Call Me by My Name: Deborah Abrams Kaplan • Hacker News Board

Re: Call Me by My Name: Deborah Abrams Kaplan

#71

Post by darylfritz » Tue, Apr 16, 2019, 6:29 PM UTC

dalbasal wrote: post #59

darylfritz wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like bjourne is referring to the hypocracy that society commonly accepts the Jewish practice, whereas the Muslim practice is generally rejected. I don't think bjourne is suggesting that Deborah accepts the practice.

Where is the example of "society commonly accepting the Jewish practice?" Not hn society, as you can see in the thread. Not Jewish society, as you can see in the article. In any case, this is not a Jewish practice. The practice in this article is specific to certain hasidic sects, within the haredi minority... And very few outside of the haredi minority are accepting of sexism within the community. It's a big point o…

My use of the phrase "Jewish Practice" was taken from the article. I didn't mean anything additional by it.

Re: Call Me by My Name: Deborah Abrams Kaplan

#72

Post by Balgair » Tue, Apr 16, 2019, 7:36 PM UTC

baud147258 wrote: post #55

comunii wrote: post #8

What private religious groups do in their own publications is one thing, what's more concerning, and evident from this story, is the way some parts of Wikipedia are mostly run by fringe groups and operate under their own rules. I have seen other examples of this in the past. Pages about Hasidic rabbis will mention miracles they performed as undisputed fact, and will not mention facts about them that may be unflatteri…

Do you have any link to such pages?

Not OP, but the biographies of rabbis do seem to not conform to the wikipedia standards. I've just done a very cursory look over a smidge of the pages, and nothing that the OP mentions is occurring, per my very brief look at it.

That said, the style and tone of some of the bio pages isn't really the best. It is Wikipedia and you should assume that these lesser visited pages should not be super well polished. The talk pages seem to be pretty sparse as well. Though there is not be evidence of an 'agenda', the sniff test isn't really passed either, but you could say that of nearly any less popular page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbi_Meir

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Leib_Rabinovich

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dov_Ber_of_Mezeritch

That said, OP's claims are a bit incredulous and I would also like to see the pages myself.

Re: Call Me by My Name: Deborah Abrams Kaplan

#73

Post by bjourne » Tue, Apr 16, 2019, 9:08 PM UTC

dalbasal wrote: post #66

bjourne wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say it was a "Jewish practice" it was darylfritz who misunderstood. The practice is common in the Hasidic minority as a result of society accepting people shoveling religious dogma down their children's throats. Except for Muslims having their girls wear veils which "society" has a problem with. But society shouldn't be accepting religious indoctrination of children from anyone.

Which society are you talking about?

Any society allowing parents to put their children in religious schools.

Re: Call Me by My Name: Deborah Abrams Kaplan

#74

Post by esarbe » Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 12:56 PM UTC

eddieroger wrote: post #35

esarbe wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this downvoted? Seems pretty much on the spot.

Because the author writes that her synagogue is a member of the Conservative movement, which is not the same as the Orthodox movement? It's not so much "pretty clear" as it is "wrong."

Ah, thanks for clarifying! I'm not familiar with the many facets of religion, so thanks for the help?

Re: Call Me by My Name: Deborah Abrams Kaplan

#75

Post by bigiain » Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 12:52 AM UTC

nkurz wrote: post #56

bigiain wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They weren't the photographer's "new conditions". The original agreement said she wanted credit for he photos with her full name. Quite reasonably in my opinion, especially given the zero price offered under those conditions. After having agreed, and right towards the end of the publication process, the editors refused those originally agreed conditions. They paid according to new conditions imposed by them. (Apparen…

After having agreed, and right towards the end of the publication process, the editors refused those originally agreed conditions. From my reading of the article, I don't think this is accurate. The original agreement was between an independent writer and the photographer. The editors had never agreed to publish her name. While I strongly disagree with their editorial policy, I don't think it's fair to consider them…

Yeah - fair call.

From the photographer's point of view though, she'd negotiated a deal with the author.

That deal was then rejected (by the author's editors, who the photographer had no agreement with), and a new deal had to be negotiated. That should have always been a problem between the author and the editors (which is sounds like is where it ended up, with the author paying the price of the newly negotiated deal).

Going back to the photographer and asking nicely if she'd reconsider the details of the attribution is reasonable - but the editors pushing back when she said "no" with "WE APPRECIATE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THIS ISSUE (KNOWING THAT NO OFFENSE IS INTENTED ח”ו). THANK YOU" is, at least in my opinion, offensive - perhaps not maliciously/intentionally so, but certainly obliviously careless in assuming their religious traditions need to be understood and accepted by everybody else.

I think the end result was appropriate. I'm less certain the manner in which it was arrived at wasn't poorly handled and an attempt to pressure the photographer into a worse deal than agreed upon - even though that deal was "zero dollars, just credit me by name".