Talk:NCSY

message: I'm not enough of a Wikipidian to feel comfortable modifying an article that's quite as high profile of this one. However.... I do question ShiraHadasha's erasing of the reference to Pinchas Stolper. A couple of sentences about the earlier decades seem in order... particularly when the article, as currently edited, still includes a shout-out to a couple of current NCSY advisors.
Yudel 21:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History vs Present

message: NCSY, much like their frequent partner in "kiruv," Aish HaTorah, is deleting all details they consider unflattering. Teh Baruch Lanner episode is critical to NCSY's history because of how they handled it for so long. Because we are dealing with a youth group that seeks conversion to Orthodox as its main goal, it is no surprise there is controversy in its history.
A controversy section is needed.
First of all to put kiruv in quotes is insulting from your list of changes you obviously have a grudge against people who are religious.
Next one does not "convert" to orthodox, its just a different sect.  
Also....there is no need for a scandel section, its irrelevent
Most importantly the posting about college just is plain false
What about a history of scandals within the program, i know of many. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.31.250 (talk • contribs) 
:Ok anonymous, then are you prepared to deal with WP:LIBEL? Who doesn't have scandals if you dig deep enough? IZAK 11:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah ok. I do realize that this exchange occurred 14 years ago. But , I don't appreciate veiled threats against other Wikipedia editors. As for the other part, "who doesn't have scandals if you dig deep enough," that's not how wikipedia works - if reliable secondary sources have covered it, it's probably worth writing about. Stop equivocating on what should be on this site. Theleekycauldron (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Scandals

message: * There appears to be a question about inclusion of other denominational youth groups within the 'see also' section of this article.  Within the American Jewish community, NCSY is perceived as a co-equal denominational youth group, as evidenced by major Jewish newspaper and major Jewish federation websites, which include NCSY listed among the others. See the link list below.   In addition, the NCSY webspace itself illustrates that NCSY participates in activities with its coordinate groups.
Wikipedia viewers previously unfamiliar with NCSY who are visiting this page should be made aware of coordinate youth groups that exist in the other denominations -- this provides valuable contrast to and comparison with major American Jewish youth groups.  
(Any discussions about other denominations, in general, should be directed to Talk:Jewish denominations.)
A quick sampling of links, as previously noted:  
Infoman99 22:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'See also' group inclusion 

message: Hi! I've protected this page for a few days because of an edit war that seems to have broken out over this controversy. For the time being, only administrators will be able to edit the page. In the meanwhile, I'd encourage taking a look at our biographies of living persons policy. This policy clarifies that any encyclopedia content containg potentially defamatatory material on living persons has to come from independent, well-established reliable sources such as reliable news services. Because this was a public controversy, sources should be available. I would encourage avoiding general statements and providing very specific facts -- who did what when, and who said so. Please discuss proposed content on this talk page before putting it on the article. And please have sources for all potentially defamatory material even to put it on the talk page. Wikipedia is very strict about preventing unreliable information that might be harmful to a living person from appearing even on a talk page. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would recommend starting a Baruch Lanner article and having it vetted and established on the encyclopedia before attempting to add material on this controversy to this article. This would enable sourcing problems to be addressed directly, and then reliable information and points of view about NCSY's role could be added to this article. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Baruch Lanner]] controversy 

message: :Image:NCSYLOGO.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:NCSYLOGO.gif

message: Why is there an edit war over the Lanner material? The sources appear adequate, and the matter is relevant to the NCSY.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baruch Lanner controversy #2 

message: This page has seen a fair bit of reverting recently, and I've blocked 4 accounts for it. Hopefully it won't need protection William M. Connolley (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article may need protection as the edit history and external links suggest that there is a major controversy here regarding Baruch Lanner. What is being done about this? There seems to be a multitude of evidence supporting this man and his involvement with NCSY (one example). Why are we banning people who seem to be combating censorship? --yonkeltron (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I semi'd it and blocked User:Mrnhghts. Hopefully someone might now come along and edit it sensibly William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright then, I'll include a small section with some references so it's verifiable and it should be written correctly. Then, I'll link to the main article as per policy. --yonkeltron (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

text: [E/C] I'm not sure what the problem was with User:Mrnhghts that required blocking - he wasn't violating 3RR. In any case, I've restored the Lanner material. It is well-sourced and relevant. If there's a difference of opinion let's discuss it here rather than edit war.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I misread the history timestamps :-( He was edit warring, but probably not to the extent of requiring a block. See his talk William M. Connolley (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit wars 

message: NCSY's Negiah program is a notable part of their educational programming. That NCSY denounces the use of condoms and considers handshaking between members of the opposite gender forbidden "in most circumstances" is both verifiable and notable.Mrnhghts (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: YOu are misreading the section on condoms.  It merely states that it doesnt make premarital sex any less wrong.  You obviously have some serious bias against this organization —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nogrudges (talk • contribs) 
No. That is a separate issue. Condoms are denounced regardless if the sex is marital or pre-marital. The specific issue of condoms led to controversy in the mainstream Jewish community.Look at the headline of this Forward article.
Let's look at the exact language regarding NCSY's interpretation of condoms according to rabbinic law.  "Yes, we acknowledge that condoms are not permitted according to halacha (Jewish law)."
On handshaking. 
Just be aware that halacha (Jewish law) does not permit any intimate or affectionate contact between men and women who are not married to one another (or close relatives).
For handshaking, marriage changes things between the spouses, but it does not change the situation with condoms. As the Forward notes, condoms are "panned" generally. As noted in my edits, some Jewish periodicals noted that some felt denouncing condom use was itself an irresponsible position to advocate.Mrnhghts (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Social Action

message: Semi protection for this page expires soon. I appeal to the anons not to pile back in and re-start edit warring; it will only get them blocked and the page re-protected. No, I don't expect this message to help :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a few comments in the source to try and dissuade people from deleting it. We just need to be vigilant and request that troublesome IPs and users be blocked as needed. This is getting to be ridiculous. --yonkeltron (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi 

message: A couple of accounts keep deleting the same sourced, neutrally prsented information. Unless there's a good reason for it to be deleted it should be retained.   Will Beback  talk   17:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you actually read WP:NPOV? Adding well-sourced material does not violate NPOV. On the contrary, NPOV requires that all significant points of view be included. The material yo've repeatedly deleted is notable and if we're going to have an article on the topic then it should be included.   Will Beback  talk   19:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained deletions 

message: ===Religion===
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid
Words related to religion can create point of view problems. When is a belief system a "cult" or "sect" rather than a religion? What is "fundamentalism" or "heresy"? When these words are used, they need to be qualified, or supported by reliable secondary sources.
Cult has several different meanings, but usually with negative connotations. Its use should be avoided or attributed: i.e., do not say, "X is a cult", say "Group Y refers to X as a 'cult'" and give references. One exception concerns the technical use of this term in sociology to refer to a small religious group with novel religious beliefs and a high degree of tension with the surrounding society: in that case, it must be clear that a neutral sociological usage is intended. The adjective cultic may be preferable in such cases. A second exception concerns a reference to a particular religious practice, such as "the cult of Demeter at Eleusis" or "the cult of the saints". See cult (religious practice).
Sect likewise has several different meanings, but has fewer negative connotations. Some groups that are described as cults by the media are classified as sects by sociologists. However, the word may or may not imply novelty or tension. It can also imply that the group is part of a larger movement, or a splinter group. Consequently its use can promote a point of view unless its meaning is clearly defined. For novel religions, the term new religious movement may be more appropriate: see list of new religious movements.
Fundamentalism refers to "the tendency to reduce a religion to its most fundamental tenets, based on strict interpretation of core texts." A fundamentalist is not necessarily an extremist. However, the meaning has shifted in popular use to mean "religious fanatic" as well as the original meaning. Consequently, it should primarily be used for groups that are self-described fundamentalists. For groups labeled as fundamentalists by others, the term should be attributed to the source.
Treesheads (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Treesheads, it isn't necessary to post the contents of guidelines here, a link will do. Note that the guidelie does not prohibit the use of the word "cult". If a source says that a group is "reminiscent of a cult" then it is appropriate for us to report that. I haven't had a chance to check the source so I don't know if that's what it says. If it is in the source then it should be restored.   Will Beback  talk   23:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Words to avoid

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid
Words related to religion can create point of view problems. When is a belief system a "cult" or "sect" rather than a religion? What is "fundamentalism" or "heresy"? When these words are used, they need to be qualified, or supported by reliable secondary sources.
Cult has several different meanings, but usually with negative connotations. Its use should be avoided or attributed: i.e., do not say, "X is a cult", say "Group Y refers to X as a 'cult'" and give references. One exception concerns the technical use of this term in sociology to refer to a small religious group with novel religious beliefs and a high degree of tension with the surrounding society: in that case, it must be clear that a neutral sociological usage is intended. The adjective cultic may be preferable in such cases. A second exception concerns a reference to a particular religious practice, such as "the cult of Demeter at Eleusis" or "the cult of the saints". See cult (religious practice).
Sect likewise has several different meanings, but has fewer negative connotations. Some groups that are described as cults by the media are classified as sects by sociologists. However, the word may or may not imply novelty or tension. It can also imply that the group is part of a larger movement, or a splinter group. Consequently its use can promote a point of view unless its meaning is clearly defined. For novel religions, the term new religious movement may be more appropriate: see list of new religious movements.
Fundamentalism refers to "the tendency to reduce a religion to its most fundamental tenets, based on strict interpretation of core texts." A fundamentalist is not necessarily an extremist. However, the meaning has shifted in popular use to mean "religious fanatic" as well as the original meaning. Consequently, it should primarily be used for groups that are self-described fundamentalists. For groups labeled as fundamentalists by others, the term should be attributed to the source.
Treesheads (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Treesheads, it isn't necessary to post the contents of guidelines here, a link will do. Note that the guidelie does not prohibit the use of the word "cult". If a source says that a group is "reminiscent of a cult" then it is appropriate for us to report that. I haven't had a chance to check the source so I don't know if that's what it says. If it is in the source then it should be restored.   Will Beback  talk   23:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion

message: All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.
Treesheads (talk) 04:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are making that case then the burden is on you to show that these are fringe viewpoints held only by a tiny minority. Acording to whom is The Jewish Week a fringe source? According to whom does Salon promote the views of tiny minorities? Please provide evidence to support those assertions.   Will Beback  talk   04:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. 

message: If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia
Just because the newspaper that printed it is big, the VIEWPOINT is an extremely small minority.
Treesheads (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the New York Times, "for some of the 90,000 subscribers of The Jewish Week, most of whom live in or near New York City, the newspaper and its editors were the villains." It would appear, according to a reliable source, that the small minority is the one objecting to the journalism of "The Jewish Week". I did not  find any criticism in the The New York Times of editorial or journalistic standards of   "The Jewish Week". Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  If your viewpoint (NOT NEWSPAPER) is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia 

message: The Jewish Student Union page should be merged with the NCSY page, as they are ultimately NCSY controlled , and the JSU page is being limited to little more than a press release. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Student_Union
]]Mrnhghts (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewish Student Union page should be a section of NCSY page

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on NCSY. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070410230831/http://www.ou.org/oupr/2000/comm/ncsybg.htm to http://www.ou.org/oupr/2000/comm/ncsybg.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on NCSY. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081015022317/http://www.theawarenesscenter.org:80/lanner_baruch.html to http://www.theawarenesscenter.org/lanner_baruch.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on NCSY. 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/20120219111538/http://www.cbaj-albany.org/ncsy/members.htm to http://www.cbaj-albany.org/ncsy/members.htm
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) 00:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on NCSY. 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/20081211195259/http://www.ncsy.org/ncsy/article/40836 to http://www.ncsy.org/ncsy/article/40836
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111031120709/http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/10/30/3090026/youth-group-advisor-sues-ou-over-unpaid-overtime to http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/10/30/3090026/youth-group-advisor-sues-ou-over-unpaid-overtime
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110806052454/http://www.jta.org/news/article/2001/04/29/6837/OUhopesitssteps to http://jta.org/news/article/2001/04/29/6837/OUhopesitssteps
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) 18:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Hello,
I have recently edited the NCSY page to include the controversy surrounding Menachem Chinn.
Given the edit-war that had erupted over the inclusion of the Lanner controversy, I fully expect something similar to occur relatively soon.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.36.127 (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You're lucky - i think we got past it with little warring. Theleekycauldron (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential for an Edit-War