Talk:Shlomo Carlebach (musician)

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/interviews-and-profiles/reb-shlomo-carlebachs-early-years-in-new-york/2013/11/21/2/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  2603:8081:2603:E100:7455:BA6E:323B:E86E (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Sources that might be useful for this article:
* http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4269264,00.html
—Ynhockey (Talk) 07:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Materials

message: Mediation is taking place on this issue. Quaere verum 17:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abuse allegations mediation 

message: I am writing to you as a simple man trying to do everything that’s right for all, i myself had some bad thoughts about Reb Sholomo, but since I have listened to 1000's of hours of recordings from this great man's TORAH, all I can say is YOU be the judge, how can it be that a man that is up to no good speaks all the time about the MESSIAH and the HOLY TEMPLE to be built, that we are all waiting for so long.
The last thing I would expect to hear from an evil man is, that MOSHIACH is coming tomorrow, why is he crying and making songs all his life about the REDEMPTION of the Jews? when he is up to know good or doing evil.
IT JUST DOES NOT ADD UP!!! How can someone who produced 1000's of holy deep songs, sung throughout the world by Jews and non-Jews alike. How is this possible? do you really want to say that he was bluffing all his life and we all know he didn’t even do it for the MONEY as he left ZERO he simply gave all away.
I simply ask the few people in this world who have a pure mind free from evil, to THINK! is this possible? and if you say yes! He must at least get a GUINESS world record for being the biggest ACTOR and FAKE all his life... 69 years of it! as he played to be a HOLY-MAN. Only because a few unholy women have thought up some stories about him (as Reb Shlomo says on one of his tapes that many woman advanced themselves on him but he always withdrew but he never wanted to hurt anyone even a TINY FLY) that NEVER CAME UP WHEN HE WAS ALIVE this lies are just surfacing now when they see that people just cant forget this HOLY man.
The reason that Rabbi Sholomo gets bad press even now after he passed away is quite simple, as we all know that every holy thing must have opposition so there will always  be a choice for people to make, if not we would all BE ANGELS, the evil must always go against the good, as can be seen on a daily basis.
And even our holy RABBI MOSHE rabeini had people who were against him, Yes our holy Rabbi who gave us over the holy TORAH on Mount SINAI, had people calling him all sorts of names for the same reason, as long that we are in EXILE the evil will always oppose the good and sometimes even win.
What remains to be said is that its amazing that some of us are so foolish to believe for 1 second, that someone can produce such HOLY SONGS can LIVE A DOUBLE LIFE! Its not possible it just can't work either your good or bad, and if someone is bad we always FIND OUT when he is around, Not when he is not here TO DEFEND HIMSELF.
To all the followers of Hashem, keep strong and please don’t waste your time reading bad articles that just poisons our mind, this just takes us of the right track of serving Hashem, all it does it make us CONFUSED and when are confused we simply give up we stop praying we stop learning, that is what AMALEK wants just to confuse a little. I bless all of you to keep strong and NEVER GIVE UP praying and waiting every moment for the great day for the REDEMPTION from this long and dark EXILE, that will be when Moshiach will come any day now.
Kol Tuv
Rabbi M Safrin, Jerusalem Safrin 15:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Shalom my friends,''' 

message: Bachrach44/אריאל יהודה: You too are missing a great number of points here. Shlomo Carlebach was and is known primarily as a composer/singer/musician of modern religious Jewish music. That is  his number one "claim to fame". His private life is just that, his private life. It does not detract from his genius as a singer. Of course for religious purists or radical feminists there is the option that they can ignore him. Now there are revisionists of all kinds on this planet who have their own agendas. The Awareness Center has its own agenda, and it has nothing to do with Jewish music, I am sure we can all agree with that. Yes, it would be true to say that Shlomo Carlebach lived during the era of the Hippies who espoused the theory and practice of "free love" and he somehow sought to create his own Judaic "neo-Hasidic" version of this (hence his "House of Love and Prayer" in San Francisco), and if you have studied the life of Carlebach closely you will know that he found a bizarre "rationale" for this in his own interpretations of the Zohar and he had many male followers and female admirers who believed his new-found "philosophy of free love, Jewish style". Now how the heck are we to know for sure if all these women (or men) complaining about him now were not more than happy to oblige him at the time (but now possibly in psychotherapy they "wake up" and decide that they were "abused")? The answer is we don't know and will never know, because it seems that the vast majority of women he consorted with accepted him as some sort of Jewish "Guru" and as you may know, most Gurus are subsequently accused of some kind of "sexual abuses" by followers who had previously joined willingly. Now let me ask you, should we add all kinds of "allegations" to the biographies of Gurus or to those of powerful men who had women falling at their feet begging for ("free") sex with with them in many instances? Or how about the now known recorded instances of Sigmund Freud's or Karl Marx's sexual follies which are recorded  by modern researchers, how germane are they to Freud's contributions to Psychiatry or Marx's contributions to Marxism, Communism and Socialism? The answer again, is pretty much zero, because as scholars we are not studying the sexual lives of people, that is either best left to people like Masters and Johnson or left for muckrakers and people who may have an interest in perversions (of subjects and whatnot) and not in the primary subjects at hand. I am wondering more and more why you brought up such a tangential subject? Can you explain? Is it that you are either anti-Orthodox, modern-Orthodox, or are you extremely-Orthodox? Because all those camps have their own sects that have their latter-day vendettas still running and axes to grind against Carlebach when most people who know him (or have just heard of "Carlebach") just want to enjoy (or mimic!) his music only -- not more and not less. IZAK 02:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bill Clinton is famous for being a US president, yet we still mention his indiscretions, despite the fact that it (arguably) did not have an effect on his work as a president. Jack Ryan is another (probably better) example. Although someone's sec life is inherently private, when word of sexual indiscretions become public, they are (unfortunately) not rpivate anymore. Ignoring your personal attacks for the moment, you ask why I even brought it up. The truth is this isn't really a tangential subject at all - Carlebach is certainly a notable character, and worthy of an entry. The charges against him from the AWC are fairly serious and they're not the only ones . (I must admit I'm surprised that this is even coming off as news to you - I've had similar conversations with many people before and everyone seems to know of the allegations. I even have a friend who won't go to a Carlebach minyan on Friday nights if it labels itself as such.) The reason I brought it up is because I felt it needed to be treated carefully. I didn't think simply adding a link to TAC at the bottom of the page would be apropriate, nor would simply repeating the charges verbatim. (As you said, they do have an agenda). I think the first part about what you write about Carlebach's interpretations of the zohar might actually be a fantastic lead in if you want to use it. There are many pages and bios on Wikipedia which include criticisms of the subject. As long as it's done carefully, it does not detract from the rest of the page. --אריאל יהודה 03:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Has this ever reached the courts? Otherwise it is simply libel and should stay OFF Wikipedia. Does the name John Seigenthaler Jr. mean anything to you? JFW | T@lk 18:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean John Siegenthaler Sr.? What you're missing is that the Siegenthaler allegations were admittedly made up entirely by Brian Chase--and were subsequently given their own section in the article on Siegenthaler. Let me ask you, do you think that the speculation contained in the article on Edgar Hoover should be removed?--Wasabe3543 02:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Carlebach was famous for his music, not much else

message: If the article on Britney Spears talks about some obscure sentence she said about how we should all trust the President, if the article on Randi Rhodes (liberal talk show host) mentions that she audited college classes she was too poor to pay for, if the article on President Bush mentions his kid's names even though his kids are irrelevant to the Presidency, if Winona's shoplifting is mentioned when she is mostly known for being an actress, etc etc etc etc etc, then why shouldn't we mention a scandal? Is it because you're a fan? Should we care about your agenda?
BS"D
I have no axe to grind against Shlomo Carlebach. Without evidence of sexual harrassment, he gets my dan l'kaf zchus (benefit of the doubt). However, I have a MAJOR axe to grind against the protection of a person's legacy at the expense of information.  I have another major axe to grind  against someone who shouts "feminist" to dismiss people who claim sexual harrassment.  
These are the arguments I've seen here against including womanizing/sexual harrassment.
1)Carlebach was a musician. His personal life is irrelevant. 
- He was a musician, but he was also an unconventional celebrity with a hug fan base. He led a unique lifestyle for an Orthodox Rabbi, and held atypical views. Many of his fans were attracted to his music because of his personality and charisma. He was famous for Kiruv (outreach) and in/famous for womanizing, even if he never was a womanizer (whatever that means). We can not say that he actually sexually abused or harrassed anyone. We can say that he was accused of _______ by person _______or group ________, although he was never found guilty or even brought to court. Enough accusations have been made for a sentence or two to be written.     
  
2)The people who claim harrassment are feminists
-How about if whenever you write an article, someone writes that what you say doesn't matter cause you're whatever kind of Jew you are. That seems similar enough. Namecalling is not reason. Your disagreement with a group's agenda is irrelevant.  
3)Carlebach has not been brought to court and found innocent or guilty.  
-And that's just what needs to be said. After we say that accusations have been made. 
Ice 9 08:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous almost only for being a musician??? 

message: Would it be too much to ask to put at least one picture of him?!  What kind of article is this?
Tzadik 04:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about pictures? 

message: Regarding these changes. The first part seems to suffer from weasel words and the second isn't verified. If the author or anyone else would like to rectify these two problems, please do. --Bachrach44 04:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3-22 - additions from anon IP 

message: The following cannot be part of the article since it's just hearsay and gossip:
:"Several women have alleged that they were sexually abused by Carlebach, however, these allegations are unproven, and while they were raised privately during his lifetime, they were only made public to the media after his death. Reports have also been published stating Carlebach's family attempted to have a New York city street named after him, but after an article featuring the allegation of abuse was published, they dropped the request. Link:Sexual abuse and cult awareness"
Carlebach was neither indicted nor convicted of any of these latter-day "allegations" thus it is NOT Wikipedia's job to act as a kangaroo court placing Carlebach on "trial" posthumously. IZAK 07:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the whole thing pretty distasteful and of remote relevance. Yes, we should cover the fact that many mainstream orthodox leaders had their misgivings about Carlebach's methods and style, but the abuse stuff is not acceptable. None of this has gone on the official record. JFW | T@lk 17:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When writing about individuals one must be even more careful to include only verifiable information from reliable sources; I'm dubious of the sources listed here, and the nature of the anonymous allegations. Jayjg (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Uploaded a publicity poster of him as "the Singing Rabbi" circa early 1980s.  This was sent in a press kit for a concert on the University of Minnesota campus.  Justification for use here is that it illustrates the point under discussion.  Also, we should note, this was the same era when The Singing Nun was popular. Whether this influenced the use of "SDinging Rabbi" I do not know.  Rooster613 12:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedic information source adhering to a neutral point-of-view style of prose, with all information being referenced through the citation of reliable published sources, so as to maintain a standard of verifiability. For this reason, all contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. It is Wikipedia policy to delete libellous revisions from the page history."
Please note, that much of what the The Awareness Center puts up on its site for its own POV purposes and for its own agenda, (sadly, even though it may not realize or mean it, it de facto becomes little different to the anti-Semitic Jew Watch site and thereby helping it in its nefarious goals) and these would not meet Wikipedia's criteria for avoiding libel. IZAK 01:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations, yet again 

message: All Wikipedia editors are obligated to abide by the guidelines in Wikipedia:Libel: 
:"The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedic information source adhering to a neutral point-of-view style of prose, with all information being referenced through the citation of reliable published sources, so as to maintain a standard of verifiability. For this reason, all contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. It is Wikipedia policy to delete libellous revisions from the page history."
Please note, that much of what the The Awareness Center puts up on its site for its own POV purposes and for its own agenda, (sadly, even though it may not realize or mean it, it de facto becomes little different to the anti-Semitic Jew Watch site and thereby helping it in its nefarious goals) and these would not meet Wikipedia's criteria for avoiding libel. IZAK 01:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:Libel

message: As discussed earlier in the talk page, I attempted to add a section discussing the controversy over Carlebach's work, which was reverted. Here are stories from more mainstream sources on this: 
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=9867. "Facing A Mixed Legacy." The Jewish Week.
http://www.arigoldman.com/articles/carlebach.html Carlebach's obit from the New York Times.
http://www.ou.org/publications/ja/5763/5763winter/CARLBACH.PDF: "Probing the Carlebach Phenomenon" The Orthodox Union.
Should I go on? Ckessler
*"Go on" about what? You are failing to understand the many points under discussion here and instead all you seem to be focused on is inserting opinions by journalists and others. None of these articles "prove" that Carlebach was some sort of "unindicted sex offender" which is all you seem to want to do to this person, which is a pity, since no article should become a vehicle for your fuzzy agenda. Finally, Please type the FOUR tildes ~~~~ which will also add the date to your name. You seem to be using three tildes which only records your name and confuses the timing of your comments.) Thank you. IZAK 03:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Verifiable yes, well-sourced, no. JFW | T@lk 07:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ckessler, please stop adding the controversy section until you've reached an agreement with the other editors on the page. First and foremost, you have to find reputable sources, then stick very closely to what they say, without adding your own opinion. See WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The imperative of "citing your sources" means citing articles in print. Even though I have two friends who both attended Shlomo Carlebach concerts and were both hugged and kissed by him, I cannot write it in Wikipedia unless it was already published in print. It appears to me that Ckessler has adequately sourced her additions by citing relevant publications. As long as she steers clear of unverified allegations of sexual abuse, I think her amendations should stand. Yoninah 08:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy Section

message: Can the following be fully clarified BEFORE it is put in. Who else confirms this? IZAK 20:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "He also ordained women, a practice which is not permitted by Halakha. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Gottlieb.html"
Sources that verify Carlebach ordained women: 
http://www.hadassah.com/news/content/per_hadassah/archive/2004/04_MAY/isr-amer.asp
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Gottlieb.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20041019024127/www.jewishsf.com/bk020308/sf25.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/21/national/21RABB.html?ex=1143867600&en=9be8c039bb34bbfe&ei=5070
Ckessler 00:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordaining of women 

message: It seems that there is no clear "proof" that Rabbi Carlebach "ordained" any women. User:Ckessler "citations" and "sources" disprove her own point, if we carefully read each "source" above:
#"Source A" says that Carlebach was a "mentor" to "Mimi Feigelson": "Feigelson is an ordained Orthodox rabbi, though she does not refer to herself that way. When Carlebach gave Feigelson smikha in Israel in 1994, she kept it quiet and has never used the title rabbi or rav. Feigelson sensed the potential for marginalization within the Orthodox world should she make it public. So she kept it a secret until a reporter at a Jewish newspaper “outed” her in 2000." The problem here is that Rabbi Carlebach DIED in 1994 -- the year she claims to have "become a rabbi" by him, so when did it happen exactly, and why was it "a secret" fo so long? See "Source D" below for another description of what really happened.
#"Source B" is from "Seymour "Sy" Brody of Delray Beach, Florida, illustrated by Art Seiden of Woodmere, New York, and published by Lifetime Books, Inc., Hollywood, FL." -- a totally unknown and unreliable source. Is "Sy Brody" a rabbi or scholar that ANYONE relies on for information about Judaism? The lady "rabbi" in question here, Lynn Gottlieb, CANNOT be believed UNLESS she can produce a verified signed ordination with Rabbi Carlebach's signature on it that, as that article claims: "Gottlieb turned to Rabbis Zalman Schachter, Everett Gendler and Shlomo Carlebach, who were leaders in alternative Judaism. They ordained her as a rabbi in 1981." Can anyone but Gotlieb verify that it happened? Just because "Sy Brody" writes pop-type book about "celebrities" does NOT make it "true" either. There is plenty of "junk literature" and "original research" out there (see vanity press to understand this phenomenon)! Perhaps it was Zalman Schachter who did it or the Golem, who knows? At any rate it's not "proof" of anything except that you can publish anything you want (and it gets repeated on the Internet) and get away with it.
#"Source C" just repeats the shaky story about Mimi Feigelson as in "Source A" and in fact adds further doubts to her claim: "At 16, she began studying with Carlebach and continued to do so for 16 years. While ordination was not her goal when she began studying with him, after years of rigorous learning, she felt she was qualified and asked for smicha. He gave it to her in Jerusalem." Now what exactly happened? Does she have a signed document to prove it, or she just full of it? We shall never know because, very conveniently, it was the year Rabbi Carlebach died! Furthermore the article states she teaches for Conservative Judaism institutions, so that would make her claims to "Orthodoxy" extremely suspect and VERY unreliable! "Source D" kills this one too!
#"Source D" (and you need a NY Times password to get into this one) actually REFUTES BOTH "Source C" and "Source A" and thus makes User:Ckessler "claims" silly and obtuse. Here is what the Times reports: "One, Mimi Feigelson, said she had studied for ordination with Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach, the songwriter and singer, and was ordained after he died in 1994 by a panel of three rabbis, whose names she refused to make public." So now Feigelson's "story" changes! According to the Times she ONLY "studied for ordination with Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach" -- however "after he died in 1994" she was "ordained...by a panel of three rabbis" which makes the story even more suspect, because who the "three rabbis" are is not revealed (in the article at least.)
So here you have it, it's all a bunch of baloney! But what really intrigues me is that the same people ("feminists") who seem to be "cheering on" Rabbi Carlebach for his supposed willingness to "ordain" women (thus making him  a "good guy" in their eyes) are at the same time digging for dirt about him that he took sexual advantage of women too (which makes him a "bad guy") which makes it seem that they simply do not know much about, nor do they care much for, Rabbi Carlebach "The Singing Rabbi" himself. IZAK 03:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problematic and unreliable sources

message: Izak, you are trying my patience. Why are you removing cited information without discussing it on the talk page? This page has been in dispute before, over this very same information. Discuss it here, or leave it alone. Ckessler 05:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted Changes

message: I think that the Awareness Center link should be deleted. It is highly personal and since the case is not mentioned in the article, it shocks to see the link there.
*So do it. IZAK 12:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: We don't need to revert war.  Let me bring one of the WP policies to the attention of newcomers Demblin and David in Dc: 3-Revert-Rule which essentially prohibits any editor from reverting more than three times in an article in a 24-hour period.
Meanwhile, the Lilith external link meets policy standards.  However, since I've added it as a reference to the article body, it's actually unnecessary to have as an external link.  Sources in the article body are preferable to external links anyway, if they can be incorporated, which we have now done. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To our newcomers

message: Hello from the old world: I changed the year of birth from 1925 to 1926 according to:
Sabine Niemann (Ed.): Die Carlebachs, eine Rabbinerfamilie aus Deutschland , Ephraim-Carlebach-Stiftung (Hrsg). Dölling und Galitz. Hamburg 1995,  (German), published in 1995 by Ephraim Carlebach foundation in Leipzig, Germany. And I added other facts I took from the book. According to this book he died on October 20th, not on October 22nd. Has anybody got further information? --MrsMyer 17:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mrs. Meyer, It appears you are correct about the date of death, but as far as the date of birth is concerned, both "Holy Brother" [] and "Reb Shlomele" give the year as 1925. Most sources that I've read give his age at death as 69, which would indicate a 1925 year of birth. The "Reb Shlomele" book also brings [on pp. 78-79] a photo of a page from The Jerualem Post Magazine of April 20, 1995, giving the year of birth as 1925. Perhaps someone can contact a family member to find out. Demblin 14:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello, Demblin, sorry I haven't any other sources about his dates apart from the book mentioned above. So I leave it to you. Two other sources are better than one. --MrsMyer 15:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to change it back, then; if anyone can confirm otherwise, please let us know.Demblin 11:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, I note that Neshama Carlebach, one of R. Carlebach's daughters, herself refers to her father's 10th yuhrtzeit as being October 31, 2004 (10th year], the same as 16 Kislev, which in 1994 was on Thu. Oct. 20, at night. I saw a reference, again I didn't note the source, that R. Carelebach died at night. Her web-site is the source for this and is one of the external links. ZMbenChaim 03:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: A recent edotor inserted a divorce into this biography.  It's unsourced and news to me.  A religious divorce?  With a get? A civil divorce? Does anyone know? David in DC (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divorced? 

message: Same question as the divorce.  Does anybody know if this assertion, recently inserted, is true.  It's believable, but I don't know it for a fact and the assertion is unsourced.  Does anyone know? David in DC (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Couldn't read music? 

message: As the allegations in the 'Controversy' section appear to be unproved and unproveable, and since, as the article itself well says, "Carlebach [can]not respond to his accusers," it is certainly safer not to include this information. Wikipedia is not a courtroom in which we may try dead men. Besides this, the evidence is, to say the least, exceedingly scanty, and it is better to err on the side of honesty and presumption of innocence than on that of tale-bearing and gossip. JehoshaphatJIJ (talk) 11:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The normal course of things on wikipedia, at least where biographies of living people are not involved, is to consult the talk page first, discover if there's a current consensus, and then attempt to argue for a new consensus, before deleting sourced material that's been the subject of discussion, debate, and consensus building. If you'll look up above, and through this article's history, dating back to 2007, you'll find that inclusion of the Lilith material is the current consensus. I'm going to revert the edit deleting the consensus version. Please do not re-delete this sourced material without first achieving a new consensus on this talk page, if you can. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Careful! 

message: Even biographies of the dead, although not subject to WP:BLP, must be careful about presenting a balanced biography.  I have worked on this article for many years, and have consistently argued for inclusion of the Lilith material (please see everything above.) The addition of so much more from the Lilith article now gives undue weight, in a fairly short biography, to these matters.  We provide the source.  We need not paraphrase the whole article.  To do so changes the article from an WP:NPOV summary to an unbalanced screed. David in DC (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue Weight

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Shlomo Carlebach (musician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141107023632/http://www.judaism.com/bio.asp?author=Shlomo%20Carlebach to http://www.judaism.com/bio.asp?author=Shlomo%20Carlebach
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Shlomo Carlebach (musician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061215194801/http://www.myjewishlearning.com/culture/Music/TOSynagogueMusic/Hasidic_Carlebach.htm to http://www.myjewishlearning.com/culture/Music/TOSynagogueMusic/Hasidic_Carlebach.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090528092126/http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c39_a15840/News/International.html to http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c39_a15840/News/International.html
*Added  tag to http://www.kolchevra.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please reach a consensus on this issue or it's going to go back and forth forever. The information was recently added with no discussion. It is therefore fair that it should be debated before inclusion. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The adding "without discussion" makes no difference. The addition correctly carried out the instructions at WP:LEAD. In the lead section we must summarize all important points found in the article body. Question: how would you present this material in the first two paragraphs? Because it's going to be presented in some form, and you may want to have a say in the matter. We will carry out the spirit of WP:LEAD by saying something about the controversy. Binksternet (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's of no personal importance for me but for others it clearly is. The article lived for a decade without it being in the lead which is probably why there is a back and forth going on. I created this to solve a dispute I noticed and will leave this matter to be discussed by previous editors and those better informed than myself.  Alexandre8 (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorperation of sexual abuse allegations in Lead 

message: I would like to insert the following sentence immediately above the subsection titled "Death":  Rabbi Carlebach opened the doors to post Holocaust Jewish spiritual revival, fearlessly crossed denominational lines, energized the Soviet Jewry movement, dialogued with leaders of other religions and promoted women’s spiritual leadership.
Please insert the following sentence immediately above the subsection titled "Death":
"Rabbi Carlebach opened the doors to post Holocaust Jewish spiritual revival, fearlessly crossed denominational lines, energized the Soviet Jewry movement, dialogued with leaders of other religions and promoted women’s spiritual leadership." Karolafriedman (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: . If your request was a simple summary of referenced material already found in the article body, then I would have added it immediately. But the article has nothing about denominational lines, nothing about a movement of Soviet Jews, and nothing about promoting women to leadership positions. So your request is not supported by any citations. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2021

message: There is totally disproportionate focus on what are still completely unproven allegations, that by no means dominate the discourse surrounding Carlebach or his legacy, despite what one might take away from this article. It's already more than adequately and even somewhat vociferously covered in in the 'Controversy' section. Is it usual to include it in the introductory section as well? I think not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.245.90 (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gratuitous emphasis on Allegations