Talk:The Awareness Center

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remove Page[edit]

I am requesting this page be removed from Wikipedia and that it is blocked from being recreated along with my name. It is being used as a method of slandering myself and an organization that has been addressing sex crimes in Jewish communities for the last 11 years. Over the years various volunteers attempted to stop the attacks, yet it has become futile. I asking the legal department to get involved with this issue.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vpolin (talk • contribs) 02:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC) — Vpolin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. David in DC (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Ms. Polin realizes that accurate information will be included in Wikipedia whether complimentary or otherwise. Recognizing that her above request will fail -- slander has to be false, and there is nothing in the least slanderous about the page, and by her own attempts she has made her organization noteworthy enough to deserve a page here -- she has instead attempted to whitewash her organization and reputation. It is particularly unfair of her to do so, considering what her site has done to so many who had no chance to defend their reputations. I have reverted all of her recent edits, as not one could be argued to improve the accuracy of the page. SunAlsoRises (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that SunAlsoRises keeps putting false information about The Awareness Center up on this site. Some examples include the fact that The Awareness Center has never had any paid employees, everyone is a volunteer. Also the organization was founded in 1999, and not 2000. I could go on, yet it seems that it is futile. Once again, we are requesting this page be removed and and that it and also my name be blocked from ever being able to be reentered into this site. comment added by Vpolin (talk— Vpolin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. David in DC (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike Ms. Polin, I am interested in accuracy. Had she checked before attempting to shoot the messenger, she would have noticed that I accepted her correction that her organization was founded in 1999. As for her claim that "The Awareness Center has never had any paid employees," she has always presented herself as the CEO or Executive Director of her organization, either of which is a paid position. So either she's the CEO / Executive Director, or the organization is all-volunteer. To claim both, however, is misleading at best, and any inaccuracy is the result of her effort to misrepresent either her organization or her position within it.
This is the second time she has claimed that the quotations which she removed were false. She provides no evidence that either of the two pieces she removed were in any way inaccurate or out of context. If she has any evidence for her claims, then what she says must be considered. Otherwise she's just trying to whitewash her organization as I said before. In that case, this page should be locked as it is now, to prevent her from engaging in an edit war. SunAlsoRises (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking that the cyber bullying cease, and that my name and The Awareness Center's name be blocked from Wikipedia. I'm asking that the legal department get involved ASAP! As for SunAlsoRises comments, there has never in the history of The Awareness Center ever been a paid employee. I don't get his rationalizations. The organization is non-profit, the list could go on and on regarding the false statements he's been making over the years. comment added by Vpolin (talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Replaced the corrections once again. The Awareness Center has never had a paid employee. Everyone including myself have been volunteering our time. The Awareness Center has always been a grassroots organization with very little funding. Also I want to mention the fact that the quotes from the Jewish Star come from a blog created on WordPress. The other resource is nothing more then a trash magazine. Once again I am asking the legal department to get involved and remove my name and that of The Awareness Center from Wikipedia permanently. Edit war in progress; please block SunAlsoRises and lock page, see discussion -- until the legal department removes this entry and the ability to for anyone else to slander my name..) comment added by Vpolin (talk—has made few or no other edits outside this topic. David in DC (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This edit war will continue until a Wikipedia Administrator locks the page. If Vicki Polin wants to claim her organization is all-volunteer, she has to stop calling herself the Executive Director and CEO, both of which imply that her organization is large enough for her to pull a salary. She hasn't changed her own website, but wants to use Wikipedia to help her muddy the truth -- and that's not what Wikipedia is for. The Jewish Star is a legitimate Jewish news outlet in the Five Towns area of NY -- for Polin, who has been criticized for using anonymous blog posts in order to trash rabbis and others, to belittle the Jewish Star as "a blog created on WordPress" simply reveals her hypocrisy.
One other thing... "vpolin" has only been posting here since Sep 22 but talks about me and "false statements he's been making over the years." A few years ago I said the editors ought to check, I think she is using sock puppets to whitewash this page... did she search all my edits or did she just prove me right? SunAlsoRises (talk) 04:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand, what gives with SunAlsoRises repeated attacks a person who is living, and a grassroots organization that deals with sexual abuse/assault? The minute I put in the corrections he switches it back? What's his obsession with telling falsehoods? I'm told by those who live in the area where the Jewish Star is passed out, that it is sent out with coupons and other free give aways. I'm told that it's not a legitimate newspaper and the webpage is nothing more then a blog using wordpress. The attacks against my personhood and The Awareness Center started when we advocated for the survivors of a rabbi who confessed to child molestation and luring in adult women he was providing spiritual counseling to, along with another rabbi who was a high profile media case. I do not believe Wikipedia should be used as a place in which cyber bullying should be allowed. From reading the past entries, it appears that SunAlsoRises has been doing this for years. How long will Wikipedia allow such behavior? comment added by Vpolin (talk —Preceding undated comment added 04:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC). — Vpolin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. David in DC (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to address SunAlsoRises concern about the title given to me by our board of directors. We are a non-profit, grassroots organization -- just like other organization in which funding is low and is all volunteer -- titles such as Executive Director and CEO are standard. When will this madness ever end. This is really getting quiet comical, yet the bottom line is that Wikipedia should not allow this sort of cyber bullying to be permitted. comment added by Vpolin (talk —Preceding undated comment added 04:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC). — Vpolin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. David in DC (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking over the "corrections" SunAlsoRises keeps making. I think it's interesting in that he keeps removing the information that I have been nominated two years in a row as a nominee in the [ http://www.jewishcommunityheroes.org/nominees/profile/vicki-polin1/ Jewish Community Heroes of the Year Award]. This is an award put together by the Jewish Federation of North America. SunAlsoRises has also removed all articles in which spokes people for The Awareness Center has been quoted in reputable news papers, radio talk shows and also newscasts. He deletes information relating to anything positive anyone has to say, and only leaves derogatory information about myself and the organization. You have to start questioning his motives? Is it to promote an accurate perception of the work of grassroots, non-profit, organization that is a part of the Anti-rape movement? or does he have alternative motives? On The Awareness Center's web page you will find photographs of members of our organization with state legislators and other well known leaders in the movement. The Awareness Center has spoken at national conferences, legislative hearings and at various rallies. Why is this sort of information removed, yet the cyber bullying allowed? Once again, I am asking that the legal department at Wikipedia immediately get involved and block my name and that of The Awareness Center from this siteVpolin (talk —Preceding undated comment added 14:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC). — Vpolin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. David in DC (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although coverage of Wikipedia articles and topics must be neutral and verifiable by reliable sources, this applies only to content, not to articles themselves (unless the entire article is patently unverifiable and non-neutral, or it does not meet the inclusion criteria). An article's subject and/or those connected to said subject have no special privilege in selecting its content or its inclusion. This would be rather like a public figure attempting to demand that the news media not report on him/her. - Vianello (Talk) 07:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be able to respond to you Vianello, yet am in and out of town this week and swamped with the responsibilities of running a grassroots non-profit. I unable to research what you are talking about right now, yet if I am the crazy person that I'm being portrayed as by SunAlsoRises and your web site, why is it that we have such reputable people on our board and advisory board? This is nothing more then a hatchet job. I really expected much more from Wikipedia then this. Legitimate news media groups do not promote cyber bullying. It's interesting that the Washington Post, NewsDay, ABC, NBC, and CBS news (just to name some of the legitimate news medai groups) never reported any of this crap when interviewing me? Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vpolin (talk • contribs) 02:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC) — Vpolin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. David in DC (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you just did respond. But at any rate, I'm not accusing you of being crazy, or impugning your organization. Truth be told, I have never heard of it until now and still have no opinion on it. All I am saying is that information will be disseminated, be it complimentary or condemnatory. If you can actually demonstrate, say, that a source does not say what the article attributes to it, that would be grounds for removing it. But information is not removed just for being unflattering. If notable person A says something terrible about notable person B, and it's relevant to the topic, then it is permissible to quote person A, as long as it is provided in the context of being said by person A. A very relevant bit of reading would be WP:BLP, which covers policies on biographies of living persons. But it's important to realize that the question here is not "Is it nice?", but "Is it relevant?" and "Has it actually been said/written by a verifiable, reliable source?" Argument on those grounds is certainly reasonable, but argument that information is "bullying" isn't likely to get anywhere. As long as it is factual and presented neutrally, relevant information is good to go, more or less. I realize the article does appear to present a rather negative slope at the moment, but this is due in large part to a deficit of other information. Rather than blanking out reports of external criticism, chances are what it needs is just the introduction of other externally verified information. You mentioned interviews, for instance, which might be a good source for some inclusions as long as their content can be verified. As you can read further down the page, the apparent undue weight given to criticism in the article is a concern, so perhaps you could volunteer some other types of information that are reported by outside sources? - Vianello (Talk) 05:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is simple... journalists can be very lazy. They didn't do the research that Arakunem did (see Undue Weight, below) in order to be sure we are producing a balanced article. Who disagrees that abuse is horrible? So everyone naturally wants to support someone claiming to fight the fight on our behalf. They don't consider the possibility that the person claiming to lead the fight is mentally ill (Rabbi David Saperstein's words, not mine) and prone to imagine abuse where the only one abused is the innocent, falsely accused. I don't know what "reputable people" are on the board -- the only one which has a wikipedia page not written by "Dina Tamar" (I believe this is a Vicki pseudonym / sock puppet) is written and edited exclusively by the person herself. I don't think any of them are aware of the information collected here, even though it's verifiable and from reliable sources. SunAlsoRises (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Polin has been requesting this page be removed and blocked from being recreated. I've added background history on Vicky's education and experience, which I believe is important considering the work she has been doing in the Jewish community for the last 11 years. Chaim B (Talk) 09:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You added unsourced or improperly sourced information, defamatory accusations against the Jewish Star, and a slew of extraneous links that did not seem to conform to WP:EL. You may wish to review the necessary wikipedia polices which are listed a few times on your user talk page. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 04:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thejewishstar[edit]

Is this a reliable source? http://thejewishstar.wordpress.com Wordpress sites are usually blogs, but this doesn't exactly resemble a normal blog. OTOH, they don't list editors or owners, so it doesn't quite resemble a newspaper either. Do we know anything more about it?   Will Beback  talk  16:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the blog of an existing printed periodical. See http://thejewishstar.wordpress.com/about/. -- Avi (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I missed that. It looks like it qualifies. Thanks.   Will Beback  talk  18:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that I missed your question, Will. I thought that was covered because Wikipedia helpfully linked automatically to its own page on The Jewish Star in the credits. In any case, this is what we've been trying to say about the organization for years. The problem is that even when a person's psychological issue directly affects their position, it's not something considered a polite topic for an article. So those "in the know" simply stop relying upon her for quotes about abuse issues, while those not "in the know" just keep using her. Now, finally, the facts are emerging in print. We must protect the community from the real danger of abuse; unfortunately, her reputation is such that any reference to "The Awareness Center" is counterproductive when the person is actually guilty. SunAlsoRises (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having an article on Wikipedia (which I hadn't seen) is not a sign of being a reliable source, but that's a moot point now.   Will Beback  talk  20:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant, there's an article on Wikipedia which explains that it's a periodical that meets WP:V. I should have been more clear. SunAlsoRises (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm told by those who live in the area where the Jewish Star is passed out (Long Island, NY), that it is sent out with coupons and other free give aways. I'm told that it's not a legitimate newspaper and the webpage is nothing more then a blog using wordpress. (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vpolin (talk • contribs) 04:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC) — Vpolin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Any sentence that starts with "I'm told..." is the archetype of what does not belong here. David in DC (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

youtube[edit]

Will, you removed the link to "Rachel" on youtube. This video speaks directly to the motivations of the founder of the organization. Was the organization founded because she is a tireless victims' advocate as she says, or to continue to tar the Jewish community with accusations true or false? To me at least, the video is not tangential. Could you explain your reasoning? SunAlsoRises (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ELNO. Unless that video was posted by Harpo Productions, the owner, it is a likely copyright violation and we can't link to it. It has nothing to do with the contents.   Will Beback  talk  20:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Understood. SunAlsoRises (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a better link would have been WP:ELNEVER. Same page, different section.   Will Beback  talk  21:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David in DC's Edits[edit]

Let's not resume the whitewash of Vicki Polin and her organization. Vicki Polin created a false accusation of sexual abuse and ritual murder, which the ADL called a modern-day blood libel against the Jewish community. You don't think that has direct bearing upon the purpose of her organization? It is not something to stick in the last paragraph of the controversy section. SunAlsoRises (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a whitewash to enforce the special rules on wikipedia requiring special care with derogatory information about a living person. It must not be given undue weight, even if it is properly sourced. This is an article about The Awareness Center. Sourced derogatory information about TAC's director must not be festooned all over TAC's article. A brief, sourced mention in the lede, with fleshing out in the criticism subsection is far more easily justified than turning the TAC article into a coatrack for attacks on TAC's director, no matter how deserving of such treatment an editor feels she is. Please recall that, at the TAC Director's request, the BLP about her has been blanked. David in DC (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I won't contest the latest edit. My priority was that the summary at the top tell readers immediately that the TAC Director has a track record of attacks with no credibility.
This is not simply about the misuse of a Wikipedia page about an organization in order to attack a person. Her accusation of Satanic rituals speaks directly to her motives and her credibility as the sole known employee of TAC. Her web site -- which is all the TAC really is, her personal web site -- attacks Rabbis and others, often, as stated, without anything more than anonymous blog posts to back her up. Stories that charges against Rabbis were dropped and found lacking in substance are never posted -- only the calumny of those found innocent. Is she seriously interested in stopping abuse, or is TAC the next chapter in her efforts to tar & feather the Jews? Her Oprah appearance is directly relevant.
I was not aware that it was the Director herself asked anything, but her page was not "blanked." Type Vicki Polin in Wikipedia search and you will not get a page of search results -- you will get this page. They were merged. She is only known because of TAC, and it makes this information about her still more relevant to this page. SunAlsoRises (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone who knows how please fix the archives link?[edit]

Right now it leads to a blank page. It's my recollection that somewhere in that long convoluted archive is reference to Ms. Polin's page being blanked at her request, with what useful information about the Center it held transferred to the Center's article.

Once The Jewish Star finally put the Rachel material into a reliable source, it could be added to the Center's article. But WP:BLP and especially WP:UNDUE argue for less prominent treatment of this sourced derogatory information about a living person than for derogatory information about the Center, which is neither living nor a person.

All the information is in the article. The dispute is about prominence, placement and wording. It's best to err on the side of caution. David in DC (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done The archive was left behind in a page rename; I've moved it. -- Avi (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Todah rabah. David in DC (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
יור וולקם -- אבי - Avi (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regretably, my mom learned her conversational Hebrew in the 50's, at Young Judea camps. So she taught me that the proper response to thank you in Hebrew, was "ayn davar". As an 18-year-old using that archaicism in 1979 Israel, I got razzed for sounding like a 1930's socialist kibbutznik.David in DC (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My conversational Hebrew is middling (which is why I claim he-2, my comprehension is a bit better). The classic response is "B'vakasha" which means you're welcome although when I was last speaking Modern conversational Hebrew daily on a regular basis (about 18 years ago or so), the "in" response was "al lo davar" which literally means "on no thing" and is the equivalent of a "de nada" kind of response for you're welcome. -- Avi (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why David messed with the compromise we reached earlier. I would remind David of what I said before: "Is she seriously interested in stopping abuse, or is TAC the next chapter in her efforts to tar & feather the Jews?" Now that the Jewish Star has published what we already knew, it is directly relevant to why she created the center in the first place. It is the foundation of the controversy surrounding TAC and the way it publishes the flimsiest of accusations as if they were true, and it is hardly wrong under WP:UNDUE to have it at the beginning of the controversy section. SunAlsoRises (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unaware of a compromise being reached. I think we're both trying to hone the article, though coming at it from different angles. Outside of the Undue Weight issue, I think the rest of the diffs are about style, usage and avoiding adjectives that modify nouns when the noun is sufficient. I'll start a separate thread on undue weight only. And I'd welcome other editors' counsel.
YooHoo! We know others watch this page. Come, let us reason together. David in DC (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I liked how you tuned it before (that was the compromise), but honestly now I like your current version even better. You de-emphasized the material about her, but also expressed the primary criticism of TAC much more clearly than any previous version of the page. As the archives showed, the merger of her named page with this one was not by request, but because she had no other reason to be known -- so including the material about her is relevant as I argued. Nonetheless, it's fine that you move it to the bottom, putting it in the context of criticism of TAC with Bell's article as a segue, as you said. SunAlsoRises (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight[edit]

In an article about The Awareness Center, the focus must be on The Awareness Center. Criticism of its director is relevant, but even on pages that are not biographies of living people, the rules on derogatory information about living people apply.

That means the Rachel material needs to be the second sentence in the lede and the final part of the Criticism section. I've renamed that section, to make explicit the fact that both sorts of criticisms lay below the subhed.

The last section works better as writing qua writing, too. It starts with explicit criticism of the Center and its methods. Then comes the Catalyst material, which straddles the line between critique of the Center and characterization of Ms. Polin. Then the Rachel/Oprah/ADL stuff, which focus on Ms. Polin.

Also, as noted above, putting "Rachel" after the Catalyst stuff gets rid of that ugly business of ending on a block quote.David in DC (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Disclaimer: Disinterested party, referred here from Conflict of Interest Noticeboard): There are still issues in this article with promotional tone in the text as well as BLP issues surrounding the criticism of Polin. Specifically the Oprah interview has been somewhat misrepresented here, based on my reading of the source. The source describes her claiming she was a survivor (emphasis mine) of a cult which performed sacrifices that she had participated in, whereas the article text omits the term "survivor" ("her family and others had sacrificed babies"). The source is a little vague on that, beyond just using the word "survivor" so I feel the article text needs to include the word to be properly contextualized. I'm going to do some pruning of the article on WP:PROMO and WP:BLP grounds. Please discuss any re-add's of this material here, thanks! ArakunemTalk 16:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • On Undue Weight, yes this article is about the Center, and should focus primarily upon it. As it stands now, the article is very criticism-heavy. Is there nothing more on Activities? Has it received other praises not included? Adding those (if any) would not be a whitewash, but would add balance. Right now this article slants rather negatively. ArakunemTalk 16:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Outside of the institutions own website, there is little praise and substantially more criticism, IIRC. -- Avi (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Arakunem, what to say about Polin and the Oprah interview is a judgment call and you, as a disinterested party, are more qualified to make it. If you watch the video on youtube, both Oprah and Polin describe her as a participant and not merely as a "survivor" of the cult. Oprah asks what she witnessed and Polin replies, "when I was very young I was forced to participate in that, in which I had to sacrifice an infant." (Starts at 2:18 in the version as posted by "thefifthseal") Whether she was a "survivor" or "unwilling participant" or what-have-you, I thought "her family and others had sacrificed babies" was just accurate. SunAlsoRises (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, the source does make it clear that she participated, but including the Survivor term as was in the source article, to me, adds clarity to the WP article, since there was no further context as to what degree her participation was (e.g. gleeful participant, passive role, or hand forced while screaming in protest). To avoid that ambiguity in the mind of the reader, I feel it is important to match the source information as completely as possible, hence my add. (Addendum, I've tweaked the edit I made earlier, as I did omit the fact that she participated, which is supported by source) ArakunemTalk 23:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding the larger issue of Undue Weight, I respectfully disagree that this is an "attack article," despite the number of critical quotations from reliable and prominent people in the Jewish community. I agree with Avi that the organization has attracted more criticism than praise -- I don't think we could find a similar number of similarly prominent people willing to praise it. Rabbi Mark Dratch, for example, is a prominent activist against abuse, and turned from a supporter to critic (as quoted) as he learned more about what Polin was doing. I think that the original page was created by the organization and its allies, and efforts to add criticism were largely blocked until recognized news sources finally printed what was commonly known to those who had looked a bit more deeply. It's not a pleasant result, but this is simply the truth. SunAlsoRises (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep, I spent some time digging for information, and I'm finding near universal criticism. This does place us in a bit of an odd position, as you stated. ArakunemTalk 23:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I tracked down what you wrote on the Conflict of Interest noticeboard about this: "Digging for balanced information, I find almost universal criticism of this center and its founder; the undue-weight clause would seem to apply to the positive side of the discussion." I think you have hit the nail on the head. This is an unusual case, but I think Wikipedia is performing a valuable service. She's described by Reform and Orthodox Jewish figures (who agree on little else!) as mentally ill, who has set up her own personal witchhunt and is ruining the careers of the innocent along with the guilty. Yet she gets uninformed journalists to quote her as legit... if Wikipedia saves one innocent from Polin, a valuable service has been done. By the way, I found a quote worth adding to this page while following in your footsteps for recent stories about her. To check that this is accurate and in context, you can search for it on p.202 of the book as found on Amazon.com with its "search inside" feature. SunAlsoRises (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't mean to sound antagonistic, but Wikipedia is not out to "save" anyone from anything or anyone, and editing with the intention of doing so is at odds with the intent and nature of the project. Wikipedia is meant to provide factual (meaning "verifiably asserted", not necessarily "true" - though that's obviously better when it's possible!) information about topics. It is not a place to orchestrate said information to guide people to any particular conclusion you may desire them to reach. I understand we all have biases (I'm not using that word in a pejorative sense). I do, you do, everyone does. And there are certainly articles where I'd like people to come away with a certain understanding. But specifically because of that, I try to avoid doing more than just very modest tweaks and polishes on them. I'm not trying to accuse you of anything. Your additions, while in some need of "tidying" in a few places (and what additions aren't?), appear legitimate to me. But I would like to strongly advise you to understand the difference between providing information versus providing an opinion. That certain people have held certain opinions is information, but let's not cross the line here. Remember, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and pursuit of THE TRUTH can be damaging to the informative quality of articles. Add information to add information, not to make people reach a conclusion. - Vianello (Talk) 05:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't think you sound antagonistic, but I do believe I didn't convey my intent. Arakunem searched around, recognized that a negative article matches the opinions of those "in the know," and implied that he was uncomfortable with it anyway -- "this does place us in a bit of an odd position." By writing the paragraph above, I only wanted to allay his concerns. I am biased. It wasn't always so, because like anyone else I'm all for getting abusers out of schools and synagogues. But as Rabbi Dratch said, there's no real verification, she just put dozens of names up whether or not it made sense. She made a mockery of the whole business even before we learned about her Oprah appearance. What I'm trying to say is, I think the facts and quotations from various Jewish leaders speak for themselves, without spin. That's how my own biases developed. I have attempted to present accurate information in a neutral fashion, and I'm happy that you think I succeeded so far. SunAlsoRises (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rabbis[edit]

Outside of Rabbi Blau, is there any non-TAC evidence for the support of the other 259 rabbis? -- Avi (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None I've ever seen. I've looked. David in DC (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think that if the rabbis didn't want their name listed as supporters that there would be information on the net regarding this issue? Once again, your motives appear to be to attack The Awareness Center and Ms. Polin. I view this as nothing more then cyberbullying and that Wikipedia is being used as a weapon. Chaim B (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is neither our job, nor even are we allowed, to speculate about the motives of others. We rely solely on reliable and verifiable sources. There is no reliable information outside of Polin's own site about this, which calls the veracity into some askance. -- Avi (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would make sense that if you did not believe what was on the page that you would just start calling some of the rabbis listed and ask them if they gave permission for their names to be there. Do you do diligence before you start accusing a non-profit organization recognized by the IRS of providing false information. Chaim B (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be original research. I think many of the editors that have been involved in this article understand your concern, but this needs to be resolved by citing verifiable secondary sources unrelated to the topic. As to the suggestion of cyberbullying, please review WP:AGF; it would be better to focus on the article, not the editors. VQuakr (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continued Harassment of a Living Person[edit]

I've been monitoring the attacks against Vicki Polin and The Awareness Center on Wikipedia for a very long time. I've also noticed she requested this page be deleted and both her name and that of The Awareness Center barred from being re-entered. When ever anyone puts up accurate information regarding Ms. Polin and this organization it gets deleted. I've also been told this is happening to others who advocate for the rights of those who have been sexually abused. I'm curious if anyone has ever brought up legal action against Wikipedia for this sort of behavior? Chaim B (Talk) 01:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:No legal threats. -- Avi (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mission vs. Stated Mission[edit]

Polin's bizarre Oprah appearance, the criticism of the center for using rumor and anonymous blogs as "sources", and the put-down from Bell for acting as a "vigilante misanthrope" cast significant doubt upon whether TAC's true mission is an honest effort "to end sexual violence in the Jewish community." Most of the notable sources appear to suggest that its mission is to slander Jewish rabbis under the guise of ending sexual violence. I think it's more appropriate to call it the "stated" mission, rather than Wikipedia claiming to know the true mission. SunAlsoRises (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, the organization's legal mission is what it says on its incorporation papers. That's no doubt reflected on the organization's web page, which is our source. My judgment from the rest of the sources is that it's failing its legal mission. But that judgment is either prohibited synthesis or perhaps original research. I don't think that belongs in the article unless and until the secretary of state in the jurisdiction of incorporation says so, and it's reported in a reliable source.
I think it's a better exercise of editorial discretion to avoid undermining the noun "mission" with the adjective "stated". The more careful we are about insisting that derogatory information be meticulously sourced, the more justification we have in rejecting the repeated calls for blanking, whitewashing, hagiography, etc. The reader can decide from reading the article whether the sources support or contravene the notion that the organization is living up to its corporate mission. David in DC (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reading it, I think the section on synthesis directly supports my approach, by using the following example: "The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world." According to that section, there is nothing wrong with the reference to "The UN's stated objective" rather than "The UN's objective." The synthesis is the direct connection between the objective and the failure to meet it. "Stated" is a neutral adjective, accurately reflecting that this is what the organization claims its mission to be. The criticism is then stated as a separate but relevant fact. SunAlsoRises (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was Polin on Oprah?[edit]

3 sources were cited. One of them (Rosenbluth) says: "According Rabbi Tzvi Kilstein, a former resident of Teaneck who now resides in Boca Raton; Arutz Sheva Radio personality Tovia Singer; and an inordinate number of blogs, Ms. Polin has claimed that, in 1989, she was a guest on the Oprah Winfrey program using the pseudonym 'Rachel'." So, Rosenbluth doesn't say it was Polin on Oprah, but rather says that blogs and two people say that Polin said so. I've removed Rosenbluth as a source for this claim, leaving 2 footnotes for the claim.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. How does any reporter report about most anything, if not by speaking to reliable sources? Rabbi Tzvi Kilstein and Rabbi Tovia Singer are both reliable sources, and she quotes them by name rather than leaving them anonymous. Why does that make this information less reliable? SunAlsoRises (talk) 06:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It makes perfect sense. Rosenbluth is reporting what some sources said, not that they are accurate. If she wrote, "According to Pinnochio, Las Vegas is the capital of the United States" that would be very different from simply writing, "Las Vegas is the capital of the United States."Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you agree that Rosenbluth would hurt both her own reputation and that of her publication by using Pinnochio as a source. She didn't hear Polin make this claim herself, but quoted two credible sources who did. There are no shortage of articles that similarly engage second-hand sources to verify that someone made a statement that he or she perhaps intended to initially keep private. Rosenbluth's article remains a source for this claim. SunAlsoRises (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, reporters quote people all the time without vouching for their credibility. Rosenbluth didn't vouch for the credibility of the "inordinate number of blogs", and ditto for the other two people she mentioned.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She doesn't need to vouch for their credibility -- her article quotes them as sources for her Oprah appearance, and they are themselves both known to be credible (Singer is very well-known, Kilstein less so). The point would be worth arguing if this were the only source, but again, there are three. There seems no valid grounds to question the underlying fact here, unless there's some reason to impugn all three sources. SunAlsoRises (talk) 07:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That one source is okay doesn't imply that another source is okay. By your logic, we could add Marvel Comics as a further source, and then be helpless to remove it because the other sources are OK. We make BLPs ironclad by ensuring that ALL the sources are okay. If one is bad, it undermines the whole article, so cutting a source can actually strengthen the article's credibility. When reporters quote Obama or Boehner or Palin or a million other people, the reporter is not implicitly vouching for the truth of what is quoted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying Rabbi Tovia Singer is about as reliable as Pinnochio or Marvel comics? I do not agree with the recent "dumbing down" of the page. Rabbi Singer is a reliable source, and so is Rosenbluth. So we have a reliable report that a reliable witness heard Polin announce that she was Rachel. To say "according to Catalyst and the Jewish Star" -- implying there are no other valid sources for this information, and impugning its accuracy -- is simply unreasonable, as well as factually wrong. SunAlsoRises (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please think that over some more. You say that "according to" language impugns accuracy, but that's the kind of phraseology Rosenbluth used. It neither impugns accuracy nor confirms accuracy. Please let's not have a big battle over this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent) Is Catalyst a reliable source? There's not even a Wikipedia article about it, though there is a Wikipedia article about another magazine of the same name, Catalyst (magazine). Their website says they're in Salt Lake City, and "We are more than happy to consider unpublished writers, but please send examples of your writing."Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many magazines take articles from previously-unpublished writers, it's one way to become published. In this case, though, the article was written by the former Democratic National Committee communications director for Utah, and (according to the footer) joined by the editor and publisher of Catalyst. If there were only one source for the Oprah story, there might be reason to question, but there are three. SunAlsoRises (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources need to be looked at one by one. Keep the good ones and chuck the bad ones. The bad ones don't become wonderful by proximity to the good ones.
When a newspaper or magazine invites someone who's not a journalist to write, it's typically an opinion piece. Mr. Bell is not a professional journalist: His resume is here. If Bell has wrtten an opnion piece here, rather than a news report, then we need in-text attribution every time it's cited.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're really taking this page downhill by dumbing-down the clear identification of Polin as Rachel. The two sources mentioned do not "claim to" identify her, they identify her. If it's a "claim," we certainly should be able to add the Jewish Voice back into the mix, or mention Rabbi Tovia Singer by name. There are a host of independent sources that are, individually, clearly not up to Wikipedia standards (among them, Yori Yanover, a respected Jewish journalist) -- but all of which identify her as Rachel as well. It is true that the user vpolin cried to you that this page is "libel." She even offered examples on this page of inaccurate information. She did not include the identification of Polen (her?) as Rachel. So why should you go beyond what is clearly true and NPOV -- these sources identify her as Rachel. SunAlsoRises (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Headquartered in Skokie or Baltimore?[edit]

The following two reliable sources say Baltimore:

http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2007/01/25/news/local/insightabuse0125.txt

http://washingtonjewishweek.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&subsectionID=4&articleID=6566

What sources say Skokie?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It moved, new address on the website. SunAlsoRises (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unconfirmed claim[edit]

Regarding if it was Polin in the oprah show, Its peoples opinion and not confirmed, personally I would remove it as its not a widely reported claim either, but if you insist on adding it then please express the reality, and attribute it, as a claim only. Off2riorob (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in question is: "They claim to identify her as 'Rachel,' a pseudonymous accuser who claimed on the Oprah Winfrey Show to have been raised in a secret, Satanic Jewish sect that practiced human sacrifice." At issue is whether we should include the two words in bold italics. I think we should. Alternatively, I suggest we write: "They say she was "Rachel," a pseudonymous accuser who claimed on the Oprah Winfrey Show to have been raised in a secret, Satanic Jewish sect that practiced human sacrifice."
Unless we have total confidence in the Jewish Star as a reliable source, it's dangerous for us to reiterate what could be a libellous claim, as if we're confirming it. So this is a very legitimate concern.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am repeating myself, but is it appropriate to worry about it being libel before anyone even mentions that it might be false? You certainly are protected once you say that these other journals do the identification. I think Anythingyouwant's alternative is more appropriate -- better still would be "They report that she was 'Rachel,'" which is true, NPOV and clearly not libelous. Can we agree on "they report that?" SunAlsoRises (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree to "claims" or "says" but not "reports". The Catalyst piece is by a guest author who is not a journalist, and it seems more like an opinion piece than a news report.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anything, you seemed comfortable with "they identify," which is also true. I'll go with "they say" but this isn't at all dangerous. Among those working with sexual abuse in the Jewish community, it has become common knowledge that she's unreliable and prone to false accusations -- the Oprah appearance makes it obvious this is expected of her. This isn't an insignificant detail, but it is also something distasteful to talk about unless it's necessary. For a Wikipedia page about the organization -- yes, it's necessary. SunAlsoRises (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She may call it slander here, but she put her Oprah Winfrey appearance in her bio elsewhere. That's good confirmation. SunAlsoRises (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oprah: A Biography. New York: Crown Archetype.[edit]

I've just reverted two edits made on the basis that this biography is not a reliable source. It's the first edit by a new editor. I've asked the new editor to join a conversation on this page, both on his talk page and in my edit summary. The current consensus is that this book fits squarely within the wikipedia definition of a reliable source. I think it is. What do others think? Please leave the article alone on this score unless and until a new consensus is reached here. David in DC (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct?[edit]

TAC's Executive Director has put out publicity in the past 2 days announcing the closure of TAC. Her announcements are used for sources right now. They're self-published, to the web, by TAC. It was long ago settled here that self-published TAC pages could not be cited for the truth of its accusations of abuse, but could be cited for its incorporation, mission statement, self-description, and claim of Rabbinic support. It's announced closing is just the bookend of its announced founding. Still, I'm on the lookout for a news story picking up TAC's announcement. I'll insert one when I find it. David in DC (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely reasonable to use any organization's website as a source for the fact of its closure. I doubt we will see it in the news... I went looking, and her new website doesn't even mention where she worked, so I think Polin is trying to bury this in her past. However, she acknowledges that she appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show on a bio page I just found. Since she has never appeared on the show under her own name (or at least, she has never claimed it), I think the language of the page needs to be more definite that it was her. SunAlsoRises (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Examiner, blacklisted?[edit]

There's a site called Examiner dot com which is apparently blacklisted, and Vicki Polin's self-provided biography (as a writer) on that site references her appearance on the Oprah Winfrey show. Why was it blacklisted? SunAlsoRises (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you're looking for is on one of google's cached pages, about halfway down. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:r_1YZCqWKL8J:www.examiner.com/sexual-abuse-9-in-chicago/vicki-polin+http://www.examiner.com/sexual-abuse-9-in-chicago/vicki-polin&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com David in DC (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can cite a newspaper article without linking to it. But Examiner.com is not a reliable source. They don't have editorial oversight - people just write article which they post there and get paid by the hit.   Will Beback  talk  04:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is true even of a biographical essay written by the person being quoted? David in DC (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you post a link or a title so I can see what you're talking about? (You can use the nowiki HTML tag or leave off the http:// part to get around the blacklist).   Will Beback  talk  17:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it this page? www.examiner.com/sexual-abuse-9-in-chicago/vicki-polin
If that's the only biography of Polin available, and if used simply to say that she has appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show, then that's probably acceptable.   Will Beback  talk  18:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the page. I've gone back and cleaned up my mess with the "nowiki" command. Thanks.
I reluctantly agree. It can be used, if it's the only biography available, but only for the fact that Ms. Polin appeared on Oprah. It can't be used for the fact that she appeared on any particular episode, or under a psuedonym. So it's useful background material for editors to ponder, but doesn't belong in the article. Thankfully, we have the Saperstein quote from the New York Times, the material from the Kitty Kelley Oprah biography, and the Catalyst article for those facts. David in DC (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013[edit]

TAC has resumed functioning, according to its latest web postings. Given recent COI edits, that seemed to be the case. I've changed the tenses of the verbs here, accordingly. TAC's executive director has also posted her explanation of her Oprah appearance. We already had reliable sources for that fact (NYT, Catalyst, Kitty Kelley's book about Oprah.) But all cast the executive director in a negative light. That's discussed extensively above and in the archives. Not to mention elsewhere.

The executive director's own words are now in the article, to answer prior concerns about balance. In my editorial judgment, they should be the last word on the subject, so that's where I've put them.

I've also updated any sentences in the article sourced to the old TAC web page with sources from the new one. Where I could find them, I've used what looks like the old sources, just reposted to the new site. In other cases, where I could not find exact matches, I've found similar ones. I tried to get rid of the dead links, but a bot didn't like that. So I've kept them in, appropriately tagged, but put the live links in front of them.

The vituperativeness of prior content disputes on this page had convinced me to retire from editing the page when the most recent waves of COI edits hit. But looking through the new site, I think I've found a way to answer the complaints in the recent COI edit summaries, improve the article per WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, and treat the organization and executive director as fairly as possible, given the the verifiable, notable facts, as reported in reliable sources. David in DC (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Awareness Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Awareness Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Awareness Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Awareness Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Awareness Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Awareness_Center&oldid=1210668306"