[edit]

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)[reply]

Materials

[edit]

Sources that might be useful for this article:

—Ynhockey (Talk) 07:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse allegations mediation

[edit]

Mediation is taking place on this issue. Quaere verum 17:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should allegations be included in articles?

[edit]

As much as I hate to say this, I think we need to recognize the allegations of sexual abuse on the part of Rb. Carlebach somewhere on this page. I'm not too well versed in the details, so I don't really feel comfortable making these additions myself, but I do think we should address them. --אריאל יהודה 00:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And why should we indeed. There's probably a page online somewhere suggesting similar things about George W. Bush. The man is dead, he is mainly remembered positively and suddenly one activist springs up to correct the record. For a group calling itself "Jewish Coalition Against Sexual Abuse/Assault (JCASA)" it is rather bad to focus on the memory of one dead rabbi. JFW | T@lk 23:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Some further questions for User:Bachrach44/אריאל יהודה: What would be the point of including such information? Would it be good scholarship to write up the sex histories of famous people on Wikipedia? How does it not violate libel & slander or Lashon hara? Were these allegations ever proven in a court of law or brought to trial? It would not be wise to include hearsay because it is not smart for Wikipedia to start on the slippery slope of recording the "sexual histories" of famous people. Wikipedia is not the place to publish "therapy sessions" that border on the scandalous. IZAK 23:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I realize the awareness center has a tendency to bring up feelings (both good and bad) on all sides, and maybe I shouldn't have used them as my example, they were simply one of the first links to come up in google, and they do a good job of archiving information from multiple sources. This is also far from the first time I've heard these "allegations", and honeslty I kind of assumed that at this point it was common knowledge that Rb. Shlomo enjoyed [insert your euphamism of choice here]. (I can assure you it's not a "single activist". Almost everyone I know who had contact with him when he went on his college tours after he as famous related storis of his woman-izing). Although there may be a page like this somewhere on Bush, this is actually not unique in any way, and many of the stories I've heard and read about him are verifiable. This is not heresay dreamed up by some political wacko out to slander the president.
To address some of IZAK's questions, I have no idea if anything has ever been brought to trial (see my first comment on not being too well versed in the details), however as long as we stick to verified facts, we will not be guilty of either libel or slander. Also, do you think I'm honestly advocating hearsay and slander? I don't think I need to quote wikipedia rules at you, suffice it to say that neither of us is advocating stepping outside the bounds of wikipedia policy, and you should stop using straw men to shoot down my position.
Wikipedia is known for impartiality, and part of that entails a service to the truth, even when it is unpleasant. I am not advocating for a specific bent or way of addressing the issue, I'm simply saying it needs to be addressed. --אריאל יהודה 01:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Shalom my friends,

[edit]

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)[reply]

The allegations are true and there is nothing in the world that can vindicate the evil and betrayal caused by such a man. I know one of his victims. At the time of the incident, she was in spiritual turmoil and soughtout the great rabbi for guidance. After he propositioned her and attempted to molest her, she nearly committed suicide but instead converted to Christianity. 68.118.213.209 (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carlebach was famous for his music, not much else

[edit]

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)[reply]

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 [1]. (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)[reply]

Bachrach44/אריאל יהודה: And there you have it, Clinton was put on trial during his lifetime which resulted in the Impeachment of Bill Clinton because he committed perjury (he lied under oath to a grand jury when testifying about the Paula Jones case) which was the legal basis for Monicagate, whereas to the best of my knowledge Carlebach never went on trial and I do not know of any legal proceedings against him (at least so far I have not heard of any). When Carlebach's wife couldn't take him any more, she divorced him, more than Clinton's ever did (but domestic affairs is a personal matter, not fit for scholarly articles). Now, posthumously, comes along a group of self-appointed latter-day "crusaders" who are putting Carlebach "on trial" when nothing of the sort happened during his lifetime (and people were free to sue him then, so why didn't they?) Since he is not here to represent himself and is unable to defend himself, why should anyone pay attention to the grumblings of a group of people who were once his followers? You know, even marriages that are "made in heaven" turn into "ugly divorces", and here you have an organization that is encouraging people to publicize their "divorce/s" with their one-time rabbi. From my knowledge about only a few individuals who had at one time or another been involved with Carlebach, I would not trust any of their latter-day gripes because from what I can tell they were pretty happy with Carlebach when he was alive and subscribed to his perculiar philosophies. I have not had a chance to really study in depth who the people are behind this self-declared "Awareness Center" but to me they seem like a group that seeks publicity at all costs (which is nothing to be proud of) and likes to sound alarmist and vindictive. They are neither a secular court of law, nor are they a Halakhic Beth din. So what do they amount to? A hill of beans? They appear to be nothing but a self-appointed (feminist-type) group with a one-track POV agenda, snooping into people's private lives, rubbing their hands with glee as they sensationalize things that no-one is asking them to do -- they are nothing but a de facto "organizational-tabloid" (and often tabloids write mostly the truth, but who wants to get into such trash when it has no academic or scholarly value?) It is not the "Awareness Center"'s job to act like God and pass judgment on dead singers or anyone else for that matter. There are many mental health professionals that can render professional assistance to people who think they need help, and there are abundant rabbinical organizations that can deal with this type of thing, and there are also plenty of lawyers who can be hired to do the job of legal representation of alleged victims, but to create a "political circus" to "out" people (on the Internet yet) makes little sense from any perspective. In Carlebach's instance, he is dead, millions of Jews have listened to -- and loved -- his music whether they know it or not, and some latter-day "do gooders" want to "crucify" him, how quaint. On the other hand the Rick Ross article you link to actually conveys Carlebach's complexity a lot better as it's title indicates: "A Paradoxical Legacy: Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach's Shadow Side" [2] ... but then again, many famous people have "shadow sides" and that does not mean it has to be part of a scholarly article. (Shadows, like dreams, are hard to interpret).IZAK 04:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I came to the article to read about the allegations. Wikipedia is not hagiography. EG, the Mother Teresa article has over a page of criticism. However, for an article of such short length, a sentence seems like it would suffice.--Wasabe3543 12:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

The difference is that Monica Lewinski did not approach Bill Clinton as a seeker of spirtual guidance (Not that that in any way excuses Clinton). But many of the women who had run-ins with Carlebach had indeed sought him out for spiritual guidance and many believed they had no other place to turn. And Carlebach utterly betrayed them. 68.118.213.209 (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Famous almost only for being a musician???

[edit]

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)[reply]

What about pictures?

[edit]

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)[reply]

Sorry if that comment offended you... but I was just a bit surprised to find an article about a person, with not even one picture of the person. Tzadik 14:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK.. I added one. What do you think? -- Tzadik 14:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a publicity photo/poster from one of his press kits back in the 1980s. Since this was distributed specifically for reproduction and bears no copyright markings, my assumption would be that it fits the criteria for a "generic event poster" and I classified it as such. My justification for using it here is that it illustrates him being portrayed as "The Singing Rabbi" as described in the text. Rooster613 12:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Rooster613[reply]

3-22 - additions from anon IP

[edit]

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)[reply]

Allegations, yet again

[edit]

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)[reply]

How is it hearsay? The paragraph states that allegations were made, not that they were true or untrue. The information presented merely reports that allegations were made. This can't be hearsay, since it is reporting something that is public via multiple sources. Ckessler

So those women are discounted because he was the great and powerful rebbe, and they were in therapy? Just because the allegations were not made in a court of law, they are allegations nontheless. You don't know the circumstances under which these acts did/did not occur. You might as well be saying that all women who say they are sexually abused are lying. Ckessler

I'm sorry, but where was shomer negiah? If Carlebach was any kind of Orthodox Jew, he should not have had any kind of physical contact with anyone of the opposite gender. Aside from these charges, Carlebach was known for his touchy-feely approach. Because of your bias, of course, you refuse to see it, but why is it so hard to believe that someone who would violate such an important tenant of Orthodoxy would step over the line? Ckessler

Rationalize all you like. You wouldn't go out, eat a porkchop, and come up with a rationale for it. Carlebach was a Hassid, it's stated in the article. I've spent time in the religious community, especially in the Baal teshuva community, and there is no reason they would ever violate shomer negiah. What does violating shomer negiah have to do with sexual abuse? A lack of boundaries.

And as for the groupie argument, groupies are generally proud of what they do. They don't have sex with famous musicians and then cry sexual abuse. Typical blame the victim approach.

You're running around in circles. The issue here is not whether or not Carlebach did what he was accused of. The issue is that no accusations are being made in this article. It is merely reporting something that is on the public record. The information added is pure fact. It states that allegations were made, but never proven. Ckessler

Not a "Hassid" at all! Singer in stereotypical hippie dress -- This was probably Carlebach's model IZAK 10:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I read all the arguments and would like to add a few words. While I agree with IZAK that spurious claims of sexual abuse by Carlebach should be avoided, it is important to give a balanced picture of Carlebach's character. The way the article is written now makes him sound like a wonderful Jewish singer who made a lot of people happy, and nothing more. This kind of rosy biography-writing also smacks of POV, as it leaves out any mention of him being controversial in mainstream Orthodox circles. Some points to incorporate:

  1. Carlebach was not an "Orthodox Rabbi" in the sense that Rav Schach was an Orthodox Rabbi. Ckessler is right: any "Orthodox rabbi" who violates shomer negiah cannot be called an Orthodox rabbi. Using this term in the article really demeans all the other Orthodox Rabbis included in Wikipedia, and it should be deleted. (How about "a self-styled Rabbi"?)
  2. Carlebach did go beyond the bounds of Orthodox rabbinics by playing up to (and hugging and kissing) women at his concerts—for which he was censored by the Orthodox world—and he did open a quasi-hippie "House of Love and Prayer" in San Francisco. Even today, a "Carlebach minyan" is known as a fringe service that doesn't attract many mainstream Orthodox worshippers. This point needs to be addressed. Carlebach did make a lot of baalei teshuvah through his work (this point also needs to be mentioned), but his image was rather tarnished by it.
  3. I object to the use of the loaded word, "cult." Carlebach may have been a guru, but he wasn't a cult leader. Anyone who "joined" his movement had freedom of access, kept possession of their passport, and didn't have to fork over tons of money. A groupie movement, yes; a cult, no way.

I vote for a more balanced picture. The introduction should be rewritten to refer to his controversial kiruv activities. More should be said about what he did in Haight-Ashbury. And a new section should be written about his un-Orthodox ways of spreading the faith. Within the latter section (not as a separate section) can be paragraphs about his womanizing at concerts and allegations of sexual abuse. I would also like to see the link to the Awareness Center rewritten so it doesn't hit you between the eyes with such an inflammatory title ("Sexual abuse and cult awareness! Read all about it!").

P.S. Ckessler: Please date your entries so we can follow the discussion better. Thanks. Yoninah 14:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|thumb|Publicity poster circa early 1980s portraying him as "The Singing Rabbi" Rooster613 12:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Rooster613]][reply]


Let me throw my two shekels in here, since I was born in 1947 and remember Shlomo Carlebach in the 1960s quite well. Regarding calling him a rabbi, it is my understanding that he did have smichah, even if he became rather unconventional later. He most definitely was known as "The Singing Rabbi" in his day -- I still have brochures describing him as such -- so let's not deprive him of the title in the name of revisionism. Regarding shomer negiah, I think we need to keep in mind that the Haredi movement as it exists today simply did not exist in the USA back in the 1960s. Yes, there were a few yeshivas and shuls in New York that were strictly shomer negiah, but, on the whole, the majority of Orthodox Jews in the rest of the USA at that time were Modern Orthodox who watched TV, went to movies, dressed up for Halloween, and did not object to mixed dancing at proms, or even to low-cut dresses for weddings. (Orthodox in my Philadelphia suburb meant shomer Shabbos and a kosher kitchen, but nothing very distinctive in public, not even a yarmulke in most cases.) My parents' generation were into "Hanukkah bushes" and nose jobs to "blend in" with American society. Frumkeit was old-fashioned stuff for Bubbe and Zayde and remained so until the late 70s -- so let's not re-write history, even if some people do have their wedding pictures re-touched to be more modest than they really were 40 years ago. The reality is, the Haredi Judaism of today is not "the faith of our fathers," it is a post-World War II revivalist phenomenon. The majority of Holocaust survivors arrived in the USA minus payos and beards, and only later did the Hasidic movement go through a major revival in the mid-80s and 90s, where people came out as Orthodox in public dress and appearance. (When I moved to Minneapolis in 1976, I was the only Jew in the city with payos -- and was repeatedly told that I was an "embarrassment" because of it. All the Orthodox in the Twin Cities were clean-shaven.) Carlebach was unconventional, yes -- but more for hanging out with hippies, who were, after all, a "threatening" counter-culture to begin with. Therefore, I think we should judge Carlebach within the context of his own generation, not retroactively defrock him according to the strictnesses of a movement that evolved a generation later. And I would also ask: Does the now-popular Hasidic hip-hop singer, Matisyahu, have men and women separated at his concerts? I think not. Rooster613 April 24, 2006

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)Rooster613[reply]

Wikipedia:Libel

[edit]

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)[reply]

I didn't know that helping victims of sexual abuse involved a POV. Guess those kinds of things don't happen in your community. Ckessler 07:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're so concerned about lashon hara, yet you have no qualms about referring to certain women (even if we don't know them by name) as groupies, which is just a polite euphemism for someone who got what they deserved? Ckessler 09:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legally speaking, you cannot commit libel or slander against a dead man 68.100.239.10 04:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC) David Itkin 2/4/07[reply]

Controversy Section

[edit]

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

The information about the sexual abuse allegations was removed. All that was left was verifiable information about Carlebach's unconventional approach. Sinner or saint, the fact remains that Carlebach's approach differed from Orthodox conventions. Give it a rest. Ckessler 04:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable yes, well-sourced, no. JFW | T@lk 07:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

SV, I gave three reputable sources for this information, one of which is a detailed article from a Jewish publication. I will add the sources to the article. Ckessler 08:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


Ordaining of women

[edit]

Can the following be fully clarified BEFORE it is put in. Who else confirms this? IZAK 20:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"He also ordained women, a practice which is not permitted by Halakha. [1]"


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)[reply]

Problematic and unreliable sources

[edit]

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:

  1. "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.
  2. "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.
  3. "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!
  4. "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)[reply]

It's not your job to decide which sources you deem valid. The information is sourced, and that is all that is required. Ckessler 03:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Gottlieb.html

Reverted Changes

[edit]

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)[reply]

I am very sorry, I jumped to conclusions after our previous issues with this page. Please accept my apologies. 05:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

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.

[edit]

I've tried to add an external link to an article that does provide sources for the allegations of sexual impropriety. My link was to the original Lilith magazine article that first brought the allegations out from gossip and into a verifiable (or refutable) form, in an obtainable publication, not from the awareness center or luke ford or some site with an obvious agenda besides dispassionate investigation. Why is this external link inappropriate. I can understand why the allegations need to be tied to a reputable source, but not why they should be excised entirely. It's definitely a part of the man's public legacy 68.100.239.10 04:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)David Itkin 2/4/07[reply]

While I agree with your stance on this, as my past history on this talk page suggests, an admin has stated that the link should not be added again. Ckessler 05:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The admin said The Awareness Center external link should come down. I agree. Vicki Polin is not a reputable source for Wikipedia. But no one ever tried posting the original Lilith Article. I think there's a world of difference between The Awareness Center and Lilith. 68.100.239.10 05:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC) David Itkin 2/4/07[reply]
No, I've tried linking that article before, and it was rejected. It's not considered a reliable source. Please stop adding the link, and read the entire discussion. Ckessler 05:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The passive voice is always a red flag. "It's not considered a reliable source." Who doesn't consider Lilith a reliable source? Why? 68.100.239.10 05:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC) David Itkin[reply]
If you would read the entire discussion, as I have politely requested, and you obviously have not done, you would know. I've tried this debate from every angle, and the answer was still the same. You shouldn't be an exception to the rule. Ckessler 05:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the entire discussion, as you politely requested. I'm sorry, but I can find no rejection of the Lilith article. I've seen a lot of rejections of The Awareness Center's stuff and a lot of general discussion about whether this kind of allegation belongs here, but the consensus seems to be that the allegations don't belong here unless they come from a reliable, published source. I think Lilith is such a source. I'm sorry you were unable to win this point in the past.
I hear the frustration in your "every angle" complaint, but honestly, if the Lilith angle has been considered and rejected, I cannot see where that shows up on this discussion page. I'm not being purposely obtuse, I really can't find it. 68.100.239.10 05:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)David Itkin[reply]
Yes, an independent feminist mag, no bias there. I'll go ahead and drop the argument, until someone else comes along and tries to remove it. Ckessler 06:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ckessler, the link looks legit to me. Other sources that mention the alleged sexual misconduct are the Guardian and JewishJournal. It's unfortunate and sad that there are leaders in the Jewish community who are sexual predators. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 09:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very disappointed. Lilith is a reputable source and this article: Lilith Magazine Allegations of Sexual Impropriety should appear on the page. 207.197.214.38 15:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)David Itkin[reply]
Yes, it is definitely disappointing that there exist some in spiritual leadership roles supposedly involved in kiruv who use their position of power to prey on those vulnerable who trust them and come to them for guidance in Judaism. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This issue is in arbitration. The Lilith article consists of unfounded allegations by mostly unnamed people, and those named were minors [aged 12 and the like!] when they claim to have been "abused." Reb Shlomo was never taken to court over any of these allegations in his lifetime; but almost as soon as he passed on, these allegations came out. Even at that famous "Rosh Chodesh confrontation," most of the participants were afraid to say anything -- how come? We should wait for the arbitration to weigh in on this one. BTW, perhaps "Rachel" in this article is none other than Vicki Polin [of the infamous "awareness [sic] center"], who used that pseudonym on the Ophrah Winfrey show in 1989, when she accused her own family of cannibilism? Demblin 14:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply an external link to a reliable source and meets WP standards, whether you like the content or not. Not only that, there are other sources (the Guardian, Jewish Journal & many others) that discuss this. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 15:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the last entry on the mediation page for this issue is April Fool's Day, 2006. Is "arbitration" another word for "permanently tabled with the status quo to remain indefinitely"? I'm just askin' 207.197.214.38 15:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)David Itkin[reply]
Lilith is not a reliable source, it has an agenda. As I mentioned, there is no hardcore evidence, only hearsay and allegations, or testimony from one named person who was a minor of 12 years of age when it supposedly "happened." I'll keep removing it, it won't help you. Let the mediator decide! Demblin 16:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link is fine and meets WP standards. You are attempting to push your personal POV. We don't do "puff" pieces or whitewashing at WP. We present balanced material. If you are talking about this long dead mediation case, it was between IZAK and Chessler and was specifically about adding content to the article, not about this external link. Now that you mention it, perhaps there should be more about this in the article body. If you keep removing the link, you are acting against policy and you will be reverted. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 16:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be an appropriate addition to the Concerts and controversy section? -> After Carlebach's death, Lilith magazine, a Jewish feminist publication, catalogued allegations of sexual impropriety against him Lilith Magazine Allegations of Sexual Impropriety. Specific, named accusers are quoted in this article, as well as unnamed sources and Jewish communal leaders with knowledge of the allegations. The publication of these allegations has proven controversial, lodged, as they were, after Carlebach could respond to his accusers. 207.197.214.38 17:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)David Itkin[reply]
That seems completely reasonable and an objective presentation of the existence of the allegations reported by Lilith, which was newsworthy enough to be mentioned in mainstream media. It's big enough that it would be inappropiate to leave it out of the article. I would add the Guardian and Jewish Journal sources as references. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 17:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
David, on your edit, we can't reference this talk page though... Hold on, I'm going to properly source this. Btw, have you considered creating an official Wikipedia account? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 17:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. I've created an account. I won't try to post again until I've studied up a bit. Thank you for resolving this and for helping me do things properly.David in DC 17:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oy Vey! David in DC 19:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)David in DC[reply]

To our newcomers

[edit]

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)[reply]

Dates

[edit]

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, ISBN 3-926174-99-4 (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)[reply]

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" [ISBN 0-7657-5959-4] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm going to change it back, then; if anyone can confirm otherwise, please let us know.Demblin 11:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Demblin and MrsMyer and Eliyak
: I changed the date of death based on the news article referred to, dated Oct. 22, 1994, which was a Saturday, but referring to the date of death being on the Thursday previously, i.e. Oct. 20, 1994.. I saw this date elsewhere but didn't note the source or sources. I would note that the previous date, listed as Oct. 22, 1994, was also unsourced. ZMbenChaim 03:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


: 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)[reply]

As far as I know, Shlomo lived in baden near Vienna until 1938. His father was the chief rabbi there, so I can't believe he lived in switzerland then. And there are photos showing there carlebach twinns at baden 1937 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.83.34.170 (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Divorced?

[edit]

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)[reply]

This is well-known, for anyone that knew him knew of this, yes a Halachic get. Sorry, don't have a source on the Web, but it ain't necessary. Demblin (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't read music?

[edit]

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)[reply]

Careful!

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Undue Weight

[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Shlomo Carlebach (musician). 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:

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

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: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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:

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: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorperation of sexual abuse allegations in Lead

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2021

[edit]

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)[reply]

 Not done. 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)[reply]

Gratuitous emphasis on Allegations

[edit]

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)[reply]

Categories