Talk:Sholom Rubashkin

message: 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)
thread_title: His Face?

message: This fellow is very notable - check out this Google News Archive Search.  (talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log]) 23:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not AfD this, I will add more when I get the time

message: 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)
replies: text: you are wrong. Moshe is his brother. Aaron is his father. Doofus. 69.114.177.238 (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooops, you are right. My bad, sorry. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: restoring see also link

message: 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.   tried pasting a big chunk of content from advocacy web site Justice for Sholom into the article.    and   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)
replies: text: Now semi-protected for three days.  --John Nagle (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

text: 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. SilverserenC 21:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested semi-protection 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 . --Enric Naval (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Not presenting any of the defense

message: 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:
#a lubavitcher hasidic jew from brooklyn (with 10 children)
#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”.
#(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
#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’” ), 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.” 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)
thread_title:  questions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Now in Bureau of Prisons database 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: "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)
replies: text: Sounds like an addition to the Agriprocessors article is called for.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please respond to my actual argument. --KerAvelt (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agriprocessors had a terrible reputation.  "If you can figure out a law to break, they broke it.", writes one source. (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.  --John Nagle (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inappropriate main description 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  No section of denial of bail by Magistrate Jon Scoles 

message: Just undid a big deletion by .  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)
replies: text: What in heaven's name are you talking about? --KerAvelt (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.. So I am arguing with delusional people, after all.--KerAvelt (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 , restoring some references about Agriprocessors earlier legal troubles. Unclear where the "delusional" part comes in.  --John Nagle (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undid big deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: There's more information here.  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. (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)
replies: text: 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” . 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)
replies: text: 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".. --John Nagle (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No COO? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: Agree with John Nagle and Nomoskedasticity, (see Talk Rubashkin family). ajnem (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Rubashkin Family to this page

message: Undid big deletion and other changes by , 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)
thread_title: Deletion undone

message: 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.. So that may not be a neutral source. --John Nagle (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Yated Ne’eman a reliable source? 

message: Sholom Rubashkin now has an episode of American Greed about him.  --John Nagle (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The preview for the episode is now available from CNBC.. The full episode isn't up yet.  --John Nagle (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rubashkin on "American Greed" 

message: 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 He was the manager responsible for fake immigration paperwork. Zeev Levi, another Agriprocessors manager, also fled to Israel and is still wanted.  --John Nagle (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.. --John Nagle (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agriprocessors HR manager arrested 

message: 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" (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)
replies: text: The "Sholom Across America" campaign now has a "Sholom Across Australia" branch.  It's not working out too well.. 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  More from the Rubashkin PR operation.  

message: 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)
replies: text: Yep.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  "Unsuccessful" motion for new trial 

message: The Agriprocessors HR manager who escaped to Israel has a Wanted poster.. "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)
replies: text: 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" , 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)
thread_title:  Zeev Levi wanted by the US 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Untitled comment by anon

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

message: 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. 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)
thread_title:  Hosam Amara sentencing memorandum from DOJ is out. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Judge Reade 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Justice for Sholom" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER  ★ 07:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2017 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Law of Return SCOTUS APPEAL

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
* 
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title: To add to article

message: 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)
thread_title:  autobigraphy