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)

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. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:27, 4 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)