Talk:Baruch Lanner

message: I added "for decades," to the sentence about abuse, as the time period itself is integral part of the issue.Mrnhghts (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. Please just make sure that the citation sourcing that sentence has decades in it, or bring a source for it. I'm sure that exists. -- Avi (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Decades

message: The awareness center is a non-reliable personal attack blog; it is not a reliable source and is definitely non-neutral, when it comes to these issues. There are better sites to use per WP:EL. -- Avi 16:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we looking at the same site? Theawarenesscenter.org is an organization run by a credentialed professional, with a board of directors whose work is endorsed by over 250 rabbis. So it certainly isn't a personal blog. Is there any evidence that they are unreliable?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Bill Beback. The Awareness Center is an organization that has done some significant work in the relevant area. They aren't just a blog. --Meshulam 20:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I am inclined to take the view that because The Awareness Center is basically an advocacy group, and per WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL advocacy groups should not be used as factual sources for claims that might be construed as defamatory. This does not mean the Awareness Center's involvement can't be discussed in the article, it just means that WP:LIBEL and WP:BLP require care when sourcing claims about the specific things Baruch Lanner did and so TAC can't be the sole source for such claims. Note that The Awareness Center has been subject to some controversy, see The Awareness Center#Criticism and the discussion on Talk:The Awareness Center. I suggest Wikipedia take no position on these controversies, we should simply apply WP:LIBEL and WP:BLP straightforwardly. In this case there seem to be plenty of other sources. I see no problem sourcing them for matters of opinion. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a reasonable opinion. As I've looked into it more I see that "TAC" is indeed controversial. I'd linked to it because they have an extensive collection of press clippings on the case, and because I had been under the mistaken impression that it was actually run by Rabbi Blau (though he is a supporter, apparently). We're not using TAC for any sources at the moment, it was just an external link.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *I have been very leery over the years of some of the claims pushed by The Awareness Center, some of which make the Salem Witch Trials appear like a little girl's tea party in comparison. I concur that The Awareness Center is a very problematic direct source for allegations made in this or any other article, and the opinions of the organization should not be quoted directly in this or any other Wikipedia article on issues of fact, though it might well be acceptable if TAC is being quoted for their opinion on a subject. That said, the Lanner page at the organization's website includes a thorough list and content dump of articles over a span of years -- including article titles, authors, publication title, issue date and links to the original articles (most of which are dead links) -- which would meet any and all sourcing requirements in Wikipedia and most of which seem to be unavailable online from any other source. I see every reason to include this link as documentation for many of the claims made in the article. Alansohn (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: We're not using Polin as a source for this article at this point. When a site just reproduces clippings from reliable sites the webmaster's viewpoint and credentials are immaterial. While the site does express a viewpoint, it seems like a reliable enough sources for "courtesy links" to reprinted articles, especially due to its board of advisors, endorsing rabbis, etc. As for the writings of Polin herslf, we aren't using those. However as a credentialled and published expert I expect that we might view her as having a significant viewpoint, and might include a quotation or summary from her at some point. However before we do that we should include other, more notable viewpoints, such as those of Blau, Willig, etc.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 12:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will: Motivation matters and has to be put into context. Readers need to understand that the direction of this article is not coming from someone who can claim neutrality, when the source is exhibiting signs of (self-admitted) major emotional damage, stress, and a desire for revenge and lashing out. This is what then leads to digging for dirt and exposing the skeletons (real, suspected or imagined -- and it's hard to tell the difference many times) that exist in many closets. What exactly is Polin an "expert" in? Suffering? Abuse? Incest? Devil worship? Admitting to multiple personality disorder? (She claims to have lived through it all, and is certainly living to tell the tale about it...) Since when are those "credentials" for anything except showing a need for and getting heavy-duty psychotherapy? Even having a real "credential" and "publishing" are pretty nebulous terms. Plenty of quacks get "published" indeed, like Polin, they run their own vanity presses, especially on the Internet with web-hosting being so cheap. At best, she is trying to portray herself as the voice of "the maiden" screaming to be "saved" by St George from the "dragon" but her appearance on Oprah created a charge that what they (she and Oprah, also not such a"neutral" party here, see her article: "...Born in rural Mississippi to a poor unwed teenaged mother, and later raised in a Milwaukee ghetto, Winfrey was raped at the age of nine, and at fourteen, gave birth to a son who died in infancy. Sent to live with the man she calls her father...") were really creating, was a new twist on an old lie, the blood libel against Jews. It's been pointed out that "If you Google ""ritual abuse" Oprah," you will see how many anti-semitic websites used Vicki's appearance as fodder to perpetuate the myth that Jews sacrifice children." http://www.lukeford.net/profiles/profiles/vicki_polin.htm So while she may be justified in her "crusade" for personal reasons, and we are not here to judge anyone's alleged personal suffering, but whatever emotionalism surrounds those issues should not mean that now anyone who claims to have been the victim of abuse, gets a degree and puts up a website is a "reliable source" for articles in an encyclopedia that wishes to be credible above all else. IZAK (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're ignoring the issue. The link to Polin's site is a link to a specific page dedicated to the Lanner episode. That page only contains articles written by various newspapers (which are considered reliable for publishing the news) about the Lanner episode. Its the best/only collection of its kind on the web. Any article on Lanner should contain a link to that site for that reason alone. The page does not subject its reader to Polin's opinions about Lanner, or to any witch hunt etc. Lets at least be honest about all of this. --Meshulam (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honest about what Meshulam? IZAK (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: don;'t we already have the citations to the articles? DGG (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is currently sourced entirely without reference to "TAC". The TAC page on Lanner has an extensive list of clippings that may be of interest to readers or editors, but which isn't necessary.   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So then cut it out if you have enough sources. The TAC is a hot potato controversial organization that itself is not neutral. IZAK (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Note: I have again deleted material per WP:LIBEL. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This article isn't about Polin. Let's recall that WP:BLP applies to every living person, not just the immediate subject of a bio, and it also applies to talk pages. None of the material posted above touches on the actual use of the link to TAC in this article and is irrelevant to the discussion here. Off-topic material may be removed, and I don't see any reason not to remove this thread.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there an article about Vicki Polin? There should be, that would give you an outlet IZAK. Lobojo (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There you go, now you have somewhere to constructivly vent your spleen IZAK. Lobojo (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Lobojo: Funnily I am not venting any spleen. Let's see how the new Polin article pans out. IZAK (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Theawarenesscenter.com

message: Pot calling the kettle black: The The Awareness Center was created and is solely run by Vicki Polin (if Lanner can get an article, so should she by now.) She is a highly controversial figure and most notably gained notoriety when she appeared on Oprah claiming to be a victim of Jewish Satanic Ritual Abuse (video), Vicki and the Devil (script), she confirmed that she was the "Rachel" on Oprah (article). She has really made some wild claims, such as: "That her family belonged to a satanic ritual cult in which she was regularly sexually abused from the time she was a baby. That she was forced to murder babies and eat their flesh as part of this cult. She was raped  on Torah scrolls in a synagogue in Chicago. That she had five abortions as a result of incest with her father. That she suffers from multiple personality disorder." , a Google search shows more stuff about her. While she has done some good in focusing on problems of abuse in some Jewish communities, she also grasps at any straws that would not hold water in a court of law. Rabbi Yosef Blau is a great man, the mashgiach ruchani at Yeshiva University and a highly respected and responsible individual not afraid to face the truth and he understands the complexity of the issues, he is a genuine Tzadik for working with all sorts of people and trying to help them! Vicki Polin on the other hand is basically a law unto herself and does not answer to anyone. She has lots of links and dirt on many individuals and it would be a sad day if she would become the source, guide, inspiration and justification for all sorts of libelous slash and burn articles against anyone. IZAK 12:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not using Polin as a source for this article at this point. When a site just reproduces clippings from reliable sites the webmaster's viewpoint and credentials are immaterial. While the site does express a viewpoint, it seems like a reliable enough sources for "courtesy links" to reprinted articles, especially due to its board of advisors, endorsing rabbis, etc. As for the writings of Polin herslf, we aren't using those. However as a credentialled and published expert I expect that we might view her as having a significant viewpoint, and might include a quotation or summary from her at some point. However before we do that we should include other, more notable viewpoints, such as those of Blau, Willig, etc.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 12:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will: Motivation matters and has to be put into context. Readers need to understand that the direction of this article is not coming from someone who can claim neutrality, when the source is exhibiting signs of (self-admitted) major emotional damage, stress, and a desire for revenge and lashing out. This is what then leads to digging for dirt and exposing the skeletons (real, suspected or imagined -- and it's hard to tell the difference many times) that exist in many closets. What exactly is Polin an "expert" in? Suffering? Abuse? Incest? Devil worship? Admitting to multiple personality disorder? (She claims to have lived through it all, and is certainly living to tell the tale about it...) Since when are those "credentials" for anything except showing a need for and getting heavy-duty psychotherapy? Even having a real "credential" and "publishing" are pretty nebulous terms. Plenty of quacks get "published" indeed, like Polin, they run their own vanity presses, especially on the Internet with web-hosting being so cheap. At best, she is trying to portray herself as the voice of "the maiden" screaming to be "saved" by St George from the "dragon" but her appearance on Oprah created a charge that what they (she and Oprah, also not such a"neutral" party here, see her article: "...Born in rural Mississippi to a poor unwed teenaged mother, and later raised in a Milwaukee ghetto, Winfrey was raped at the age of nine, and at fourteen, gave birth to a son who died in infancy. Sent to live with the man she calls her father...") were really creating, was a new twist on an old lie, the blood libel against Jews. It's been pointed out that "If you Google ""ritual abuse" Oprah," you will see how many anti-semitic websites used Vicki's appearance as fodder to perpetuate the myth that Jews sacrifice children." http://www.lukeford.net/profiles/profiles/vicki_polin.htm So while she may be justified in her "crusade" for personal reasons, and we are not here to judge anyone's alleged personal suffering, but whatever emotionalism surrounds those issues should not mean that now anyone who claims to have been the victim of abuse, gets a degree and puts up a website is a "reliable source" for articles in an encyclopedia that wishes to be credible above all else. IZAK (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're ignoring the issue. The link to Polin's site is a link to a specific page dedicated to the Lanner episode. That page only contains articles written by various newspapers (which are considered reliable for publishing the news) about the Lanner episode. Its the best/only collection of its kind on the web. Any article on Lanner should contain a link to that site for that reason alone. The page does not subject its reader to Polin's opinions about Lanner, or to any witch hunt etc. Lets at least be honest about all of this. --Meshulam (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honest about what Meshulam? IZAK (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: don;'t we already have the citations to the articles? DGG (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is currently sourced entirely without reference to "TAC". The TAC page on Lanner has an extensive list of clippings that may be of interest to readers or editors, but which isn't necessary.   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So then cut it out if you have enough sources. The TAC is a hot potato controversial organization that itself is not neutral. IZAK (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vicki Polin as a Wikipedia "source"

message: User  has seen fit to censor   sourced information and the authors/sources themselves (even if it means cutting out Polin's own words?) that I had reported about the Vicki Polin issue as it relates to this ongoing discussion, a move which I strongly disagree with and dispute so I have restored them. I made the presentation very carefully and the citations do not constitutes "libel" nor are they questionable in this case: 
There were also a few smaller points, but if one reads my two posts here in their entirety one can see that I give Polin much praise and sympathy for her plight and for her cause. But it should also be very clear that she herself is NOT "neutral" in these matters, and neither is her Awareness Center, nor their use of "sources." Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I have again deleted material per WP:LIBEL. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This article isn't about Polin. Let's recall that WP:BLP applies to every living person, not just the immediate subject of a bio, and it also applies to talk pages. None of the material posted above touches on the actual use of the link to TAC in this article and is irrelevant to the discussion here. Off-topic material may be removed, and I don't see any reason not to remove this thread.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there an article about Vicki Polin? There should be, that would give you an outlet IZAK. Lobojo (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There you go, now you have somewhere to constructivly vent your spleen IZAK. Lobojo (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Lobojo: Funnily I am not venting any spleen. Let's see how the new Polin article pans out. IZAK (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vicki Polin & Oprah comments and edits 

message: What does the presence of the link in this article add? Everything is already sourced to acceptable sources. Anyone who follows the sources, or googles Lanner, will end up at TAC anyway. We do not need to have a controversial site linked here, especially one that does not in any way enhance the encyclopedic nature of this article, which should be all we are concerned with. -- Avi (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page concerns the article about Lanner, not about the TAC. We have a talk page which is specially set up for discussing the WP article on the TAC, at talk:The Awareness Center. We have no page at all for discussing the TAC itself, though there may be forums elsewhere for that topic. At this point I propose we leave off the TAC link, regardlees of its merits. The main and only issue here is whether the article itself is complete and neutral. If there are facts or viewpoints that from the TAC link that need to be brought into the article then let's do that. If we do that then the TAC link is unnecessary and the article is improved.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Linking from or to a Wikipedia article, that is itself always subject to important policies of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:RS, not to mention the possibility of WP:AFD, is not even in question. That kind of thing is done as the editorial and writing situation allows. As for the article about Lanner, it is not "improved" at all for the simple reason that it fails WP:BIO since it gives absolutely no context to the man and his times as it does not describe and explain who he was and all his accomplishments, achievements, and also his failings, including his fall from grace, all within a far wider historical, sociological, political and religious context. This will still be done as it should be in all complete biographies on Wikipedia. As it stands this is just a stub and a caricature based on one accusatory unforgiving and harsh theme. Wikipedia is not a court of law, playing God, to sit in judgment of humanity, nor is it a sex offender registry with an agenda, and it is certainly not a cyber-jail sticking The Scarlet Letter onto its subjects forever. IZAK (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The actual articles from the website of the article, yes--from TAC, no. -- Avi (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As Avraham indicates, we can cite the original sources without linking to TAC.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TAC Link redux 

message: I came to this article today, in light of the recent revelations of Brooklyn D.A. Charles Hynes's preferential treatment of ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) sex abuse suspects, allegedly under pressure of local Rabbis and Batei Din. But reading the above, the level of denial in the Orthodox Jewish world is astonishing. Seemingly greater than in the Roman Catholic Church. May Heaven protect young people everywhere, from the compulsions of predators like Lanner and Kolko. 207.237.79.219 (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Aftermath and Ramifications

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Baruch Lanner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110523223447/https://www6.state.nj.us/DOC_Inmate/details?x=1248335&n=0 to https://www6.state.nj.us/DOC_Inmate/details?x=1248335&n=0
*Added  tag to http://www.jewishtimes.com/scripts/edition.pl?now=5/25/1999&SubSectionID=31&ID=4615
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://media.www.yucommentator.com/media/storage/paper652/news/2003/03/06/News/Rabbi.Willig.Apology.Stirs.Campus-589918.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Baruch Lanner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118080958/https://www6.state.nj.us/DOC_Inmate/inmatefinder?i=I to https://www6.state.nj.us/DOC_Inmate/inmatefinder?i=I
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080106104600/http://www.thejewishweek.com:80/viewArticle/c36_a1616/News/New_York.html to http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c36_a1616/News/New_York.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified