Talk:David Rotem

Latest comment: 9 years ago by Number 57 in topic Controversy section

Controversy section edit

I removed the controversy section for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it's a fairly clear violation of WP:UNDUE, as it accounted for over a third of the body of the article. Secondly, there is an issue over whether the claims of what he supposedly said are factually accurate. The Jerusalem Post source quotes a Knesset staffer (i.e. an apolitical witness) who "said he did not hear Rotem say Reform Jews are not Jews, but that they are “a different stream” within Judaism." This is what Rotem also claims to have said, and is also factually correct (so is not actually controversial). Cheers, Number 57 18:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

No problem with the "undue" issue, since I'm filling in a lot of the other issues he's worked on as well as biographical details. But if you google him, at least a half of the first three pages of results have to do with his remarks on Reform Judaism and the controversy created. So it's a big deal, what he's primarily known for in the English speaking Jewish community---the likely readers of this article. In an email he called his remarks "a mistake," but he also says he only considers someone Jewish if their mother is Jewish, quite different from the Reform view that acknowledges patrilineal descent, and he has said he does not consider Reform rabbis rabbis. Sarna and Jacobs provide additional detail into why his comments about Reform Judaism are not simply an insult, but a matter of Israel's law of return for members of the diaspora, a large percentage of whom are Reform. I will continue adding more info on Rotem. Cheers! VanEman — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanEman (talkcontribs) 06:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
@VanEman: Your recent spate of edits hasn't really addressed the WP:UNDUE situation – if anything it's made it worse as almost everything in the political career section involves some kind of criticism or controversy. I now make it that over 50% of the article is devoted to something he has been criticised for. Number 57 11:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply