Talk:Daniel Sokatch

In recent days, I have removed from this article information that was not about Daniel Sokatch but about the nature of the Jewish community in San Francisco and about the opinions of his one-time employees and which used inflammatory language to discuss the work of the organization he leads. I believe these items are off topic, rely on poor sources, and/or lack a dispassionate tone.

For those that disagree - I do get things wrong sometimes - the place to make the case for these edits is here. Let's avoid an edit war.

As per wp:onus these items should remain off the article until consensus is achieved. Given that this is a BLP, this rule is especially important. PPX (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Now information is being added in about some calls or emails that he may have received in light of a movie that was screened at an event that an organization he ran was among the co-sponsors. This seems like pure trivia, not notable, and certainly undue weight. If a case can be made for why this deserves to be included, please make it here. PPX (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:I don't like it is not a valid argument to delete sourced content--200.114.235.160 (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to that essay. I'm going to use it to help me elaborate on my points:

(1) When I said notable, I meant that the sources do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability standard.

(2) My comment about weight meant to say that including this minor incident in the article (which is quite short) gives it too much weight relative to Sokatch's other activities.

(3) When I said trivia, I meant to refer to see WP:NOTADIARY "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary." Keeping in mind that Sokatch is many times removed from the film screening that the article is about, the fact that he got a few phone calls and emails might even not make it into a diary entry, much less a wikipedia article.

(4)I didn't say this earlier, but the characterization of the film is inappropriate as it lacks NPOV. We cannot call it "anti-Israel," even though I personally agree that it is.

Since WP:ONUS requires consensus before information is included in the article. I ask that you make your case for why this incident deserves mention here and wait for consensus to emerge before reinstating the content. Pointing to an essay on Wikipedia Policy is not sufficient.

If this were not a BLP I would, as a courtesy, wait before reverting the edit. But I do not believe I have that discretion on a BLP. Just re-read BLPRemove. I think I do have such discretion. I will give it a few days, as a courtesy. PPX (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the evidence is misleading, but from the repeated scrubbing, it appears that Perplexed566 is exerting POV ownership over this BLP entry for whatever reason, and attempting to expunge the primary events. If there is another explanation, it would be appropriate to present it. Or perhaps we can agree that beyond the various conflicts and incidents, nothing in this bio is notable and the BLP should be taken down. As a courtesy, I will give it a few days ... Troper273 (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

That's not how WP:ONUS works. Putting stuff back in because you don't like that I'm the one who removed it seems like the definition of disruptive editing. What you can do is make a case for the language on the talk page, convince people, and then add that language in (or an edited form that is agreed to). There's no POV ownership here, at least not by me. And I have no idea what you mean by "another explanation" -- Is there anything wrong with trying to get an article to be relevant and to abide by Wikipedia standards?

So let's avoid an edit war and discuss. Is there any response to the points I made above (on October 7th) on why this language deserves to be included?

As to the proposal to delete the article, I haven't yet engaged much in the conversations about which articles get deleted and I'm not well informed about the policies and guidelines. If I have time I'll look into it. [[PPX]] (talk) 19:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that you reconsider the trivial item you stuck on from the JDF "top 50" which is a promo for the NIF, and which might lead some to again conclude that there is an effort to manipulate this BLP. As for your censorship of the Rachel Corrie film conflict, which is indeed substantive (the JWeekly article used the term "inferno" in the headline), there are many more sources and details. Your assistance in fleshing out this important event in the context of the BLP, and Sokatch's departure from the Federation would be useful and consistent with the ethos of and etiquette of wikipedia. Perhaps you should contemplate the wider aspects in next day. גמר חתימה טובה Troper273 (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Look, the Forward thought it was notable enough for their analysis of why Sokatch was one of the 50 most influential American Jews that year. It's not about whether it's promo for NIF or not. It's about reflecting what's in the sources.

I'm excited about your statement that there are many more sources about Sokatch and the film. Will you list them here? (The insinuation that I'm out to gloss over things that Sokatch might not like is flat-out wrong). Let's show that it's not WP:NOTADIARY and then write it appropriately. [[PPX]] (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Daniel Sokatch. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

I want to report he's written a book, not make a change to existing text.

And I have no idea what the unnamed parameter issue is about.

Can We Talk About Israel: A Guide for the Curious Confused & Conflicted by Daniel Sokatch

ISBN 9781639730483 Publication Date October 18th, 2022 Publisher BLOOMSBURY BOOKS

M.mk (talk) 01:48, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

New section called 'Books' or 'Writings' which then reads:

Can We Talk About Israel: A Guide for the Curious Confused & Conflicted. Bloomsbury Books (2022). Daniel Sokatch. ISBN 9781639730483 M.mk (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd do it myself, like with most other articles, but am not allowed to. ~2026-18827-91 (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

So is it still not clear to you what addition I am requesting?

If so, can another editor 'take this call'?

Thank you. M.mk (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: M.mk, I've done some cleaning up with indenting and addressed the parameter warning. Feel free to revert since policy generally dislikes editors editing the comments of others, I've done so boldly in this instance as I think it better serves your attempted request. And, yes, any editor with available permissions may choose to action this request or not. —Sirdog (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2026 (UTC)