Talk:Union for Reform Judaism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Camps

Question: Is there really value in having sections on each camp individually? I appreciate that they have differences between them, but this is going to be a super-long article if we do this - and I doubt the information is terribly useful for most readers. -Joshuapaquin 22:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A bit of background about the current state of this page: there had been a separate wiki page about each camp and the URJ page at that time just linked to them. But then a decision was made that there shouldn't be a page for each camp, so the contents of each camp's page was copied into the URJ page. So now we have, I agree, a page that has "too much" detailed info about some camps, and that info isn't necessarily specific to a given camp. I think the original proposal was to put all the camp info into a new URJ Camps page, which would solve the length and "overly focused on the camps" concerns about the URJ page. OTOH, maybe we really don't need so much info at all (I don't see anything especially useful/notable in the camps' own sections)...perhaps go back to the simple bullet list of the camps, but now with ext links to each one's webpage? DMacks 04:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, the bullet list thing sounds good to me. Or even, to be honest, just a link to the URJ Camp directory might suffice. We can include a couple of sentences about the camping system and how it's related to the URJ organization as a whole, but the current page just seems so darn unencyclopedic. -Joshuapaquin 23:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I just went on a merge/redirect binge, so except for Kutz (someone's actively editing it(?)) and OSRuby (out of time tonite) I think all the material from those pages is here and pared down to anything even remotely encyclopediac. Gotta drag the Kutz editor on board before going forward here. I tried to add some general URJ Camps info to the beginning of the camps section so we could go with just the extlink, but I think a simple list-of-camps is encyclopediac and useful to readers, and also mildly appeasing to campers/alums. DMacks 05:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Trouble is, "encyclopedic" is in the eye of the beholder. It is often more interesting to go into depth than to simply give a broad overview of the topic. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the URJ page fresh the imbalance is clear. A person who was only somewhat familiar with the URJ would think it is 95% about Camps. If the camps are going to be discussed in any details, they should a separate single page for all the camps and a very short review in this article that links to it (as it does with other important URJ programs like NFTY and the RAC). Further, while I would personally support a separate page for each camp - although they are all run by the URJ officially, they have little interaction and are extraordinarily different from each other (I have attended/worked/spent good time at 6 of them, so I'm speaking from real experience). But since that seems to have been nixed previously, the longer articles - most obviously OSRUI - need to be pared down. To have the extensive (and very well done) OSRUI detailing and then 1 or 2 sentences on other camps doesn't work if they are all on the same page (if we had separate pages for each camp it'd be a different story).

So, I propose making a URJ Camps page, moving most of this info to that page for all the camps and editing down (and up) some of the entries to be somewhat more balanced. I'd "be bold" and do it myself, but I am relatively new to the finer points of Wikipedia editing and I don't want to barge into previously determined ground. JerseyRabbi 06:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding an article at URJ Camps is an interesting idea, though I fear that it would lend itself even more to accumulation of olin-sang-cruft. Also, I wonder if the Camps organization meets notability guidelines for an independent article; but if NFTY does, then we can probably get away with it. -Joshuapaquin 15:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I was a NFTY Leadership Academy camper (and JFTY/ NFTY-GER winter conclavee) in the 1990s and what I wrote was based on my memories. I invite other contributors to correct me wherever I'm wrong, update info, etc. - if you know about Kutz Camp, come on in an' write something! — Rickyrab | Talk 03:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC) (moved from URJ Kutz Camp page) — Rickyrab | Talk 01:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Note:
I added the Info Box to this article on February 21, 2007 to contribute; however I'm not sure how to do it right, so it will require cleaning up. In addition I uploaded the logo; however it will need for the licensing to be corrected. I'm sure that uploading that URJ logo is proper use as the image's original website had no mention of any reserved rights or copyright. I there is any problem then please correct it or let me know. —Alex_rosenberg35, February 21, 2007

[edit] Proposal to wipe out the camps

OK, so the cruftification of this page is reaching epic proportions - 3,300 words. Here's my proposal:

1. The camps section on this page will be whittled down to a very general overview of 250 words, maximum. As much as possible, individual camps will not be named so as not to encourage cruft.
2. The text currently in that section, will be moved to a page in my (or whoever's) userspace, in case we decide to give a URJ Camps article a go at some point and feel that some usefulness may be extracted.
3. No lists of camps, camp locations, or links to camp-related material with the exception of a single link to the URJ Camps website.
4. Camp logos to be nominated for deletion.

Thoughts? -Joshuapaquin 01:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Concurred. I think someone already had much of the current in userspace but can't remember who. I think there is some "camp-inspired" or -marginally-related material in the specific camp articles that could remain too (rewritten on its own merits). Example: Hava Nashira is not really related to a camp. DMacks 04:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)