Talk:Yisroel Belsky

This Rabbi was the subject of an Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week.

Haredi?

Until today, "Haredi" was in the first paragraph, which makes sense to me, given the Torah Vodaas connections. Today, Jayrav removed "Haredi", I suppose because of his OU work; but if so, then we should also delete him from Category:Haredi rabbis in the United States. Here's the critical question: Anyone know whether or not he considers himself to be charedi? --Keeves 12:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a really stupid distinction. It's very approximate and both ways are fine to be sure. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that it is stupid to distinguish between Haredi and non-Haredi, or that you disagree with my comparison (that Torah Vodaas is Charedi and OU is not)? If the former, well, I agree with you; I don't like these labels either, but the world does use them, and the text of the article should be consistent with the categories at the bottom. If the latter, please share your view on how to define the groups. --Keeves 13:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Bias

I deleted most, if not all, of the biased material. Someone who actually knows some facts about Rabbi Belsky should rewrite this article. 70.107.0.34 (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Rabbi Belsky is Among the leading American Poskim, having received ordination from Harav Moshe Feinstein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.189.4 (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE

Do not make changes to this article without consulting the Rosh Yeshiva. Goldenpupik is a talmid and is following the direction of the Rosh Yeshiva. Retzono zeh kvodo! And his wisdom is greater than ours. Leave the article as it has been edited by Goldenpupik, unless reshus is given to do otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenpupik (talk • contribs) 03:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: Ignore the previous posting. The user who posted it is blocked from editing this page. The demand that he remain in control of the page is against all Wikipedia guidelines (see WP:OWN). --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Photo

please put up this photo http://matzav.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/rav-yisroel-belsky.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.23.50 (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2010

Need evidence that the image complies with Wikipedia:Image use policy. DMacks (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Sexual abuse material

I stumbled upon this article via WP:STiki and reverted an IP on sexual abuse matters, but now I see that the content has a WP:Undue weight feel to it. I will alert the WP:BLP noticeboard to this issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Alerted. Also, there is edit warring over this sexual abuse content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• The article is now protected and the edit warring between anonymous IP editors removing sourced content and adding non-WP:RS content and editors reverting has stopped.
• A significant amount of the WP:RS about him discuss sexual abuse issues. It seems that outside of his own community the sexual abuse material is what he was notable for and is why he got coverage in WP:RS. The source IP editors quoted which multiple editors removed is a religious web site that openly states that its purpose is "to assist in the critical battle against the strong winds of assimilation." [1] Obviously not WP:RS.--Jersey92 (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you're only looking for items that make the rabbi notable out of the community shows bias. There are many people who are notable only within their communities (eg famous mathematicians) and you should have the items that make them notable both within the community and without. The quote that you are referencing has nothing to do with whether it is a reliable source or not. Are you saying that because someone is religious their statements are suspect? I agree with Flyer22 Reborn that this has a feel of WP:Undue weight. This article leaves out the facts that the rabbi defended the alleged sexual abuser before, not after, he had pleaded guilty, and the fact that the husband who was beat up supposedly- nowhere in the source does it prove, so this is hearsay- by his approval, was actually abusive himself. defender583 12:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The only bias is for material sourced with WP:RS. Please see WP:GNG regarding notability. --Jersey92 (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I see that notability does not apply to content within an article. Actua718 (talk) 06:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

To be more unbiased the article should include stuff from this source http://www.vosizneias.com/228916/2016/01/29/brooklyn-ny-thousands-attend-funeral-for-rabbi-yisroel-belsky/ Actua718 (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The site says it is a blog. [2] That is not WP:RS. --Jersey92 (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

And if you search the rabbi on the new york times you get much more than what's covered in this article. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/02/nyregion/symbolic-line-divides-jews-borough-park-debate-over-strictures-for-sabbath.html?pagewanted=all Actua718 (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I will add. --Jersey92 (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that! About the www.vosizneias.com website, it is a blog only so much as NYTimes hosts a blog. It's an established news agency, VIN News, which hosts the blog. http://www.vosizneias.com/authors So it's an acceptable source.Actua718 (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Here are quotes from the about page [3] "Vos Iz Neias (Yiddish for “What’s news?”) is a highly popular, rapidly-growing blog that meets the demanding media needs of the Orthodox Jewish community in New York, across the United States, and around the world." and "We don’t just report. We get involved. And together with our readers, we continue to make a difference." Obviously not WP:RS. --Jersey92 (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

NYTimes reporter Nicolas Kristoff also gets involved. That doesn't preclude reporting of the facts.

Also, please add http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/rabbi-chaim-yisroel-halevi-belsky-ztl-77/2016/01/31/

The VINNews staff page not having any editor listed is at least a caution sign in regards to meeting our WP:RS requirements. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS. It is obvious from multiple portions of the content on the pages you mentioned and from the sites' about pages that they are not WP:RS. The New York Times may have opinions but it will not report as fact things that it cannot back up.--Jersey92 (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

These are unsubstantiated assertions, both about the VINNews and the NY Times.Actua718 (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

In getting a balanced story, I think that although the VINNews page has its defects, it's worth using as a source. Actua718 (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Please remove "Belsky was harshly criticized by other rabbis for his repeated support of sexual abusers and for his alleged intimidation of abuse victims whom he has publicly stated should not report their having been raped to the police.[1]". The sentence implies Belsky knew they had been raped, instead of believing it was a false allegation. That claim is not substantiated by the article. Also, it's in the beginning of the wiki page, but this is not what the rabbi was known for, as you can see from this article: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/rabbi-chaim-yisroel-halevi-belsky-ztl-77/2016/01/31/ Actua718 (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The sentence that you requested be removed is sourced from WP:RS. It seems to be a big part of what he was most notable for as that is what appears in the WP:RS about him rather than those that simply quote him. Without it would he even pass WP:GNG? Multiple anonymous edits were made to remove it and multiple editors restored it. If there is other content about his career that can be found in WP:RS of course it should be added. Non-WP:RS do not matter. Anyone can write anything online. There were edits that included church material quoted by other publications in Bernard Francis Law and it was removed. You may wish to see how reliable sources were used in that article for both his career and the sexual abuse controversy.--Jersey92 (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Of the 5 times he is mentioned in NYTimes I don't see any that are the sexual abuse controversy. Clearly this is not what he is notable for. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=yisroel%20belsky%20site%3Anytimes.com

And all the sexual abuse controversy comes from one reporter in the Jewish Week (the Forward article is just quoting from the Jewish Week). To take one reporter's words seems like imbalance to me.Actua718 (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I added the material from the New York Times articles that quote Belsky to the article. An article quoting someone is not the same as an article about someone. Being quoted 5 times in the New York Times does not by itself even make someone pass WP:GNG. The Forward piece is from 2011. The Jewish Week piece is from 2013, and is about Belsky. It focuses on the abuse controversy and quotes multiple people and organizations about the abuse controversy. If there are other pieces about Belsky in WP:RS that focus on other matters please share them so information in them can be included in the article. So far all other articles about him that have been shared are not from WP:RS.--Jersey92 (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The 2011 Forward article is just quoting the Jewish Week: "As reported in the New York Jewish Week, a leading Brooklyn rabbi, Yisroel Belsky, published an open letter" . So the entire link of Belsky to the abuse story just depends on the Jewish Week, which is known for its non-neutral POV (mostly anti-religious bias). The majority of Jewish Week's subscriptions come from UJA, an tangentially related fundraising organization, not individual subscribers.

Here are some articles as you've requested. All of them are part of sites that have been used in this article, so they should be WP:RS. http://hamodia.com/2016/01/31/multitudes-attend-levayos-of-harav-belsky-ztl-in-new-york-and-yerushalayim/ http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/rabbi-chaim-yisroel-halevi-belsky-ztl-77/2016/01/31/

And about not being WP:GNG, that's fine, take the article down totally if you want, but once you have the article up, you have to be balanced. It's like putting only someone's traffic tickets in an article about them because that's what comes up when you google them. Actua718 (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Whoever's editing this article clearly is not paying attention to sources anyway- the day of death at the end of the article is given as the 30th when the sources all state the 28th. Lyst10 (talk) 08:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The date of death was added by someone who sourced it from the hamodia site which as I noted above is not WP:RS. I edited and tagged for citation. The Jewish Week seems to easily meet WP:RS. Are there any statements in the article that anyone commenting here claims are false? The article cites Belsky's peers as criticizing him and the religious union that he belonged to for its failure to criticize him. Are those rabbis all biased? And biased against what? You said anti-religious bias. Pardon my ignorance, but aren't they all rabbis of the same religion? I am not sure what is meant by balanced. If there are more WP:RS about his career that information should be included. What multiple editors on this article have found so far is that the sources being cited in recent edits for his career other than the quotes from the New York Times are not WP:RS and use language that would not be found in WP:RS. --Jersey92 (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I pulled back the statement that the criticism was coming from "Rabbis", because the article cited that three critics, only two of whom were rabbis, and one of those two was only indirectly criticizing the subject in his statement. While all Rabbis are Jews and, within certain boundaries, of the same religion, not all Jews are of the same religion - that's because "Jew" is used both as a religious description and as an ethnic one, so one can speak of "Atheist Jews" in a way that one could not speak of "Atheist Christians". So one could frame a logical argument that a publication is of and for Jews (ethnicity) but against the religion. (That's not a general disagreement with anything you say, nor to make that argument about the Jewish Week on which I hold no opinion, just noting the specifics.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your edit. Regarding the issue of bias though in the article the lead sentence says "Two prominent Orthodox rabbis — one a former president of the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) — spoke out forcefully this past week on the need for transparency and justice on sexual abuse in the community, and criticized the Orthodox Union (OU) and the RCA for not taking a stronger stand against a well-known rabbinic authority on kashrut who defended a confessed pedophile." I understood from that that everyone involved is from the same religious denomination. Is that not the case? --Jersey92 (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The hamodia site that you are blaming for the date being wrong actually doesn't say anywhere that he died on that day. That's just the date of the article.

And yes, there are many varieties of Orthodox (modern, yeshivish, hasidic, etc.). The bias that I see is in letting this one incident define the person when this was just one out of many thousands of cases that came before Belsky in his capacity as posek. Nowhere does anyone assert that Belsky knew the accused to be guilty when he wrote that letter. But if you say he defended a "confessed sexual abuser", that's the implication. As current events in Europe with the migrants have shown, sometimes accusations of sexual abuse are unfounded, and although this one turned out not to be, there's no evidence Belsky knew that at the time. Lyst10 (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

By the way, if you're going to dispute use of the Hamodia, you're going to have to remove the many references wikipedia has to it already. Clearly many other editors believe it to be a WP:RS. Lyst10 (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not blame it. It was cited as the source. If there are articles in WP:RS they can be cited. If there aren't, no. Please see WP:OR. As for hamodia it seems from the mission on its about page that it is not WP:RS. In this case for sure. Does a source with that mission sound like a reliable news source when it comes to an article about a clergy member accused of protecting a pedophile? As I said before, please see how this was handled in Bernard Francis Law. --Jersey92 (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

No, you're right. I wouldn't trust Hamodia on that subject. But I'd trust it on all the other details of his life. Actua718 (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add details of this webpage- it is from the same RCA that is already quoted in this article: "Rabbi Belsky stated that based upon his knowledge of the case, which he explained at length, he deeply believes in Kolko’s innocence. When asked for clarification of his opinion concerning the reporting of suspicions of abuse in general, Rabbi Belsky informed us that he favors the reporting of credible suspicions of abuse directly to the civil authorities without the need to seek prior rabbinic permission." http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=105757 Actua718 (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you really think a press release from an organization of rabbis about a rabbi is WP:RS?--Jersey92 (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

If you're using their opinion somewhere else, and then they modify that opinion, yes, I do think a press release is an appropriate source. How else are you supposed to get their opinion if the Jewish Week doesn't think that their new opinion is sensational enough to put in a story?Lyst10 (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

This man had a long career. Him once defending someone is not what makes him notable. He has rendered hundreds (or thousands) of decisions over the years and just because he was mentioned in an article about the subject does not mean sexual abuse is what he is known for. At most, it deserves a brief mention in the article. If someone goes through sites that have such articles, you can find a bunch of references to him for things other than this sexual abuse thing. He is well known in NY and I was not even aware that he commented on Kolko until I visited this article. Enigma^msg 18:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The weight given to it should reflect the weight given in the collection of reliable sources. And speaking of reliable sources - Lyst (talk · contribs), could you expand on why you feel the mission given on the About page of Hamodia should disqualify it from being a WP:RS. It obviously suggests that they have a point of view, but we don't require NPOV from reliable sources. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't realize that. In that case, I think Hamodia would be a WP:RS.Lyst10 (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hamodia is a WP:RS. Enigma^msg 19:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyone wishing to verify my statement about POV can check WP:BIASED, which begins "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I looked into this more to make sure that I was not mistaken since it is now not only anonymous editors and WP:SPAs raising concern. To me it seemed clear from the about page that Hamodia's primary purpose is not to report news objectively or accurately but to forward a particular religious agenda. I tried to see the other viewpoints mentioned here. But the more I look into it the more clear it becomes. I found clear substantiated reports of Hamodia intentionally presenting information inaccurately. The Jerusalem Post (obviously WP:RS) states that Hamodia alters text and photographs in news reports. It gives examples in [4]. The Telegraph reports and substantiates with images that Hamodia intentionally photoshopped a photo that it used in a news report. [5]. Obviously, any media known to alter photographs and sourced text in news reports is absolutely not having "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and fails WP:RS. As far as User:Enigmaman's point - "This man had a long career. Him once defending someone is not what makes him notable. He has rendered hundreds (or thousands) of decisions over the years and just because he was mentioned in an article about the subject does not mean sexual abuse is what he is known for. At most, it deserves a brief mention in the article. If someone goes through sites that have such articles, you can find a bunch of references to him for things other than this sexual abuse thing. He is well known in NY and I was not even aware that he commented on Kolko until I visited this article." - I am unclear here as to what you mean. What makes him notable is what is in the WP:RS not what you or any other particular person or group says they know him for. The statement "he is well known in NY" does't mean anything to Wikipedia either. Neither is it relevant if he rendered decisions unless those decisions are mentioned in WP:RS. The ones that were in WP:RS I added to the article. There are many people that know many people that rendered many decisions but as you know we do not include things that are not in WP:RS. At best, even if all the information not included in the WP:RS were all true, including it would still be WP:OR, and, as you know, it cannot be included as such. The WP:RS that establish notability discuss the sexual abuse scandal. As I said several times above if there are other WP:RS about him talking about his career please cite them and the information in them. The repeated citing of non-WP:RS makes me wonder if such WP:RS exist.--Jersey92 (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

He is obviously notable beyond an opinion on a sex abuse scandal

alter photographs and sourced text in news reports is absolutely not having "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and fails WP:RS. He has had an article here since 2006. The Kolko scandal did not make him notable. He had high positions with Yeshiva Torah Vodaas, The Orthodox Union, and Agudath Israel of America, all of which have articles here. Enigma^msg 18:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this article is really biased. It keeps getting reverted to a version that takes the bad side of all the stories and leaves out the part where Belsky said exactly the opposite of all this stuff. And it generalizes from one case to many. Wikifan181 (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The fact that an article existed since 2006 does not mean that it should have existed since 2006. Per WP:GNG "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." The vast majority of edits on this article happened when he died and very few editors probably saw the piece before. To me it seems that it is biased is to include non-WP:RS because the content that certain editors want to include cannot be found in WP:RS. There are many rabbis who have a lot of coverage in WP:RS. If he were so well known for something why doesn't a single WP:RS discuss it and isn't the fact that it is not in WP:RS by definition the reason not to include it in Wikipedia?--Jersey92 (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

"The fact that an article existed since 2006 does not mean that it should have existed since 2006." The article was up for over 9 years and I didn't see a single person challenge his notability. Since his death, all of a sudden there's a swarm that want to make him out to be a NAMBLA member or something. Enigma^msg 05:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Same issue here. Putting it in the lead of the article gives it undue weight given that it was a minor footnote of Belsky's career. He rendered opinions on many things. Why are they mostly not found in reliable sources? It's pretty simple. Reliable sources have no interest in most of the things he was involved with. Reliable sources report on scandals. Since it is mentioned in reliable sources, it is proper to mention it in the article, but not to feature it in the lead. He was not a child molestor, nor was he an advocate for child molestors. What happened with Kolko, from what I see, is that he defended Kolko before he knew of Kolko's guilt. Enigma^msg 05:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Aren't there many rabbis who have received coverage in WP:RS during their career? As you know it is WP:RS that cause a subject to pass WP:GNG, not people saying someone is notable or had a notable career.If the primary WP:RS about him discuss primarily the abuse scandal how is that a minor footnote to a career by Wikipedia standards? Isn't that what he is notable for? You cited Kesher Israel as an example but that article has many WP:RS cited about other things making the scandal in the lead WP:UNDUE. If Belsky wrote books which it says in the article maybe there is material written about those works? That would also help add material to this article. As far as notability, there can be articles that nobody lists for AfD because nobody actually reads the article. This article appears to have had very little traffic until he died. Also, I am sure that you are aware that there have been articles that were live for years and then removed for problems even worse. Remember Bicholim Conflict? --Jersey92 (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

"Isn't that what he is notable for?" No, it's not at all what he's notable for. Again, he held high positions with three notable organizations for years. "Aren't there many rabbis who have received coverage in WP:RS during their career?" I think you wrote that incorrectly. The vast majority of articles on rabbis on Wikipedia do not have much coverage in WP:RS during their careers. Belsky has had coverage in WP:RS other than the scandal (see the references in the article), but not a lot (as with the vast majority of rabbis with articles). Enigma^msg 15:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

What we're getting into here is really a problem with how Wikipedia uses the term "notable". Out there in the real world, it means "worthy of note", but here in Wikipedialand, it is used to mean "noted" - our way of measuring notability is to see what reliable sources have bothered to note. I may be worthy of note for my sheer handsomeness and my ability to discern between butter and I Can't Believe It's Not Butter, but any Wikipedia coverage of me is going to be based on public coverage which is likely to ignore those things. If the times that the subject here was covered in reliable sources focused on controversy, then yes, we should give it weight. However, the introduction is intended to be a summary of the article, and that includes covering swaths more briefly. May I suggest that we reduce the currently argued sentence "Belsky was criticized for his repeated support of a sexual abuser and for his alleged intimidation of abuse victims whom he publicly stated must not report their having been raped to the police", with "Belsky faced criticism for his statements in reaction to sexual abuse accusations made against a Jewish camp counselor", thus allowing the details of what was said, what was later said that he meant, etc., to play out fully in the proper section. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I think I have already spent too much time on this article.--Jersey92 (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I still maintain that this doesn't belong in the lead as it was in no way reflective of the individual in question (see comments about WP:UNDUE) but at least it's better than it was before. Enigma^msg 18:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources have noted many more things about Belsky than just this scandal. They have noted that he counseled loads of people with their marriages, ran a court (Jewish Press), ran a newspaper (Forum), had an eclectic set of interests (physics, astronomy, as well as of course Jewish law (Mishpacha), gave popular “Ask the Rav” sessions (Hamodia). So why this focus on the scandal, when he afterward said exactly the opposite of the words Jewish Week tried to put in his mouth? Lyst10 (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

If there are articles about him that are in WP:RS please share them. I don't know the sources that you mentioned and I don't have time to check them. But you mentioned Hamodia which I did check, and if the others are similar they are not WP:RS. I gave examples above why Hamodia is absolutely not WP:RS = altering photographs and sourced text in news reports is absolutely not having "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Please see what User:NatGertler wrote about notability. Wikipedia has a certain definition and standard. It is more objective than people saying someone is notable. In 2015 anybody can publish anything.--Jersey92 (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Coverage of a controversy does not exclude coverage of other matters; if properly sourced, the article, including the introduction, can be expanded. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Yisroel Belsky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150725000610/http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/01/national/01kosher.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&position= to http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/01/national/01kosher.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&position=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Checked. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Entirely non objective

This article is just a collection of everything Belsky ever did that could be portrayed in a negative light, and then portraying those things in the most negative way possible.

No mention of what a renowned scholar he was, of his knowledge of science, firm rationalism, careful investigation into the most practical aspects of complex halachic questions, etc. Needs a lot of work. High Leader (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)