Talk:Spinka financial controversy

message: Encyclopedic tone -
I've reorganized and condensed the lead paragraph (used to be two paragraphs) to be more neutral and encyclopedic in its coverage.  The remainder of the article should also read more like a typical Wikipedia article and less like a summary of the news.  A few things stick out:
* Quotations - should be summarized or abstracted for any useful factual information, then cited rather than quoted.
* "According to xxxxx, yyyyy" should be avoided.  If we know yyyy is true we should simply say yyyy and cite it to xxxx.  If yyyy is just conjecture or opinion we shouldn't have it, unless the fact that xxxx says yyyyy is itself relevant to the notability of the article.  In other words, opinions of pundits, experts, etc., are generally not helpful.
* Time-sensitive information should be avoided.  If it's something we don't know now but will know in a year, we should wait for a year then add what we know instead of speculating.  If it's the up-to-the-minute detail of what's happening in the trial or what we know at the moment, better to take a step back.  Try to view this article from the eyes of someone reading it a year from now.  What do they really need to know?
That's all my suggestion, not official policy.  What is policy is that we write articles in encyclopedic fashion rather than as current events.  If we can get this article on course right now it will be a good article.  Otherwise it could become a mess as more and more people add tidbits of information and try to change it to reflect their view of events.  Hope that helps.  Wikidemo (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, to follow up, I've mostly done what I suggested, but left one final piece.  Although interesting, I don't think the piece that remains (an expert's comment on the hypocrisy and presumed motivations of Hassidic sect leaders in general, made as a pointed reference to this case) is anything solid that we can say adds to coverage of the matter.  But I'll leave that for others to decide.  Sorry if the editing seems slash-and-burn, but given the concern raised over the now-deleted article about the Rebbe, we should be extra careful here.  Wikidemo (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh wow. Nice improvements, like a real article, thanks Wikidemo! Lobojo (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I strongly supported this article at AfD, but the picture is prejudicial. I am removing it per WP:BLP. Do not revert without discussion.  DGG (talk) 05:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: This is not a Jewish or Judaism related controversy. This is merely someones legal problem and in no way has anything to do with Judaism more than a Jewish person having a baby girl, in fact one having a Jewish baby girl has to do more with Judaism than his personal legal problems. It's not controversial it's outright illegal and a big Chilul Hashem.--Shmaltz (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The category does not list criteria for inclusion other than its name, that it is: (i) a controversy that (ii) is Jewish or Jewish-related.  It is certainly a controversy.  It is Jewish and Jewish-related in that it involves, affects, and concerns Jews as a community, as members of religious organizations, and politically in their relationship with the United States.  As I noted in the edit summary link to the Vos Iz Neias discussion board  many Jews consider it an issue that affects their group uniquely. It is not a random alleged crime for which the person who committed it, randomly, happens to be Jewish; it is a Jewish leader who used Jewish charities and religious organizations to allegedly commit crimes involving the Jewish community. All of the co-conspirators are Jewish, and the money was funneled through an Israeli bank. In the discussion group some people are questioning the role of secular American law versus mitzvah and Jewish religious law.  Also they are questioning whether he is treated differently for being Jewish, or whether they should have special loyalty to him because he is a Rabbi.  Some are questioning the integrity and honesty of the rabbinical order.  Much of the news and interest is coming from the Jewish press.  So it is certainly reasonable to say that the scandal is in part a Jewish issue. Wikidemo (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: VIN cannot be used as a source as it does not have editorial oversight and the author of that blog has never finished high school, please see WP:RS, WP:V. I agree that; many Jews consider it an issue that affects their group uniquely and therefore it's a Jewish issue, but please lookup the definition of Controversy (one such place: Controversy) before you claim it's a controversy. It certainly is not a Judaic related controversy, and with that I mean pertaining to Jewish religion.--Shmaltz (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jews are a culture, ethnicity, religion, and other things at once.  It does apply to Jewish religious institutions, even if not religion in the abstract.  In the same way, the Inquisition, the Crusades, indulgences, and the sex abuse scandals are Catholic things even though they are corruptions of the religion - they occurred through the instrumentality of the Church.  I can certainly point to a blog to support my argument - I just did!  WP:RS and WP:V don't to talk pages, nor am I using the citation to the as evidence that what is said in the blog is true (which is what WP:RS and WP:V are all about).  I'm pointing to what people are saying on the blog to illustrate what people are talking about, not whether what they say is true or not.Wikidemo (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This debate is daft Shmaltz. This is a controversy and it related to Judaism, ergo it can go in the category. This discussion is stupefying. Lobojo (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not a controversy, it's either a crime that he committed or he didn't commit it, but if he did it's not a controversy but a crime, scandal or whatever, but not a controversy. The fact that one did it through the means that he had as a Rabbi - controlling the financial parts of his charity organizations - does not make into a controversy. Can you please point to any part of that blog that makes this into a controversy that is covered in that article?--Shmaltz (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't have put it better: "it's either a crime that he committed or he didn't commit it" - that IS the controversy. Lobojo (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, point taken. To be honest the reason why I was against it was because it looked like a cat that was created just for this. However now looking thru that cat (after it was corrected) I can see it belongs there. Sorry for the misunderstanding.--Shmaltz (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem buddy, it that case it was entirely my mistake, sorry. Lobojo (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Jews and Judaism related controversies