Talk:Marc Gafni

Edit requests

• 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)

References

@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)

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)

References

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)

Author vs Writer

Per discussion and edits changing 'author' to 'writer' [1] 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)

Allegations section

Controversy sections are discouraged. I suggest that the biography be chronological, which it currently is not. In the religious career section, his ordination in 2008 is put ahead of the retraction of another ordination in 2006. So when was he first ordained? Since the allegations are discussed as the reason for giving back or having ordinations retracted, the allegations should be integrated into the time line.

1. Ordination 1, presumably before 2004
2. 2004 allegations
3. Withdrawal of 1st ordination in 2006
4. Ordination 2, in 2008
5. giving back the ordination because of (more? or the same?) allegations

Putting all the negative material at the end of the article is problematic, since it leaves his ordaining and deordaining, his establishment of centers or organizations and their disestablishment, completely out of context referencing material that has not been presented to the reader yet. Therefore it should all simply be presented in chronological order. Also, calling it out under a heading listed in the tables of contents could be considered a biased form of presentation. If the material is presented chronologically, and if the lead fully summarizes the article, there should be no need for controversial section headings. Skyerise (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Current ordination

I've removed the information about Gafni's claimed current ordination, which was sourced only to Gafni, after searching for and not finding any third-party verification. This cannot be sourced to Gafni's self-published website, because it makes a claim about another living person, the Rabbi he claims ordained him, which isn't permitted under WP:ABOUTSELF. Skyerise (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

LEAD issues

The weight given to explanation of allegations in the lead is probably undue. Should be summarized. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: opinions on the revised lead? Skyerise (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I think I would do more like this. Note that I do not know who the article subject is, just a new editor here. I just dont like all the weight given to allegations in the lead, it tends to run afoul of BLP rules. Does the subject have any actual conviction, or are we just talking about allegations? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you read the whole article. Subject would most likely not be notable if it were not for the allegations. Centers were closed, ordinations retracted. WP:LEAD says that the weight in the lead should reflect the weight in the article. Minimizing it in the lead would be whitewashing, especially considering there was coverage in The New York Times! Skyerise (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we could summarize it as you have done here just now. The lead currently doesnt really touch on the points you raise, that the subject is primarily notable due to the allegations and rather just names the allegations in excessive detail in the lead. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

That's just how the paragraph is structured. It notes the allegations, then the specific effects the allegations have had on the subject's career. That's precisely what it touches on, the retractions of ordinations, the closing of the center, and that there was additional subsequent fall out. The subject was a rabbi: the lead needs to make clear that exactly why he is now a former rabbi. That's unusual. His alleged offenses were at or involved students or members of organizations he worked for or founded. His actions led to criticism from those very organizations as well. It's all complexly interwoven with his career and career problems, and shouldn't be glossed over in the lead. Skyerise (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, the allegations are not unconfirmed. Gafni has confessed to several of them, acknowledging that the State of New York would consider his sexual activities with teenagers in his 20s as "misdemeanors" - see the several Dr. Phil episodes now linked from the external links section. He also admits to practicing a "polyamory" - while he was married - in which he kept his sexual partners (who were members of his congregation) and his wife in the dark about his other partners (which is technically not polyamory). Skyerise (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)