Talk:Sholom Rubashkin

His Face?

I remember this article having his face, looking through the history it seems like the commons bot cleaned it but the reasoning for this and the copyright claim lead to 404s. To someone who isn't going to bother studying it, this comes off more like the rat is trying to keep his image from the public in association to his crimes and relationship with politics. Furthermore, other articles use the same picture just fine still. https://fortune.com/2017/12/21/trump-commute-sentence-sholom-rubashkin/ 71.80.200.46 (talk) 09:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Do not AfD this, I will add more when I get the time

This fellow is very notable - check out this Google News Archive Search. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 23:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The ICE raid

You all need to read the Cedar Rapids Gazette for the last week. This article will be updated later. It's all about illegal immigrants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace Telephone (talk • contribs) 03:55, 28 May 2008

restoring see also link

I restored the Moshe Rubashkin at the see also section, that person is his father, and both were CEOs of the company and were involved on the issue here --Enric Naval (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

you are wrong. Moshe is his brother. Aaron is his father. Doofus. 69.114.177.238 (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ooops, you are right. My bad, sorry. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested semi-protection

I just requested semi-protection on this article. An organized, paid campaign is lobbing for a shorter jail term for Sholom Rubashkin, whose sentencing hearing is April 28-29. The campaign received press coverage on ABC News."Kosher Meat Plant Owner Wages Behind-the-Scenes Campaign to Limit Jail Time". Edits are coming in from new single-purpose accounts. Oneactcantipthescale (talk · contribs) tried pasting a big chunk of content from advocacy web site Justice for Sholom into the article[1]. Zahmzahm (talk · contribs) [2] and Davidyh1 (talk · contribs) [3] are also new, have edited no other articles, and are adding "Justice for Sholom" content. 48 hours of semi-protection would probably quiet this down. --John Nagle (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Now semi-protected for three days. --John Nagle (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This reverted edit was not 100% "Vandalism, POV pushing". I mean, the number 9,000 (why not 900,000?) needs some properly sourced explanation. It still sounds odd, though. East of Borschov (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I shouldn't have labeled my summary as vandalism. I was a bit heavy-handed with that reversion. I think I was just assuming it was vandalism, like the so many other reverts that had to happen yesterday. Silverseren^C 21:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Upcoming trial

Rubashkin and several others at Agriprocessors have yet another trial coming up, in state court on child labor charges. Those weren't dropped; that case is going to trial on May 4, 2010.[4] Cleaned up the child labor section; 59 cases, 9000 total violations. --John Nagle (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Surely the title should be corrected to "Child labor investigation and trial"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeetg (talk • contribs)

Once trial starts next week, yes. --John Nagle (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Which it has. --John Nagle (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The trial is underway. A reporter for the Des Moines Register is blogging, hour by hour, from the court.[5]. Rubashkin tried a hunger strike, because the food at the jail across from the courthouse wasn't kosher enough for him. So he's being shuttled back and forth from the Linn County Jail, which apparently has better food. Nothing worth putting in the article yet. Yawn. --John Nagle (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Trial is proceeding. Nothing exciting to report. Detailed coverage is in the local paper, the Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier. [6] The Des Moines Register reporter continues to update his blog. [7]. If anybody cares. --John Nagle (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

First week of trial finished.[8] If you read through the reports, it becomes clear how badly the plant was run. Some of the defense strategy seems to be to claim "we're not evil, we're just fuckups". Rubashkin himself said previously, in his apology in his sentencing hearing, he "should have followed his dream to become a teacher ... I’m conflicted that I allowed myself to be drafted into the family business … against my wishes."[9] --John Nagle (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Second week of trial finished. Not much happened. R. was sick early in the week, then two days of Jewish holidays, then a half day of trial on Friday. Trial back on today, Monday. Underage workers testifying. Meanwhile, Federal sentencing has been delayed until June due to the conflict with the state trial. Adjusted sentencing date in article, otherwise not much newsworthy. National papers no longer covering the story; coverage is from Iowa papers now. Just another local crime story. --John Nagle (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Trial plugging along. Prosecution has rested their case; defense now presenting theirs. Some discussion in court of dismissing 16 of 83 counts related to underage workers who didn't testify.[10]. --John Nagle (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Another week of trial completed. Defense showing pictures of workers of various ages to prosecution witnesses. Slow week.[11]. --John Nagle (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Undid some anon edits which removed references. Trial finishing up; testimony concluded. Next, closing arguments, then it goes to the jury. --John Nagle (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Not presenting any of the defense

Hi guys, this page only presents what Rubashkin is accused of and doesn't present any of the defense. I advise you to read http://www.yated.com/content.asp?maincatid=7&categoryid=7&contentid=90. Would someone please quote this site on the list of references too. Thank you very much, since the current article is quite slanted as is.Eftwithrachelg (talk) 07:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Rachel Geller

I don't think "accused" is the right word -- rather the article presents what he has been convicted of, thus what he has : Thanks for moving this to a new heading. What a person has been convicted of is not necessarily what they have done. Huge amounts of evidence indicate that in this particular case, the judgment system has be been warped by the government. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant. If the guy is important enough to get a Wiki article about him, he deserves to have his side at least mentioned. Otherwise it's potentially a serious libel issue. Eftwithrachelg (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Rachel Geller

As he has been convicted, I rather think that libel isn't something to worry about here at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that we talk about stuff that the article misses. It misses the reasons for the life sentence, and the letter sent by several past attorney generals and other judicial personalities, they complain about the excessive severity of the proposed sentence, from the NYT source, paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 [12]. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, after conviction, one need no longer use the terms "alleged" or "accused". Also, in yesterday's hearing, the prosecution asked for 25 years, not a "life sentence". Rubashkin is 51; he has a good chance of living to 76 and getting out. --John Nagle (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe that's how the NYT called the sentence (after reading the Iowa independent new source, I see that the prosecutors had said that they were looking for a life sentence for some legal reason, but had finally asked for 25 years in the trial). The attorney letter says "We cannot fathom how truly sound and sensible sentencing rules could call for a life sentence — or anything close to it". Anyways, the point is that it's signed by a good bunch of important judicial figures, including Janet Reno, William Barr (politician), Dick Thornburgh, Edwin Meese III, Ramsey Clark and Nicholas Katzenbach, all having been US attorney general, which should qualify the letter for inclusion to the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"is a convicted fraudster"

No, he isn't. He is a meat processing manager who has been convicted of fraud. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the difference between "a xx who has been convicted of fraud" and "a convicted fraudster"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

the second a) is a label b) it assumes that the main activity of the person is fraud (a person whose day job is defrauding people. As if his company was just an empty carcass to facilitate fraud, as opposed to committing fraud while trying to run the company) c) it doesn't describe what was his main activity during the last years d) sounds like we are trying to make the man look bad (the first one sounds like what a neutral disappasionate person would say).

Seriously, there is no need to cram all the negative stuff in the first and second sentences of the article, as if we fear that the reader might read only those sentences before creating in his mind an inmutable unchangeable image of this person. Both positive and negative can be safely relegated to other parts of the lead. People reading the article will also want to know the other activities carried by the person before being convicted. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think fraud was indeed his main activity during recent years. I can't see that there's any question that this is the main thing he is notable for. It's a matter of judgment, of course, and if my view is a minority one then fine. But most of the article is about his illegal activities, and I think that means the lead has to feature the fraud element quite prominently, per WP:LEAD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's wait this out. He's awaiting sentencing in one case, and on trial in another. Meanwhile, he's in jail. A month or two from now, the cases will be finished. --John Nagle (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Even if he is convicted, that sentence is out of the board and not neutral. We are depicting fraud as his main activity in life. What if he had been convicted of child labor charges? Would we call him "a convicted child laborist"? See how ridiculous it is? "Fraudster" is such an easy adjective that people keep misusing like that. This is a plain out smear of character and I won't stand for it. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Specially since the alternative sentence communicates more information and still communicates that he was convicted of fraud, and you can expand it to say that he was "convicted of fraud and X". You see, I just can't find any good reason to use the "is a convicted X", so why are we still arguing this. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The article already begins with the "more information" you are seeking to add, so I don't think it communicates more information. I think this undercuts the notion that we are portraying fraud as his main activity in life as well. Wikipedia has a category with this term ("American fraudsters") -- as you can see, I added it to the categories here as well, and so I can't really see what is wrong with using the term in the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is with using "fraudster" in the very first sentence of the article, when you can use "convicted of fraud", which is a) descriptive b) not sounding like a derogatory term c) not giving the impression that we are trying to put down this man d) much less likely to be found offensive by this person and his familiars/friends e) still conveying the same info (you are right in that the "more information" is already there).

Also, it would still say the same thing in the same place, which should address the concern in your comment of 20:08, 2 June 2010 (fourth comment in this thread). But it would sound much much better, and more neutral. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

In articles about murderers, do we hesitate to say something like "is a convicted murderer"? I'm not really concerned by the notion that others might find it offensive -- he did an offensive thing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

we are presenting in an unnecessarily offensive manner. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Rubashkin was convicted of 86 counts of financial fraud, including bank fraud, mail and wire fraud and money laundering. Fraudster posing as a meat processing manager....at best. THANKS ISRAEL!!! 2601:645:D80:3F20:5427:3060:A98E:8951 (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

ok, I'm going to make a specific proposal: change "and a convicted fraudster" to "and was convicted of bank fraud for his actions as CEO". Please comment. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are a couple of examples that support my claim that we don't hesitate to use equivalent labels for criminals convicted of other types of crimes:

• Ted Bundy -- "American serial killer"
• Jeffrey Dahmer -- "American serial killer"
• John Dillinger -- "American bank robber"
• Jack Abramoff -- "con man"

Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomos, could you please explain why we need to label this person, when we can simply describe what he did? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is undue and not a biography at all and is one hundred percent made up of conviction crimes and trial, we could re-title it as the trials and crimes of whoever it is, awful. Perhaps move to ..The criminal trials of Sholom Rubashkin Off2riorob (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

He's been convicted. "Convicted fraudster" is reasonable. "Convicted criminal" might be better for stylistic purposes. No rush, though; wait for the sentencing in a few weeks. Bear in mind that R. had a paid PR operation trying to improve his image going into the trials.[13] That's when we were seeing all those edits from single-purpose accounts. --John Nagle (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

What? IMO if you create an article similar to this one that resembles a rap sheet more that a biography then people will come to correct the balance, call them single purpose accounts or sock puppets or promo men or whatever you want but the original problem is not those people that come to balance the article up a bit but the unbalanced article yhat has been created.Off2riorob (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

How awful is this, Mr Smith is the CEO of smith corp and a convicted criminal. Off2riorob (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to pay attention to arguments based solely on emotion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Patience. Sentencing on the conviction is later this month. --John Nagle (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I see the word "fraud" used by reliable sources in relation to this man. I don't see the term "fraudster" being used in relation to him. Bus stop (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please try explaining to me why "murderer" is okay but "fraudster" is not? What exactly is the objection here? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources determine content. No source is referring to the subject of the article as "fraudster," therefore we would not be justified in referring to him that way. "Fraud" is said to have transpired. We are therefore adhering closely to reliable sources by stating that "fraud" transpired in relation to the man. Even if there were not WP:BLP concerns I think this would be the case. All of the sources presently in the article make reference to "fraud" and not to "fraudster." Bus stop (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah -- so what you're actually saying is that you are not going to answer my question. Thanks for that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

At WP:RS I find, "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made." (The "bolding" is not added by me.) I've raised the question that we are grappling with here. Bus stop (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources that say he was convicted of fraud directly support "is a convicted fraudster". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity — for Wikipedia purposes I think direct support is an ideal. Yes, we can depart from that ideal. But I think doing so always represents a compromise in our ideals. Policy spells out our ideals. Do you have a reason for departing from a strict interpretation of policy?

WP:RS: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made."

WP:BLP: "Be very firm about the use of high quality sources."

Sources are not found calling him a "fraudster." You need to bring sources to support the terminology you wish to use. The New York Times and the Washington Post, for instance, certainly make reference to the charges of "fraud," but they don't label him a "fraudster." Bus stop (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's bad form (and damaging to one's credibility) to start a discussion elsewhere and then fail to mention here that you have encountered only rejection of your point there. As for your question: I do not accept at all that I am departing from a strict interpretation of policy, as I have made clear on that other thread. Perhaps now you could address my points -- but I'm not going to hold my breath. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity — why do you feel the word "fraudster" is preferable to the word "fraud?" I think that policy advises us to use material "as presented."

WP:OR: "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented."

Please take note of the last two words: "as presented." The New York Times and the Washington Post present the word "fraud." Those sources do not present the term "fraudster." Bus stop (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Good thing I'm not holding my breath, nu? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I had some misgivings about the word "fraudster" from a stylistic point of view. But a search for the word in Google News indicates steadily increasing use of the term in news articles over the last 20 years.[14] (The New York Times is still holding off on using the word, though. (The Grey Lady maintains high standards of English.) The term seems to have started in headlines and propagated to stories over time. Use is widespread today. --John Nagle (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

John Nagle — no source that I've seen is using the term "fraudster" in reference to Sholom Rubashkin. The sources (New York Times, Washington Post, and others) refer to his "fraud." If you want to refer to him as a "fraudster" you need to reference that to reliable and verifiable sources. Bus stop (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity: I hear your equation: A person murders, he's a murderer. A person commits fraud, he's a fraudster. But I do not understand the need to label Rubashkin as such. It smacks of libel and is also completely unnecessary; we could just as easily say he "was convicted of bank fraud" and get the point across without labeling him. Yoninah (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out why this is causing concern. The main issue seems to be "labeling". But labeling is entirely normal. "Rubashkin was a CEO" -- that's a label. I'm a sociologist and a father -- labels. It would be silly to believe that instead of "N is a father" we could only write "N fathered four children". Nothing wrong with the latter, but also nothing wrong with the former. We wouldn't blink about it for other types of labels -- one could find labels in any number of W articles, including BLPs, and no one would worry about the fact that a label wasn't used in a good source that described the activity underpinning the label.

Clearly labeling per se isn't the issue. So then what is it? I can only imagine that some people (not necessarily you, Yoninah) are having difficulty coming to terms with the fact that this great mensch, this hero of kosher meat and Iowa chassidut, has actually been convicted of fraud and are trying to soft-pedal it. No-one is buying Bus-Stop's RS argument -- that one is absurd pedantry -- and so if I am right in this post about what is really causing concern then the only argument being offered here is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Anyway thanks for a reasonable post -- breath of fresh air in comparison... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right. As an Orthodox Jew, I am extremely sensitive to the antisemitism inherent in this article. The media is full of antisemitism; why shouldn't Wikipedia take the NPOV stance and rise above it?

Are you willing to request consensus? I would be interested in what the larger community thinks about this issue. Yoninah (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Dearie me -- antisemitism?? How does that come into it? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not libel to call someone a criminal after they've been convicted. Incidentally, the trade journal of the kosher meat industry says that there's now a product glut and a price war.[15] Agri Star, which is now running the Postville plant, is doing so well they've added a second shift. This is really the story of a failed, incompetent manager, one who managed to get into trouble with PETA, OSHA, ICE, DOL, and his banks, then turned to fraud as his empire collapsed. That's not an unusual story. R. himself says he should never have let his family force him into the job. --John Nagle (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

John Nagle — we go by what sources say. "Convicted of fraud" is the language that the New York Times, the Washington Post, and every other source uses. "Fraud" is an act committed by a person. "Fraudster" is a type of person. There is a linguistic distinction. The sources are not going the additional step of saying that the act committed by the person is who he is. The newsrooms of reliable sources show us what language we can and should use. Bus stop (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I also object to the fraudster labeling in the lead first sentence as is being insisted upon by user nomokedasticity. Looking here there seems to be a consensus support that it should be altered or removed . Off2riorob (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

* Support Adding in "Fraudster" - Sources show he has been convicted of fraud - so calling him a fraudster is supported by source, same as if he were convicted of murder he could be called a murderer, so no BLP or V problem with calling him a fraudster.

It's on the record. KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 13:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

KoshVorlon — for our purposes "the record" consists of that which is reported by reliable sources. No source labels him a "fraudster." Sources provide us with our cue as to what language to use. The New York Times and the Washington Post, for instance, indeed report that he was "convicted of fraud." But they do not go so far as to refer to him as a "fraudster." So we should not be applying that language either. Bus stop (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"fraudster" is not a word in American English. It is at best colloquial, and seems simply to be used as an insult. He was convicted of fraud in connection with his work as CEO... if that is his main notability, why not start with that?- Sinneed 16:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"American English" or not -- the term is a wikipedia category, for chrissakes. If it's acceptable as a Wikipedia term, then it is acceptable on articles, no? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"...then it is acceptable on articles, no?" - no. A category is not "content" of an article. The jargon of wikipedia is not the language of English.- Sinneed 17:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a good edit Sinneed, my only issue with it would be, is his wiki notability greater for the distribution of Kosher meat or for the criminal issue, anyways, your edit is a clear improvement. Off2riorob (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether it stays or not, I hope it helps. :) - Sinneed 16:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead rework

(ec)I reworked the lead... this is proposed editing... I do not have the knowledge to say whether or not his notability is primarily for his rise or for his fall. That should determine the order in sentence 1. Made a number of structural changes, hewing, I hope, closer to wp:LEAD/wp:MOS. Hope this helps.- Sinneed 16:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The new first sentence looks good. --John Nagle (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

As for notability being from the rise or the fall, it's all one story, and a common one in business. Initial success, overexpansion, operating problems, financial trouble, hubris, fraud to get out of financial trouble, collapse, criminal conviction. See Enron, Worldcom, etc. As the head of the Orthodox Union's kosher supervision unit said, "They’re just kids from Brooklyn who were suddenly running a big meat plant. They didn’t realize that they had to hire professionals to take care of things." [16] --John Nagle (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

hello. i'm going to do some editing. can't let it stay as it is, it's just too awful. the guy may not be the nicest person in the us, but that's no reason to bury him at birth or call him by his first name. ajnem (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Restored some of the cuts from the lead, dropped the sentencing date. wp:NOTNEWS and it will be out of date almost at once.- Sinneed 18:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Way too many lede changes today. Hold off a bit, please. Tomorrow the sentence will be officially announced. Then, in a few days, we'll have the Federal Bureau of Prisons prisoner number, prison assignment, and maybe a mugshot. --John Nagle (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

hello. don't worry, i'm not going to make any changes, but i hope that you all realize, that the lead as it is now is perfectly ridiculous. i suggest it be discussed here. a look at the madoff-lead might imo be helpful. ajnem (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"perfectly ridiculous" - I would encourage you to focus on changes to be made, rather than opinion about the work, and a less confrontational method might be more effective.

Sentence 1 of the article explains why the subject meets notability. If he were just notable as the head of a meat-packing plant, he would not have an article. It appears he is notable because he was convicted after being arrested after a spectacular raid.- Sinneed 18:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sholom Rubashkin has been in the news for the past 20 years because he was CEO of the largest kosher slaughterhouse and meat-packing plant in the U.S. The presence of a Hasidic Jewish community in Postville was long a source of controversy, as well as continuing allegations about hiring underage workers and animal abuse. What do you think of my attempt at a dual-notability lead? Yoninah (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Except that it removed the conviction from sentence one, I think it was good. I did tighten up the not-guilty bit. This guy isn't Roman Polanski, it seems as I read it that the collapse is a big part of his notability.- Sinneed 23:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Observation only: article creation date 2007.- Sinneed 23:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Adding some of those sources from before the fall would add more credibility to the idea that the fall isn't the generator of notability. Even the sources about the rise are... about the fall... that I see in the article now.- Sinneed 23:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. IMO the article is incredibly slanted toward his fall. I've been hearing about him and the clashes between his Hasidic employees and Iowa locals for years. I'll see if I can add another section about his pre-conviction history. Yoninah (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sinneed: I restored your lead, but I still maintain that Sholom Rubashkin is notable both for the way he ran Agriprocessors and built up a Jewish community in Postville, and for his conviction on bank fraud. Yoninah (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

questions

hello everybody. sorry, if my “method” was percieved as “confrontational”, but i do “focus on changes to be made”. i just think that there are a few questions involved, that might be best discussed first, before they lead to a possible edit war. you have to bear with me, i'm used to the very different behavioural patterns in the german wikipedia, where abuse is the rule and differences of opinion are treated as vandalism. from my outsider's point of view − i live in switzerland and i had never heard of either agriprocessors or the rubashkins until i recently literally stumbled on it looking for pictures on commons to illustrate the german gefilte-fish-article and got interested – if i were to describe sholom rubashkin after having read most of what the internet has to offer, i would describe him as:

1. a lubavitcher hasidic jew from brooklyn (with 10 children)
2. a younger son of aaron rubashkin, head and patriarch of a lubavitch-family highly respected particularly for their very generous financial contributions to lubavitcher causes and needy lubavitcher individuals, and younger brother of Moshe Rubashkin, (former) manager/president and co-owner of the rubashkin textil-enterprises, who, albeit a convicted felon, got himself elected as head of the crown heights jewish community council, which means, that the fundamental halahic law, “the law of the land is the law”, doesn't seem to count for much with the lubavitchers of crown heights, or, as the yiddish wikipedia puts it: “זינט ער [משה רובאשקין] האט אסאך געלט האט יעדער דרך ארץ געהאט פאר אים”.
3. (former) manager, not co-owner, of his father's meat-business-venture that became the most important and probably the most profitable of the rubashkin businesses and the most notorious because it not only followed pretty much the same business-practices as the textil firms of the family, but either went beyond that, or was found out beyond it, because it is a more vulnerable and closer watched domain
4. a convicted felon who got what some will consider a pretty harsh sentence from a judge who is known for being harsh with so called white-collar crimes, a sentence he will, i presume, appeal against.

that's as far as it goes. further information could probably be found in blooms book, but that is not available to me. i have not read anything about him that would indicate that he is an (extraordinary) capable or shrewd businessman, who changed the kosher-meat-business singlehandedly, and made agriprocessors the largest kosher meat producer in the US. as far as i can see, everything revolves/revolved around his father (“when it got particularly bad, Aaron flew in. ‘It was kind of like, this is the true owner walking in; this is the gentleman with the money’” [17]), and, in brooklyn up to a certain point, his oldest brother. admittedly, it is possible, that sholom r. is the mastermind in the family and just has to step aside, because in that kind of very very very ‘traditional’ jewish family, everything revolves around the male head of the family and the first born son, but even if he is a law breaking mastermind i do think that it is not adequate to claim that “he built [agriprocessors] into the largest kosher meat producer in the United States”, but i don't want to fight over it. if the success of the business is mentioned in the lead, imo the way this success has been achieved (ill treatment of workers, same of animals, pollution, fraud, you name it) also belongs in the lead. that is why i reduced the lead to an absolut minimum, because otherwise nothing is left for the rest of the article. but the whole story sheds a light on chabad-lubavitch and their ‘priorities’, but i guess nobody will want to address that issue. or am i wrong? ajnem (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

After this disquisition I'm still not clear on what changes you want to make. (It might help if you could write normally with capital letters where appropriate.) Perhaps make a small edit or two, take it slowly. That might work better than the wholesale rewrite that got rejected. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In any event, every source in the article relates to his fall. Unless someone produces (or points out my ignorance of) sources that predate that, showing that he is notable for something other than the spectacular collapse of his business and the criminal bits, I am moving it back to the front of S1, per wp:MOS. This is extremely well documented. In the US, we have a concept called finding of fact... the court has found it to be a fact that he committed felonies. The court accepted the bankruptcy as fact (and enforced it, if needed). Even if he wins appeals... the court still found the fact, it just may be that the state broke the rules in convicting him so he might "slither". Seems to be a pretty tight case though, they would have had to have screwed up pretty monumentally to lose it, as I read. *shrug*- Sinneed 15:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't have to evaluate his life. Still, on the "success" side, Agriprocessors managed to get in trouble on animal welfare, discharge of toxic waste, illegal immigration, employment of underage employees (S. got off on that as an individual, but Agriprocessors as a company was fined), safety violations, wage-and-hour labor law violations, and troubles with some of the kosher-certification organizations. And that was before the bank fraud. Joseph Regenstein, professor of food science in the Department of Food Science and Institute of Food Science at Cornell University, said of Agriprocessors, “If you can figure out a law to break, they broke it.”[18] Even S. finally admitted he should never have taken the job. So representing Agriprocessors as a success story in the lede is a bit much. The company now running the Postville plant, Agri Star, is owned by some plastics guy from Canada, who apparently has a clue how to run a factory. --John Nagle (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

anti-semitism

If this needs to be in the lead (and despite my bad edit summary I might well support that), it needs to be covered in the body, and a brief summary, perhaps "Anit-semitic elements in the central Iowa region openly resented the presence of the Jewish family and gloated over his downfall." or whatever... his presence did not cause problems as a Jew, Jew-hate caused problems, if there were any (and I am sure there were, but were they noted?).- Sinneed 01:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't so much resentment as a culture clash. Hasidic shochtim were pouring in to Postville to work in the plant and raising eyebrows with their Hasidic garb. Much can be said about Sholom Rubashkin's efforts to build up a local Jewish community, as well as his aid for local non-Jews in need. Yoninah (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If the community work is notable (and really, from before his fall), it would be especially worth mentioning. The loaded and negative wording as it was in the lead made it sound like "he should have known better than to try to mix in, it just makes for problems" as one of the old auntys used to say.- Sinneed 01:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above to users that his community work should be mentioned.

As to the point brought about antisemitism - As the defense pointed out - had this plant not been "kosher", and would not "slaughter animals" as per kosher requirements, and would not be run by a "Hassidic Jew" - it would be treated like most other poor functioning food plants that rarely make it to the news.

This meat plant was always under amplified negative coverage every move they made. The coverage likely was the cause of this first of it's kind raid.

Compare this to many or most farms (especially milk farms) that until today run off an illegal workforce.[19] Non are raided. Also, by 2006, 40% of all mortgage loans originated that year were liar’s loans"(=Fraudulent).[20] Let us look how many of those millions are sitting in Jail).Caseeart (talk) 05:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Now in Bureau of Prisons database

R. is now listed in the Federal Bureau of Prisons database: "SHOLOM RUBASHKIN #10755-029 50-White-M Release date: UNKNOWN Location: IN TRANSIT ". Updated infobox accordingly. "IN TRANSIT" should change to a prison name in a few days. --John Nagle (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Interesting article by one of the prosecutors here. Since it is identified as an op-ed, I'm not sure how usable it is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Rubashkin was not the CEO

There is major disinformation regarding this. His father was the one who called the shots, not him. The plant was following his fathers policies, and he had only an equal say as his brother. See his defense documents. I do not know why the media decided he was the CEO, his lawyer clearly rebutted it. And he never resigned from his position as Vice President, that was assumed by the press because of a press release from Agri that they were getting a CEO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KerAvelt (talk • contribs) 18:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:V specifically "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." If the sources say he was CEO we say he was CEO. If there are sources that say he wasn't the CEO we include those too. This is a WP:BLP so we need to stick to high quality secondary sources and avoid primary sources like court documents etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, Chicago Tribune[21] can count as a RS, and it's more recent. Boston Herald calls him "co-vice president"[22]. It also calls him "former manager", and NYT also calls him former manager[23]. I can assume:

• "former vice-president" is compatible with "former manager"
• the media mis-reported the exact position of him (CEO instead of vice-president).

Is there a problem with saying "former manager and vice-president"? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

He was a manager of many aspects of the business, so I guess that is fair. But his father was clearly the one setting the policies and calling the shots, there is a lot of proof and testimony to that. His defense stressed that very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KerAvelt (talk • contribs) 18:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but the defence is going to raise anything that could help their client. The interesting thing is what the judge concludes in the veredict. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Post and the Jewish Chronicle identify him as CEO. These are not the kind of sources we would normally question. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

On the other side, you have Chicago Tribune and Eastern Iowa News, obviously, someone has got it wrong, so further research needs to be done, which I did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KerAvelt (talk • contribs) 19:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Not at all -- he might have been VP at one point in time and CEO at another point in time. If so, it is not incorrect to convey what perfectly reliable sources tell us: he was CEO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a huge baseless assumption. And if it is true, then it should be clearly stated so in the article, but to keep it as CEO is simple misinforming. Especially since the evidence overwhelmingly points out that he was not CEO. Is Rubashkin's attorney clearly stating that he is and was not CEO not enough? --KerAvelt (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

R's attorney did take the position that he wasn't CEO. Most of the cites and the US Attorney identify R. as CEO. The indictment says "Although a new Chief Executive Officer was publicly named in September 2008, defendant RUBASHKIN continued to exercise day to day control over the Postville plant and its finances." For criminal prosecution purposes, what matters is who's running things, and that does seem to have been R. Even R. has said so. State of Ohio records list AARON RUBASHKIN as "President", and don't list a "CEO". [24] S. signed most of the corporation's Iowa filings, as "Director". --John Nagle (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The prosecution indeed is probably at least partly culpable for the misinformation in the media. Regardless, if he was not listed as CEO in the Corporate filings, it would be incorrect to refer to him as CEO. Additionally, language such as "Under Rubashkin's leadership" is contestable as a large part and the main crux of Rubashkins defense was that he was not the one ultimately running things, and that the crimes that he did were done under pressure from his father, the president, and his brother, the co-Vice President.--KerAvelt (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

KerAvelt, I think you are misunderstanding how Wikipedia works. We don't get to pick a side and decide who is right. We also don't get to make up rules like "if he was not listed as CEO in the Corporate filings, it would be incorrect to refer to him as CEO". We can't use primary sources like court documents, corporate filings etc by themselves to establish anything. We are a tertiary source, secondary sources do the research for us and we simply say what the reliable sources say. If there are multiple significant/non-fringe perspectives and narratives we include and explain them all even if they contradict eachother per the WP:NPOV policy. Sources contradicting eachother happens all the time. We are obliged by mandatory policies to deal with it and reflect the sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

When there are contradicting SECONDARY sources, I don't think it is right for the editors to pick sides. I was just reinforcing the side that he was not the CEO. And even if there is a secondary source that is contested by a primary source, is it not right to point that out? (Especially since there are primary sources referred to throughout the article, so you can't pick and choose). This article has many contested items that are reported as fact, which is especially problematic with a living person's biography. --KerAvelt (talk) 02:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and the fact that sources such as the NYTimes and others do not refer to him as the CEO is proof that he wasn't, because that would certainly make the story more newsworthy. --KerAvelt (talk) 04:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a principle of logic worth invoking here: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So what the NYTimes doesn't do is proof of nothing. Beyond that, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, so a primary source that contests what is in a secondary source isn't worth much. In any event, there's nothing here that justifies replacing CEO with VP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

a. Wikipedia ALLOWS primary sources that are not interpreted, his attorney clearly said that he is not the CEO, and that he was not responsible for many aspects of the plant operation. b. There are also Secondary sources (Chicago Tribune, AP and others) that identify him as Vice President, c. NYTimes and others sources not referring to him as CEO is not absence of evidence, it is evidence that he is not CEO, because when referring to crimes that happened in the plant that Sholom was getting charged for, it would be more appropriate to name him as the higher management position of CEO, d. Since there is are very significant sources (probably majority) that dispute him being CEO, the article cannot blankly refer to him as CEO, e.Wikipedia requires extra sensitivity with regard to a Biography of living persons

I don't give a rat's ass what his lawyer said, and I doubt anyone else here will either. His lawyer wanted to get him acquitted, and portraying him as "not responsible" was no doubt part of that strategy. There's a reason we don't pay too much attention to primary sources, particularly when they are contradicted by secondary sources. As for the NYTimes, not that it really matters all that much but since you seem to care: this ought to put that line of argument to rest. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints WP:NPOV. He and his attorneys are certainly viewpoints. Wikipedia is not about personal beliefs or feelings, your personal assumption that he was CEO or that he was completely in charge is should not shape the article. With regard to primary sources, they are not usually used because they are subject to interpetation Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, here it is quite straighforward (which Wikipedia allows), furthermore, Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source is clearly applicable here, since there are reliable secondary sources. And you have not responded to my other arguments.

One more thing, please keep this discussion civil. --KerAvelt (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah -- so the New York Times isn't good enough for you after all? Can't say I'm surprised. In any event, if a secondary source has discussed his lawyer's contention that claims concerning his being CEO are incorrect, then perhaps we can talk about his lawyer. Otherwise... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The NYTimes saying he is in charge is clearly not indication of him being CEO, and the other article indicating that he was just a former manager is an indication that he was CEO. And the primary sources are not only his lawyer but corporate filings, which is arguably what the secondary sources were based upon. Regardless, you can use any primary sources even if there are no secondary ones.

And please, instead of questioning technicalities, respond to all of my arguments sufficently, otherwise, the article must be changed. --KerAvelt (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You appear not to have bothered reading the NYT article I linked for you above (here again). Right at the end of the first paragraph: "chief executive". As for primary sources, you have correctly identified the conditions under which they can be used, and so I say again: if a secondary source has discussed his lawyer's contention (or other primary sources indicating) that claims concerning his being CEO are incorrect, then let's talk. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That is not the condition of using a primary source, the article says nothing that sort. All it says is: A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. His attorneys statements certainly qualify. And you have still not responded to my other arguments.--KerAvelt (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am doing quite a good job responding to points that you make while you are failing to accept that I have responded precisely along those lines. You quoted: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source" -- I responded exactly in those terms. You wanted New York Times, I gave you New York Times. On both counts you have failed to acknowledge what I gave you. So darling please don't tell me about not responding. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, NYTimes are apparently are of those that are misinformed, your right. With regards to your second point, there is no added condition if the quote from the primary source is made directly. period. What you have failed to respond to is the fact that there are numerous Reliable Secondary sources that refer to him as VP, and you still still insist on blankly refering to him as CEO (especially since he is a living person, where one would have to be careful not to libel him). --KerAvelt (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and with regard to the NYTimes, the story that referred to him as manager was published after the story that referred to him as a Chief Executive. It is possible that they realized their mistake.--KerAvelt (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Since you appear to have forgotten where you got it from: you quoted from WP:BLP, here. Whatever is said elsewhere about use of primary sources, WP:BLP governs how BLPs are edited. Now, yes there are secondary sources that refer to him as VP -- though it's worth noting that none of those sources dispute the notion that he was CEO. So: what would you propose we do? (As for NYTimes, dates, etc. -- a correction would be very useful. Failing that, there's no evidence of a "mistake".) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not say that unless it has that condition it cannot be used (furthermore, BLP was meant to protect the person from libel, not vice versa). Both sides of secondary sources do not clearly refute each other, not just those that say he is VP (additionally, the fact that they only refer to him as VP and not CEO is an indication that he is not, as per what I wrote before). --KerAvelt (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Here are other sources that refer to him as Vice President The Gazette AP/WhoTV JTA AP Haaretz(Prominent Israeli Paper) AP/Chicago Tribune The Cutting Edge/Edwin Black This article quotes ICE referring to him only as Vice President (they certainly would refer to him as CEO, for prosecutional purposes).

There is a clear disparity here, I have a clear explanation for it: some in the media, who happened to be overly vindictive of him specifically (including the NYTimes), became a little lax in their research and just got caught up in a frenzy that he was CEO, (he was widely known for some time because he was the one who always publicly defending the company).

Wiki editor's explanations are irrelevant. You have established that he is variously reported as VP and CEO so there is nothing stopping you adding that information to the article. There is no policy based reason for removing information stating that he was CEO. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"Sholom Mordechai Rubashkin (b. 1959) is the former CEO of Agriprocessors" is disputed, the same is of all mention of CEO throughout the article, therefore, I would suggest a more neutral term, manager, which does not exclude either VP or CEO, or at least clearly indicate that there is a difference of opinion (which I think can easily be resolved by looking at corporate filings and the like, but you guys are opposed to that).--KerAvelt (talk) 03:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it's disputed by you which doesn't matter in the slightest. You aren't a reliable source and neither am I. :) We have to stick to what the sources say so that we comply with WP:V. It's not negotiable. It's a mandatory policy. Also we can't create disputes that don't exist in reliable sources. We can't say there is difference of opinion just because we think there is a difference of opinion. That's original research. A reliable source has to make the observation and report it. We can say things like "variously reported as X, Z, Z" because it's verifiable with using the sources we can provide but we can't characterize it as a "dispute" or a "difference in opinion" etc. A reliable source has to do that. Maybe you have one. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

True, you cannot report it as a dispute because there aren't any reliable sources that clearly state that, however, you most certainly cannot blankly refer to Sholom as a CEO. Therefore, to resolve this issue of contradicting sources, I am suggesting the more neutral term of manager.--KerAvelt (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

But most sources don't say "manager" -- they say "CEO" or "VP". Your idea has insufficient support in the available sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

One thing is for sure, it cannot be kept as CEO. Not only are there many secondary sources that clearly don't identify him as such (why choose one source over the other), there is a DIRECT primary source that explicitly disputes this and other terms such as leadership and directorship.--KerAvelt (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I and others have explained to you why a primary source such as the one you favor cannot be used here to do the work you want it to do. Failing to "get it" is not going to magically win people over to your perspective. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I got exactly what you wanted to say. And it is wrong. There is no stipulation anywhere that (even with regard to a living person) primary sources cannot be brought unless it was quoted by a secondary source. It probably is saying that even if it is not directly quoted in such a case it is allowed.--KerAvelt (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

i.e. Just because it says that it is allowed does not mean that it is the only case that it is allowed. (By the way, in this article alone there is a primary source that is not quoted by a secondary source.)--KerAvelt (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Blp#Misuse_of_primary_sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

a.To make myself clear: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source" Where do you see that this is the only time one can use a primary source? (it is ironic that you are using a law that you say is meant to protect a person from libel to libel a person, i.e. not considering his lawyers defense to be an opinion) b. There are still other secondary source that say VP instead of CEO.--KerAvelt (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

<-Is there something unclear about the sentences in the mandatory policy that say "Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." ? If you don't agree with the policy you can propose changing it at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Secondary sources say CEO and VP. Including this information is not libel. Making baseless accusations of libel for adding policy compliant material/excluding non-compliant material isn't a constructive way to build articles but it's a good way to get yourself blocked. If his lawyers defense has been reported by a secondary source there is nothing stopping you adding it. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A video of a news conference where his lawyer directly says he was not the CEO does not fit into the above categories of not allowed primary sources.--KerAvelt (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

convenience break

I just found Reliable Secondary Sources that clearly state that not only did Sholom's Attorneys say that he was not CEO, but the US Attorneys office AGREED, and acknowledged that they lied. See for yourselves. APThe GazetteThe Gazette (if the other link links to a different article). "Assistant U.S. Attorney Bob Teig said Monday he didn't know why or how the government started using the chief operating officer title." Now the Wikipedia article immediately needs to be changed! --KerAvelt (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

And we also clearly see from these articles a dissenting opinion with regard to Rubashkins "leadership" and "directorship", which must be noted in the article.--KerAvelt (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to propose changes/additions that have support in reliable sources. In proposing a change/addition, however, I invite you to consider a couple of issues. (1) Finding a source you favor does not mean that other sources you dislike are somehow disqualified. (2) There is nothing in your source that supports the notion that the US Attorneys' office "lied". (3) Note carefully that your source does not contest the notion that Rubashkin was the "chief executive officer" -- it reports a dissenting view from the notion that he was the "chief operating officer". As far as I am aware, there are no sources claiming that he was COO, so I'm not sure what it means to report a dissenting view relative to a view that doesn't exist in reliable sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

a. COO is even lower than CEO, which proves my point even more (and you obviously cannot argue that they were saying that he wasn't COO but he was CEO, as the article quotes the attorney as saying "that he never had “the type of control the pretrial publicity suggests”"). b."“The pretrial publicity has left the impression that Defendant Rubashkin was the former-CEO of Agriprocessors and the mastermind behind all the bad that befell Agriprocessors employees, Agriprocessors finances and the town of Postville,” the motion said." (AP) clearly shows CEO. c. If both the the US Attorney and his Attorneys agree that he is not CEO (or COO), and furthermore, that they agree (and others) were mistaken by calling him such, that is definitely more reliable that other stories referring to him as CEO (those stories are a minor opinion, if an opinion at all). --KerAvelt (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This again shows that it is (at least) contested that the company was under his "leadership" or "directorship".--KerAvelt (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)--KerAvelt

But reliable sources do not demonstrate that the US Attorney agrees that he was not CEO. I implore you to read WP:OR. Really, this is getting tiresome. At some point someone is going to let you have the last word -- and you will err if you conclude that having the last word amounts to agreement... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"At some point someone is going to let you have the last word -- and you will err if you conclude that having the last word amounts to agreement" That is a cheap way of getting out of responding, I just brought you brand new evidence and suddenly "It is getting tiresome". To respond to your points. That Gazette article clearly meant CEO, because a. As noted previously, the government previously referred to him as CEO not COO, so they obviously were correcting that b. The Gazette article says that his attorneys said that he was not chief operation officer, while the AP article in a direct quote, which obviously is the accurate one, quoted his attorneys as saying CEO, (and the government was obviously responding to his attorneys), c. The Gazette article says that the press release said that Agri is appointing a "new chief operating officer," and the actual press clearly said CEO. (This all besides the point that COO is even lower than CEO!). It is so clear that I'm right.--KerAvelt (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As previously mentioned, the R. family doesn't seem to have been strong on formal titles. S. was clearly identified by witnesses as present at Agriprocessors, giving orders, and acting as if in charge. He did raise as a defense that he was just following orders from the family boss, Aaron R. That didn't get him off. --John Nagle (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any relevance to what I am saying. If they don't believe in titles, then how can this article refer to his as CEO, when he was not? (I would imagine that the owner of the company appoints a CEO, not anyone else). Moreover, the very fact that the defense says he was following orders, shows that there is a difference of opinion regarding his "directorship" and "leadership" of the plant (this is my 10th time saying this). --KerAvelt (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't read WP:OR, have you? What you "imagine" has no relevance here. There's no future in it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Now you suddenly respond! Please respond to this BEFORE DOING ANY MORE REVERTS: "To respond to your points. That Gazette article clearly meant CEO, because a. As noted previously, the government previously referred to him as CEO not COO, so they obviously were correcting that b. The Gazette article says that his attorneys said that he was not chief operation officer, while the AP article in a direct quote, which obviously is the accurate one, quoted his attorneys as saying CEO, (and the government was obviously responding to his attorneys), c. The Gazette article says that the press release said that Agri is appointing a "new chief operating officer," and the actual press clearly said CEO. (This all besides the point that COO is even lower than CEO!). It is so clear that I'm right."--KerAvelt (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

A virtuoso performance of original research. I congratulate you, but Wikipedia does not allow editing on this basis. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Please quote me a law from WP:OR that forbids my argument. Don't just say original research. I read the article very carefully and found nothing wrong with the point that I made.--KerAvelt (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, silent.--KerAvelt (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate main description

"Agriprocessors was cited for issues involving animal treatment, food safety, environmental safety, child labor, and hiring of illegal workers." That is more than half of the description of Agriprocessors in the main description of Sholom Rubashkin.

It is inappropriate.

Firstly, because being that it is in the main description it appears that he is directly culpable for it, while he was acquitted of the child labor, and he was not convicted for the hiring of illegal workers, and food safety is referenced by a primary source of a public document (which the laws of Wikipedia clearly forbid with regards to a living person), these should also be modified (at least clarified) later in the biography.

And more importantly, it is non-neutral that these citings should be more than half of the description of AgriProcessors in the main description of Sholom Rubashkin, because these citings are only a small part of AgriProcessors' more than 20 year history. In fact, they do not belong at all in the main description of Sholom Rubashkin (especially since it is disputed that he was the CEO), since it is not even in the main description of AgriProcessors (which also furthers the assumption that Sholom was directly responsible for it).--KerAvelt (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like an addition to the Agriprocessors article is called for. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Please respond to my actual argument. --KerAvelt (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Agriprocessors had a terrible reputation. "If you can figure out a law to break, they broke it.", writes one source.[25] (In a Jewish publication, no less.) Agriprocessors managed to get in trouble on just about every front: animal welfare, immigration, employee safety, wages and hours, bank loans, and kosher certification. Even with all the criminal activity, they still lost money. That's Agriprocessors' achievement. Read "The Rise and Fall of Agriprocessors Is the Story of an Immigrant Family Gone Awry", in The Forward. [26] --John Nagle (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

a. The Forward most certainly cannot qualify as a reliable source. Besides the fact that they are vehemently anti-Religious Jews, they have shown for many years an agenda with regard to Rubashkin, publishing very nasty articles about him for many years already, and the Jewish secular publications have all been the most damning about Rubashkin (probably because they are embarressed of him being a Hasid Jew). You most certainly can't really rely on these random sources to justify that. I am sure that many public people have articles like that written about them. b. Even if these were reliable sources why does it exclusively belong in Sholom Rubashkin's main description? If you are discussing their (alleged) reputation, you must discuss other aspects of the company too.--KerAvelt (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

See discussion about liberal Jewish opposition to Rubashkin in Child Labor trial reporting.--KerAvelt (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I will edit the main description unless someone properly responds. --KerAvelt (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It ought to be plain that you have failed to convince others of the need for a change, still less gained support for specific proposed changes. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Who's others? In the absence of anyone disputing my argument, it implies that they concede to it. As to my proposed change all it is is to take out that line, please reply as to why that would be inappropriate. --KerAvelt (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagreement is manifest, if implicit, in the posts by John Nagle and by me -- but let's go ahead and make it explicit. Now, your point about using a primary source re food safety is valid, and so I have substituted that reference with one from a secondary source. (By the way, it bears pointing out that you object to the primary source in this instance but are dogged in your insistence on using a primary source when it suits your purpose, re "not CEO"). By the way, you'll note that i don't see any value in the contention that the Forward is not a reliable source -- but if you prefer, others are available (a google news archive search [for Agriprocessors+"food safety"] produced 71, in fact). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

a. There is a difference between a public record that is a primary source, and otherwise. See the rules b. Don't just say 71 articles, quote one as damning as the Forward c. Even if it were true, what made AgriProcessors famous was not these things, it was the fact they were the biggest kosher slaughterhouse (and one of the biggest non-kosher slaughterhouses), and what really made it famous was the raid and what happened subsequent to that. --KerAvelt (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Biggest kosher slaughterhouse in the US at the time, yes. Worldwide, no. Agriprocessors was a niche player in the industry. Agriprocessors maxed out around 500 head a day at their one plant, while Tysons in Dakota City, Neb, the largest single US plant, handles around 6000 head a day, and that's one of many Tysons plants.--John Nagle (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, biggest worldwide. And biggest in the US is definitely more appropriate in a two line description than the violations it was cited for.--KerAvelt (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

a. What is lacking consensus worth if you cannot provide logical reasoning? Your first link is dead, and even it weren't. I don't think that unknown publication qualifies as a reliable source, and even if it does, that still doesn't justify it being more than half of the description of Agri over there. And the Forward article doesn't even talk about violations. b. Nomoskedasticity seems to have a Conflict on Interest, "I don't give a rat's ass what his lawyer said" is quite indicative of that.--KerAvelt (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"I don't give a rat's ass what his lawyer said" is merely a colorful way of saying that we're not interested in your original research, particularly when it is based on primary sources that don't meet conditions specified for their use. As for what to write in the lead, see WP:LEAD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

a. "I don't give a rat's ass what his lawyer said" (not what KerAvelt says), that was a Freudian slip revealing that you indeed don't care about any other opinion other than the one that you are espousing, there is no way you can twist that to mean something else. b. "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources" please provide such sources. --KerAvelt (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Words like emphasis and importance are of course a matter of editors' judgment. I didn't add that passage, but I agree with the judgment of the editor who did, and I will only repeat what I said above, which is that you have failed to convince other editors of the need for a change in this regard and would advise you to consult WP:CON and WP:BRD. As for "Freudian slip", I don't know what you are on about, but I doubt it is relevant. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

What is lacking consensus worth if you cannot provide logical reasoning? "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources" please provide such sources! --KerAvelt (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you find a reliable source that gives these citings such importance to Sholom Rubashkin (or even AgriProcessors)?--KerAvelt (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources provided. WP:LEADCITE does, after all, say that they are necessary in BLPs. You're welcome. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I consent to KerAvelt that it makes no sense that violations that AgriProcessors was cited for do not belong in the lead article of Sholom Rubashkin. The lead article is supposed to be a short, concise review of the rest of the article, which does makes it "Inappropriate" to have violations cited there. --FederalInvestigator (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

a. You are missing the point, you have to prove that the material in the lead belongs in the lead from Reliable Sources, "In general, the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to reliable sources" Wikipedia:LEADCITE#Relative_emphasis b. I now have consensus. --KerAvelt (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What a novel interpretation of WP:LEAD. You seem to be asserting that that policy implies that reliable sources must be found that say, in effect, "This material is important enough to be included in the lead section of a Wikipedia article on the topic". I would be rather surprised if you found other Wikipedia editors who agreed with that interpretation. But you could, I suppose, try it at WT:LEAD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean directly! Please provide a source that places gives such importance to violation citations with regard to Sholom Rubashkin, from which we can conclude that they would belong in the lead of a Wikipedia article.--KerAvelt (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

KerAvelt, regarding "Consensus in the talk page that this does not belong here". Please read WP:CONSENSUS and try to obtain consensus before you make edits based on consensus. There is no rush or deadline for building articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"Sholom Rubashkin resigned from his post in September 2008"

Source please. --KerAvelt (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Any opposition to deleting it? --KerAvelt (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

See "Sholom Rubashkin to resign from Agriprocessors Inc" [27]: "It is at the insistence of the Orthodox Union that Sholom Rubashkin is to be replaced as chief executive officer of Agriprocessors, the kosher meatpacking giant his father, Aaron Rubashkin, founded, The Jewish Star has learned. “We have said that if there were criminal culpability that we would withdraw our supervision,” said Rabbinic Administrator Rabbi Menachem Genack in an interview Tuesday. “The OU spoke to the company to say that we would suggest –– for lots of reasons –– that they should look for professional management.” " --John Nagle (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It would probably benefit from rewording to more precisely reflect the sources i.e. if they don't say resigned we don't say resigned.

• Time (but actually AP) says "The company sought to address concerns in the community and beyond last week by hiring a new CEO, New York attorney Bernard S. Feldman." (Sep. 26, 2008).
• The Iowa Independent says "Bernard Feldman, a New York attorney who was named this September as the company’s chief executive......Former chief executive Sholom M. Rubashkin remains behind bars, awaiting trial" (11/29/08)

Sean.hoyland - talk 03:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Not only should it be reworded, it possibly isn't true. Maybe his father fired him? Also, is the Iowa Independent a reliable source? And AP in subsequent articles refers to him as former VP, not CEO, who says he even left his position?--KerAvelt (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

At this point, KerAvelt (talk · contribs) has claimed that the New York Times, The Forward, the US Attorney's Office, and the Iowa Independent are not reliable sources. This is a bit much. --John Nagle (talk) 04:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Speculation about "the truth" is irrelevant. Iowa Independent is run by the multi award winning American Independent News Network. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way KerAvelt, given your apparent passion for this issue, can I ask whether you have any kind of connection to the subject of the article ? It's not a problem if you do, it's just better to be open about it and declare it per the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, with regard to this matter, I maintain that they are all not reliable sources, especially the US Attorneys office (their life sentence recommendation has come under ridicule from six for US Attorney Generals and many others), and I have a lot of evidence to prove this. (e.g. misinterpretation of press releases and the like).

I have no connection at all the Sholom Rubashkin. All I wish is to correct the misinformation that is out there regarding him (i.e. Change Wiki articles from a biased point of view to a neutral point of view).

My questioning the Iowa Independent, stemmed from the fact that the reporter covering the Rubashkin issue, Lynda Waddington, has thus far written many ridiculous stories with regard to this issue (such as stories based on anonymous comments on websites, and the like).--KerAvelt (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless someone changes it, I am removing "Sholom Rubashkin resigned from his post in September 2008", it remains unsourced, and probably isn't true.--KerAvelt (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty then: I've changed it. I agree that there is not at this point support in sources for "resigned" -- so I've changed it to "left" and added a source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Your secondary source is the communist forward, I doubt that qualifies as a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.252.67 (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what to say to that. --John Nagle (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, very socialist, very pro-union and vehemently anti-Religious, which makes Rubashkin a perfect target. He was religious, rich and was fighting the unions. They definitely are not reliable with regards to Rubashkin. Their editorials and news stories with regard to him were almost identical.--KerAvelt (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"the communist forward"...that made me laugh. Marvelous. We have a reliable sources noticeboard at WP:RSN if sources become a sticking point and you want other opinions. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This must be "communist" and "socialist" in the Tea-Party sense of the words (the way Obama is a "socialist"); perhaps The Forward is also a Muslim from Kenya. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oddly no criticism for Haaretz, regarded as extremist and an enemy combatant by many despite being a gold plated reliable source according to Wikipedia standards. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You can ridicule, but the Forward actually used to have four prominent communists on the exterior of their building, including Karl Marx and Engels. They evidently haven't stirred from that point of view. [28] --KerAvelt (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Why criticize Haaretz? They seem to have done their research, and I have not seen any inflammatory or baseless articles with regard to Sholom Rubashkin. --KerAvelt (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is an article by a prominent Rabbi criticizing the Forward as being completely one-sided with regard to the Rubashkin case. [29] --KerAvelt (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on the evidence I just brought in "Rubashkin was not the CEO" it is now clear that these Secondary Sources that say he left assumed it on a false premise, as the Gazette article says, "An Agriprocessors news release Sept. 18, 2008, refers to Bernard Feldman, 63, as the "new chief operating officer," but doesn't mention he's replacing Rubashkin. Some Iowa and out-of-state newspapers and Jewish newspapers and newsletters reported Feldman was replacing Rubashkin." Which the Gazette clearly implies is not true. Additionally, that was stated from the very beginning by members of the Rubashkin family. From The Jewish Week: "Another member of the Rubashkin family, a grandson of the founder also named Sholom Rubashkin, is a nephew of the Sholom Rubashkin in the announcement. In an interview Tuesday with The Jewish Week, he said that his uncle "wasn’t let go...to say he was let go is very inappropriate.""--KerAvelt (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As I note in an above section, there is no evidence in reliable sources demonstrating that someone is contesting the view that Rubashkin was the CEO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

See my reply. And then reply to my previous point.--KerAvelt (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No section of denial of bail by Magistrate Jon Scoles

Can someone add it please? It was big news when it happened because of the law of return.--KerAvelt (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That's pretrial stuff, usually not too notable after conviction. He was eventually released on bail anyway. --John Nagle (talk) 06:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is usually not too notable, but in this case it is. Because that denial caused editorials by the WSJ and others about it, and condemnation by the ADL and more, it troubled a lot of Jews. --KerAvelt (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Semantics?

Hello everybody. I enjoyed reading most of the above, and I love to see, that somebody remembers the Forward's more leftist past, but in earnest, in my opinion User:KerAvelt does have a point, both where the CEO- and the Sholom-Rubashkin-as-only- villain-question is concerned. From what I understand, the Rubashkin family may not be the kind to bother with formalities like appointing one of their members as CEO. So it probably is only a matter of semantics, what Sholom Rubashkin is called. And it's anybodys guess, how the other Agriprocessors vice-president, Heshy (Tsvi) Rubashkin, managed to stay out of legal trouble and in the business after it changed owner, or how the president, Aaron Rubashkin, manages to preside over various companies that land his sons and grandson in jail, without... but, dear KerAvelt, like it or not, that's how it is. If it should make you happier, the fact that hints towards a possible guilt of the younger Rubashkin brother - or Agriprocessors' president and owner - were ventured during the trials, could be added, even though it made no difference to the court or jury (s. [30], [31], [32]). ajnem (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand, the Rubashkin family may not be the kind to bother with formalities like appointing one of their members as CEO. So it probably is only a matter of semantics, what Sholom Rubashkin is called. That's probably the right answer. It's a family business, not a publicly traded company. A publicly held company has to report that kind of information to the SEC, but a privately held one does not. Also see [33], "A new Agriprocessors CEO has yet to be appointed. According to Avi Lyon, a consultant for United Food and Commercial Workers, the union that represents slaughterhouse employees, people inside the company have said that Sholom Rubashkin would remain at the helm of the plant regardless of his official title. “Basically what we’re hearing is that any changes that occur will be cosmetic,” Lyon said." S. himself has said "I’m conflicted that I allowed myself to be drafted into the family business … against my wishes,” S. was in his late 40s at the time. The company seems to have been set up as a patriarchy. There's never been any indication that S. personally owned a share of Agriprocessors. --John Nagle (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's important to remember that this article is a biography of Sholom Rubashkin so the content needs to stay focused on the subject of the article. The Agriprocessors article is the place to address the wider issues in addition to being the latest front in KerAvelt's crusade for truth and justice. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not sure I buy into KerAvelt's brand of wisdom, but I'm guessing this is the sort of minutiae that the defense lawyers want us to focus on, and the confusion over the title is perfectly intentional. I don't think anyone disputes that Sholom was the executive running things in Postville, so I could live with his title listed as CEO, but maybe a paragraph about the confusion and the legal semantics battle is in order. Mosmof (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, quite, this is the sort of minutiae that the defense lawyers want us to focus on. I agree that a paragraph about the confusion and the legal semantics battle is the way to go. This is mandated by the WP:NPOV policy. We have to present all sides rather than pick one. While it is interesting that KerAvelt apparently doesn't regard this as the right thing to do for reasons I don't really comprehend or care about, it is in fact something we have to do according to policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Now that we won't be inundated by Keravelt for a few days, perhaps there can be a sensible discussion. We might consider a formulation recently used in a related article: "CEO, COO, and/or vice president (reports vary)". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Perfect. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --John Nagle (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've made a couple of edits. Problem: I don't have a reference for the notion that he was COO. The source provided by Keravelt reports that the US attorney "acknowledges" that he was not COO -- and it doesn't seem right to use that as a source for the notion that he was COO. So I'm not sure what to do -- possibly that term should simply be deleted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This is really getting ridiculous. Because since Nomoskedasticity "won't be inundated by Keravelt for a few days " he resorts to propogating his own NON-NEUTRAL views in the article:

a. He completely ignores the fact that there are views that specifically contest him being CEO (his attorney and the governement). b. He flagrantly misinterprets the Gazette article as reporting Sholom Rubashkin to be the COO (where else did he come up with that idea), while the article clearly reports the US attorneys admitting that they misreported him as CEO (you have not quoted anything to suggest that what I had proven was original research (this all while Mosmof is "guessing this is the sort of minutiae that the defense lawyers ... so I could live with his title listed as CEO" - Original Research?)) c. He then blankly changes the third paragraph's repeated references to Sholom Rubashkin from Vice President to CEO (CEO is contested while Vice President isn't). d. He changes my clarification of Sholom Rubashkin's exit (that it is disputed by a seocndary source) to simply "Sholom Rubashkin left his post in September 2008" e. He fails to even explain himself in all this.

And no one raises any concern about a Neutral Point Of View.

I am reverting it to my previous edit which is far more accurate than this one (it just omits sources that have been called innaccurate by both his Attorney and the US Attorney--KerAvelt (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The weight of opinion here is clearly against you -- I suggest you read up at WP:CON. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What weight of opinion? Your opinion has no weight! You have not explained yourself in the slightest! You made edits that don't make any sense and they are non-neutral. You clearly have a Conflict of Interest! (Oh, and John Nagle is delusional and Bus stop agrees with me.)--KerAvelt (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

KerAvelt, if you continue in this confrontational way I will ask for you to be re-blocked. You have already abused the privilege of editing this encyclopdia through sockpuppety and blatantly lied about it. If you want editors to work with you I suggest you don't lie or call people names. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Already re-blocked -- but has created a new one to carry on. I've been to RPP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Undid big deletion

Just undid a big deletion by KerAvelt (talk · contribs). There is no consensus for deleting the criminal record from the lede. The guy is currently doing time in a Federal pen, after all. --John Nagle (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What in heaven's name are you talking about? --KerAvelt (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm.. So I am arguing with delusional people, after all.--KerAvelt (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the edit I reverted was this one:17:09, 28 September 2010 KerAvelt (Consensus in the talk page that this does not belong here, in addition to the editors refusal to provide a source that shows it importance to the topic, Sholom Rubashkin) that it belongs in the lead.) which I reverted in the following edit [34], restoring some references about Agriprocessors earlier legal troubles. Unclear where the "delusional" part comes in. --John Nagle (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No COO?

Hello. So, if nobody says that he was the COO of the company, why add it? My guess is, that Sholom Rubashkins friend(s) KerAvelt may refer to the interview mentioned here, but, as Shmarya Rosenberg has it, it's actually for the funny papers: what's the difference between a “Vice president” and a “CEO” anyway? ajnem (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That's reasonable. Some sources say CEO, some say VP, some say he was the one running things regardless of title. The prosecution showed he was the one giving orders, and that's enough for conviction. --John Nagle (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There's more information here.[35] The corporate paperwork on Agriprocessors and four other related companies was so messed up that the State of Iowa was about to dissolve them. That had happened before, in 1994 and 2004. Sholom R. was an officer of some of the companies, president of others. Aaron R. and Heshy R. headed some of the companies. These affiliated companies went bust too.[36] (This is typical for a corporate bankruptcy; for big ones, like Enron and Worldcom, there were thousands of corporate entities.) --John Nagle (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

So the best description is this: “Sholom M. Rubashkin and Tzvi [Heshy] Rubashkin ... were ... charged with overseeing day-to-day operations at the Agriprocessors plant” [37]. But I still don't quite understand, how the father and the brother managed to be spared any fraud related charges, even if “the prosecution showed he [Sholom M.] was the one giving orders”? ajnem (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know either, and unless we have a source, we can't say much about why others weren't prosecuted. In hierarchical crime schemes, the crook at the top usually gets busted either when a lower-level crook makes a deal to get a lighter sentence, or because there's incriminating paperwork. Neither event happened here. The investigation and trial didn't yield many interesting documents; this group doesn't seem to have been big on paperwork. S. seems to have ended up, in the term used in some white-collar crime cases, as the "vice president in charge of going to jail".[38]. --John Nagle (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Lost motion for new trial

S.'s motion for a new trial was just rejected.[39]. That was expected.[40] He has an appeal pending, which is before a different court. --John Nagle (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge Rubashkin Family to this page

The Rubashkin_family appears to be a rehash of this page, and creates a NPOV. I'm recommending it be merged into this page. A very brief subsection can handle what little differing information exists between the two articles.Edstat (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

There are at least six notable Rubashkin family members. Not all were involved with the Agriprocessors debacle. Other editors have been adding information about family involvement in Crown Heights politics, New York real estate, and various charities. So there's signficant family notability and press coverage therof. --John Nagle (talk) 06:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with John Nagle. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with John Nagle and Nomoskedasticity, (see Talk Rubashkin family). ajnem (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion undone

Undid big deletion and other changes by Jakethesnake2010 (talk · contribs), a new account which has edited only this article. However, the change to the count of Congressional reps writing the Attorney General with regard to the case is apparently now up to 11, so I put that change in. (We need a better source for that info, though; the current source is an advocacy site). --John Nagle (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yated Ne’eman a reliable source?

Cites have been added from Yated Ne’eman by an WP:SPA. The head of Yated Ne’eman is the main fund-raiser for the Rubashkin defense.[41]. So that may not be a neutral source. --John Nagle (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it for now with this edit. The combination of sources looks like synthesis and I'm also unconvinced that Yated Ne'eman (United States) has been confirmed as a reliable source at WP:RSN for factual statements about what people have done etc. There's nothing in the RSN archives and the editor who wants to use it obviously needs to demonstrate that it is an RS per WP:BURDEN. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the material sourced from Yated Ne'eman (United States) again and materiakl sourced from justiceforsholom.org. Neither of these have been demonstrated to be reliable sources for statements of fact about people. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Rubashkin on "American Greed"

Sholom Rubashkin now has an episode of American Greed about him.[42] --John Nagle (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The preview for the episode is now available from CNBC.[43]. The full episode isn't up yet. --John Nagle (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Agriprocessors HR manager arrested

Agriprocessors' manager Hosam Amara, who fled to Israel to avoid arrest (with his family, and on Sholom Rubashkin's credit card), has been arrested in Israel. The US is trying to get him extradited[44] He was the manager responsible for fake immigration paperwork.[45] Zeev Levi, another Agriprocessors manager, also fled to Israel and is still wanted. --John Nagle (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No further info seems to be available on Hosam Amara yet. The DOJ announcement says that he's under arrest in Israel pending extradition to the US, with a hearing date of May 2, 2011. US charges are "one count of conspiracy to harbor undocumented aliens for profit, 24 counts of harboring and aiding abetting the harboring of undocumented aliens for profit, one count of conspiracy to commit document fraud, and one count of aiding and abetting document fraud." He's the missing link in proving the immigration-related charges against Sholom Rubashkin, which were dismissed without prejudice and could be refiled if there is a new trial.[46]. --John Nagle (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Response from Congress

The sources were changed to "reliable" sources: The Cutting Edge and CSPAN. Is that reliable enough for you?

I do not understand why this page is not reliable WHEN IT HAS ALL THE 45 LETTERS IN PDF FOR THE ENTIRE WORLD TO SEE!!!!! http://justiceforsholom.org/the-response/congressional-response - Click "Read the Letter" for each an every congressman if you so wish! Jack7188 (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

C-SPAN perhaps. But the Cutting Edge thing is just the Yated Ne'eman article. Jack, darling, please stop shouting -- and if you want to edit here then you'll find it goes ever so much better if you play by the rules. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for shouting, but when it hurts you shout. I guess I have certain doubts that these deletions are coming from the right place - a place seeking truth. Rather, I have a feeling that it is coming from animosity. What I don't understand is, why is this page - http://justiceforsholom.org/the-response/congressional-response - not a good source to prove to readers that there are indeed 45 members of congress who have written letters? While I understand that this is not a known website, what does it matter? If someone goes to that page they will see the 45 letters, clearly authentic letters in PDF with signatures and on the stationary of these 45 U.S. congresspeople. Hence this page - despite the fact that the site of justiceforsholom is presently not known well - has hard facts and indisputable proof that there are indeed 45 members of congress who have written to Attorney General Holder about this case. Isn't that all that matters? That what's being said here be the truth and verified? Does it have to come from cnn.com or nytimes.com to be true?? Jack7188 (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Those are just constituent service letters. If you write to a U.S. Member of Congress to complain about some federal agency, they send a letter like that to the appropriate agency asking the agency to follow up. See United States Congress#Congresspersons and constituents. It's a routine service. It doesn't imply endorsement of the claim by the member of Congress.

Note that there's a new PR push starting, called "Sholom Across America".[47] So we'll probably see more edits from WP:SPA accounts. --John Nagle (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"It's a routine service" -- this is no doubt why there are, apparently, no better sources for this claim -- it's not significant enough to merit newspaper time. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This is all speculation. Wikipedia is about facts. The fact is that 45 members of congress wrote to the AG about this case. This is indisputable. If you and cnn don't find this interesting enough to deserve "newspaper time", that's your prerogative and cnn's prerogative. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. So to delete factual information based on your speculation - because while some of the letters make mention of constituents most of the letters make no such reference - is wrong.

In sum: Were 45 letters written to the AG asking him to investigate the case of Sholom Rubashkin? The answer is yes. You can see the letters yourself at http://justiceforsholom.org/the-response/congressional-response. Being so, it is wrong for that information to be deleted. There are many that would want to be educated of such information, even if you are not one of those. Jack7188 (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Lots of things are factual without being significant. I'm guessing Rubashkin wears trousers most of the time; no doubt there are pictures that would help us know this -- but that doesn't mean the article needs to inform us of it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You compare it to wearing trousers. Very mature. Find one other case that has 45 members of the United States Congress go on the limb to write to the United States Attorney General about that case. I'd be interested to see what you come up with. Jack7188 (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Since we have concluded that -- 1) It is a fact beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are 45 congresspeople who have written to the AG that there be an investigation in the case of Sholom Rubashkin; 2) It is not common nor "routine" for members of congress, especially 45 of them, to write to the United States Attorney General regarding a particular case -- it seems that it is just that wikipedia notify people who may be interested to know that these 45 letters were in fact sent. Hence I will be returning that information to the Sholom Rubashkin page tomorrow if there is no further legitimate reason to object. --Jack7188 (talk) 03:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah -- so you found a source meeting WP:RS, then? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

What better source than people being able to read the letters for themselves (from a grassroots website)? http://justiceforsholom.org/the-response/congressional-response --Jack7188 (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess this discussion is over. See this article from today's paper: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110529/NEWS/105290335/New-questions-surface-about-impartiality-of-federal-judge --Jack7188 (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The defense attorneys have filed a new argument. That's to be expected. The New York Daily News has another story today. [48]: "WASHINGTON - A well-connected kosher slaughterhouse king convicted of fraud at his Iowa plant has rustled up a herd of New York pols to try to win him a reduced sentence." There's a large paid PR operation behind this, including "Sholom Across America". "Volunteers will be knocking on your door" [49]. We keep seeing WP:SPA accounts on Wikipedia as this continues. --John Nagle (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hallo, I particularly like the "only $36 per family" part. Not taking any chances with people who might think that 1xchai would be quite enough. I hope that I'll live long enough to see the outcome of the case. Strange that Israel so readily arrested Amara. He will try to put as much blame as he can on one or the other Rubashkin, is my guess. Nomoskedasticity suggestion that we could pay attention to the trousers question is not as silly - or funny - as it sounds. What does a Lubavitcher Chasid wear in prison? Ajnem (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

More from the Rubashkin PR operation.

New promotional video from Chabad Info: "Rubaskin's game plan" (trailer), from the same people who produced the previous "Unity for Justice" video. The trailer promotes the booklet, "Perfidy in Iowa: The Saga of Sholom Mordechai Rubashkin" [50](link down) Scribd copy (despite the title, this is pro-Rubashkin material), which is a collection of old stories from Yated Ne’eman. No new info in any of this; it seems to be for group solidarity and fund-raising. --John Nagle (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The "Sholom Across America" campaign now has a "Sholom Across Australia" branch. It's not working out too well.[51]. A Jewish Aussie showed up at a Rubashkin rally, handed out leaflets, and shouted out "Let it not be said that in Melbourne the Jewish community made a criminal into a saint without protest". He was thrown out, but it upset the PR operation and started a controversy. --John Nagle (talk) 05:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I suggest we add a section about the support for Rubashkin. In it, both the support from Congress etc. and the Jewish support could be described. What do you think, and what should it be called, if it is added? Ajnem (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure. Almost all the material about support from Rubashkin comes from the organizations promoting the PR effort, mostly Chabad Info. --John Nagle (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

"Unsuccessful" motion for new trial

I added "Unsuccessful" to the section title. It's a bit off-putting when you see the title, start reading all excited to learn the modified trial result, and then, at the end of the last paragraph, you are told that it was dismissed and that nothing has changed from the former section. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Consistent with that, when the Supreme Court's rejection came out today, I changed that section heading to include "Unsuccessful" as well. --John Nagle (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Zeev Levi wanted by the US

The Agriprocessors HR manager who escaped to Israel has a Wanted poster.[52]. "Levi was a manager for Agriprocessors Inc., a large meat processing company. In order to maintain a workforce that included a large number of undocumented aliens, Levi took measures to conceal the workers' unlawful employment. Levi encouraged the undocumented aliens to obtain new false identification documents and submit new application paperwork to conceal their status. Levi is believed to have fled the United States following a worksite enforcement action at Agriprocessors in 2008, and he was last known to be in Israel." --John Nagle (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with leaving out the credit card part. Exactly how the travel of Levi, Amira, etc. to Israel was paid for is covered in "Motion for Release Pending Appeal" [53], p. 101. Amara (the other Agriprocessors fugitive, arrested in Israel and awaiting extradition to the US) didn't travel on Rubashkin's credit card; he got a check from Rubashkin, who claimed Amara needed to go back to Israel for personal reasons. Shlomo ben Chaim (another Agriprocessors supervisor) had tickets purchased with Rubashkin's AMEX card. It's not stated how Levi's travel was funded. --John Nagle (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Untitled comment by anon

Hi Slazenger.

I dont know what "one worse than the other" in my editing you are referring to.

The fact is what I wrote was the truth. The media is NOT the source of information which one can call reliable.

The article in wiipedia make Mr Rubashkin look in very bad light which is unfair and untrue.

I really dont have time for this, but it hurts when an upright and honest person is defamed in this manner.

Please make a true investigation without citing newspapers. Rather delve into the comments of the defense. You will then see what a caricature the media is making of Mr Rubashkin.

Thats all. I cannot sit and prove his innocence. I have a family to support. If you have time, then please do it right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.184.108 (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Neither Mr. Rubashkin nor his supporters claim he was innocent, merely that he was sentenced too severely. --John Nagle (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Excessive external links

Regarding the reversion of my deletion of the voluminous external links section: please see WP:EL, paying particular attention to the word "minimize" and the advice about what types of links are appropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)PS -- hi John!!

Unless someone offers a defense of the long list of ELs here, I'm going to delete them -- none of them is appropriate per WP:EL, in my view. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I took out a few links, but I'd suggest restraint. --John Nagle (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I've taken out one that was already used higher up as a source. I can see keeping the Bloom book and the Postville Project website. I'm not so sure about the others. They don't do any harm, I suppose; my concern comes from WP:EL's guidance saying we should "minimize" use of ELs. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hosam Amara sentencing memorandum from DOJ is out.

It barely matters at this point, but the sentencing memorandum for Hosam Amara is now available. Amara was one of Sholom R's key employees and was directly responsible for much of the immigration fraud. When Sholom R. was on trial, the Government couldn't tie the immigration violations directly to him. Amara had fled to Israel, with his plane fare paid with a $4000 check signed by Sholom R. But Amara was caught in Israel. He fought extradition for over a year. He lost. He was extradited to the US, pled guilty, is in jail, and provided lots of evidence about the exact details of Sholom R's involvement in immigration violations.[54] The Justice Department at this point technically has the option to retry Sholom R. on the dismissed immigration charges and extend his sentence, but they're unlikely to bother. --John Nagle (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Judge Reade

Editors active on this article might be interested in a discussion at Talk:Linda R. Reade, where another SPA wants to turn it into a platform for the criticism mounted by Rubashkin's supporters. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

"Justice for Sholom"

Please discuss here the notion of adding material supported by the website "justiceforsholom.org". It plainly doesn't meet WP:RS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2017

Rubashkin was denied release on bail on November 20, 2008 following Magistrate Judge Jon Scoles determination that he posed a flight risk.

Rubashkin was denied bail on November 20, 2008 following Magistrate Judge Jon Scoles determination that he posed a flight risk. 71.92.67.242 (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 07:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Law of Return SCOTUS APPEAL

In the Raid and Arrest section, a line states,"The successful use of an argument based on Israel's Law of Return has caused concern among Jewish communities who fear that such claims could be used to deny bail to Jews in general." Seems to be going over the specific topic of Sholom's case here. And not highlighting the other side of the legal debate doesn't present NPOV.

The same NPOV appear in the Unsuccessful U.S. Supreme Court petition, which only presents his defense arguments for a new trial and not the court's reasons for disagreeing. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Rubashkin Face.jpg
• Rubashkin.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: among those who have publicly supported Rubashkin and asked for leniency on his behalf are former FBI directors Louis Freeh and William S. Sessions. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

autobigraphy

Mention should be made in the article about Rubashkin's autobiography. https://www.amazon.com/Sholom-Mordechai-Rubashkin-Inside-Story/dp/1600919200?language=en_US 213.8.112.230 (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)