Talk:Congregation Beth Israel (Berkeley, California)

Artie2's edits
has been adding a series of edits to the article which are generally unhelpful. The most recent example is this. As is obvious, the changes generally either take more words to say the exact same thing, or include claims that are unsourced. For example, let's look at the first paragraph (changes highlighted): In the first paragraph the additional words add nothing to the understanding except more laborious writing. Since the subject of the paragraph is Beth Israel, there is no reason to add "the congregation" instead of "it". "Lay-led" means "led by lay-members" - the definition of laity is a member of a religious organization who is not clergy.

In the second paragraph: As is obvious, these changes are completely unhelpful; they add unnecessary words, detract from the writing, and add unsourced claims. The rest of the changes are more of the same. While I have tried to incorporate anything helpful Artie2 has done, it is clear that the bulk of these changes detract from the article. Artie2, can you please discuss proposed changes here first, and get agreement, before editing the article? Jayjg (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * the word "fundraising" is added. What other kind of campaign does the reader imagine it to be? A blood-drive? Weight-loss? Political?
 * the word "located" is added. What on earth could "in Poland" mean, besides "located in Poland"? "not in Poland"? This word adds nothing!
 * the phrase "during the height of the Holocaust" is added. To begin with, this is an article about Beth Israel, not the Przedbórz Synagogue or the Holocaust, so why burden the lead with this detail that is not relevant to this article? In addition, what makes 1942 the "height of the Holocaust"? I would have thought 1944 was the height of the Holocaust, when the death camps were in full operation, and the Jewish population of Hungary liquidated.
 * the phrase "at the very beginning of the 21st Century" is added. Aside from the fact that the claim is unsourced, what information does this impart? The campaign was begun in 1999, the building was completed in 2005. Of course whatever happened in between was "at the very beginning of the 21st Century"!
 * "completed" is changed to "witnessed the completion". What does that passively-voiced phrase add or mean? Was the congregation merely a witness to a process that was entirely out of its hands? Or did it actually complete the structure?
 * "than was originally proposed" is added. What information does that impart? What would the reader otherwise imagine it was more modest than? New York's Temple Emanu-El? St. Peter's Basilica in Rome?
 * "As of 2010, the rabbi was" is changed to "Since 2006, the congregation's Head Rabbi". This seems to be helpful. However, the change is entirely unsourced! The citation in question does not state when Cohen became rabbi, nor does it state that he is the "Head Rabbi".

Hello, I am Artie2, a relative newbie to Wikipedia editing, and I am more familiar with the Congregation Beth Israel East SF Bay Jewish Community than are many of you outsider editors, whether in Toronto (CAN), the New York City Area (US), or other locales. I've had some of of my initial attempts to edit this particular Wikipedia reverted, as per the below. Based upon some of the admittedly-feeble self-defense efforts of my responses here, I hope that perhaps continued efforts to revert my contributions by master editor [Jayjg|Jayjg] will be carried out more carefully. Thank you in advance for your consideration.
 * Artie2's response

''In the first paragraph the additional words add nothing to the understanding except more laborious writing. Since the subject of the paragraph is Beth Israel, there is no reason to add "the congregation" instead of "it". "Lay-led" means "led by lay-members" - the definition of laity is a member of a religious organization who is not clergy.''

Response: Actually, the few additional words are grammatically correct and do add a small but noticeable degree of clarity to the writing. The unattached "it" does seem a bit unclear in this sentence and "the congregation" (one extra word) helps to clarify this the sentence's subject. I am admittedly guilty on one aspect of "lay-led" vs "lay-members"......my confusion concerning the laity's point-of-reference. Better to have written a much clearer "Led by lay-members of the San Francisco East Bay Jewish Community," You readers should find this correction soon enough.

In the second paragraph: ''*the word "fundraising" is added. What other kind of campaign does the reader imagine it to be? A blood-drive? Weight-loss? Political?''

Response: Sarcasm aside and as it so happens, a widely-prevalent type of campaign is the Political Campaign. As the Political Campaign Wikipedia describes at the | Political campaign Wikipedia "Politics is as old as humankind and is not limited to democratic or governmental institutions." Therefore, my use of the one extra word "fundraising" minimally encumbers the reader while best clarifying the precise nature of Congregation Beth Israel of Berkeley's campaign.

''*the word "located" is added. What on earth could "in Poland" mean, besides "located in Poland"? "not in Poland"? This word adds nothing!''

Response: The use of "located" in Poland adds little, except to perhaps better clarify that the original synagogue itself was destroyed by the Nazis rather than the ridiculously-seeming entire country of Poland! (as incredible as it sounds, we have ALL seen how such confusions arise). I favor this wording "In 1999 the congregation began an $8 million fundraising campaign to build a new synagogue. This new synagogue was intended as a replica of the Przedbórz Synagogue in Poland; the Nazis destroyed the original Przedbórz Synagogue in 1942 during the Holocaust." ''*the phrase "during the height of the Holocaust" is added. To begin with, this is an article about Beth Israel, not the Przedbórz Synagogue or the Holocaust, so why burden the lead with this detail that is not relevant to this article? In addition, what makes 1942 the "height of the Holocaust"? I would have thought 1944 was the height of the Holocaust, when the death camps were in full operation, and the Jewish population of Hungary liquidated.''

Response: While the subject can be heatedly debated back and forth concerning the actual year that "the height" of the Holocaust really occurred, I feel that mentioning the Holocaust is most certainly relevant to this piece about Congregation Beth Israel. You readers will kindly note this referenced citation on | becoming more observant: In our country, Kristol asserts, "Ever since the Holocaust and the emergence of the state of Israel, American Jews have been reaching toward a more explicit and meaningful Jewish identity". This quote happens to be cited from a source within the Congregation_Beth_Israel_(Berkeley,_California) Wikipedia's Post World-War II growth.

''*the phrase "at the very beginning of the 21st Century" is added. Aside from the fact that the claim is unsourced, what information does this impart? The campaign was begun in 1999, the building was completed in 2005. Of course whatever happened in between was "at the very beginning of the 21st Century"!''

Response: Yes, I would agree that little extra information is provided by this. At the same time, I am at a loss how to best express this section's timeline from the new building proposal in 1999 through the economic situation that affected the change in plan occurring at very beginning years of this 21st Century.

''*"completed" is changed to "witnessed the completion". What does that passively-voiced phrase add or mean? Was the congregation merely a witness to a process that was entirely out of its hands? Or did it actually complete the structure?''

Response:The phrase "witnessed the completion" is very much appropriate here. It imparts a distinct sense of accomplishment; the significant achievement of having a more elegant and spacious physical place of worship. I would assert the fairly obvious fact that that a congregation or organization at-large cannot physically "complete" a structure such as this synagogue; only a builder or building-contractor can physically complete such a task. Keep "witnessed the completion" in this.

''*"than was originally proposed" is added. What information does that impart? What would the reader otherwise imagine it was more modest than? New York's Temple Emanu-El? St. Peter's Basilica in Rome? ''

Response: Sarcasm aside, even Jayjg has kept intact the sentence's wording "In 1999 the congregation began an $8 million campaign to build a new synagogue, a replica of the Przedbórz Synagogue" Other readers and I see from this quote that the original proposal of year 1999 was indeed to build a replica of the Przedbórz Synagogue. Therefore, my four extra words here help clarify the more modest building that was actually built in its stead.

''*"As of 2010, the rabbi was" is changed to "Since 2006, the congregation's Head Rabbi". This seems to be helpful. However, the change is entirely unsourced! The citation in question does not state when Cohen became rabbi, nor does it state that he is the "Head Rabbi".''

Response: It's all well and good that the proposed change "seems" to be helpful. I would strike out the first mention in the frist introductory paragraph.

Again note that I actually live in the nearby vicinity of Congregation Beth Israel (Berkeley). I therefore probably have a better idea than an outsider such as Jayjg to assert that Max Davis is the Assistant Rabbi, and it naturally follows from this that Cohen is indeed the Head Rabbi.

As a related aside, I notice that Jayjg deleted my additions to the Jewish learning institutions granting rabbinic ordination to these and other Congregation Beth Israel (Berkeley) rabbis. My additions were essentially 1) "the more mainstream" for Modern Orthodox | Yeshiva University 2) "the more liberal" for "Modern Open Orthodox" | Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Two references further cited in this latter Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Wikipedia article are | Opening Up Orthodox Judaism and | Between A Rav And A Hard Place I would hope that after you readers review the contents of these last two cited sources, you will at least understand the justification for my subsequent uses of "mainstream" and "liberal".

''Jayjg :As is obvious, these changes are completely unhelpful; they add unnecessary words, detract from the writing, and add unsourced claims. The rest of the changes are more of the same. While I have tried to incorporate anything helpful Artie2 has done, it is clear that the bulk of these changes detract from the article. Artie2, can you please discuss proposed changes here first, and get agreement, before editing the article? Jayjg (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)''

Response: Hopefully, you readers will more clearly see from my admittedly-feeble responses on my behalf that the bulk of these changes do visibly improve this article and are thus decidedly not "completely unhelpful". All in all, I (a Wikipedia newbie contributor) get the overall sense from the above that I am subject to a number of accusations, heavy-handedness and a generally uncooperative attitude. I beg to differ from Jayjg's claims here. I perceive as do others that Jayjg has only halfheartedly incorporated my contributions up to the present. Again, as I live locally among the East SF Bay Jewish Community, I am intimately more familiar with Congregation Beth Israel of Berkeley than is an outsider such as Jayjg. Up to here, all of my response are addressed more generally to you readers in the Third Person.

Artie2, can you please discuss proposed changes here first, and get agreement, before editing the article?

Response to Jayjg: Dear Jayjg I will most definitely keep your and others' suggestions in mind. Please consider doing the same :-) Thank you. Artie2 (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Artie2,
 * To begin with, never modify another editor's comments. If you with to comment on things I've written, you can copy the text and comment below my comments. I've cleaned this up for you this time, but please don't do it again.
 * Now, I've gone through your responses, and tried to incorporate the best suggested changes into the article; for example, I've reworded the material regarding the Przedbórz Synagogue to make it clear that it was the Przedbórz Synagogue that was destroyed, while avoiding the overly-wordy language you had inserted. I've also mentioned the Holocaust in the lead. Unfortunately, however, the vast majority of your proposed changes still suffered from many flaws. In particular, they still included large of verbiage that did little to clarify (and often did the opposite), or included claims that were unsourced. For example:
 * You again replaced the word "it" with "the congregation" in the third sentence of the first paragraph. This is a very short paragraph, and people are not going to lose track of the subject of the paragraph (and indeed, the entire article) by the third sentence. In addition, the fourth sentence starts with "In 1999 the congregation...". You can't have the words repeated in two successive sentences, it's just bad writing.
 * You insist that Cohen be referred to as the "Head Rabbi" and Davis as "Assistant Rabbi", because you "actually live in the nearby vicinity of Congregation Beth Israel (Berkeley)". Unfortunately, however, nowhere on the congregation's website does it refer to Cohen as the "Head Rabbi", and, to be honest, it doesn't even mention Max Davis. The only source we have for Davis refers to him as a "Rabbinic Educator". Two critical policies of Wikipedia are WP:V and WP:NOR. The first says that material included in a Wikipedia article must be properly cited; the second notes that editors cannot invent or synthesize material based on our own interpretations. Your insertions consistently violate these fundamental policies, as did your earlier insertions about various rumors regarding Cohen possibly going to Israel. Please review these policies carefully.
 * You insist on the wordy, passive "witnessed the completion", rather than the direct "completed", because you assert the fairly obvious fact that that a congregation or organization at-large cannot physically "complete" a structure such as this synagogue; only a builder or building-contractor can physically complete such a task. This, however, is a false dichotomy, that an organization can only "complete" something if it "physically" does so. One reads every day about an organization building a new plant, purchasing a building, opening a store, reporting results, etc. Organizations do these things all the time, and passively worded phrases such as "witnessed the opening of a new store" are never used, for obvious reasons.
 * You insist on the following changes:
 * {|Valign="top"

!Original !Artie2's version
 * In the 1950s and 1960s Beth Israel benefited from an influx of students and faculty from University of California, Berkeley. Many of the graduate students had grown up in Orthodox homes, and many of the faculty were becoming more observant. These new members organized Shabbat services, and "pressed for the hiring of a rabbi". In 1963 Beth Israel decided to hire its first rabbi, an Orthodox one, and chose Saul Berman, who had been ordained by the Modern Orthodox Yeshiva University.
 * In the 1950s and 1960s Beth Israel benefited from an influx of students and faculty from University of California, Berkeley. Many of the graduate students had grown up in Orthodox homes, and many of the faculty were becoming more observant. These new members organized Shabbat services, and "pressed for the hiring of a rabbi". In 1963 Beth Israel decided to hire its first rabbi, an Orthodox one, and chose Saul Berman, who had been ordained by the more mainstream Modern Orthodox institution, Yeshiva University.
 * }
 * Again we run into the same issues as above. To begin with, the source nowhere says that Yeshiva University is "more mainstream"; therefore, the insertion is a violation of our WP:V and WP:NOR policies. In addition, the question the reader immediately asks is "more mainstream than what"? And for this, of course, there is no answer. We have not yet introduced anything in the article for it to be "more mainstream" than! We can't possibly mean "more mainstream" than the Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, a Yeshiva that has not yet been mentioned in the article, and did not even exist in 1963 (it was founded over 35 years later)! One of the reasons we have links in articles is for the reader to click on them and find out more about the topics, if they so desire; we don't need to preface every mention of them with often inappropriate descriptors or qualifiers. In addition, the word "institution" adds nothing; what else did we imagine Yeshiva University might be - a naval ship? A brand of detergent?
 * In general, going through the other proposed changes, they are more of the same; writing that uses fifteen words to say something already stated more clearly in five, repetition of phrases or wording that dulls the reading experience, writing that makes a point of no value to the reader or makes a point that is out of place in context, and writing that violates our fundamental content policies including WP:NOR and WP:V. And it's unfair to me to expect me to have to highlight every single change on this Talk: page, and explain what is wrong with it; that's incredibly time consuming. It takes you 1 second to make the change, and me 10 minutes to explain the problem with it!
 * Artie2, I've been editing Wikipedia for almost 6 years, and have made close to 80,000 edits. I've written many, many articles on synagogues, including this one. I've written Wikipedia's only Featured Articles on synagogues, Congregation Baith Israel Anshei Emes, Congregation Beth Elohim (Brooklyn, New York), Beth Hamedrash Hagadol (Manhattan, New York), and First Roumanian-American congregation. I've also written Wikipedia's only Good Articles on synagogues. I know how to write a good synagogue article. Please accept the fact that I am highly experienced, and good at doing this. Please work with me, by making suggestions here on the talk page, rather than directly to the article. Jayjg (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Artie2, I've been editing Wikipedia for almost 6 years, and have made close to 80,000 edits. I've written many, many articles on synagogues, including this one. I've written Wikipedia's only Featured Articles on synagogues, Congregation Baith Israel Anshei Emes, Congregation Beth Elohim (Brooklyn, New York), Beth Hamedrash Hagadol (Manhattan, New York), and First Roumanian-American congregation. I've also written Wikipedia's only Good Articles on synagogues. I know how to write a good synagogue article. Please accept the fact that I am highly experienced, and good at doing this. Please work with me, by making suggestions here on the talk page, rather than directly to the article. Jayjg (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Congregation Beth Israel (Berkeley, California). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.jewishledger.com/articles/2010/08/11/west_mass/news/news07.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090912211957/http://www.magnes.org/wjhc/finding-b.htm to http://www.magnes.org/wjhc/finding-b.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100221044509/http://www.magnes.org/wjhc/finding-n.htm to http://www.magnes.org/wjhc/finding-n.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)