Talk:Chuppah

Page overhaul on 2009-12-04

Newman Luke: I am unclear as to why you overhauled this page using the Jewish Encyclopedia as your primary reference. Many of the early Jewish articles of Wikipedia also referenced the 100-year-old Jewish Encyclopedia because it was public domain, but were subsequently rewritten using more updated sources. Additionally, the Jewish Encyclopedia has a distinct, anti-Haredi tone. Talmudic teachings and practices are given an antiquated and even putdown point-of-view, challenging Wikipedia's rule of Neutral point of view.

Your revision of each section was also done in an essay-like (as opposed to encyclopedic) manner. That is, each practice is brought down chronologically from the way it was done in Talmudic times to the way it is done today. If you look at other articles in the Judaism series, you will see that "History" belongs in its own section at the end, and modern practice belongs in the beginning. The lead also needs to be written to express the implications as well as the simple translation of the subject.

Rather than reverting all your hard work, I wonder if you could explain your thinking on this talk page and then work together toward consensus. Yoninah (talk) 10:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You have several points raised there, so I'll try and answer them in turn (my labelling of your points is fairly arbitrary, but should make any response you wish to make easier) - some of these unfortunately overlap, but I suspect you'll want to respond to them independently:

(a) The Jewish encyclopedia is, in the present day, talked about as follows:

“ Although published in the early 1900s, this was a work highly regarded for its scholarship. Much of the material is still of value to researchers in Jewish History ”

“ For events prior to 1900, it is considered to offer a level of scholarship superior to either of the more recent Jewish Encyclopedias written in English. ”

(Those are quotes mentioned in the Jewish Encyclopedia article, so look there if you're interested in the sources of them)

Now you'll forgive me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the Bible, Talmud, Maimonides, Shuchan Aruch, Nachmanides, Even haEzer, etc. were written BEFORE 1900.

(b) Nowhere do I see any evidence for it having an anti-Haredi tone. To be honest, I haven't even noticed it mention Haredim at all. Now you'll need evidence to back up your claim; not evidence of it being anti-Haredi, but evidence that a sizable number of reliable respected neutral sources regard it as being distinctly anti-Haredi. I haven't found any such view expressed in such sources.

(c) I haven't seen Talmudic teachings being treated as antiquated or put down, if anything the opposite is true - there are occasions when it seems to me that it puts down more recent scholarship. But again, you'll need to evidence that a sizable number of reliable respected neutral sources regard it as treating the Talmud as antiquated or put down. Its extremely respectful to the Talmud, going as far as to frequently refer to the writers as "the sages" etc.; that is what isn't neutral point of view, but then I avoid incorporating terms like the sages, etc. (even though doing so awkwardly limits the number of ways to refer to them without being repetitive), so this isn't an issue.

(d) History doesn't belong at the end or modern at the start: neither belong anywhere in particular. If you find when you are doing the "history" you end up having to repeat large chunks of what is in "modern", or when you are doing modern having to frequently reference "history" to avoid making it seem that 'twas ever thus, or to avoid giving undue weight in any other way, then the answer is often simply that the sections need to go the other way round.

(e) The chronological arrangement happens to suit this material the best - I've tried planning it out in other ways but it just becomes an awkward clunky fit, with too many frequent references to bits that the reader won't have read yet, etc. In essence, any other way ends up too much like Tristram Shandy (the book, not the article, [both worth reading, if you haven't had the chance]), read backwards. There are plenty of religion articles arranged chronologically, there's nothing wrong with the arrangement, its simply the most suited to this particular material.

(f) I have seen other articles in the Judaism series and many are organised in chronological order. Women in Judaism, for example, is arranged in chronological order, oldest practices first, modern practices last. So too is Minhag, Ashkenazi Jews, Judeo-Aramaic language, Jewish left, and Antisemitism. These are seriously major articles, linked in the main {{Judaism}} template, and if its fine for them, I really don't see why it shouldn't be for comparatively lesser ones such as this.

(g) As for "the lead needs to be written to express the implications ...." that sounds like original research to me, so I don't think it should.

Newman Luke (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I reverted. There is absolutely no reason to take a good article and rewrite it just because someone has a fetish with the JE. Furthermore, in Project:Judaism, we do not use the four letters used to denote the name of God. Yossiea ^(talk) 16:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(h) It wasn't a good article before - it clearly stated above that it was only "start class", as it does at present.

(j) Calling the use of a source a "fetish" is a massive violation of WP:CIVILITY and I'd appreciate an apology for that.

(k) There is plenty of reason to rewrite an article that's only "start class" on the quality. In fact, that's the whole point of the article classification system. Poor articles are supposed to be rewritten.

(m) Project:Judaism does NOT own the article. No-one owns the article - see WP:OWN. In Project:Judaism, you obey Wikipedia's manual of style to the best of your knowledge, whether you or I like it or not. And Wikipedia's official stance is that it is not censored. Regardless of what you or I personally think about using the four letters in text, wikipedia does not allow them to be banned from articles.

(n) Reversion is bad behaviour. In particular, I'd like to encourage you to read Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus" and especially WP:PRESERVE.

Newman Luke (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the Jewish Encylopedia verbatim

See: User talk:Newman Luke#AfD Nomination: Conjugal obligations and rights in Judaism

Newman:

(1) Have you even bothered to read the article about the Jewish Encyclopedia wherein in clearly states that it was written from a very specific WP:POV, and it is not "automatically" a WP:NPOV source, nor is it fully reliable as such: "Jewish Encyclopedia#The Jewish Encyclopedia and Wissenschaft des Judentums: The scholarly style of the Jewish Encyclopedia is very much in the mode of Wissenschaft des Judentums studies, an approach to Jewish scholarship and religion that flourished in 19th-century Germany; indeed, the Encyclopedia may be regarded as the culmination of this movement. <ref>[http://www.jewishlibraries.org/ajlweb/publications/proceedings/proceedings2002/levy.pdf (Levy 2002)]</ref> In the 20th century, the movement's members dispersed to Jewish Studies departments in the United States and Israel. The scholarly authorities cited in the Encyclopedia—besides the classical and medieval exegetes—are almost uniformly Wissenschaft figures, such as Leopold Zunz, Moritz Steinschneider, Solomon Schechter, Wilhelm Bacher, J.L. Rapoport, David Zvi Hoffman, Heinrich Graetz, etc..."

Therefore, WHATEVER their strengths and uniqueness, these are NOT classical or conventional Torah and Judaic scholars. They are fundamentally secular academics and they do not write from within the 3,500 year old heritage of Torah Judaism, to say the least. Thus, their views cannot be accepted carte blanche nor can they be the lone standards by which Judaic subjects on Wikipedia are reported and judged. That is why it is both dangerous and foolish to copy their words verbatim without seeking greater balance from the classical religious commentators and sources.

(2) And very importantly, please read "Wikipedia:Jewish Encyclopedia topics#Method: ... DO NOT indiscriminately dump text from the JE into Wikipedia! At a minimum, please:

• format the text according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style;
• correct any spelling errors;
• rephrase any awkward-sounding prose to improve clarity and flow;
• remove 19th century references unless they really move the text along.

You are also encouraged to research and update the articles with new information.

When you have finished editing your article, add the {{JewishEncyclopedia|article=...|url=...}} template. This practice not only creates a proper reference of the source of the text, but will also help locate articles which demand updates since some of the information from the JE may be obsolete.

For a good example of a Wikipedia article adapted from the JE, see Yiram of Magdiel."

Thank you for your attention to this serious matter in the hope of avoiding any misunderstandings. IZAK (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(1)

The article clearly states that the encyclopedia was written in a very specific style. Not that it pushes a specific WP:POV.

In fact, it actually says

“ Although published in the early 1900s, this was a work highly regarded for its scholarship. Much of the material is still of value to researchers in Jewish History ”

“ For events prior to 1900, it is considered to offer a level of scholarship superior to either of the more recent Jewish Encyclopedias written in English ”

So read your sources properly. And don't use wikipedia as a source for wikipedia. Its not considered appropriate - see WP:RS.

(2)

I don't "indiscriminately" dump text. I'm very particular about which text I use. If I wasn't I'd have just put the whole article on "Idiocy" into wikipedia, instead of carefully distinguishing between the marriage-related aspects, the statistical/prevalence aspects, and the crime aspects.

And I fully wikify it, rather than merely "dump" it. This involves reformatting the text according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, correcting any spelling errors, rephrasing any awkward-sounding prose to improve clarity and flow, removing 19th century references from the body of the text (unless they really move the text along), and adding the {{JewishEncyclopedia|article=...|url=...}} template.

You'll note that's exactly what the guidelines you quote tell me to do. If you could be bothered to read the edit summaries in article history, instead of just trying to throw your weight around like some POV-pushing bully, you'd have worked that out for yourself.

Newman Luke (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to add Nisuin here

Once upon a time there were two articles, Erusin and Nesuin, for the two legal parts of the Jewish wedding. Someone merged Nisuin somewhere else, and it is now redirected to Jewish Wedding.

Now, Jewish Wedding is now an article emphasising the wedding as a ceremony, rather than a legal event. The argument for redirecting Nisuin is modern Hebrew, but this is the English Wikipedia. From a viewpoint of the English language, the only reason for such a term here is the legal one.

Since Nisuin and Chupah are synonyms - Chupah originally being a compartment, and both the canopy and Yichud (seclusion) are major methods of fulfilling the requirement, I would like to add something about Nisuin here.

I do not mean to change the main emphasis or the name of the article - just something in the introduction, and a section on other methods of Nisuin / Chuppah, such as Yichud. (The Yichud article is not appropriate, since it is mainly about the prohibition of seclusion of unmarried people.)

Any comments?Mzk1 (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Slight correction; they aren't exactly synonyms. Chuppah is the method of accomplishing nesuin.Mzk1 (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The veil

The veil... and the fact that the groom sees the bride without it... traces back to the Biblical story of Jacob. Jacob intended to marry Rachel, but Rachel's father (Laban) switched his daughters so that his older, Leah, was whom he married. Jacob did not notice the difference - until it was too late - because the girls wore veils. Jacob was then forced to make a deal with Laban in order to marry Rachel as well.

To avoid such a deception, the groom now gets to see the identity of the bride before the veil is put on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.107.91 (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)