanya9 (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it backwards. We can make judicious use of Gafni's own website; WP:BLPSPS makes that clear. What we can't use is material supported only by sources referring to themselves. That's why I deleted the NCFM passage. Likewise with "integral life". This is why it's better to stick to secondary sources. I think previously you've understood "self-published" to mean published by the subject. That's not what it means. NCFM is "self-published" because they are publishing stuff by/about themselves. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, points well taken.

These are my arguments for restoring the text:

1) We then agree we can make judicious use of MarcGafni as a source. Which published Ken Wilber letter stating he rejoins the Wisdom Council.

2) NCFM is primary source we can use, per your point we can make judicious use of primary sources to state Gafni's opinion, WP:NPOV, WP:BALANCE.

3) Use Integral Life as primary source, as this is the actual letter by Wilber stating he rejoined Gafni's Board, which is totally relevant. We can change text to the fact that Ken Wilber published a letter stating his rejoining.

5) Integral Publisher is secondary source, we can use. No need to delete this section.

5) Patheos is a secondary source we can use. No need to delete this section.

Looking forward to get your response.

Netanya9 (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of this takes seriously what BLPSPS says, nor does it show any engagement with WP:RS. As an example: it doesn't matter that Gafni published Wilber's letter -- because Gafni's website is not a reliable source in regard to anyone other than Gafni (so, it can't be used to support assertions about Wilber). We can't use the NCFM website at all, because it doesn't meet WP:RS. The patheos.com blog is a SPS and cannot be used here at all. You seem intent on finding ways to ignore BLPSPS, which is not going to fly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Netanya9. This content has been up for ten years. Should NOT be deleted without consensus of other editors. Jalansukma3!? (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reaching out for help in our editing community, I trust we will get this resolved easily.

Some points in response to yours :)

1) The public statement by Ken Wilber on his site is still a good source.

2) You are not responding to detailed statements above, but simply revert ALL edits without conversation.

3) The sections you delete are up for ten years and have been heavily debated in talk page archive.

4) Your editing history on this page over the years is clearly biased.

4) Considering the controversy, deletions of one POV like this need to get consensus on talk page first.

5) We agreed above that on BLP we can use primary/ self published sources for WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE. Also, Wikipedia:BLPSELFPUB clearly states this. Netanya9 (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FROM BLPSELFPUB:

There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

it is not unduly self-serving;

it does not involve claims about third parties;

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and

the article is not based primarily on such sources. Netanya9 (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Per discussion and edits changing 'author' to 'writer' [3] 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)[reply]