Talk:Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community

I have linked this page to Hasidic Judaism

I used the linking from Catholic Church to Catholic Church sexual abuse cases as a model. Jack the Raubritter (talk) 03:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Rosenberg case

@Roscelese: Looking at your changes, I agree with you about the Rabbinic ordination - Rosenberg and Gluck have not been challenged. Rosenberg is a famous Mikve expert, that is unchallenged and I think putting this in would be relevant in light of his many claims that children are being raped in Mikves.

With regard to the claims by Beth Kaplan that her children were expelled from school and camp, this was already shown to be false as per the letters and testimony in the Court file from 10 years ago. Fake news and allegations should also be offset by the facts if they are available.

New York uses open Court, the names of the complainants are not hidden - this should not be an issue at this point.

The actual conviction would be more accurate instead of stating molestation.

The Rape Shield Law and Confidentiality Clause was a major factor in this case as it made it to the Appellate Division in New York State. In fact, this case has been quoted several times since then in the Appellate Division. This is also why it is important that their relationship as patients (clients?) should be mentioned.--Sorinam (talk) 04:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't need you to tell me if things are "important", I need you to provide reliable sources and eschew original research, especially when it concerns living people. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Roscelese: here is my proposal, one line saying the name and the conviction of record. The Judge's quote may be real, but whether or not they were actually "kicked out" was proven to be not true. The information regarding Weinberg and the camp and the school relies solely on an Otterman article in the New York Times and falls into Insufficient Sources - especially when those letters and testimony proved the information in the article wrong. The quote by the Judge also seems redundant as it was already mentioned above in the main caption. Reliable sources you see because they are public record and accessible to me as a member of the public. (This is why I put all of the information in.)

This is a part of an article that relies on the information in the public record, even though original research would indicate not to use the public record. What do you think we should do to avoid [WP:BLPGOSSIP:false allegations of school expulsions?]

I would argue we just have a list of names with the name of the conviction for each perp and leave it at that; no other fluff involved.

--Sorinam (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

You're incorrect in claiming that a news report in the Times is BLPGOSSIP. Do you 1) have reliable sources for material you want to add, and/or 2) have reliable sources that contradict the sources we're using if there is material you want to remove? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Revert

Reverted content removed as "dubious self reporting" since that's not what the source says. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Article itself and citations

Hello.

First off, I am strongly inclined to believe this entire article is strongly biased against religious Orthodox Jews, and/or Chassidish Jews. The reason being, there are sexual abuse cases in every community - why in the world would sexual abuse cases specific to the Brooklyn Chareidi community deserve an article to themselves. Does the Houston Muslim community deserve an article specifically detailing their communities’ sexual abuse cases?

The question is redundant, because the reason this specific community was perceived as deserving their own article is obvious. This is not just about randomly documenting sexual abuse from a specific religious sect- the article is designed as an attack on the Brooklyn Chareidi community, for the alleged criticism at the community as a whole, and specifically the rabbis, for allegedly hiding sexual abuse cases, not taking them seriously, or protecting the accused. That is the real focus. The language used is clearly intended as a criticism- “failed to report” “shunned those who speak out” “because of stigmatization” etc.

So, we’ve established the main focus of the article, for ordinary mentions of sexual abuse cases within any specific religious sect or race are obviously not deserving of an article. The whole article should be structured for what it really is. Maybe it should be titled “Alleged Covering up of sexual abuse in the Brooklyn Chareidi community” or a similar title, thereby removing the false pretense currently present that allows the article to list information which obviously does not have any business there, as I will describe below.

As the article stands, it’s absolutely ridiculous. Just an article dedicated to documenting sexual abuse cases in the Hasidic community. Theres a whole ‘Notable Cases’ section which just lists sexual abuse cases that happened in the Brooklym Chareidi community. What’s the significance of this information, I wonder? Should we perhaps make an article titled “Sexual abuse in the Los Angeles African American community” and proceed to randomly list sexual abuse cases from that specific race? No, because that would be exposed for what it obviously is- racist. I don’t want to use the word anti-Semitic to describe this article, because anti-Semitic means a prejudice against all Jews, while the prejudice present in this article is specifically against religious Jews. It is quite possible for secular Jews to have this prejudice, too. Just because there isn’t a specific buzzword for this sort of prejudice/hate, doesn’t make it okay. This article does not deserve to be up at all.

But you know what they say- “beggars can’t be choosers”. I’m aware I’m on Wikipedia, which is widely anti-religious (though with an exemption for Islam). So although I believe in my first argument above, I’m aware iy doesn’t have a great chance of being implemented. So on to my next problem- the citations.

Almost all of the articles referenced are clear attacks on the Brooklyn Chareidi community. Almost all of them quote former Chareidi Jews who have become disillusioned with their religion and community, and are set on vilifying them. Some of the articles are downright ridiculous, or anti-Semitic (in the sense described above). The Voice article titled “The Shomrim: Gotham’s Crusaders” that is quoted numerous time throughout, is laughable. The article implies that Shomrim is a powerful rich government funded organization that the politicians feel forced to fund, receiving- dont hold your breath- around 130k from the government each year. Its mind-boggling how delusional the writer is. Shomrims budget is in the millions every year, with the vast majority coming from the Jewish community, who are eager to support their organization. The token 130k is practically pocket change. The article also attacks Shomrim in many other ridiculous unsubstantiated ways. I don’t wish to elaborate too much- I merely intend to illustrate how ridiculous this article is. Most of the sources follow a similar pattern with plenty of underlying anti-Semitism. One article even laughably suggests that a Jewish halacha (law) that (in certain cases) dictates not to report a fellow Jew to the authorities, is defunct nowadays in democratic America, where no doubt the anti-Semitism of thousands of years has miraculously disappeared (how I wish he was correct). I suppose this writer is a halachically certified posek (Rabbi authorized in making important decisions in halachic arguments and cases). Or perhaps he just knows more than the Jews when it comes to their own religion. But again, I digress.

Something must be done about this article. Justice demands it. Truthseeker611 (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

If you would have done a bit of research before commencing your wall of text, you would have found out that many such articles exist, such as Catholic Church sexual abuse cases, Sexual abuse in the American film industry, Sexual abuse cases in the Congregation of Christian Brothers, Sexual abuse cases in Southern Baptist churches, Sexual abuse scandal in the Society of Jesus etc. etc. among many others. So, again—what was your point? StonyBrook _babble 04:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Use of this article by antisemites

This article is being cited by what seems to be antisemitic meme being shared on iFunny.co and Twitter.com. I say that because it is being posted in connnection to the wave of misinformation following the discovery of illegal tunnels connected to a shul. I am concerned that such images may direct anti-Semetic vandals to this page, who may then make politically motivated edits. Any suggestions? 1101 (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

For someone who has been around since 2015, you ought to know by now that this site is impervious to vandals. StonyBrook _babble 18:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)