Talk:Steven Greenberg (rabbi)

Libel

The entire section of "Controversy" in the article is libellous and should be removed. All three statements there are hearsay, not back up by any sources, and/or a stretching of one of Rabbi Greenberg's articles. From whom are the personal accounts of Rabbi Greenberg trying to persuade them against the traditional understanding of Torah from Sinai? I attempted to remove this whole section once, and will do so again if it isn't changed immediately. I will also forward this problem on to the Wikipedia people.66.65.130.154 04:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Steven Goldstein

• Although WP:BLP does not require me to discuss my edit, I will anyway. I removed the controversy section per WP:BLP. The section was unsourced, with the exception of one source. The statement in the article that references that source constitutes Original Research, and also is not allowed. (The statement is a conclusion drawn from reading of the source, and not necessarily the only conclusion, that is WP:OR). Any negative information on a living person must be solidly sourced from third party reliable sources, otherwise that information is to be removed without discussion. Crockspot 17:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• • I have restored the Controversy section in the article, and I have added a link to source it. It is not libelous (or if it is, Greenberg should take legal action against the owner of the Orthodykes blog), but is rather pertinent to a complete picture of the man. He has made himself a public figure, and it is not libel to point out that his reality and his image differ. With regard to the claim of "Original Research", the third party source I have referenced clearly does draw the conclusion in the Controversy section. Further, the Ger Toshav section that had been added to the article was itself in breach of the Original Research rule, so I revised that accordingly.

In accordance with Wikipedia's policy both on sourcing and re living persons, I have removed the third item from this section. WK's standard policy on sourcing comments excludes personal blogs and websites. The comments are on a website, unsourced, from someone who does not reveal her name. While I do not think that ascribing the denial of the divine origin of the Pentateuch to someone is inherently libelous, I think that in this context, Rabbi Greenberg would have a cognizable claim for reputation injury. In any case, the source is unacceptable per Wikipedia's oft-announced policy on source reliability and verifiability. 66.108.105.21 04:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Plagiarism

The latest edit included major plagiarism from this (uncited) website: http://www.wrestlingwithgodandmen.com/go.php?q=theAuthor/05-authorBioAndPhotos.html

It looks like it has good information, but someone needs to go through it and write it up properly, not just cut and paste. And also cite the source. ShalomShlomo 18:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Is Greenberg Orthodox?

He isn't ortodox, please, the homosexuality is forbiden by the torah and no supported by any REAL rab...come on... Bresolver 22:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Breslover- in the future, when you add a comment to a talk page, if it's a new subject, please make a new subject heading, as I just have, above.

In regards to your comment, I believe that the article already mentions the fact that there is a considerable tension and divergence between Greenberg's affiliation as a openly gay, and Orthodox, Jew (and rabbi), and the traditional viewpoints of many of the world's frum people. I don't see what else can be said on the subject, short of expanding the introductory section, or making a new "controversy" section within the article.

In general, you'll find that your comments and ideas will be better received here if you offer constructive solutions rather than simply toss out criticisms, especially one-liners. ShalomShlomo 23:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the Wikipedia article legitimates Greenberg's position too much. His claims are based on nothing more than graduating from RIETS and being involved with Orthogays, a subculture that existed long before he came on the scene. The article needs to make clear that the assertion that even if Greenberg were right that he retains what limited authority/respect a graduate of RIETS gains from ordination (which he doesn't), that does not make it any more likely that Orthodoxy will embrace homosexuality. All it says is that in this age of giving aliyas to people as they wear their cell phones on Shabbat, there are a lot more people who are known to be engaging in homosexual relations also being welcomed to participate as much as possible in Judaism. The Rebbe had more to do with that (and gets blamed for it far more) than Greenberg ever will. PhatJew 13:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The Significance of the R' Elyashiv Story

It would be interesting to hear other opinions, but I found the significance of the story to be that religious jews should not assume that people with homosexual urges are evil or disgusting people. Rather, they are people stuck in a torturous position without an easy solution. However, I did not find the story to mean that we should have sympathy for the philosophical POSITION (sorry I can't figure out how to italicize) of those who identify themselves as frum and identify themselves as gay. Right now the article implies this rather strongly. Shykee 01:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Shykee

Shykee- Thanks for the note. I agree with your distinction, and, thinking about it a little more, think you're probably right. The latter part of the sentence does suggest a bit of editorializing on my part, which, while perhaps technically true (the story does demonstrate that frum Jews CAN have compassion for frum Jews who have gay urges and both do and don't identify as gay), does not exactly follow from Eliashiv's response. In the interest of being precise, I'm going to try to re-write the sentence. Let me know what you think. Incidentally, you can italicize by using two ' marks. Incidentally, in order to help people keep track of what you write on talk pages, you should start adding your signature after your notes, by using four tildes (~). ShalomShlomo 06:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

ShalomShlomo- Thanks for the tips. I thought the re-write was pretty precise. Again, thanks for the pointers, Shykee 01:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Shykee

The Rabbi's comment is too cryptic to be deciphered in an analytic fashion with any degree of certainty. While your interpretation is possible, it is equally possible that the Rabbi found himself in--to use your own words--a "torturous position without an easy solution," in that he realized that his feelings heretofore on the proscription d'Oraisa on gay sex clashed with his humane feelings about the person sitting in front of him. Hence his response. Interesting how I read his (Elyashiv's) comment very differently from some of you. While I have no proof that my interpretation is correct, it has as much basis as the one offered above. 66.108.105.21 03:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Allen Roth- right you are. I suggest you write your interpretation up and put it in. ShalomShlomo 06:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly frank, I think that no interpretations should be in the article, because they all constitute original research. I really meant when I wrote that the Rabbi's comments are not amenable of analytic treatment. I didn't remove the other interpretation because I think that any reader of this article has the Rabbi's statement, and can form his own conclusions, and there is this Talk Page with comments on it. I've been doing editing on wiki for some time now, and I don't generally like to tinker with an article unless I feel it is really necessary; I've run into the "Wiki Police," and I find it very unpleasant. To me, editing is an avocation, and I just don't have the inclination to pursue edit wars. As a matter of fact, I think that my edit of an earlier part of this article (see above) is the riskiest thing I've ever done. But upon reading this article and examining the link, I felt it was grossly violative of wiki's policies. On any controversial topic here, I find the Talk Pages at least as informative as the body of the article itself, which I'm sure you probably know, if you ever go into any article on the Israeli-Palestine issue, which is probably one of the 3 or 4 hottest areas in wiki. I just came across this article, and upon checking the history I simply could not believe the amount of editing that went into just the first line of this article, simplying identifying who this Mr. Greenberg is. There are simply too many people out there with so much invested in their political or religious position to tolerate one word in an online encyclopedia that they feel is "incorrect." 66.108.105.21 11:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Actually, to be a little more candid, what exactly is the point of the anecdote? It is not to convey what R. Elyashiv thinks is the status of gay sex according to Jewish law. That is what other writers seem to think. No. The point of the story is what the Rabbi's comments meant for Greenberg, when he heard them. Here was a tortured young man, trying to find a way out of his darkness. He sought out a pious Jewish sage. And the impact of what R. Elyashiv had on Greenberg was not so much that Elyashiv obliquely implied that Greenberg might be able to make love for the first time (which--as we have seen--is unclear), but rather that Elyashiv indicated that being gay is not a revolting obstacle to living a moral Orthodox Jewish life. That, I believe, is the significance of the story. That Greenberg realized that he would not be utterly cast out from the Jewish community that meant so much to him. And that is conveyed by the anecdote, without any additional embellishment or comment. I guess that's why I didn't feel the need to further analyze the rabbi's comment in the body of this article.66.108.105.21 13:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

"Orthodox Rabbi"- correct NPOV language

The article's language at present seems to imply that there is some controversy as to whether Greenberg can be considered Orthodox. Without taking sides, I think it is unfair to edit the article to imply that he definitely is Orthodox. Obviously, many would disagree and the article should reflect a neutral POV. However, if anyone feels that the article's tone implies that he is definitely NOT an Orthodox rabbi, than it would be great if someone out there could further edit the article be more NPOV than the current language. Thanx, Shykee 02:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)shykee

I wrote the above before seeing Jayjg's current revision. It is indeed very NPOV and improves on the old version. Shykee 02:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)shykee

On further thought, it seems that the article can be easily misunderstood to imply that Greenberg was openly gay at the time of the "semicha". And by the way, lest anyone fallaciously argue that there is only one possible POV and that is that Greenberg is an Orthodox Rabbi, I quote a prominant member of the RIETS faculty, "Being an Orthodox Rabbi and actively gay is an oxymoron," said Rabbi Moshe Tendler, Rosh Yeshiva and Professor of Biology... Tendler said that Rabbi Greenberg's announcement is "the exact same as if he said, 'I'm an Orthodox Rabbi and I eat ham sandwiches on Yom Kippur.' What you are is a Reform Rabbi."(YU Commentator Volume 64 Issue 1). Actually, it would be interesting to hear a response to this. In any case the article is being re-edited to be NPOV. Shykee 17:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)shykee

He has semicha from RIETS, and he is openly gay. These are facts. He does not "identify himself as an Orthodox Rabbi", which implies undue doubt that he does indeed have semicha, about which there is no question. Tendler's criticism certainly belongs in the article, but the intro should simply state the facts. Also, your claim that he is the "only well-known" anything is original research; unless you have a source which states this, you cannot include the claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"identify himself as an Orthodox Rabbi" implies that there is doubt that he is still Orthodox at all, the focus is on "Orthodox", not "rabbi". That exactly reflects Tendler's comments. Your presentation of "facts" does not admit to the timeline, i.e. he announced his homosexuality after he received semicha. Do you think that RIETS would have given him semicha if he had been openly gay at the time? Also, my addition of "well known" was meant to pacify those who would claim they personally know of more. The edit is not "original research", any obvious fact can be considered "original research" according to your interpretation. As it is, if you can list anyone else who identifies as an Orthodox rabbi and openly is gay, then you have a point. However that is not the main thrust of my edit and if you can come up with a NPOV edit, go ahead. Shykee 18:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)shykee

Did he get Orthodox semicha? Yes. That's what is a neutral fact. The rest of the "but I don't think he's Orthodox any more" arguments can be hashed out in the article. As for being "the first", or "the only", or the "best known", please find a reliable source which confirms that, in order to ensure that the article follows Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If someone would say "The first rule in any logical system is that common sense must be valued" no doubt we could find a wikipedian out there who would coolly challenge this as "original research" saying "How do you know it is the first rule, maybe its the second or even the third" and triumphantly insert the edit "citation needed" next to the statement. Saying that Greenberg is the first or only is not "original research" etc. Why is there an article about Greenberg at all ? Is it because there are many many Orthodox Rabbis who are publicly gay, or is it because he was a grounbreaker, unprecedented, innovative, call it what you want. It would be absurd, and against common sense, to write an article about Greenberg without explaining why there is an article about him at all! Anyhow, if a request for a source is obdurately made, we have no better source than Greenberg's official bio on his website, http://www.wrestlingwithgodandmen.com/go.php?q=theAuthor/05-authorBioAndPhotos.html . Here is the quote, "Upon his return to the US in March of 1999, Greenberg came out publicly as the first openly gay Orthodox rabbi." If more sources are needed here are links to a couple of news sources describing him as the first. http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=12194 http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/22258/edition_id/449/format/html/displaystory.html http://yuweb.addr.com/v64i1/news/gayrabbi.shtml http://www.jewishjournal.org/archives/archiveMay28_99.htm http:// Shykee 18:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)shykee

Please read WP:NOR and WP:RS carefully. We don't make contributions based on our own assumptions or logical theories, but rather quote what reliable sources say on the matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly the point, the simple question ,Why is there an article at all ?, becomes a "logical theory" and "assumption" dismissed with a helpful suggestion to "carefully" read WP:NOR. As to the exact quotation of Greenberg's bio, obviously something from the bio can be accepted if it is not controversial. However, since he obviously describes himself as Orthodox and obviously others do not, then a description of him as Orthodox from his website's bio cannot be presented without also quoting the other POV. I see that Jayjg is a respected editor. Are there any objections to the present edit? It does not decide the two POV as to whether he is currently Orthodox, yet it does present his Orthodox semicha as fact- a happy medium, in short classic NPOV. If indeed it seems to some to unduly imply that he is definitely not Orthodox, then please find a better way of expressing the sentence while not erasing both POV. Shykee 19:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)shykee

When it comes to your POV vs. reliable citations, reliable citations win every time. The simple fact is that he got Orthodox semicha, which no-one questions. The fact that you want to ex post facto question his Orthodoxy or his "Rabbiness" is irrelevant to the cited and undisputed facts. You had a chance for a different intro, which merely stated that he had Orthodox ordination, but that wasn't good enough for you; no, you had to insert the "identified as an Orthodox Rabbi" nonsense. Well, now you're stuck with cited quotations. Enough already. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"You had a chance for a different intro...that wasn't good enough for you...well now you're stuck..." Please read WP:POV carefully as it seems that you are suggesting that a correct version be edited in order to penalize those who would have a different POV than you. Also, please remember that although you personally feel that a published POV is "nonsense", Wikipedia can only quote one POV if it also quotes, or at least mentions, other published POVs that disagree. If you insist on quoting the article than you should also include quotes from Tendler and Muskin, as they are directly quoted in the articles. Remember, the article must include quotations from, or at least representation of, both POVs in order to be NPOV. Thanks, Shykee 18:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)shykee

The point being that the wording I provided, as neutral and non-controversial, was one that you reverted, and now have subsequently restored once I pointed out that the sources all say something much stronger. The fact that Yeshiva University describes him as "the first openly gay Rabbi" is pretty conclusive, and the other reliable sources saying the exact same thing seal the deal. By all rights I should simply revert your changes, since you have substituted euphemisms for direct quotes, but I'll let this stand as a compromise. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the wording you provided is that it does not correctly describe the situation. There certainly were other Orthodox rabbis before Greenberg who announced their homosexuality. However, the others renounced Orthodoxy and Greenberg was the first one to still identify himself as Orthodox. This should be amply clear in the intro, and it is not. What must somehow be conveyed is that Greenberg was the first person to announce his homosexuality and still either remain Orthodox or untruly claim to be Orthodox (depending on the POV). The article is being edited to read "the first person with Orthodox ordination to announce his homosexuality and still affirm belief in Orthodox Judaism". Hopefully this will satisfy all parties. Shykee 22:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)shykee

By the way, attempting to falsely attribute the statement of the author of an article to sound as if it is YU's official position is disingenuous and silly and cannot be ignored. In addition, that very same author goes on to quote Tendler as holding that Greenberg can no longer be considered Orthodox! What you are saying is that the author of the YU article agrees with you- so what ? There still is a POV that Greenberg is no longer Orthodox, as quoted by that same author, and it cannot be ignored. On a separate note, your willingness to compromise is certainly admirable. Cheers, Shykee 00:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)shykee

Where has he ever stated that since he came out as a homosexual that he views himself as an Orthodox Rabbi? I think it's clear he was at the very least ordained as an Orthodox Rabbi from YU before he came out of the closet. The point is that everyone who seems to be against him wants to infer that he thinks he is. Where's the source of this claim? He clearly is very knowledgeable about Orthodox Judaism but so are numerous academics. I don't see them being attacked. Is there an inferiority complex being brewed? The bottom line is this mostly American phenomenon of denominational religion is just become divisive. Jews should accept others as who they claim, and if there are things that get in the way of that they work that out privately. There's too much bucketing. And, I think that's what is happening here. Everyone want to slice and dice this guy into a bucket. They never personally talked to him and found out about his life but they are the subject matter experts based on a compilation of heresay and some verifiable tidbits of information. I am not defending his choices, but I am questioning the way in which the witch trial is being conducted. 216.195.89.58 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Marriage?

Is he married? Don't Orthodox rabbis have to be? —Angr 22:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Orthodox rabbis don't have to be married. Marriage is a requirement for sitting on the Sanhedrin (the rabbinic high court), but not for being a rabbi as such. LisaLiel 18:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Rabbi

There are lots of people who qualify for semicha (which some people call ordained). They do not automatically become rabbis. Semicha qualifies them to be appointed as a rabbi. There is nothing in this article to suggest that Steven Greenberg has served as a rabbi. Category:Rabbis is for serving rabbis. --Redaktor 23:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with your definitions.. and the Wikipedia article Rabbi seems to suggest that it is semicha which makes one a rabbi! There is nothing on the category page which suggests it should be restricted to Rabbis who have had a congragation! in any case the page is called Steven Greenberg (rabbi) !!!! Surely you should change that first!!! Have a good night! Zargulon 23:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 04:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi everybody. I have completly rewritten the article, trying to transform the personal interpretations of some well meaning but probably biased editors into a wiki-article for the general public. Greenberg is according to virtually all reliable sources an “Orthodox Jewish rabbi”, and called “the world’s first openly gay Orthodox rabbi” by uncountable sources. Why? For the simple reasons that
a) he is an ordained rabbi, having smichah from a leading Orthodox USAmerican institution (RIETS), and
b) as far as I can make out, the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) has not taken any stand (against him), which may or may not mean that he is not a member of the RCA and therefore cannot (be threatened to) be kicked out, unlike e.g. rabbi Avi Weiss, after he ordained the first rabba, and
c) he himself has not abandoned the Orthodox Jewish faith. He is, by his own definition, what's called Modern Orthodox in the US, he doesn't claim to be ultra-Orthodox, and
d) he is openly gay.
In a post on my talk page, Lisa objected to my calling him what he is, namely an Orthodox rabbi in the lead, so I changed that. Now Lisa has put unsourced personal opinions, feelings, reservations, and more (back) into the article, which clearly have no business being there, even if some people - not necessarily Jews - understandably have strong feelings about issues like the sanctity of the Hebrew Bible, homosexuality, intermarriage and the like. I'm going to remove these unsourced POV-edits including the - quite funny - blog post, and I hope that it does not lead to an edit war, Ajnem (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I kept many of your changes, because they added content, even though it does seem that you're trying to turn this into a publicity piece for Greenberg. I even omitted the blog post because, despite the fact that it is extremely pertinent information, blog posts do not qualify (except in rare situations) as reliable sources under Wikipedia guidelines. However, I reverted the sections on "controversial writings", the "ger toshav" article, and the "kiddushin" in DC. I don't know why you think it's okay to essentially remove any material that might be considered critical of Greenberg, but it's inappropriate behavior on Wikipedia. Please try and be a little more cooperative. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of problems with this article. I have flagged some of them up with my recent edit. Objectively, Greenberg is an "Orthodox rabbi" because, as Ajnem says, that is the way he is widely, although not universally, referred to in the reliable sources that mention him. Some Orthodox sources say that he either not a rabbi and/or not orthodox, but then some orthodox sources say that the very word "orthodox" is an inaccurate way of referring to the community that we call "orthodox", and yet we still call them that. An appropriate way of putting it would be "Greenberg is the first.. orthodox rabbi.. although his status as an orthodox rabbi is controversial/disputed". The strictures of WP:BLP are sometimes a legitimate reason to preferentially remove negative comments about a person, but even notwithstanding that, I completely disagree that Ajnem's edits suggest a motive of "trying to turn this into a publicity piece for Greenberg", and I cordially remind Lisa of WP:AGF. Zargulon (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you Zargulon. Lisa, your edits are annoying, not because I disagree with them, but because they are unsourced. Dear Lisa, if you want to add ctitical rewiews about either Greenberg's book or any of his articles, by all means do so. My edits about them were just a start up, for the simple reason that I did not, repeat not, find any reliable negative comment about them, allthough I'm sure they exist. Accusing me of “essentially remove any material that might be considered critical of Greenberg” is, in view of my last edits, plain ridiculous. I added two critical statements that are both sourced and pertinent, and they come from two eminent Orthodox rabbis. Your two lines about the book are neither sourced nor pertinent and the heading is beyond comment, and the same goes for what you put under the heading "ger toshav article" which is not only not sourced but on top of it has nothing to do with Greenberg, and the "kiddushin" thing is not sourced either. Please add your sources, and stop making it look like the sources that reference my edits also reference yours - they do not, and for the time being I'm leaving the unsourced text but just move the refs to the right place and add a “citation needed” to the unsourced additions. And as hard as it may be, but potential readers of this or any article on Wikipedia are not interested in what users Lisa, Zargulon, Ajnem and more think about Jewish law, homosexuality, intermarriage or Rabbi Greenberg, but want to find out what the world at large has to say about it - so Lisa, please add sources to your edits, and stop reverting sourced text in favor of unsourced, it is - in your words - “inappropriate behavior on Wikipedia”. And by the way, I wouldn't even dream of “trying to turn this into a publicity piece for Greenberg”, I personally find his stance rather unconvincing, but he points his finger at something that IMO is worth writing about. And I agree with you, Zargulon, that it has to be made clear(er) that (only?) mainstream Jewish Orthodoxy rejects Greenberg, my problem is, that I don't find any statements by Ortodox organizations, not even from the Rabbinical Council of America which issues a statement about practically everything. Rabbi Shafran is a speaker of Agudah, but his piece is only very mildly critical of Greenberg and the passage is too humorous to be meant to be taken seriously. Rabbi Tendler is with the Yeshiva University, but his statement is in his own name, if I'm not mistaken, not YU's. To my knowlege, all the important Orthodox Jewish organizations in the US issued statements against same-sex marriage legislation, but not about Greenberg. I only got interested in him because of the marriage celebration in Washington, which prominently figures in the American Jewish press, but so far didn't seem to trigger any reaction from Orthodox bodies, and to my surprise, I didn't find anything at all about it in the Washington Post, and the New York Times only has this. So, let's not overestimate the importance of rabbi Greenberg or his Wikipedia entry, and let's all practice what we preach, Ajnem (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Several things. First, he is not "objectively an Orthodox rabbi". Second of all, Ajnem, the +972 article is a reliable source for the use of kiddushin in that ceremony. If you don't realize that, you should reread it. It says specifically that the language used was "Harei ata mekudash li". As far as the "ger toshav" article, if you want sources, you shall have them. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The controversial claims section requires sources not merely for Greenberg's quotes, but for its assertion that these quotes are against "Established Jewish law" and that they are "controversial claims". I hope we shall have these as well! I am not sure I would describe these quotes as "claims" anyway, more like "teachings" or "interpretations".

I also changed the lead from "believed to be" to "generally described as".. I felt it was more accurate since description is verifiable whereas belief is not. Comments appreciated. Zargulon (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I attempted to clean up the Wrestling with God and Men criticism section. There was not a clear enough correspondence between Greenberg's quotes and Lopatin's quotes, so I removed Greenberg's: people can always go read the review if they want to know exactly what Lopatin was referring to, and some of Lopatin's criticisms were general anyway. It is also the case that Lopatin's direct criticism was about the Orthodoxy of Greenberg's methodology, and about Greenberg's commitment to Orthodoxy over other ideology; according to Lopatin, Greenberg's conclusions were invalid because of these shortcomings, not because they were against "established Jewish Law", which is not a phrase that appears at all in Lopatin's review. I therefore removed this. Zargulon (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Lisa, I'm afraid I didn't understand your edit summary, except for the fact that you wanted Greenberg's quotes reinstated, which I did. Please could you try to explain more clearly here? Thanks. Zargulon (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologetics and WP:COI

On December 11-12, 2011, four edits to this article were made by SGoldstein ([1], [2], [3], [4]). I reverted these edits for two reasons. One is that the edits changed the article so that it looked as though it was Steve Greenberg himself arguing his position. That's known as apologetics. The other reason, which I wasn't going to mention, is that SGoldstein (contribs) is Steve Goldstein, Steve Greenberg's partner ([5]). Which is a definite conflict of interest. So I'm going to change the article back again. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to change the text of that section to address the stylistic problem you perceive, but please don't do it by re-introducing unsourced text, which was properly removed. Do you have any evidence that used Sgoldstein29 is Steve Goldstein, Steve Greenberg's partner, or do you merely suppose this? If you have evidence, then I would agree that there is a conflict of interest. Zargulon (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes SGoldstein (contribs), is me Steven Goldstein, Steve Greenberg's partner. I didn't know that there was a conflict of interest clause about family, but I'm trying to take out problematical sections to this page. Lisa, everyone should know, might herself fall under some conflict of interest in that she is not objective on Steve Greenberg and has what seems to be a personal vendetta against him, which can be seen in numerous blog posts, her own blogs, and comments to articles written by or about Steve Greenberg. She defiinitely does not write from a neutral POV, but instead writes with an ulterior motive. I tried to remain objective in my edits, I tried to only source quotes on the subjects already presented by others with actual material that Steve Greenberg published. Please advise me if this was done improperly. Thanks.Sgoldstein29 (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Steven - thank you for making your identity clear. The conflict of interest guidelines do not forbid you from contributing. Just take a flick through WP:COI and particularly WP:COI#Close relationships and everything should be fine. Your edits to the article will be subject to greater scrutiny than those someone uninvolved, but provided you can cope with this, your contribution is welcomed and we hope the article will benefit from your inside knowledge. As to Lisa's alleged conflict of interest, can you provide any evidence that she has a material conflict of interest, rather than just a strong point of view? The thing about conflicts of interest is that they are often concealed by the editor involved. Lisa seems to have been explicit about her attitude towards Rabbi Greenberg and his teachings. Zargulon (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Zargulon. Thanks for your message. I have looked over the WP:COI and if I add more I'll try to follow the dictates as best I can. As for Lisa it says on the COI page that "Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization." With that understanding, Lisa might truly pose a COI as she is a committed Orthodox Jew with a strong personal commitment to proving that Steve Greenberg is no longer orthodox and doesn't represent the gay orthodox community. Since she is personally involved in said community it seems that she might not be able to really add to an unbiased encyclopedic entry on this subject. But perhaps it just means that her edits also must be held under high scrutiny. Thanks again.Sgoldstein29 (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Steven, I repeat my question of whether or not you can provide any evidence that Lisa has a conflict of interest. Failing that, perhaps we should stop discussing Lisa and resume our discussions of and contributions to this article. Zargulon (talk) 12:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me, but what would be considered evidence in this case, for wikipedia's purpose? I'll happily stop talking about Lisa, but please tell me to whom I have to appeal for help in stopping her biased edits of the article. Thanks again.Sgoldstein29 (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• First question: "what would be considered evidence..": Anything that would give independent corroboration to the statements you have made about the existence of Lisa's real-world interests and activities. It wouldn't be fair to just take your word for it, just as I didn't take her word for the assertion that you are the Steven Goldstein mentioned in the article.

• Second question: "who to appeal for help in stoping her biased edits": you have to have faith that Wikipedians will ensure the article is neutral, and you can participate in doing this yourself. There are various procedures that you can undertake if you feel that the article is irredeemably libellous, and reading Wikipedia's guidelines on the biographies of living persons might help with that. Nonetheless it is my feeling that we have not reached that stage yet, and the aim should not be to exclude Lisa or anyone else. Lisa is allowed to make edits of the article which are guided by her point of view, and that is not a problem provided there are other editors working on the article, as seems to be the case. Zargulon (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Zargulon, would this suffice? This is from a blog that Lisa used to run called Orhtodykes. This is the last line from a post she wrote about Steve Greenberg on October 30, 2006-"Be warned. Steve Greenberg is no representative of gay and lesbian orthodox Jews." Or this from her response to a comment on the same page-"I don't understand the question. Did you read what I wrote? The man tried to convince me that the Torah was not literally given at Sinai. He did the same thing with a friend of mine. That may not work as proof for you, because you have no way of knowing that we're telling the truth about this, but it's proof enough for me, since I was actually there." As for the second question, I'll put my faith in the Wikipedians! (Is there a secret handshake?) I'm really not an editor, nor a writer, but I'll attempt to keep up wth what's being written, including all the last edits that were made. Thanks for the help and quidance.Sgoldstein29 (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

And can User:Lisa confirm or deny that she is orthodykes Lisa? 2006 is a long time a go but I'd still be interested. Zargulon (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If the reference from 2006 seems too long ago, perhaps this seems more timely, from October of 2010. In a comment to an editorial Steve wrote for The Jewish Week, a Jewish periodical in New York, titled The Cost of Standing Idly By, Lisa wrote, "That's all very nice, except that you have a book in which you absolutely do challenge the halakha. So I think the rabbi's decision was quite correct. It's one thing to have your views; it's another to publish them." "And Steve, I still haven't forgotten about the evening in Jerusalem when you spent considerable time trying to convince me that Matan Torah didn't literally happen...'I am a committed religious Jew' is an iffy proposition, given all that." The comments, especially the one about the conversation she said she had with Steve (in 1998) has no connection to the editorial.Sgoldstein29 (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Steve. I hope you don't mind, but I marked the line you added to the same-sex marriage section to indicate that it needs a citation from a reliable source. I'm a little puzzled about your change of the name of the section. Do you object to "officiated"? Did he not officiate? And was it not in a synagogue? I'm not sure what part of those pieces of information you considered to be inappropriate. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed all references to "marriage/wedding" from the paragraph in question, since the controversy here is not about the use of the English word 'marriage'. I think this section is properly titled 'same-sex kiddushin', since that is what the controversy is about, even if Greenberg did not actually perform kiddushin. I don't think 'Officiation at...' should be in the title of the section, since the controversy is not just about his officiation, but about his teachings on the applicability of Jewish rituals for same-sex partnerships. Leaving out 'officiation' from the the section title allows the section to cover both aspects.

I agree with Lisa that a citation is required for the proposition that there was a perception that Greenberg had actually made Kiddushin. It seems to me more likely that the objections were over the perceived similarity between what he did and kiddushin. In any case I hope there will be an explicit source. Zargulon (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

And this may come as a surprise, but I disagree with the change you made. The issue of kiddushin is not at all the only controversy involved here, and putting that in the title makes it seem that it is. And I don't know where you got the idea that the marriage part is no part of the controversy. The issues are (a) a same-sex marriage conducted by someone with Orthodox smicha, (b) the fact that it was done in public, in a public venue, (c) the fact that the public venue was a synagogue, and (d) the fact that it used language similar to kiddushin. Ideally, the title of the section should be "Officiating at a same-sex marriage in a synagogue using language similar to kiddushin." But that's ridiculously long, and I think "Officiating at a same-sex marriage in a synagogue" or "Officiating publically at a same-sex marriage". For now, I'm changing it back to Steve's edit, because calling it kiddushin in the title is a direct attack on Greenberg, and untrue, to boot. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 23:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, while I'm willing to leave Steve's editorial remark "thereby giving the incorrect impression that Greenberg performed kiddushin" with only a "citation needed" mark for a short time, if no such citation is provided in a short time, I'm going to have to remove that phrase. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 23:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I will get to fulfilling the need for the citation in section, sorry but shabbat and a young child kept me from getting to this (besides the need to get on with other aspects of my life). I will also get to putting back some quotes from the first edit by Lisa in the Apologetics section as I don't think this is apologetics at all, but rather simply quoting what the subject of this article has written on the points raised. Lisa, perhaps since you seem in such a magnanimous mood, you can figure out a way to write a) that Steve didn't do kiddushin and b) that people (other rabbis, yourself) think he did even though he explicitly says he didn't. Lastly, you were asked to either confirm or deny that you are the Orthodykes Blog Lisa, or even the Lisa in the comment to the Jewish Week Article 'The Cost of Standing Idly By', and you've done neither.Sgoldstein29 (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope the citation(s) help clarify this and satisfy Lisa's request. I've also reverted the Ger Toshav section to what I wrote last week. If people are trying to raise controversies in this section, shouldn't we quote what Steve Greenberg actually said and presented, though it might have been controversial? Lastly, though Lisa insists on the strict Maimonidian (medieval) interpretation of Gerei Toshav, biblically and rabbincally that's not how they were understood.Sgoldstein29 (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Steven - thanks for the citation. I have a slight concern about its relevance.. It seems clear from what you have said that no-one thinks that Greenberg performed a valid orthodox kiddushin - neither Greenberg thinks that, nor his critics. It is an open question, however, whether he performed a "Jewish wedding ceremony", which is what your source criticises him for, and I'm not sure that his defense that it wasn't a kiddushin directly addresses that. How does Greenberg describe what took place.. and was it simply officiation at a civil wedding with Jewish-style proceedings, or does he claim that ceremony afforded the couple some status within Jewish law which they wouldn't otherwise have had?

I think this source is a very good start though and I hope we can continue adding more sources for the controversy which contain explicit criticisms and/or rebuttals. Lisa clearly thinks the controversy was about multiple aspects of the affair and it would be great to see some sources for those. Zargulon (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now I'm asking for help. Lisa has reverted my edit to the Ger Toshav section again, saying that the subject doesn't get to define the controversy, "Nor his spouse." Lisa, though she won't confirm or deny it, is the Orthodykes Lisa, and the same Lisa that has been hounding Steve Greenberg in comments to articles everywhere on the internet. Does she not have to answer your question, Zargulon? I am a newbie at editing, I'm trying to add material from the subject of this article so that people can make up their own mind about whether the controversies are legitimate or not. I'm doing my best to retain a NPOV and just present the material. I'm not saying some of it is not controversial, of course it is. I'm simply trying to let the material speak for itself and not have it and Steve Greenberg be silenced. I won't revert the Ger Toshav section back to what I wrote yet, but please can you look at it. I'll wait to revert my edit until someone else has had a chance to look it over.

On another note, I asked for a citation in the beginning of the article. Whoever wrote that beginning paragraph needs a reliable source to leave that comment stand. I also removed the beginning of the controversies section as the +972 blog is not a good source nor does it say what (I believe) Lisa wrote in the opening to this section. Nor did that reporter base his comments about this on any research or interviews he conducted. Lastly, according to WP:BLPSTYLE in the Criticism and Praise section, views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. In answer to Same-sex wedding source and the questions Zargulon raised, yes, you're correct in thinking that no one thinks he did a valid kiddushin. I guess the point is that his critics think he set out to DO a gay kiddushin (whether they think that would have been valid or not), and Greenberg has said explicitly that he wouldn't do that, and instead used another paradigm, that of a business partnership to try to give the relationship some halachik relevance and status. The controversy there is two fold. I had at one point put in quotes from Greenberg himself about what was done in the ceremony, but Lisa took them out.Sgoldstein29 (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Steven - what I recommend for the moment is that the Ger Toshav material that you want to insert should go to a new section, higher in the page, about Greenberg's writing and comment. It would not be part of the 'Controversy' section, so no-one could say you were 'defining the controversy'. This would make the page better anyway, since at the moment the page is very controversy-heavy. There is also room outside the controversy section for his ideas on gay marriage. My feeling is that Greenberg's thought is notable in itself and not just for the controversy it generated, and this should be reflected in the page. Zargulon (talk) 08:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, that's great. I'll work on it in a bit. Have a happy and joyous holiday.Sgoldstein29 (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

My edits

Hello everybody, I only read the talk page after having edited the article. For your information: I have no conflict of interest, and I hope that my edits help to remove some of the POV introduced by - yes, Lisa's unsourced edits (see above "Recent edits"). Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Anjem - just out of interest, why did you remove "publisher - University of Wisconsin" from the cites? Zargulon (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I thought mentioning the puplisher the first time the book is cited was enough and removed it from the second time onward. If you object, by all means put the publisher in at every cite. Ajnem (talk) 09:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No objection - thanks for explaining. Zargulon (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Birth date

@Sgoldstein29: Hi, I presume that you are familiar with Rabbi Greenberg′s birth date. Would you please add it and remove the ? afterwards. And if you can further add the birthplace, schools he went to and other “trivia”, preferably with a source or two, every journalist who relies on Wikipedia will appreciate it. Thanks, Ajnem (talk) 09:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Intermarriage

Lisa, do you have any source making a link between a) Greenberg's proposal to provide an accepted place for the non-Jewish partners of Jews, with b) the Orthodox stigma of intermarriage, which applies to Jews themselves? I am not aware of any law in any stream of Judaism which obliges non-Jews to not partner Jews, or where it is forbidden to relate to or cater for such partners. Of course they are not regarded as married, but Greenberg does not seem to dispute this. I did not find your discussion of the Orthodox attitude to the act of a Jew who intermarries pertinent to Greenberg's proposal. Please find a source. Zargulon (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course it's pertinent. An ostensibly Orthodox rabbi says something which runs so absolutely counter to the Orthodox Jewish view of intermarriage? As far as specific sources linking them, I don't think it's necessary, but in any case, if a rabbi gets up and says "Eating ham sandwiches on Yom Kippur is okay", you wouldn't see other Orthodox rabbis giving such a ridiculous notion attention by responding to it either.

And are you serious? "I am not aware of any law in any stream of Judaism which obliges non-Jews to not partner Jews"? What on earth does that mean? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Lisa, please provide sources. It doesn't matter that you don't think they are necessary. Zargulon (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you want me to write to rabbis and ask them to publically condemn this nutty thing Steve wrote? Really? I'm not sure why you think you're the arbiter of what requires a source. I've provided a reliable source for the fact that Orthodox Judaism views intermarriage as anathema. Do you dispute this? That's all that's necessary. You don't get to decide what's relevant to the article. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lisa, thanks for your response. Wikipedia is the arbiter of what requires a source, and in WP:BURDEN it says that every addition or restoration of contested material requires a source. If the relevance is contested then a source must be provided to show relevance. Please find sources which

a) explicitly argue that using Ger Toshav to create a place for the non-Jewish partner is wrong because of, or is somehow connected with, the Orthodox law that Jews may not intermarry. Sources which state that orthodox intermarriage is anathema, but do not make this explicit argument, are not relevant to a "Ger Toshav controversy".

and

b) explicitly mention Greenberg's suggestion and characterize themselves as rebuttals to it. Sources which do not do this are not relevant to any "Greenberg controversy".

Please feel free to request clarification on any part of this that you do not understand. Zargulon (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Lisa, you have to provide sources. Far above on 18 November 2011 you said you would!!! Your being the one and only person to think and/or write what you think goes without saying only means that you are the one and only person to think and/or write what you think goes without saying. Wikipedia wants sources, dear Lisa, not your personal opinion. Ajnem (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Lisa - I have removed this material - if you find sources which satisfy the requirements above, please feel free to reinstate it. Zargulon (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

@Lisa′s “verging on vandalism”

Dear Lisa, let me try to make it plain and simple, as you seem to have a 'bret vorm kopf': What we have been waiting for since November of last year (see above), is the following: At least one reliable source dealing critically with Greenberg's piece about intermarriage. No less. You have not provided any reference to such a source and imo waiting any longer for your providing it is futile. The simple fact as of now is that there isn't any controversy about the article. Citing rabbis who condemn intermarriage - and why limit it to Orthodox rabbis, there are plenty of Conservative rabbis who are against intermarriage and actually even Reform rabbis - not to mention Christian, Muslim and more “men of the cloth” who condemn it - has nothing to do with Greenberg's article or stance. So, until you provide at least one source by an “authority” dealing critically with Greenberg's article, the whole paragraph “Between Intermarriage and Conversion” goes out of the section “Controversies” and into the section “Publications”. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 09:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Tags

Hello, if nobody objects, I'm going to remove the tags eventually, Ajnem (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

As there are no objections, I'm removing the tags, Ajnem (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hello everybody. I can't say that I'm happy with the treatment of the same sex marriage-issue in the article as it is now. Ajnem (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Anjem.. what happened was I made some edits to take his publications and activities out of the controversy section, so that the controversy section could deal with the controversy surrounding those publications and events. Then some other editor removed a blog reference on the grounds that it wasn't suitable for BLP. Then I made some minor corrections to the same-sex commitment paragraph which didn't make sense partly owing to my own carelessness.

My edits were just intended to reorganize things and I am aware that some rewriting is going to be necessary. Please feel free to do this, or if you let us know what you are not currently happy with I will make an effort to address your concerns myself. Zargulon (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I don't have any problems with the reorganizing, that's easy to fix, if fixing is needed, but removing what apparently caused all the exitement about the same-sex “marriage” ceremony, namely the +972-piece, imo doesn't make sense. I don't see any BLP-issue here, but if +972 is not considered RS, it can be remedied by using the Jewish Journal article titled “Rabbi marries Orthodox gay couple” [6]. I'll wait and see how it develops before making any changes. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I am not an expert on BLP guidelines but I basically totally agree with you. Zargulon (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to deal with the unfinished business here, Ajnem (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Notability

Is this article really about a person of interest or a way to self promote R. Greenberg by his friends and himself? What makes him worthy of a Wikipedia entry is what I am getting at. There are a lot of important people, but wikipedia should not be used as a who's who in the Jewish world, because he is controversial. I hope wikipedia would weigh in and make an appropriate decision, because it seems like this may in violation of the rules. 184.59.65.106 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a 'friend' of R. Greenberg nor am I R. Greenberg 'himself' but I think he clearly satisfies WP's own notability requirement. A lot of the contributions to this page have actually been made by editors who clearly dislike R. Greenberg or his views. I didn't understand your statement "wikipedia should not be used as a who's who in the Jewish world".. who do you think is using WP in this way? And isn't that their problem, rather than our problem as WP editors? Zargulon (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Not notable? 184.59.65.106, you must be kidding. Ajnem (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Steven Goldstein and Conflict of Interest

As Steve Greenberg's partner, it is a clear violation of WP:COI for Steven Goldstein to edit this article. Particularly as his edits are uniformly made to "defend the honor" of his partner. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Lisa is back at it again. We've already established that there is no conflict of interest with me adding or editing this page, which you seem to use to smear Steve in anyway you can and to try to make him look bad. You never clarified that you yourself may have conflict of interest issues with editing this page, as you have never admitted that you are the Orthodykes Lisa, which the editors have asked you to confirm. I am going to reinsert my edits, keeping the controversy elements to the place where of they're spoken. My edits are not made to "defend the honor" of my partner, they are made to clean up the page and take out the bias of one of the contributors. I suggest that Lisa should leave them alone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgoldstein29 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign.Sgoldstein29 (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Can we have some help here? Is Ajnem or Zargulon still around editing? Thanks.Sgoldstein29 (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Neither of those editors has edited in 2015. Epeefleche (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm asking that Sgoldstein29's edit be reverted. His argument is that questioning Greenberg's orthodoxy is a matter of controversy, and as such, belongs in the section on controversies. But it is no more controversial than labeling him Orthodox in the first place. Either both statements should be in the controversy section (admittedly ridiculous), or both should be in the lede. Goldstein's reason for moving it is that is offends him personally, or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 11:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Lisa Liel's assertion that I moved the sentence because it offends me is ridiculous. She wants to keep it in the lede because she has a personal bias against Greenberg. No where is he labeled Orthodox in the lede or the article for that matter (mostly I'm sure due to her and other's biased editing), and only as being "described" as orthodox, even though he has semicha from an orthodox institution. Her argument to keep it in the lede is circular as she is part of the controversy, even taking the controversy to the editing and this talk page. She doesn't get to decided who is and who isn't orthodox anymore than any other person. The statement that some Orthodox Jews don't consider him orthodox is a controversy and therefore belongs in the controversy section.Sgoldstein29 (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Steve thinks the only reason I could possibly oppose his partner and consider him not-Orthodox is because of a "personal bias". Is Wikipedia really going to be a place where articles are modified by spouses of the article's subject in order to blunt criticism of the subject? If someone doesn't move that statement back into the lede, I'm taking this to arbitration. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Therapy

Question-- It's a minor point in the article, an aside, but the article says

... scolded the movie for not showing Orthodox Jews who have undergone (the now completely discredited) conversion therapy to change their sexual inclinations,[7]

I think the parenthetical note should be deleted; the statement is controversial in its own right and is not relevant to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.44.18 (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Steven Greenberg (rabbi). 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.jewishcincinnati.org/page.aspx?id=222409
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111116195607/http://www.jewishjournal.com/bloggish/item/rabbi_marries_orthodox_gay_couple_20111114 to http://www.jewishjournal.com/bloggish/item/rabbi_marries_orthodox_gay_couple_20111114/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20021107051756/http://www.clal.org/clal_faculty_sg.html to http://www.clal.org/clal_faculty_sg.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929105412/http://www.tremblingbeforeg-d.com/react/agudath.html to http://www.tremblingbeforeg-d.com/react/agudath.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)