Talk:Baruch Lanner

NPOV

Someone placed an NPOV tag on the article, but I don't see any discussion here. Is there a specific problem that can be addressed? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Response/Discussion

I received a question about my nomination of this article for AfD, and why it still violates WP:NPOV, this was most of my response:

I am not a blind believer in anything. Judaism teaches in the Torah that when God gave Moses the mandate to take the Children of Israel out of Egypt, Moses did not jump to attention, but instead asked: "But who shall I say sent me?" In other words Moses was saying to God: "Who are you?" And this is from the greatest prophet and teacher who has ever walked the face of the Earth.

So one of the reasons I asked for an AfD of the Lanner article, and remain convinced that it violates WP:NPOV, is NOT that I wished to hide his misdeeds, but to see who is behind such a piece and would support such an article and to show that in such matters there is no "free ride" and that just because a man has fallen from grace, it does not give anyone the right to create an article that in effect metaphorically gives Lanner a kick in the groin. Who was it that said that let the one who is guiltless among you cast the first stone...? And it struck me that the Lanner article was written with just one objective, to paint him as a one dimensional sicko freak and totally destroy whatever shred of humanity the man had and present him as a caricature of a "criminal"...which he was not.

He is an ordained Orthodox rabbi, a scholar of Torah and Talmud, an only son to an old widow, a father, grandfather, and was married until his wife divorced him right before he went to jail, who was a well-respected great teacher and brought hundreds if not thousands of youngsters back to Judaism from a secular lifestyle. He was very charismatic and strong-willed, but he had major failings of intolerance and a wildness too that eventually caught up with him.

Do you know that at one time paddle wacking was the main way all kids were disciplined and punished in schools? Corporal punishment of all forms was only abolished in the West in the last fifty years but it is still widely practiced all over the world.

One also needs to understand the nature of the work and the type of people Lanner dealt with. At the OU's NCSY youth wing they went out and gave seminars to non-religious kids from secular home all over the US and Canada. This began in the 1950s and goes on till this day. I don't know if you realize how sexed up the environment is out there. Everything is sex and kids do sex with each other and with anyone, the whole world is sex mad right now, just see TV, the movies, the Internet and into this maelstrom come people like Lanner and try to make the kids more religious, and unfortunatly they may become the victims of the very sexuality they are trying to limit. He was very charismatic and he had groupies, don't fool yourself, and he may even have had sadomasochistic groupies, I hope I am not losing you here.

At any rate I am just trying to paint a framework for the crazy kind of work Lanner had to do at the OU's NCSY, and he did it well, but as time went on, he lost himself, things reached critical mass, and he stepped over a line of no return, and the bubble finally burst when a) the Jewish Week ran a story about him, b) two of his female students where he was the principal in New Jersey (nothing to do with the OU outreach work he did) filed charges against him that he brushed against their breasts and/or groped them (the element in that school is not so puritanical either), and c) the OU launched a probe and heads rolled because they did not act sooner to get rid of or control Lanner. To me, the latter was a case of 1950s and 1960s Elvis rocks, flower power, love-children and anything goes culture versus 1990s and 2000s political correctness, feminism, anti-patriarchalism and glorification of victimhood.

And finally, as the Wikipedia article was written and stands none of this gets mentioned. There needs to be a full description of his life and work, and more importantly the context it too place in, and what went wrong and making it very clear that Wikipedia is not a court of law nor is it a "sex offender registry" and can only be relied upon for clearly proven facts such as charges that were presssed and convictions in a court of law but all the rest remain as ALLEGATIONS until such time that they can be proven in a court of law or police and/or criminal charges are made, otherwise it may open Wikipedia up to charges of WP:LIBEL. An encyclopedia should not copy the style and methods of yellow journalism, scandal mongering, fanning the flames, and muckraking. There are other mediums and media for that.

An additional reason I wanted to have a AfD is that recently some editors have started to write articles about Orthodox rabbis that are only about sex scandals which is ridiculous and unbalanced, and this is a serious violation of WP:NPOV here, as sex scandals are to be found everywhere and quite honestly in today's world, brushing or even groping a girl's breasts and the fact that a person goes to jail for it (based on "he says, she says") should not be the sole basis of what makes people "notable" and deserving of "biographies" in Wikipedia. Lanner is not "Jack the Ripper" editors are not "Sherlock Holmes" and Wikipedia is not the "Inquisition with Inquisitors" roaming the planet looking for people to put on the rack in the name of writing "biographies" which is sheer hokum.

Hoping that the article can become a well-balanced true biography very soon, as indicated by the above concerns and incorporating many of the facts about Lanner's productive and positive years as well as the crimes he has been punished for. This needs to be done in the name of fairness and neutrality, or else it will face further AfDs in the future. Thank you, IZAK 09:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that a threat? THe fact is that Lanner would be totally non-notable but for the fact that he abused his power in such a base and perverted way, and that the OU protected him (putting young girls in danger in the process). Your desire to continue the whitewash (finishing what the OU started) may be well intentioned (though I doubt it), but it isn't going to fly here in Wikipedia. Lanner's crime isn't a footnote in his history. Its the beginning, middle, and end as far as the greater scheme of things is concerned. --Meshulam 20:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Meshulam: I don't read you. What threat do you see here exactly? Do you hate the OU or something? You are beginning to sound like you have an agenda, as you accuse me of a "whitewash" when I have not even begun to edit the article! IZAK

Izak, thanks for the thoughtful and full explanation. However I don't see any mention of non-neutral issues that we can fix in the article. The OU investigation agreed with the Jewish Week report, and found far more witnesses than they'd expected. (They initially thought there would be about 30 witnesses to interview, including OU staff, but they got hundreds of requests to testify. They eventually interviewed over 140 persons, presumably mostly folks who felt they'd been victimized by Lanner. the investigation was budgeted at a couple of hundred thousand dollars and ended up costing over $1 million.) I don't think we can accuse a blue-ribbon panel appointed by the OU of engaging in "yellow journalism" or "muckraking". Are Rabbis Blau and Willig guilty of libel for saying that Lanner shouldn't have been in a position of supervising children, and that they were wrong for not saying so more forcefully in 1989? As for the charges themselves, Lanner isn't accused of raping anyone, or of doing any permanent physical damage. Many of the serious charges concerned emotional abuse. There are certainly many worse criminals, but that isn't the point. The reason we have this article is that Lanner has been the subject of so much attention inside and outside of the OU. Getting back to the article, is there any specific issue that we can address to improve it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"Emotional abuse"???????? Well!!!!!!!!!! Let's take every school-marm in history who emotionally abused her pupils and spend a million dollars and ask 150 kids that spent a couple of years getting whipped into shape (sometimes literally) how they "feel" -- and I bet you a million dollars that what they said about Lanner could be said about all those charismatic/strict/hyper teachers and educators that kids often have to endure for a good part of their lives everywhere. This gets us into the new age of psychology where the parameters of society and how things are judged shift and change. Lanner, while not excusing his wrongs, is the symbol of a societal shift, from the old world, in all its manifestations, to a very new world, media-driven and guided by the "values" of psychology touting "emotional" isssues which in previous ages, even recent decades, counted for little. Things need to be seen and understood in a complex light and not remain trapped with "one" view of things? IZAK 11:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• I fervently disagreed with you about this and other related AfDs. Your justification for creating this AfD, stating that it was "NOT that I wished to hide his misdeeds, but to see who is behind such a piece and would support such an article and to show that in such matters there is no 'free ride' and that just because a man has fallen from grace" only raises even greater issues that this whole effort was a massive WP:POINT disruption. My vote in support of these articles does not justify being called an anti-Semite. I daven at a shul where the powers that be had foolishly and arrogantly decided they wanted to hire Rabbi Lanner as its spiritual leader, just before I moved to the neighborhood. One of Lanner's victims was brave enough to stand up and protest the job offer and was pilloried by a bet din that exonerated Lanner completely and forced the victim to apologize to his abuser. I agree that Rabbi Lanner is the exception in the Orthodox community. His notability stems not only from the reliable and verifiable sources, but from what I hope is the relative paucity of similar abusers. Unfortunately, he was aided and abetted in his abuse by individuals who appear to have looked the other way at clear signs of abuse. All of the good work that he had done in outreach and education should be documented in this article. But whatever positives may exist did not entitle him to a free pass for what he had done to the multiple victims of abuse who testified and provided evidence in court and to the OU's investigative commission, and the many more still too ashamed to step forward. None of us are without sin -- Aval Anachnu Va'Avoteinu Chatanu -- but I looked for that verse you cited about "let the one who is guiltless among you cast the first stone" and I went through my entire Tanakh and was unable to find it. What sefer is that quote from? It wasn't in my chumash; maybe it's from somewhere in nach that I never learned in yeshiva. I'd love to know the perek and pasuk, and see what Rashi has to say about that one. Alansohn 00:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Alansohn: I don't know if you noticed, but the AfD is over, the article was kept and we are now discussing ways to improve it. BTW, if your community hired Lanner, then you must have seen his greatness persoanlly, because I have never met him, nor would I choose him as my rabbi. So let's not get all sorts of emotional and persoanl factors confuse us, and let's see if a truly WP:NPOV biography about this man can emerge here. IZAK 11:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Kayadua, There is no Rashi on John 8:7 -- Avi 01:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• So, you think I adress everything just to Rashi mavens? The quote was rough but it fits, so why not use it. Remember, Wikipedia is not a yeshiva and you are not a mashgiach ruchani. IZAK 11:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I feel that Lanner's NCSY work alone would have been enough to make him sufficiently notable as to entitle him to a Wikipedia article. The abuse stuff bumps it up from him being a merely notable person, to it being important that we have an NPOV source of biographical material about him. For these reasons, I feel that we should NOT delete this article, but rather add significant amounts of NPOV material to it so that it will become useful. I do concede that currently, there's so much negative information here that the article seems to be a smear piece of yellow journalism. I suspect that the reason for it is that most of the publicly available information about him is from the recent years. Therefore, I would like to strongly encourage any NCSY-er who has any old printed materials from Regional Conventions and such, to use that information to add to this article. For example: When did he start running Shabbatons? When did he have this position or that position? Give us some numbers, about the people who attended. Etc. Etc. Having quality info about the good which he did will serve to increase the credibility of the article in general. user:Keeves 17:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the best sources for Lanner's career that I've found so far is Journey Through the Minefields: From Vietnam to Washington, an Orthodox Surgeon's Odyssey, by Mendy and Mandell Ganchrow (ISBN 978-0910155564). It's the memoir of the man who was president of the OU for six years prior including at the time the scandal broke. An entire chapter is deovted to the Lanner matter, which is reproduced here. Some of Ganchrow's postive comments include:

• At the time of the publication of the story in the Jewish Week, Baruch Lanner had been a prominent figure in the Orthodox community for nearly 30 years. A brilliant Talmudic scholar as a young man, he had been an ardent follower and student of the late Rav Joseph Soloveitchik, who was recognized in the late 20th century by all as the greatest leader of modern Orthodoxy in North America. From an early age, Lanner impressed all who knew him as a highly charismatic person and a mesmerizing teacher and youth leader. To listen to Baruch weave a story; lowering his voice and then raising it abruptly to deliver the greatest emotional impact, was to recognize an accomplished practitioner of an art form that fewer and fewer people master any more. Wherever Baruch went to give a lecture, his audiences marvelled at his spell- binding speaking ability, his deep knowledge of Torah and evident talent as a teacher and a motivator. He was especially effective among teen-agers, and, over the years, had influenced large numbers of youngsters from non-religious backgrounds and troubled homes to embrace Torah Judaism.
• Lanner worked his way up the ladder of leadership of the National Conference of Synagogue Youth (NCSY), and became one of its stars. He exhibited great skills as a planner and an innovator. He oversaw not only the regional directors of the youth movement, but also our Israel summer camps. Yet his influence within the Union extended far beyond NCSY. If one of the member synagogues of the OU complained that it was paying dues hut receiving little from the Union in return, we would send Lanner there to be the scholar-in-residence over a Shabbat and weekend. Invariably he wowed his audiences and many of them came to consider themselves his "hasidim" (followers). Lanner was like a pinch hitter, ready to jump into the fray at moments when the organization had a lot on the line, and belt a home run for the greater glory of the Union--and of his own growing legend.
• Lanner was known within NCSY as someone who demanded loyalty from his subordinates. Unfortunately, as we found out once the Jewish Week story broke, Lanner also demanded "love" from the children in his care. For his part, he was extremely loyal to his superiors at the Union.

There are also less complemenatary comments as well as a lot of background on the internal deliberations and actions of the OU regarding Lanner and the investigation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Will, thank you for being fair enough to cite this material. This is like judging Nixon solely on Watergate, or Napoleon on Waterloo, which would be bad history and show a lack of sophistication by those trying to make heads or tales of complex and controversial men. Now, while Lanner is not on the same level of historical significance for the American Jewish community of a "Nixon" or a "Napoleon" yet as User:Will Beback is pointing out here, the man was evidently accomplished in his field, and did it well, until he unravelled. My objection is to mass hysteria and a witch hunt which cannot serve WP:NPOV or any sort of objective assessment of this tragic rabbi. If any of you have ever studied Shakespeare, then The rise and fall of Rabbi Baruch Lanner would definitely be classed as a genuine Shakespearean tragedy. For instance, the tragedy of Macbeth is not that he commits a serious crime (for that he is a criminal), but that he was great already and had the potential to have life of greatness yet fell and stooped to do things that undid him in the end. IZAK 11:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is engaging in mass hysteria, or a witch hunt. For what its worth, we already found out witch, the facts of the case are far enough in our past that there is no hysteria, and we have only a handful of editors here, so there is no mass. The comparison to Nixon and Napoleon is inapposite. Nixon and Napoleon are independantly notable even without their notable downfalls. Lanner may have outwardly been known as a baki b'shas, a skilled orator, and a go-getter. These things do not get you a page on Wikipedia. Plenty of folks are accomplished in their field without being notable for Wikipedia's purposes. The other thing I object to is your claim that he was fine "until he unravelled (sp.)" Wrong. The facts show that he was known as being a number of very happy things despite the fact that he was involved in numerous immoral acts behind the scenes all the way through. Worse, the very people who trumpeted his great achievements, as you now do, were protecting this dirty secret and could have prevented untold amounts of pain and discomfort. Great is their sin for covering up the wrongdoing for so long. You want to whitewash the matter just like they did. --Meshulam 15:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Meshulam: You are confusing two things. This discussion is now taking place on the talk page about a living person and this is not a debate about deleting the article. The vote was held. The article is kept for now. So now the article must be raised to the level of a true biography and not remain like a sickly almost anti-Orthodox/rabbinical stub in it's tone and presentation. This article must not read as if it were God sentencing a man to hell for all his sins. As far as I know, God considers ALL the deeds of a man, even thoughts and intentions, and based on a full, complete and comprehensive evaluation issues a fair and acceptable judgment, something which you, for unknown reasons right now, are obviously not interested in doing. In fact, if the article remains based only on his misdeeds, then it will be eligible for another AfD as a violation of WP:BIO1E and WP:LIBEL. And you defeat yourself when you say that background information can be included but only if it supports attacks against Lanner. What kind of logic, let alone biographical fairness and justice, is that? If, as you argue, Lanner has a long history as a serving rabbi, then it would be impossible to understnd the negatives he was doing without also noting and recognizing all the good he was doing which was obviously strong enough to keep him in his many jobs. Indeed, he was hired by Jewish day schools and synagogues, independently of his job at NCSY at the OU, and worked for high profile causes all his life, and many people benefited from his work, so obviously the good must have outdone and obscured the bad for most of his life. I do not want to "whitewash" anything as I am neither a painter nor a publicist, nor do I know Lanner. I have just read about him and heard a little about his work. It's as a responsible Wikipedia editor that I call upon anyone editing and writing this article to create a full and comprehensive biography of a complex man. The examples of Nixon and Napoleon are good, because Lanner was something of a "legend in his lifetime" to his followers (and evidently he had plenty until he was accused by the Jewish Week of wrongdoings) and please do not twist Wikipedia's policies that would create ridiculous "perspectives" so that to overlook Lanner's positive lifetime achievements would create an article that violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "Wikipedia:Do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should be background. I do not think that the article needs to focus on anything other than what made Lanner notable. Nixon and Napolean were notable separate and apart from their shortcomings. Lanner's shortcomings make him notable. --Meshulam (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Umm Meshulam, you are making this up. You are twisting the policy of "notability" in a backwards direction. There is no such guideline, that "all one writes about is the point that made a person notable 'because' Wikipedia has a a policy that the person muct be 'notable enough to have sources." Writing a biography, you can put everything that relates to the life of a person into an article, there are no restrictions to "only the notable" incidents, because those in any case may well be very subjective, and as long as the information can be verified at some point, it goes into the article whether you like it or not. Let's see if others here are fair editors and if a thorough biography emerges. And again, you mis my point about Nixon and Napoleon, I am not talking about "notability this or that" -- the point of my Nixon and Napoleon analogy is that IF they were just judged or understood or evaluated or presented or studied or known or defined or presented based on only one apect of their lives, personalities, accomplishments, deeds and misdeeds then to look at Nixon through the prism of Watergate only or Napoleon through the prism of Waterloo only would not yield a true understanding of who they really were, why they did what they did, how they got to where they were at the end. This is called being OBJECTIVE which is the core of WP:NPOV. IZAK (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with much of was IZAK says. There are sources about Lanner's career before the scandal and should be included. Not including it would be NPOV, and give a slanted view of Lanner's life. Nevertheless, while it might be true that "what they said about Lanner could be said about all those charismatic/strict/hyper teachers and educators that kids often have to endure for a good part of their lives everywhere" there are no sources to support that. There has been no one that has condoned Lanner at all. Perhaps rabbis are just afraid to say anything that might be construed as justifying an abuser, but that doesn't really matter; If there are not sources there are no sources. Jon513 (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Decades

I added "for decades," to the sentence about abuse, as the time period itself is integral part of the issue.Mrnhghts (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Please just make sure that the citation sourcing that sentence has decades in it, or bring a source for it. I'm sure that exists. -- Avi (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Theawarenesscenter.com

The awareness center is a non-reliable personal attack blog; it is not a reliable source and is definitely non-neutral, when it comes to these issues. There are better sites to use per WP:EL. -- Avi 16:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed 100% IZAK 17:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same site? Theawarenesscenter.org is an organization run by a credentialed professional,[1] with a board of directors[2] whose work is endorsed by over 250 rabbis.[3] So it certainly isn't a personal blog. Is there any evidence that they are unreliable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bill Beback. The Awareness Center is an organization that has done some significant work in the relevant area. They aren't just a blog. --Meshulam 20:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to take the view that because The Awareness Center is basically an advocacy group, and per WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL advocacy groups should not be used as factual sources for claims that might be construed as defamatory. This does not mean the Awareness Center's involvement can't be discussed in the article, it just means that WP:LIBEL and WP:BLP require care when sourcing claims about the specific things Baruch Lanner did and so TAC can't be the sole source for such claims. Note that The Awareness Center has been subject to some controversy, see The Awareness Center#Criticism and the discussion on Talk:The Awareness Center. I suggest Wikipedia take no position on these controversies, we should simply apply WP:LIBEL and WP:BLP straightforwardly. In this case there seem to be plenty of other sources. I see no problem sourcing them for matters of opinion. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC).

That's a reasonable opinion. As I've looked into it more I see that "TAC" is indeed controversial. I'd linked to it because they have an extensive collection of press clippings on the case, and because I had been under the mistaken impression that it was actually run by Rabbi Blau (though he is a supporter, apparently). We're not using TAC for any sources at the moment, it was just an external link. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Vicki Polin as a Wikipedia "source"

Pot calling the kettle black: The The Awareness Center was created and is solely run by Vicki Polin (if Lanner can get an article, so should she by now.) She is a highly controversial figure and most notably gained notoriety when she appeared on Oprah claiming to be a victim of Jewish Satanic Ritual Abuse (video), Vicki and the Devil (script), she confirmed that she was the "Rachel" on Oprah (article). She has really made some wild claims, such as: "That her family belonged to a satanic ritual cult in which she was regularly sexually abused from the time she was a baby. That she was forced to murder babies and eat their flesh as part of this cult. She was raped on Torah scrolls in a synagogue in Chicago. That she had five abortions as a result of incest with her father. That she suffers from multiple personality disorder." [4], a Google search shows more stuff about her. While she has done some good in focusing on problems of abuse in some Jewish communities, she also grasps at any straws that would not hold water in a court of law. Rabbi Yosef Blau is a great man, the mashgiach ruchani at Yeshiva University and a highly respected and responsible individual not afraid to face the truth and he understands the complexity of the issues, he is a genuine Tzadik for working with all sorts of people and trying to help them! Vicki Polin on the other hand is basically a law unto herself and does not answer to anyone. She has lots of links and dirt on many individuals and it would be a sad day if she would become the source, guide, inspiration and justification for all sorts of libelous slash and burn articles against anyone. IZAK 12:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

We're not using Polin as a source for this article at this point. When a site just reproduces clippings from reliable sites the webmaster's viewpoint and credentials are immaterial. While the site does express a viewpoint, it seems like a reliable enough sources for "courtesy links" to reprinted articles, especially due to its board of advisors, endorsing rabbis, etc. As for the writings of Polin herslf, we aren't using those. However as a credentialled and published expert I expect that we might view her as having a significant viewpoint, and might include a quotation or summary from her at some point. However before we do that we should include other, more notable viewpoints, such as those of Blau, Willig, etc. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Will: Motivation matters and has to be put into context. Readers need to understand that the direction of this article is not coming from someone who can claim neutrality, when the source is exhibiting signs of (self-admitted) major emotional damage, stress, and a desire for revenge and lashing out. This is what then leads to digging for dirt and exposing the skeletons (real, suspected or imagined -- and it's hard to tell the difference many times) that exist in many closets. What exactly is Polin an "expert" in? Suffering? Abuse? Incest? Devil worship? Admitting to multiple personality disorder? (She claims to have lived through it all, and is certainly living to tell the tale about it...) Since when are those "credentials" for anything except showing a need for and getting heavy-duty psychotherapy? Even having a real "credential" and "publishing" are pretty nebulous terms. Plenty of quacks get "published" indeed, like Polin, they run their own vanity presses, especially on the Internet with web-hosting being so cheap. At best, she is trying to portray herself as the voice of "the maiden" screaming to be "saved" by St George from the "dragon" but her appearance on Oprah created a charge that what they (she and Oprah, also not such a"neutral" party here, see her article: "...Born in rural Mississippi to a poor unwed teenaged mother, and later raised in a Milwaukee ghetto, Winfrey was raped at the age of nine, and at fourteen, gave birth to a son who died in infancy. Sent to live with the man she calls her father...") were really creating, was a new twist on an old lie, the blood libel against Jews. It's been pointed out that "If you Google ""ritual abuse" Oprah," you will see how many anti-semitic websites used Vicki's appearance as fodder to perpetuate the myth that Jews sacrifice children." http://www.lukeford.net/profiles/profiles/vicki_polin.htm So while she may be justified in her "crusade" for personal reasons, and we are not here to judge anyone's alleged personal suffering, but whatever emotionalism surrounds those issues should not mean that now anyone who claims to have been the victim of abuse, gets a degree and puts up a website is a "reliable source" for articles in an encyclopedia that wishes to be credible above all else. IZAK (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You're ignoring the issue. The link to Polin's site is a link to a specific page dedicated to the Lanner episode. That page only contains articles written by various newspapers (which are considered reliable for publishing the news) about the Lanner episode. Its the best/only collection of its kind on the web. Any article on Lanner should contain a link to that site for that reason alone. The page does not subject its reader to Polin's opinions about Lanner, or to any witch hunt etc. Lets at least be honest about all of this. --Meshulam (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Honest about what Meshulam? IZAK (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

don;'t we already have the citations to the articles? DGG (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is currently sourced entirely without reference to "TAC". The TAC page on Lanner has an extensive list of clippings that may be of interest to readers or editors, but which isn't necessary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So then cut it out if you have enough sources. The TAC is a hot potato controversial organization that itself is not neutral. IZAK (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Vicki Polin & Oprah comments and edits

User Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) has seen fit to censor [5] [6] sourced information and the authors/sources themselves (even if it means cutting out Polin's own words?) that I had reported about the Vicki Polin issue as it relates to this ongoing discussion, a move which I strongly disagree with and dispute so I have restored them. I made the presentation very carefully and the citations do not constitutes "libel" nor are they questionable in this case: There were also a few smaller points, but if one reads my two posts here in their entirety one can see that I give Polin much praise and sympathy for her plight and for her cause. But it should also be very clear that she herself is NOT "neutral" in these matters, and neither is her Awareness Center, nor their use of "sources." Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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

This article isn't about Polin. Let's recall that WP:BLP applies to every living person, not just the immediate subject of a bio, and it also applies to talk pages. None of the material posted above touches on the actual use of the link to TAC in this article and is irrelevant to the discussion here. Off-topic material may be removed, and I don't see any reason not to remove this thread. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there an article about Vicki Polin? There should be, that would give you an outlet IZAK. Lobojo (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There you go, now you have somewhere to constructivly vent your spleen IZAK. Lobojo (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lobojo: Funnily I am not venting any spleen. Let's see how the new Polin article pans out. IZAK (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

TAC Link redux

What does the presence of the link in this article add? Everything is already sourced to acceptable sources. Anyone who follows the sources, or googles Lanner, will end up at TAC anyway. We do not need to have a controversial site linked here, especially one that does not in any way enhance the encyclopedic nature of this article, which should be all we are concerned with. -- Avi (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed 100% and thanks Avi for saying in a few sentences what I have been trying to prove. IZAK (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed that TAC is an attack blog, and should not be included. --Jkp212 (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Obvious, TAC is a nutty attack blog. Lobojo (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Although I would agree we shouldn't source them for article content, particularly content that concerns potentially defamatory factual statements, I agree with user:Alansohn's comment above that a link to the article reprints and opinion their site has on this subject strikes me as relevant and within policy. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• If you find reliable and verifiable sources linked through TAC, that isn't the issue. The issue is that TAC itself is not a fair and impartial source of information vis-a-vis Baruch Lanner or any of the other people it obviously attempts to vilify. -- Avi (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with anything coming from Vicki Polin is that she and her Awareness Center (TAC) 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 (as User:Meshulam had wanted, which was the bone of the dispute really) in any Wikipedia article except the one about the Awareness Center itself and hopefully in an article about her too that should be created (not just as a redirect to TAC.) IZAK (talk) 08:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This talk page concerns the article about Lanner, not about the TAC. We have a talk page which is specially set up for discussing the WP article on the TAC, at talk:The Awareness Center. We have no page at all for discussing the TAC itself, though there may be forums elsewhere for that topic. At this point I propose we leave off the TAC link, regardlees of its merits. The main and only issue here is whether the article itself is complete and neutral. If there are facts or viewpoints that from the TAC link that need to be brought into the article then let's do that. If we do that then the TAC link is unnecessary and the article is improved. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Linking from or to a Wikipedia article, that is itself always subject to important policies of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:RS, not to mention the possibility of WP:AFD, is not even in question. That kind of thing is done as the editorial and writing situation allows. As for the article about Lanner, it is not "improved" at all for the simple reason that it fails WP:BIO since it gives absolutely no context to the man and his times as it does not describe and explain who he was and all his accomplishments, achievements, and also his failings, including his fall from grace, all within a far wider historical, sociological, political and religious context. This will still be done as it should be in all complete biographies on Wikipedia. As it stands this is just a stub and a caricature based on one accusatory unforgiving and harsh theme. Wikipedia is not a court of law, playing God, to sit in judgment of humanity, nor is it a sex offender registry with an agenda, and it is certainly not a cyber-jail sticking The Scarlet Letter onto its subjects forever. IZAK (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

When the TAC reprints actual news articles, those articles should be usable. They are quite helpful in tracking how the OU and NCSY processed the Lanner affair, which was the main reason for the controversy.Mrnhghts (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The actual articles from the website of the article, yes--from TAC, no. -- Avi (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As Avraham indicates, we can cite the original sources without linking to TAC. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Stolper

That Pinchas Stolper, NCSY's founder, hired Baruch Lanner is important because Lanner's enablers were high up, and included Pinchas Stolper later, as the Jewish Week article makes clear, and so does the Lilith Magazine article referenced. Stolper defended Lanner even after his abuse became public, bizarrely insisting that his touching of young girls' breasts and vaginas was somehow "not sexual." Stoler was pushed out of NCSY because of Lanner, and next to Rabbi Butler, was the OU's important enabler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrnhghts (talk • contribs)

Do you have any sources for this? Otherwise, it appears you are trying to use the Lanner article to smear Stolper which violates WP:OR, WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:V,and, of course, WP:NPOV. -- Avi (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I gave the source, Avi. Maybe read the source before you delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrnhghts (talk • contribs) 21:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

From the Lilith Magazine article: And the man who hired Lanner to NCSY,Rabbi Pinchas Stolper, was still remind-ing The Jewish Week that while he had heard reports of improper behavior, Lanner"had such a magnificent impact" on so many young people.

[7]

To download the OU funded Richard Joel Commission on Lanner, go to bottom here and download "Lanner report": [8]

JTA notes that Stolper supervised Lanner through 1994.[9]

In the Jewish Week Stolper denies that Lanner's touching teen girls was sexual.

"He has had such a magnificent impact" on so many young people, Rabbi Stolper says in defense of Rabbi Lanner, "despite some obvious sickness that is not sexual but has to do with needing to be in control."

[10]Mrnhghts (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The JTA piece focuses on Blitz rather than Stolper. FailedMessiah.com is a blog, so it doesn't really count in this discussion. This article is about Lanner. A discussion of the oversight and involvement by the OU/NCSY and its officers would be better in that article rather than here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I added verifiable source to better outline both the long time-line of Lanner's career despite known abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrnhghts (talk • contribs) 04:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Bringing in anything about Stolper to show a connection that is denigratory to Stolper is a BLP/OR violation. The only way that can be done is if we find a reliable and verfiable source specifically calling out Stolper vis-a-vis Lanner. Otherwise, it is the juxtaposition in the article that is creating a "guilt by association" fallacy, which is an out-and-out violation of WP:BLP and WP:OR. -- Avi (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Avi, but I think that the Jewish Week article does mention Stolper in this context:

• Marcie Lenk, the Judaics teacher in Israel, said she has told her story to a number of influential rabbis, including Rabbi Pinchas Stolper, founding director of NCSY, but they either ignored her or made excuses for Rabbi Lanner as a brilliantly effective, if erratic man whose good works outweigh his problematic behavior.
• Rabbis Butler and Stolper say they never heard specific allegations, but Rabbi Stolper acknowledges there were several complaints from young women many years ago about improper behavior by Rabbi Lanner. Rabbi Stolper says he sought to deal with the allegations but found no real substance to the charges. At the time, he says he warned Rabbi Lanner in no uncertain terms that if he ever heard such accusations again, even if they could not be proved, he would have to dismiss him because "NCSY lives on the reputation of the community, the parents and the synagogues." But decades after Rabbi Stolper says he heard reports of Rabbi Lanner's improper behavior with girls or, in at least one case, kicking a boy in the groin, Rabbi Lanner has remained in a leadership role and in regular contact with young people through NCSY. "He has had such a magnificent impact" on so many young people, Rabbi Stolper says in defense of Rabbi Lanner, "despite some obvious sickness that is not sexual but has to do with needing to be in control."
• Clearly a number of rabbis, OU professionals and lay leaders sought to downplay Rabbi Lanner's behavior over the years because they believed he was indispensable to the organization and out of concern for its reputation, and their own. The longer this went on, the more difficult it was to act against him, no doubt. Most disturbing to some of the men and women interviewed was that while his colleagues and others have gone to great lengths to apologize or make excuses for Rabbi Lanner's actions over the years, he himself has shown no sense of remorse or willingness to take responsibility, at least publicly. Rabbi Stolper says he cannot think of anyone 'who has suffered as much' as Rabbi Lanner, but the alleged victims may well be asking, what about us?

So it's not entirely inappropriate to connect Stolper with the Lanner affair. But this article is about Lanner the person. Since this material is closer to the OU/NCSY topic, I suggest that's where it really belongs. Something like "Stolper and others were faulted for ignoring complaints about Lanner and for minimizing the suffering of his victims." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That's reasonable, Will. If there is reliable info, and the Jewish Week is reliable, then mention of it can be made, but not to the point where it becomes a coatrack to denigrate Stolper and a WP:UNDUE violation. BLP still applies. -- Avi (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish Week apparently broke the story and received an award for it. I presume it's reliable, though it and the editor/publisher are criticized.[11] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish Week was not attacked for the veracity of its story. It was attacked because of airing laundry. Stolper is a critical player in ignoring abuse for decades, and he did not deny Lanner committed abuse. Stolper resigned almost immediately after the OU sponsored Richard Joel commission report was released, because he was implicated. The two most important enablers in-house were Butler and Stolper. Mrnhghts (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, could you please stop reverting while we're discussing this? It's easier to reach consensus if we're not fighting in the article at the same time. What I've suggested is to move the coverage of Stolper to the NCSY article. Do you object to that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay.Mrnhghts (talk) 08:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Nogrudges, one of the people who attempted to delete any reference to Baruch Lanner at all on NCSY's page, said Stolper's actions "don't matter" to defend his latest revert. But they most certainly do. Keep in mind -- any group that deals with youth can attract a molester and abuser. That's the way it is, and in and of itself, isn't notable. But keeping such a person around when you know there are problem and enable them for decades and still defend the person to the press even after he is finally stopped from outside is what is so interesting in the Lanner case. Part of the defense that was criticized[12] was that Lanner was tolerated, and criticism should be mitigated, because of his success at making young Jews drawn to him religious (Orthodox). The mission of NCSY--making teens Orthodox--was critical to the organization's enabling of Lanner, and of silencing those who complained of their treatment at his hands (or knee). We are talking about a man (Stopler) who referred to American Jewish assimilation as "another Holocuast."[13] Remember, we are talking about complaints of controversial behavior to a man who saw Lanner as someone very effective at saving lives. This was not just war, but according to him, it was genocide.Mrnhghts (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Much of what you're writing about here concerns the NCSY, not Lanner himself. This article is about the person named Baruch Lanner, not the Lanner case. The actions of his supervisors at NCSY should be covered in the NCSY article, not here. Please also remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We're not here to right the world's wrongs, just to write the world's encyclopedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. I will transplant that section to the NCSY page per your suggestion.98.14.176.56 (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

One thing -- it makes no sense to delete the reference of Butler resigning and not Stolper in line 16. How is Butler's implication by the OU report and subsequent resignation relevant but not Stolper's?Mrnhghts (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, some reference to the consequences of Lanner's actions are appropriate because they show their serious nature. However we don't need to get into details, which are better placed in the NCSY article. For here, maybe something more like "Senior officials at the NCSY resigned following Lanner's conviction" would be appropriate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

But it wasn't following Lanner's conviction. It was before, following the OU's own internal commission report, and the only two who resigned were Butler and Stolper. Both should be named.Mrnhghts (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neither a forum for investigative journalism nor a platform for seeking justice. We have strict rules and guidelines about what may be brought in articles, and even more rigid ones when referring to living people. On your own webspace you may pillory and tar-and-feather whosoever you may wish, be they deserving or not. On wikipedia, however, there are rules that need be followed, and to much information about Stolper, and attempting to (whether rightfully or wrongfully) create a linkage to Stolper on the Lanner page without verifiable and reliable information in proper weight to the article at hand is forbidden. -- Avi (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I created nothing. There is ample verifiable and reliable information -- which I provided -- that links Stolper to Lanner over the decades from hire to supervision.Mrnhghts (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

But we have to be VERY careful with living people. Bringing a relationship here that can be viewed as solely to cast aspersions on Stolper is a problem. As Will pointed out above, there should be a way to add it that conforms with WP:NPOV. -- Avi (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I was just proposing the form that text could take. A more accurate version would be something like, "senior officials resigned following release of the commission's report." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Will, what exactly is the problem with referencing both Butler and Stolper?Mrnhghts (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible Undue weight violation about a living person. This belongs in an article about Stolper, not Lanner. -- Avi (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No. It belong here as well.Mrnhghts (talk) 07:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Mrnhghts, multiple editors currently believe that it is a BLP violation, and unless you can bring specific evidence, outside of a desire to smear Stolper, why it belongs here, continued violations will be reverted. -- Avi (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily a BLP violation to mention Stolper et al. It's just better editing to keep the article focused. This individual is barely notable aside from the abuse, investigation, and criminal case. It may be better to convert this to something like Baruch Lanner case, NCSY abuse case, or whatever seems like the most common name. That way it can cover everything about the topic without some of these weight and coatrack problems. A short summary could stay in the NCSY article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

William that makes sense, as that is what makes this case notable. Please update.Mrnhghts (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Avi, as per Stolper, as I gave sources earlier, Lanner 1) founded NCSy. 2) Hired Lanner. 3) Was his direct supervisor for most of his tenure at NCSY 4) Warned Lanner about his abuse in 1972 5) Defended Lanner after Lanner was publicly exposed

Want verifiable and acceptable links for each point again? I will give them again, but first your agreement that if I do that (again) you will agree this is acceptable "outside of your desire to protect Stolper."Mrnhghts (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath and Ramifications

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Baruch Lanner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110523223447/https://www6.state.nj.us/DOC_Inmate/details?x=1248335&n=0 to https://www6.state.nj.us/DOC_Inmate/details?x=1248335&n=0
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.jewishtimes.com/scripts/edition.pl?now=5/25/1999&SubSectionID=31&ID=4615
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://media.www.yucommentator.com/media/storage/paper652/news/2003/03/06/News/Rabbi.Willig.Apology.Stirs.Campus-589918.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Baruch Lanner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118080958/https://www6.state.nj.us/DOC_Inmate/inmatefinder?i=I to https://www6.state.nj.us/DOC_Inmate/inmatefinder?i=I
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080106104600/http://www.thejewishweek.com:80/viewArticle/c36_a1616/News/New_York.html to http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c36_a1616/News/New_York.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)