Talk:Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community/Archive 1

Archive 1

Edit request on 12 December 2012

The person mentioned in the article is Yosef Blau (of YU) not Yousef. Haryehcohen (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Is this the same person? Bus stop (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Corrected, per above.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Scope

What is the scope of this article? Is every case of sexual abuse involving Brooklyn's Ultra-Orthodox Jewish community fair game, or does a source have to link the case to part of a wider problem? Ankh.Morpork 19:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I assume the latter of course. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the question is mostly about title. Was "orthodox", now "ultra-orthodox", could be "haredi". Thoughts? -- Y not? 19:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

My concern is that the article could become a BLP violation minefield. The article has very few watchers at present. -- Dianna (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm watching it, eagle-eyed yo! -- Y not? 21:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Title?

Was "orthodox", now "ultra-orthodox", could be "haredi". Thoughts? -- Y not? 21:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I note that Ultraorthodox judaism redirects to Haredi judaism, a synonymous term, which avoids any pejorative connotations. I am agreeable to using either of these two terms. Ankh.Morpork 22:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"Haredi" is better per AM.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. -- Y not? 14:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Article name and scope (redux)

"Brooklyn" does not make sense and should be removed. The article should expand in scope to include all Haredi communities. There is nothing distinct about the Haredi community in Brooklyn vis a vis Haredi communities elsewhere. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Brewcrewer is right.

I even go deeper. I don't think that the "sexual abuse" in any Jewish communities is relevant.

Is this particular enough in Haredi Jewish communities in comparison with others ? If not, this article should simply be deleted.

Pluto2012 (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

FWIW it survived AfD before; link is above. Should scope be the whole USA? -- Y not? 21:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It survived indeed. I had not seen this. Well, that's it. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be expanded beyond Brooklyn. There are plenty of cases in other Haredi communities including Rockland County, NY; Lakewood,NJ; Jerusalem, Israel; London, etc.

And the Haredi attitude towards (sexual) abuse is somewhat unique. For example, there is a specific religious prohibition (mesira) against reporting Jews to non-Haredi authorities. Brklyn DA Charles Hynes therefore called their intimidation against prosection worse than the mafia and police corruption. I see now that this is indicated in the article. Infoinfoinfo123 (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Another "scope" issue, sort of, noticed

I started the Child sexual abuse in New York City religious institutions article April '11 in the spirit of collecting a few cases I'd noted or worked on. Not elegant maybe but seems to have worked some. On Nov. 28 NWeberman came to my attention and I added a section and have since proceeded to build it. At one point User:Brewcrewer weighed in there but seemed to accept some improvements and moved on. Tonight, after another round (on Yeshiva as well as Weberman), I was reviewing and one thing led to the next and I discovered this article. So far, all I've done further is (1) linked that Weberman section to the one here; and (2) added the "Child sexual abuse in religious groups" category to this article.

Interesting note: This permutation of your title had the highest number of pageviews of any – either article – throughout the recent weeks.

My Weberman update tonight involved JBrown; and when I got here I was gratified to see Hush, her novel, in your "See also" section.

"Nechemya Weberman" redirects here as of late UTC on Dec. 12. Those two biggest days in terms of pageviews were the 11th and the 12th so the redirect wasn't much responsible for them. Both articles of course show up in this "~Nechemya Weberman" search along with Modesty patrol.

I hope these bits are of some value — the highlights, somewhat randomly presented, of my poking around. I will be watching more in the future and maybe cross-reviewing the two articles for duplication. In the meantime, I thought I'd intro myself. Cheers and all best. Swliv (talk) 09:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I had the chance to look at the two sections from the two articles a bit. There seemed enough not-in-common material at the other article to cross-link from this article-section to the one there. A couple of issues I'll try to anticipate:

• I haven't worked out for myself the relationship between "Satmar" and "Haredi". I'm hoping that's not at cross-purposes between the two articles or in the other article. Improvements to the other article are certainly invited if they're needed.
• There was a concern expressed early on about the "in" in the name of the other article, namely, perhaps, that NWeberman was not "in" the religious institution – there seemed no question the school was a religious school. There was some agreement on the Talk page there that since it was a school referral to NWeberman the "in" in the title wasn't prohibitive. That may (as I said 26 December 2012 at Talk:Child sexual abuse in New York City religious institutions#Nechemya Weberman case) still be a sticking point. If so, I hope it can be discussed further there or here.

This falls short of "cross-reviewing the two articles for duplication [or gaps]" as I talked of doing above 25 Dec. I hope it's nonetheless a reasonable next step toward that end. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yona Weinberg

An IP is repeatedly removing this section -- if they have any issues with it this would be the place to discuss it. a13ean (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that the reason they remove it is somewhat obvious. The article seems to be serving the purpose of a wall of shame of named sex offenders. I think it would be reasonable to write the article without naming and shaming living individuals who are notable for one issue only.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I could support that; the person was convicted so it doesn't appear to be a BLP or PERP issue, but it seems like it's really only notable as part of the larger phenomena that this page was for (the subject is clearly not notable on their own). a13ean (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Could the cases be discussed without the names? In other words, leave the descriptions of the events and remove all the names? -- Dianna (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I saw the IP blanking an entire section without an edit summary, and after checking to see that it was actually supported by the source given I restored it. Next time I'll think a bit harder about what they are trying to get at, although it's not always clear to me. a13ean (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thats what I would suggest - sure we have the right to discuss people who have been convicted by name - but we don't really need to do we? I think we can discuss the events without mentioning their names.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

A second IP, 108.21.117.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), showed up about an hour ago, with another removal of the same content. I have no strong feelings about this, but would like to point out that the language of BLP1E applies to articles that are biographies of named persons; it doesn't preclude identifying convicted child molesters who were in uniquely trusted positions in articles about the larger context or case they were part of. Thus it seems to me that WP:PERP *is* the presiding rule here. Would everyone please take a moment to review it?

If we're not going to name a social worker who molested children, in the article about the crime, should we also not name the persons who are notable only for having been convicted in e.g. the various child sex "grooming" and abuse articles we've heard so much about at ANI recently?

I'd also point out that in Weinberg's case it's not like expunging his name from the article is going to preserve privacy for him. Just googling his name brings up this from Jewish Week as the first hit, along with mug shots. Finally, I'd mention that this was quite a big case in New York and, obviously, in the worldwide Orthodox community, as well. Seems to me a reasonable argument could be made that Weinberg's actions in that context made him a public figure, albeit an involuntary public figure. --OhioStandard (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey hey, new to Wiki and I'm in Law School. I think the reason people are trying to take the Weinberg case off is because a) Weinberg isn't haredi no matter what the papers and the DA say and b) the kids are recanting after the summer to avoid the statute of limitations for perjury - it was in the Yiddish newspapers. Also, that story about the camp and school are false. The school submitted the kids' school records to the Court (it's part of the public record) showing that they graduated from their elementary school and didn't throw them out. The camp also submitted actual correspondence between them and the DA's office before that summer explaining that Weinberg had relatives in the camp and no one wanted any trouble. Oren Yaniv at the NY Daily News checked the file and can probably answer questions if necessary. There's probably more stuff going on too because that case is still current in the Federal and NY State Appellate divisions - the issue is probably around getting rid of a conviction after recantation in NY State (which isn't so easy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshMehlman (talk • contribs) 00:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Josh. Everything you say may be 100% correct, but we're not allowed to add content to, or delete content from articles based on any individual's word or personal knowledge. I don't want anyone rapped on the knuckles over this, yourself included, but I do want to ask at one of our most-frequented discussion boards for broader input on the overall issue involved here. You might like to join other interested editors to discuss the matter further at that board. Just search there for the topic "Question about naming religious leaders convicted of sexually abusing kids". --OhioStandard (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

We are allowed to delete content based on one person's knowledge, especially in BLPs.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps my statement wasn't clear, Manus. Sure, we can absolutely delete content based on a reporter's personal knowledge, as published in a reliable source, but I'm not aware of any policy that allows us to do so, even for a BLP, simply because some editor, especially one who appears to be connected to the affected community, creates an account to assert unsubstantiated claims that the information published in reliable sources is just wrong.

If Josh, or any IP, wants to introduce a reliable source, whether in Yiddish or any other language, that substantiates the claims he made above, that would be a different matter entirely. Or is there some new tweek to BLP policy that I've missed? I know there's been a lot of discussion about BLP policy in recent months, so perhaps there *is* a new policy basis that allows us to use the unpublished knowledge of individual editors? --OhioStandard (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It is an editorial decision what information to include. We are not under an obligation to publish all information contained in a reliable source. If someone has knowledge that a particular claim is false or incorrect and he can convince a consensus that ity shouldn't be included we can remove any information. In BLP cases the established practice is to remove information untill there is a consensu that it should be included. In cases where the question is allegations of child abuse even the shadow of doubt would suggest to me that the name should be removed. I do not feel the need to be complicit in ruining the life of an innocent man. Ones reliable sources establish beyond all doubt that he is guilty then I dont mind including. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Singular incidents should not be included unless it can be established that there is anything notable in the fact that the perpetrator was Haredi, i.e. that Haredi culture or religious norms played any role in the abuse. It is plainly obvious that we don't want to list all Haredi sex abuse convicts.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Your first sentence sounds plausible, brewski, but it's making up policy. What actually determines whether a sexual abuse case should be included in the scope of this article is

1. Whether public officials like prosecuters or judges group the cases in reliable sources as being part of a larger or ongoing problem in the Haredi community, or

2. Whether reporters writing in reliable sources do so, or, as I'd argue, ...

3. Whether editorials that are either written by prominent persons, or published in very reliable sources do so.

It's "plainly obvious", to use your own phrase, Brew, that per our content policies it doesn't matter whether such sources mention the prohibition against consulting secular law-enforcement authorities that exists in Orthodox culture (as many sources do), or, indeed, whether the sources suggest any reason or common motivating theory at all for the crimes.

All that's necessary is that the sources consider them part of a larger or ongoing problem in the community. This is the same standard, btw, that's used for our articles about sexual abuse cases in other religious communities. See e.g. the multiplicity of articles we have about the sexual abuse of children in the various archdiocese of the Roman Catholic church, to mention just one comparable instance. --OhioStandard (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If what you are saying is true, then you can remove all the names. As far as I can see there are no sources discussing these people in connection with "Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Can't unring this bell

Everyone who's concerned about this issue, including our anonymous friends from Brooklyn and nearby communities, needs to understand that this article must conform to Wikipedia's content policies, must be based on reliable source reports and publications, and must reflect how broadly the issue has been covered in the mainstream secular media and in major Jewish media sources as well.

And with all due respect to the Haredi community in Brooklyn, the fact that somewhere between 50 and 94 members (reports vary) of that community have been arrested for sex crimes since 2009, and the fact that arrests have been made, as well, of persons who've tried to bribe and intimidate those who've spoken out, makes this a legitimate subject for an article on Wikipedia. Certainly all of us here want to be respectful in contributing to the development of this article, and to do so from a neutral point of view, but that respect can't be extended so far that it's allowed to supersede our content policies here.

Given the amount of coverage this matter has received in the national and international media, and given that the coverage has persisted with reports of new charges and related developments over a period of at least four years, now, it's my opinion that, if anything, this article should be expanded, rather than scrubbed of existing content. --OhioStandard (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Most of what you said is obvious and unnecessary. The one issue I have is that you appear to be under the impression that there's a disproportionate level of child abuse in the Haredi community. This has never been substantiated by anything remotely reliable, scientific, or academic. The same goes for devout Muslim, devout Christian, and all other devout religious sects. On a personal note, I would like for you to be made aware of red flags that may raised when an editor, like yourself, who has a past and reputation for falling into the anti-Israel camp on WP then begin editing articles relating the the besmirchment of Jews. I;m just giving you the heads up because I am aware that these red flags coupled with POV editing has resulted in the WP ban of a few editors. I don't care one way or another, I'm just giving you the heads up that others may find it suspicious and bring it up.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a question: has any editor with a "past and reputation for falling into the pro-Israel camp on WP", who then "begin editing articles relating the the besmirchment of Palestinans" -ever been banned from Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.211.133 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI, please be aware that this issue is currently being discussed on the Administrators' incidents noticeboard (see here for the thread). I am not currently involved in that dicussion; I just noticed it hadn't been acknowledged here on the article's talk page and wanted to be sure the relevant people were aware of it. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Rich, but you just missed it. In the preceding section on this page, in which Brewcrewer, ( the editor I've been conversing with so far in this section ) was also active, btw. I wrote the following, at 21:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC), in reply to a new, single-edit user who had commented there:

I don't want anyone rapped on the knuckles over this, yourself included, but I do want to ask at one of our most-frequented discussion boards for broader input on the overall issue involved here. You might like to join other interested editors to discuss the matter further at that board. Just search there for the topic "Question about naming religious leaders convicted of sexually abusing kids".

The emphasis, i.e. the underline, was present in the original, but perhaps the invitation should have been more emphatic still. In any case, I'm glad to have it reiterated. Please do feel free to join that discussion yourself, or to contribute to this one. Discussion and development of articles on sensitive topics like this one always seems more productive when people who contribute broadly to the encyclopedia show up on a talk page. Often it's just the same small group of single-purpose editors who opine, an unfortunate circumstance that tends, in my view, to generate mediocre articles, at best. --OhioStandard (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Legitimate? Anti Religious?

Why does this article belong on wikipedia?

1- Imagine someone would make an article on "BLACK MOLESTORS" or "HISPANIC THEIVES?

2- Brooklyn alone sees around 2000 Sexual persecutions annually. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/orthodox_jews_slam_hynes_sex_abuse_FJOlEBicsPok31s4OSsyuN There are millions of cases per year in this country. Where is a page for Brooklyn? Why do the Religious Jews receive so much coverage for every move they do?

3- Does wikipedia post every time an adult is convicted of inappropriately touching a fifteen year old?

-You could either look for answers and find reasons to blame the Religious people for being different and reasons they deserve extra coverage, convictions and persecution.

-Or you could look at the general picture - This is similar to what has been happening to the Jews for the past 2000 years. Brooklynch (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree that this is not a wikipediaworthy article, and that it has the trappings of a smearjob.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You could nominate the article for deletion via the Articles for Deletion process. WP:AFD gives instructions on how to get the process started. -- Dianna (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I have written here above my concern about this article. I am nont convinced that the topic is relevent for wikipedia. It should be deleted or not focusing on Haredis alone. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You could nominate the article for deletion via the Articles for Deletion process. WP:AFD gives instructions on how to get the process started. -- Dianna (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It's been on AfD before. As for user:Brooklynch, I will note a single-purpose username and an interesting edit history on this subject... -- Y not? 17:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

User "Y" is Correct that the article was on the WP:AFD a year ago (August 2012). Various users stated that the article should be renamed and restructured. Instead of being a "list of incidents" - is should cover a topic.

Today - a year later none of that was done. On the Contrary - users (including "Y") have just contributed to the additional "lists of incidents".

In my edit history I try to point out misleading, un-sourced and poorly sourced edits that seem to be written to promote hatred and against groups of people. Over here for example -why are convicted Religious people singled out? I'm sure a macist could also find an explanation to single out "BLACK THUGS".

I think that "Diannaa" is right that it should be put up again on WP:AFD. If someone wants to begin a new "informational" article on the subject - they are welcome to do so (although experience shows, that an article on such a subject becomes a refuge to attack on certain groups of people.) Brooklynch (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and nominated for deletion. Everyone is welcome to post their thoughts: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community. -- Dianna (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

A source

Tempest in the Temple. haven't looked through it so it may not be useful (it also doesn't focus on Brooklyn), but it may contain useful information. I found it when searching Google Books for some names. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, this source used to be in our article, but was removed at some point. Still useful info there even if we keep the individual cases out (among other things, the presence of more allies of the victim than the perpetrator at Weberman's trial as evidence of a change in the tides). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Individual cases

I've moved information on individual cases out of the article (it is now at Talk:Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community/Individual cases so we can preserve it for work, without it being part of the reader experience). I think the article is fundamentally incomplete without discussion of the incidents of abuse - we can't just talk about the community response without explaining what they're responding to - but a list of non-notable incidents helps no one. We can use sources to identify details about the abuse that are useful (eg. who the perpetrators are to the victims, where the abuse took place) without a "list of incidents" format.

I refer again to the Catholic sex abuse cases series for both what we should do and what we shouldn't. That series has articles that are very geographically specific (by diocese), which go into a lot of detail on perpetrators and victims because all the general information about how the hierarchy handled the abuse is in articles higher up. Although our article here is geographically specific to Brooklyn (although if we find similar information in other places, and sources that connect them, we could totally broaden the scope), we fall more into the discuss-the-whole-problem style of the upper-level Catholic articles because that's what our sources do, so it is less desirable to repeat all the news-y details. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This seems a rather astonishing move. To call a 103-year prison sentence, for instance, non-notable as above (and meanwhile disrespecting, I'd say, the "notable" heading given the section removed in the unilateral process), is hard to absorb. I propose restoring the article to its perhaps imperfect prior self, with the cases, and work on them incrementally in the text. I can see that absolutely nothing's been done since 24 May on the removed case-work section(s).

I came to the article recently and added -- joy -- another specific case. I wondered about the "generic" feel this article had come to have and that brought me back now. And I've discovered why the feel has changed -- this wholesale removal. My work on the issue started with Child sexual abuse in New York City religious institutions#Nechemya Weberman, Satmar Hasidic leader for example. I've also worked on some of the Catholic abuse articles. While your effort to draw parallels and find style et c. while somehow considering the "reader experience" has some conceptual attraction, your failure to do anything since the removal argues for my proposal here. As to the older "religious institutions" article, it's always been a bit juryrigged to handle the Haredi/Hasidic expanding case-load. (And I'm sorry but I haven't mastered the distinction between the two terms.) The current "Brooklyn's Haredi" article was doing that. Now it's dropped it. That doesn't seem right. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Any specific cases reinserted would have to be very clearly notable (based on consensus here on the talkpage) extremely well sourced - and even so it shouldnt have excessive or unnecessary information about identifiable living people.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

After making my comment above, I shifted course and instead integrated the non-overlapping material into Child sexual abuse in New York City religious institutions. From the response to mine above, I'm not sure if the Times, Daily News and Haartetz, to name a few used, are considered poor sources. Is there a Wiki policy for "extremely well sourced"? (my emphasis) I'd have to ask also. And I'm not sure if it's meant that convicted living criminals are not to be identified with details of their crimes. And, finally, I addressed the 103-year-sentence as seeming notable to me: No comment?

I shifted course, did what I did and came back here to edit my comment above accordingly. Since it had already received a response, I of course have left it untouched. I have some hope that my alternate disposition of the material (with the "overview" link from there to here) will suit the editor's original wish for "some place else" for the individual cases (as I ultimately read the original piece above); as well as also suiting others' wishes. I would think an "Individual cases" link of some sort from this article to that one would also be appropriate. We shall see. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

ps For reference, I have tried to coordinate these two articles before, here, further above. All best. Swliv (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

NYT etc. are certainly reliable. Perhaps what Maunus means is that they should indicate that the event is more than a news incident that will be quickly forgotten. I don't think much of the "hide all details to preserve the reputations of convicted molesters" attitude of other editors on this page, but I do think WP:EVENT is a good model, such that if an incident isn't necessarily worth discussing as such, we can still pull useful generic details from it. In this case, I think the case you've added is supported by the NYT source as being indicative of Hynes's policy towards these cases. The issue with the cases I removed to the subpage isn't that they can't be notable, as I rather suspect some are, but rather that the sources and/or text they had didn't support notability over WP:NOTNEWS. Looking at the sources, Weberman was the first such case Hynes ever prosecuted, which wasn't mentioned in our text, and I agree with you that we should put that one back, though not for the reasons you suggest. (Also, holy hell, Alan Dershowitz is defending this cantor? But that was my own personal response.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I've added back material on Weberman, though not all of the details - what do you think? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your personal response, and your whole response. I don't have it in me right now to look at your Weberman restoration but of course it sounds "in the right direction" to me. I also appreciate your effort to focus on notability (rather than straw man of sources, there); and am glad my one addition here met your standard. I'll be keeping an eye on this all, obviously. Good to have confab'd.

I'd also appreciate your look at Child sexual abuse in New York City religious institutions, if you're inclined. My thought is that, in this time of much flux and evolving legal, social and political standards (I think I can safely say) most convictions are notable. In that context, I'd like at least a name and a thumbnail accessible in an appropriate slot, by search in Wikipedia, with then links to the larger discussion here and elsewhere. On the flipside, of course, news bits and lists are rightly to be avoided. My work at Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Philadelphia is perhaps my most developed current expression of the working modus. I don't feel I'm strong on the context you're looking for, generally. I'll be encouraged by this discussion.

And I like your diplomatic assessment of "hid[ing] all details ...". Cheers. Swliv (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the "list of incidents" style is a good idea on the NYC article either. In my view, that article should contain summary-style material from this article and from the relevant Catholic sex abuse article or articles, as well as other cases that can be determined to be notable over NOTNEWS. Wikipedia simply doesn't have to cover everything. However, I recognize that the Catholic sex abuse articles, because there are so many of them about different dioceses, do provide a lot more blow-by-blow newsy detail, and I doubt I'd be able to do anything about it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. To me, it's a good deal better than nothing (and more than "just a list") but certainly it could be augmented. I'll see what I or others can do. Swliv (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not particularly pretty and I don't know if it was a model for me, originally, in creating "Child sexual abuse in New York City religious institutions", but I've encountered this next one recently and there is some resemblance: List of state and local political sex scandals in the United States. Again, I'd say (and also, now, in comparison, say) the New York City one is certainly not "just a list". Neither's a list, completely. There are summaries of specifics on each listed item and of course sources. And the United States one is, again of course, in turn distinct from List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes (my emphasis). To my mind, all three say what they are and do what they say they do and are each defensible in their respective, stated terms. Could there be improved consistency and meta-criteria and all between and beyond the three? Yes. But in the meantime, until an editor with those skills and orientation comes along, I think we're on pretty solid ground where we are, here.

I'm linking this discussion to the New York City article talk page so more discussion on these subjects can maybe be coordinated. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

To Roscelese:

Properly sourced material was added, the meterail is directly relevant to the article. The material included:

1- Differences at trial between a Haredi and everyone else. This includes: a: The victim could secure a conviction with less evidence because of expert testimony about the Haredi Community. b: A Juror witnessed how the Jury proclaimed guilt BEFORE TRIAL BEGAN. - This confirms attorneys and community members claims. (daily news)

2- Reason they avoid secular authority is also becuase of a History of Prosection by Non Jews. (Channel 4)

3- Members of the community are "wary" about secular authority (Wall Street Journal), and are not convinced that Weberman in fact committed the crime. Especially that it was a 103 year sentence of a Father of 10. (NY post, NY 4)

4- The attorney's claims which is factual since it was verified by a Juror. - This identical claim was brought by 2 attorneys from 2 seperate cases, and the Daily News thought that it is relevant enough to combine both claims in one article that discusses a case Hardi abuse. (Ususally the Daily News is a staunch fighter against Haredi abuse). Civil Rights5 (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You may argue on the last (4th) addition but there is no reason to go ahead and delete an entirely properly sourced addition. Rather you can work on it.

Also if you believe that quoting "small partions" of a printed sources is called "Plagiarism" you could re-quote some of the words. There is no reason to delete all.

P.S. In your edit history on this article I noticed quite a bit of improperly sourced (such as the entire paragraph preface you added) and they way you modified the voice etc. Civil Rights5 (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Your first point is not actually present in the source, while your second is a claim from one individual that, if included, would need to be given due weight.
2. That's reasonable and would be appropriate to add to the bit about mesirah (which is how the source includes it).
3. Our coverage of the Weberman case is pretty minimal. The fact that his supporters believe he's innocent is not the highest on the list of things that we could include if we were to go into more detail.
4. Remarks from three supporters of suspects = not exactly a strong foundation for presenting anything as objective fact. Potentially worth mentioning, but not with the words or the WP:WEIGHT you gave it.

And no, you are responsible for not plagiarizing. "Quoting" (copying without attribution) "small portions" (entire sentences or paragraphs) is absolutely not acceptable.

For your last point, please read WP:LEDE.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

We have an article that discusses the relationship of Haredim with Secular authority, why are we HIDING these properly sourced material? What is our goal? Let us take a look at the sources and their titles:

1- Daily news: Juror’s bombshell claim: Hasidic suspects can’t get a fair trial in Brooklyn An article about a Juror that witnessed her peers "saying he was guilty before the trial even started" - Isn't it neutral to bring BOTH sides?

2- Channel 4 [1] "And with their long history of persecution, some Charedi Rabbis declare that reporting a fellow Jew to non- Jewish authorities is forbidden".

3- WSJ article named |A Brush With Justice Turns Sect Inward look at the title "Turns sect Inward" and writing "Some within the Satmar Jewish sect said the 103-year sentence might reinforce suspicions that their community is being targeted by outsiders".

While the details of the Weberman case are not so relevant - it IS relevant to THIS article that members of his community don't have confidence in secular court and don't believe the ruling of the Secular court.[2]

4 - We are not looking at an "opinion" of WP:WEIGHT. We are repeating a common identical claim by attorneys in these cases, and we are showing that even a Juror confirmed this claim that "Hasidic suspects can’t get a fair trial in Brooklyn" [3]

Aren’t these very important factors for this article that is all about the relationship of Haredim and Secular authority?

Why don't you correct the wording and the order? Civil Rights5 (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

1. What are you suggesting is the "other side" here that we already include? The documented fact that Weberman was convicted, vs. the uncorroborated claim about a biased jury that just coincidentally happens to come from someone who thinks he's innocent? NPOV does not entail giving everything equal weight, but due weight.
2. As I said.
3. Can you propose one sentence to add to the "Relationship with law enforcement" section about some Haredis not trusting the courts?
4. If you believe your addition is exempt from our rules about WEIGHT, you need to read that policy again.

Again, I realize that you have very strong personal feelings about this issue, but you still need to follow Wikipedia's policies. Don't make up stuff that's not in the sources. Don't plagiarize. Make sure you're not inflating minor viewpoints at the expense of mainstream, documented facts.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"Juror’s bombshell claim: Hasidic suspects can’t get a fair trial in Brooklyn" - Restoration

Addressing some of the Issues brought by Roscelese, here is how I am posting:

"At Trial

Following an abuse case against a Hasidic Brooklyn man where one Juror caused a mistrial, the Juror later recounted in an interview with the Daily News how her fellow Jurors "were saying he was guilty before the trial even started...to them, he looked guilty even before we heard any evidence." She pointed out that the slanted discussions already began at the jury selection. She went ahead and advised the defense team that the defendant should look less religious during retrial. This incident was a boost to a common claim of defense lawyers representing Hassidic defendants, that when an obviously Orthodox Jewish looking defendant goes on trial, they face a subconscious prejudice. However, Jerry Schmetterer a spokesman for Hynes, and Ben Hersh, a victim’s advocate both maintain that this defendant received a fair trial.

At trials for Hasidic suspects, the case gets a boost from expert witnesses who inform the jury that Hasidic victims often do not come forward because the community is so insular"

Here is the main source:

Juror’s bombshell claim: Hasidic suspects can’t get a fair trial in Brooklyn

Part 2 (relevant material - more controversial):

"Members of the Orthodox community are not confident in the Jury’s ruling of the high profile Weberman case, and still believe that he is innocent. Others, including Assemblyman Dov Hykins said about the long 103 year Sentence, that it further isolates the Hassidic community who are already “wary” about secular authority."

Here are the Sources:

"|A Brush With Justice Turns Sect Inward"

[4]

| Unholy monster Weberman gets 103 years.

Notes to Roscelese:

1- In a Wikipedia article that is dedicated to discuss Haredi's reluctance of Secular Authority, we should not hide material about “pre-justice bias against Haredim” during trials. It was a published article in the DAILY NEWS (-not me-) that related this pre-justice abuse case to the general picture of Haredi trials.

2- In order to avoid your emergency immediate plagiarism removal – I reworded everything.

3- Remember, Wikipedia is not original work and opinions WP:ORIGINAL. Your claim that these are merely “opinions of the attorneys” and thus deserves less WP:WEIGHT may be a logical claim, but it is not supported by the published Daily News work that is titled “JUROR’s bombshell claim: Hasidic suspects can’t get a fair trial in Brooklyn” (it is not titled as “attorneys claim”) It was the Holdout Juror that caused a mistrial who advised the suspect to “look less religious” during trial. (Also, other than the prosecutor and activist who claimed that this specific case was a fair trial, the published Daily News article does not even bring anyone who argues on the general statement that Hasidic suspects face prejudice. This is all in addition that the discussion is about the Haredim thus gives their opinion more WP:WEIGHT)

4- Your strong opinion on this subject is evident by the fact that you immediately removed ALL the material (including “Jurors bias”) and you went ahead and put back ONLY the material that supports your stance on this issue (-“expert witnesses”-).

I am also correcting the wording: Here is what the Daily News wrote

"Cases involving Hasidic suspects also get a boost from expert testimony so the jury is informed that Hasidic victims are less likely to come forward partly because of the sect's strict insularity."

Your wrote: "At trials for these cases, expert witnesses inform the jury that Hasidic victims often do not come forward because the community is so insular".

You skipped out an important part of the statement that these cases get a boost which is in an article titled can't get a fair Trial (-which I even mistakenly exaggerated the context by adding "little or no evidence")

I am correcting: "At trials for Hasidic suspects, the case gets a boost from expert witnesses who inform the jury that Hasidic victims often do not come forward because the community is so insular".

Civil Rights5 (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Please calm down and read what I've already explained to you. I understand that you have very strong personal feelings on this issue, but you are giving undue prominence to an uncorroborated claim from a non-impartial party and presenting this claim as fact. As I've already said, if we want to go into more detail about the Weberman case, this is not where we're going to start. Since you are a new user and are having trouble complying with Wikipedia policy, I recommend that you a) present your edit suggestions on the talkpage rather than implementing them yourself and edit-warring in order to do so, and b) seek help from Wikipedia institutions designed to help new users, such as the Teahouse. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Modification of Roscelese's opinionated, poorly sourced Lead (preface)

Here is a Lead added by Roscelese:

"The response of Brooklyn's Haredi Jewish community to allegations of sexual abuse against its spiritual leaders has drawn scrutiny. When teachers, rabbis, and other leaders have been accused of sexual abuse, these communities have covered up the offenses and encouraged reprisals or shunning against victims and those members of the community who speak out against cases of abuse."

Problems

1- This is very opinionated and Follows Roscelese's strong opinions.

2- Much of it is WP:LEADis poorly sourced thus not following "according to reliable, published sources" (for example the statement "against its spiritual leaders" and "teachers, rabbis, and other leaders" The sources on the other hand point out that they avoid secular authority in ALL cases.

3- WP:NPOV Roscelese totally skips out the Subjects = Haredims point of view POV. as stated in WP:DUE"articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space."

4- The lead totally skips out the entire "Relationship with law enforcement" section - this seems to be and intentionally only in order to avoid the Subjects = Haredims point of view.

Here is a more supported Lead

"The Haredi Jewish community who are wary about secular authority, have come under scrutiny for failing to report sexual abuse to secular authority, and further shunning against victims and members who encourage going forward." Civil Rights5 (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Article protected

This article has been protected from editing for three days. Please return to the talk page and do not try to force through your version by edit warring. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I saw this article's problems 12 days ago and let it sit, but I had to revert Roscelese's edit, which arbitrarily took off mcuh sourced content. I am open to discuss my changes with Roscelese, I'm convinced it will be a good discussion. --Newchildrenofthealmighty (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You clearly didn't see very well if you think that I'm the one changing a stable article. Please try to gain consensus for the addition of new material. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion declined

There has been no active discussion here for a week, ever since the article was protected, effectively ending the edit war. Hopefully everyone involved here can work out their differences on talk without starting a new edit war. If not, please report any new edit warring to WP:ANEW. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 19:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's a very helpful response. Obviously we cannot come to an agreement - that's what WP:3O is for. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Civil Rights5 said on my talk page that he was not going to edit this article any more: here -- Diannaa (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I didn't realize. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

3O is for ongoing disputes in discussion between two editors (not for edit warring - that's what ANEW is for). If I had been patrolling 3O a week ago and taken it then, I might have responded a little differently, but all discussion here had already ended before today. It looks like the situation has reached a resolution, though, since one editor has bowed out. I truly wish the best of luck to all involved. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 01:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

My stance has not changed. I just gave up arguing. Do to full time work it is very difficult for me to spend so much time on this.

The citations I introduced to this article shows a different view on the matter. (Apparently the view of the subjects of this article the "Haredim".) However - unfortunately some users will not allow the sourced POV under any circumstance. Civil Rights5 (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

To Roscelese

Your edit summary, in reverting my edit of the lede, says, "That's what the sources say." That is a false statement. Only one of the cited sources (Village Voice) alleges that more than one or two cases have been "covered up." And that source indicates that the community is now in transition, if you would please read the online version of the story all the way through to the last page. Rabbis are now telling their congregation members to go ahead and call the police. So accusing these leaders of "covering up" these crimes (A) on the basis of a single source, which itself attributes the charge to one activist for sexual abuse victims (your version fails to do that), and (B) at a time when even that one source acknowledges that any such problem was more in the past than the present, may be a BLP violation.

Furthermore, failing to inform police is not the same thing as actively concealing a crime. The term "cover up" indicates active concealment, such as destruction of evidence and intimidating witnesses. Merely failing to inform police is not a "cover up" in the usual sense of that term.

Accordingly, I am reverting until we get this sorted out. I'm copying this to your User Talk page to be sure that you don't miss it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

But there is an enormous amount of intimidation. Sources that discuss this are already cited, and they don't say it's just a wild claim coming from victim advocates. I don't object to the clarification of failure to report crimes, but that is not the extent of the covering up that goes on according to source after source after source. I'm also not sure that rabbis' encouraging congregants to report crimes merits so prominent a place, based on sources (see eg. the case discussed under "Prosecution" where an accuser was indicted because he accused), but I think that can be tweaked rather than being removed entirely - it's that there are multiple elements of the community doing different things, not that the elements encouraging reporting and prosecuting of these crimes can be discounted :) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Coverup - "a usually concerted effort to keep an illegal or unethical act or situation from being made public".

If they didn't report it, then it was an effort to keep an illegal act from being made public, which makes it a coverup by definition. P&W wants a coverup to meet even higher standards, but we can just stick to plain English. MilesMoney (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• If they didn't report it, then it was an effort to keep an illegal act from being made public ... That isn't what the dictionary says about the term "cover-up," is it? I will once again point out that we have a policy called WP:BLP. If we are going to use Wikipedia's voice to accuse living people of covering up sex crimes against children, we need to be very, very certain that they were actively covering it up — not just failing to report it. I think "failing to report" is adequate. It accurately conveys what the sources actually say. The version proposed by Civil Rights5 above[5] seems compliant with WP:BLP policy, while the current lede does not seem compliant. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Like I said, I don't have a problem specifying "failure to report," it's that that wasn't the only thing going on. We could write "failing to report crimes, intimidating witnesses," etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• It's clear that the Haredi community was using intense social pressure on witnesses and reported victims. The term "intimidating" implies threats of violence, which is an enormous escalation from social pressure. I object to the use of such loaded language in a BLP context. See WP:WEASEL. The sources specify the Haredi practice of shunning, so that's what the lede should say. The source also specify at least a few cases of failure to report to police, so that's what the lede should say. The use of the highly inflammatory language currently in the lede implies much more than shunning, and much more than just failure to report a few cases. I am editing the lede to represent precisely what the sources say, and if you have any further changes, please discuss them first. Specifically, if there is a reliable source that says threats of violence were made, please show me that source. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• They specify shunning but not only shunning. The sources document physical harassment, threats to businesses, abuse of the courts, and other things that can in no way be described as "shunning." According to the DA, it has at times been worse than the victim intimidation in organized crime cases, which suggests but does not specify that violence was involved. If you think "intimidation" implies guys with clubs waiting outside someone's door, you need to find another word that conveys the intimidation that goes on rather than removing sourced information because of your own personal analysis, but even so, I'm not sure that's appropriate based on the sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Since the district attorney (Hynes) used the word "intikmidation" I suppose we can use it too, but I am very wary about using any such word without attributing it to the DA. Someone should get a criminal conviction for witness tampering, or some similar offense, before we use it without attribution in Wikipedia's voice. The two words you have added seem like a reasonable compromise if we attribute them to the DA and I will make that change to make this work. Perhaps there will be greater disclosures in reliable sources in the near future. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• It's not just Hynes. Are you even reading the sources or my comments? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Article with political agendas and hatered

I am not an editor on this site. I just want to say that this article is a political agenda and hatred and does not belong in an encyclopedia. I saw the comments above am not interested in arguing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waistingtime (talk • contribs) 05:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Merged

I've boldly merged this article to Child sexual abuse in New York City religious institutions because they are on the same scope, and also because it spread beyond Brooklyn and the Haredi community. Feel free to revert my merge if you disagree. Epic Genius (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Why would you think this would be uncontroversial? There have been two whole AFDs on this thing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Because there is already an article on this whole issue as a whole, and the article should not be limited to one aspect of one type of crime in one borough of New York City. Epic Genius (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Also, I have made a merge discussion, if you are interested. I hope that this can be sorted out. Thanks, Epic Genius (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Right, saw it, thanks. I'm not sure how to add that it's actually the 3rd nomination, as the first one was under a different title (see top of talk page). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Incidents list is slowly respawning

Can we walk back the ballooning incidents list? Let's try and write a prose summary of incidents that avoids falling foul of WP:BLPCRIME and news-y event notability issues while still conveying an overview of the issue, eg. that this is largely taking place in a teacher-student context, that there have been convictions, that there is a deep problem with witness tampering and intimidation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

as the person who added the last two entries (and I swear I had no idea you were even commenting on this topic as I want to avoid you at all costs...but I guess it stands to reason why you would) I can vouch that in both instances the cases in question were of CONVICTIONS and OPEN RECORD. In one case the convict is currently a fugitive, so we are actually doing a service. Sorry you don't seem to care about the rights of children when it concerns your own group, but some of us do.Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: looking through the article history, I notice you're the one that added (or most recently re-added) the big incidents list. Did your view change between then and when you decided you'd prefer to merge the article a few months ago? Would you support removing the list again and replacing it with a summary of notable features of the cases? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Roscelese: I actually added the listings before I decided to move the article. ;) In any case, I'll summarize and remove them, because looks like WP:BLP or something is being violated here. epic genius (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Roscelese: I have summarized the content that I have removed to two sentences. I did not name any specific people per WP:BLP. Please feel free to make corrections as needed. epic genius (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Are you planning to come back and add in the other recurring details (witness tampering etc.) or should I? That's a very relevant part of that section, which should be in the area of incidents or have its citations added to the mention of the issue elsewhere. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Roscelese: You can probably add them. I don't specialize in these kinds of things, but I might add some other details as well after looking through the sources. epic genius (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a few more things; I've also made some elaborations and done a bit of re-organization. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

We do still mention the Weberman case under "Prosecution", but a) lots of sources talk about it, and b) he was convicted and received an enormous sentence. We might even be able to make a subsection about it, since the sources talk largely about the community's response to it as illustrative, and not just the incident itself. What do you think? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we could mention the Weberman incident in its own paragraph/section. epic genius (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Epicgenius:LOL...it's pretty blatant, isn't it? The background here is the same user that put these up to begin with has issues stemming from our first interaction on 11/29 in a different page. The editor's "about face" on the list that the same person originally put up is due to an attempt at a personal feud with me. It can't be more obvious now. So, while I cannot speak to the other entries re WP:BPCRIME I can speak to the two entries I put up, which are convictions (not accusations). So, those will stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinacrialucente (talk • contribs) 17:30, 1 November 2015‎ (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: I only speak for myself when I removed the incidents list. Please feel free to add your entries back as long as they don't violate WP:BLP. epic genius (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

awsome. you are one righteous editor. But to be honest, when I first contributed to this article, as mentioned I had no idea I was going to have to deal with this particular editor re WP:HOUNDING. So, as long as the editor leaves MY contribution/page alone, I'll leave this topic to you two. I'm seriously tired of this passive-aggressive nonsense.Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)