Talk:The Awareness Center/Archive 1

Archive 1

Please discuss before changing article.

Please discuss any proposed edits on this page before making them. Edit wars are best avoided. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether you admit it or not, your action, of deleting comments challenging the status quo regarding TAC and re-inserting them several screen-miles below (for once you didn't just erase them completely BECAUSE WE SCREAMED BLOODY MURDER) is an act of edit war. This is a very messy page, certainly not easily accessible to the newcomer, and your actions profoundly favor one side in the debate. I call on you again to unlock the TAC article, or at least restore it under lock to where there is representation of critical views. Otherwise your involvement here is little short of thuggish.Yyanover 23:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This comment doesn't seem to have been for TruthbringerToronto, please reply below posts you're replying to. See [[Wikipedia:Talk page

guidelines]] and note "Start new topics at the bottom of the page" and "Avoid excessive markup". You can move the comment to the relevant thread. This page is quite long, if you want newer threads closer to the top you can archive unactive threads. As for screaming murder, please read WP:TIGER.

The rest of the comment doesn't seem to be for me since I'm not an administrator and can't unprotect pages, however, as for calling someone a thug, please also read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. -- Jeandré, 2007-06-03t19:03z

And yet you argue with my point up here rather than down at the end of this page, many screens away. Why? Possibly because you use elementary logic. In this case, my good name was being defamed for a year before somebody emailed me about it. Why should I be permitted a lower rung in the display simply because my attacker got here first?Yyanover 19:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"This comment doesn't seem to have been for TruthbringerToronto [...] You can move the comment to the relevant thread."

You can redact defamation on this page.

To change the way Wikipedia talk pages are used, discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, not here. -- Jeandré, 2007-06-04t19:07z

Sources.

Drive-by comment: the controversial comments being sourced to that letter need better sourcing; personal letters, blogs, forum posts, etc., aren't really considered to be reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. usajewish.com is a blog, and explictly disallowed as a reliable source due to its self-published nature. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that I do not know protocol here. Even awareness center's own blog knows this was a genuine letter: jewishsurvivors.blogspot.com/2006/09/does-rabbis-saul-berman-joseph.html

USAJewish is published by Yuri Yanover, a journalist who must defend his work.

Agreed this letter is only on blogs, but see for yourself the "profiles" on the center web site. I will not say names here, as wikipedia should not slander the innocent by even mentioning names.

You see in many cases that their sources are: one blog. Yes a blog should not be used, and even more not to destroy a life. What I wrote about the awareness center, then, you see with your eyes:

The controversial element of The Awareness Center is its listing of unproven accusations of people among the convicted sex offenders. Many of the Awareness Center profiles are built upon unsubstantiated material from anonymous blogs. Its policies require that a teacher go through psychological testing in order to perhaps have a page removed. No page has ever been removed.

I am restoring this paragraph. EyalH 21:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Founding date.

Is the correct founding date 1999 or 2001? The entry says both things. David in DC 18:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been reading through TAC's postings in it's "daily newsletter" <http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheAwarenessCenter/>. Vicki Polin states she started to transform her private practice web page into The Awareness Center site back in 1999. The organization officially got started while she was living in Jerusalem, Israel in 2001. The organization incorporated as a non-profit in the state of Maryland in 2003. That is also the year it received it's 501c3 status. Ephraim Schwartz 9:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This page is a mess

I can't figure out how to get the little external link arrow onto all of the links that are indeed external links. Also, there's some funky spacing and funky symbols in the top couple of paragraphs.

Substantively, I do not understand why the external link to the Rabbis' letter about the awareness center's tactics was deleted. I deleted the Yori Yanover blog piece, but thought the abbis' letter met WK standards. David in DC 18:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to change the Vicki Polin link to an internal WK entry, but discovered that someone has entirely deleted the entire Victori Polin entry.

There's a lot of goofiness and vandalism happening here. It seems to be being done by folks with a pro-Awareness Center POV. David in DC 18:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I've deleted an external link to a screed by Yori Yanover against Ms. Polin. It contains unsourced allegations and a distinct POV. These two have waged cyber-war for ages.

I've left up the Rabbis' Letter on Ms. Polin's tactics. It is well sourced and, arguably a primary source document on her work and career. It's at least as critical as the Yanover piece, but contains none of the latter's flaws. David in DC 20:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've taken back down the Rabbi's letter critical of the awareness center's tactic's. There is a factual dispute about whether these rabbi's still stand by that document. David in DC 16:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is untrue, except per the Awareness Center itself. David, don't fall for a story. There is no indication nor reason to believe that the Rabbis removed their criticism of the Awareness Center and its methodology. The fact that later claims against Rabbi Gafni were proven true does not mean TAC did not pursue him and many other Rabbis with lies and slander. SunAlsoRises 22:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Editing Attempts by David in DC [...]

[redacted 72.85.3.158 (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)]

[redacted Yyanover 13:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)]

[redacted 72.85.3.158 (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)]

I am no Gafni Supporter. I am trying to bring the page into compliance with Wikipedia standards. Many of my changes, that are described as attacks, are simple typo corrections ie theWeb into the Web, and marking external links properly as external links. The letter from the rabbis opposing the Awareness Center's tactics is accurate. This page needs to be locked so more senior wikipedia editors can separate wheat from chaff. But believe me, I am no Gafni supporter. I've supported the Awareness Center and Vicki Polin in the past am am currently posting on Jewish blogs to bring Reb Shlomo Carlebach's history of predations into the mainstream. If you look at Carlebach's page on Wikipedia, you'll see that I've done so there, with help fending off a troll from a moderator. I need similar help here. Wikipedia needs an Awareness Center page that's accurate, and not a puff piece posted and defended by Awareness Center supporters. David in DC 15:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the title of this entry to take out a Libel against me David in DC 15:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clean-up work Jeandre David in DC 20:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The Awareness Center is trying to rewrite its history. TAC's version of this page removes the references to Rabbi Marc Dratch which were found in the very recent JTA article. TAC's one-sided presentation of itself as an accepted resource does not meet Wikipedia's requirement of a neutral POV. SunAlsoRises 22:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[redacted Advocate For Survivors 22:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)]

Please Lock This Page

I am asking that this page be locked and that it be left to the edition created by Jeandré (see link below). I am also asking that the individual who is attempting to create havoc to stop. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Awareness_Center&oldid=108169788 Advocate For Survivors 22:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I seem to have stepped into a landmine-filled controversy. As I see it, there are two different versions of this WP entry, that by Jeandré and that by SunAlsoRises. I've spoken by telephone with Vicki and am convinced she is working, in good faith, with Jeandré, to have TAC portrayed in a light she sees as accurate.

I haven't spoken with SunAlsoRises, but am equally convinced of Sun's good faith. I think Sun's version hews closer to WP standards than Jeandré's, but I am a very new Wikipedian.

What's gotta stop is the hourly edits.

The page needs to be locked. Then the Sun version and the Jeandré version need to be judged by experienced Wikipedians with no dogs in this particular fight. I will edit this page no more. I hope Jeandré and Sun will also cease fire. NOW.

I think a final page will look more like Sun's than Jeandré's, but, as I say, I'm new to this.

MPerel was able to broker a good resolution when I tried to edit Shlomo Carlebach's WP entry and ran into similar problems. The entry for Carlebach now seems to abide by WP standards. And, blessedly, the revert war there is over.

This page needs a similar solution. David in DC 03:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

All one needs to do is a little research on the case of Marc Gafni to understand the mindset of Sun. Marc/Mordechai Gafni has a long track history of cult like practices. All one needs to do is call Rabbi Shlomo Riskin regarding his past. Read all the entries on Marc Gafni It will make sense that Jeandre's entry makes the most sense. Sun's intent is harassment. Advocate For Survivors 04:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not on TAC's or Sun's side - I'm just trying to make sure the article adheres to Wikipedia's rules - specifically verifiability, reliable sources, and neutrality. To request a page lock, see WP:RFPP. Do not complain if the wrong version is the locked tho. Instead of going that route I think we should adhere to the policies linked above and write an encyclopedic article. -- Jeandré, 2007-02-15t07:41z, 2007-02-15t07:49z, 2007-02-15t08:10z

Jeandre keeps deleting anything that portrays TAC in anything other than a wholly favorable light. But TAC is not universally viewed as good. A proper encyclopedia entry about TAC would include both sides. David in DC 17:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This solution looks very correct to me. Thanks to Jeandré and Gnangarra. Thanks for taking out the most controversial change, for cooler heads to consider. Thanks for "locking" the page with balance, not the puff piece. Thanks for leaving my non-partisan clean-up work alone. And, especially for not laughing at a dolt who makes grammar changes while consistently misspelling grammar. David in DC 16:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Gnangarra's lock has been undone by a BOT. I've reverted the page to its protected status. I'm a newby. Should a BOT be able to reverse an Administrator's protection of a disputed page? David in DC 02:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Page protection is applied for a time period in this case the period has expired if the problem again arises and protection is warranted then request at WP:RFPP again. Gnangarra 02:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and guidance David in DC 02:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Regretably, my prediction has come true. Pro TAC drivers-by have again vandalized the page ruining the NPOV compromise that held during the protection period. David in DC 23:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

And again today. I put in a request for protection two days ago, but it was denied. I'll keep at this. David in DC 00:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The revert wars resume, after a quiet month. This page needs to be locked. It must not be taken down. That would be giving the pro-TAC POV the ultimate heckler's veto. I'll go request the protection again David in DC 17:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Would an editor with sufficient authority please fix the broken internal link to beth din, please? David in DC 20:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the link. Please don't request any significant changes before protection is lifted - it would be inappropriate for any admin to make them. CMummert · talk 21:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand, I thank you and I won't ask for any substantive changes until protection is lifted. I figured changing a red broken internal WK link to a blue fixed internal WK link would be non-controversial. David in DC 20:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Rabbi Mark Dratch has nothing to do with this organization

Returned to the appropriate edition. Rabbi Mark Dratch has nothing to do with this organization. He was on the advisory board several years ago and created his own organization. If you have questions regarding this issue contact Rabbi Yosef Blau at YU. What is being posted in other editions is more or less about a group of a few individuals attempting to harass an organization that advocates for Jewish survivors of sexual abuse. Perhaps the solution to this is removing The Awareness Center from Wikipedia and also the entry for Mark Dratch and his organization JSAFE. [User:Stop The Insanity|Stop The Insanity] 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Dratch's reasons for disassociating himself from TAC have a lot to do with the institution. The more shrill the demands for one-sidedness become, the more obvious their intent becomes. David in DC 17:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"Perhaps the solution to this is removing The Awareness Center from Wikipedia and also the entry for Mark Dratch and his organization JSAFE."

This would be the ultimate in giving in to the "heckler's veto" It would be shameful. David in DC 18:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

David, it's obvious your a supporter of Mordechai Gafni. If you weren't you'd be dropping this already. If you read the documents on The Awareness Center site you will learn that the reason many of the board and advisory board members left was because they were being blackmailed. Many were warned if they didn't leave that some thing they would want kept private would be made public. Read the article on the site about bullying. NOT David in DC 18:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Please review my work on the Shlomo Carlebach page, or, for that matter, my posts on Carlebach and on Lashon Hara on
my own blog. I believe in the work of exposing sexual abuse in the Jewish Community. But ultimately, if TAC insists on sanitizing the record of a balanced perspective IN AN ENCYCLOPEDIA, it robs itself of desperately needed credibility. I am no supporter of Gafni and to say so is libel. TAC would benefit from a more nuanced response to things it doesn't like. Calling everyone who does anything TAC doesn't like the supporter of a monster like Gafni is the worst kind of McCarthyism. G-d help me from those I agree with. My opponents I can handle.

TAC's efforts to sanitize this page will fail. Calling allies perverts will rob TAC of any support it might otherwise garner.

I'm very disappointed about most of this. I'm very angry about accusations that I support Gafni. Shame on you. David in DC 01:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that David in DC keeps posting information relating to Rabbi Mark Dratch's organization which has absolutely nothing to do with The Awareness Center. Read the article on the site about bullying. There are over 250 rabbis who support The Awareness Center. What purpose does David in DC have in posting information relating to one rabbi? NOT David in DC 02:03, 07 March 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.62.36 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-07t08:08:55z

36, why are you removing referenced information in your reverts? -- Jeandré, 2007-03-07t20:45z

I just made several changes which didn't "take". I think I was uploading at the same time that David in DC was uploading. I am going redo the changes I made. For some reason they are not even in the history. Give me about 15 minutes and they will be back up [User:NOT David in DC|NOT David in DC] 02:41, 07 March 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2007-03-08t20:42:20z (talk • contribs) 72.85.62.36

Harassment To The Awareness Center

There are a few individuals placing information on this site as an attempt to harass this organization. Rabbi Mark Dratch has absolutely nothing to do with the organization. It is also inappropriate to put a link to Rabbi Dratch's organization on The Awareness Center's site.

Rabbi Yosef Blau, religious adviser at Yeshiva University and an advocate for victims of rabbinic sexual abuse and misconduct, has stated that the The Awareness Center is very valuable "since you can't get people arrested and there are no court cases, you have to use a standard that's reasonable and disclosure works in that context". The center no longer names its board members due to harassment, according to an article put out by the Jewish Telegraph Agency, Vicki Polin said she herself has been threatened repeatedly with physical harm and was once spat on by a woman who was angry over a sex offender being placed on The Awareness Center site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2007-03-09t04:38:23z (talk • contribs) 71.248.91.237

Rabbi Mark Dratch has a lot to do, and should be in the article, read the reference: [1]. I agree about the JSafe link and I've removed it from the external links section. The Blau quote is in the article. -- Jeandré, 2007-03-09t11:56z

Mark Dratch has absolutely nothing to do with the organization. He is chairman of the Rabbinical Council of America's Task Force on Rabbinic Improprieties. His attacks against The Awareness Center is very similar to the Catholic church's attempts to smear the voices of those who speak out against it. He's just part of the propaganda machine working for the RCA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.85.171 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-10t15:25:47z

Please read the JTA/WJW article. If you want Dratch's criticism countered, you need to explain why the JTA/WJW article is wrong and supply a reliable source. -- Jeandré, 2007-03-10t18:51z

The claim of harrassment is a sham. Polin uses it to explain the disappearance of her board, but it slowly dwindled throughout 2004 as she began to use more and more anonymous blog content as grounds to accuse Rabbis with no known or verified charges against them. Asking Polin to provide a reliable source will not succeed, since she surrounds herself with unreliable sources for the most serious of charges against clergy. SunAlsoRises, 2007-04-13t22:45z

As we all know board members of non-profits change all the time. Here is a current list of TAC's board of directors. <http://www.theawarenesscenter.org/board.html> Ephraim Schwartz 9:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I'm not certain what is happening on this page, but it looks to be another victim of edit-warring. Therefore the page is semi-protected. If the edit warring continues in spite of these issues, I will revert it back to its present version and full-protect it. If you are not able to make changes to this article, please discuss here and get a consensus. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 21:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

History of The Awareness Center

Who ever wrote the history regarding the organization is not correct. Below is the purpose of the organization. The primary goal has always been education.

Vicki Polin is the organization's Executive Director. In 2001, she founded the center to educate Jewish communities on the issues and ramification sexual violence plays in communities. It operates as a Rape Victim Advocacy Organization.

The organization was incorporated in the state of Maryland in 2003 and its international headquarters is in Baltimore, Maryland. [2]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.85.171 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-10t15:25:47z

Please sign your talk page posts by adding 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end of the message.

The lead sentence already includes "educational organization" and currently includes "whose mission is to address sexual violence in Jewish communities." which is referenced to http://www.theawarenesscenter.org/mission.html which states ""Our dream is to create an international organization to address the issue and ramifications of sexual victimization to both adults and children in Jewish Communities"". The PDF you linked to (HTML cache) says "Dedicated to Addressing Sexual Violence in Jewish Communities Internationally" at the top left and doesn't include the words "primary goal". Please provide a source for the suggested change to the lead text.

What is your source for the change to your 2nd paragraph? Is the Meyer 2007 reference wrong?

The PDF does mention Maryland incorporation in 2003, and I've added it back into the history section. -- Jeandré, 2007-03-10t19:16z

Meyer's was making assumptions. If you read The Awareness Center's brochure you will learn that the goal of the organization is education and providing support to Jewish Survivors of Sex Crimes. For more information about this call Vicki Polin who is the founder/director and ask her directly. 443-857-5560. ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.85.171 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-11t05:02:01z

List of board members.

The 04-13 and 15 edits insinuate that the board members left because of the use of anonymous and Ford info. We have a source for this being the reason for ShafranDratch leaving, but we'll need a source for new edits too. See the no original research policy. Comparing the names on a website over time only is not notable. -- Jeandré, 2007-04-15t14:32z (corrected -- Jeandré, 2007-04-16t21:51z)

The problem is that there is no real news about this organization. You've got her claims vs. blogs. Please note that Wikipedia's verifiability standards correctly call both blogs and self-published material dubious. You either take what she writes on her web site at face value, or you look at multiple blogs from named sources and find those facts where her enemies and friends agree. It was not Rabbi Shafran but Rabbi Dratch who stated why he resigned, but many others left from the US and Israel. Ford himself writes how he is a pariah.

Otherwise we have to really ask, is the Awareness Center notable? Infamous, perhaps, but not otherwise notable. Vicki Polin is a one-person operation, and this page was created by her or an ally to promote her flagging efforts. Perhaps the best solution is to eliminate this page, as the "organization" has no programs, no employees, nothing besides a web site that takes anonymous blog entries and puts them up alongside real cases of abuse and misconduct. SunAlsoRises 15:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about my Shafran/Dratch error.

Do the editors here consider the Washington Jewish Week/Jewish Telegraph Agency reliable? Do we have agreement on limiting the article to what's in [2], and remove the information sourced to the self published site? -- Jeandré, 2007-04-16t21:51z

I consider Washington Jewish Week and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reliable sources for WK. Both practice run-of-the-mil, mainline journalism David in DC 21:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I posted the following in another section, yet thought it was important to post it here too. As we all know board members of non-profits change all the time. Here is a current list of TAC's board of directors. <http://www.theawarenesscenter.org/board.html> Ephraim Schwartz 9:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by "Shalom Simcha"

The Awareness Center is non-profit organization with 501c3 status. The organization would not be allow to operate if it was a one-person operation. It is known that (deleted) has been stalking Ms. Polin on line for the last several years. His M.O. has been to protect a few of his friends which (were deleted by SunAlsoRises) Shalom Simcha (talk • contribs) 16:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

I believe the above comment merely proves my point. A 501(c)3 doesn't have to have a staff, but this user, being Vicki Polin or a supporter, tries to hide the facts. I don't even know the person she accuses me of being. Once I met one of the four rabbis that "Shalom Simcha" listed, but they were not relevant here at all. It only shows the nature of the Awareness Center, unsupported and hysterical claims placed alongside true cases. "Shalom Simcha" and TAC supporters are generally more interested in using this page to slander rabbis than in contributing to accurate information on WikiPedia. SunAlsoRises 16:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The following statement is not true and is part of a smear campaign against Ms. Polin and The Awareness Center. I am asking that the false statements be removed.

"Long before the list of board members was removed in 2004 (due to what Polin called "harrassment," as above), it diminished steadily during late 2004 as she began to use more and more anonymous material, as well as that provided by pornography columnist Luke Ford. By March 2005, the advisory board was cut in half, and then it was removed.[10]" Yacov 11:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the whitewash campaign again. The wayback machine archive says in June '04 there were 16 people on the Board of Directors and Advisory Board, and by March '05 there were only 9 left. As soon as she hid her board, she officially dropped her old standard of requiring news reports or legal documents, since by that time there was too much garbage from anonymous blogs for her to deny. See the wayback archive of her policies.html from March and (the next time it pulled it) November. SunAlsoRises 03:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted a note that misidentified me as an anonymous participant here. I do not post anonymously. Yyanover 02:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[redacted] Yacov 11:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)"

[redacted] Yyanover 19:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't delete things on a talk page you disagree with, Yyanover, you respond to them. David in DC 16:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as long as it's used sparingly, you can remove certain types of edits. -- Jeandré, 2007-05-28t22:16z

Deleted edits on talk page.

PROTEST: Over the holiday of Shavuot someone has deleted my two entries on this page. It is unacceptable. You can't both demand that I "defend my position" and at the same time delete it when I post it. Unlike most of the participants in the discussion here, I'm not anonymous, I have a name and an address. I should not be subjected to rogue dletions while celebrating the holiday.

See the log: [3]. Unless you can source your claims with reliable published sources, it's not allowed on Wikipedia. Do you have a source that Rachael is Vicki? If so, it would have to mention TAC also to be included here. I'm redacting your repost and part of SunAlsoRises'. -- Jeandré, 2007-05-25t21:22z

[redacted]

When you enter Yyanover in the URL you left here, [4] you get: "No matching items in log." Lucy, you got some 'splainin to do.Yyanover 09:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That log doesn't show edits that have been deleted from the history of a page, but does show if a page was deleted and restored. -- Jeandré, 2007-05-28t22:16z

Response: There's an interview published by LA journalist/author/blogger Luke Ford:

From my telephone conversation with Vicki which I promised not to publish until Vicki gave her approval and had the opportunity to edit her words.

Vicki: "I was on the Oprah show just about 16 years ago. All hell broke out in my life after the show. I had been working for an organization called VOICES in Action (Victims Of Incest Can Emerge Survivors) at the time, and was finishing up my bachelor's degree I had told my story tons of time because of the work I did. I had spoken at national conferences, been on TV before and also on radio talk shows.

http://www.lukeford.net/profiles/profiles/vicki_polin.htm

Now, it's up to you whether you accept Ford's testimony as a published source. Personally, I don't always trust his motives, but I never caught him in a willful lie. Indeed, in my interview with him, when he was confronted with a misstatement on his blog regarding an individual's court appearance, he admitted his mistake.

Here is a source regarding the harm done by Polin et al to public life:

[5]Newspaper publisher becomes the story before debate

Now, Jeandré, you have not responded to my complainr regarding the removal of my entry from early May, 07. It wasn'r "redacted," it was deleted without notice. Did you do it? Are you empowered to delete entries without cause? Yyanover 14:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

lukeford.net is not a reliable source.

See WP's conflict of interest policy - it's okay to post a link to the newspaper article here tho, and let others incorporate any notable information into the WP article.

I didn't delete the post, that was done[6] by administrator User:KillerChihuahua, the reason given "Deleting attacks from history OTRS 2007051210010211". If a serious enough claim is made without a reliable source, those edits may on occasion be completely deleted from the article's history log. I am not an administrator, just one of the volunteers who answers emails sent to the foundation (the OTRS system). -- Jeandré, 2007-05-28t22:16z

My second entry was lengthier and involved a discussion of the problematic nature of anonymity as it is being misused by the "Awareness Center." While not advancing the cause of sex crime victims in the least, and while being ignored by more authoritative sources, Polin continues to offer a seductively easy story to Jewish writers fresh out of journalism school who are simply not aware of the more sly and dangerous aspects of her activity. To them I'd like to recommend a new website dedicated to educating the masses about the history and roots of Ms. Polin. http://www.vickipeeki.com/ Yyanover 02:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I second Yori's comment. I read what he had to say here, and it was all reasonable and there was no reason for it to be removed. He has told Wikipedia important things about the "Awareness Center" and its director.

[redacted]

Don't remove Yori's comment. Remove the page on "the awareness center" because it is useless. And no, I never met Yori. Don't know who he is except by reputation, but he seems like he knows north from south. SunAlsoRises 05:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Why does the history show no deletions of Yyanover's early May posts to this page? He's not dreaming them, they were here, I recall reading them at the time. Can an op explain this?

I've got total sympathy with Yyanover on the inappropriateness of deleting his comments. And I'm a bit scared about the way his early may entries were disappeared without a trace of the deletions showing up in the history.

I've got less sympathy for his gripe that it happened over Shavuos. It's unreasonable to expect Wikipedia to run according to our Jewish lunar callender. Except in Israel I don't expect schools and businesses to close when I'm in shul for Shavuos. Why in heaven's name would I expect Wikipedia to. You think it's easy to be a Jew? David in DC 16:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

David - Knowing who I'm doing business with I made it part of my web routine to check on my comments here twice a day. I'm not blaming Wikipedia, I simply noted that when I was not here keeping an eye on my notes, somebody quickly removed them. I believe they were still there earlier in the week.

I am not familiar with the way notes are recorded in the discussion area. I think we count mostly on the honesty of the participants. That flies in our faces when some of us are "allegedly" sociopathic. May we all be comforted with the rebuilding of the Temple in jerusalem... Yyanover 19:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User JzG, being a moderator, has now removed all criticism of the Awareness Center from the main page, including direct quotations from named sources in newspaper articles (on the JTA, no less). This would be like removing all criticism of Scientology because Scientologists claim they are being "harassed." It makes the page a one-sided pro-Awareness Center whitewash and removes all balance and NPOV. According to critics, the "Awareness Center" is harassment of many innocent rabbis.

Jeandre, it is very well-known that Vicki is Rachel. She has tried to block this from becoming known -- in one case, she even helped manufacture a false abuse claim against a Rabbi she admitted this to -- but she admitted it to too many people, and now you you can find it on many blogs from her allies and critics. It's not like a newspaper is going to be printing that, but does explain why experienced journalists stopped quoting her or referring to the Awareness Center.

Yanover did not suggest putting it on the main page. He said editors need to take this into account when discussing TAC. There is no longer a board of TAC. Vicki writes that she has multiple personality disorder. She claims that abuse by rabbis is overwhelmingly common (most observers believe that the restrictions placed on Catholic priests created a unique problem. Not Vicki Polin!) -- and uses her pages to prove it with poorly-documented pages, including some that look both manufactured and motivated by a desire to attack rabbis (as regarding Yanover's rabbi, for example). What she has on her site would never pass go on Wikipedia itself, but now wikipedia is being used to make TAC look like far more than it is.

People are becoming aware of the Awareness Center, and Wikipedia is, in this case, proving everything its critics have said about its limited value. In this case, non-experts are muzzling expert critics like Yanover, who has better than ample documentation for everything he has said. SunAlsoRises 14:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

openyeshiva.com doesn't look like a reliable source as required by WP. We'll need a reliable book or newspaper article before we can use that information, even here on the talk page. Talking about whether it's a reliable source here is a gray area tho. The board mention also requires secondary sources to indicate it's notability - if someone challenges something it must be sourced before it can be put back in the article.

If WP's requirements make for a skewed article, then no article may be better than a bad one - should it be nominated for deletion? The most important question then becomes if the Meyer article indicates enough notability. -- Jeandré, 2007-05-28t22:16z

Jeandre, TAC can quote itself, but we can't quote openyeshiva.com? I'm all in favor of this page's deletion. It was created by Vicki Polin, who also created a page about herself at the same time. that page was deleted and protection was put in place to prevent its re-creation months ago. Yes, nominate it for deletion! Since JzG deleted all reference to the Meyer article, it must be that that article isn't enough to even be credible, much less proof of notability. SunAlsoRises 00:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There are currently 5 references to pages at http://www.theawarenesscenter.org/ and since it's now been challenged as self published, I'd agree that they (and the information they reference) should be removed. We normally still link to an organization's site as an external link even if it's not good enough as a reliable reference tho.

The problem with deletion, is that I missed The Washington Post[7], Haaretz[8], and Baltimore Jewish Times[9][10] articles before, and it's unlikely that the article will be deleted with mentions in such reliable newspapers. You can still nominate the article for deletion yourself tho if you think it's not notable enough. You'll need the help of an administrator to put the deletion notice on the page, you can contact an administrator listed at [11]. -- Jeandré, 2007-06-03t19:03z

I AM AGHAST

at the most recent locking of the Awareness Center’s article. Whoever is in charge on these messy pages has seen fit to remove all critical entries regarding TAC and its director,

[redacted]

This is not a crime only against the democratic nature of Wikipedia, but also against real sex-crime victims, who may now be misled into trusting Polin. How could you commit such a blatant ethical violation?

It is inconceivable that a woman who has been engaged in unsubstantiated attacks on often defenseless individuals, leaving scorched lives in her wake, would be permitted to present an “authoritative” article about her which puts to shame some of the Stalinist literature of the 1930’s. I demand that you return the critical passages, as well as the critical external links. Have you no shame?Yyanover 16:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If anything, Yanover isn't being strong enough in telling how terrible this is. He presented the fact that Vicki Polin is unstable (if you doubt that she is 'Rachel', just compare her photos and her voice and research the Net). Not only did the wikipedia "experts" delete all record of this, they also edited the main page to remove things like the fact that Rabbi Mark Dratch, a respected expert in the area of child abuse in the Jewish community, disassociated himself entirely when he realized the nature of her activities. His own website, jsafe.org, list fifteen different resources for victims of domestic violence and child abuse. He doesn't even mention TAC.

He explained to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that he left TAC because of "disagreement with [Polin] on the standards required for publishing on her Web site. I wasn't satisfied with the threshold of verification. There are people who've been victimized and others who've been subject to false reports also being victimized. The big problem we have in this area is verifying the allegations and moving forward."

How on earth, in the name of fairness, can you justify deleting this? What you have now is as accurate as the bio of John Siegenthaler that accused him of being part of the Kennedy assassination -- and as harmful to the real victims. SunAlsoRises 17:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The article was locked by Majorly because of "edit warring". I suggest everyone here go read WP:TIGERS. It won't be unlocked until people calm down.

The criticism section was removed from the article by JzG. While I disagree about removing the first part sourced to Meyer, I agree that the last part is not notable enough because it isn't sourced by a reliable secondary source.

Wikipedia is not a democracy, it's a project to try and build an GFDL encyclopedia. 100 editors wanting something can be overruled by an administrator reading 1 good argument against.

Wikipedia is a tertiary source, used to start research. We're like a summary blog: not a reliable source, but sometimes a good place to begin to find info.

[12] is not a reliable source, read our verifiability requirement.

If the Meyer article is notable and reliable, then I'd agree that the Dratch removal was wrong. -- Jeandré, 2007-05-28t22:16z

Jeandré, I must remind you that the page was locked by Majorly because a Baltimore IP address (Vicki Polin's?) was used to repeatedly remove anything critical of the Awareness Center, whether contributed by David in DC or myself (or you, I think). Critics are enraged because Yanover's comments were completely excised from the history of this page, and JzG did a drive-by edit doing everything TAC could ask for. We are not "tigers." We are in favor of fairness, and the conduct here is unfair. You're right, it's not a democracy! According to one of it's founders, Wikipedia is flawed beyond repair because it gives no credibility to experts. I'm just surprised you're so happy to prove him right, while helping out a [redacted].

It is bizarre that this page would carry TAC's imaginary complaints about "harassment", and you "redacted" Yori Yanover's own description of the harassment he himself suffered, here on the discussion page. But yes, the Meyer's article was reliable. Far more reliable than anything said on TAC's site. Does that mean you'll be getting the content restored? SunAlsoRises 00:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't restore it, I'm not an administrator. I left an OTRS note asking JzG to have a look at the source on 28 May[13] but he probably didn't notice my message. I've emailed him today asking him to look into it, and to include the disputed template in the article.

JzG is an expert when it comes to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and I suspect he felt that one reference is not enough for the criticism. If anyone knows of more reliable sources please add them here on the talk page. -- Jeandré, 2007-06-03t19:03z

Call to Action: Unlock The Awareness Center for Edits

There is no justification to locking the current, heavilly distilled version of the [14] Awareness Center article. As it stands now it is nothing less the a propaganda brochure with no reference whatsoever to the serious shortcomings and social harm born by TAC. Victoria Polin, owner and operator of TAC, is using the cultural power of sex-crime terminology to force Wikipedia into an unquestioning promotion of her business. She's done the very same thing to seduce rabbis and reporters into overlooking her own grave psychological handicaps (self admitted multiple-personality sufferer, to name but one disturbing disorder). At last, we must learn to separate between our notion of the required urgency of sex-crime suffering and the cynic who uses these notions to wield power over men she hates. Yyanover 12:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The current version of the article is an embarassment. An article about TAC which does not include the allegations against it, sourced from mainstream journalistic institutions, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and the Washington Jewish Week, violates NPOV. This is now a "puff piece". David in DC 21:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I see the JTA/WJW article is used as a reference to support TAC's self-view, but not the balancing information in THE VERY SAME ARTICLE that reports criticism, from named, expert sources. What possible WK policy justification is there for that?

This quote, from the JTA article, belongs in the WK article: "The blogorai, as I call it, is the new way of making irresponsible accusations," charged Rabbi Avi Shafran, spokesman for the fervently Orthodox advocacy organization Agudath Israel. "Using a blog is a very easy and effective way of casting aspersions on people." David in DC 21:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

So does this one: "The Awareness Center and the bloggers not only have brought this sensitive subject to the attention of a wide audience, they have also stirred up considerable controversy over issues of fairness, attribution and transparency.

Among those who were formerly listed but resigned for other reasons is Rabbi Mark Dratch, who chairs the Rabbinical Council of America´s Task Force on Rabbinic Improprieties and has founded the organization JSafe to deal with sexual abuse in the Jewish community.

Dratch said he left the Awareness Center board in "disagreement with [Polin] on the standards required for publishing on her Web site. I wasn´t satisfied with the threshold of verification. There are people who´ve been victimized and others who´ve been subject to false reports also being victimized. The big problem we have in this area is verifying the allegations and moving forward." David in DC 21:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It may be that JzG feels that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - while the founder's stated purpose is okay, criticism requires more than one source. I agree that if the Dratch and Shafran quotes were removed, then so should the Blau quote. Either that, or all three should be reinstated. -- Jeandré, 2007-06-03t19:03z

Swell, you agree that all three should be there if one is. Please do something about it. Neither Yyanover nor I can. David in DC 23:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I also am asking for the same. All three quotes should be there. Also, you said the Baltimore Jewish Times mentioned the Awareness Center in the past. They are now doing an ongoing series on abuse issues, have listed a collection of resources, and have never mentioned TAC. There is a reason for this. Frankly, you are not going to get articles describing TAC's instability. It will simply be excluded from mention and that is what is now happening. We need something better here than pro-TAC puff. JzG removed the NPOV instead of restoring it. It's time to recognize and correct the mistake. Noting that the page is 'disputed' is not enough. SunAlsoRises 23:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just placed this comment on JzG's user talk page: "Blau's sourced statement praising TAC belongs in the article. But so do Shafran's and Dratch's sourced criticisms. To delete the criticisms while leaving the praise alone, on a page that, because of protection, you can edit, but I cannot, seems unfair. High-handed, even." David in DC 00:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the response I got from JzG and my further response to him:

• See if you can come up with some sources who don't have a vendetta, eh? Guy (Help!) 06:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Huh? The source is the same for all three quotes. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency/Washington Jewish Week article that is cited for Blau's "pro" quote in the current revision is the exact same source to cite for Dratch's and Shafran's "con" quotes. It's all in the same news article. That news article is balanced, and not a "puff piece". Would that we could say the same about the WK article.

I'm not trying to be willfully dense. I'm genuinely mystified. Why is the JTA/WJW article not a good, balanced source for all three quotes? Neither JTA nor WJW has a vendetta against TAC. They practice mainstream journalism. And how can it possibly be a source with a vendetta as to Dratch and Shafran but a balanced, neutral, WK-compliant source as to Blau David in DC 20:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

People don't read any more. It is in this environment of semi-literacy that horrifying phenomena like TAC thrive. Fascism for idiots. Yyanover 04:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha continued the progress toward consensus with this thoughtful post on JzG's talk page: I agree that it is reasonable for the article to have a criticism section. Avi Shafran, the spokesperson for the Haredi organization Agudath Israel of America, has been included in criticism sections in e.g. Criticism of Conservative Judaism and Women of the Wall, so I don't think there's any serious dispute about the notability of his opinions, and the Jewish Telegraph Agency has been used as a source elsewhere. I don't see a real sourcing issue here. I would, however, definitely remove material that represents potential WP:BLP issues (e.g. opinions about the character of the organization's founder etc.) but other opinions, e.g. those claiming the organization should have higher standards for what it publishes, seem to me legitimate criticism so long as we limit what is included to things that can be legitimately characterized as opinion. I agree factual allegations may present other sourcing issues, but I'm pointing out that a legitimate criticism section can be had consisting solely of opinion by notable opinion pundits. In keeping with the requirement of encyclopedic tone, I believe quotes that state criticisms in a more measured way should be prefered to criticisms containing insults etc., so long as both are by notable individuals. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the response I posted there: I agree with Shirahadasha. JzG would you please re-edit the page, with her thoughtful comments in mind? I cannot. I would if I could. David in DC 19:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)David in DC 19:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: remove material that represents ... opinions about the character of the organization's founder etc This is quite mad. There is a [15]videotape available for all to see online in which the organization's founder accuses Chicago Jews of belonging to a Satanic cult. There is likewise an interview with her in which she admits fully to her being the person in the tape. Can you possibly even consider not including this in an informed article about TAC? You wouldn't buy a used car without full disclosure, would you employ lesser standards regarding Wikipedia sanctioned information? Yyanover 22:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Due to the degree of hostility posted on the talk section of this page I want to strongly urge Wikipedia not to unlock the site. Doing so will create a free for all in the accuracy of what's posted. Ephraim Schwartz 9:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My view is that ad hominem attacks generally aren't encyclopedic and should be avoided where not essential to the article's topic. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to advance knowledge: this involves reflecting light, not heat. During the debates over the Constitution of the United States, proponents and opponents traded numerous insults, yet the more measured arguments are the ones that made it into the history books and encyclopedias. People say all kinds of things in unguarded moments; few are relevant to the purposes of an encyclopedia. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting what "Ephraim Schwartz" calls a "degree of hostility." We want the page to be NPOV. I'm not hostile, David's not hostile, and Yori is hostile only because he was personally attacked and slandered by TAC's director. I do not believe the page should be unlocked, but I believe the page should revert to the way it was before JzG did a careless edit. He removed criticism of TAC from legitimate, notable public figures found in a very credible source (JTA is the American Jewish news service), and left in quotes supporting TAC from the same article. Is that fair? Is that NPOV?

Shirahadasha, usually I would agree with you about ad hominem's. However, Yori's comments are not that. When the woman who created the "Awareness Center" appeared on video claiming her synagogue was a satanic cult, it's not only about her personal mental stability. Since she gets to decide which Rabbis get attacked by the "Awareness Center", the video says a lot about how seriously people should take what she says. If you look at her "calls for action"... is it a list of who is a real public menace, or whose career she thinks she can destroy?

It is only right that the page reflect a NPOV balance between proponents and critics. What JzG did was shoot Wikipedia in the foot. It's kind of funny that he tells off David by talking about "sources that don't have a vendetta." Shafran is the national spokesman of the Haredi Agudath Israel organization. Dratch founded an entire agency to combat abuse. They are not on a vendetta -- but what do you think about a woman who said her whole synagogue was a secret satanic cult? She is the one on a vendetta, and the sooner JzG realizes that he blew it, the better off Wikipedia will be. SunAlsoRises 03:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The Move to Delegitimize Yori Yanover

As discussion of my degree of hostility to Vicki Polin and TAC and whether or not it is justified is raging on this page, it has gone without comment that a group of more than ten links to my essays on both topics was removed from the TAC article. My writings on these topics, including interviews and timely opinions were chucked like so much needles debris because someone here, among the nouveau sapient illiterati running Wikipedia, has decided they were without value. I was unaware both of their inclusion in the first place and, naturally, of their removal, sometime last year. When I was emailed about the existence of this page, I discovered that not only was I being presented as having nothing but a partisan ax to grind, free of all other valuable information, but that all of those depictions bar none were being promoted by anonymous individuals, [Criticism deleted per WP:BLP]

Indeed, once I entered a signed note depicting the essence of the debate of TAC, including a brief discussion of the issue of when it was unacceptable to grant the cover of anonymity to individuals attempting to destroy members of the community -- my short entry was deleted completely, and has yet to be restored.

Wikipedia is run on the honor system, which I applaud. But, sadly, the honor system fails when unscrupulous individuals are involved in the process of collecting and editing information. I have since made it a habit to record this page each time I add a note to it, so that my eliminated or "redacted" entries can be quickly restored. Incidentally, I've been writing for a living for close to 40 years and none of my editors, some of whom really hated me, exhibited the kind of know-nothing arrogance shown by this page's various "redactors."

To the point, now: Contrary to the vast majority of participants in this sad-looking page, I am a real man, with a real bio page, real professional history, real published works and real information and views. My work on Polin and TAC includes a discussion of her methods, her fundraising, anonymity as a tool, the Memory Recovery movement and its roots, and the media and sex crimes. Mine is not the only voice in the discussion, but, for crying out loud, why is it not a legitimate part of it? There are countless articles in Wikipedia that are rife with opinion. In my areas of interest, Jewish Studies, it's practically impossible to expect articles to be both meaningful and opinion-free. My own work is cited elsewhere on other issues and it raises not a single eyebrow.

But here my contribution is deleted, time and again, because, let's face it, it is critical of TAC and its singular operator, it stubbornly refuses to mistake the need for social awareness of sexual crimes for the needs of the operator of the Awareness Center to eke out a living.

I described Vicki Polin as [[criticism deleted per WP:BLP] and I'm prepared to back up my analysis with examples, the most vivid of which is her inability to accept criticism, to admit mistakes, to consider opposing views. When she wrote a column for me in the old USAJewish.com, it took me only a few weeks to realize this, except at the time I was not aware of the full scope of the harm she was causing to many individuals. [[criticism deleted per WP:BLP] Like many an inquisitor she feels misunderstood and persecuted by evil doers, so that when anyone rises to defend a victim of her attacks, she depicts them as necessarily doing it because they share their dereliction. All of these were born by me personally over an acquaintance of better than eight yeras, begun when she first sent me an email for publication.

I don't wish to be using Wikipedia as a tool to destroy TAC. But I do demand that the editors, volunteer editors, drive-by deletionists and the rest of the menagerie not employ the full depth of their cultural illiteracy in delegimizing my work which is crucial and relevant to understanding TAC. Yyanover 14:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't a place for people to air their own personal views or offer links to their own private websites, particularly when those views and sites involve criticisms of living persons. This may not seem fair, but it is essential to Wikipedia. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, WIkipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires the removal of unsourced "contentious" claims of a factual nature that might affect an individual's reputation from talk pages as well as articles. I understand that it may be frustrating for people to be redacting even your complaints about redaction, but unfortunately this policy requires us to do this. The policy says that "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." Everyone who edits the encyclopedia is asked to abide by it. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The "sourcing" policy you mention is a mindless, automatic preference of printed over electronic material, and organized over blog. It suggests that if an article were published in a newspaper it is a source, but the self same article in a blog is not a source. Well, for one thing, among the two links removed were an a story in [16]The Villager and my consequent [17](scroll to "Publisher: I’m no homophobe") op-ed piece in the same paper. Can you justify that? Also, you wiped clean other organized sources, like JTA, as has been mentioned here. But the very policy is bizarre, especially considering the unbound biases of many news organizations. As a result, a harmful organization like TAC can continue to do harm as long as its targets are not important enough to attract print media criticism. Have you forgotten entirely why God created blogs? Yyanover 10:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Your deletion of the term "sociopath" in my sentence "I described Vicki Polin as [[criticism deleted per WP:BLP] and I'm prepared to back up my analysis with examples," is an act of mindless vandalism, rendering the discussion sterile. If we cannot mention the points for which this very criricism was deleted from the article page in the talk page, then what's the point of having the talk page? Why don't you just go ahead and wipe clean anything that you find offensive and keep just the stuff that seems to fit your sensibilities? Yyanover 10:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As an FYI, there's no special preference for print over on-line sources as long as the on-line sources meet the reliable sources criteria. I'm afraid those criteria are what they are. You're welcome to discuss the matter on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources if you believe the policy should be changed. --Shirahadasha 16:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[Puff from "Ephraim Schwartz" redacted.]

The arguments being made against The Awareness Center are being made by individuals who have very little knowledge about sex crimes. They are not trained mental health or legal professionals. The purpose of their postings should be considered harassment against Ms. Polin, who is a licensed mental health professional] and all individuals connected to the organization. Ephriam Schwartz 18:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Having written extensively about her own multiple personality syndrome, Vicki Polin is making lemonades out of her psychological lemons by launching armies of supporters, like Ephriam Schwartz, all of whom, alas, share her peculiar syntax. Incidentally, Polin's own degree, according to her website, is in Art Therapy. Yyanover 02:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Towards a criticism section

A number of claims could be included in the article if properly sourced. Do we have a source for the claim made above that the Center sometimes relies on "memory recovery"? Is this a reference to Recovered memory therapy? Well-sourced criticism of this practice, if it is one, is an example of things that could be included. Specific, factual statements about the Center that appear in reliable sources can be included. Appropriately-sourced opinions by notable individuals can be as well. It may not be possible to include all criticism, but as long as factual statements are well-sourced, opinions are notable, and both are to the point and stated in an encyclopedic tone, they can be included. With a little calm and some research, a criticism section is possible. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"Rachel" says in the video that her memories are "recovered". Besides Vicki Polin and "Rachel"'s appearance and voice, Luke Ford (her ally, found many times as a "source" on her site), Yori Yanover, and also Steven Weiss (Canonist.com), who is also a journalist and more neutral, all say Rachel is Vicki and that she admitted this herself. Larry Yudelson says "I tried researching the allegations a while back, and was able to determine that Vicki was working in 1989 for the same Chicago organization that the pseudonymous 'Rachel' was working for." (He also says that "When that show was aired, the Anti Defamation League jumped to attack Oprah Winfrey for irresponsibly allowing a woman to broadcast the blood libel on the basis of 'recovered memories.'") Four different sources, from allies to enemies, all verify that Vicki is "Rachel". While you could argue that one of these sources, or evne two, isn't reliable, all four taken together are better than a book. At least four pages that I know about seem to involve "recovered" memories, but I think saying those rabbis' names would violate policy against "unsourced critical claims of a factual nature that might affect an individual's reputation." I think if she was on national TV using recovered memories, that should be evidence enough she thinks they are reliable.

What you have said, though, is that the entire Awareness Center violates Wikipedia policy. This can be seen just by looking at the page on Yori Yanover's Rebbe. Since he's publicly printed that he was slandered, I feel it can be repeated here. The page on him is unsourced and critical and affected his reputation. Isn't it fair to put that into the criticism section as well, that TAC publishes information against rabbis that would never reach Wikipedia standards? SunAlsoRises 19:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

We can only repeat statements that appear in reliable sources, particularly where claims involving reputations are being made. It doesn't matter what was said or printed elsewhere. The Awareness Center is an advocacy organization, so it is also not a reliable source. If this entire controversy hasn't been covered by reliable sources, it isn't Wikipedia's business. WP:BLP requires even stricter standards for claims of this type, so unless there are multiple unquestionably reliable sources for the claim that "Vicki" and "Rachel" are the same person, we can't touch it. Sorry, but that's how it is. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So, an organization using slander from anonymous sources against individuals who were never otherwise accused by any legal or other authority gets to dictate the rules by which it is covered here, while the victims of the same agency cannot have a critical voice in describing those tactics. Where in the Wikipedia article would that aspect be covered? Obviously it won't, and you will shrug your shoulders and express your sorrow and recommend that we go complain to other individuals up the line who could care even less than you about the veracity of the article. All I can say is I'm glad you're not in charge of something serious. 207.237.41.249 22:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Recovered memory therapy as an example

The Recovered memory therapy article contains some very strong criticism, yet this criticism is well-sourced and reports statements that were made in academic journals, media articles, and books vetted by reliable publishers. This article could used as an example for how to write critical content consistent with Wikipedia policies. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages.

Please place new comments or sections below older ones, use descriptive section headers, and refrain from unsourced accusations. -- Jeandré, 2007-05-28t21:03z

WARNING TO NEW READERS

The article, as currently locked, is a puff piece. It includes a quote praising The Awareness Center (TAC), taken from an article that had quotes both praising it and criticizing it. An editor has decided that the positive quote from the article is in compliance with WK rules, but the criticism is not.

All three quotes share the same characteristics: they come from prominent, named, notable experts on the topic and they were printed by sources WK has accepted in the past (The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) and Washington Jewish Week (WJW)).

Indeed, the JTA/WJW article is cited in the footnotes to the WK article, but only for the positive quote (from Rabbi Yosef Blau). The negative quotes, by Rabbis Mark Dratch and Avi Shafran, are in the same article. It's Footnote #3 in the Wikipedia article.

No review about The Awareness Center is complete without reading both sides of the story. Since you can't do so in the currently-flawed WK article, I urge you to go back to the source that the WK article quotes, and read all of it, not just the positive quote cherry-picked out of it. http://www.washingtonjewishweek.com/print.asp?ArticleID=6566&SectionID=4&SubSectionID=4 David in DC 23:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[Redacted: this is not the place for PR puff about TAC]

The arguments being made against The Awareness Center are being made by individuals who have very little knowledge about sex crimes. They are not trained mental health or legal professionals. The purpose of their postings should be considered harassment against Ms. Polin and all individuals connected to the organization.

Ephriam Schwartz 17:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It ought not matter who is suggesting the inclusion of material from the JTA/WJW article. The JTA/WJW article should rise or fall on its own merits That's not an attack on, or harrassment of, anyone. It's a demand that sources be quoted fairly and nuetrally, with both their positive and negative reporting, not just cherry-picking their positive reporting and ignoring the negative. David in DC 01:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[Deleted per WP:BLP] The arguments made against TAC come from Rabbis like Mark Dratch, who has great knowledge in this area and runs an organization dedicated to fighting abuse. He has far greater experience and credibility. He simply does not share Vicki Polin's record for making hysterical and obviously false accusations based upon "recovered memories", porno-buff Luke ford, and anonymous blogs. SunAlsoRises 01:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Having written extensively about her own multiple personality syndrome, Vicki Polin is making lemonades out of her psychological lemons by launching armies of supporters, like Ephriam Schwartz, all of whom, alas, share her peculiar syntax. Incidentally, Polin's own degree, according to her website, is in Art Therapy. 207.237.41.249 02:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha, what you deleted above makes a mockery of WP:BLP. If you don't believe that the argument by "Ephraim Schwartz" is the same harassment argument she has used for years, then you should have removed the following from the page: "The center no longer names its board members due to harassment, according to Polin," especially because the board IS public again. You should question why, if harassment were the reason, she just decided to publicize her board again. The board no longer consists of Rabbis (except for the "chief rabbi of Poland") or anyone noted for anything of merit, but the most substantive members (who ran for the hills when they realized what TAC was all about) have been replaced by self-described victims of abuse -- who most likely joined the TAC board because Vicki is the only one who will take an unverified, unsubstantiated, self-contradictory story of abuse (think a Jewish Mike Nifong) and try to ruin a career over it. And if you don't believe that, read her page on Yanover's Rebbe. SunAlsoRises 03:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

I've added a criticism section with the Dratch criticism and the Weinreb "grain of salt" statement from the Jewish Telegraph since these are notable criticisms directly on point. The quote from Avi Shafran appears to be about blogs in general. Because it doesn't appear to be about the Awareness Center in particular, I've left it out. Note that the Jewish Telegraph Agency has generally been accepted as a reliable source for things like quotes from Jewish community and organizational leaders. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Rabbi Shafran's comment could be interpreted that way, but was in the context of a discussion of TAC and its methods -- which includes reliance upon anonymous blogs. Therefore the quote is on point and should definitely be restored. However, I agree that what you have done is a huge step forward for the accuracy and NPOV of the page. SunAlsoRises 03:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha's well-crafted criticism section deserves admiration and high praise. It acknowledges the controversy about TAC, totally in line with WK standards. It gives the reader an NPOV review of what TAC is and is not.

Readers who do not speak Hebrew may not know that shirahadasha's name means "new song". I presume it is a reference to the biblical injunction to "Sing a new song unto G-d." She has done so, in an exemplary way. Kol HaKavod, Shira. (Hebrew phrase of praise, translating approximately to "All honors to you, Shira".) David in DC 00:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever...Don't get carried away! IZAK (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Please Add To External Links

{{editprotected}}I was just going over the information posted on Wikipedia and noticed that there is no mention of the New York Jewish Week's article regarding a street not being named after Shlomo Carlebach in NYC after The Awareness Center had a call to action to stop it. Tsvi K

Tsvi - This page is protected. To get a link added to it, you must start your request with some symbols you'll find at the top of the main article. Asking is no guarantee that it will be added.

Dunno why it looked to you like your first request disappeared. You can still find both edits in the history of the page. Whatever, blame it on sunspots. David in DC 21:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

David, don't fall for this stuff. There is a rabbi who strongly opposed TAC last year whose name is Tsvi K, leaving me convinced this is yet another sock puppet. The article does not say the street was not named after Carlebach, or why. TAC has one "call for action" after another on its pages, none of which has had an effect that anyone can see. SunAlsoRises 08:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sun, all I'm doing is help Zsvi make his request in a way the operators will recognize. On a protected page, it's not up to you or I to decide if a request for an addition should be granted or denied. If his request is not within WK policy, the operators won't accept it.

It's this kind of editing and deletions that have made this page contentious. Tsvi, whoever he is, has pointed out a mainstream article that mentions work TAC says it did.

This WK article should not be a puff piece for TAC. Addition of a criticism section was a good thing.

But neither should a news article that provides a source for TAC's claims to have accomplished a particular thing be dismissed out-of-hand because TAC has detractors. The readers of the WK article and of the mainstream journalistic source it quotes can evaluate the facts themselves, if the operators choose to grant Tsvi's request.

I'm adding the edit protected template back to Tsvi's request. Please do not delete it again. Let cooler, disinterested heads decide.David in DC 17:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see clear consensus to add the link. Moreover, adding external links is never a very important change, since it doesn't affect the actual content of the article. If consensus does develop to change the page, then place an editprotected tag. In the meantime, I am going to disable the current tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Propose merger of Vicki Polin

Proposing merger of the two articles. Right now, Vicki Polin's reliably sourced notability seems to be pretty much bound up with The Awareness Center's. If there are reliable sources indicating independent notability I could be persuaded otherwise. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree to Merge. Her sole claim to notability is that site. -- Avi (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is nothing to merge that is not here. I have been WP:BOLD and set up the redirects already. -- Avi (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm coming in late on this but I agree with Avi's WP:BOLDousity. David in DC (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Vicki Polin and her Awareness Center are not neutral

Vicki Polin and her Awareness Center are not neutral parties on issues of rabbinical sex abuse cases because, among other reasons, she is not bound by anyone or any standard and will publish any and all allegations at the drop of a hat, and has expressed highly-charged personal points of view on these matters and so therefore neither she nor her Awareness Center's web site should be cited as references, sources, or as an external link in any Wikipedia article except this one about the Awareness Center itself and hopefully in an article about her too that should be created (as a Jewish female activist in the field of sexual abuse she is notable by being highly controversial in her own right by now.) Outside of this article or an article about Vicki Plin herself, any citation, reference, or external link to the Awareness Center of quotes by or from Vicki Polin must be judged as no different to any personal blog and personal website, and should be classed as violations of WP:RS (see Wikipedia:Reliable source examples) and certainly of WP:NPOV. IZAK (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks as if the Awareness Center has policies posted on the web page of who and how alleged and convicted offenders get posted. According to this page it is not at the "drop of a hat". The organization also has a board of directors in which makes policy decisions. Chaim B (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I am reversing all of Chaim B's revisions (revisionist revisions) of the page. Among the falsehoods, he went back to the nonsense claim that the board members were taken down due to harassment... strange, but the board seems to be posted. The policies say that someone can be listed without court documents or a police report. Therefore the statement from the news that someone can be listed without ever being arrested or sued is true. Unfortunately. And according to the policies can't be removed without being evaluated "by a licensed mental health provider (at their own expense)." This is a ridiculous witch-hunt policy. SunAlsoRises (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm reversing this back to the corrections made by Jeandré du Toit. SunAlsoRises obviously is someone who is attempting to rewrite history and is holding some sort of grudge against this organization. I am requesting that this page be relocked to prevent any more harassment. Chaim B (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, lock the page... The board members are posted, the policies allow anyone to be "alleged" and listed without a court case, Rabbi Weinreb is a qualified therapist and certainly well-qualified to determine when something doesn't smell right, and it is Vicki "Chaim B" Polin that is trying to hide the truth. SunAlsoRises (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The WP:SELFPUB policy explains how an organization's own website can and cannot be used in a Wikipedia article. According to the policy, such a website can be used to source an organizations policies (so long as they are described as its own view and not a neutral opinion of them), leadership, and similar matters. This is true for all organization websites, and it really doesn't matter whether we think the organization is "neutral" or not or we like it or we don't. I would suggest avoiding language disparaging the organization in this talk page because this might tend to give the impression that ones edits are motivated by ones personal opinion and not by what the sources say. In this case I support some of the edits that User:TheSunAlsoRises made. In particular, I agree that web site claims that many rabbis support it, and that its staff has received threats, and similar matters involving claims about the outside world and how it relates to the organization canot be sourced to the organization but require independent sources. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That said, I disagree with several edits User:TheSunAlsoRises made. In particular, most of the "external links" section with its references to various newspaper articles discussing the organization were removed. These independent newspaper articles are perfectly good reliable sources and can be used to source material that can't be sourced to the organization itself. I don't want to edit a protected page myself, but I will ask another admin to restore these sources. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I am requesting the page be restored to Jeandré du Toit (16:27, 22 December 2007) edits. It appears to be the most accurate and unbiased. It also appears that when ever anyone other then TheSunAlsoRises posts items to this entry he starts screaming that it is someone connected to the Awareness Center (in particularly, Vicki Polin). --Chaim B (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Chaim B is unreliable. The page as edited by 'him' was slanted and contained false information about hiding the board. SunAlsoRises (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha, I agree that restoring those sources is not unreasonable. Normally, referencing every article that so much as mentions the topic of an article would be silly. But in this case, I didn't really mean to remove them, but to revert the body of the article as you preserved. Keeping them may serve a purpose as you say.

The articles prove what User:IZAK said... that "Vicki Polin and her Awareness Center are not neutral". Polin backs every allegation of "Rabbi abuse" 100%. "Some have not even been charged or sued." She told CBS that victims "are told they shouldn't report it to secular authorities because it could start another holocaust." Where are her reliable sources for that libel against the Jewish world?

Notoriety is not significance. (content deleted per WP:LIBEL) Notoriety isn't significance, and nothing has changed. SunAlsoRises (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to caution here that the reliable sources that covered the Oprah appearance, including the New York Times, mentioned only an anonymous individual who appeared under the pseudonym "Rachel". No reliable source that we've seen so far identified who "Rachel" is. User:IZAK had previously conceded that the sources he had cited to support a claim about "Rachel"'s identity was were unreliable. These sources included Luke Ford, the "pornography gossip columnist," and blogs who had picked up his claims. Per WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL, Wikipedia cannot publish "gossip", pornographic or otherwise. Because of this, if you make unreliably sourced claims about Polin I will delete them, per WP:LIBEL. I did this previously with User:IZAK, and other administrators have reviewed and approved this course of action. See User talk:IZAK#Talk:Baruch Lanner.Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If you believe the subject is not notable, you are welcome propose the article for WP:AfD. However, I would caution you that I don't believe the notability policy supports the idea that "notoriety is not notability." The key criterion for notability is coverage by reliable sources, and it doesn't matter whether those sources praise or criticize so long as they cover. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

External links

I removed the extraneous EL's be deleting those that violated WP:EL, adding the website to an infobox, and adding in-line where appropriate. -- Avi (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE PERMANENTLY LOCK THIS PAGE

Please lock this page to this version. 04:14, 14 February 2008 Chaim B. The information on this organization has been repeatedly changed for the goal of harassing The Awareness Center. I've just been made aware that the organization is having a conference in which a Maryland senator is speaking. I doubt the senator would be speaking if the organization was as bad as some of the folks posting here said they were. (talk) 10:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That the Senator is sadly uninformed about the true nature of the Awareness Center, its using anonymous blogs and similar reliable sources, its lack of recourse for even women cleared of all charges, and the bizarre personal history of its director, has nothing to do with the accuracy of the article as it was before reversion to April of last year. Yes it should be locked, because the Awareness Center and her assorted sock puppets want it to be a puff piece. SunAlsoRises (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a simple edit dispute and I would suggest attempting to discuss it rather than resorting to locking etc., which is only available for highly vandalized articles. I would suggest attempting to discuss your differences here prior to making any further edits to the page. See the WP:Dispute resolution and WP:Assume good faith pages for more information about how to proceed. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

According to The Awareness Center's web page, they have a few prestigous individuals speaking at their conference

This has been a long time dispute. From going over the history it appears it's been going on for over a year. I strongly suggest this page be locked to the version I mentioned earlier. Another suggestion is that the entry for The Awareness Center and Ms. Polin be deleted completely from Wikipedia and the titles be blocked from it being re-created.Chaim B (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The page, as it exists right now, reflects reality. The Awareness Center's basic facts, its stated mission and an endorsement from Rabbi Blau.

Mention is made of criticisms of the Center and its tactics. That reflects reality too. These criticisms are not given "undue weight" as that term is understood on wikipedia (see WP:WEIGHT), and they are reliably sourced.

We've had repeated seiges where Center partisans try to sanitize the criticism part of the page, followed by lulls. Looks like we're in a seige again. I echo Shirahadasha's request that the discussion be held here, for however long we need to hold it, WP-style. Please, Please, Please, don't stoop to edit-warring on the article itself until consensus is reached. She's right, repeated page protection is not the answer to this long-running wiki-drama. Disccusion here, and then mediation or other steps if necessary. But we're all more or less adults; let's try to play by the rules. Discuss edits here. Don't "edit-war" on the article page itself. It harms the whole project. David in DC (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've telephoned the Awareness Center and spoke to Ms. Polin. She requested the entry on The Awareness Center and any information regarding herself be removed from Wikipedia. She suggested if anyone had any questions regarding her request to telephone her. 443-857-5560. Chaim B (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The entry for Ms. Polin was long ago blanked. The Awareness Center is a notable institution. It doesn't get to decide whether it's covered by an article on WP. Blanking Ms. Polin's page was the right call. Blanking The Awareness Center's page would be a profoundly wrong call. David in DC (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. WP:BLP#BLP deletion standards provides for taking the subject's wishes into account under certain circumstances in determining whether to delete or blank articles and discussions on individuals, and it was applied to Vicki Polin. But it doesn't apply to organizations. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Some Joker is Posing as Me

In case there's any confusion, I am not the misguided editor who recently blanked these pages. I have left a note on his talk page asking him to choose a different name. David in DC (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

An admin has blocked the so-called "DavidD in DC".

It's funny, I felt more violated than I would have expected by this effort to sully my handle. Supporters of The Awareness Center, please take note. This is a really bad tactic. David in DC (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The above user is suspected of posting under the name Jpk212. This/these user/users have been engaged in an ugly edit war and harassment campaign seeking to censor the pedophilia prison sentence served by obscure 60"s pop musician Peter Yarrow.John celona (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make a case for claiming a user is employing sockpuppets, then Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets is the right place to do so. Article talk pages are the wrong place. These pages are here only for discussing improvements to the articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

May 08 Changes

Please discuss edits and reversions here. Some recent ones really improve the article. Others, in the criticism section, are less helpful. Once we present the main article and the notable criticism, we don't start going back and forth about the critics' credentials. That's for the pages of those critics. Here we just lay out the subject and, if there's notable and sourced criticism, the criticism. Beyond that first iteration, things degenerate. David in DC (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It makes sense that views be aware that those who are critical of The Awareness Center have no education or experience working with survivors of sex crimes nor sex offenders. From what I've been reading part of the reason why the organization exsists is because the orthodox rabbonim are doing what they can to shame and blame survivors and those who advocate for them into silence. Chaim B (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That may be true, but it's irrelevant. Please add whatever critical information you need to on the pages of the critics. They don't belong here. David in DC (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It is extremely relevant since the information is regarding the expertise in the field that Shafran, Weinreb and Dratch are lacking. If you want to publish critsim regarding the organization at least quote individuals who know what they are talking about. Chaim B (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Help from the community here, please. I won't revert any more, but this page is now seriously out of whack. David in DC (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I also ask for help from the community. If information is being published it should be well rounded with factual information. I've been following The Awareness Center for many years. I read their daily newsletter all the time. There are serious problems with publishing information regarding sex crimes from individuals who have no expertise in the field, though Dratch, Weinreb and Shafran are highly respectable individuals and are all orthodox rabbis, they do not have the education, training or experience to be sited as experts on the organization or on the topic of sex crimes (victims or offenders). Chaim B (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

All of the information I posted regarding The Awareness Center, Rabbi Mark Dratch, Rabbi Avi Shafran and Rabbi Weinreb comes from quotable, factual, reliable sources. Chaim B (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of the edits you are making are a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Thank you for those. Other edits violate WP:BLP policy, and are turning this article into a coatrack for side issues. -- Fugu Alienking (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible source

The July 2008 Catalyst Magazine (catalystmagazine.net) has a side bar by jeff bell that criticizes the organization's founder and actions. Seems to fit in with the criticism section and ties to the Mordechai Gafni article. I don't know enough about the controversy to weigh in, but thought I'd mention it here in case other editors think it is worthy. A copy of the article with the sidebar is found easily on the net here: [18] - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Every link is broken

All of the links to the Awareness Center's own page are broken. I'm deleting the footnotes and adding a bunch of cite requests. An article shouldn't rely so much on a subject's own website anyway. David in DC (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't delete the footnotes. They can probably be rescued via the Internet Archive.   Will Beback  talk  10:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That said, there were many inappropriate uses of external links links in the article - they should only be in references or the EL section. So edits like this are good:[19] But deleting a citation, like here [20], is not good. The correct solution for dead links in references is to use the {{deadlink}} template.   Will Beback  talk  11:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I firmly believe that articles should be based mainly on 3rd-party sources, but even a hard-liner like me thinks we can use a self-published source for the group's board of directors unless there's some justifiable reason to think they are incorrect.   Will Beback  talk  11:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm going through backlogs and this article has the oldest tag for dead link citations. I tagged the three links that resulted in 404's or redirects as appropriate. I found mirrors to the links at theawarenesscenter.blogspot.com via google searches. Here are links for the editors at this article to consider as replacements when considering whether or not to maintain those links. Zsinj^Talk 11:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

An Ongoing Outrage

The presentation of The Awareness Center as a credible, serious advocate for victims, much less as a "Jewish organization", is a disgrace to Wikipedia. The fact that Vicki Polin, while volunteering with VOICES in Action, Inc (see [21] ), appeared as 'Rachel' on the Oprah Winfrey show has now been documented and substantiated by multiple credible sources, as if it were not obvious to anyone who recognizes Ms. Polin ('Rachel' is not disguised). 'Rachel' not only asserted that she was sexually abused in her synagogue, but that she was forced to consume sacrificed babies, secretly born to other obese members of her family. The ADL rightly denounced her appearance as a blood libel by a mentally-unstable woman. She has no judgment or credibility on matters of abuse, as she believes every male is an abuser waiting to be unmasked. At what point will the writers of Wikipedia decide it is no longer appropriate to give authenticity to this farce? SunAlsoRises (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

We just report what reliable sources say, whether it be good, bad, or indifferent.   Will Beback  talk  01:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has failed in this regard. The Polin appearance on Oprah will never make it to a mainstream outlet, because it isn't newsworthy in and of itself and exposes the identity of someone who obviously preferred to remain anonymous. Character assassination is an Awareness Center "technique" not to be replicated by legitimate outlets... but if Wikipedia is going to have an article on the Awareness Center, then the director's personal history of fabricated claims against rabbis and synagogues should be part of it. SunAlsoRises (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Why was this material deleted?

• During a keynote address "When Authority Breaks Down: The Abuse of Power", Rabbi Dratch referred to Ms. Polin and The Awareness Center "as his own personal hero for creating the list of alleged and convicted offenders". JOFA 5th International Conference. 2004.

The edit summary is "The passage is irrelevant and contradictory to Dratch's current position re: TAC". Is Polin relevant or irrelevant to the article?   Will Beback  talk  02:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The section of the page is called "Criticism and controversy," so a statement admiring the center is inappropriate there. But it's also out of date and inaccurate in terms of Dratch's current position. In 2007 he talked about those "who've been subject to false reports also being victimized" by Polin's website. The quotation from 2004 misrepresents how Dratch currently feels. If you want to restore the content, you need to do it in a way that highlights the relevancy of the quote, because of how Dratch changed course. For example:

While he once referred to Ms. Polin "as his own personal hero for creating the list of alleged and convicted offenders," he later resigned from the Awareness Center's advisory board because her list of "alleged" offenders victimizes the innocent subjects of false reports. "I wasn't satisfied with the threshold of verification. There are people who've been victimized and others who've been subject to false reports also being victimized."

I'll put that back in since it puts his earlier quote into proper context. SunAlsoRises (talk) 05:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please restore the material. Just because someone changes their mind later that doesn't mean their earlier comments disappear.   Will Beback  talk  06:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. But I don't think his original quote ever belonged there in the original format, in the middle of the "Criticism" section. SunAlsoRises (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless we have section for "praise" as a balance, we shouldn't be too strict about enforcing the section name. In general, if something seems out of place in a section then the better solutions are to move it to another section or to change the name of the section to encompass the material. In many articles comparable sections are name "reception" to allow views from across the spectrum. Thanks for fixing it.   Will Beback  talk  23:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Activities that Aren't

What do we do about the "Activities" section of this page, which was obviously created by a close associate if not Vicki Polin herself, and which talks about things that clearly don't belong?

"The organization offers an educational speaker's bureau to address various issues..." There's no speaker's bureau on the website, and only Polin herself has ever spoken on behalf of the Awareness Center. I don't think this belongs on wikipedia because it doesn't exist. We can say "Vicki Polin, the director, claims to have provided educational programs to college students, etc [citation needed]"

"The Awareness Center has been actively involved in a growing movement to abolish the statute of limitations (SOL) for filing a civil suit against alleged and convicted sex offenders.[citation needed]" This is true, but "Members of The Awareness Center" only include Polin herself.

"The Awareness Center's web page includes lists of rabbis..." Content of the website is not an "activity" and this should be removed.

"The organization has over 260 rabbis from all around the world who publicly support the organization"... this should go in the top section, if at all. Everyone supports the idea of stopping abuse, and it is possible/probably that most of these supporters have not studied Polin or her methods, as have her critics.

Rabbi Yosef Blau, religious adviser at Yeshiva University... He resigned from the Board but has not criticized TAC. But his statement isn't an activity.

So do others object to the idea of trimming down the Activities section to include only content which is appropriate and verifiable? SunAlsoRises (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that material should be verifiable. I encourage you to reader WP:V, the relevant policy The organization's website is an acceptable source for statements about itself, so long as they aren't extraordinary claims. WP:NPOV is also crucial here. One aspect is that we make statements using the neutral point of view. The word "claim" connotes doubt about the truth pf the statement, and so it is considered a "word to avoid". It's best to stick with "say", "state", or "write". I'd disagree with deleting anything on the basis of it not being an "activity". Instead, either move it to a different part of the article, or change the name of the section.   Will Beback  talk  23:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there any other page on Wikipedia which posts an explanation of another website's content, like "The Awareness Center's web page includes lists of rabbis, psychotherapists, lawyers, holistic practioners and physicians who are sensitive to the needs of sexual trauma survivors, definitions of different types of sex crimes, and articles published by the center explaining aspects of surviving and reporting such experiences"? Almost every item in this section says "citation needed" because it is all from her self-published website. Jeandre (see "List of board members" and "Deleted edits on talk page") and ShiraHadasha (under "Move to Delegitimize Yori Yanover") both already wrote that content from self-published websites, linking back, is inappropriate content for Wikipedia. So please help me understand why this content should remain. SunAlsoRises (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I moved the Rabbis who signed on in support to the top section, and removed citations of content from the self-published website. In several cases the Director had claimed a speaker's bureau did this or that, where she was the only such speaker, so I changed that as well. SunAlsoRises (talk) 04:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the relevant Wikipedia policies, WP:V in particular?   Will Beback  talk  07:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course? WP:V isn't relevant the part of "Activities" in which TAC simply described its own website; I'm sure you agree that didn't belong. But the section on "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" in WP:V says that an organization's own website should not be used as a source unless "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" and "the article is not based primarily on such sources." While TAC supporters put onto Wikipedia any article that so much as mentioned Vicki Polin, that's the only person mentioned. If TAC had a speaker's bureau, why didn't we see articles about them? So there is more than reasonable doubt that the "speaker's bureau" ever existed. This content was all inappropriate and I asked for feedback before I removed it. SunAlsoRises (talk) 04:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Must the page be locked again? I'm not out to "harass" Mrs. Polin, as Chaim B says. But I think if an organization wants us to say on Wikipedia that it has a speakers' bureau, it ought to have one. If anyone can point out an article where another person other than Ms. Polin is speaking for the Awareness Center, then it's verified... until then it's disputed. It's not harassing Ms. Polin to say the article about her organization should be limited to WP:V. SunAlsoRises (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)