This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community page were merged into Child sexual abuse in New York City religious institutions. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
" 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community page were merged into Child sexual abuse in New York City religious institutions. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
" 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)