Talk:Golf Manor Synagogue

Deleted Materials
Please explain how the accusations, gossip, and loshon hara I deleted was based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If you choose not to reply and merely revert, we can take it to a third party. Thank you. Nightkey (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

These documents have come straight from the Golf Manor Synagogue Administrator via the Synagogue e-mail system to all members of the Synagogue. If you need verification, you should contact Golf Manor Synagogue's Seena Rubenstein.

http://www.golfmanorsynagogue.org/home/ContactUs/index.html

The documents are public information as they have been distributed to more than 10 people, and there was never any indication that they should be kept private. Thus, it is no longer bound to confidentiality. The constitution is not gossip. The congregant's letter is a first hand position of why the Rabbi should be kept. The Board's position is a first hand position as to an explanation of their actions.

Both sides have been heard on the matter. And, this matter is important, because it shapes the course of the synagogue from a historical basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgoodkat24 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, these letters containing statements by a board of directors do not meet the standards for inclusion on Wikipedia: Reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. 20:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion. These are primary sources that were issued by the Synagogue Administrator. They are official documents. mgoodkat24 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgoodkat24 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Since you do not like primary sources, this whole entry is problematic, and it needs to be more compliant with Wikipedia rules. I would suggest removing most of what is on here until we can find Wikipedia acceptable/reliable sources. If it needs to be done, I can find a third-party to mediate this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgoodkat24 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of liking or disliking primary sources; Wikipedia has as one of its main guidelines that it should be based mainly on secondary sources. There are also some guidelines regarding the treatment of unsourced material: NOCITE. Unsourced material is not usually simply removed; we normally use templates such as Citation_needed, Template:Refimprove or indeed Template:Primary sources to allow the articles to be improved. Perhaps taking to heart some of the advice from this essay on controversial topics will be useful. -- Nczempin (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

How to tag for better references
User:Mgoodkat24 added this "(This is disputable without a reliable source! Please cite a proper reference.)" to the article. I can see the intention; here are some of the mechanisms already in place for that: There are tags such as, which will do this where you consider a necessary inline citation to be missing entirely. Please see also the documentation for this template. If you want to tag an entire section or article, please use Template:Unreferenced. If there are references, but you want to point out that the source may be considered not to adhere to the reliability standards, have a look at Template:Rs and Template:Refimprove and others linked from there. -- Nczempin (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Another in-article comment is "This is also almost plagiarized word for word.". Please use the methods described in Plagiarism and perhaps Copyright_violations. -- Nczempin (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-NPOV content
The section on Rabbi contains a lot of material that clearly does not adhere to the WP:NPOV principles. For example, "beautiful", "warmth and passion", "regard for his congregants and his vibrant personality was greatly responsible", "firmly established as the major". Normally I would go in and fix these issues by adding tags or removing content, but I am trying to stay on the sidelines, and I hope that you can come to a consensus within the principles of Wikipedia. -- Nczempin (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Conflict(s) of interest?
From watching this dispute, it seems to me that either or both of the participants could be very close to the subject of the article, which could imply a conflict of interest. I strongly urge you to read that page and determine whether it may apply to your (own) situation. -- Nczempin (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Jewish Chronicles
Not sure if it's appropriate to use this as a source, because the editors of these publications tend to be highly political or too close to the events that take place in their locality. Although in this particular case, it may not be an issue since it is another local publication covering a different one. However, it is possible there could always be collusion. Just calling into question the use of these types of sources. 184.59.65.106 (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)