Talk:Shmuley Boteach

/* Self-promotion section

This section seems on very shaky ground as worthy of mention, let alone a section. Especially in a blp. By the context, it is clearly a joke. --2603:7000:2143:8500:6DC8:71E:DA17:6742 (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Roger Friedman

We could say "fired by Fox" instead of controversial, or refer to his many controversies (not just Fox - many notable accusations of inaccuracy on his part), or the fact that Fox has pulled down one (more?) of his articles. But I believe it is the norm, when the source of an article is controversial, to so indicate, as it bears on the reliability of the source, and gentler to him to simply write controversial. --2603:7000:2143:8500:1131:5E87:C101:54F4 (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking over other references to Friedman in Wikipedia, it looks like other editors refer to him as reporter, journalist, blogger, etc without denoting that he is controversial. I'm not saying that other wikipedia articles are the source of truth on this - but just a point of reference that other editors didn't use that language.

Doing a quick Google search, the only controversy I found was the Fox firing - which was due to him streaming a movie illegally but not a violation of journalist ethics. I don't think that would make him a controversy in its own. But having his articles retracted and publishing falsehood certainly would make him controversial and it would be in the interest of the reader to denote that in this article. However, I didn't find sources that he published inaccuracies or that Fox retracted his articles. Do you have sources for that? If so, I would agree with you that the article should use the controversial moniker. Ew3234 (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. As to him being accused (hence, controversial) of publishing innacuracies, and in general him being - at best (other more pointed terms are used in these articles, such as "disgraced", I was thinking of things like (I've added italics):

• New York Times reporter Sharon Waxman saying "If he spent half as much time checking his facts as he did complaining about people stealing from him, there wouldn’t be so many errors in his reporting!", and
• her adding, referring to Fox: "Do they hold him to journalistic standards, or does he just get to slander people with impunity?",
• and, bringing into question the veracity of his reporting, The New York Observer reporting: "Mr. Friedman ... has been a controversial figure for negative things he’s written.. But more often than not, he’s been criticized for the positive. In the book Down and Dirty Pictures..., Peter Biskind quoted former Miramax SVP and co-head of publicity Dennis Higgins as saying, 'There’s no one in the pocket like Roger. It’s almost, ‘Whaddya want him to write?'"[1]
• Then as you point out him being fired immediately from his freelance position at Fox for illegally downloading a movie (though he denied he was fired-and then sued for being fired); while calling his actions "reprehensible"; - this incident is really the only reason he is notable;
• Fox News removed his article[2]; others I was also unable to now find online;
• He sued over his termination, which was a bit of a controversy in itself, though I have not seen how that ended.[3][4]
• When he was hired at Hollywood Reporter, Matt Goldberg at Collider wrote, focusing on his controversial background: "You know, when you act badly at one place and everyone learns about it, I don't believe its common practice to hire you to do the same job at another place."[5]
• Kirstie Alley wrote: "Please Google Mr. Roger Friedman. He is spreading lies about me and my new business. You will see his history & why Fox fired him. Going to have Mr. Attorney call Mr. Friedman’s Attorney tomorrow . . . Mr. Friedman is treading on thin LIBELOUS ice with my company."[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:2143:8500:A1A3:633:94F3:E5BF (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

He was a gossip columnist and wrote a lot of negative articles - that his subjects were upset about that does not indicate that the piece being cited in this article has any problems. Fox might have retracted other pieces, but they did not retract this one, so there is no compelling reason to label it with weasel wording. - MrOllie (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the research, 603:7000:2143:8500:1131:5E87:C101:54F4. The only article that I found that was retracted was the pirated movie article. Which given that Fox has a vested interest in preventing piracy, it's no surprise that they reacted so harshly. While downloading a movie and suiting your employer may be a controversy, does it make someone a controversial figure? There's a generation of folks that grew up on Napster guilty of the same thing 100x over. From the other sources, it seems like he made a lot of enemies in the industry; There's a lot of people willing to go on the record and disparage him and accuse him of poor journalist practices but I don't see specific claims of ethic breaches or retractions. Theres a lot of smoke - but not a clear fire. Being a gossip journalist is not a very glamourous job and I imagine that I wouldn't like to work with him but I don't see him as any more of a controversial figure than anyone on the staff of TMZ. Ew3234 (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I added a quote from Boteach to the article that covers the firing while still being relevant to the subject matter. Hopefully this addresses and satisfices both sides of this discussion. Ew3234 (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. That certainly provides some balance, and indication to the reader that perhaps they may want to consider/learn of the reporter's history. Good find.

True, he is a freelance gossip blogger. You said you didn't see any "claims of ethic breaches". Consider the following - I don't know that it is the norm among gossip bloggers for a notable NYT reporter (not notable for being fired for improper behavior, as I believe he is) to say there are "so many errors in his reporting," and to ask his employer "Do they hold him to journalistic standards, or does he just get to slander people with impunity?". And NY Observer to report that he "has been a controversial figure for negative things he’s written.. But more often than not, he’s been criticized for the positive... Peter Biskind quoted former Miramax SVP and co-head of publicity ... as saying, 'There’s no one in the pocket like Roger. It’s almost, ‘Whaddya want him to write?'" That's not someone he criticized pointing that out - It is notable critic/historian Biskind, and a former Miramax SVP saying he wrote whatever he wanted, which is controversial. And then there is actress Kirstie Alley, saying He is spreading lies about me and my new business. You will see his history & why Fox fired him.... Mr. Friedman is treading on thin LIBELOUS ice with my company." Note, the term controversial means just that - not that he is guilty of what the NYT reporter, Miramax SVP, NY Observer, Biskind, and Kirstie Alley all say. --2603:7000:2143:8500:A1A3:633:94F3:E5BF (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, Showbiz411 is not an RS, it seems, per Wikipedia:USERGENERATED. 2603:7000:2143:8500:6825:3E6:E1FF:4C08 (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

While Showbiz411 is a blog, it is not a user-generated site like blogger, reddit, or a forum. It's not a source that allows unvetted users to generate content. It's an site written by a gossip reporter. Blogs written by journalists are not user-generated from my understanding of Wikipedia:USERGENERATED. Ew3234 (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, the rule is not whether the person is a "journalist", or a former journalist (in his case), but whether the content is from a website whose content is largely that of a user-generated personal website blog -- in which case it is generally unacceptable. His has been a personal website blog for a decade now. Earlier it was in fact a newspaper blogs, which was fine - those refs are good, but it is very much not that now, and only a personal website blog not affiliated with a paper or magazine.2603:7000:2143:8500:CC9F:B183:9D34:80D8 (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

t doesn't appear to be a personal blog. It's an online gossip site with a single author but it's not the same thing as joe-schmoe's nip slip blogger account. But I don't even think the source reliable is an issue given the way the source is cited. In the context ("Gossip blogger Roger Friedman accused Boteach of intentionally misidentifying himself as "Jacob Botach" on the organization's Form 990 to make it appear as someone else had collected the salary."), this source is appropriate. The text clearly identifies the author's role that the claims are not a scientific fact but an accusation. If we were using Showbiz411 as a source to say that the sky is blue, that would be problematic. But we're not doing that here. We're using the source to detail the claims made by Friedman (which makes Showbiz411 an exact source). Just like Huffpost Contributor articles are usually not reliable per RS, it's appropriate to cite Huffpost contrib op-eds written by Boteach himself when detailing Boteach's opinions (as is done many times in this article). I feel confident that the showbiz411 source is appropriate given the text it's citing. It enriches the reader's understanding of the topic and does so without implying any falsehoods or misleading claims. Ew3234 (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It is a "user-generated" blog. His personal blog. It's a single author blog - it has not board of editors - that is what distinguishes these (user-generated blogs are clearly not acceptable) from newspaper and magazine blogs - which are clearly acceptable. Zero editorial oversight. showbiz411 is not an RS. If an RS were to quote him - that of course would in fact be ok (despite his past). Plus, where it is a blp accusation, the issue is way more important. This has to go. BLP issues don't even have to await any discussion. And this charge is defamatory, and the source is not a blp. It's honestly not even close. Have you read up on the blp rules, and especially how they apply to blogs? I can get you the links if you need them. They are emphatic. You can't use a non-RS blog to say "I think Ew3234 has AIDS, and gave it to his girlfriend .. and oh, that's just my opinion." 2603:7000:2143:8500:1973:5875:36B9:46 (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

That isn't what a 'user generated' blog means - that is for sites such medium.com that host other people's blogs. However, aside from that I think the 'Jacob Botach' thing should go anyway. It's clearly just an accountant making a misspelling on a tax form, not some nefarious plot, and the only other press outlet that has picked it up is Alternet, which has its own reliability problems. We should probably mention that his birth/legal first name is Jacob at the beginning of the article, though. The nydailynews source we're already using mentions it, for one source. MrOllie (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the 'user generated' blog definition, MrOllie. However, I do question the assessment that it's simply an accountant's typo. I think Friedman's claims do have an arguable level of validity...as the same 'Jacob Botach' spelling shows up in the form 990 year after year. It's hard to imagine that its the same typo that's never getting corrected. When my org made a typo in a board members name in our 990, we fixed it the next year. But I agree that it hasn't been picked up by other media outlets (as you mentioned, the Jacob name is mentioned in NY Daily News article on the org's tax docs but the article does not make a claim of intentionally misleading: https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/michael-jackson-spiritual-guru-rakes-cash-dishes-nonprofit-article-1.961438). Thanks Ew3234 (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Ollie. I don't think it matters whether you set up your own website for zero-editorial-board personal postings, or post them on medium. What we care about is editorial boards vs. zero oversight. His blog falls into the zero oversight category. Not the newspaper/magazine blog category. And its clearly a self-published source. Anyone can create a personal web page, and that's why the rule is we never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people. Ever. As to the subject's first name - awesome research. That can be added to the very long list of slander and libel from Friedman that others have accused him of. He really has an awful record. Not surprising that nobody has picked him up in a decade or so. 2603:7000:2143:8500:791C:F5CD:DBAB:B186 (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)