This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please discuss any proposed edits on this page before making them. Edit wars are best avoided. -- TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 23:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Whether you admit it or not, your action, of deleting comments challenging the status quo regarding TAC and re-inserting them several screen-miles below (for once you didn't just erase them completely BECAUSE WE SCREAMED BLOODY MURDER) is an act of edit war. This is a very messy page, certainly not easily accessible to the newcomer, and your actions profoundly favor one side in the debate. I call on you again to unlock the TAC article, or at least restore it under lock to where there is representation of critical views. Otherwise your involvement here is little short of thuggish. Yyanover 23:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
guidelines]] and note "Start new topics at the bottom of the page" and "Avoid excessive markup". You can move the comment to the relevant thread. This page is quite long, if you want newer threads closer to the top you can archive unactive threads. As for screaming murder, please read WP:TIGER.
And yet you argue with my point up here rather than down at the end of this page, many screens away. Why? Possibly because you use elementary logic. In this case, my good name was being defamed for a year before somebody emailed me about it. Why should I be permitted a lower rung in the display simply because my attacker got here first? Yyanover 19:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry that I do not know protocol here. Even awareness center's own blog knows this was a genuine letter: jewishsurvivors.blogspot.com/2006/09/does-rabbis-saul-berman-joseph.html
USAJewish is published by Yuri Yanover, a journalist who must defend his work.
Agreed this letter is only on blogs, but see for yourself the "profiles" on the center web site. I will not say names here, as wikipedia should not slander the innocent by even mentioning names.
You see in many cases that their sources are: one blog. Yes a blog should not be used, and even more not to destroy a life. What I wrote about the awareness center, then, you see with your eyes:
I am restoring this paragraph. EyalH 21:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Is the correct founding date 1999 or 2001? The entry says both things. David in DC 18:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I've been reading through TAC's postings in it's "daily newsletter" < http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheAwarenessCenter/>. Vicki Polin states she started to transform her private practice web page into The Awareness Center site back in 1999. The organization officially got started while she was living in Jerusalem, Israel in 2001. The organization incorporated as a non-profit in the state of Maryland in 2003. That is also the year it received it's 501c3 status. Ephraim Schwartz 9:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't figure out how to get the little external link arrow onto all of the links that are indeed external links. Also, there's some funky spacing and funky symbols in the top couple of paragraphs.
Substantively, I do not understand why the external link to the Rabbis' letter about the awareness center's tactics was deleted. I deleted the Yori Yanover blog piece, but thought the abbis' letter met WK standards. David in DC 18:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I tried to change the Vicki Polin link to an internal WK entry, but discovered that someone has entirely deleted the entire Victori Polin entry.
There's a lot of goofiness and vandalism happening here. It seems to be being done by folks with a pro-Awareness Center POV. David in DC 18:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted an external link to a screed by Yori Yanover against Ms. Polin. It contains unsourced allegations and a distinct POV. These two have waged cyber-war for ages.
I've left up the Rabbis' Letter on Ms. Polin's tactics. It is well sourced and, arguably a primary source document on her work and career. It's at least as critical as the Yanover piece, but contains none of the latter's flaws. David in DC 20:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I've taken back down the Rabbi's letter critical of the awareness center's tactic's. There is a factual dispute about whether these rabbi's still stand by that document. David in DC 16:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
This is untrue, except per the Awareness Center itself. David, don't fall for a story. There is no indication nor reason to believe that the Rabbis removed their criticism of the Awareness Center and its methodology. The fact that later claims against Rabbi Gafni were proven true does not mean TAC did not pursue him and many other Rabbis with lies and slander. SunAlsoRises 22:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[redacted 72.85.3.158 ( talk) 05:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)]
[redacted 72.85.3.158 ( talk) 05:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)]
I am no Gafni Supporter. I am trying to bring the page into compliance with Wikipedia standards. Many of my changes, that are described as attacks, are simple typo corrections ie theWeb into the Web, and marking external links properly as external links. The letter from the rabbis opposing the Awareness Center's tactics is accurate. This page needs to be locked so more senior wikipedia editors can separate wheat from chaff. But believe me, I am no Gafni supporter. I've supported the Awareness Center and Vicki Polin in the past am am currently posting on Jewish blogs to bring Reb Shlomo Carlebach's history of predations into the mainstream. If you look at Carlebach's page on Wikipedia, you'll see that I've done so there, with help fending off a troll from a moderator. I need similar help here. Wikipedia needs an Awareness Center page that's accurate, and not a puff piece posted and defended by Awareness Center supporters. David in DC 15:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the title of this entry to take out a Libel against me David in DC 15:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the clean-up work Jeandre David in DC 20:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The Awareness Center is trying to rewrite its history. TAC's version of this page removes the references to Rabbi Marc Dratch which were found in the very recent JTA article. TAC's one-sided presentation of itself as an accepted resource does not meet Wikipedia's requirement of a neutral POV. SunAlsoRises 22:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[redacted Advocate For Survivors 22:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)]
I am asking that this page be locked and that it be left to the edition created by Jeandré (see link below). I am also asking that the individual who is attempting to create havoc to stop. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Awareness_Center&oldid=108169788 Advocate For Survivors 22:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I seem to have stepped into a landmine-filled controversy. As I see it, there are two different versions of this WP entry, that by Jeandré and that by SunAlsoRises. I've spoken by telephone with Vicki and am convinced she is working, in good faith, with Jeandré, to have TAC portrayed in a light she sees as accurate.
I haven't spoken with SunAlsoRises, but am equally convinced of Sun's good faith. I think Sun's version hews closer to WP standards than Jeandré's, but I am a very new Wikipedian.
What's gotta stop is the hourly edits.
The page needs to be locked. Then the Sun version and the Jeandré version need to be judged by experienced Wikipedians with no dogs in this particular fight. I will edit this page no more. I hope Jeandré and Sun will also cease fire. NOW.
I think a final page will look more like Sun's than Jeandré's, but, as I say, I'm new to this.
MPerel was able to broker a good resolution when I tried to edit Shlomo Carlebach's WP entry and ran into similar problems. The entry for Carlebach now seems to abide by WP standards. And, blessedly, the revert war there is over.
This page needs a similar solution. David in DC 03:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
All one needs to do is a little research on the case of Marc Gafni to understand the mindset of Sun. Marc/Mordechai Gafni has a long track history of cult like practices. All one needs to do is call Rabbi Shlomo Riskin regarding his past. Read all the entries on Marc Gafni It will make sense that Jeandre's entry makes the most sense. Sun's intent is harassment. Advocate For Survivors 04:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
This solution looks very correct to me. Thanks to Jeandré and Gnangarra. Thanks for taking out the most controversial change, for cooler heads to consider. Thanks for "locking" the page with balance, not the puff piece. Thanks for leaving my non-partisan clean-up work alone. And, especially for not laughing at a dolt who makes grammar changes while consistently misspelling grammar. David in DC 16:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Gnangarra's lock has been undone by a BOT. I've reverted the page to its protected status. I'm a newby. Should a BOT be able to reverse an Administrator's protection of a disputed page? David in DC 02:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I corrected the link. Please don't request any significant changes before protection is lifted - it would be inappropriate for any admin to make them. CMummert · talk 21:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Returned to the appropriate edition. Rabbi Mark Dratch has nothing to do with this organization. He was on the advisory board several years ago and created his own organization. If you have questions regarding this issue contact Rabbi Yosef Blau at YU. What is being posted in other editions is more or less about a group of a few individuals attempting to harass an organization that advocates for Jewish survivors of sexual abuse. Perhaps the solution to this is removing The Awareness Center from Wikipedia and also the entry for Mark Dratch and his organization JSAFE. [User:Stop The Insanity|Stop The Insanity] 15 February 2007 (UTC)
"Perhaps the solution to this is removing The Awareness Center from Wikipedia and also the entry for Mark Dratch and his organization JSAFE."
This would be the ultimate in giving in to the "heckler's veto" It would be shameful. David in DC 18:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
David, it's obvious your a supporter of Mordechai Gafni. If you weren't you'd be dropping this already. If you read the documents on The Awareness Center site you will learn that the reason many of the board and advisory board members left was because they were being blackmailed. Many were warned if they didn't leave that some thing they would want kept private would be made public. Read the article on the site about bullying. NOT David in DC 18:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
There are a few individuals placing information on this site as an attempt to harass this organization. Rabbi Mark Dratch has absolutely nothing to do with the organization. It is also inappropriate to put a link to Rabbi Dratch's organization on The Awareness Center's site.
Rabbi Yosef Blau, religious adviser at Yeshiva University and an advocate for victims of rabbinic sexual abuse and misconduct, has stated that the The Awareness Center is very valuable "since you can't get people arrested and there are no court cases, you have to use a standard that's reasonable and disclosure works in that context". The center no longer names its board members due to harassment, according to an article put out by the Jewish Telegraph Agency, Vicki Polin said she herself has been threatened repeatedly with physical harm and was once spat on by a woman who was angry over a sex offender being placed on The Awareness Center site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2007-03-09t04:38:23z ( talk • contribs) 71.248.91.237
As we all know board members of non-profits change all the time. Here is a current list of TAC's board of directors. < http://www.theawarenesscenter.org/board.html> Ephraim Schwartz 9:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not certain what is happening on this page, but it looks to be another victim of edit-warring. Therefore the page is semi-protected. If the edit warring continues in spite of these issues, I will revert it back to its present version and full-protect it. If you are not able to make changes to this article, please discuss here and get a consensus. Bastiq▼e demandez 21:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Who ever wrote the history regarding the organization is not correct. Below is the purpose of the organization. The primary goal has always been education.
Vicki Polin is the organization's Executive Director. In 2001, she founded the center to educate Jewish communities on the issues and ramification sexual violence plays in communities. It operates as a Rape Victim Advocacy Organization.
The organization was incorporated in the state of Maryland in 2003 and its international headquarters is in Baltimore, Maryland. [2]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.85.171 ( talk • contribs) 2007-03-10t15:25:47z
The 04-13 and 15 edits insinuate that the board members left because of the use of anonymous and Ford info. We have a source for this being the reason for ShafranDratch leaving, but we'll need a source for new edits too. See the
no original research policy. Comparing the names on a website over time only is not notable. --
Jeandré, 2007-04-15
t14:32z (corrected --
Jeandré, 2007-04-16
t21:51z)
I posted the following in another section, yet thought it was important to post it here too. As we all know board members of non-profits change all the time. Here is a current list of TAC's board of directors. < http://www.theawarenesscenter.org/board.html> Ephraim Schwartz 9:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The Awareness Center is non-profit organization with 501c3 status. The organization would not be allow to operate if it was a one-person operation. It is known that (deleted) has been stalking Ms. Polin on line for the last several years. His M.O. has been to protect a few of his friends which (were deleted by SunAlsoRises) Shalom Simcha ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC).
The following statement is not true and is part of a smear campaign against Ms. Polin and The Awareness Center. I am asking that the false statements be removed.
"Long before the list of board members was removed in 2004 (due to what Polin called "harrassment," as above), it diminished steadily during late 2004 as she began to use more and more anonymous material, as well as that provided by pornography columnist Luke Ford. By March 2005, the advisory board was cut in half, and then it was removed.[10]" Yacov 11:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I deleted a note that misidentified me as an anonymous participant here. I do not post anonymously. Yyanover 02:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
[redacted] Yyanover 19:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
PROTEST: Over the holiday of Shavuot someone has deleted my two entries on this page. It is unacceptable. You can't both demand that I "defend my position" and at the same time delete it when I post it. Unlike most of the participants in the discussion here, I'm not anonymous, I have a name and an address. I should not be subjected to rogue dletions while celebrating the holiday.
[redacted]
When you enter Yyanover in the URL you left here, [4] you get: "No matching items in log." Lucy, you got some 'splainin to do. Yyanover 09:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Response: There's an interview published by LA journalist/author/blogger Luke Ford:
From my telephone conversation with Vicki which I promised not to publish until Vicki gave her approval and had the opportunity to edit her words.
Vicki: "I was on the Oprah show just about 16 years ago. All hell broke out in my life after the show. I had been working for an organization called VOICES in Action (Victims Of Incest Can Emerge Survivors) at the time, and was finishing up my bachelor's degree I had told my story tons of time because of the work I did. I had spoken at national conferences, been on TV before and also on radio talk shows.
http://www.lukeford.net/profiles/profiles/vicki_polin.htm
Now, it's up to you whether you accept Ford's testimony as a published source. Personally, I don't always trust his motives, but I never caught him in a willful lie. Indeed, in my interview with him, when he was confronted with a misstatement on his blog regarding an individual's court appearance, he admitted his mistake.
Here is a source regarding the harm done by Polin et al to public life:
[5]Newspaper publisher becomes the story before debate
Now, Jeandré, you have not responded to my complainr regarding the removal of my entry from early May, 07. It wasn'r "redacted," it was deleted without notice. Did you do it? Are you empowered to delete entries without cause? Yyanover 14:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
My second entry was lengthier and involved a discussion of the problematic nature of anonymity as it is being misused by the "Awareness Center." While not advancing the cause of sex crime victims in the least, and while being ignored by more authoritative sources, Polin continues to offer a seductively easy story to Jewish writers fresh out of journalism school who are simply not aware of the more sly and dangerous aspects of her activity. To them I'd like to recommend a new website dedicated to educating the masses about the history and roots of Ms. Polin. http://www.vickipeeki.com/ Yyanover 02:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
David - Knowing who I'm doing business with I made it part of my web routine to check on my comments here twice a day. I'm not blaming Wikipedia, I simply noted that when I was not here keeping an eye on my notes, somebody quickly removed them. I believe they were still there earlier in the week.
I am not familiar with the way notes are recorded in the discussion area. I think we count mostly on the honesty of the participants. That flies in our faces when some of us are "allegedly" sociopathic. May we all be comforted with the rebuilding of the Temple in jerusalem... Yyanover 19:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
at the most recent locking of the Awareness Center’s article. Whoever is in charge on these messy pages has seen fit to remove all critical entries regarding TAC and its director,
[redacted]
This is not a crime only against the democratic nature of Wikipedia, but also against real sex-crime victims, who may now be misled into trusting Polin. How could you commit such a blatant ethical violation?
It is inconceivable that a woman who has been engaged in unsubstantiated attacks on often defenseless individuals, leaving scorched lives in her wake, would be permitted to present an “authoritative” article about her which puts to shame some of the Stalinist literature of the 1930’s. I demand that you return the critical passages, as well as the critical external links. Have you no shame? Yyanover 16:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no justification to locking the current, heavilly distilled version of the [14] Awareness Center article. As it stands now it is nothing less the a propaganda brochure with no reference whatsoever to the serious shortcomings and social harm born by TAC. Victoria Polin, owner and operator of TAC, is using the cultural power of sex-crime terminology to force Wikipedia into an unquestioning promotion of her business. She's done the very same thing to seduce rabbis and reporters into overlooking her own grave psychological handicaps (self admitted multiple-personality sufferer, to name but one disturbing disorder). At last, we must learn to separate between our notion of the required urgency of sex-crime suffering and the cynic who uses these notions to wield power over men she hates. Yyanover 12:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
People don't read any more. It is in this environment of semi-literacy that horrifying phenomena like TAC thrive. Fascism for idiots. Yyanover 04:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
RE: remove material that represents ... opinions about the character of the organization's founder etc This is quite mad. There is a [15]videotape available for all to see online in which the organization's founder accuses Chicago Jews of belonging to a Satanic cult. There is likewise an interview with her in which she admits fully to her being the person in the tape. Can you possibly even consider not including this in an informed article about TAC? You wouldn't buy a used car without full disclosure, would you employ lesser standards regarding Wikipedia sanctioned information? Yyanover 22:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Due to the degree of hostility posted on the talk section of this page I want to strongly urge Wikipedia not to unlock the site. Doing so will create a free for all in the accuracy of what's posted. Ephraim Schwartz 9:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
As discussion of my degree of hostility to Vicki Polin and TAC and whether or not it is justified is raging on this page, it has gone without comment that a group of more than ten links to my essays on both topics was removed from the TAC article. My writings on these topics, including interviews and timely opinions were chucked like so much needles debris because someone here, among the nouveau sapient illiterati running Wikipedia, has decided they were without value. I was unaware both of their inclusion in the first place and, naturally, of their removal, sometime last year. When I was emailed about the existence of this page, I discovered that not only was I being presented as having nothing but a partisan ax to grind, free of all other valuable information, but that all of those depictions bar none were being promoted by anonymous individuals, [Criticism deleted per WP:BLP
Indeed, once I entered a signed note depicting the essence of the debate of TAC, including a brief discussion of the issue of when it was unacceptable to grant the cover of anonymity to individuals attempting to destroy members of the community -- my short entry was deleted completely, and has yet to be restored.
Wikipedia is run on the honor system, which I applaud. But, sadly, the honor system fails when unscrupulous individuals are involved in the process of collecting and editing information. I have since made it a habit to record this page each time I add a note to it, so that my eliminated or "redacted" entries can be quickly restored. Incidentally, I've been writing for a living for close to 40 years and none of my editors, some of whom really hated me, exhibited the kind of know-nothing arrogance shown by this page's various "redactors."
To the point, now: Contrary to the vast majority of participants in this sad-looking page, I am a real man, with a real bio page, real professional history, real published works and real information and views. My work on Polin and TAC includes a discussion of her methods, her fundraising, anonymity as a tool, the Memory Recovery movement and its roots, and the media and sex crimes. Mine is not the only voice in the discussion, but, for crying out loud, why is it not a legitimate part of it? There are countless articles in Wikipedia that are rife with opinion. In my areas of interest, Jewish Studies, it's practically impossible to expect articles to be both meaningful and opinion-free. My own work is cited elsewhere on other issues and it raises not a single eyebrow.
But here my contribution is deleted, time and again, because, let's face it, it is critical of TAC and its singular operator, it stubbornly refuses to mistake the need for social awareness of sexual crimes for the needs of the operator of the Awareness Center to eke out a living.
I described Vicki Polin as [[criticism deleted per WP:BLP and I'm prepared to back up my analysis with examples, the most vivid of which is her inability to accept criticism, to admit mistakes, to consider opposing views. When she wrote a column for me in the old USAJewish.com, it took me only a few weeks to realize this, except at the time I was not aware of the full scope of the harm she was causing to many individuals. [[criticism deleted per WP:BLP Like many an inquisitor she feels misunderstood and persecuted by evil doers, so that when anyone rises to defend a victim of her attacks, she depicts them as necessarily doing it because they share their dereliction. All of these were born by me personally over an acquaintance of better than eight yeras, begun when she first sent me an email for publication.
I don't wish to be using Wikipedia as a tool to destroy TAC. But I do demand that the editors, volunteer editors, drive-by deletionists and the rest of the menagerie not employ the full depth of their cultural illiteracy in delegimizing my work which is crucial and relevant to understanding TAC. Yyanover 14:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
[Puff from "Ephraim Schwartz" redacted.]
The arguments being made against The Awareness Center are being made by individuals who have very little knowledge about sex crimes. They are not trained mental health or legal professionals. The purpose of their postings should be considered harassment against Ms. Polin, who is a licensed mental health professional] and all individuals connected to the organization. Ephriam Schwartz 18:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Having written extensively about her own multiple personality syndrome, Vicki Polin is making lemonades out of her psychological lemons by launching armies of supporters, like Ephriam Schwartz, all of whom, alas, share her peculiar syntax. Incidentally, Polin's own degree, according to her website, is in Art Therapy. Yyanover 02:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
A number of claims could be included in the article if properly sourced. Do we have a source for the claim made above that the Center sometimes relies on "memory recovery"? Is this a reference to Recovered memory therapy? Well-sourced criticism of this practice, if it is one, is an example of things that could be included. Specific, factual statements about the Center that appear in reliable sources can be included. Appropriately-sourced opinions by notable individuals can be as well. It may not be possible to include all criticism, but as long as factual statements are well-sourced, opinions are notable, and both are to the point and stated in an encyclopedic tone, they can be included. With a little calm and some research, a criticism section is possible. Best, -- Shirahadasha 16:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The Recovered memory therapy article contains some very strong criticism, yet this criticism is well-sourced and reports statements that were made in academic journals, media articles, and books vetted by reliable publishers. This article could used as an example for how to write critical content consistent with Wikipedia policies. Best, -- Shirahadasha 16:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Please place new comments or sections below older ones, use descriptive section headers, and refrain from unsourced accusations. -- Jeandré, 2007-05-28 t21:03z
The article, as currently locked, is a puff piece. It includes a quote praising The Awareness Center (TAC), taken from an article that had quotes both praising it and criticizing it. An editor has decided that the positive quote from the article is in compliance with WK rules, but the criticism is not.
All three quotes share the same characteristics: they come from prominent, named, notable experts on the topic and they were printed by sources WK has accepted in the past (The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) and Washington Jewish Week (WJW)).
Indeed, the JTA/WJW article is cited in the footnotes to the WK article, but only for the positive quote (from Rabbi Yosef Blau). The negative quotes, by Rabbis Mark Dratch and Avi Shafran, are in the same article. It's Footnote #3 in the Wikipedia article.
No review about The Awareness Center is complete without reading both sides of the story. Since you can't do so in the currently-flawed WK article, I urge you to go back to the source that the WK article quotes, and read all of it, not just the positive quote cherry-picked out of it. http://www.washingtonjewishweek.com/print.asp?ArticleID=6566&SectionID=4&SubSectionID=4 David in DC 23:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
[Redacted: this is not the place for PR puff about TAC]
Ephriam Schwartz 17:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I've added a criticism section with the Dratch criticism and the Weinreb "grain of salt" statement from the Jewish Telegraph since these are notable criticisms directly on point. The quote from Avi Shafran appears to be about blogs in general. Because it doesn't appear to be about the Awareness Center in particular, I've left it out. Note that the Jewish Telegraph Agency has generally been accepted as a reliable source for things like quotes from Jewish community and organizational leaders. Best, -- Shirahadasha 03:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}I was just going over the information posted on Wikipedia and noticed that there is no mention of the New York Jewish Week's article regarding a street not being named after Shlomo Carlebach in NYC after The Awareness Center had a call to action to stop it. Tsvi K
David, don't fall for this stuff. There is a rabbi who strongly opposed TAC last year whose name is Tsvi K, leaving me convinced this is yet another sock puppet. The article does not say the street was not named after Carlebach, or why. TAC has one "call for action" after another on its pages, none of which has had an effect that anyone can see. SunAlsoRises 08:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Proposing merger of the two articles. Right now, Vicki Polin's reliably sourced notability seems to be pretty much bound up with The Awareness Center's. If there are reliable sources indicating independent notability I could be persuaded otherwise. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 04:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Vicki Polin and her Awareness Center are not neutral parties on issues of rabbinical sex abuse cases because, among other reasons, she is not bound by anyone or any standard and will publish any and all allegations at the drop of a hat, and has expressed highly-charged personal points of view on these matters and so therefore neither she nor her Awareness Center's web site should be cited as references, sources, or as an external link in any Wikipedia article except this one about the Awareness Center itself and hopefully in an article about her too that should be created (as a Jewish female activist in the field of sexual abuse she is notable by being highly controversial in her own right by now.) Outside of this article or an article about Vicki Plin herself, any citation, reference, or external link to the Awareness Center of quotes by or from Vicki Polin must be judged as no different to any personal blog and personal website, and should be classed as violations of WP:RS (see Wikipedia:Reliable source examples) and certainly of WP:NPOV. IZAK ( talk) 09:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It looks as if the Awareness Center has
policies posted on the web page of who and how alleged and convicted offenders get posted. According to this page it is not at the "drop of a hat". The organization also has a
board of directors in which makes policy decisions.
Chaim B (
talk) 01:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I am reversing all of Chaim B's revisions (revisionist revisions) of the page. Among the falsehoods, he went back to the nonsense claim that the board members were taken down due to harassment... strange, but the board seems to be posted. The policies say that someone can be listed without court documents or a police report. Therefore the statement from the news that someone can be listed without ever being arrested or sued is true. Unfortunately. And according to the policies can't be removed without being evaluated "by a licensed mental health provider (at their own expense)." This is a ridiculous witch-hunt policy. SunAlsoRises ( talk) 03:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm reversing this back to the corrections made by Jeandré du Toit. SunAlsoRises obviously is someone who is attempting to rewrite history and is holding some sort of grudge against this organization. I am requesting that this page be relocked to prevent any more harassment. Chaim B ( talk) 10:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, lock the page... The board members are posted, the policies allow anyone to be "alleged" and listed without a court case, Rabbi Weinreb is a qualified therapist and certainly well-qualified to determine when something doesn't smell right, and it is Vicki "Chaim B" Polin that is trying to hide the truth. SunAlsoRises ( talk) 06:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I am requesting the page be restored to Jeandré du Toit (16:27, 22 December 2007) edits. It appears to be the most accurate and unbiased. It also appears that when ever anyone other then TheSunAlsoRises posts items to this entry he starts screaming that it is someone connected to the Awareness Center (in particularly, Vicki Polin). -- Chaim B ( talk) 12:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Shirahadasha, I agree that restoring those sources is not unreasonable. Normally, referencing every article that so much as mentions the topic of an article would be silly. But in this case, I didn't really mean to remove them, but to revert the body of the article as you preserved. Keeping them may serve a purpose as you say.
The articles prove what User:IZAK said... that "Vicki Polin and her Awareness Center are not neutral". Polin backs every allegation of "Rabbi abuse" 100%. "Some have not even been charged or sued." She told CBS that victims "are told they shouldn't report it to secular authorities because it could start another holocaust." Where are her reliable sources for that libel against the Jewish world?
Notoriety is not significance. (content deleted per WP:LIBEL) Notoriety isn't significance, and nothing has changed. SunAlsoRises ( talk) 05:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
If you believe the subject is not notable, you are welcome propose the article for WP:AfD. However, I would caution you that I don't believe the notability policy supports the idea that "notoriety is not notability." The key criterion for notability is coverage by reliable sources, and it doesn't matter whether those sources praise or criticize so long as they cover. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 06:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed the extraneous EL's be deleting those that violated WP:EL, adding the website to an infobox, and adding in-line where appropriate. -- Avi ( talk) 03:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Please lock this page to this version. 04:14, 14 February 2008 Chaim B. The information on this organization has been repeatedly changed for the goal of harassing The Awareness Center. I've just been made aware that the organization is having a conference in which a Maryland senator is speaking. I doubt the senator would be speaking if the organization was as bad as some of the folks posting here said they were. ( talk) 10:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This has been a long time dispute. From going over the history it appears it's been going on for over a year. I strongly suggest this page be locked to the version I mentioned earlier. Another suggestion is that the entry for The Awareness Center and Ms. Polin be deleted completely from Wikipedia and the titles be blocked from it being re-created. Chaim B ( talk) 11:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
In case there's any confusion, I am not the misguided editor who recently blanked these pages. I have left a note on his talk page asking him to choose a different name. David in DC ( talk) 14:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Please discuss edits and reversions here. Some recent ones really improve the article. Others, in the criticism section, are less helpful. Once we present the main article and the notable criticism, we don't start going back and forth about the critics' credentials. That's for the pages of those critics. Here we just lay out the subject and, if there's notable and sourced criticism, the criticism. Beyond that first iteration, things degenerate. David in DC ( talk) 17:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
All of the information I posted regarding The Awareness Center, Rabbi Mark Dratch, Rabbi Avi Shafran and Rabbi Weinreb comes from quotable, factual, reliable sources. Chaim B ( talk) 13:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The July 2008 Catalyst Magazine (catalystmagazine.net) has a side bar by jeff bell that criticizes the organization's founder and actions. Seems to fit in with the criticism section and ties to the Mordechai Gafni article. I don't know enough about the controversy to weigh in, but thought I'd mention it here in case other editors think it is worthy. A copy of the article with the sidebar is found easily on the net here: [18] - Owlmonkey ( talk) 18:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
All of the links to the Awareness Center's own page are broken. I'm deleting the footnotes and adding a bunch of cite requests. An article shouldn't rely so much on a subject's own website anyway. David in DC ( talk) 19:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The presentation of The Awareness Center as a credible, serious advocate for victims, much less as a "Jewish organization", is a disgrace to Wikipedia. The fact that Vicki Polin, while volunteering with VOICES in Action, Inc (see [21] ), appeared as 'Rachel' on the Oprah Winfrey show has now been documented and substantiated by multiple credible sources, as if it were not obvious to anyone who recognizes Ms. Polin ('Rachel' is not disguised). 'Rachel' not only asserted that she was sexually abused in her synagogue, but that she was forced to consume sacrificed babies, secretly born to other obese members of her family. The ADL rightly denounced her appearance as a blood libel by a mentally-unstable woman. She has no judgment or credibility on matters of abuse, as she believes every male is an abuser waiting to be unmasked. At what point will the writers of Wikipedia decide it is no longer appropriate to give authenticity to this farce? SunAlsoRises ( talk) 00:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
What do we do about the "Activities" section of this page, which was obviously created by a close associate if not Vicki Polin herself, and which talks about things that clearly don't belong?
So do others object to the idea of trimming down the Activities section to include only content which is appropriate and verifiable? SunAlsoRises ( talk) 22:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Must the page be locked again? I'm not out to "harass" Mrs. Polin, as Chaim B says. But I think if an organization wants us to say on Wikipedia that it has a speakers' bureau, it ought to have one. If anyone can point out an article where another person other than Ms. Polin is speaking for the Awareness Center, then it's verified... until then it's disputed. It's not harassing Ms. Polin to say the article about her organization should be limited to WP:V. SunAlsoRises ( talk) 14:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please discuss any proposed edits on this page before making them. Edit wars are best avoided. -- TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 23:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Whether you admit it or not, your action, of deleting comments challenging the status quo regarding TAC and re-inserting them several screen-miles below (for once you didn't just erase them completely BECAUSE WE SCREAMED BLOODY MURDER) is an act of edit war. This is a very messy page, certainly not easily accessible to the newcomer, and your actions profoundly favor one side in the debate. I call on you again to unlock the TAC article, or at least restore it under lock to where there is representation of critical views. Otherwise your involvement here is little short of thuggish. Yyanover 23:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
guidelines]] and note "Start new topics at the bottom of the page" and "Avoid excessive markup". You can move the comment to the relevant thread. This page is quite long, if you want newer threads closer to the top you can archive unactive threads. As for screaming murder, please read WP:TIGER.
And yet you argue with my point up here rather than down at the end of this page, many screens away. Why? Possibly because you use elementary logic. In this case, my good name was being defamed for a year before somebody emailed me about it. Why should I be permitted a lower rung in the display simply because my attacker got here first? Yyanover 19:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry that I do not know protocol here. Even awareness center's own blog knows this was a genuine letter: jewishsurvivors.blogspot.com/2006/09/does-rabbis-saul-berman-joseph.html
USAJewish is published by Yuri Yanover, a journalist who must defend his work.
Agreed this letter is only on blogs, but see for yourself the "profiles" on the center web site. I will not say names here, as wikipedia should not slander the innocent by even mentioning names.
You see in many cases that their sources are: one blog. Yes a blog should not be used, and even more not to destroy a life. What I wrote about the awareness center, then, you see with your eyes:
I am restoring this paragraph. EyalH 21:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Is the correct founding date 1999 or 2001? The entry says both things. David in DC 18:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I've been reading through TAC's postings in it's "daily newsletter" < http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheAwarenessCenter/>. Vicki Polin states she started to transform her private practice web page into The Awareness Center site back in 1999. The organization officially got started while she was living in Jerusalem, Israel in 2001. The organization incorporated as a non-profit in the state of Maryland in 2003. That is also the year it received it's 501c3 status. Ephraim Schwartz 9:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't figure out how to get the little external link arrow onto all of the links that are indeed external links. Also, there's some funky spacing and funky symbols in the top couple of paragraphs.
Substantively, I do not understand why the external link to the Rabbis' letter about the awareness center's tactics was deleted. I deleted the Yori Yanover blog piece, but thought the abbis' letter met WK standards. David in DC 18:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I tried to change the Vicki Polin link to an internal WK entry, but discovered that someone has entirely deleted the entire Victori Polin entry.
There's a lot of goofiness and vandalism happening here. It seems to be being done by folks with a pro-Awareness Center POV. David in DC 18:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted an external link to a screed by Yori Yanover against Ms. Polin. It contains unsourced allegations and a distinct POV. These two have waged cyber-war for ages.
I've left up the Rabbis' Letter on Ms. Polin's tactics. It is well sourced and, arguably a primary source document on her work and career. It's at least as critical as the Yanover piece, but contains none of the latter's flaws. David in DC 20:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I've taken back down the Rabbi's letter critical of the awareness center's tactic's. There is a factual dispute about whether these rabbi's still stand by that document. David in DC 16:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
This is untrue, except per the Awareness Center itself. David, don't fall for a story. There is no indication nor reason to believe that the Rabbis removed their criticism of the Awareness Center and its methodology. The fact that later claims against Rabbi Gafni were proven true does not mean TAC did not pursue him and many other Rabbis with lies and slander. SunAlsoRises 22:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[redacted 72.85.3.158 ( talk) 05:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)]
[redacted 72.85.3.158 ( talk) 05:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)]
I am no Gafni Supporter. I am trying to bring the page into compliance with Wikipedia standards. Many of my changes, that are described as attacks, are simple typo corrections ie theWeb into the Web, and marking external links properly as external links. The letter from the rabbis opposing the Awareness Center's tactics is accurate. This page needs to be locked so more senior wikipedia editors can separate wheat from chaff. But believe me, I am no Gafni supporter. I've supported the Awareness Center and Vicki Polin in the past am am currently posting on Jewish blogs to bring Reb Shlomo Carlebach's history of predations into the mainstream. If you look at Carlebach's page on Wikipedia, you'll see that I've done so there, with help fending off a troll from a moderator. I need similar help here. Wikipedia needs an Awareness Center page that's accurate, and not a puff piece posted and defended by Awareness Center supporters. David in DC 15:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the title of this entry to take out a Libel against me David in DC 15:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the clean-up work Jeandre David in DC 20:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The Awareness Center is trying to rewrite its history. TAC's version of this page removes the references to Rabbi Marc Dratch which were found in the very recent JTA article. TAC's one-sided presentation of itself as an accepted resource does not meet Wikipedia's requirement of a neutral POV. SunAlsoRises 22:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[redacted Advocate For Survivors 22:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)]
I am asking that this page be locked and that it be left to the edition created by Jeandré (see link below). I am also asking that the individual who is attempting to create havoc to stop. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Awareness_Center&oldid=108169788 Advocate For Survivors 22:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I seem to have stepped into a landmine-filled controversy. As I see it, there are two different versions of this WP entry, that by Jeandré and that by SunAlsoRises. I've spoken by telephone with Vicki and am convinced she is working, in good faith, with Jeandré, to have TAC portrayed in a light she sees as accurate.
I haven't spoken with SunAlsoRises, but am equally convinced of Sun's good faith. I think Sun's version hews closer to WP standards than Jeandré's, but I am a very new Wikipedian.
What's gotta stop is the hourly edits.
The page needs to be locked. Then the Sun version and the Jeandré version need to be judged by experienced Wikipedians with no dogs in this particular fight. I will edit this page no more. I hope Jeandré and Sun will also cease fire. NOW.
I think a final page will look more like Sun's than Jeandré's, but, as I say, I'm new to this.
MPerel was able to broker a good resolution when I tried to edit Shlomo Carlebach's WP entry and ran into similar problems. The entry for Carlebach now seems to abide by WP standards. And, blessedly, the revert war there is over.
This page needs a similar solution. David in DC 03:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
All one needs to do is a little research on the case of Marc Gafni to understand the mindset of Sun. Marc/Mordechai Gafni has a long track history of cult like practices. All one needs to do is call Rabbi Shlomo Riskin regarding his past. Read all the entries on Marc Gafni It will make sense that Jeandre's entry makes the most sense. Sun's intent is harassment. Advocate For Survivors 04:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
This solution looks very correct to me. Thanks to Jeandré and Gnangarra. Thanks for taking out the most controversial change, for cooler heads to consider. Thanks for "locking" the page with balance, not the puff piece. Thanks for leaving my non-partisan clean-up work alone. And, especially for not laughing at a dolt who makes grammar changes while consistently misspelling grammar. David in DC 16:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Gnangarra's lock has been undone by a BOT. I've reverted the page to its protected status. I'm a newby. Should a BOT be able to reverse an Administrator's protection of a disputed page? David in DC 02:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I corrected the link. Please don't request any significant changes before protection is lifted - it would be inappropriate for any admin to make them. CMummert · talk 21:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Returned to the appropriate edition. Rabbi Mark Dratch has nothing to do with this organization. He was on the advisory board several years ago and created his own organization. If you have questions regarding this issue contact Rabbi Yosef Blau at YU. What is being posted in other editions is more or less about a group of a few individuals attempting to harass an organization that advocates for Jewish survivors of sexual abuse. Perhaps the solution to this is removing The Awareness Center from Wikipedia and also the entry for Mark Dratch and his organization JSAFE. [User:Stop The Insanity|Stop The Insanity] 15 February 2007 (UTC)
"Perhaps the solution to this is removing The Awareness Center from Wikipedia and also the entry for Mark Dratch and his organization JSAFE."
This would be the ultimate in giving in to the "heckler's veto" It would be shameful. David in DC 18:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
David, it's obvious your a supporter of Mordechai Gafni. If you weren't you'd be dropping this already. If you read the documents on The Awareness Center site you will learn that the reason many of the board and advisory board members left was because they were being blackmailed. Many were warned if they didn't leave that some thing they would want kept private would be made public. Read the article on the site about bullying. NOT David in DC 18:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
There are a few individuals placing information on this site as an attempt to harass this organization. Rabbi Mark Dratch has absolutely nothing to do with the organization. It is also inappropriate to put a link to Rabbi Dratch's organization on The Awareness Center's site.
Rabbi Yosef Blau, religious adviser at Yeshiva University and an advocate for victims of rabbinic sexual abuse and misconduct, has stated that the The Awareness Center is very valuable "since you can't get people arrested and there are no court cases, you have to use a standard that's reasonable and disclosure works in that context". The center no longer names its board members due to harassment, according to an article put out by the Jewish Telegraph Agency, Vicki Polin said she herself has been threatened repeatedly with physical harm and was once spat on by a woman who was angry over a sex offender being placed on The Awareness Center site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2007-03-09t04:38:23z ( talk • contribs) 71.248.91.237
As we all know board members of non-profits change all the time. Here is a current list of TAC's board of directors. < http://www.theawarenesscenter.org/board.html> Ephraim Schwartz 9:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not certain what is happening on this page, but it looks to be another victim of edit-warring. Therefore the page is semi-protected. If the edit warring continues in spite of these issues, I will revert it back to its present version and full-protect it. If you are not able to make changes to this article, please discuss here and get a consensus. Bastiq▼e demandez 21:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Who ever wrote the history regarding the organization is not correct. Below is the purpose of the organization. The primary goal has always been education.
Vicki Polin is the organization's Executive Director. In 2001, she founded the center to educate Jewish communities on the issues and ramification sexual violence plays in communities. It operates as a Rape Victim Advocacy Organization.
The organization was incorporated in the state of Maryland in 2003 and its international headquarters is in Baltimore, Maryland. [2]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.85.171 ( talk • contribs) 2007-03-10t15:25:47z
The 04-13 and 15 edits insinuate that the board members left because of the use of anonymous and Ford info. We have a source for this being the reason for ShafranDratch leaving, but we'll need a source for new edits too. See the
no original research policy. Comparing the names on a website over time only is not notable. --
Jeandré, 2007-04-15
t14:32z (corrected --
Jeandré, 2007-04-16
t21:51z)
I posted the following in another section, yet thought it was important to post it here too. As we all know board members of non-profits change all the time. Here is a current list of TAC's board of directors. < http://www.theawarenesscenter.org/board.html> Ephraim Schwartz 9:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The Awareness Center is non-profit organization with 501c3 status. The organization would not be allow to operate if it was a one-person operation. It is known that (deleted) has been stalking Ms. Polin on line for the last several years. His M.O. has been to protect a few of his friends which (were deleted by SunAlsoRises) Shalom Simcha ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC).
The following statement is not true and is part of a smear campaign against Ms. Polin and The Awareness Center. I am asking that the false statements be removed.
"Long before the list of board members was removed in 2004 (due to what Polin called "harrassment," as above), it diminished steadily during late 2004 as she began to use more and more anonymous material, as well as that provided by pornography columnist Luke Ford. By March 2005, the advisory board was cut in half, and then it was removed.[10]" Yacov 11:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I deleted a note that misidentified me as an anonymous participant here. I do not post anonymously. Yyanover 02:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
[redacted] Yyanover 19:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
PROTEST: Over the holiday of Shavuot someone has deleted my two entries on this page. It is unacceptable. You can't both demand that I "defend my position" and at the same time delete it when I post it. Unlike most of the participants in the discussion here, I'm not anonymous, I have a name and an address. I should not be subjected to rogue dletions while celebrating the holiday.
[redacted]
When you enter Yyanover in the URL you left here, [4] you get: "No matching items in log." Lucy, you got some 'splainin to do. Yyanover 09:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Response: There's an interview published by LA journalist/author/blogger Luke Ford:
From my telephone conversation with Vicki which I promised not to publish until Vicki gave her approval and had the opportunity to edit her words.
Vicki: "I was on the Oprah show just about 16 years ago. All hell broke out in my life after the show. I had been working for an organization called VOICES in Action (Victims Of Incest Can Emerge Survivors) at the time, and was finishing up my bachelor's degree I had told my story tons of time because of the work I did. I had spoken at national conferences, been on TV before and also on radio talk shows.
http://www.lukeford.net/profiles/profiles/vicki_polin.htm
Now, it's up to you whether you accept Ford's testimony as a published source. Personally, I don't always trust his motives, but I never caught him in a willful lie. Indeed, in my interview with him, when he was confronted with a misstatement on his blog regarding an individual's court appearance, he admitted his mistake.
Here is a source regarding the harm done by Polin et al to public life:
[5]Newspaper publisher becomes the story before debate
Now, Jeandré, you have not responded to my complainr regarding the removal of my entry from early May, 07. It wasn'r "redacted," it was deleted without notice. Did you do it? Are you empowered to delete entries without cause? Yyanover 14:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
My second entry was lengthier and involved a discussion of the problematic nature of anonymity as it is being misused by the "Awareness Center." While not advancing the cause of sex crime victims in the least, and while being ignored by more authoritative sources, Polin continues to offer a seductively easy story to Jewish writers fresh out of journalism school who are simply not aware of the more sly and dangerous aspects of her activity. To them I'd like to recommend a new website dedicated to educating the masses about the history and roots of Ms. Polin. http://www.vickipeeki.com/ Yyanover 02:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
David - Knowing who I'm doing business with I made it part of my web routine to check on my comments here twice a day. I'm not blaming Wikipedia, I simply noted that when I was not here keeping an eye on my notes, somebody quickly removed them. I believe they were still there earlier in the week.
I am not familiar with the way notes are recorded in the discussion area. I think we count mostly on the honesty of the participants. That flies in our faces when some of us are "allegedly" sociopathic. May we all be comforted with the rebuilding of the Temple in jerusalem... Yyanover 19:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
at the most recent locking of the Awareness Center’s article. Whoever is in charge on these messy pages has seen fit to remove all critical entries regarding TAC and its director,
[redacted]
This is not a crime only against the democratic nature of Wikipedia, but also against real sex-crime victims, who may now be misled into trusting Polin. How could you commit such a blatant ethical violation?
It is inconceivable that a woman who has been engaged in unsubstantiated attacks on often defenseless individuals, leaving scorched lives in her wake, would be permitted to present an “authoritative” article about her which puts to shame some of the Stalinist literature of the 1930’s. I demand that you return the critical passages, as well as the critical external links. Have you no shame? Yyanover 16:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no justification to locking the current, heavilly distilled version of the [14] Awareness Center article. As it stands now it is nothing less the a propaganda brochure with no reference whatsoever to the serious shortcomings and social harm born by TAC. Victoria Polin, owner and operator of TAC, is using the cultural power of sex-crime terminology to force Wikipedia into an unquestioning promotion of her business. She's done the very same thing to seduce rabbis and reporters into overlooking her own grave psychological handicaps (self admitted multiple-personality sufferer, to name but one disturbing disorder). At last, we must learn to separate between our notion of the required urgency of sex-crime suffering and the cynic who uses these notions to wield power over men she hates. Yyanover 12:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
People don't read any more. It is in this environment of semi-literacy that horrifying phenomena like TAC thrive. Fascism for idiots. Yyanover 04:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
RE: remove material that represents ... opinions about the character of the organization's founder etc This is quite mad. There is a [15]videotape available for all to see online in which the organization's founder accuses Chicago Jews of belonging to a Satanic cult. There is likewise an interview with her in which she admits fully to her being the person in the tape. Can you possibly even consider not including this in an informed article about TAC? You wouldn't buy a used car without full disclosure, would you employ lesser standards regarding Wikipedia sanctioned information? Yyanover 22:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Due to the degree of hostility posted on the talk section of this page I want to strongly urge Wikipedia not to unlock the site. Doing so will create a free for all in the accuracy of what's posted. Ephraim Schwartz 9:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
As discussion of my degree of hostility to Vicki Polin and TAC and whether or not it is justified is raging on this page, it has gone without comment that a group of more than ten links to my essays on both topics was removed from the TAC article. My writings on these topics, including interviews and timely opinions were chucked like so much needles debris because someone here, among the nouveau sapient illiterati running Wikipedia, has decided they were without value. I was unaware both of their inclusion in the first place and, naturally, of their removal, sometime last year. When I was emailed about the existence of this page, I discovered that not only was I being presented as having nothing but a partisan ax to grind, free of all other valuable information, but that all of those depictions bar none were being promoted by anonymous individuals, [Criticism deleted per WP:BLP
Indeed, once I entered a signed note depicting the essence of the debate of TAC, including a brief discussion of the issue of when it was unacceptable to grant the cover of anonymity to individuals attempting to destroy members of the community -- my short entry was deleted completely, and has yet to be restored.
Wikipedia is run on the honor system, which I applaud. But, sadly, the honor system fails when unscrupulous individuals are involved in the process of collecting and editing information. I have since made it a habit to record this page each time I add a note to it, so that my eliminated or "redacted" entries can be quickly restored. Incidentally, I've been writing for a living for close to 40 years and none of my editors, some of whom really hated me, exhibited the kind of know-nothing arrogance shown by this page's various "redactors."
To the point, now: Contrary to the vast majority of participants in this sad-looking page, I am a real man, with a real bio page, real professional history, real published works and real information and views. My work on Polin and TAC includes a discussion of her methods, her fundraising, anonymity as a tool, the Memory Recovery movement and its roots, and the media and sex crimes. Mine is not the only voice in the discussion, but, for crying out loud, why is it not a legitimate part of it? There are countless articles in Wikipedia that are rife with opinion. In my areas of interest, Jewish Studies, it's practically impossible to expect articles to be both meaningful and opinion-free. My own work is cited elsewhere on other issues and it raises not a single eyebrow.
But here my contribution is deleted, time and again, because, let's face it, it is critical of TAC and its singular operator, it stubbornly refuses to mistake the need for social awareness of sexual crimes for the needs of the operator of the Awareness Center to eke out a living.
I described Vicki Polin as [[criticism deleted per WP:BLP and I'm prepared to back up my analysis with examples, the most vivid of which is her inability to accept criticism, to admit mistakes, to consider opposing views. When she wrote a column for me in the old USAJewish.com, it took me only a few weeks to realize this, except at the time I was not aware of the full scope of the harm she was causing to many individuals. [[criticism deleted per WP:BLP Like many an inquisitor she feels misunderstood and persecuted by evil doers, so that when anyone rises to defend a victim of her attacks, she depicts them as necessarily doing it because they share their dereliction. All of these were born by me personally over an acquaintance of better than eight yeras, begun when she first sent me an email for publication.
I don't wish to be using Wikipedia as a tool to destroy TAC. But I do demand that the editors, volunteer editors, drive-by deletionists and the rest of the menagerie not employ the full depth of their cultural illiteracy in delegimizing my work which is crucial and relevant to understanding TAC. Yyanover 14:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
[Puff from "Ephraim Schwartz" redacted.]
The arguments being made against The Awareness Center are being made by individuals who have very little knowledge about sex crimes. They are not trained mental health or legal professionals. The purpose of their postings should be considered harassment against Ms. Polin, who is a licensed mental health professional] and all individuals connected to the organization. Ephriam Schwartz 18:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Having written extensively about her own multiple personality syndrome, Vicki Polin is making lemonades out of her psychological lemons by launching armies of supporters, like Ephriam Schwartz, all of whom, alas, share her peculiar syntax. Incidentally, Polin's own degree, according to her website, is in Art Therapy. Yyanover 02:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
A number of claims could be included in the article if properly sourced. Do we have a source for the claim made above that the Center sometimes relies on "memory recovery"? Is this a reference to Recovered memory therapy? Well-sourced criticism of this practice, if it is one, is an example of things that could be included. Specific, factual statements about the Center that appear in reliable sources can be included. Appropriately-sourced opinions by notable individuals can be as well. It may not be possible to include all criticism, but as long as factual statements are well-sourced, opinions are notable, and both are to the point and stated in an encyclopedic tone, they can be included. With a little calm and some research, a criticism section is possible. Best, -- Shirahadasha 16:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The Recovered memory therapy article contains some very strong criticism, yet this criticism is well-sourced and reports statements that were made in academic journals, media articles, and books vetted by reliable publishers. This article could used as an example for how to write critical content consistent with Wikipedia policies. Best, -- Shirahadasha 16:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Please place new comments or sections below older ones, use descriptive section headers, and refrain from unsourced accusations. -- Jeandré, 2007-05-28 t21:03z
The article, as currently locked, is a puff piece. It includes a quote praising The Awareness Center (TAC), taken from an article that had quotes both praising it and criticizing it. An editor has decided that the positive quote from the article is in compliance with WK rules, but the criticism is not.
All three quotes share the same characteristics: they come from prominent, named, notable experts on the topic and they were printed by sources WK has accepted in the past (The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) and Washington Jewish Week (WJW)).
Indeed, the JTA/WJW article is cited in the footnotes to the WK article, but only for the positive quote (from Rabbi Yosef Blau). The negative quotes, by Rabbis Mark Dratch and Avi Shafran, are in the same article. It's Footnote #3 in the Wikipedia article.
No review about The Awareness Center is complete without reading both sides of the story. Since you can't do so in the currently-flawed WK article, I urge you to go back to the source that the WK article quotes, and read all of it, not just the positive quote cherry-picked out of it. http://www.washingtonjewishweek.com/print.asp?ArticleID=6566&SectionID=4&SubSectionID=4 David in DC 23:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
[Redacted: this is not the place for PR puff about TAC]
Ephriam Schwartz 17:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I've added a criticism section with the Dratch criticism and the Weinreb "grain of salt" statement from the Jewish Telegraph since these are notable criticisms directly on point. The quote from Avi Shafran appears to be about blogs in general. Because it doesn't appear to be about the Awareness Center in particular, I've left it out. Note that the Jewish Telegraph Agency has generally been accepted as a reliable source for things like quotes from Jewish community and organizational leaders. Best, -- Shirahadasha 03:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}I was just going over the information posted on Wikipedia and noticed that there is no mention of the New York Jewish Week's article regarding a street not being named after Shlomo Carlebach in NYC after The Awareness Center had a call to action to stop it. Tsvi K
David, don't fall for this stuff. There is a rabbi who strongly opposed TAC last year whose name is Tsvi K, leaving me convinced this is yet another sock puppet. The article does not say the street was not named after Carlebach, or why. TAC has one "call for action" after another on its pages, none of which has had an effect that anyone can see. SunAlsoRises 08:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Proposing merger of the two articles. Right now, Vicki Polin's reliably sourced notability seems to be pretty much bound up with The Awareness Center's. If there are reliable sources indicating independent notability I could be persuaded otherwise. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 04:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Vicki Polin and her Awareness Center are not neutral parties on issues of rabbinical sex abuse cases because, among other reasons, she is not bound by anyone or any standard and will publish any and all allegations at the drop of a hat, and has expressed highly-charged personal points of view on these matters and so therefore neither she nor her Awareness Center's web site should be cited as references, sources, or as an external link in any Wikipedia article except this one about the Awareness Center itself and hopefully in an article about her too that should be created (as a Jewish female activist in the field of sexual abuse she is notable by being highly controversial in her own right by now.) Outside of this article or an article about Vicki Plin herself, any citation, reference, or external link to the Awareness Center of quotes by or from Vicki Polin must be judged as no different to any personal blog and personal website, and should be classed as violations of WP:RS (see Wikipedia:Reliable source examples) and certainly of WP:NPOV. IZAK ( talk) 09:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It looks as if the Awareness Center has
policies posted on the web page of who and how alleged and convicted offenders get posted. According to this page it is not at the "drop of a hat". The organization also has a
board of directors in which makes policy decisions.
Chaim B (
talk) 01:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I am reversing all of Chaim B's revisions (revisionist revisions) of the page. Among the falsehoods, he went back to the nonsense claim that the board members were taken down due to harassment... strange, but the board seems to be posted. The policies say that someone can be listed without court documents or a police report. Therefore the statement from the news that someone can be listed without ever being arrested or sued is true. Unfortunately. And according to the policies can't be removed without being evaluated "by a licensed mental health provider (at their own expense)." This is a ridiculous witch-hunt policy. SunAlsoRises ( talk) 03:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm reversing this back to the corrections made by Jeandré du Toit. SunAlsoRises obviously is someone who is attempting to rewrite history and is holding some sort of grudge against this organization. I am requesting that this page be relocked to prevent any more harassment. Chaim B ( talk) 10:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, lock the page... The board members are posted, the policies allow anyone to be "alleged" and listed without a court case, Rabbi Weinreb is a qualified therapist and certainly well-qualified to determine when something doesn't smell right, and it is Vicki "Chaim B" Polin that is trying to hide the truth. SunAlsoRises ( talk) 06:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I am requesting the page be restored to Jeandré du Toit (16:27, 22 December 2007) edits. It appears to be the most accurate and unbiased. It also appears that when ever anyone other then TheSunAlsoRises posts items to this entry he starts screaming that it is someone connected to the Awareness Center (in particularly, Vicki Polin). -- Chaim B ( talk) 12:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Shirahadasha, I agree that restoring those sources is not unreasonable. Normally, referencing every article that so much as mentions the topic of an article would be silly. But in this case, I didn't really mean to remove them, but to revert the body of the article as you preserved. Keeping them may serve a purpose as you say.
The articles prove what User:IZAK said... that "Vicki Polin and her Awareness Center are not neutral". Polin backs every allegation of "Rabbi abuse" 100%. "Some have not even been charged or sued." She told CBS that victims "are told they shouldn't report it to secular authorities because it could start another holocaust." Where are her reliable sources for that libel against the Jewish world?
Notoriety is not significance. (content deleted per WP:LIBEL) Notoriety isn't significance, and nothing has changed. SunAlsoRises ( talk) 05:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
If you believe the subject is not notable, you are welcome propose the article for WP:AfD. However, I would caution you that I don't believe the notability policy supports the idea that "notoriety is not notability." The key criterion for notability is coverage by reliable sources, and it doesn't matter whether those sources praise or criticize so long as they cover. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 06:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed the extraneous EL's be deleting those that violated WP:EL, adding the website to an infobox, and adding in-line where appropriate. -- Avi ( talk) 03:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Please lock this page to this version. 04:14, 14 February 2008 Chaim B. The information on this organization has been repeatedly changed for the goal of harassing The Awareness Center. I've just been made aware that the organization is having a conference in which a Maryland senator is speaking. I doubt the senator would be speaking if the organization was as bad as some of the folks posting here said they were. ( talk) 10:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This has been a long time dispute. From going over the history it appears it's been going on for over a year. I strongly suggest this page be locked to the version I mentioned earlier. Another suggestion is that the entry for The Awareness Center and Ms. Polin be deleted completely from Wikipedia and the titles be blocked from it being re-created. Chaim B ( talk) 11:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
In case there's any confusion, I am not the misguided editor who recently blanked these pages. I have left a note on his talk page asking him to choose a different name. David in DC ( talk) 14:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Please discuss edits and reversions here. Some recent ones really improve the article. Others, in the criticism section, are less helpful. Once we present the main article and the notable criticism, we don't start going back and forth about the critics' credentials. That's for the pages of those critics. Here we just lay out the subject and, if there's notable and sourced criticism, the criticism. Beyond that first iteration, things degenerate. David in DC ( talk) 17:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
All of the information I posted regarding The Awareness Center, Rabbi Mark Dratch, Rabbi Avi Shafran and Rabbi Weinreb comes from quotable, factual, reliable sources. Chaim B ( talk) 13:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The July 2008 Catalyst Magazine (catalystmagazine.net) has a side bar by jeff bell that criticizes the organization's founder and actions. Seems to fit in with the criticism section and ties to the Mordechai Gafni article. I don't know enough about the controversy to weigh in, but thought I'd mention it here in case other editors think it is worthy. A copy of the article with the sidebar is found easily on the net here: [18] - Owlmonkey ( talk) 18:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
All of the links to the Awareness Center's own page are broken. I'm deleting the footnotes and adding a bunch of cite requests. An article shouldn't rely so much on a subject's own website anyway. David in DC ( talk) 19:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The presentation of The Awareness Center as a credible, serious advocate for victims, much less as a "Jewish organization", is a disgrace to Wikipedia. The fact that Vicki Polin, while volunteering with VOICES in Action, Inc (see [21] ), appeared as 'Rachel' on the Oprah Winfrey show has now been documented and substantiated by multiple credible sources, as if it were not obvious to anyone who recognizes Ms. Polin ('Rachel' is not disguised). 'Rachel' not only asserted that she was sexually abused in her synagogue, but that she was forced to consume sacrificed babies, secretly born to other obese members of her family. The ADL rightly denounced her appearance as a blood libel by a mentally-unstable woman. She has no judgment or credibility on matters of abuse, as she believes every male is an abuser waiting to be unmasked. At what point will the writers of Wikipedia decide it is no longer appropriate to give authenticity to this farce? SunAlsoRises ( talk) 00:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
What do we do about the "Activities" section of this page, which was obviously created by a close associate if not Vicki Polin herself, and which talks about things that clearly don't belong?
So do others object to the idea of trimming down the Activities section to include only content which is appropriate and verifiable? SunAlsoRises ( talk) 22:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Must the page be locked again? I'm not out to "harass" Mrs. Polin, as Chaim B says. But I think if an organization wants us to say on Wikipedia that it has a speakers' bureau, it ought to have one. If anyone can point out an article where another person other than Ms. Polin is speaking for the Awareness Center, then it's verified... until then it's disputed. It's not harassing Ms. Polin to say the article about her organization should be limited to WP:V. SunAlsoRises ( talk) 14:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)