Talk:Steven Greenberg (rabbi)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class. |
Contents |
[edit] Libel
The entire section of "Controversy" in the article is libellous and should be removed. All three statements there are hearsay, not back up by any sources, and/or a stretching of one of Rabbi Greenberg's articles. From whom are the personal accounts of Rabbi Greenberg trying to persuade them against the traditional understanding of Torah from Sinai? I attempted to remove this whole section once, and will do so again if it isn't changed immediately. I will also forward this problem on to the Wikipedia people.66.65.130.154 04:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Steven Goldstein
- Although WP:BLP does not require me to discuss my edit, I will anyway. I removed the controversy section per WP:BLP. The section was unsourced, with the exception of one source. The statement in the article that references that source constitutes Original Research, and also is not allowed. (The statement is a conclusion drawn from reading of the source, and not necessarily the only conclusion, that is WP:OR). Any negative information on a living person must be solidly sourced from third party reliable sources, otherwise that information is to be removed without discussion. Crockspot 17:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I have restored the Controversy section in the article, and I have added a link to source it. It is not libelous (or if it is, Greenberg should take legal action against the owner of the Orthodykes blog), but is rather pertinent to a complete picture of the man. He has made himself a public figure, and it is not libel to point out that his reality and his image differ. With regard to the claim of "Original Research", the third party source I have referenced clearly does draw the conclusion in the Controversy section. Further, the Ger Toshav section that had been added to the article was itself in breach of the Original Research rule, so I revised that accordingly.
-
- In accordance with Wikipedia's policy both on sourcing and re living persons, I have removed the third item from this section. WK's standard policy on sourcing comments excludes personal blogs and websites. The comments are on a website, unsourced, from someone who does not reveal her name. While I do not think that ascribing the denial of the divine origin of the Pentateuch to someone is inherently libelous, I think that in this context, Rabbi Greenberg would have a cognizable claim for reputation injury. In any case, the source is unacceptable per Wikipedia's oft-announced policy on source reliability and verifiability. 66.108.105.21 04:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth
[edit] Plagiarism
The latest edit included major plagiarism from this (uncited) website: http://www.wrestlingwithgodandmen.com/go.php?q=theAuthor/05-authorBioAndPhotos.html
It looks like it has good information, but someone needs to go through it and write it up properly, not just cut and paste. And also cite the source. ShalomShlomo 18:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Is Greenberg Orthodox?
He isn't ortodox, please, the homosexuality is forbiden by the torah and no supported by any REAL rab...come on... Bresolver 22:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Breslover- in the future, when you add a comment to a talk page, if it's a new subject, please make a new subject heading, as I just have, above.
- In regards to your comment, I believe that the article already mentions the fact that there is a considerable tension and divergence between Greenberg's affiliation as a openly gay, and Orthodox, Jew (and rabbi), and the traditional viewpoints of many of the world's frum people. I don't see what else can be said on the subject, short of expanding the introductory section, or making a new "controversy" section within the article.
- In general, you'll find that your comments and ideas will be better received here if you offer constructive solutions rather than simply toss out criticisms, especially one-liners. ShalomShlomo 23:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the Wikipedia article legitimates Greenberg's position too much. His claims are based on nothing more than graduating from RIETS and being involved with Orthogays, a subculture that existed long before he came on the scene. The article needs to make clear that the assertion that even if Greenberg were right that he retains what limited authority/respect a graduate of RIETS gains from ordination (which he doesn't), that does not make it any more likely that Orthodoxy will embrace homosexuality. All it says is that in this age of giving aliyas to people as they wear their cell phones on Shabbat, there are a lot more people who are known to be engaging in homosexual relations also being welcomed to participate as much as possible in Judaism. The Rebbe had more to do with that (and gets blamed for it far more) than Greenberg ever will. PhatJew 13:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Significance of the R' Elyashiv Story
It would be interesting to hear other opinions, but I found the significance of the story to be that religious jews should not assume that people with homosexual urges are evil or disgusting people. Rather, they are people stuck in a torturous position without an easy solution. However, I did not find the story to mean that we should have sympathy for the philosophical POSITION (sorry I can't figure out how to italicize) of those who identify themselves as frum and identify themselves as gay. Right now the article implies this rather strongly. Shykee 01:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Shykee
- Shykee- Thanks for the note. I agree with your distinction, and, thinking about it a little more, think you're probably right. The latter part of the sentence does suggest a bit of editorializing on my part, which, while perhaps technically true (the story does demonstrate that frum Jews CAN have compassion for frum Jews who have gay urges and both do and don't identify as gay), does not exactly follow from Eliashiv's response. In the interest of being precise, I'm going to try to re-write the sentence. Let me know what you think. Incidentally, you can italicize by using two ' marks. Incidentally, in order to help people keep track of what you write on talk pages, you should start adding your signature after your notes, by using four tildes (~). ShalomShlomo 06:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- ShalomShlomo- Thanks for the tips. I thought the re-write was pretty precise. Again, thanks for the pointers, Shykee 01:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Shykee
- The Rabbi's comment is too cryptic to be deciphered in an analytic fashion with any degree of certainty. While your interpretation is possible, it is equally possible that the Rabbi found himself in--to use your own words--a "torturous position without an easy solution," in that he realized that his feelings heretofore on the proscription d'Oraisa on gay sex clashed with his humane feelings about the person sitting in front of him. Hence his response. Interesting how I read his (Elyashiv's) comment very differently from some of you. While I have no proof that my interpretation is correct, it has as much basis as the one offered above. 66.108.105.21 03:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth
- Allen Roth- right you are. I suggest you write your interpretation up and put it in. ShalomShlomo 06:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- To be perfectly frank, I think that no interpretations should be in the article, because they all constitute original research. I really meant when I wrote that the Rabbi's comments are not amenable of analytic treatment. I didn't remove the other interpretation because I think that any reader of this article has the Rabbi's statement, and can form his own conclusions, and there is this Talk Page with comments on it. I've been doing editing on wiki for some time now, and I don't generally like to tinker with an article unless I feel it is really necessary; I've run into the "Wiki Police," and I find it very unpleasant. To me, editing is an avocation, and I just don't have the inclination to pursue edit wars. As a matter of fact, I think that my edit of an earlier part of this article (see above) is the riskiest thing I've ever done. But upon reading this article and examining the link, I felt it was grossly violative of wiki's policies. On any controversial topic here, I find the Talk Pages at least as informative as the body of the article itself, which I'm sure you probably know, if you ever go into any article on the Israeli-Palestine issue, which is probably one of the 3 or 4 hottest areas in wiki. I just came across this article, and upon checking the history I simply could not believe the amount of editing that went into just the first line of this article, simplying identifying who this Mr. Greenberg is. There are simply too many people out there with so much invested in their political or religious position to tolerate one word in an online encyclopedia that they feel is "incorrect." 66.108.105.21 11:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth
- Actually, to be a little more candid, what exactly is the point of the anecdote? It is not to convey what R. Elyashiv thinks is the status of gay sex according to Jewish law. That is what other writers seem to think. No. The point of the story is what the Rabbi's comments meant for Greenberg, when he heard them. Here was a tortured young man, trying to find a way out of his darkness. He sought out a pious Jewish sage. And the impact of what R. Elyashiv had on Greenberg was not so much that Elyashiv obliquely implied that Greenberg might be able to make love for the first time (which--as we have seen--is unclear), but rather that Elyashiv indicated that being gay is not a revolting obstacle to living a moral Orthodox Jewish life. That, I believe, is the significance of the story. That Greenberg realized that he would not be utterly cast out from the Jewish community that meant so much to him. And that is conveyed by the anecdote, without any additional embellishment or comment. I guess that's why I didn't feel the need to further analyze the rabbi's comment in the body of this article.66.108.105.21 13:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth
- To be perfectly frank, I think that no interpretations should be in the article, because they all constitute original research. I really meant when I wrote that the Rabbi's comments are not amenable of analytic treatment. I didn't remove the other interpretation because I think that any reader of this article has the Rabbi's statement, and can form his own conclusions, and there is this Talk Page with comments on it. I've been doing editing on wiki for some time now, and I don't generally like to tinker with an article unless I feel it is really necessary; I've run into the "Wiki Police," and I find it very unpleasant. To me, editing is an avocation, and I just don't have the inclination to pursue edit wars. As a matter of fact, I think that my edit of an earlier part of this article (see above) is the riskiest thing I've ever done. But upon reading this article and examining the link, I felt it was grossly violative of wiki's policies. On any controversial topic here, I find the Talk Pages at least as informative as the body of the article itself, which I'm sure you probably know, if you ever go into any article on the Israeli-Palestine issue, which is probably one of the 3 or 4 hottest areas in wiki. I just came across this article, and upon checking the history I simply could not believe the amount of editing that went into just the first line of this article, simplying identifying who this Mr. Greenberg is. There are simply too many people out there with so much invested in their political or religious position to tolerate one word in an online encyclopedia that they feel is "incorrect." 66.108.105.21 11:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth
- Allen Roth- right you are. I suggest you write your interpretation up and put it in. ShalomShlomo 06:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- The Rabbi's comment is too cryptic to be deciphered in an analytic fashion with any degree of certainty. While your interpretation is possible, it is equally possible that the Rabbi found himself in--to use your own words--a "torturous position without an easy solution," in that he realized that his feelings heretofore on the proscription d'Oraisa on gay sex clashed with his humane feelings about the person sitting in front of him. Hence his response. Interesting how I read his (Elyashiv's) comment very differently from some of you. While I have no proof that my interpretation is correct, it has as much basis as the one offered above. 66.108.105.21 03:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth
- ShalomShlomo- Thanks for the tips. I thought the re-write was pretty precise. Again, thanks for the pointers, Shykee 01:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Shykee
[edit] "Orthodox Rabbi"- correct NPOV language
The article's language at present seems to imply that there is some controversy as to whether Greenberg can be considered Orthodox. Without taking sides, I think it is unfair to edit the article to imply that he definitely is Orthodox. Obviously, many would disagree and the article should reflect a neutral POV. However, if anyone feels that the article's tone implies that he is definitely NOT an Orthodox rabbi, than it would be great if someone out there could further edit the article be more NPOV than the current language. Thanx, Shykee 02:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)shykee
- I wrote the above before seeing Jayjg's current revision. It is indeed very NPOV and improves on the old version. Shykee 02:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)shykee
- On further thought, it seems that the article can be easily misunderstood to imply that Greenberg was openly gay at the time of the "semicha". And by the way, lest anyone fallaciously argue that there is only one possible POV and that is that Greenberg is an Orthodox Rabbi, I quote a prominant member of the RIETS faculty, "Being an Orthodox Rabbi and actively gay is an oxymoron," said Rabbi Moshe Tendler, Rosh Yeshiva and Professor of Biology... Tendler said that Rabbi Greenberg's announcement is "the exact same as if he said, 'I'm an Orthodox Rabbi and I eat ham sandwiches on Yom Kippur.' What you are is a Reform Rabbi."(YU Commentator Volume 64 Issue 1). Actually, it would be interesting to hear a response to this. In any case the article is being re-edited to be NPOV. Shykee 17:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)shykee
- He has semicha from RIETS, and he is openly gay. These are facts. He does not "identify himself as an Orthodox Rabbi", which implies undue doubt that he does indeed have semicha, about which there is no question. Tendler's criticism certainly belongs in the article, but the intro should simply state the facts. Also, your claim that he is the "only well-known" anything is original research; unless you have a source which states this, you cannot include the claim. Jayjg (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- "identify himself as an Orthodox Rabbi" implies that there is doubt that he is still Orthodox at all, the focus is on "Orthodox", not "rabbi". That exactly reflects Tendler's comments. Your presentation of "facts" does not admit to the timeline, i.e. he announced his homosexuality after he received semicha. Do you think that RIETS would have given him semicha if he had been openly gay at the time? Also, my addition of "well known" was meant to pacify those who would claim they personally know of more. The edit is not "original research", any obvious fact can be considered "original research" according to your interpretation. As it is, if you can list anyone else who identifies as an Orthodox rabbi and openly is gay, then you have a point. However that is not the main thrust of my edit and if you can come up with a NPOV edit, go ahead. Shykee 18:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)shykee
- Did he get Orthodox semicha? Yes. That's what is a neutral fact. The rest of the "but I don't think he's Orthodox any more" arguments can be hashed out in the article. As for being "the first", or "the only", or the "best known", please find a reliable source which confirms that, in order to ensure that the article follows Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Jayjg (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- If someone would say "The first rule in any logical system is that common sense must be valued" no doubt we could find a wikipedian out there who would coolly challenge this as "original research" saying "How do you know it is the first rule, maybe its the second or even the third" and triumphantly insert the edit "citation needed" next to the statement. Saying that Greenberg is the first or only is not "original research" etc. Why is there an article about Greenberg at all ? Is it because there are many many Orthodox Rabbis who are publicly gay, or is it because he was a grounbreaker, unprecedented, innovative, call it what you want. It would be absurd, and against common sense, to write an article about Greenberg without explaining why there is an article about him at all! Anyhow, if a request for a source is obdurately made, we have no better source than Greenberg's official bio on his website, http://www.wrestlingwithgodandmen.com/go.php?q=theAuthor/05-authorBioAndPhotos.html . Here is the quote, "Upon his return to the US in March of 1999, Greenberg came out publicly as the first openly gay Orthodox rabbi." If more sources are needed here are links to a couple of news sources describing him as the first. http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=12194 http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/22258/edition_id/449/format/html/displaystory.html http://yuweb.addr.com/v64i1/news/gayrabbi.shtml http://www.jewishjournal.org/archives/archiveMay28_99.htm http:// Shykee 18:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)shykee
- Did he get Orthodox semicha? Yes. That's what is a neutral fact. The rest of the "but I don't think he's Orthodox any more" arguments can be hashed out in the article. As for being "the first", or "the only", or the "best known", please find a reliable source which confirms that, in order to ensure that the article follows Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Jayjg (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- "identify himself as an Orthodox Rabbi" implies that there is doubt that he is still Orthodox at all, the focus is on "Orthodox", not "rabbi". That exactly reflects Tendler's comments. Your presentation of "facts" does not admit to the timeline, i.e. he announced his homosexuality after he received semicha. Do you think that RIETS would have given him semicha if he had been openly gay at the time? Also, my addition of "well known" was meant to pacify those who would claim they personally know of more. The edit is not "original research", any obvious fact can be considered "original research" according to your interpretation. As it is, if you can list anyone else who identifies as an Orthodox rabbi and openly is gay, then you have a point. However that is not the main thrust of my edit and if you can come up with a NPOV edit, go ahead. Shykee 18:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)shykee
- He has semicha from RIETS, and he is openly gay. These are facts. He does not "identify himself as an Orthodox Rabbi", which implies undue doubt that he does indeed have semicha, about which there is no question. Tendler's criticism certainly belongs in the article, but the intro should simply state the facts. Also, your claim that he is the "only well-known" anything is original research; unless you have a source which states this, you cannot include the claim. Jayjg (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- On further thought, it seems that the article can be easily misunderstood to imply that Greenberg was openly gay at the time of the "semicha". And by the way, lest anyone fallaciously argue that there is only one possible POV and that is that Greenberg is an Orthodox Rabbi, I quote a prominant member of the RIETS faculty, "Being an Orthodox Rabbi and actively gay is an oxymoron," said Rabbi Moshe Tendler, Rosh Yeshiva and Professor of Biology... Tendler said that Rabbi Greenberg's announcement is "the exact same as if he said, 'I'm an Orthodox Rabbi and I eat ham sandwiches on Yom Kippur.' What you are is a Reform Rabbi."(YU Commentator Volume 64 Issue 1). Actually, it would be interesting to hear a response to this. In any case the article is being re-edited to be NPOV. Shykee 17:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)shykee
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Please read WP:NOR and WP:RS carefully. We don't make contributions based on our own assumptions or logical theories, but rather quote what reliable sources say on the matter. Jayjg (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly the point, the simple question ,Why is there an article at all ?, becomes a "logical theory" and "assumption" dismissed with a helpful suggestion to "carefully" read WP:NOR. As to the exact quotation of Greenberg's bio, obviously something from the bio can be accepted if it is not controversial. However, since he obviously describes himself as Orthodox and obviously others do not, then a description of him as Orthodox from his website's bio cannot be presented without also quoting the other POV. I see that Jayjg is a respected editor. Are there any objections to the present edit? It does not decide the two POV as to whether he is currently Orthodox, yet it does present his Orthodox semicha as fact- a happy medium, in short classic NPOV. If indeed it seems to some to unduly imply that he is definitely not Orthodox, then please find a better way of expressing the sentence while not erasing both POV. Shykee 19:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)shykee
- When it comes to your POV vs. reliable citations, reliable citations win every time. The simple fact is that he got Orthodox semicha, which no-one questions. The fact that you want to ex post facto question his Orthodoxy or his "Rabbiness" is irrelevant to the cited and undisputed facts. You had a chance for a different intro, which merely stated that he had Orthodox ordination, but that wasn't good enough for you; no, you had to insert the "identified as an Orthodox Rabbi" nonsense. Well, now you're stuck with cited quotations. Enough already. Jayjg (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- "You had a chance for a different intro...that wasn't good enough for you...well now you're stuck..." Please read WP:POV carefully as it seems that you are suggesting that a correct version be edited in order to penalize those who would have a different POV than you. Also, please remember that although you personally feel that a published POV is "nonsense", Wikipedia can only quote one POV if it also quotes, or at least mentions, other published POVs that disagree. If you insist on quoting the article than you should also include quotes from Tendler and Muskin, as they are directly quoted in the articles. Remember, the article must include quotations from, or at least representation of, both POVs in order to be NPOV. Thanks, Shykee 18:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)shykee
- The point being that the wording I provided, as neutral and non-controversial, was one that you reverted, and now have subsequently restored once I pointed out that the sources all say something much stronger. The fact that Yeshiva University describes him as "the first openly gay Rabbi" is pretty conclusive, and the other reliable sources saying the exact same thing seal the deal. By all rights I should simply revert your changes, since you have substituted euphemisms for direct quotes, but I'll let this stand as a compromise. Jayjg (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- The problem with the wording you provided is that it does not correctly describe the situation. There certainly were other Orthodox rabbis before Greenberg who announced their homosexuality. However, the others renounced Orthodoxy and Greenberg was the first one to still identify himself as Orthodox. This should be amply clear in the intro, and it is not. What must somehow be conveyed is that Greenberg was the first person to announce his homosexuality and still either remain Orthodox or untruly claim to be Orthodox (depending on the POV). The article is being edited to read "the first person with Orthodox ordination to announce his homosexuality and still affirm belief in Orthodox Judaism". Hopefully this will satisfy all parties. Shykee 22:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)shykee
- By the way, attempting to falsely attribute the statement of the author of an article to sound as if it is YU's official position is disingenuous and silly and cannot be ignored. In addition, that very same author goes on to quote Tendler as holding that Greenberg can no longer be considered Orthodox! What you are saying is that the author of the YU article agrees with you- so what ? There still is a POV that Greenberg is no longer Orthodox, as quoted by that same author, and it cannot be ignored. On a separate note, your willingness to compromise is certainly admirable. Cheers, Shykee 00:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)shykee
- The point being that the wording I provided, as neutral and non-controversial, was one that you reverted, and now have subsequently restored once I pointed out that the sources all say something much stronger. The fact that Yeshiva University describes him as "the first openly gay Rabbi" is pretty conclusive, and the other reliable sources saying the exact same thing seal the deal. By all rights I should simply revert your changes, since you have substituted euphemisms for direct quotes, but I'll let this stand as a compromise. Jayjg (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- "You had a chance for a different intro...that wasn't good enough for you...well now you're stuck..." Please read WP:POV carefully as it seems that you are suggesting that a correct version be edited in order to penalize those who would have a different POV than you. Also, please remember that although you personally feel that a published POV is "nonsense", Wikipedia can only quote one POV if it also quotes, or at least mentions, other published POVs that disagree. If you insist on quoting the article than you should also include quotes from Tendler and Muskin, as they are directly quoted in the articles. Remember, the article must include quotations from, or at least representation of, both POVs in order to be NPOV. Thanks, Shykee 18:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)shykee
- When it comes to your POV vs. reliable citations, reliable citations win every time. The simple fact is that he got Orthodox semicha, which no-one questions. The fact that you want to ex post facto question his Orthodoxy or his "Rabbiness" is irrelevant to the cited and undisputed facts. You had a chance for a different intro, which merely stated that he had Orthodox ordination, but that wasn't good enough for you; no, you had to insert the "identified as an Orthodox Rabbi" nonsense. Well, now you're stuck with cited quotations. Enough already. Jayjg (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly the point, the simple question ,Why is there an article at all ?, becomes a "logical theory" and "assumption" dismissed with a helpful suggestion to "carefully" read WP:NOR. As to the exact quotation of Greenberg's bio, obviously something from the bio can be accepted if it is not controversial. However, since he obviously describes himself as Orthodox and obviously others do not, then a description of him as Orthodox from his website's bio cannot be presented without also quoting the other POV. I see that Jayjg is a respected editor. Are there any objections to the present edit? It does not decide the two POV as to whether he is currently Orthodox, yet it does present his Orthodox semicha as fact- a happy medium, in short classic NPOV. If indeed it seems to some to unduly imply that he is definitely not Orthodox, then please find a better way of expressing the sentence while not erasing both POV. Shykee 19:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)shykee
- Please read WP:NOR and WP:RS carefully. We don't make contributions based on our own assumptions or logical theories, but rather quote what reliable sources say on the matter. Jayjg (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] Marriage?
Is he married? Don't Orthodox rabbis have to be? —Angr 22:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, Orthodox rabbis don't have to be married. Marriage is a requirement for sitting on the Sanhedrin (the rabbinic high court), but not for being a rabbi as such. LisaLiel 18:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
