Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish sex abuse cases

Jewish sex abuse cases

Jewish sex abuse cases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - Unlike the Catholic case, which was treated as a single issue concerning the reaction of the Catholic church to various accusations, this article is a collection of various unrelated cases lumped together for what seems to be prurient and provactive purposes. Notable cases are already discussed in the articles of the people involved. Wikipedia is NOT theawarenesscenter, which has in the past been considered a non-reliable source, and this can be a BLP disaster to boot. Individual cases, if notable, should be handled as they are now, in the articles about their protagonists, and non-notable cases should be removed forthwith. The implication that there is a relationship between the cases is incorrect, unlike the other article, mentioned as "somewhat" similar. Avi (talk) 06:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Avi (talk) 06:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:POINT. If anything, this article shows how rare sexual abuse is in the Jewish community. The parallel article about the Catholic church discusses an endemic phenomenon; this article is just a shopping list of isolated cases, which is unencyclopedic. JFW | T@lk 07:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. (I'll preface my remarks by saying that this is a topic that can easily be a case of "I don't like it" or "I do like it" so I am consciously trying to avoid such arguments.) As pointed out in the nom, there is no commonality tying these people together other than their ethnic identity as Jews. The article also does not establish "Jewish sexual abuse" as different from any other type of sexual abuse.
  This seems to be a violation of WP:FORK by trying to create an image of a large phenomenon where there is only individual actions. This impression is reinforced by closing the list of offenders with a list of watchdog organizations.
  Any information that is here should be in the individual articles. At most there should be a category of "Sex offenders" and a category of "Sex crimes watchdog groups". Joe407 (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete: Seems to be a list of cases of sexual abuse by people who just happen to be Jewish, which doesn't seem any more notable to me than, say, "Sex abuse cases by tall people" would be. The Catholic church article, by contrast, is about alleged systemic cover-up by the church hierarchy, which makes it more than the sum of the individual cases. -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep The commonality is not simply that the abusers were Jewish, but that they were teachers, school officials or Rabbis, who were convicted of or pled guilty to having while in positions of trust, authority and responsibility, sexually abused children. The incidents are referenced in reliable and independent newspapers. The article also notes organizations set up to deal with the problem. Edison (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• For teachers and school officials, I don't think it's their religion that is the notable issue though - I would have thought the fact they happen to be Jewish teachers and school officials is incidental -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - per nomination. The 9 cases mentioned in the article are too few to merit an article in Wikipedia, and some of the people mentioned were not convicted for sex-abuse (e.g. Yehuda Kolko, Lipa Margulies). Apart from this, just a very brief check up on the article's creator reveals a disruptive and apparent single-purpose editor who is biased against the Jews, and thus it appears as if he has, the way Avi puts it, created this article merely to provoke. Amsaim (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom and Boing. WP:SYNTH. --Shuki (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - most of the Delete votes are by Jewish partisans and zealots, therefore they have a conflict of interest and their votes should be discounted. This has been in the public domain for a long time, it is widely acknowledged in respective communities themselves and should absolutely not be censored for biased motives. By the way, I did not add any original content and was just borrowing from earlier material that was already in Wikipedia. ADM (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the above editor's (also the architect of the article in question) comments speak for themselves regarding his/her POV and intent when framing said article. -- Avi (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What I was refering to was your inappropariate use of the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. I maintain in all honesty that this page allows for partisans to gang-up on a subject and purposefully bias the result of a deletion vote. ADM (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject talk pages and notice boards are the preferred way to inform participants in projects about issues that may interest them. -- Avi (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem with that notion, especially when it involves controversial subjects tied to politics and/or religion. You can't have an objective discussion about a controversial issue when people who have vested interests all want to intervene at the same time during a critical moment. ADM (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

See my comment below. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete all sections of the article, per nom, except for the sections on Mark Dratch and The Awareness Center; those sections seem salvageable to me and should be spun out into their own articles. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

TheAwarenessCenter has, in the past, been ruled a NON-reliable source, as it is Vicki Polins personal hatchet site, and is not even remotely neutral, and thus cannot be considered accurate. At least a newspaper/magazine ostensibly has journalistic integrity. Whether one agrees with Polin or not, she is not an acceptabel source for anything other than herself, and using theawarenesscenter as a source for anything about a living person would be a gross violation of BLP. -- Avi (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, articles already exist at The Awareness Center, Inc. and Mark Dratch, so am I correct that you agree that there is nothing worth keeping in this article? -- Avi (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't citing the AC as a source, but rather as a party in a dispute. That's an importance difference and it should be taken into account as entirely legitimate. ADM (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think it's quite fair to label the creator (User: ADM) as being a "SPA" dedicated solely to bashing Jews. I myself have had only one interaction with this user in the past, and it was a discussion concerning the article Mandingo Theory, which has nothing to do with Jews. Also, isn't it a violation of WP: NPA to call another user antisemitic? Even if it isn't, I don't think it's fair to label this user a SPA. However, I'm certainly not defending ADM's "Jewish partisans" comment above (which was definitely over the line and itself a violation of WP: NPA) nor am I defending this article. After all, I, too, voted Delete. Having an article about "Jewish sex abuse cases" makes no more sense than having an article about so-called "Black crime"; when the only thing the cases have in common is the religion and/or ethnicity of the perpetrators, and there is no evidence that the crimes themselves were motivated by religion and/or ethnicity, what purpose can the article have other than to stir up prejudice at the group in question? That's another reason why I think this article should be deleted. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That being said, I do think the sections on The Awareness Center and Mark Dratch are salvageable. Those two sections should probably be spun out into their own articles when the rest of the article is deleted. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The cases all involve pedophile rabbis who abused underaged males. It has destroyed entire communities in and around Brooklyn. Therefore it is appropriate to call them Jewish sex abuse cases. You should change your vote when taking into account the evidence that these are real abuses, not made-up abuses. ADM (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I never said they were "made up"...I just think that grouping them all together here pushes the boundaries of WP:SYNTH. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no synthesis involved, since most of the content comes from reputable media sources such as the Baltimore Jewish Times and the New York Times. [1][2] ADM (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC).

Please review WP:SYNTH; putting together true statements in an original way to make a point NOT made elsewhere in a reliable/verifiable source is a violation of WP:OR, specifically WP:SYNTH. -- Avi (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You should accept that the Baltimore Jewish Times is a reliable source. For you not to accept this is a great moral failure. ADM (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Did the BJT/NYT make the connection between all the cases you brought and discuss the concept of "Jewish sex abuse cases"? Or did it just discuss one case, perhaps already on wikipedia under the name of the protagonist, and it was you who decided to start weaving a thread of original research to combine these disparate cases? Reading the articles demonstrates the latter answer to my question, or a SYNTH violation. -- Avi (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they do. They're not stupid, and they know what they're talking about, especially since it involve dozens of articles over an extended period of time (many years). ADM (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The articles to which you linked each discuss one specific case. It is you who created the concept "Jewish sex abuse cases" and are bringing the laundry list in the article. You may have a wonderful paper to publish in a peer-reviewed journal somewhere, but wikipedia is not the place to create relationships as such, it is called original research/synthesis and goes against our core policies, even if it is true. Once again, this article is a violation and needs to be removed. -- Avi (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You're accusing me of making it all up, which is blatantly false. Of course, I could mount a counter-accusation about you trying to cover all of this up, and protect the reputations of noted child abusers, but I won't, because I'm kind of tired right now. ADM (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Please 'carefully read both wikipedia policy, the articles in question, and the comments above. You are being accused of creating the concept of "Jewish sex abuse cases" within wikipedia. None of the sources you bring discuss a larger scheme, the way the sources discussed the Catholic sex abuse cases as being all one interconnected phenomenon. Despite even if each and every case you bring is true, the fact that you created a thread linking them is original research/synthesis and forbidden. Simple. -- Avi (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

According to your strange logic, even if 6 million Jews did really die in the Holocaust, this does not mean that the Holocaust happened, only that 6 million murders occured on an individual basis. This is a grave logical fallacy, one that can ruin the lives of millions of people. ADM (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Besides being a classic response of those interested in their own agendas (bringing in Nazis/the Holocaust when it does not apply) I fail to follow ANY thread of logic connecting the above statement with the total discussion. I hope the closing admin reads ADM's comments; they are rather clarifying. -- Avi (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, we have articles on Dratch, Gafni, Lanner, the awareness center, so your implication of a cover-up, despite being an unfounded personal attack of a rather disgusting sort, which is, I guess, in line with your comments about partisans and zealots, is also completely false. If anything, I've protected various articles from being whitewashed. The difference is that I am acting in accordance with policy and guideline, and you are not. That is forbidden. Wikipedia is supposed to be a reflection of other relibale/verifable sources and NOT used as a platform to create either smears or whitewashing of people. However, as your unfounded accusations clearly indicate, you are not interested in furthering the project, but your own agenda. There are plenty of places on the web for that; wikipedia, however, is not one of them. -- Avi (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - ADM, in appealing his indefinite block which he received for inappropriate advocacy, made a pledge, promising "to no longer make controversial edits on issues relating to the Vatican and the Jews". On account of this pledge, ADM was unblocked, and the unblocking admin issued this admonition: "You get one more chance per WP:AGF. One, and no more.". One year later ADM is at it again on an AfD over a controversial article about the Jews, which he created, (as per nomination for prurient and provactive purposes), calling other editors Jewish partisans and zealots. I therefore call upon administrators to check whether ADM is guilty of breaking the pledge he made. Amsaim (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not find this to be controversial at all and did not expect ANY controversial responses. So, if I was involved in such a debate, it was purely on an accidental basis. I also forgot about my pledge, and was not aware that it was still binding after over a year without problems. I think most Jews on Wikipedia should not consider me as their enemy, and should also peacefully acknowledge that there have been abuse problems in the Jewish community, just like in the Catholic Church. ADM (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)