Talk:Congregation Beth Jacob Ohev Sholom/Archive 1

Congratulations.

Congratulations on another great article, Jayjg. Read and enjoyed. No comments this time!! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm still working on it, adding detail and various interesting tidbits. I'm hoping to have it stable by tomorrow. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improving citations; Bar to promotion to GA until addressed

Inasmuch as sentences will be inserted within paragraphs, in between existing sentences, that will not be covered by end-of-para footnotes, the existing fact tags should not be removed until cites are supplied.

Furthermore, where quotes are supplied, there should always be a citation at the end of the sentence.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As has been explained multiple times, citations are only required at the end of the set of sentences being cited, or at the end of the paragraph, if a paragraph end is reached. This is the standard used in all Featured Articles, and any Featured Article Candidate that used duplicate citations for every single sentence would either be fixed to remove them, or rejected. If you split a paragraph in some way, either by inserting new information, or creating a second paragraph, then it's your responsibility to create the necessary duplicate citations, by copying them from the end of the sentences or paragraphy. If you need further clarification on this matter, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I would appreciate it if you were to not threaten me uncivilly, as you did in your edit summary just now. In addition to being uncivil, your doing so also violates your wp:admin obligations. Your vitriol also suggests a failure to heed wp's guidance as to "ownership" of articles. I've corrected a host of MOS errors, ce issues, and grammar, and provided new material supported by refs -- a tone of collaboration, rather than muscle-flexing about "my article", may perhaps be in order.

Second, as has been explained to you multiple times, the problem is that other editors will (as I have already done today) insert sentences in the middle of paragraphs. This is, of course, normal. When you fail to put a ref at the end of sentence 1, in a 2-sentence para, and someone then inserts an un-ref'd sentence in between "your" two sentences, there is no way for a reader or editor to know -- just looking at the refs, whether the end-of-para ref supports sentence 1, new sentence 2, or neither. Surely, if this is not intuitive, you recall it being explained to you in the past.

As has further been explained to you, over time paras as they become larger are split, as has already happened in this article. But referencing the sentences properly, you avoid the confusion that would otherwise attend the splitting of a para, that would lead to the first half (and new para) being bereft of refs. Surely, this is intuitive.

In addition, as has been explained to you, sentences that contain quotes should definitely be ref'd.

Furthermore, where refs are absent, and requested, you should not remove the cite requested tag without providing a ref. Which is what you have done.

Your hostility in your edit summary is unbecoming an admin, a violation of wp:civil, and a violation of wp:admin (and please consider this a warning for both). Kindly work at improving the article so that readers can know what material is referenced, and what is not, rather than engage in edit warring and incivility.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As has been explained already, the standard is to put citations at the end of multiple sentences or paragraphs - FA articles must do this. The goal here is to get the article to FA quality, not disqualify it by inappropriately citing every sentence and thereby dooming the candidacy. If you split a paragraph, then duplicate the citation. If you need further clarification on this matter, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every step I've taken is to improve the article. I've added pertinent text, added refs, added the spelling of the name that was not reflected, corrected a number of MOS violations, wp:overlink violations, grammar errors, spelling errors, copyedit issues, etc. Your "contribution" has been to assert that you own this article. To threaten me for editing it and improving it. Edit war. And to refuse to add refs to quoted material. And other material. I've done my bit to move this up to GA. You seem to be more inclined to battle, threaten, violate wp:civil, violate wp:admin, and ignore MOS. That's not helpful w/regard to the article.

Wikipedia:Verifiability says: "All quotations and any material challenged ... should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."

And furthermore: "You should always add a citation when quoting published material.... The citation should be placed either directly after the quotation... or after a sentence or phrase that introduces the quotation."

Your failure to do this is abject.

I believe it still needs refs. I've indicated where. You've removed the ref tags. I don't believe that this will qualify for GA until refs have been provided.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly would you know about writing FAs and GAs? I've written 13, how many have you written? The refs you added were from unreliable sources that copied reliable sources, and the various other "errors" you corrected were either trivial or not even errors, and you actually introduced errors as well, so that was a wash. Regarding "ownership", I wrote the article, and you followed me here to harrass me after I tagged a bunch of citations you added to another article with {{page required}}. As for the citations you claim the article needs, everything in this article is indeed "attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" - except the stuff cited solely to the unreliable sources you added, of course. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jay -- your comment is way, way off-base. Completely uncivil. Not appropriate. Not in accord with your wp:admin obligations--yet again. I've written a number; quite possibly more than you. And you, by your edits to this article, seem to be uninformed or unwilling to comply with any number of wikipedia guidelines, grammar books, spelling norms, wp:overlink, wp:mosnum, wp:mos, etc., etc., etc. If you have written 13, you should one would think be more familiar with these policies. I've been picking up after you in this article, cleaning up your mess, and all you have done is respond with vile uncivil "mine is bigger than yours" claims to a blue-blood status due to past submissions that have nothing to do with your failures to agree to follow wiki guidelines here. I'm improving the article. You're turning this into a battleground. That's not the way to improve the article to GA status. I would suggest, if I may, that you park your ego at the door. The reviewer will no doubt look at the facts, not at whether I have more GAs and FAs than you do. As well he/she should. You are focusing on the wrong thing. If it makes you feel better: "Jay is great, he is stupendous, he has used his talents well in improving some number of articles". Now, we have that out of the way. Hopefully, with me having evidenced sufficient fealty to your past accomplishment, you can join me in bettering this article. That's the goal here.

I disagree completely with your characterization -- I clearly corrected all manner of wp violations that were in the article, and added a number of sources. Anyone can look at my edits to see that. But this isn't about taking away your keyboard for poor editing. This is about improving the article.

You say some sources I used were in effect completely accurate that you believe that you saw the same info (though you failed to reflect it in the article) in another more reliable source. Fantastic. If you have refs that you believe are better than those I supplied in certain instances, knock yourself out. Improve away. Unlike you, I'm not taking a "this is my article" approach. That would be non-collaborative of me.

I don't believe I introduced errors. So there was no wash. In any event, if I did, they would be corrected. So net net, there would be a couple of dozen errors correct. That's an improvement. The article was clearly not in accord with MOS when I came to it.

There are editors who just love to criticize. And not contribute. That is certainly not what I've done here. I'm not harassing you. If I were, I would not be improving the article, finding new sources, adding new relevant text, adding the alternative name that you failed to put in the article, etc.

Instead, I've improved this article (about a subject I happen to know a bit about--though that is not a prerequisite), addressing a good number of non-GA errors, of various hues. I'm being constructive. You seem caught in some personality issue that has nothing to do with the article, and everything to do with an inability to improve the article if it reflects (in your mind) badly on you. Don't take it that way. This isn't about Jay. Jay is great. This is about the article.

My point as to the requirement for referencing stands. Let's make it easy -- and start with the quotes. Those clearly need refs within the sentence or at the end of the sentence. I imagine you know that, but I've quoted the relevant language to you in any event. And made the common sense aspect of the issue clear as well. Let's work together to resolve this dispute about the article, and improve it to GA status.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said the sources you used were inaccurate and not reliable; not sure what you're talking about. Also, there is no such requirement for referencing at the end of each sentence, as explained many times. On the contrary, it is discouraged when the references in subsequent sentences are duplicates. Ask knowledgeable people besides me, if you have trouble accepting that from me. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You confuse me. First, I don't believe you are speaking of all the sources I supplied, but only of two. And as to those two, you say they are in exact accord with a third source your view as reliable. Furthermore, I don't know why I can't seem to get you to focus on the need for refs in or at the end of any sentence that has a quote. There is nothing gray about the requirement. I have quoted it to you in the past earlier in this string. I'll do it again here. Wikipedia:Verifiability says: "You should always add a citation when quoting published material.... The citation should be placed either directly after the quotation... or after a sentence or phrase that introduces the quotation." When I quoted this to you before, all you did was talk about how many GAs and FAs you had contributed to. That has nothing to do with the issue. Read the requirement. It's before you, yet again. For you to avoid facing it, and react by bringing an AN/I in retaliation for me pointing it out to you, makes little sense to me. I believe that this may now be the fourth time I am pointing it out to you.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emunah magazine source/Matzav.com

The Emunah magazine website article being used as source is obviously just an abridged version of the Brooklyn Eagle article - compare http://www.brooklyneagle.com/categories/category.php?category_id=31&id=35454 and http://www.brooklyneagle.com/categories/category.php?category_id=31&id=35454 . For example:

Cohn told the Eagle that “the synagogue is where I had my bar mitzvah. I go back there all the time — it reminds me of my dad, who was an assemblyman and was involved in the synagogue. The dinner is a wonderful annual event.”

Even though he said it to the Eagle, the Emunah magazine website copies it verbatim. It's likely a copyright violation too, though that may or may not be our issue. It's also unclear how reliable this website is. In any event, it shouldn't be used to cite any information that's already available in the real source, the Brooklyn Eagle. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Matzav.com's version is more of the same: http://matzav.com/brooklyns-oldest-shul-led-by-rav-yehoshua-fishman-celebrates-141st-birthday . It's identical except for a few words re-written into "Yinglish" (e.g. shul is substituted for "synagogue"). At least it credits the source. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it's not clear to me that the Brooklyn paper (the new version, not the old one) is more of an RS than is Emunah magazine, I've certainly no problem with your either: a) replacing one with the other; or b) reflecting both citations. The important thing is that the text that was added be reflected (I find it odd that it wasn't earlier), and that it be ref'd. As to not crediting a source, that begs the question: a) what the arrangement is between the author and the two publications; and b) what the relationship is between the publications. I would hesitate to accuse an entity of violating the law without knowing more.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Brooklyn Eagle is a printed, daily newspaper that has been around under a different name since 1955, and as the Eagle since 1996. It has a publisher, editors, reporters. Matsav.com, "The Online Voice of Torah Jewry", is a website of unknown ownership, editorship, and provenance. And in this case Matsav.com even uses the phrase "told the Eagle" in its story. It's obviously a copy, and not a particularly good one. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Litigation; Needleman event

There were at least two notable pieces of litigation involving the synagogue that are not mentioned in the article, of more recent vintage than the decades-old mention. If memory serves, one may have involved members of the synagogue bringing action as to missing funds, and another may have involved missing torahs or the like (this was in the past two decades; not the century-old matter). In addition, there was a Needleman event as I recall with the Hasidic community, reflecting the tension alluded to in the article, that took place one tashlich in the 1990s (as he represented non-Jews, let alone non-Hasidim, vying for ever-scarcer housing in the neighborhood, he was a special target for the community which had a tense relationship with the synagogue officers). If anyone can find RS discussion of these (I'm fairly certain there is Lexis material, but that is not sufficient), those would be helpful adds.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formatnum

I would suggest that the following more precise formatnum be used for inflation-adjusted parens, if this is to be GA-level: (${{formatnum:{{Inflation|US|100000|1900|r=0}}}} in current dollar terms) . --Epeefleche (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That level of precision is inappropriate, since the inflation function is only approximate anyway. It gives a false precision. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that you say that. An economist was in touch with me about it, and thought it was the best we have. What evidence do you have for your position?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What an odd thing to say. If we say that a house that cost $6,500 in 1904 would now cost approximately $157,000 (due to inflation), it's falsely precise to say it would actually cost $157,118. Inflation figures are an estimate for a basket of goods over the entire United States, not a science that measures exact increases in house costs in specific neighborhoods in Brooklyn. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are correct that it has nothing to do with house costs in specific neighborhoods. It is a measure of the value of money in the U.S. over time. Not of any specific market, in a smaller geographic area. Nor is anyone saying it is.

Let me try to explain this another way. If we were to look for the average temperature in Central Park over the past 100 years at noon on January 1, we could calculate that to various degrees of accuracy. We could say, for example it averaged 10 degrees, or 12 degrees, or 12.4 degrees. But we don't say, it's falsely precise to say 12 degrees, so let's say 10 degrees. If your data give you sufficiently detailed information, why then its appropriate to reflect that.

Again -- we are not saying what the house would cost. We are saying what the value of the money would be, across the country, accounting for country-wide inflation. And those are figures we have. Inflation is typically measured for the U.S., not for a smaller area such as Brooklyn.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to look at average temperatures in Central Park on January 1 over the past 100 years, the analogous situation would be to say it averaged 12.415347 degrees (the exact average), or it averaged 12.4 degrees. The latter is preferred, since the former implies a false precision to the measurements that doesn't exist in reality, but is rather just a mathematical artifact. We're not saying the price of the house today would be $200,000, but $157,000. Accuracy to three places is reasonable. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]