Talk:Adass Israel School sex abuse scandal

Merge from Malka Leifer

The person named is covered under WP:BLP and specifically under WP:BLP1E. She has not been found guilty of anything at this point, and, even if found criminally liable, would still fall under WP:BLP1E. Therefore sections asserting criminal guilt can not be placed in this BLP article without strong sourcing. Civil judgements made in absentia are not sufficient. I am, moreover, concerned that the allegations made in this article are too strongly made with an implication that the wrongs were or are supported by the "ultra-Orthodox Jews" in Australia, or that the charges have anything at all to do with religious practices, such as avoiding television etc. Collect (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

There is significant elements that are not connected to the criminal case that were removed, not sure why. There are details that are significant, and the fact that she absconded prior to the case is highly significant. You would not suggest we delete the Ronnie Biggs page because he ran away? Perhaps some of the harsher elements of the article should be toned down, but there is no need to delete it all. Also the names of the principal players are very prominent in the media, and I do not see the purpose of hiding it here. Basically the primary focus of the story seems to be more about the extradition and not the criminal case, in which case what was written here was reasonable (Smellytap (talk) 08:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC))

• Also many of the objections to the page have been dealt with here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malka Leifer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smellytap (talk • contribs) 19:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed and referencing

Melcous has tagged the article with "The neutrality of this article is disputed" without indicating the nature of the dispute. I have two particular concerns. (1) Through reading many newspaper articles it seems to me that a lot of concern over this affair has come from the Jewish community itself (including within Adass Israel), in Australia and Israel but the article does not say this. When I drafted this article I could not find any explicit claim to this effect and to infer it over several articles would be, I thought, WP:SYNTH. Any opinions? (best still a reference). Articles rarely say anyone is Jewish and one is left with just Jewish associations (pupil at the ultra-orthodox school or parent of a pupil, rabbi or wife of rabbi, speaking for Jewish community at Royal Commission). (2) The alleged perpetrator's statements are not reported. I was not able to find any statements and I suppose no public statements have been made. There was no representation at the civil court case.

Another tag was to improve the referencing. I have added references to all sentences without a reference (they had previously been referenced but these had got removed in later edits). Some paragraphs are referenced for all their content at the end. The lead is not referenced, as is normal. If further references are required, please indicate with {{cn}} at the appropriate points rather than at the head of the article. I have removed the refimprove tag. Thincat (talk) 10:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Thincat, one of my concerns is that there is not even a general article on the school, so to have an article on this incident alone seems to me almost by definition to be lacking some kind of balance or neutrality (i.e. surely the school must have existed and done other things outside these incidents). Also the title of the article, I'm not sure if that could be made slightly more neutral, given that from my reading of the article there has been no criminal findings and so these are allegations? And yes as you say, it does read like the information is all coming from within one particular community without anything from another 'side' (for want of a better word). Always tricky if nothing is forthcoming, but in terms of the encyclopedia, that probably just adds to the need to be extremely careful that everything is worded completely neutrally, which I'm not sure it all currently is. Melcous (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that an article on the school, and, indeed, on Adass Israel, would be helpful but it seems they are very reclusive and I didn't find anything much at all. If there were an article on the school this incident might be merged there but without substantial school information this would be hopeless. I also don't like the title of the article and it worries me that the abortive appointment of the replacement principal is included since the objections weren't to sexual abuse per se but to alleged covering-up of sexual abuse. Changing "incidents" to "scandal" might help here (and without doubt there was a scandal even if the incidents are only alleged) but I personally couldn't face calling it such. Perhaps, on reflection, "scandal" would be better. No, there have been no criminal findings but punitive damages have been awarded against the alleged perpetrator personally. I have raised this aspect at WT:BLP#People where punitive damages have been awarded in a civil court. Would you like to comment there? I certainly agree on the need to be extremely careful. Thincat (talk) 11:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Their concern has been in trying to discredit the charges and victims, remember we are talking about the same community that tried to tell the victims and family of the Boys school abuses that going to authorities would get them labelled Mosers. An overarching 'Melbourne Yeshiva scandals' could perhaps be created since there isn't a page for the other scandal. LamontCranston (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the neutrality dispute notice, as it remains clear that no consensus has been reached as to what, if any, non-neutral content there is here. The existence of this article is not necessarily prejudiced or bigoted simply because there is no corresponding article about the Adass Israel community at large, and the case's political ramifications make it notable even if the school may not be.Spaceboyjosh (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Boys school scandal too?

I think an overarching 'Melbourne Boys and Girls Yeshiva scandals' should be created, and this merged with it, as there isn't one for the boys Yeshiva yet just a page for one of the victims Manny Waks. LamontCranston (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps it should be created but Adass is a different school to Yeshiva. The girls school connected to Yeshiva is Beth Rivka.Playlet (talk) 10:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Adass Israel School - No article?

There doesn't seem to be an article for the school, but as far as i can see every other secondary school is Melbourne has. Is it just because of this issue as they still seem to be open ? Or is someone deleting the article ? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Probably no one willing to do it. I have been thinking of putting a bit of time into it, but I wasn't finding great sources. If you want to go for it, I am happy to help Playlet (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

removing material

The article should report on the main sequence of events. So I disagree with removing things that are now obsolete. Instead, assuming they were notable steps in the story, they should be reworded in the past tense.

The article still reports the main sequence of events. I don't think the steps I removed were notable. I thought it would be useful to provide a reference for the extradition. But please edit the article further. Thincat (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources with limited access

Some references are to The New York Times, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian and Haaretz which have pay walls or access to a limited number of articles before subscription is required. It would be better if alternative sources, eg. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-23/malka-leifer-committed-to-stand-trial/100486900, were substituted. Some articles in limited access sources may have been republished on other sites. Mcljlm (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mcljlm, editors with article access might want to archive some more of these articles, where needed, and include the archive link in the citation. Thank me for pointing out the obvious!-- Quisqualis (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree @Quisqualis. Since my September 2021 post I I've discovered, thanks to The [London] Times directing readers to Archive Today, that archive versions get round paywalls. Mcljlm (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Change "abuse scandal" to "abuse case"?

I seem to have noticed that the article's emphasis is on the actions taken to tamp down a scandal. This leaves out the legal aspects of the entire saga, including a clear summation of what became of Leifer. No charges, no deportation?

What, in fact, was the "resolution" of this "matter"? It's somewhat left to the reader to get what's going on here. Money changed hands, no apologies, no new laws? If that is all, it needs to be pointed out to the noncognoscenti such as myself what is the takeaway, other than "evil will triumph" with institutional help. I understand about Israel being silent on this case. Were Australian authorities just flummoxed, complacent, or what? Was this a religious community scandal, a sex-abuse case, or both?? Quisqualis (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)