Talk:Beth Hamedrash Hagodol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Beth Hamedrash Hagodol is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 27, 2009.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Judaism (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject New York City (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject National Register of Historic Places (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Categories[edit]

I removed the categories 1850 architecture and gothic revival synagogues. Reason is, this was built as a church, not a synagogue. We do not know hat year it was built. But it was not built as a gothic-revival synagogue.Elan26 (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26

I've restored both. We actually do know what year it was built, 1850, and there are several sources attesting to that. Also, while it may have been built as a church, it has been a synagogue for over 120 years, and is definitely built in the Gothic Revival style. Jayjg (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Beth Hamedrash Hagadol/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

{{subst:#if:This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.|


This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.|}}

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    {{subst:#if:In the Schism section, "In 1859", "In 1872", and "1879" it would be best if there was a comma placed after 1859, 1872, and 1879. Same thing in for the Move to current building, Jacob Joseph and Post-Joseph era section.|In the Schism section, "In 1859", "In 1872", and "1879" it would be best if there was a comma placed after 1859, 1872, and 1879. Same thing in for the Move to current building, Jacob Joseph and Post-Joseph era section.|}}
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{1bcom}}}|}}
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2acom}}}|}}
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2bcom}}}|}}
    C. No original research:
    {{subst:#if:Some of the information in the third section appears to be OR.|Some of the information in the third section appears to be OR.|}}
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{3acom}}}|}}
    B. Focused:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{3bcom}}}|}}
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    {{subst:#if:In the Early history section, this ---> "Rejecting the reformist observances of New York's German-Jewish congregations", sounds like POV.|In the Early history section, this ---> "Rejecting the reformist observances of New York's German-Jewish congregations", sounds like POV.|}}
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{5com}}}|}}
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{6acom}}}|}}
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{6bcom}}}|}}
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    {{subst:#if:If the above statements can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!|If the above statements can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!|}}

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 04:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review. Re: 1a, I've inserted commas as suggested, please let me know if any are missing. Regarding 4, this isn't really a contentious point; German Jews at the time were rapidly moving to Reform, whereas Eastern European Jews resisted it. In any event I've quoted the source directly, is that ok? Jayjg (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, you've got them all. Oh, well I to me it sounded POVish, but its fine now. I would like to thank Jayjg for getting the stuff I left at the talkpage, cause I have gone off and passed it to GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
That's a great idea. I've done it elsewhere, but not here yet. Since it was your idea, I leave it to you to do the honors. Jayjg (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, Jayjg! Read and enjoyed. Is it OK if I change the references formatting from <div class="references-2column"> to {{refbegin|colwidth=30em}}, (and {{refend}} at the end) as I've just done at Che Guevara? What this does is it allows the number of columns to be determined on-the-fly, so that if you're using a large font and narrow window you may only have one column. This helps for example with displaying articles on handheld devices. Coppertwig (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Miscellaneous comments[edit]

  • I suggest that the wikilink from "Russian Jewish" go to History of the Jews in Russia rather than to History of the Jews in the Soviet Union as it currently does, for two reasons: one, the latter is essentially a disambiguation page, and I think the reader would prefer to arrive at a page with content; two, the wikilinked words say "Russian" rather than "Soviet Union", so the former seems more relevant.
  • I suggest not wikilinking United States. People know what it is; they can get to it via the wikilink of New York City; it's not as relevant to this article as New York City is; and the United States page takes considerable time to load (several whole seconds! :-), which is annoying if one happens to click on it.
  • "the rabbi and bulk of the members": I think the word "the" needs to be inserted before "bulk".
  • Is "decisors" a misspelling? If not, it may be a good idea to add it to the lead of the wikilinked article. (2 instances). Seems to be a misspelling: I don't see it in the sources.
  • The last paragraph of the lead is rather confusing. There seem to be some internal contradictions. The article, including the first sentence ("is" or "was") should be consistent as to whether this building is currently a synagogue or not.
  • The first sentence of the article gives the impression that "Beth Hamedrash Hagadol" is a particular building. But the Early History section is written as if "Beth Hamedrash Hagadol" is a congregation which used various buildings. I think it may be possible to fix this with a few introductory words in the first sentence of the "Early History" part. The definition of a term such as "Beth Hamedrash Hagadol" should be used consistently throughout the article, I think, or else it should be made clear that a different definition is being used in a section of the article. Using a phrase such as "the Beth Hamedrash Hagadol congregation" might help fix this. (I wonder whether the first sentence of the article means that "Beth Hamedrash Hagadol" is a congregation currently located at that address; but that would seem to contradict the last paragraph of the lead.) Using just "Beth Hamedrash" rather than "Beth Hamedrash Hagadol" in the Early History section would help.
  • The first paragraph of the Early History is unclear as to whether it was founded in 1852 as "Beth Hamedrash Hagadol" or as "Beth Hamedrash".
  • Re the beadle: I wonder whether this is a specific individual being described, and whether the name of the person, and/or the time period, can be extracted from the source.
  • "and every member personally oversaw the baking of his matzos for use on Passover." How about "his or her"? Were women considered to be members?
  • "changing the title of parnas to president" doesn't seem quite right to call this an "innovation" since earlier, "Ash took Rothstein to an American court in an attempt to oust him as president of the congregation".
  • "and Beth Hamedrash Hagadol re-hired Ash": could this be clarified? Does it mean that if there had been a Chief Rabbi for New York, then Beth Hamedrash Hagadol would not have needed Ash?
  • In one place it says 60 Norfolk Street, in the lead 60–64 Norfolk Street. Needs to be consistent or to have the difference explained.
  • "In the late 1800s, synagogues in Manhattan each focussed on a particular constituency,..." If this was not true of Beth Hamedrash Hagadol, as suggested by the following sentence, then I think this sentence needs adjusting: "most synagogues" or "other synagogues" or "all other synagogues" or "synagogues generally", etc.
  • "imported from Europe the famous and highly-paid cantor, Israel Michaelowsky," and "and had imported Joseph": I wonder whether it's usual to use the word "imported" for a human being. If not usual, using it once in the article is poetic and OK, but using it twice is not in my opinion.
  • "and had imported Joseph to achieve that (ultimately unfulfilled) goal": I would insert "try to" before "achieve", since the use of the word "achieve" seems to me to imply that it actually was achieved, confusing the reader for a second by contradicting the parenthetical comment.
  • "with over 1,500 men crowded into the sanctuary": men only? It would be good to state something explicitly about the roles of men and women.
  • Last paragraph: "As of 2008 ... was" should probably be "As of 2008 ... is", with present tense used throughout the paragraph.

Coppertwig(talk) 15:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough read-through. I plan to make quite a few fixes, based on your comments! Jayjg (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
O.K., I've made most of the changes you recommended. Regarding a few I haven't changed or other questions you've asked:
  • "decisor" is an English word meaning one who makes decisions.
  • "Beth Hamedrash Hagadol" is a congregation. Your questions and concerns were quite valid, and I've re-worded to, I hope, make this more clear.
  • Unfortunately the source doesn't give the beadle's name. :-(
  • At the time, men only baked matzos, and only men were considered members but I don't have a source for it specifically regarding Beth Hamedrash Hagadol (I do for other synagogues).
  • I think the sources use "imported", but I'm open to another word, I just can't think of one right now.
  • Yes, men only at Joseph's first speech. Women wouldn't have gone to such a talk. I'd like to state more about the roles men and women played too, but that would be original research, as the sources don't really go into it.
  • I tried to state everything in the past tense, so that it was consistent, and so that it wouldn't have to be re-written January 1, 2009 - which is not that far away.
Again, thanks for all the helpful comments. Do you have any other advice? Jayjg (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if you could put a wikilink, for example from the word "men" talking about who attended the talk, to another Wikipedia article talking about the roles of men and women in synagogues more generally. Coppertwig(talk) 00:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Interesting idea, though I don't see an article that exactly fits the situation. The thing is, regarding membership, for example, it wasn't really so much a reflection of Jewish law, though it was that in part, as it was a reflection of the existing wider societal mores. The same situation held in Reform synagogues (which rejected Jewish law) as Orthodox synagogues. This was a time when women did not vote, nor have a voice in many other ways. Regarding the talk itself, the closest I can find is Women in Judaism, but I don't think it really covers it. Jayjg (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
O.K., I changed one "imported" to "bringing over from Europe". Jayjg (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

242 East 7th St[edit]

I'm not sure if this is the same congregation, but either way it needs mentioning, if only to avoid confusion.Johnbod (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Different group, that's Beth Hamedrash Hagadol Anshe Ungarn; it was a congregation of Jews of Hungarian origin, rather than Beth Hamedrash Hagadol which was mostly Polish/Russian. I think you're right, it should be mentioned; any suggestions where it would fit? A disambiguation at the top, or a comment in the text? Jayjg (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd try to sneak in a "not to be confused" with into the text, maybe just after the split is dealt with. Btw, the name is obvious a popular one, and should be explained/translated. Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Good ideas. Done and done. Jayjg (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Print sources[edit]

Is there some print sources on subject?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 14:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Beth Hamedrash Hagadol is not in Yiddish[edit]

But in Hebrew, and even if borrowed from Hebrew to Yiddish, it's still all in Hebrew..Anyway, as both Hebrew and Yiddish use the same alphabet, there should be a writing example of it in Hebrew letters in the article.--Gilisa (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

An Jewish or A Jewish[edit]

Shouldn't it read it is a Jewish congregation and not it is an Jewish congregation? Yossiea (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)