Talk:Hatzalah

Response Times

The article stated that Hatzolah responds in 4 minutes and FDNY responds in 8. FDNY's site breaks down the response times by levels and a level 1 has a response time of 5 minutes. In addition, while Hatzolah has a response time of 4 minutes, the cited source clearly makes note that this is during the day, at night H has a response time of 8 minutes. Yossiea 23:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

All you needed to do is add the words "by day". The averages still show a marked difference between the two services.--Geekish 08:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If the FDNY response times are dependent on the severity of the calls, we can say that Hatzolah at night has an average response time of 8 minutes, regardless of severity. Their night coverage is not that great and they make no distinction in the article regarding severity and response times, as the FDNY does. Also, it's interesting how FDNY measures response times from receiving of the call, I wonder how Hatzolah measures response time. But I am assuming they measure from dispatch. Yossiea ^(talk) 13:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to pick on a point here, but the way the sentence is written makes it sound that it's 8 minutes for every situation, when in fact it is probably dependent on the severity. I'm sure a cardiac arrest gets a quicker response than a regular transport...which is why that sentence should be somewhat revised.--Geekish 04:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

A cardiac arrest probably will get a faster response time, but on average, their night response is 8 minutes. That is all we have from the source cited. FDNY breaks it down by call type, but Hatzolah doesn't. Yossiea ^(talk) 16:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Right right, we agree on that point. All i'm saying is that the sentence needs to be revised to reflect that. Something like "while Hatzolah's overall nightime response time averages 8 minutes. The way it's written now makes it sounds like its 8 minutes flat. Anyway... --Geekish 01:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I changed it a bit. Yossiea ^(talk) 04:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I updated the response times for FDNY with the release of the new MMR for FY 2007. Yossiea ^(talk) 18:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Lately the Boro Park Chapter enacted a new special fly car to speed up the night response, where two volunteers sit inside a vehicle the entire night, it is split into shifts between their members. You might wanna mention that. (SolMax, April 21, 2009)

SolMax, feel free to drop it into the article, if you can show a source for the info. Dovid (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason that Hatzolah has a quicker response time is that they do not get the call then leave from the base, but they leave from wherever they are when they get the call.

External links to local Hatzolahs

Is there any reason the list of links was removed, and replaced by a single link to an externally-maintained list? If the two lists matched, that would make sense, but teh two lists clearly do not match. There is also some question about the legitimacy of the external list (politically selective).

It did not, AFAIK, violate any guidelines, including format, content, or original research guidelines. It is not in violation of the "linkfarm," guideline. Although the list is long, it is relevant to the article, serving as a useful off-site reference to the organizations mentioned in the article. The linkfarm guideline does not refer to quantity, except to point out that having too few links is not a reason to add links. In this case, it is a balance between having to include in-site material on each of the organizations (which would probably start a discussion page fight over merging to one article versus having one article per neighborhood). The alternative would be to work all those links into the references section, and then sprinkle them as references into the article. However, doing so would make the material LESS usable, not more usable.

If there is no objection, I will retrieve the most recent version prior to deletion and re-insert it. Dovid (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Well actually such a directory of external links is a problem on a couple of points. Per the external links guideline, "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." Also, per the What Wikipedia is not policy, "Wikipedia articles are not:...Mere collections of external links or Internet directories."

I once made the same argument as yourself when the externally linked chapter directory of my college fraternity Triangle was deleted. I argued it up as high as I could but the consensus was clear and was in fact expanded to all other fraternities' and sororities' whose articles had linked chapter directories.

I don't see Hatzolah as being different than that or other chapter based organizations. Feel free to discuss it at relevant policy pages, and I'll extend my best wishes for success too, but don't get your hopes up. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 17:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, missed your assertion about the legitimacy of the currently listed directory. I just used the one that was on this article some months ago before it was erased in error. If you know of a better off-site directory page, please feel free to replace the one that's there. Even better would be if you know of a "central" website not directly associated with any particular local chapter, I can't seem to find such a site using Google. Thanks! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 17:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've also looked high and low, there isn't one directory out there. Eventually, I hope to organize some regional articles, each of which will contain information about the Hatzolahs in that region, and will link to them externally on the more localized basis. That should reduce the size of each list to something that is not visually too long. I believe the policy simply comes from the appearance of a long list and attempts by some to create articles that are really primarily lists (based on discussion pages about the policy and some scat on the net that isn't in the discussions). In reality, link lengths should probably be viewed in proportion to the article's density.. which itself can be questioned (do we want one article aout a broad subject, or do we want to break it up into articles about aspects of the subject, with an additional summary article? -- I've seen that one over and over)

In the mean time, what to do? The link that's there can't stay. I'm thinking of putting in cites next to each neighborhood mentioned inn the artcle; the external links would then be references. I don't really think that's the way to go, but until I have a chance to write the many articles, it seems to be the only way to keep those links, and being that there isn't anywehere else with an, ahem, encylopaedic reference to Hatzolah sites, where else? (Im lo po, eifo? `:| I guess) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dovid (talk • contribs) 06:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on the List of Eruvin, I've created a first draft of a List of Hatzolah chapters in my userspace. I'll add citations as are in the Eruvin list and more listings. Your thoughts? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 00:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Name of article

To whoever moved the article back to Hatzolah: Please note that Wikipedia does not go by official names, by by common names. Clearly, Hatzalah is more common than Hatzolah. Clarity, per WP:NC, should of course also be taken into account, and Hatzalah is much more clear to both English and Hebrew speakers, and moreover does not pervert the transliteration. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Come now, this back and forth page moving silliness is counterproductive. It's especially silly since there's no "right" way to transliterate a Hebrew word into English. In terms of WP:COMMONNAMES, I have applied the search engine test. The various spellings listed in the article come up with the following numbers of Google hits:

1. Hatzalah- 66,100
2. Hatzolah- 32,200
3. Hatzoloh- 15,400
4. Hatzola- 1,660
5. Chevra Hatzalah- 721
6. Chevra Hatzolah- 64
7. Chevra Hatzoloh- 35
8. Chevra Hatzola- 2

I come across other variations in my research for List of Hatzolah chapters:

• Hatzole- 67
• Hazoloh- 31

Do what you will, but frankly I don't think it's something to get in an edit war about. Cheers! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 20:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No itention to get into an edit war. I reverted until consensus could be reached, and pointed out the reasons why it needs discussion (the comment cuts off though). My main objection to Hatzalah is that it is now has a common English usage diveregnt from any Hebrew origins, and in English-speaking countries, Hatzolah is the most common spelling in chapter names (US, Canada, England, Australia). Note also the usage by Chevra Hatzolah of Israel, which is the oldest Israeli organization, and Hatzolah of WIlliamburg, the original Hatzolah anywhere. A small consideration is avoiding redeirects for existing links. So... reverted until consensus, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dovid (talk • contribs) 22:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the official name has no bearing on the Wikipedia naming convention. Also, as far as the Google test is concerned, it appears that Hatzalah is the most commonly used name in English. It might not be the most common in the US (even though you have not proven that), but when Wikipedia mentions English, it has nothing to do with the US, but rather all of the English-speakers in the world. Wikipedia is not US-centric, nor should it be. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Ynhockey on this. Hatzalah has more Google hits than all the other variations combined. It is obviously the most commonly used variation. As for chapter names, there doesn't actually seem to be any particular consistency even there, note the citations in List of Hatzolah chapters. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Not saying chapters are consistent, just pointing out what is the most commonly used spelling in US/CN/UK/AU chapter names. I've counted them. Official names are taken into account in the WikiPedia naming convention, as in the titular (royalty, presidents) exception. Since that article refers mostly to names of people, one has to extrapolate for names of things and organizations. In this case, the proper name of an agency would be an exception. (Interestingly, any subject like this requires original research, in contravention of normal WP requirements of no original research.)Dovid (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Taking only spellings from the chapters' own websites or official documents (tax exempt or DOH listings) these are the numbers I've come up with:

• Other Countries: Hatzole-1, Hatzalah-1, Hazoloh-1
• Australia: Chevra Hatzolah-1
• Canada: Hatzoloh-2, Hatzolah-1
• England: Hatzola-2
• Israel: Hatzalah-2, Hatzolah-2, Hatzola-1
• South Africa: Hatzolah-1
• USA: Hatzolah-9, Hatzalah-7, Hatzoloh-3, Chevra Hatzalah-3, Chevra Hatzolah-1

Clearly even among chapters in the US there is nothing close to consistency in the spelling. We should go then with how the vast majority of English writers spell it, as evidenced by the Google hits. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 00:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Regions section

While I appreciate the motivations behind and the hard work put into the new *Regions* section, it does have some issues that need to be addressed. It is entirely unreferenced, may incorporate a large proportion of original research and I also feel that parts do not maintain a neutral point of view. Additionally, portions are redundant to other parts of the article. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Work in progress, it takes as long to work in the references as to write the text. I have the references, just need time to add them in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dovid (talk • contribs) 23:16, 15 September 2008

All of Wikipedia is a work in progress, really. However No original research, Neutral point of view, and Verifiability are policies, not guidelines. If your material isn't ready for "prime time", then it should be worked on in your user space- as I did with the chapter list. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 00:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hatzolah of North Jersey

This Hatzolah is not licensed to operate, they have no crew, and their ambulance is not staffed. It is a rogue organization. Please stop putting it into this article. Yossiea ^(talk) 17:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yossiea, I don't know where you get your information from. I have friends who are active in Hatzolah of North Jersey. Hatzolah of North Jersey is currently State Certified, and has several ambulances and 24/7 coverage. You have obviously been listening to propaganda (that would make Goebbels proud) from Hatzolah of Passaic/Clifton, an organization that was formed to compete with Hatzolah of North Jersey, or more likely you are involved with them. Why don't you guys stop performing this vandalism and showing more and more how the people involved with Hatzolah of Passaic/Clifton act like a bunch of lying children. Catskillemt (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware that your comment most likely violated WP:CIVIL. FTR, I have nothing to do with HPC. Yossiea ^(talk) 22:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yossiea, if you have nothing to do with Hatzolah of Passaic/Clifton, why are you repeating false propoganda that they are spreading? And don't talk about violating policies, since you are erasing true information and replacing it with false propoganda.Catskillemt (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with them, but that doesn't mean I don't know things. I saw pictures of HONJ transporting groceries. I know that HONJ is run by one person with no life who just wants to make a name for himself. HONS is not a valid Hatzolah organization. Yossiea ^(talk) 17:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Besides, the leader doesn't even have a valid NJ EMT license. (I just verified with the State.) Yossiea ^(talk) 17:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yossiea, you live not far from where one of the ambulances is parked, so why don't you go look at the state certification sticker on the side of the ambulance? Furthermore the leader IS certified in New Jersey through reciprocity of his valid New York certification. While you were on the phone with the state, why did you not ask if a New York EMT certification is considered valid as New Jersey certification. I think you should stop quoting false propoganda from Hatzolah of Passaic/Clifton and get a life. Catskillemt (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You are violating WP:STALK and WP:CIVIL. Yossiea ^(talk) 21:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, an ambulance squad with only one member is not considered an ambulance squad. Yossiea ^(talk) 03:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hatzolah EMS of North Jersey clearly does exist, and even hosted a meeting of the New Jersey First Aid Council two weeks ago. Anyone doubting Hatzolah EMS of North Jersey's existance can visit their website [1], and check out their photos page [2] to see that they are active.

Anyone stating that Hatzolah EMS of North Jersey doesn't exist is either being deliberately misleading, or was mislead themselves. There is currently an ongoing conflict with Hatzolah of Passaic/Clifton EMS which was founded in Dec. 2007 in order to compete with Hatzolah EMS of North Jersey, and they operate within Hatzolah EMS of North Jersey's area. They are spreading this misinformation.

I know exactly who the individuals tampering with this page are, however apparantly due to the rules of Wikipedia, I am not allowed to talk about it.

I am not very familiar with the rules of Wikipedia, but if there is anyone who is and can help me put a stop to this deliberate vandalism I would appreciate it. Thank you.Catskillemt (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Page Protection

Both of you were edit warring. This is a content dispute - neither side's edits were vandalism. I've locked the page to let you resolve the isuse in discussion with other editors here, or to seek a third opinion. This is not an endorsement of the current version, its just the version that existed at the time I protected the page.

Catskillemt, there's some gross incivility in the above posts. Please consider striking it out. Any repeat of this behaviour will result in the usual applications of WP:BLOCK. Your edit summaries are also pretty impolite - please comment on content and not contributors.

And writing (Yosseia): "I know that HONJ is run by one person with no life who just wants to make a name for himself." is not gross incivility???Catskillemt (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yosseia, please don't use edit summaries reverting others edits as vandalism when they're not. This is also a breach of WP:CIVIL, albeit more minor than the above.

Page protection expires in three days. Please discuss the content issue here. Euryalus (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As a resident of Passaic, I looked into this. It seems Yossiea is spot on. There's a good deal of RS discussing HONJ several years ago, but that seems to have disappeared in the last year. Dovid (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Either Hatzolah EMS of North Jersey does exist or it doesn't. Yossiea says that they are run by "one person with no life." If that is the case (which it's not) he is obviously acknowledging it's existance, he just doesn't like them. It's very clear that Hatzolah EMS of North Jersey does exisit, some people just have a conflict with them.Catskillemt (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It exists, but it is violating state/city law. I know that they are not allowed to operate in Passaic. So your claim that PCH is competing with HONJ is not true. Yossiea ^(talk) 03:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yossiea, so you admit that Hatzolah EMS of North Jersey does exist and that Hatzolah of Passaic/Clifton EMS is competing within the same area, yet you contend that since according to you they are in violation of unnamed laws, you arbitrarily decided they don't count.

Furthermore Hatzolah EMS of North Jersey currently has a letter of recognition from the City of Passaic, so stop lying through your teeth.Catskillemt (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

1) WP:CIVIL 2) Why not compromise? There is no reason to include that the Hatzolahs are competing. Push comes to shove, 99.999% of Passaic/Clifton calls HOPC, so you don't want to go there. We can leave it as 6 Hatzolahs in NJ and we can leave out the competing part. Yossiea ^(talk) 16:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

So now you admit that Hatzolah EMS of North Jersey does exist, and that Hatzolah of Passaic/Clifton EMS is competing, but you are offering me a compromise that if I'll agree to let you remove this very true fact you'll stop vandalising the article by removing Hatzolah of North Jersey.

No Thanks!!! Catskillemt (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well then I'll just remove it, and post the letter from the community rabbis stating that HOPC is the ONE hatzalah to call in Passaic/Clifton. I admit that HONJ exists, but HOPC does not compete with them in Passaic/Clifton. Nobody in Passaic/Clifton calls them.

See here: Letter from Rabbis about HONJ's deceptive tactics

and here: Letter from Community Rabbis endorsing HOPC.

• May I suggest that you guys take a break from this for a day or two, until you've both calmed down a little. It's not the end of the world either way. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Catskillemt, stop grinding your axe, bro. -- Y not? 23:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: When the edit-warring gets out of control, report some incident in Passaic. They'll then be warring over some walkie-talkie instead of this article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

i never thought I would get such a laugh from or agree so heartily with one of your comments, Brewcrewer. arimareiji (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Now remind me again, what were we fighting about about at Rachel Corrie? ;-) --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Everything, I think. :-( arimareiji (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Rachel Corrie... that was awesome, guys! Let's run her over again! :) :) -- Y not? 01:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

They should both be included, with no reference whatsoever to their apparent competition or to which is "better" in any way unless it's documented in an exceptionally reliable source as defined by Wikipedia.
For Pete's sake, people. I don't think your average Joseph is going to look in Wikipedia for which ambulance service to use while they're having a coronary, and even if they did this is not the place to debate who's best. arimareiji (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

In the past, a user has requested mediation on this issue. The dispute was resolved by Leujohn ^(talk). For more information, see the case page.

New Jersey

Yossiea doesn't like my edit. He's of the opinion that it doesn't "look good." So, let's get some consensus on this. I'd like to point out a few things:
1) I agree that use of "town" was sloppy, I will change it to municipality.
2) The old version was confusing if the reader was not a Hatzolah buff, because of the "inventiveness" of some Hatzolah organizations' names. This is an encyclopedia, it is meant to be accessible by the masses. Explaining WHERE there is Hatzolah would seem to make more sense than using names that may be unfamiliar or confusing outside of their localities
3) The bit about "in order of date established" is not useful, nor is that actual ordering useful. Most likely a vanity issue. The new version alphabetizes instead, and eliminates metacontent
4) The old version lacked citations. The new one has some (could use more, but certainly far better than the old)
5) A complaint about "looks" is subjective. WP's more normative "be bold" would favor adding information and organizing it, as I've done, which is more objective. Please don't take this as getting personal, it isn't intended that way
6) The old version gave no information other than the list of Hatzolahs. That's completely redundant to the "List of Hatzolahs" page, so why bother?
Dovid (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw this now. All your points are fine, but to answer point 6, perhaps that is correct. If we have a list page, why do we need the list on this page? This page should be about Hatzolah, and what it is and why it's needed, etc. If someone wants to know where there is a Hatzolah, they can check out the list. Come to think of it, I think that makes the most sense and would be the cleanest. Yossiea ^(talk) 13:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There's some value to having terse lists in the main text, otherwise you don't get a feel form the main article about Hatzolah's reach. When I used to do lots of editing on this page, I found a reasonable compromise: allow the neighborhood names in where they add some value, but try to keep it from getting caught up in puffery. Anyway, it sounds like you are not against my previous edit. I think NJ could be expanded with info about Union City being Klausenberg, and Lakewood being probably the #3 org in size (if I can get ref info to cite). Dovid (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think what could work is the following: Start off with the header sentence; "There are six independent Hatzolah organizations in New Jersey." and then subsection or bullet each Hatzolah, for example: Lakewood Hatzolah - This Hatzolah is based in Lakewood, NJ and serves the blah blah, for the more interesting ones like Union City or Passaic/Clifton, we can have the official name, and the city and then state the more precise details. I think we can do a maximum of 2-3 sentences per, without it getting too much. Yossiea ^(talk) 01:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

See your user talk page for a potential mockup. Feel free to dissect a bit then post. Dovid (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I combined some of them, and I think it's a good start. Yossiea ^(talk) 16:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Where is the world does Hatzolah Israel go?

Yossiea has moved Israel from its own slot to a portion of "throughout the world." The argument given is that the USA should come first, because that's where it originated. I don't buy it. The overview material does give the historical weight of the US. The headings covering local chapters should primarily be set up to make it easy to digest the material. The heading "throughout the world" was put in only to organize the scattering of relatively lonely Hatzolahs outside Israel/America. Israel gets its own section because of the size/significance of the Israeli organization(s). There should actually be much more material under the heading. I'm not going t revert now. If we gain a consensus that it should stay, then naturally, it will stay. Dovid (talk) 07:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What don't you buy? The reason the US was broken out is because there are tons of chapters in the US so there is a need to be broken out. I would be fine with a "America", "Israel" and "The rest of the world" system, but I think it will look funny with the current state of Israel's entry. If it can be expanded, then it might look better, but right now I don't see how Israel needs its own heading. Yossiea ^(talk) 13:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The part I didn't buy was that the founding country gets special treatment... although, if you look at my past edits, I definitely took a very Israel-oriented article, and made it much more balanced, maybe even a little 'too' American! So my sympathies do lie with your approach, but as an editor, I felt that wasn't NPOV. Anyway, back to expanding Israel. I now realize that the structure with Israel having its own heading was absolutely necessary when the list fo chapters was still in the main article, and now there's far ess material, so it can be argued either way. Israel should be expanded with some of the following: more info about the competing umbrella organizations, info about their unique operations and protocols, more on the relationship with MDA, the funding crisis. If I had the time... until then, I can live with your edit. Dovid (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The bigger issue is that many of the stuff will either be OR or not be RS. It'll be difficult to find something acceptable. Yossiea ^(talk) 01:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

O transparency, I ne'er knew thee well! 04:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Dovid (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ichud Hatzolah Edits Need Some Quality Added

On May 21, Medic256 made a series of 11 edits, adding material about Ichud Hatzolah, and in some cases, removing or changing material about other organizations. None of the edits are sources, and some are contradictory to material that was removed but had been sourced. In an ever changing world, the older sourced material could be out of date, but it would need to be discussed or cited as such. The material is also somewhat propagandist, instead of encyclopedia-like, and seems to be similar to some material that was previously removed as inappropriate (e.g., multiple references to Eli Beer).

• Ambucycles removed in [[3]]

I propose that Medic256 be more careful with edits, and not remove material without discussing it here and providing sources, and that the material about ambucycles, Beer, and Kashash be either left out, or a good argument be made why they should return. Dovid (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The latest revision (which I reverted) seems to be yet another attempt to erase Hatzolah Israel. It may be going away, but folks, we can't change history! Dovid (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The Hatzolah Israel collapse may very well be true (anecdotally, I hear the same things), but we need CITED MATERIAL, please stop sticking stuff in about it without attributing it to a qualified reference. Dovid (talk) 03:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I just arrived here but this might help. (Jpost article about United Hatzolah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe407 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't mention anything about the old organization. And in fact, it rewrites history... nobody disputed that HI preceded UH, but the interviewer takes on faith Eli Beer's statement that he founded the organization way back when HI was started and UH didn't exist. Dovid (talk) 05:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Cultural Concerns; Elaboration?

Why does this organisation exist? The History section mentions the Hatzalah was created to "mitigate cultural concerns of a Yiddish-speaking, religious Hasidic community", but the entry fails to really explain this. Could someone please enrich the entry with some context? Thanks Denis (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does it need explanation? Anytime you have an immigrant class community or iconoclast community, there are cultural sensitivity issues. Dovid (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand Hassidim are different. That's not the point of the question. I am asking for elaboration on the cultural or religious elements which prompted the feeling that a separate ambulance service was required. Are there things Hatzalah do that others don't do? Or do the Hatzalah refrain from doing certain things other ambulance techs normally do? Is it because non-Jewish ambulance techs don't keep Kosher? Is it because "iconoclasts" don't want to be helped by people in uniform? I have no idea and the article doesn't express the "cultural concerns". I think the article would benefit from explaining the cultural context. Denis (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Concerns addressed? Dovid (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Americas organization

The "Americas" section structure (5.1) has been stable for some time now, but several recent anonymous edits changed it. These changes were made to only the titles. Existing structure:

 * 5.1 Americas
   * 5.1.1 New York City
   * 5.1.2 Rockland County, NY
   * 5.1.3 New Jersey
   * 5.1.4 Elsewhere In the United States
   * 5.1.5 Other Americas

Changed structure:

 * 5.1 The United States
   * 5.1.1 New York City
   * 5.1.2 Rockland County, NY
   * 5.1.3 New Jersey
   * 5.1.4 Elsewhere In the United States
   * 5.1.5 The Americas

This change simply makes no sense. It places The Americas (continental level) within the United States (country level) instead of the other way around. It MAY have been an attempt to rationalize the structure to something like the following:

 * 5.1 The United States
   * 5.1.1 New York City
   * 5.1.2 Rockland County, NY
   * 5.1.3 New Jersey
   * 5.1.4 Elsewhere In the United States
 * 5.2 The Americas (Outside the United States)

The latter structure would make sense, but is a little unwieldy. The "stable" version is a reasonable compromise to organize regionally without having to either keep the United States as a separate middle (5.x) entry (USA looking like a continent) nor burying the big US organizations in a deeper heading level (5.1.1 United States, 5.1.1.1 New York City). It takes the density of New York metropolitan organizations at a relatively high level without destroying the logical continental divides.

So, I reverted the recent changes. Let the counterarguments come or accede by silence. Dovid (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I would put the US as a sub-section of the Americas, and then have the US part under that, and then the rest of the Americas back at the US level. (Also, you might have a COI in editing this article and GM and his boys might not like it. Yossiea ^(talk) 13:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"Purely," I agree, but "practically," no. Too unwieldy: 5.1 Americas, 5.1.1 US, 5.1.1.1 NY, 5.1.1.2 Rockland, etc. I favor clarity over keeping a pure geographical hierarchy.Dovid (talk) 08:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

COI? Or COSelfI? ;) Who's GMDovid (talk) 08:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Chicago and external links revisited

Howdy. I revised a section concerning chapters outside of NYC (this diff) to accomplish three things.

1. I removed the links to each chapter's website as per WP:EL and WP:NOTDIRECTORY
2. I removed the section on Chicago as per WP:CBALL. Their website clearly says "Hatzalah will provide..." and "Our first training class is scheduled to begin the first quarter of 2010." As such, it does not exist and should not yet be part of this article.
3. I shortened the phrasing to a more encyclopedic and less promotional tone as per the policy of WP:NOTDIRECTORY #7 - "Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." In general this article suffers from this. It is very long and has every possible detail about Hatzalah. I would like to work to make this article more readable and easier to navigate.

User:Bus stop undid my edit. I would like the community to review both the edit and my above reasoning. If it is found sound, I will restore this edit and continue improving this article according to the relevant policies. Thank you, Joe407 (talk) 04:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm OK with #1, as that function is well-served by the List article. I think #2 is a misapplication of WP:CBALL, because CBALL is primarily about not creating entire speculative articles, not about removing small forward-looking elements of an established whole. Further, the four four sub-paragraphs of CBALL, only para1 can be applied, and Chicago fits the parameters of what is allowed by para1. Perhaps a rewording that clealy states that Chicago INTENDS would be a better fit, as that is clearly verifiable. In principcal, I agree with #3, but I have not had a chance to review exactly what changed. Dovid (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Regions

I would like to reduce the section "Regions" to a short paragraph with a Main Article: link to the List of Hatzolah chapters. Any objections? Joe407 (talk) 08:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The list of chapters does not contain any informational text about any of the chapters. Do you plan on incorporating the text form the Regions section in to the List? Dovid (talk) 07:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What if we turn the list of chapters in to a table with room for comments on each chapter. That would also limit occurrences of the list (or the current region section) becoming a homepage for each chapter even in the absence of individual notability. Joe407 (talk) 08:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think what would be good is to have this page as just a Hatzalah page, what it is, why it is, etc. and then on the list page, expand the bullet point to a sentence or two on each Hatzalah. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds right to me. Joe407 (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any examples of "hybrid" lists in a format like that elsewhere on WP? How do we handle information in the artcile that crosses chapters, especially regional information and information about interactions? Dovid (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I just reorganized the regions section. It is now ordered by country and US state. It still should be sorted alphabetically but I'm done for today. Joe407 (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hatzxlah spelling

A previous consensus was reached that the generic term should be transliterated Hatzalah, not Hatzolah. That is how the article title is now spelled, However, it is inappropriate to use this in some places. Where an organization/locality that spells it differently is referred to, especially in proper names, the local spelling needs to be used. For example, in DRosenbach's recent mass search and replace, the history starts with WIlliamsburg's "Hatzalah EMS," where it used to be "Haztolah EMS" (as Williamsburg formally spells it), and Hatzolah of Passaic/Clifton, a formal corporate name, also became Hatzalah of Passaic/Clifton.

This turns it from an inconsistent-but-not-incorrect text to a consistent-but-incorrect text.

I propose a reversion of the uncritical search and replace, which DRosenbach, can then follow up by carefully editing the spellings individually. Dovid (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The article appeared very poorly written with every other use of the word being spelled differently. It's quite irrelevant which location uses which spelling because the article is not about any particular Hatzalah but about Hatalah in general. All uses of the word should follow the title -- consistency and streamlining is more important than any particular sub-branch being properly represented, because there is no practical loss. It's like reading the article on matzah and each paragraph uses a different spelling because each matzah bakery decided to utilize a different transliteration of the Hebrew word. With resistance like this, I suppose the consensus reached to have the article spelled in whichever manner was decided was only because there couldn't be two articles about the same entity! Other than pride, what is there to gain by having the article apparently peppered with misspellings? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Then we disagree. Proper names are proper names, and you can't choose their spelling. My name is Dovid, a variant spelling of David. If I happen to be quoted in the article on David, or listed as a famous David in that article, your approach would mean I would have to be David, not Dovid. Dovid (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus? - Can we reach a conclusion as to how to spell this word? Right now it just looks sloppy. Once we can decide one way or the other we can 1)do a search-and-replace 2)create a redirect (if one don't already exist). Joe407 (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Female volunteers

I see that a section has been added regarding a male-volunteer only policy. After a quick search I see that it is a well known policy but I have (so-far) not found a reliable source. Has anyone seen this policy documented? Joe407 (talk) 11:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Further, the new section is given undue weight (top level title for such a small section, with such relatively minor information), the title is incendiary, and even after Joe's calmer edit to tone down Rex's text, its still not NPOV. I'm removing it. Let some editor find the right way to put it in the right context in the right place in the article based on the right sources, right? (Five right's, for the EMTs observing this intervention.) Dovid (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Dovid, I understand your concern of WP:UNDUE. On the other hand, it is a notable and telling statement about the organization. Not everything that is unflattering is POV. As to the lack of a source, a large percentage of this article is self-referenced from hatzola.org or from chapter websites, neither or which post such a policy. My suggestion is, unless you know (even from a less than WP:RS) that this policy is incorrect, to leave it up with a "needs source" tag. How does that sound? Joe407 (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a policy across the board? I seem to recall some smaller branches do have female volunteers. (Staten Island comes to mind, as well as New Square)Yossiea ^(talk) 17:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

As a Hatzalah member/responder, I have yet to see any documentation related to this matter (i.e. Hatzalah Halachah Manual, SOPs, etc.). Personally, I consider it more of a "general understanding" then a concrete policy. I concur with Yossiea, there are indeed female responders operating in certain cities. Moshlo1 (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Joe, I'm not against a statement, but it needs a few things that this insert lacked. As you agree, it can't violate undue emphasis (it did), it has not be neutral (Rex's was agenda driven, you toned it down a little), and it has to have appropriate sourcing (it had none, as you pointed out). Drawing comparison to the sourcing of the rest of the article does not change things - first, two wrongs do not make a right, and second, there's a fallacy in the comparison. While the article as a whole could use a lot more sourcing, and of a better quality, it still probably approaches the subtleties of WP RS policies. It isn't a scholarly or controversial article or subject; those are the articles that require first tier sources. Material from a "sponsor's" web site is allowed for less scholarly, uncontroversial material, and the rest of the article qualifies. The new section moved off that softer territory, raising its its standard for RS. Dovid (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Dovid, what do you propose? Is there a way we can insert this information to the article in a neutral fashion? Joe407 (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure there is a good way, I just don't wish to work at it. Find a logical place in the flow of the article, and add a single short paragraph something like, "In most Hatzolah organizations, all drivers and direct responders are men. This is typically an unwritten policy. Some Hatzolahs use women EMTs in certain situations, and many use both men and woman for emergency dispatch and other non-field roles." How's that? BTW, just wondering, do you have a special interest in Hatzolah? Dovid (talk) 05:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

And we have a source! "A group of women in Brooklyn is trying to break through a decades-old barrier bv joining an all-male volunteer ambulance corps run by Orthodox Jews" Read at: [4], [5], [6]. Any thoughts as to what info from this to integrate? I think that the campiegn is not worth noting but that the (now) verifiable ban on female responders is. Joe407 (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

More coverage: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4155301,00.html Joe407 (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Move section

Hi, I'd like to move the section in this article that lists where there are different chapters to the article List of Hatzolah chapters and put a "main article" link. Any objections? Joe407 (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, go for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.101.135 (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to give this a try... Joe407 (talk) 07:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. I just need to clean up a few refs. Joe407 (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Why would the "List of Hatzalah orgs not be in ththis article? -- VarifiedEditor (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Due to the depth that many of the chapters are described in, it made the main article unwieldy and huge. Rather than try to cut down the information about the 10 different NY branches and risk stepping on toes and editwars, I used the model of Red_Cross and List_of_Red_Cross_and_Red_Crescent_Societies. Seems to have been working for the past few years. Of course, this is Wikipedia so let's talk: What do you think we would gain by combining the articles back together? Joe407 (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The Red Cross is msssive, where as Hatzalah are not that big, and it would still look neat. Just like the Shomrim article on Wikipedia. -- VarifiedEditor (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The Shomrim page in an excellent example of the problem. Over half the article is about individual chapters, often crafted by members of those chapters hunting for any possible WP:RS that they can beef up their section. I think we all gain by having that stuff go on in a separate page and allowing the high level information about the organization on the main page. Compare the article sizes and do an honest review of the content of the chapter info, either of the hatzola chapters or the shomrim chapters. You'll see lines like "...currently has 20 members, including 3 rabbis and a Shmira Juniors program that includes 10 youths." I don't think that stuff is encyclopedia worthy. It's gratuitous at best. What are your thoughts?Joe407 (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Not really, as the part of "List of Organizations" is dedicated for all minor details of each individual organization, including information that may only be relevant to people familiar to that individual organization/area, however the rest of the article [until there] provides the kind of direct and high class information you are referring to. But at least the reader can find all the information on one page. Starting off with the general basics, and gradually going into more and more detail as the article goes on. --VarifiedEditor (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

link to Nuran

In the "interaction with other agencies" section, the link to Nuran goes to a page about a village in Azerbaijan. As far as I can tell, there is no page about the organization in English, Hebrew, or Arabic- it's possible that it is now defunct. I'm removing the link for the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.100.237 (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm also not seeing any sources for an EMT group called Nuran. I'm going to request help from a few Arabic speaking WikiProjects. If we can't find even a mention of it we should probably remove the line, as the group may not exist and just be a long-standing error. Joe407 (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The group does seem to exist, as seen here http://www.nuran.ps/en. I just don't think that there's a Wikipedia page on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.100.7 (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, can we get a citation for the cooperation or training with Hatzolah? Joe407 (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

lights and sirens in uk

They are allowed to use lights and sirens in the UK on an ambulance - they were using them on a car. UK Law basically says to be an ambulance it has to be able to carry a stretcher. In recent years the UK NHS ambulance service has moved to fast response cars which attend an incident first and then call an ambulance if needed. The private and volunteer sectors followed suit because the law was unclear. They can still use blues & twos on an traditional ambulance if they want to just like any other UK private or volunteer ambulance organisation, they just can't use them on response cars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.93.67 (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the given source (Daily Mail, 2014) refers to a UK court case where two UK Hatzolah volunteers used blue lights and sirens on their private vehicles. According to this page, Hatzolah operates four Ambulances in London, all of which seem to be equipped with blue lights. -- Seelefant (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hatzalah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070226225259/http://www.fjc.ru/news/newsArticle.asp?AID=235422 to http://www.fjc.ru/news/newsArticle.asp?AID=235422
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://passaichealthandsafetyfair.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120813025250/http://www.catskillscoop.com/2012/08/breaking-hatzolah-members-illegally-ticketed-while-responding-to-life-threatening-emergency.html to http://www.catskillscoop.com/2012/08/breaking-hatzolah-members-illegally-ticketed-while-responding-to-life-threatening-emergency.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hatzalah.org/duringAttack.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

"free medical service no matter their religion"

Is there a third-party NPOV source for this? Specifically,

1. The service(s) never charge

2. The service(s) has neutral outcomes for all patient backgrounds.

My understanding from anecdotal reports is that the service(s) in the New York area less frequently treat non-Hewbrew-speaking Black/brown patients and more frequently refer them to 911. I have failed to find a good source for this, but also do not find a good source for equal outcomes based on background. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Mangled quote

Help please.

The section Ezras Nashim is backed by the following:

Freier said that what they're doing is not revolutionary but rooted in traditional Jewish values. They point to the Bible's Book of Exodus where the first midwives were women.

"The story itself talks about two midwives, Shifra and Pouah," said volunteer Hadassah Strauss.

The article needs "rooted in" added to go with "traditional", but also, there is an odd number of double-quotes in the paragraph. And the source for the "traditional Jewish values" part is not a literal quote but a paraphrase with "Frier said". I'm not quite sure how to fix this. David10244 (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)