Talk:Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community

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)