Talk:MigdalOr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MigdalOr article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Judaism Portal MigdalOr is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Jewish and Biblical Units of Measurement or some such name, to include material of Ancient Hebrew units of measurement but also Talmudic units and use in Halacha (a la the Hebrew Wikipedia article he:מידות ומשקלות תורניים) Collaboration of the week { Cleanup: Jewish mythology - needs to be rewritten to be inline with our other mythology articles. Expand: Yom Ha'atzmaut - quite short for an article of such importance Wikiversity: School of Jewish Studies. Part of the new open content university, Wikiversity. Stubs: Category:Judaism stubs, Category:Tanakh stubs, Category:Synagogue stubs Update: Portal:Judaism is WikiProject Judaism's frequently updated portal. You can help make this the best portal on Wikipedia. Look at the talk page to see how you can help. Template loop detected: Template:WikiProject Judaism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

I have tried to keep this article within NPOV guidelines. I hope people can flesh it out with more references and keep us updated on the political manuverings and controversy surrounding this partnership minyan Chakira (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)chakira

Contents 1 Notability 2 Enough for Notability? 3 Controversy Section 4 Temporary merge or make a new article?

[edit] Notability

Hi! Just a note that the Wikipedia notability criteria (basically the inclusion criteria) generally have a threshold requiring "significant" coverage in "multiple" (at least two) independent reliable sources. Reliable sources don't have to be mainstream press or academics, they can be Jewish press or well-known religious commentators, but they definitely can't include the organization's own website, blogs and personal webpages (except those of well-known scholars and authorities), and similar. Although there have been exceptions, it's been generally accepted that individual congregations are not notable unless they have sources that give them special coverage. Sources that provide minimal coverage or simply describe standard religious activities are also generally not considered acceptable. Right now, the YU commentator article appears mainly on the use of evite and seems to mention MigdalOr largely in passing as an evite user, while the rest of of the on-line sources seem to be blogs and similar. So at least one more independent reliable source seems to be in order. This appears to be the first article on a partnership minyan other than the one on Shira Hadasha. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a pay-access JPOST article which discusses Rachel Berger (one of the founders) and the policies of MigdalOr in regards to the new guide to halakhic egal minyanim.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/jpost/access/1433199031.html?dids=1433199031:1433199031&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Feb+20%2C+2008&author=MICHAL+LANDO&pub=Jerusalem+Post&edition=&startpage=04&desc=First+guide+for+inclusive+prayer+services+is+published.+New+book+outlines+halachic+borders+for+women%27s+participation+in+synagogue+services —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chakira (talk • contribs) 20:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I paid for the article and read it in full, and I assure you, it simply doesn't say this. Rachel Berger gives a brief quote, saying that the Guide is an exciting development but is for discussion and shouldn't be regarded as uniform practice. Her role on the JOFA board and as a founder of a partnership minyan called Migdal Or is briefly mentioned. But the article simply doesn't give MigDal Or any other mention. It doesn't discuss its policies or its views on issues like organizational autonomy (or any issues at all). Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enough for Notability?

I have linked to two jerusalem post articles which unfortunately are pay only. Is this enough to assert notability? I have removed the tags for now, but if you think they should still be there than I will keep looking. --Chakira (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Chakira

The Jerusalem Post article, which was about the Halachic Minyan guide, mentioned a brief quote from Rachel Berger about the guide, and giving background on her, mentioned that she was a founder of MigdalOr. The notability criteria for organizations generally require substantial coverage, that is, all or a signficant part of an article has to be about the organization. However, mention in a major publication is very helpful if there is at least one source with substantial coverage. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy Section

I've deleted a couple of statements including the controversy section. Here's why. I removed the material from blogs, because of a Wikipedia rule that blogs can't be used as sources, especially for criticism. I removed the quotes, because reliable sources are needed for quotes (can't use personal conversations etc.). The thesis that no-one's criticized the organization is basically original research, because no reliable source has said that no-one's criticized the organization. Although the requirement that criticism/controversy sections have to have enhanced sourcing usually works in an organization's favor because it means people can't insert their own negative comments or quote themselves from blogs, it also prevents saying there isn't any controversy without sourcing.

I also removed a few other comments. For example, Rachel Berger was quoted in the Jerusalem Post as saying the Halachic Minyan guide was a discussion, not intended as unifotm practice. Since this was a statement about the guide, concluding that she was was defending MigdalOr's indie minyan status (or saying anything about MigdalOr at all) is a commentary on the statement, it's not what the quoted statement itself is actually saying. Similarly, it's important not to overuse sources, like the New York Times article on Indie minyanim or web sites of other organizations, to support statements about what MigdalOr is doing when these sources that don't actually mention MigdalOr or say anything about it.

My suggestion here would be to read everything as if you never heard of MigdalOr and from a very skeptical point of view, as if this whole article might be a hoax. What do you actually know based on what reliable sources say? I'd suggest sticking with that.

My sense here is that relatively little has been said about MigdalOr in the press. Perhaps the article length should reflect this.

You should also be aware of Wikipedia's conflict of intererst policy, which requires care when organization members write about their own organization. It's important to stick to sources and try to be neutral in tone and content.

It might be better to get one of the New York-area Jewish papers to do a piece on MigdalOr. Once a reliable source says something substantial about it, a lot more can be said in a Wikipedia article. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary merge or make a new article?

Two suggestions We may want to merge this to another article but it isn't obvious to me which one would make sense. Do we want to maybe start a list of Shira Chadasha style minyanim? (We'd have to be more careful about what we called it exactly but we may have enough to do a list in general and it would allow us to include some of the smaller, less notable ones like MigdalOr). JoshuaZ (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that these sources demonstrate notablility.--216.165.95.64 (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)