Jump to content

Talk:Tree of Life – Or L'Simcha Congregation

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

Leadership

[edit]

Any reason why a range of years is missing, in an otherwise compete list? Namely, 2006 to 2010. Is the info not available? Or is this a typo? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe reading somewhere that there was a series of fill-in rabbis after Berkun left, until the merger of the two synagogues was completed in 2010 with Diamond, who founded Or L'Simcha. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that's what I read too. Similarly, the first rabbi didn't start until 1898, even though they had a building from 1883. Yoninah (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added some more sourced text to eliminate the confusion. Yoninah (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 October 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 13:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tree of Life – Or L'Simcha Congregation → Tree of Life * Or L'Simcha Congregation – It might seem intuitively obvious that the two parts of the name, "Tree of Life" and "Or L'Simcha", would be separated by some kind of dash. But if you look at the congregation's web site you will find that they use a star instead of a dash to separate the parts of the name. This is deliberate. As a result, this page should probably be re-named. 128.237.253.77 (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. The single use of the hyphen in the logo seems outweighed by the repeated use of the asterisk on multiple web pages, plus the name on the side of the building (pictures are readily available online). Somebody paid for the side of the building to display a star. 2. The "title special characters" article you cite contains a list of characters. I do not see the asterisk character on that list. At present the page for the shooting incident is using a dash in text because the name of this page (a link) contains a dash. 128.237.253.77 (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're misunderstanding the use and appropriateness of a symbol/stylization like this on a website, building, or in printed material vs. in the title of an enyclopedia article. By the way, the symbol is an asterisk, not a star. Can you please provide the names of a few articles that use an asterisk in the title? Finally, you claimed that their use of the symbol is deliberate. If that's the case, then can you surmise why a hyphen/dash is used in their official logo? Do you think that's deliberate, too? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Content about lawsuit against mohel who performed bris

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This content has absolutely no business being in this article. First, Tree of Life had no involvement whatsoever in the incident other than being the location that was rented for the ceremony by the family who hired the mohel, who was a private contractor and not an employee of the synagogue. He was a visitor. Second, even if he had been directly associated with the synagogue, he is a non-notable person and the matter never even got close to a conviction. So on that alone, the content violates WP:BLPCRIME. Finally, the content doesn't even meet the standard of being enyclopedically noteworthy. There was a lawsuit. Period. Nothing more. If this guy was notable, then go ahead and insert it into his article and see what happens, but including it in the article of the place he happened to spend an hour one day to provide his services as a paid contractor is completely non-sensical and violates multiple guidelines and our responsibilities as editors to protect this project. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The content is UNDUE and should be removed. Yoninah (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't belong, for reasons stated above. It sounds like something the neo-Nazi troll would post, to try to somehow discredit the synagogue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree.
  1. Drawing the "neo-Nazi" card and calling someone troll is a violation of WP:PA.
  2. Facts that happened cannot discredit and a fact is still a fact. A feeling that a fact is discrediting cannot be a criteria to supress the fact from wikipedia. The relevant question is: is it true, did it happend and is it documented?
  3. While it is well documented, that the incident happend there, IP has no documentation that his claims are true. We have to believe.
  4. One cannot say Tree of Life does not have any involvement. Even if the mohel is not a member of a synagogue, the Tree of Life is letting their rooms for circumcisions and therefore of cause is involved.
  5. It cannot violate WP:BLPCRIME as this is not a biography of a living person and only describes documented facts.
  6. There was international media coverage which tied the location to this incident and before the shooting, the incident was a thing the synagogue was broadly known for.
  7. For me it looks like IP simply wants to get rid of this fact, because it is an unpleasent fact. Still it is a fact.Motorpsycho (talk) 11:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the argument that the content is WP:UNDUE, ergo I think we need a better justification for inclusion than "it's a fact, it happened," etc. The rabbi and/or the fact that he got sued certainly isn't notable for encyclopedic purposes (see the article for Pittsburgh area Rabbi Mordechai Rosenberg). The news article in question contains just a single sentence mentioning that it happened at the Tree of Life Synagogue, which allows its congregants to reserve and use space in the building for such ceremonies with any rabbi a family picks for their event (no civil liability there on the facility's part). One can certainly argue that the synagogue has "involvement" in some tangential sense, but not enough in my opinion to warrant inclusion. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Not relevant to the issue at hand.
  2. No, the relevant question is: Does the content belong in an enyclopedia? Also, does the content violate any important policies or guidelines? We do not include content solely because it's a fact. There are an endless number of reliably sourced facts that do not warrant being published in an enyclopedia. This is all part of Wikipedia Editing 101.
  3. The objection to including this content has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the incident happened there. What it does have to do with has been very clearly detailed above.
  4. Can we assume that you are not a lawyer? Reminder: we are editors of an encylopedia.
  5. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. I'll quote directly from the BLP policy page: "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." Again, this is Wikipedia Editing 101.
  6. Putting aside your hyperbole, the type or amount of media coverage is irrelevant. The issue is whether or not the content warrants inclusion in this article. You said, "the incident was a thing the synagogue was broadly known for". A thing? Broadly known for by whom exactly? Feel free to explain that statement and provide some reliable sources to verify what you're talking about.
  7. It looks like more than just "IP" wants to "get rid of" it. How about the non-IPs here who also say it doesn't belong? A quick glance of their editing history shows that all of them are extremely experienced editors who have extensively contributed to this project from between 11 and 13 years, and two of them are among the most active Wikipedians of all time (numbers 429 and 703). And here's yours. So what is their motive? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I said it sounds like something the neo-Nazi troll would post. Which it does. As to it being a fact, that alone is not a ticket for inclusion in an article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Motorpsycho has only 6 edits so far, over the course of close to 2 years, all on the subject of circumcision. So it might not be the neo-Nazi troll after all - it could be the anti-circumcision cabal on Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Motorpsycho: I apologize, I should have commented sooner. User:Baseball Bugs never hesitates to slime other editors and try to make them feel bad for participating here; every day he spends on Wikipedia, we are worse off for it. There is no reason why a starting editor can't make three edits one day about an article that describes circumcision, and a redirect about it, and then make three other edits about some other issue coincidentally related. Indeed, there is no reason why he can't make a thousand edits about risks of circumcision, so long as he edits neutrally rather than trying to twist articles contrary to what a fair reading of the published data would say about the topic.
I found the story of the injury interesting (to be honest, I was hoping I'd run across an anatomical explanation of what happened, but never did). Also, I wasn't sure if the publicity generated had caused this particular synagogue to top out the Google search results or otherwise get on the shooter's radar. This story even made Haaretz (I wonder if they're neo-Nazi trolls?). That said, User:AzureCitizen's argument sounded at least plausible - I had, to be honest, assumed that someone doing a bris would be directly associated with a synagogue. On the other hand, does that mean that the mass shooting, which occurred at a bris ceremony, is also not relevant to the synagogue??? I don't see why one could be relevant and the other not. Wnt (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The synagogue was specifically targeted to carry out a hate crime. Note that the article didn't even exist until after that shooting occurred. To then use the new article to try to push an anti-circumcision agenda is not appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wnt... You said, "On the other hand, does that mean that the mass shooting, which occurred at a bris ceremony, is also not relevant to the synagogue??? I don't see why one could be relevant and the other not." Wow, seriously? If you don't understand the glaring difference, then no one can explain it to you. Oh, wait, Baseball Bugs already did. Not that he needed to, though, since it's as obvious as the nose on your face. And, sorry, but your claim that you didn't know the mohel wasn't directly associated with the synagogue ("That said, User:AzureCitizen's argument sounded at least plausible - I had, to be honest, assumed that someone doing a bris would be directly associated with a synagogue") is complete rubbish. I made it very clear in this edit summary on October 29 when I removed the content ("This story is solely about the individual, who is not an employee of the synagogue. He was privately hired to perform his services and this was the venue. Do not restore this."). You then responded by reverting me and writing this edit summary ("I'm not going to heed a "do not restore" by someone who doesn't use talk pages. This was notable."). I then said it again on November 1 in this edit summary ("He wasn't an employee there and performed brises whereever a family who hired him rented space for the ceremony.") So stop with the BS that you didn't know or weren't told the mohel wasn't directly associated with Tree of Life until AzureCitizen said so in this discussion, because that wasn't posted until November 2. One final note with regard to you saying "This was notable"... you are misunderstanding the difference between notability and noteworthiness. Content cannot be notable or not notable. Only subjects of articles (topics) are. Content is either noteworthy or not noteworthy. Read our notability guidlines (WP:N) and, in particular, the section titled "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article" (WP:NNC). 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, I still don't see what the difference is; and I don't necessarily take the word of an IP editor who reverts me without talk page comment vs. when someone else seems to corroborate; and while I know the difference between "notable" and "not a fringe view" I find that very few Wikipedia editors do, and since this content passes even the more stringent standard of notability I thought that worth remarking. Wnt (talk) 08:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, you lied. Thanks for confirming. And, no, you still don't undertstand the difference between notability and noteworthiness, as you've just proven again. And if you "still don't see what the difference is" in terms of relevance, then perhaps instead of attacking Baseball Bugs you should try learning from him. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am getting real tired of being accused of crap every time I write a couple of factual sentences. There was a time when Wikipedia was more about collecting information than making sure that every detail is subordinate to giving the desired impression (good or bad) about the given entity. Wnt (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you keep "being accused of crap" because not only are you misunderstanding some of the very basics of editing here, but you also refuse to listen and learn from people who know what they're talking about. You refer to writing "factual sentences" and talk about "a time when Wikipedia was more about collecting information". Comments like that prove that you are completely missing the point of this project. We do not add content to articles solely because it's factual, nor is our purpose to collect information! We are here to write an enyclopedia. There are policies, guidelines, protocols, and other factors we must take into consideration before injecting content into an article, particularly when it's likely to be contentious and especially when it can be harmful to the reputation of a living person or going entity. That does not mean we do not include very negative content about someone or something in articles. It simply means that we have to make sure it belongs, based on all the aforementioned factors. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 10:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt needs to read Wikipedia:Coatrack articles. If this synagogue had a long history of circumcision problems, and it was above and beyond the normal, he might have something. But the inclusion of this single incident and pretending it's some kind of defining fact about the 150-year-old synagogue qualifies as coatracking. Now, if Wnt wants to write an article about circumcision suits, he could do so. But putting it in the synagogue article is undue weight and coatracking. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is clearly WP:UNDUE. It's a party rental in the basement.--Pharos (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unproductive discussion by a WP:SOCK. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the way to resolve this is to examine the weight of sources we have for this information. If one of the sources specifies the mohel didn't work for the synagogue and was merely renting the space, then a source could be cited to explain that. For those objecting to inclusion: how many sources would be needed to convince you to include it? Ash Carol (talk) 05:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ash Carol: WP:UNDUE is not about the weight of the sources, but the significance of the event in light of the whole subject. If the whole article is about a synagogue and a special section is marked out about a single incident by a mohel who was not related to the synagogue, that is undue. If the synagogue had an on-staff mohel who was taken to court, that is not undue. Yoninah (talk) 11:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How does one assess the significance of an event aside from weight of sources? I think how widely this was covered in respect to TOL is more important than whether or not TOL directly employed the mohel or simply rented space to him. Hypothetically, if donald Trump had rented an apartment to someone who turned out to be a serial killer and the media covered it en masse, you know we would be mentioning that regardless of whether or not he was being paid a salary for Trump to perform a job. Ash Carol (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article didn't even exist until after the shooting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be arguing that the only events notable for a location are ones which happened after an article is created. By that logic we shouldn't discuss the shooting either, or the founding of TOLOLS, since these also happened prior to the publication of the article. I believe there is an inherent requirement (since articles are based on sources) that they must (at least initially) cite sources published prior to the article's creation, because at that moment in time, no articles can have been published after its creation. Ash Carol (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is beyond obvious that the content is undue, which several editors have already pointed out. This isn't even a close call. And you're trying to throw up a red herring by talking about weighing sources, which you apparently don't understand is irrelevant. The issue is about whether or not the content is noteworthy in relation to the entire subject, which is the synagogue itself. What we have here is a one-off incident involving a visitor (an independent contractor) to the synagogue in which the synagogue had absolutely no involvement other than providing space to the family who hired the guy to perform the ceremony. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Noteworthy in relation to the entire subject" should defer to weight of coverage, not weight of 2605's personal opinions. Not being faulted to an employee of the location doesn't stop us from reporting accidents in sections of location articles like Chappaquiddick_Island#Ted_Kennedy_incident or [[1]] all that matters is how much coverage, to impartially resolve disagreements on importance. Ash Carol (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The botched circumcision is only tangentially related to the topic of this article and doesn't warrant inclusion. Bus stop (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The degree of relationship would be established by how many sources reported on the event in connection to the place it happened. How much is that? Ash Carol (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tree_of_Life_–_Or_L%27Simcha_Congregation&oldid=1208136667"