Talk:Jonathan Green (photographer)

Referencing miscellany
The lead of an article normally doesn't make assertions that aren't also made below the lead; and if it doesn't, then the lead needs no referencing. Let's look at the first pair of references that follow the lead. We're told:


 * Jonathan Green was born to Jewish parents in Troy, New York, where his father held his first rabbinical pulpit. His father, Rabbi Alan. S. Green was a prominent reform rabbi active in the reform leadership organization, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, known for his contributions to the reform movement’s liturgy, and for his popularization of rabbinical thought in such books as Sex, God, and the Sabbath, The Mystery of Jewish Marriage.

(Incidentally, ASIN is a proprietary system. Please use ISBNs for books that have them, and for other books please use OCLC numbers.)

This of course includes what at first appear to be two references. The first is the top page of a website. My browser couldn't find a single use of the string "Green" anywhere in the page. The second is a book by Alan S. Green. I cannot believe that the book is reliable evidence for a claim that it, and its author's other books, popularized anything.

Simply, these are not references. They're instead parenthetical/explanatory footnotes that point the interested reader towards further reading. And the section effectively remains unreferenced. It needs genuine references. (If the existing footnotes merit retention, I think they'd better be in a separate group, though plenty of experienced editors would disagree.)

The next section has two references. One is surprisingly long. It starts:


 * Biographical Data on Jonathan Green as of 1978, from American Images: New Work by Twenty Contemporary Photographers, Edited by Renato Danese, p. 139  ISBN 0-07-015295-0

In the "source" (and only there), at this point there's a paragraph break. I infer that what follows is intended as a block quotation. Without looking in the source, readers will just be confused. Here's how I'd present this:



-- Hoary (talk) 08:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hoary, Your comment regarding the photograph is correct: there is a relationship between the writer of this draft and its subject. I understand that this should have been made clear and I will use the COI announcement template or a protocol you suggest to make this evident. I now also understand that the COI statement should also have been used on pages I edited. I should have disclosed my COI in my edit of the Arnie Zane article where I corrected an error in the name of the critic, changing "Jeffrey Green" to "Jonathan Green," the person who actually wrote the referenced statement. In the Arnie Zane article I also added under Further Reading a reference to Jonathan Green's book "Continuous Replay", the source of the citation. You should also know that I am not being paid for this work nor have I consulted or used any Wikipedia advisory or promotion service.
 * In writing the article about Jonathan Green, while I understood that Wikipedia's general policy is to avoid Conflict of Interest, I followed the Wikipedia directive from the Conflict of Interest page that states: "You should generally refrain from creating articles about yourself, or anyone you know, living or dead, unless through the Articles for Creation process." I created this article with that understanding knowing the draft would indeed be submitted through the Articles of Creation process which would be informed by careful reviews and suggestions. Your comments are very useful and perhaps input of other reviewers would also help mold my subject matter expertise and style into a neutral and verifiable presentation which would reflect Wikipedia community consensus.
 * Special thanks Hoary for your specific comments in "Referencing miscellany." These are precisely the type of comments and corrections I need. You are right that the reference to Central Conference of American Rabbis is unclear and the link to Rabbi Green is almost impossible to find there. Much more useful to the reader is a link to Rabbi Green's archive at Hebrew Union College, American Jewish Archives. I have now removed the CCAR link and reference and added the American Jewish Archives. Here the breadth of the listings is also a greater indication of Rabbi Green's role in popularizing rabbinical thought, something that can also be seen by goggling Rabbi Alan S. Green or the book itself. I also followed your recommendation and now list the book by OCLC number.
 * As to your second recommendation for the citation related to early biographical data, I reformatted it as you suggest and certainly agree that this is much better, cleaner, and clearer! I hope we can proceed with further review and refinement. I do appreciate your expertise and support. IBalancedAll (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Special thanks Hoary for your specific comments in "Referencing miscellany." These are precisely the type of comments and corrections I need. You are right that the reference to Central Conference of American Rabbis is unclear and the link to Rabbi Green is almost impossible to find there. Much more useful to the reader is a link to Rabbi Green's archive at Hebrew Union College, American Jewish Archives. I have now removed the CCAR link and reference and added the American Jewish Archives. Here the breadth of the listings is also a greater indication of Rabbi Green's role in popularizing rabbinical thought, something that can also be seen by goggling Rabbi Alan S. Green or the book itself. I also followed your recommendation and now list the book by OCLC number.
 * As to your second recommendation for the citation related to early biographical data, I reformatted it as you suggest and certainly agree that this is much better, cleaner, and clearer! I hope we can proceed with further review and refinement. I do appreciate your expertise and support. IBalancedAll (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As to your second recommendation for the citation related to early biographical data, I reformatted it as you suggest and certainly agree that this is much better, cleaner, and clearer! I hope we can proceed with further review and refinement. I do appreciate your expertise and support. IBalancedAll (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)