Talk:New York Hasidic education controversy

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a complaint signed by 52 people resulted in curricula standards at New York State's over 1,800 private schools being subject to structured regulatory oversight in 2022 for the very first time? Source:
  • Reviewed:

Created by Albertinon (talk). Self-nominated at 13:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Controversy over secular education in New York Hasidic schools; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - The New York Post is not a reliable source, per WP:NYPOST
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - There is some close paraphrasing in the article (especially from this source and this source), as can be seen here. This may be due to overuse of quotes, but I also see some sentences that are copied directly from the sources.

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - The hook is not clear whether the 1,800 figure refers to New York state or New York City. The source, however, says that this is a statewide figure (it would be quite interesting if there were 1,800 private schools in NYC, since that is the same number of public schools that NYC has.)

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Hi Albertinon and welcome to DYK. This nomination is almost good to go, but there are a couple of issues that I have noted above. Epicgenius (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks Epicgenius!

• I have done some digging re the 1800 and have added more info re NYC in the article per you interest, + added reliable sources
• changed hook wording accordingly
• I have reworded the article according to the two Toolforge links you've kindly shared, do let me know if you believe it is not sufficient etc. Albertinon (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Also though of this more concise alt: ...that a complaint signed by 52 people subjected curricula standards at New York State's over 1,800 private schools to structured regulatory oversight in 2022 for the very first time? Albertinon (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Albertinon. Unfortunately, there is still quite a bit of close paraphrasing here, in which the text in the article closely resembles a corresponding sentence or two in the source. These are just a few examples:

• Article: PEARLS, in a statement, said Carranza's letter vindicated the schools, positing that it had found that the “allegations against the yeshivas have no basis in fact”.
  • 2018 NY Times source: In a statement, Pearls said Mr. Carranza’s letter vindicated the schools, saying that it found that the “allegations against the yeshivas have no basis in fact.”
• Article: The letter asked the state for guidance on how to work with the schools that had shown a willingness to better the state of their education, and how to deal with those who had not cooperated.
  • 2018 NY Times source: In the letter he asks the state for guidance on how to work with the schools that have tried to demonstrate an increased commitment to secular education, and how to handle those who have not cooperated.
• Article: whereby the mayor's office agreed to delay an interim report on the yeshivas to conciliate state legislators who were at that time deliberating on mayoral control of public schools, by way of releasing the pressure that politicians had from their Orthodox Jewish constituents who viewed the investigation an attack on religious freedom and the Hasidic community

• 2019 NY Times source: They would delay an interim report about the yeshivas to appease state lawmakers who were deliberating on mayoral control. Some state politicians were facing pressure from their Orthodox Jewish constituents who considered the probe an attack on religious liberty and the broader Hasidic community.

• Article: The report stated that de Blasio's administration did not violate the law, but it did interfere with its education department's probe into the yeshivas, having a significant impact on the timing of the department of education reports release, though not on the report content.
  • 2019 NY Times source: The long-anticipated report by the Department of Investigation and the Special Commissioner of Investigation for the New York City School District found that while Mr. de Blasio’s administration did not violate the law, it did interfere with its own education department’s probe into the yeshivas. ... Still, investigators found that the interference in the yeshiva review did not have a significant impact on the Department of Education’s report itself, but only on the timing of its release.

This is not a complete list. There are other sources like ChalkBeat, JTA, NY Times 2017, and Politico where there are large amounts of close paraphrasing that are not simple quotes. Please look over the entire article to ensure that sources are not being closely paraphrased. Epicgenius (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Epicgenius, I appreciate the time you took to link and clarify. I spent much time on this now, editing and testing using the tool, and as far as I can see I have fixed the issues - any high paraphrase ratings at this point seem to be quotes, which are a big part of a story like this that involves back and forth public debate. Albertinon (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Albertinon: Thanks for making these changes to the article. Everything is much better now, except for the NY Post references, which are considered "generally unreliable" according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I realize that some of these references contain direct quotes; these can be kept in the article. However, I would remove other NY Post refs wherever a more reliable source supports the info (e.g. refs 25, 45, and 54 of this version of the article). While technically "having no unreliable sources at all" is not a DYK criterion, it would be good if you could trim some of the more redundant NY Post sources before I approve this. Epicgenius (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Epicgenius and Albertinon: What is the current status of this nomination? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Hi, so I spent much time fixing papraphrasing issues using a wikipedia tool, and then Epicgenius brought up NY Post, saying "Everything is much better now, except for the NY Post references" ... "While technically "having no unreliable sources at all" is not a DYK criterion, it would be good if you could trim some of the more redundant NY Post sources before I approve this.". I appreciate that but things have gotten busy for me, and especially since its not a a DYK criteria, I feel either someone else should fix that, or bring up the issue on the article page, but that should not hinder its DYK approval. P.s. the article name has changed to Hasidic education controversy (New York)Albertinon (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Albertinon: WP:DYKCITE has this: The use of multiple sources is generally preferred, though more leeway may be given for more obscure topics. And as Epic said, it would be advisable not to use the NY Post whenever possible unless it's a direct quote or can't be sourced to anything else. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I can approve the DYK nomination even if the NY Post is used as a source, since most of the uses of that source are for direct quotes or similar use cases. I was just waiting on a response from Albertinon before, as I thought it would be easy to look through the article and remove the few unnecessary uses of that source. However, I feel this issue can be addressed outside the DYK process. Epicgenius (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Search engine indexing

Hi, this article was created July 10 2023, and will not be indexed on searched engines for 90 days from date of creation. However, the subject matter is an ongoing important event that is extensively covered in the New York media and is also covered internationally, and I would therefore like to to request that it be patrolled, or something else to allow it to be be indexed. Additionally, Yeshivagate is a redirect to this article, being a term used by some for this topic, and should also be indexed as a redirect.

Many thanks!

--Albertinon (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't require the use of the admin tools. You may visit WP:NPP and see if you can find a new page patroller to do as you request, but everyone who creates a new article wants it reviewed quickly for some reason or other. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, things get done when people can get around to them. We are not concerned with joining a media bandwagon, that's for the actual media to do. 331dot (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)