Talk:Mordecai Tendler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 15 November 2007. The result of the discussion was keep and discuss BLP1E.

[edit] WP:BLP1E

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Articles about living people notable only for one event strongly suggests that individuals notable for only one event should be covered in an article about the event rather than as a biography about the person. Discussion at the AFD did not make it clear to me as closer whether this person is notable for only the one event. I thus open a two part discussion here. First, is M. Tendler only notable for a single event? Second, what is that event and how can this article be transformed to be about the event instead of a biography? GRBerry 04:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to GRBerry for your work on dealing with this article.
Regarding the question of notability for a single event, let me recap part of my AfD comment. Mordecai Tendler worked intimately with his grandfather, the reknowned Rabbi Moshe Feinstein on his responsa work, helping R. Feinstein deal with his correspondence, etc. The responsa, known as Igros Moshe, are among the most authoritative documents in Jewish law today. Mordecai Tendler was pivotal in editing Igros Moshe. (Reb Moshe was not the editor.) For instance, Tendler bore responsibility for putting in the headings and structuring of the responsa -- which, as we all know in Wikipedia, is quite important for how people read a text. In addition, Tendler wrote many interpolations within the Igros Moshe texts. Look at volume 8, you'll see that there are two fonts used in the responsa -- regular font and a small font, which shows Mordecai Tendler (and S. Rappaport's) interpolations. These constitute extensive annotations and hence interpretive moves within Igros Moshe. From what I hear, there was pressure on the editors to publish the annotations in a different font (pressure due to Mordecai Tendler's situation, maybe?) because the published responsa differed so much from the handwritten manuscripts. This difference is noted carefully on p.1 by the senior generation (incl Moshe David Tendler, Mordecai's father). Granted, the pressure to distinguish the annotations may be related to the scandal. Nevertheless, this unusual change in volume eight surely underscores the importance of Mordecai Tendler's role as editor and intimate assistant to Rabbi Feinstein. In principle, I am not adverse to having this aspect of Tendler's importance described in the article on R. Feinstein and/or moved to an article about the controversy (a series of related events) over R. Tendler's conduct. HG | Talk 04:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
He is probably notable anyway, I don't know. But say he wasn't? Since the controversy is clearly notable and significant in a number of ways what would this guideline suggest the article be called? Mordechai Tendler Sexual Abuse Allegations? That would be a bit harsh. Which leads me to conclude that this kind of situation was not what that guideline was intended for. It might be referring to a plane crash victim not having their own article despite being mentioned 100s of times in the press, or some such. Lobojo (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
It was written for individuals notable only for one negative event, such as convicted criminals in crimes that got a lot of press. Based on the AFD, at least one editor thought that the most significant part of the incident was the halachic decision that made it explicit that women and children could be witnesses and give evidence in abuse cases. If that were the notable aspect of the incident it could be an article titled after the halachic ruling. Thinking creatively is always a good way to solve impasses; when neither of two identified alternatives can generate consensus it is time to look for a third, fourth, and fifth alternative. They will almost always be there. GRBerry 03:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Good advice. Halachic rulings are always too disputed and in too much flux to enable an article. Rabbinical judgements can never have the solidity of a court ruling, there are no landmark or test cases. There is no stare decisis and no jurisdictions or even enforceable summons. I think the importance was strongly overstated. It is impossible for me to imagine someone searching for the halachic ruling, for Tendler though people do search. I always feel that wikipedia should provide the answers to questions people ask. Lobojo (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you GRBerry for re-starting this discussion. While Rabbi Mordecai Tendler may have acted as the caretaker and part-time editorial assistant of his famous grandfather, that in itself would not have made him notable either in rabbinic circles (where he was ridiculed for his interference with his grandfather's work and seen more as a nuisance than a serious rabbi) nor for the purposes of Wikipedia biographies about living rabbis. He was forced to resign stemming from accusations against him by several women that he had supposedly seduced and slept with after they had come for pastoral counseling from him over a series of years. While that may have been true, these allegations were not proven in a court of law and needless to say he has not gone to jail for it. Sure it was scandalous and disgraceful that such things happened or were attributed to him, and he was forced to resign his pulpit position as a result. (You know, maybe a case can be made that he was the victim of a Scarlet Letter campaign against him.) But again this does not equal "notability" or justify an attack article based solely on the sex scandal that brought him down. Thus neither as a regular rabbi nor as a disgraced rabbi is he more notable than many others like him who do not get articles about themselves on Wikipedia. There have been hundreds of cases of mediocre rabbis and minor clergy from all walks of life who have had to resign over being stupid with their sexual lives, but Wikipedia is not in the business of sex offender registration, see also WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Had there been an article about this rabbi minus any sex allegations he would most probably have been the subject of succesful AfDs, such as has happened with others like him, see two recent examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eli Mansour and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Menachem Nissel. The fact that he did not resign immediately and protested his innocence to this very day, drew more attention to his case. Were it not for the sexual nature of the charges against him, he would maybe be footnote in the history of the synagogue he served, or a disputed one in his grandfather's books. IZAK (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Izak, the question here is not to debate notability again. The question is whether to move this article to another title, such as Controversy over Mordecai Tendler. Although you disagree with Lobojo over notability, I assume you don't want to use a one-event title. I certainly oppose such a one-event bio entry. HG | Talk 16:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with IZAK that he is not noteworthy; he might have worked intimately with his grandfather in cataloguing the response’s; but he clearly didn't participate in his grandfathers decisions. If we should go down this road of having a one-event title; then how about having one for every notable personal event that ever happened to anyone, especially clergymen. If we choose to go ahead; we can create thousands of juicy (salacious) articles and save for posterity every foolish thing that anyone has ever done. I think a man is not what he has done (he might have long regretted it, both good and bad) but rather what he is now (what he would've done now). Itzse (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
For those who think that this event is noteworthy, I would ask; if he wasn't a grandson of Reb Moshe, would this event be noteworthy? If not, then the only purpose of having an article on this event is to shame Reb Moshe and Orthodoxy. If he would be your grandson or your grandfather, would you still think that it deserves an article? Itzse (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
It's possible his defenders wouldn't have been so wrong if they had soberly investigated another rabbi, and it's possible that the US and Israeli rabbinical authorities wouldn't have made such a big deal over a random rabbi, but that's what happened. You/we can use an AfD to further discuss notability, this Talk page is for discussing how to edit the article -- and this section to discuss the article name. Thanks. HG | Talk 23:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
If he was my grandfather, Reb Itzele, I would recuse myself from the discussion due to my obvious negios. Lobojo (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yuck

It is slightly off-putting for me that User:IZAK compares me to Goebbels and so on, but I am still bemused as to why he travels wikipedia assiduously defending clearly notable disgraced rabbis and trying to get them deleted completely, while simultaneously protecting articles on Rabbis that he likes who are far far less notable. I don't understand the mentality that is concerned about the feeling of individuals of this calibre. Lobojo (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Guys, you should both delete posts regarding your personal dispute. Continue elsewhere or refrain. Please. This page is to discuss how to edit this article. HG | Talk 14:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
He compares me to a Nazi and argues again and again that I am motivated by antisemitism, I find his behaviour " slightly off-putting". Hmm, yes I must be at fault here. Lobojo (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say you're at fault, I said this should be discussed somewhere else, e.g. here. Thank you. HG | Talk 20:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
the notability of articles on other rabbis doesn't really seem relevant to the present discussion. We have enough problems dealing with the article on this one. DGG (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, neither Aron nor Mordecai Tendler have been charged with any crimes. They were forced to quit their posts by colleagues and congregants who require a high and irreproachable standard. It is certainly not the job of Wikipedia to act as a (kangaroo) court of law nor is Wikipedia a sex offender registry of any kind. Until such time that a charge is brought, or an allegation is proven in a formal court of law, then any aspersions cast against anyone is a violation of WP:LIBEL and I would not be surprised if the offended parties would get angry enough to sue, but evidently some editors and admins do not realize this, so they allow yellow journalism and muckraking to exist and pretend that it's a legitimate "biography" when it is not. Reports in newspapers are not much more than hearsay when it comes to such legal situations, so everyone concerned needs to be very cautious before creating more of these articles which are nothing more than ticking time bombs waiting to go off. IZAK (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

The article currently bears an NPOV tag. What is the basis for the concern about neutrality? Can somebody please identify sentences that are not neutral and require editing?

The NPOV tag is not appropriate for those who reject the notability of the article or would otherwise argue to delete the article. Thanks. HG | Talk 21:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The article as it is written leads with the fact that there are allegations of sexual impropriety against him. This paints him in a negative light immediately. Given that the article is only a stub, this seems also undue weight, to me. It does not seem neutral to me at all, and in fact seems written by somebody with an agenda (especially in light of the other negatively written article about his brother). I am rewriting it to remove the undue weight. Jeffpw (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I would also point out that the references given are not inline cites, per WP:MOS. How this article survived AFD without getting cleaned is a riddle to me. Jeffpw (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)