Talk:Yitzhak Israeli

I noted the issues, working to improve and add better sources in the next few days. ציפי81 (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Article protected, needs resolution via discussion per WP:BLP

The passage in question, removed here, which has been the subject of an edit war, leading to this page's protection, needs to be discussed. Per WP:BLP, contested and contentious information about living persons needs to be left out of an article until such time as there is consensus to add it back. I will note that the user/users who keep removing it are either IP addresses or new users, and they use inflammatory language in their removals, but when I look at what has been removed, there is a significant problem with it. It is fairly contentious and controversial, and the only source for the removed paragraph is This editorial, which when you read it, throws up a lot of red flags in terms of reliability and suitability for citing a passage of writing written in Wikipedia's voice. It would be best if the text is to be put back into the article, that we find an actual reliable source. I have no actual background knowledge of the situation, other than to note that there are legitimate concerns, and per WP:BLP, those concerns need to be discussed and fixed before the text is returned to the article. If the situation can be resolved here on the article talk page, we can remove the page protection. --Jayron32 14:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed there is a huge problem here. Based on the sources used, I have done some background investigation, and I found that there is a self-proclaimed organization, Chazaq, that seeks to speak on behalf of others without public credibility. It seems that Chazaq has a religious/political agenda that is involved here. They/supporters have previously inserted controversial content that promoted their specific narrative. As User:Jayron32 pointed out, they have published multiple defamatory and contentious information via their tabloids: "Queens Jewish Link" and "Bukharian Jewish Link" (which are really one and the same) and used them as sources for their propaganda on this article. Recently, the content on the article was updated to reflect a more neutral take on this issue, which was indicated to be a controversy instead of grounded in facts. Unfortunately, it seems that they are not happy with this neutrality, and are trying to take it down by means of vandalism and sock-puppetry. As of now half of the content was removed and the remaining part was retained and is now under the "works" section. This is ridiculous. The article should be restored to before the latest deletion. There has yet to be a valid concern raised regarding the reason for the vandalism and deletion of content. Bukharian (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

What changes to the text do you request? Be concrete and actionable. Say what words you want removed, why you want them removed, etc. Say what words you want added, where you want them added, what reference supports them, etc. Please discuss content, not motives or personalities or other users. Just say what you want done, and get consensus to do it. Also, I have no idea who or what this person is, or really anything you're talking about. It is entirely unimportant to me. All that matters is that 1) the rules of Wikipedia are followed and 2) There is no number 2. --Jayron32 11:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The content should be restored with no modifications. It should not have been removed. I would further suggest semi-protection to prevent further vandalism. Bukharian (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

As I noted above, the text in question was not reliably sourced, and cannot be restored as such without an actual reliable source. Also, please note, that removing poorly-sourced information is absolutely, and in no way, vandalism. If you're going to throw that word around, you should learn what it means first. Please read WP:VAND. I will re-iterate what I stated above. Explain what words you want added or removed, and provide a reliable source that supports it. --Jayron32 14:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

There was no concern previously raised regarding this content being poorly sourced. You are doing that now for the first time. Previously the content was deleted because of vandalism, and individuals being uncomfortable with these details being published to the public.

In any case, going forward, will Queens/Bukharian Jewish Link be considered unreliable sources? Is that the new policy here? Bukharian (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:RS is a policy as old as Wikipedia. I'm not sure why you think that having reliable sources is new policy. --Jayron32 16:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, since you seem to need more additional people to provide their input, I have raised the matter at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. We'll see what the consensus is on the use of that source. --Jayron32 16:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. If the both the Queens Jewish Link and Bukharian Jewish Link are both recognized as unreliable sources then I would agree with you. Nevertheless, it would not be fair to limit the restriction to just one particular editorial. All articles from those sources are unreliable because they are tabloids. I saw your post and it seems that you only referred to that specific editorial. Everything from those sources should be considered unreliable, then we can proceed. Thank you. Bukharian (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, you did not explain why those sources are unreliable in the first place. I would appreciate some elaboration on your reasoning. Bukharian (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

So at an absolute bare minimum, that is WP:RSOPINION at most - it's plainly an opinion piece. Therefore it cannot be used to cite anything as a fact in the article voice, only things stated as Katerina's opinion. Since the source itself seems potentially WP:BIASED, we would have to note that somehow - eg. something like "Katerina, writing in an editorial titled 'STOP The FAKE NEWS In The Bukharian Community Leading Rabbis Shocked By The Lies And Propaganda Of R’ Baruch Babaev' the Bukharian Jewish Link, said that Yitzhak Israeli was appointed as the "Chief Rabbi of the Rabbinical Bukharian Association of the United States and Canada" by Yaniv and Ilan Meirov of "CHAZAQ" in an effort to undermine the current Bukharian Chief Rabbi. But just looking at what it would look like with in-text attribution makes it clear that we probably should not even be using it like that - is it WP:DUE? Who is Katerina, and why do their opinions matter? Why is an opinion published in the Bukharian Jewish Link noteworthy? Is this an expert, or a significant paper, or something like that? --Aquillion (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bukharian: Reliable sources are described at WP:RS. It is the responsibility of the person using the source in question to establish that it is reliable and that it meets the requirements laid out at WP:RS (see WP:BURDEN, WP:ONUS). The source in question is not a widely published source with a known reputation, and if it is, you'd have to show evidence of such. You don't just get to assert that the source is reliable and then demand that everyone prove that it isn't. The burden of proof is on the person wishing to add the text in question and use the source in question to verify it. --Jayron32 12:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Well, obviously whoever used this source believed it to be reliable. So now you are saying that it is not, but you haven't provided any reasoning. At the very least this source does acknowledge that there is a controversy.

@Aquillion: To answer your question, Katerina is nobody. This piece was published by the Bukharian Jewish Link to spread their particular narrative. The reason the Bukharian Jewish Link's opinion is noteworthy is because they are the newspaper media arm of CHAZAQ. Again, this source does help reference to the fact that there is indeed a major controversy around this subject.Bukharian (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

If it is a major controversy, we should be able to find WP:SECONDARY sources covering it, or at least higher-profile ones. I'm skeptical of the argument that Katerina writing this in the Bukharian Jewish Link implies that CHAZAQ is spreading a particular narrative - again, if all of that is true, we should be able to find sources saying so, rather than trying to convince the reader by performing original research or synthesis using primary sources. --Aquillion (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

All of this began as a series of controversial edits introduced by Bukharian on March 16, involving whether or not, or to what extent the article subject possessed a satisfactory Bukharian pedigree, and I had found all of it to be petty and problematic. On their userpage, Bukharian describe themselves as being "Expert on all things Bukharian", with no other information provided. Therefore, to inject themselves thusly into a controversy between two Bukharian chief rabbis, where Bukharian has clearly chosen a side (against the generally non-notable article subject, in favor of a similarly non-notable contender to the title of chief rabbi, Baruch Babaev) all while providing no reliable sources for any of these assertions, struck me as being a case of WP:OR. Furthermore, due to the very username Bukharian, it seemed to me that they may have needed to take a step back from editing this article in the first place, since their professed expertise, and edit history, much of which revolves around the same subject, all possibly pointed to them being connected, either organizationally or personally, to Babev (the "Real", "Pure" or "True" Bukharian Chief Rabbi so to speak), for who else would care about this minor position so much that they needed to make these assertions anyway, and without making reference to any reliable sources at that? Be that as it may, the paragraph in question, The exact responsibilities and obligations of Yitzhak Israeli in his capacity as Chief Rabbi to Bukharian Jews throughout the United States and Canada are undisclosed and generally presumed to be nominal. Yitzhak Israeli is widely unknown to any Bukharian Jews outside of the sphere of influence of CHAZAQ, an ultra-Orthodox outreach organization in Queens, NY. Yitzhak Israeli is not of Bukharian Jewish heritage and does not speak Bukharian or Russian, which are the predominant languages of Bukharian Jews is not written in a way that befits a BLP. We can and should, based upon the weak sources anyway, restore the sentence from the last undisturbed version (Novemver 20, 2020) In 2016, Israeli was appointed Chief Rabbi of the Bukharian community in the United States and Canada although I would be in favor of adding the unsourced although he himself is not of Bukharian Jewish heritage if only to provide some balance. In addition, the chief rabbi title should be restored to the lede and to the infobox, since it seems to be a significant part of whatever little notability the subject does possess. StonyBrook (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)