Talk:Sharsheret (organization)

I'm a former Sharsheret summer intern, and the powers that be @ Sharsheret have allowed me to use content directly from the Sharsheret website in order to improve the Sharsheret wiki-page. I know the page still needs a large amount of work, and I am doing my best to work on the page. Please be patient, as I can only dedicate time to wiki during the lulls between medical school exams.AZDub (talk) 13:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Editing page
Dear Wikipedians,

I am in the process of completing extensive research on this organization. Specifically, I am working to improve the page by editing its existing content and adding more information. As a sister of the AEPHi Sorority, I am well connected to this organization and would like to improve the page for future reference.

JessWeiss (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is clear based on your comments that you have a WP:COI, therefore I have reverted these changes. - 38.109.119.254 (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * , yes, does disclose a loose affiliation but you've taken the page back to a pretty broken state; there's certainly more work to be done on those edits, but I think it was better than what was there. I believe we can address any non-NPOV content, I've placed the content back at User:JessWeiss/sandbox., was it the first sentence in the Background section that concerned you as not being sufficiently encyclopedic in tone? -Reagle (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Did you guys ever discuss and try to resolve these issues? -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  12:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - it was the first two sentences for the most part. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Was there a conversation with about this that was not here? If so can you please link?
 * As for the COI this user has more than a loose affiliation. If you look at the Sandbox version, they created an entire section based on their sorority. That is a much stronger affiliation, so this user is editing in a way that affects 2 organizations they have affiliations with. - 38.109.119.254 (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think a possible solution for this is for, , and I to review the work in more depth prior to it being posted. , do you have any comments about any specific content that needs to be edited to be more neutral or resolve any potential COI issues? I know that the issue with the sorority COI could be resolved by adding some independent and reliable sources that discuss the sorority's involvement with the organization, as well as looking to see if there are any other major partnerships that should be mentioned in the article. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Here are my biggest issues:
 * Through its work and research efforts, Sharsheret has helped thousands of women and their families by providing a wide array of healthcare resources, financial assistance, communal support and educational programs nationwide reads like an ad
 * With offices in California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey and New York, Sharsheret is able to support women all over the United States You can talk about offices but in a business sense, talking about it like this sounds again like an ad. Do they only do in person work, because the article makes no mention of how multiple offices helps people in different locations and the lead should summarize the article
 * Mission statement - Is this something that belongs on an encyclopedia?
 * Among the first entrepreneurs supported by this program was Rochelle Lee Shoretz, the founder of Sharsheret, whose dedication to this cause provided the foundation for the organization’s success and accomplishments today. Again the wording/tone makes it sound like a puff piece for her
 * The meaning is one sentence, it definitely does not need to have its own subheader. This could be worked into the history section.
 * Webinars has nothing to do with the meaning, why is that there?
 * The entire "Connection to Jewish women" section is just a quote from the website that repeats information already mentioned in the meaning of the name, no need for this twice.
 * Is the "Founder" section really needed? She has her own page and its already linked above. Not sure she is independently notable, so maybe it does belong and that page should link here, but as long as that page exists, this section is not needed.
 * The entire awards section is basically a quote without a source
 * The obvious COI issues
 * Thats the bulk of it - 38.109.119.254 (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you for fixing up the broken version that someone else reverted too. The version in 's sandbox is much improved and will be ported over soon. -Reagle (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)