Talk:NCSY

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History vs Present[edit]

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

I added the Stolper paragraph back in with fluff ("best", "creative", etc.) removed. Best, --Shirahadasha 07:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes[edit]

Regarding these changes which were made twice (and reverted twice). I personally think that they sound a lot like a personal gripe, and as such have no place in wikipedia. However, if this is in fact a complaint which has been made public about the organization on a national level, then it can go in the article. The test it must pass is verifiability. If the claim has been leveled in, say, a national newspaper or magazine (that we can verify) then cite it as such and it can stay. If it's a personal gripe, then it has no place here. If you're unsure of something, feel free to ask. --Bachrach44 13:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have had personal experiences that back up such complaints. (I have also had wonderful experiences through NCSY) I do not, however, have any really credible sources that make such allegations. A quick google search turned up this post: http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v27/mj_v27i35.html#CJZ Ferret-aaron 19:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I, who wrote the offending section, do not personally have this gripe with NCSY. However, I am involved in fundraising for youth groups such as NCSY, and have both read and heard this criticism against the group many times. It is, at least to people who know of such matters, a common criticism against this otherwise good and pious organization. Most good pages on Wikipedia have such a section dealing with criticism. I believe this section should be re-added into this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.105.90 (talk • contribs)
There is no problem with including criticism of a group on their wiki page, the problem is verfiability. To quote from the first line of the verifiability policy: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I'm afraid that if you cannot provide verifiable evidence, then it doesn't have a place in wikipedia. Anecdotal evidence and "it is a well known fact amongst my peers...." is simply not verifiable. --Bachrach44 03:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scandals[edit]

NCSY, much like their frequent partner in "kiruv," Aish HaTorah, is deleting all details they consider unflattering. Teh Baruch Lanner episode is critical to NCSY's history because of how they handled it for so long. Because we are dealing with a youth group that seeks conversion to Orthodox as its main goal, it is no surprise there is controversy in its history.

A controversy section is needed.

First of all to put kiruv in quotes is insulting from your list of changes you obviously have a grudge against people who are religious. Next one does not "convert" to orthodox, its just a different sect. Also....there is no need for a scandel section, its irrelevent Most importantly the posting about college just is plain false

What about a history of scandals within the program, i know of many. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.31.250 (talk • contribs)

Ok anonymous, then are you prepared to deal with WP:LIBEL? Who doesn't have scandals if you dig deep enough? IZAK 11:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah ok. I do realize that this exchange occurred 14 years ago. But @IZAK:, I don't appreciate veiled threats against other Wikipedia editors. As for the other part, "who doesn't have scandals if you dig deep enough," that's not how wikipedia works - if reliable secondary sources have covered it, it's probably worth writing about. Stop equivocating on what should be on this site. Theleekycauldron (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'See also' group inclusion[edit]

  • There appears to be a question about inclusion of other denominational youth groups within the 'see also' section of this article. Within the American Jewish community, NCSY is perceived as a co-equal denominational youth group, as evidenced by major Jewish newspaper and major Jewish federation websites, which include NCSY listed among the others. See the link list below. In addition, the NCSY webspace itself illustrates that NCSY participates in activities with its coordinate groups.

Wikipedia viewers previously unfamiliar with NCSY who are visiting this page should be made aware of coordinate youth groups that exist in the other denominations -- this provides valuable contrast to and comparison with major American Jewish youth groups.

(Any discussions about other denominations, in general, should be directed to Talk:Jewish denominations.)

A quick sampling of links, as previously noted: [1][2][3] [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

Infoman99 22:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baruch Lanner controversy[edit]

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

I would recommend starting a Baruch Lanner article and having it vetted and established on the encyclopedia before attempting to add material on this controversy to this article. This would enable sourcing problems to be addressed directly, and then reliable information and points of view about NCSY's role could be added to this article. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the Baruch Lanner page is being referenced as directed. The Baruch Lanner is an important aspect of NCSY's history, not because there happened to be an abuser in their midst, but because of the way NCSY protected and defended Rabbi Lanner.Mrnhghts (talk) 09:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:NCSYLOGO.gif[edit]

Image:NCSYLOGO.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baruch Lanner controversy #2[edit]

Why is there an edit war over the Lanner material? The sources appear adequate, and the matter is relevant to the NCSY. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars[edit]

This page has seen a fair bit of reverting recently, and I've blocked 4 accounts for it. Hopefully it won't need protection William M. Connolley (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article may need protection as the edit history and external links suggest that there is a major controversy here regarding Baruch Lanner. What is being done about this? There seems to be a multitude of evidence supporting this man and his involvement with NCSY (one example). Why are we banning people who seem to be combating censorship? --yonkeltron (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I semi'd it and blocked User:Mrnhghts. Hopefully someone might now come along and edit it sensibly William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, I'll include a small section with some references so it's verifiable and it should be written correctly. Then, I'll link to the main article as per policy. --yonkeltron (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[E/C] I'm not sure what the problem was with User:Mrnhghts that required blocking - he wasn't violating 3RR. In any case, I've restored the Lanner material. It is well-sourced and relevant. If there's a difference of opinion let's discuss it here rather than edit war. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I misread the history timestamps :-( He was edit warring, but probably not to the extent of requiring a block. See his talk William M. Connolley (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fresh start for a Baruch Lanner section[edit]

I added a section about Baruch Lanner with a link to the main article. I included 3 citations in accordance with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Regardless of any edit warring or which has happened or previous controversy, let's try to make this section comply with all policies such as Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:Libel. Just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a forum for public relations. Wikipedia is here to document and not to serve the needs or desires of particular organizations or individuals. For more information, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not The fact that Baruch Lanner's involvement with NCSY is so well-documented indicated that it is appropriate for this article in accordance with Wikipedia:Notability. That being said, the section in this article should be kept brief and appropriate because Baruch Lanner is it's own article. This is a hot issue so let's treat it respectfully and professionally without resorting to censorship or emotional decisions. If someone contests the inclusion of this information for legitimate reasons, let them discuss it here before making wide and/or sweeping changes to avoid further conflict and build Wikipedia:Consensus. Best, --yonkeltron (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC) '[reply]

This doesn't belong here:

" "NCSY and the Orthodox Union strive to create an environment in which NCSYers, NCSY volunteers, and NCSY professionals can grow and learn in a comfortable environment free from unwelcome attention and any other form of physical, psychological, or emotional abuse. If you have been made to feel uncomfortable or treated inappropriately, please call the Ombudsman Telephone Hotline at 212-613-8361." http://www.ncsy.org/ncsy/about

In addition they published a manual on behavior which can be found at http://www.ncsy.org/ncsy/article/40836."'

This is the stuff of a PR release. What is more pertinent is that even according to their president at the time, the OU resisted making changes to their staff who was responsible. Not even Lanner was fired. Lanner was allowed to resign. Matt Tropp, who enabled Lanner, was allowed to stay on as an NCSY regional director even though he lied in court to defend Lanner. Pinchas Stolper, the man who hired LAnner and protected him for DECADES, has an award named after him, the Elaine and Pinchas Stolper Service Award. The next award is Jan. 11th. [13]


Meanwhile, on Wikipedia's Baruch Lanner page, NCSY/OU loyalists are defending even the abuser himself,see the discussions section [[14]]. They are seeking to jettison the page, or at least, delete the most specific and damaging information.Mrnhghts (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While telling, that's an issue for that article's talk page. Meanwhile, the PRish piece can be rewritten. --yonkeltron (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to place info on NCSY cover-up here instead of on Baruch Lanner page. Please see discussion section of Lanner page.[[15]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrnhghts (talk • contribs) 18:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


An editor deleted this material, with the edit summary "not relevant"

  • According to a 2000 article in The Jewish Week both NCSY and the OU were aware of accusations made against Lanner and either covered it up or ignored it,[1]Baruch Lanner was hired by NCSY's founder Pinchas Stolper[16] in 1970[17], and remained his superior until 1994.[18] Lanner was already threatened with suspension for sexual contact with two teenage girls in 1972. [19]

How is a discussion of NCSY actions irrelevant to the article on the NCSY? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHo hired Lanner and who the superiors are NOT relevant to the article on NCSY it AT MOST belongs on the Lanner page, and even there is isnt relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nogrudges (talk • contribs) 20:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be irrelevant? The supervisors of Lanner were repeatedly informed of his abuse and did little or nothing about it. Their negligence lead to the abuse of additional youths. The matter was so serious that the supervisors, including the founder and vice president, resigned and Lanner himself went to prison. This case is very relevant to the NCSY and its leadership. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. How NCSY handled this case is relevant to the culture of NCSY.As I explained,


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[20] 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."[21] 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)Mrnhghts (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole lanner issue is BEYOND RELEVANT. It is extremely important to keep in, its THIS section that is not. Who hired or who supervised is NOT revelant in this case. The section that talks about the scandal should be kept in but THIS section that, if you ask me, is a personal bias that he has against Stopler is not relevant in this case. It is merely redundant as to the afformentioned section and seeking a personal attack
As for his talk of the "new holocaust" or whatever you say Mr; that is just PROOF that you have a personal vandeta against him. THose statements have NOTHING to do with this and you obviously have some kind of problem with those statements and are seeking to smear him as much as you can. Wjile the information is verifiable it doesnt belong here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nogrudges (talk • contribs)
Stolper, et al., were specifically mentioned in reference to this case in reliable sources, and in particular their failure to act when notified of problems and for their cavalier attitude. Would it be appropriate, in the articles on abuse of youths by Catholic clergy, to omit any mention of the bishops who ignored the abuse? Of course not - that's a major part of the topic. Since this is a youth organization the way it failed to deal with allegations of sexual abuse of youths is very important. Separately, whose personal bias are you alleging? The journalists or the other editors at Wikipedia? If the latter, it's best not to speculate on the motives of other editors. See WP:AGF "assume good faith". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Who hired or who supervised is NOT revelant in this case."

How can you say that? Stolper was Lanner's superior -- most of the time his direct superior -- from the beginning of his NCSY career to the end. And this is notable because the longest significant enabler of abuse was the founder and architect of NCSY itself.Mrnhghts (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friends, let's try to steer this discussion back into the realm of productivity and improvement. In the context of WP:RELNOT and Wikipedia:Indirect relevance is sometimes OK, I would assert that because the questionable actions of Lanner's superiors are well-documented and most certainly notable, they have a place in the article. Specifically, because Lanner's superiors are at the very top of the organization, their opinions and actions reflect those of NCSY itself and not just the individuals involved. Furthermore, no Wikipedia editor can claim something is a cover-up simply because the facts may point to that conclusion. To put forth such assertions without external references would be a violation of WP:NOR. However, if there are sources calling it a cover-up it can be written about under the guidelines of WP:V so long as the wording doesn't violate WP:Libel. If I'm not mistaken, the original text of the contested section is pretty neutral as far as touchy subjects like this one go. Still, if anyone thinks that the inclusion of this violates a Wikipedia policy, then a real discussion can and should be had about it's inclusion in the article. Perhaps, anyone who objects can find some text contradicting the claims of a cover-up! To sum up, arguing that such public and publicly-documented actions of an organization are not appropriate for an article detailing the organization itself is counter-productive. Let's not have an edit war, eh? Leave the text in there but feel free to augment it with contradictory sources so that all aspects may be presented in the name of WP:NPOV. Best, --yonkeltron (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the Stolper information, as we seem to agree that his history,his supervision, and his early warning for abuse at NCSY, does matter. However, I did not add the cover-up assertion against the OU, though it should probably be there, and with your permission, may later quote exactly that assertion, to avoid the criticism that this is in any way inferred from the information or interpreted by Wikipedia. Is that acceptable?Mrnhghts (talk) 06:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it seems relevant but only with citation and when done neutrally in accordance with Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:NPOV. Let's put it up there and see how it goes. Relevance is definitely a touchy subject but if the head of an organization acts a certain way, that goes a fair way to guide the behavior of the organization itself. This is evident insofar as the editor-in-chief of a newspaper who writes an editorial is, in effect, describing the official opinion of that paper. --yonkeltron (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, people! It's not OK to continue to remove Baruch Lanner material from this page. The discussion has gone on and Wikipedia policies have inspired the comments available right here, on this talk page. Let's not get too close to censorship. Best, --yonkeltron (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Gary Rosenblatt. "Stolen Innocence". The Jewish Week. Retrieved 15 December 2008.

Social Action[edit]

NCSY's Negiah program is a notable part of their educational programming. That NCSY denounces the use of condoms and considers handshaking between members of the opposite gender forbidden "in most circumstances" is both verifiable and notable.Mrnhghts (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YOu are misreading the section on condoms. It merely states that it doesnt make premarital sex any less wrong. You obviously have some serious bias against this organization —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nogrudges (talk • contribs)

No. That is a separate issue. Condoms are denounced regardless if the sex is marital or pre-marital. The specific issue of condoms led to controversy in the mainstream Jewish community.Look at the headline of this Forward article.[22]

Let's look at the exact language regarding NCSY's interpretation of condoms according to rabbinic law. "Yes, we acknowledge that condoms are not permitted according to halacha (Jewish law)."[23]

On handshaking. Just be aware that halacha (Jewish law) does not permit any intimate or affectionate contact between men and women who are not married to one another (or close relatives).[24]

For handshaking, marriage changes things between the spouses, but it does not change the situation with condoms. As the Forward notes, condoms are "panned" generally. As noted in my edits, some Jewish periodicals noted that some felt denouncing condom use was itself an irresponsible position to advocate.Mrnhghts (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi[edit]

Semi protection for this page expires soon. I appeal to the anons not to pile back in and re-start edit warring; it will only get them blocked and the page re-protected. No, I don't expect this message to help :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs to be locked forever. Anons piled on and deleted all references to anything not 100% cheerleading of NCSY.Mrnhghts (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under siege. This is censorship by the anons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrnhghts (talk • contribs) 22:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Mrnhghts (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few comments in the source to try and dissuade people from deleting it. We just need to be vigilant and request that troublesome IPs and users be blocked as needed. This is getting to be ridiculous. --yonkeltron (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should be deleted: "as a denominational youth movement[3] similar to a synagogue men's club or sisterhood. Over time, its emphasis moved to outreach and teaching religious behaviors to adolescents." NCSY is neither like a men's club nor a sisterhood, as it seeks membership for those outside of its movement to become Orthodox.Mrnhghts (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the complete text:

  • NCSY is the organizational successor to the National Union of Orthodox Jewish Youth, established in 1942[2] as a denominational youth movement[3] similar to a synagogue men's club or sisterhood. Over time, its emphasis moved to outreach and teaching religious behaviors to adolescents.

It may not be like a men's club now, but do we know that it wasn't when it was founded? The cite sources don't say anything about it. Since it's unsourced, maybe everything after "denominational youth movement" should go.   Will Beback  talk  00:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained deletions[edit]

A couple of accounts keep deleting the same sourced, neutrally prsented information.[25] Unless there's a good reason for it to be deleted it should be retained.   Will Beback  talk  17:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Will Beback has reverted more than 3 times on National Conference of Synagogue Youth. This is forbidden by WP. This is certainly not NPOV. Treesheads (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Treesheads[reply]

Have you actually read WP:NPOV? Adding well-sourced material does not violate NPOV. On the contrary, NPOV requires that all significant points of view be included. The material yo've repeatedly deleted is notable and if we're going to have an article on the topic then it should be included.   Will Beback  talk  19:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Words to avoid - WP[edit]

Words to avoid[edit]

Religion[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid

Words related to religion can create point of view problems. When is a belief system a "cult" or "sect" rather than a religion? What is "fundamentalism" or "heresy"? When these words are used, they need to be qualified, or supported by reliable secondary sources.

Cult has several different meanings, but usually with negative connotations. Its use should be avoided or attributed: i.e., do not say, "X is a cult", say "Group Y refers to X as a 'cult'" and give references. One exception concerns the technical use of this term in sociology to refer to a small religious group with novel religious beliefs and a high degree of tension with the surrounding society: in that case, it must be clear that a neutral sociological usage is intended. The adjective cultic may be preferable in such cases. A second exception concerns a reference to a particular religious practice, such as "the cult of Demeter at Eleusis" or "the cult of the saints". See cult (religious practice).

Sect likewise has several different meanings, but has fewer negative connotations. Some groups that are described as cults by the media are classified as sects by sociologists. However, the word may or may not imply novelty or tension. It can also imply that the group is part of a larger movement, or a splinter group. Consequently its use can promote a point of view unless its meaning is clearly defined. For novel religions, the term new religious movement may be more appropriate: see list of new religious movements.

Fundamentalism refers to "the tendency to reduce a religion to its most fundamental tenets, based on strict interpretation of core texts." A fundamentalist is not necessarily an extremist. However, the meaning has shifted in popular use to mean "religious fanatic" as well as the original meaning. Consequently, it should primarily be used for groups that are self-described fundamentalists. For groups labeled as fundamentalists by others, the term should be attributed to the source.

Treesheads (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Treesheads[reply]

Treesheads, it isn't necessary to post the contents of guidelines here, a link will do. Note that the guidelie does not prohibit the use of the word "cult". If a source says that a group is "reminiscent of a cult" then it is appropriate for us to report that. I haven't had a chance to check the source so I don't know if that's what it says. If it is in the source then it should be restored.   Will Beback  talk  23:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel words[edit]

Weasel words are generally considered to be words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources. They give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed. If a statement can stand without weasel words, they may be undermining its neutrality and the statement may be better off standing without them.

For example, "Houston is the nicest city in the world," is a biased or normative statement. Application of a weasel word can give the illusion of neutral point of view: "Some people say Houston is the nicest city in the world."

Although this is an improvement, since it no longer states the opinion as fact, it remains uninformative: 

   * Who says that? You?
   * When did they say it? Now?
   * How many people think that?
   * How many is some?
   * How many is most?
   * What kind of people think that? Where are they?
   * What kind of bias might they have?
   * Why is this of any significance?

Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It is better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source.


Examples 

   * "Some people say..."
   * "Some argue..."
   * "Clearly..."
   * "Contrary to many..."
   * "As opposed to most..."
   * "Research has shown..."
   * "...is widely regarded as..."
   * "...is widely considered to be..."
   * "...is claimed to be..."
   * "...is thought to be..."
   * "It is believed that..."
   * "It is rumored that..."
   * "It has been said/suggested/noticed/decided/stated..."
   * "There are rumors that..."
   * "Some people believe..."
   * "Some feel that..."
   * "They say that..."
   * "Many people say..."
   * "It may be that..."
   * "Could it be that..."
   * "It could be argued that..."
   * "Critics/experts say that..."
   * "Some historians argue..."
   * "Considered by many..."
   * "Critics contend..."
   * "Observers say..."
   * "Fans say..."
   * "Accusations..."
   * "Apparently..."
   * "Supposedly..."
   * "Presumably..."
   * "Allegedly..."
   * "Arguably..."
   * "Actually..."
   * "(x) out of (y) [vague group of professionals]...."
   * "Obviously..."
   * "Serious scholars/scientists/researchers..."
   * "Mainstream scholars/scientists/researchers..."
   * "The (mainstream) scientific community"
   * "It is claimed..."
   * "It has been revealed that..."
   * "Correctly (justly, properly, ...) or not, ..."
   * Anthropomorphisms like "Science says ..." or "Medicine believes ..."
   * "...is only one side of the story"
   * "Experts suggest..."
   * "Modern studies have claimed..."
   * "Studies show..."
   * "It is generally considered that..."
   * "It is notable"
   * "In some people's thoughts/opinions/minds..."
   * "It turns out that..."
   * "The police said..."

Treesheads (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Treesheads[reply]

What does this have to do with the article?   Will Beback  talk  23:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is apprently being used as an excuse for deleting the bolded words:
  • The Organization has been criticized for its aggressive approach. It is especially criticized for its goal of changing kids regardless of the damage it causes to the family dynamic or the alienation of teens from their parents.
Those don't appear to be "weasel words". To the extent that they are, the answer is to attribute them. In other words, "Gary Rosenblatt of The Jewish Week has criticized the NCSY for..."   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"especially criticized" 

* Who says that? You?
  * When did they say it? Now?
  * How many people think that?
  * How many is some?
  * How many is most?
  * What kind of people think that? Where are they?
  * What kind of bias might they have?
  * Why is this of any significance?

Treesheads (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Treesheads[reply]

It's significant because it's a commentary on the subject. Hows this:
  • Gary Rosenblatt of The Jewish Week has criticized the NCSY for its aggressive approach, including its goal of changing kids regardless of the damage it causes to the family dynamic or the alienation of teens from their parents.
Any objections to that?   Will Beback  talk  23:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would note, "Gary Rosenblatt, the editor of The Jewish Week,...because it is significant that he is the editor, not just a writer.Mrnhghts (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.[edit]

All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.

Treesheads (talk) 04:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Treesheads[reply]

If you are making that case then the burden is on you to show that these are fringe viewpoints held only by a tiny minority. Acording to whom is The Jewish Week a fringe source? According to whom does Salon promote the views of tiny minorities? Please provide evidence to support those assertions.   Will Beback  talk  04:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If your viewpoint (NOT NEWSPAPER) is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia[edit]

If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia

Just because the newspaper that printed it is big, the VIEWPOINT is an extremely small minority.

Treesheads (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Treesheads[reply]

According to the New York Times, "for some of the 90,000 subscribers of The Jewish Week, most of whom live in or near New York City, the newspaper and its editors were the villains."[26][27] It would appear, according to a reliable source, that the small minority is the one objecting to the journalism of "The Jewish Week". I did not find any criticism in the The New York Times of editorial or journalistic standards of "The Jewish Week". Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Student Union page should be a section of NCSY page[edit]

The Jewish Student Union page should be merged with the NCSY page, as they are ultimately NCSY controlled [28], and the JSU page is being limited to little more than a press release. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Student_Union ]]Mrnhghts (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • thats just plain not true. They are merely allied agencies and even have seperate tax documents. Stop spewing your lies!!! Nogrudges (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the OU and NCSY filed a separate tax document for this outreach program, and they are allied agencies [29]. I don't see how we are disagreeing, nor do I see how this changes the OU's own claim that these clubs are useful to encourage public school students to become Orthodox through a "cultural" front.[www.ou.org/pdf/ja/5766/fall66/AStuyvieRemin.pdf]Mrnhghts (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • that was in repsonse to your view that it should be one page. It is CLEAR that they are seperate organizations with clearly different opbjectives. Does NCSY allowed USY at their shabbatons? Clearly not. But USY is welcome into JSU clubs. Stop trying to create a massive conspiracy by NCSY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nogrudges (talk • contribs) 21:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have to maintain a non-denominational position inside the school system, and avoid specific theological content legally. And you know that.Mrnhghts (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • actually thats not true AT ALL legally. THe cases have born out that as long as the school doesnt sponsor the activity they can do whatever they want. You are flat out wrong Nogrudges (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well...you would know the internal legal versus funding hurdles NCSY and JSU face better than me. The point is, the stated goal of JSU's concurrent NCSY advisors is not to get public school students to assume an Orthodox life from their JSU programming, but to attend NCSY proper programming, as illustrated in that and other internal documents, where Latte and Learning proves the bridge between the JSU and NCSY.

Starbucks and Coffee Bean, in Los Angeles, are useful locations because of their kosher drink selections and casual, fun atmospheres. “Many teens are more comfortable at a coffee house than they would be at a synagogue, declared Rabbi Burg, the NCSY Director. “The program became a conduit for unaffiliated teens to learn Torah in a way that was not intimidating. The Latte and Learning sessions are a perfect bridge for teens to meet other NCSYers and to get involved in additional NCSY programs.” [...] Some of the teens who attend Latte and Learning were already involved with NCSY and its public high school counterpart, Jewish Student Union (JSU); many get involved with these programs after attending, while others will only attend Latte and Learning. “It is really exciting when teens from non-observant backgrounds wind up going to yeshiva,” declared Rabbi Lerner of NCSY New Jersey. “One girl felt intimidated by Orthodox Judaism and now she attends Shabbat dinner at my house every week.[30]

Mrnhghts (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on NCSY. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on NCSY. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on NCSY. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potential for an Edit-War[edit]

Hello, I have recently edited the NCSY page to include the controversy surrounding Menachem Chinn. Given the edit-war that had erupted over the inclusion of the Lanner controversy, I fully expect something similar to occur relatively soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.36.127 (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're lucky - i think we got past it with little warring. Theleekycauldron (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NCSY&oldid=1202127369"