Talk:Child sexual abuse in New York City religious institutions

"Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community" merger was apparently reversed perhaps unilaterally "per AfD non-consensus".Swliv (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Nechemya Weberman case

I restored the removed material about the convicted child abuser Nechemya Weberman. The title fully covers this material. Note that several of the abuse cases already in the article are reported to have taken place in Massachusetts. Therefore the abuse does not have to have been carried out on the premises of a religious institution in New York. The word 'in' can be read to mean 'among.' Please discuss before removing again.81.132.152.160 (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I fail to comprehend your grammatical machinations. Kindly provide a reliable source that the Nechemya Weberman case was a "child sexual abuse case in [a] New York City religious institution" before adding this material. I will be removing it. Please note our WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD policies before attempting to reintroduce this material. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It is your grammar that is at fault. What do you mean by 'in'? The victim was referred to Weberman by a yeshiva. That is a religious institution. I suggest however that the title be changed to communities and institutions. 81.132.152.160 (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link that states that 'It was the school that ordered the girl to continue counseling with Weberman, 54, or be kicked out, WCBS 880′s Irene Cornell reported.' http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/12/03/brooklyn-orthodox-leaders-sex-abuse-trial-resumes-accusers-mother-takes-stand/ now please restore the material, or remove that which refers to Massachusets.81.132.152.160 (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The CBS link provided good additional detail to link explicitly both the counseling and the abuse to the religious school. I've restored the original line and added the detail. I hope that addresses the basic concern. There's no question the original text was slim and the "expansion" template called for additional detail. I've left the template in and would hope the section can be supplemented. The originally cited four stories would provide additional supportive detail as well.

I am comfortable with "institutions" covering the school and the official relationship between the school and Weberman and "communities" seems too broad to me. The "community" is not going to be charged in a crime or ordered to pay damages or sent to prison; the individual and/or the institution are the relevant parties. Perhaps a line in the section with citation and maybe more link(s) within Wiki to describe the community/institution relationship in this case would be helpful, if I may suggest it.

Thanks. Swliv (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd forgotten the exact course of the above interaction when, recently, I discovered the "Haredi community" article which has also been addressing the NWeberman case since soon after this article started doing so. My link here is to the talk page of the Haredi-community article where I've addressed the relationship between the two articles a bit. I don't know where any of this will go but did want to alert anyone here of the other venue. I've also created a (one-way) link from the NWeberman section in this article to same section in the Haredi article.

Maybe it was the "in" which dissuaded further effort by Brewcrewer on behalf of this article v. that one (where Brew began contributing exclusively soon after the above). NWeberman's office -- where the transgressions occurred -- weren't after all "in" the school I don't think and as I think Brew was saying. Semantics but maybe worth considering. They've gone through three or four article names, there, in recent weeks. FWIAW. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

BOliva edits

I obviously – from my restoration edit – didn't accept the bulk of the reworking and trimming of the Oliva section.

The one element I didn't reverse as yet is the naming of the survivor of the abuse in the Massachusetts case. I lean toward the argument that if a victim and survivor is willing to stand up in court and face his or her abuser and gain a conviction, he or she is prepared and even would welcome being named, here as elsewhere. I hesitated for a bit on this because the girl in the more recent NWeberman case I'd noticed had generally not been named. However, it now seems to me that that non-naming is particular to that case: the community has been extremely hostile to the girl's family and presumably the girl. I of course wouldn't go out my way – even if there were a source – to name in that case. I also hesitated as I thought back over the Penn State child sex abuse scandal. I know some of the early accusers were given harsh treatment in the powerful Paterno culture. As late as the Sandusky trial itself, I believe the young men tried to testify without having their names on the record and the judge refused so they testified, breaking the "Victim 1" kind of reference that had preceded. A Sandusky adopted son even was prepared to testify, I believe it came out after the trial. And one at least of those who testified also went on television, using his name I believe. I agree Wikipedia doesn't want to get ahead of the media or the victim/survivor. I have now checked out Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy and certainly take to heart the policy of avoiding what "amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization". I would say that discretion is still, in the policy, left with the editor. Part of what I restored to the section was the context of the individual -- how important positive feedback from friends was, partic. in the face of official/abuser disdain; the judge's hug; the Victim Statement. All that to me says that naming and confronting is part of his recovery, not victimization. But I recog. the policy presumption stands and I can see leaving out the name while that's being addressed. I'd appreciate discussion here on the subject. I'm working toward discussion at the policy page.

I've used "survivor" some here and in my re-edit. It's often preferred to "victim" as part of the recovery process.

I removed the survivor's name from a footnote, along with some details that no longer apply (for some reason; didn't look further, yet at least).

Thanks much, and cheers. Swliv (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

In the past, naming victims has been somewhat problematic, with general policy leaning towards not doing it unless there is is value to the typical reader on the grounds that the name would have some meaning. Especially in cases of sexual abuse, I generally feel that we shouldn't name victims who are otherwise unknown - they suffered enough by the abuse, and don;t need to be forever directly connected to that abuse on WP. In this case the victim and alleged were brave enough to stand up in court, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we need to continue to invade their privacy by connecting them to the abuse here, especially given that knowing their names would not tell readers anything of significance.

I also feel that the term "survivor" is inherently POV, as it suggests that the abuse might have killed them, which was not necessarily the case. I prefer the more neutral abuse victims.

Finally, in regard to the extensive quotes, my concern there was that they add little, but don't read in an encyclopedic manner, so much as what you would expect to read in a newspaper article. There is arguable value in the content, perhaps, but the way it is expressed is not in keeping with encyclopedic writing. - Bilby (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for thoughtful responses and light "ce" so far. I may let it rest as is though I'd definitely go with the one name. I think he's earned it and he has more to go -- challenge and possible compensation, in public if the court case proceeds. I may take it to the policy page, will let you know if so. All best. Swliv (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair I think to suggest pondering lessons in these two pieces -- "I Was Wounded; My Honor Wasn’t" by rape survivor Sohaila Abdulali, NYTimes, January 7, 2013; and her original 1983 report on the attack she sustained in about 1980, “I Fought For My Life...And Won”. Not only is survivor absolutely correct in the specific aspects of her case, it seems; but the (self-, in this case) naming of the name (as one who testifies in court also does) is clearly portrayed as a crucial positive step in the process of fighting back against the violence.

The other aspect of "surviving" the experience, in our current world, is that the shame and (massive institutional/community, often) denial of the crimes leads, of course, with some regularity to suicide and other self-damaging behaviors like alcohol et c.. Using the term "survivor" honors the successful fight against those indirect challenges the "victims" face and "survive".

Cheers. Swliv (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Individual cases

A discussion of the form and content of this article has developed at Talk:Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community#Individual cases. Also, some material in this New York City article has been moved, ultimately, from the Brooklyn article to here. Some history of the details are at the individual-cases-section link. Cross-referencing may be wise if discussion of individual-case or structural issues develops here. Swliv (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)