Talk:Shmuley Boteach

message: This section seems on very shaky ground as worthy of mention, let alone a section. Especially in a blp. By the context, it is clearly a joke. --2603:7000:2143:8500:6DC8:71E:DA17:6742 (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  /* Self-promotion section 

message: it looks like the article is getting updated to include a lot of unnessasry details that burry the more meaningful and on-topic content. The lengthy lists of speakers at LChaim and gala awardees doesn't seem meaningful to the topic of the article. These tangential details inhibit readablity and feel like WP:COATRACK. Some other details also add lots of context but do so in a way that detract from the main topic of the article: like the Divorce Rates graph and listing that he advocated for the medical benefits of male circumcision and listing out those benefits. Readers can follow the links to the respective wiki articles to get a more complete look at tangential topics. Ew3234 (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: First, there is zero on Wikipedia that is "necessary." Second, this is odd coming from an editor who has been militating for inclusion of information from a self-published blog, with zero editorial oversight. From a disgraced former journalist. That's really strange. Third, the complained about text - in contrast to the text this editor militates for - is actually in each case supported by RSs that report on the subject of the article. I'm open at the same time to discussing the benefit or not of including the graph in question - in that instance, while it does serve the purpose of images at wp, in illustrating a point discussed in the article, in this case the rate of divorce, it is the case that the graph itself does not discuss the subject of this article; that might be reason to consider deleting it. As to the subject's views on male circumcision, in contrast, that is covered - in fact in many, way beyond what this article presents - RSs, covering the subject. Anyway, if you would like to discuss the graph, I'm open to that, and think there may well be something to your point there. By the way, last point, I don't think the discussion of using a self-published source has been concluded .. self-published sources are not looked on favorably at the project, and are never to be used when they relate to a blp. --2603:7000:2143:8500:10EC:F3D6:EA24:8DE2 (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. I'm not sure how to respond to this. For the 1st point, see WP:TMI. For the rest, it seems like you've cast me in some poor light and your reponse feels like a personal attack (no need for the "this is odd coming from an editor who..." language). I don't think the topic of Friedman and RS is relavent to what I raised in this section and I would like to instead focus on the subject at hand. Perhaps, a neutral thrid party can weigh in. Ew3234 (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not at all an attack on you as a person. It is an observation not about you, but about the oddity of your editing seeking inclusion of a non-RS, coupled with your suggestion that we trim RS material. On the one hand, you have been advocating strenuously to include what is clearly a gossip blogger's no-editorial-oversight self-published source as a reference, with associated text. As we know, anyone can create a personal web page. And the rule at wp is never to use self-published sources as third-party sources about other living people. Ever. That I think you would have to agree is the case. You also haven't come back with your further thoughts on the chart, responding to my above suggestion that we discuss it. Anyway, I've taken a hand to making the article more readable, and will do more of that when I have a moment. --2603:7000:2143:8500:10EC:F3D6:EA24:8DE2 (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tangential details and lengthy lists