Talk:Oorah (organization)

Judaism Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

New Jersey Low‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

"warbling voice" -- I deleted that section which is judgemental and has no basis in fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.19.148.90 (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitic

64.19.148.90, I explained in my edit summary why I reverted your edits but you reverted back, so you should provide an explanation -- Please explain why describing ripoffreport.com as an "antisemitic hate group" is a NPOV. Jms2000 (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jms2000 - Are you a member of some group that sees Oorah as a competitor? Or is your obsession with besmirching this fine organization something more odious? The way you monitor Oorah and post repetitively about them makes one question *your* neutrality. I have watched this oganization's work--as well as the work of some other fine kiruv groups--for many years and it is clear why they are being targetted now and who is targetting them. Please discuss your actions with a Rav before you proceed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.19.148.90 (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it, as it clearly doesn't belong without at least a reliable source. --NE2 15:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The citation to ripoffreports.com has no value as a reference here

Our own article on Ripoff Report makes clear that anyone can submit an article to that site, and the reports are published without the contributor's name. So saying that Oorah is a 'hareidi missionary organization' and has 'questionable business practices' (though both may conceivably be true) is just the personal opinion of one internet poster from Kentucky who signs herself as 'astar4u.' The only reliable content in that Ripoff Report entry is some text from a St Louis Post-Dispatch article that is quoted in the post. So here's my proposed change in the article:

IS NOW:

Joy For Our Youth, a subsidiary of Oorah, has been labeled a "hareidi missionary organization"[11] that uses deceptive adveritising. Quoting an article by Bill Smith in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, RipoffReports.com criticized Kars 4 Kids, Joy For Our Youth and Oorah for their "questionable business practices."

SHOULD BE:

An article by Bill Smith in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reviewed the business practices of Joy For Our Youth and Oorah based on the findings of the Better Business Bureau.

EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it; I was simply removing the garbage about antisemitism. --NE2 16:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

I have removed most of the section on Programs; Wikipedia is not a directory, nor is it the place to advertise. The controversy section was mostly about Kars4Kids and is already covered in that article. So I took that out. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

rewrite?

An article of relatively long standing (since 2008) with so many contributors and enough monitoring to with little delay remove a sourcing/citation to YouTube suddenly tagged by a one-time editor of this article as in need of a rewrite? The hatnote, sitting there for nearly a year, has been overlooked. Before removing it, I'm doing my part by adding a NYTimes citation. Nuts240 (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]