|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Ethnic holidays (Mimouna, Seharane, Sigd)
Debresser (and others): I already have a sense how you feel about these. I don't completely disagree with you, either.
The complication is that Mimouna is really big enough, and is observed widely enough, and is famous enough, that it legitimately deserves mention here somewhere. And if you look at Talk:Jewish holidays, you'll see there is a nine-year-old request to include it. Whether it merited that inclusion then is a good question, but I think it legitimately does now. With respect to Mimouna, if I put it in the article and you then revert it, I would probably strongly object on the talk page.
So the problem is this: Without Mimouna, it's probably easy to leave them all three out. However, once you include Mimouna, how do you exclude the others? In particular, there is a lot of sensitivity around Beta Israel that as they are accepted as Jews, their customs need to be respected. So my sandbox provides what I think is a workable solution—one that is not excessively lengthy, but mentions everything without too much fuss. I propose to include it as a last section under Israeli holidays, because the Israeli government's recognition of them gives them some tie to notability.
If you would strongly prefer only including Mimouna, though, I can't really argue against that effectively. After all, while Mimouna is widely observed, Seharane and Sigd are really not (outside their core ethnic communities). If we went that way, I would probably prefer to slot Mimouna in as a subheading of Pesach. If you click where it says "[show]" just under the title "Jewish holidays" you'll see what I have in mind there.
- I won't disagree with you. There is one thing lacking in what you wrote, or actually - three things. What the days are about. What do people do on Mimouna, etc.? I know this is in the articles, but at least something minimal should be mentioned here as well. Debresser (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Update 16:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
At this point, I have completed everything that has been on my to-do list on this article, and I think it is in pretty decent shape. Naturally, it will stay on my watchlist, but I'm going to walk away for a little while and let it sit quietly, and see what others may offer.
At a point where this goes up for WP:GA status, there are some improvements that still need doing. In particular, there are several pieces of this that could stand more/better references. In some cases they feel to me like WP:BLUE issues. This is especially true, for example, in the section on Shabbat. But the truth is that many uninvolved readers are not likely to see them that way, and we should probably do a little better. There may be other places where we might want to tweak the wording of statements or claims.
discussion of pikuach nefesh
- Saving a life. Shabbat and holiday work restrictions are always put aside in cases of pikuach nefesh, which is saving a human life. At the most fundamental level, if there is any possibility whatsoever that action must be taken to save a life, Shabbat restrictions are violated immediately, and without reservation.
I feel uncomfortable with the wording "Shabbat restrictions are violated". Wouldn't "suspended" or "superseded" be a better word here? It's not as if the Law tells us to violate the Law. Rather, it tells us "saving a life is more important than observing Shabbat".
- This remind the discussion whether shabbat hudcha or hutra in the case of pikuach nefesh, that is to say, whether the shabbat laws are in place but we push them aside, or if the laws are completely removed. In any case, I agree with the proposal to use another word, probably I'd prefer "superseded". Debresser (talk) 11:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- [Not really off Wikibreak, but still ...] Fair point. I think the most accurate way to say this without having to actually answer the discussion @Debresser brings up is to say:
At the most fundamental level, if there is any possibility whatsoever that some action must be taken to save a life, that action is taken immediately and without reservation, notwithstanding Shabbat restrictions.
- I think this finesses the point of whether they are "pushed aside" or removed. If you two are ok with that language, someone please go ahead and edit it.
- If you'd rather just leave it as it is, replacing violated with superseded, I'm ok with that, too.
- חג שמח! StevenJ81 (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, and @Thnidu: Thank you for the compliment!
- When I return from Wikibreak, I need to go back and fix Shemini Atzeret again. I got it promoted to GA, then had a couple of GA experts with little understanding of classical halachic literature tear it back apart. So I need to go back and try to put all the pieces back together again. I'm no longer aiming for GA—too frustrating—just for a cogent and coherent article. Any help you gentlemen can provide, either now or when I come back, would be appreciated. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Title of article
I wish to call your attention to the fact that the title of this article, "Jewish holidays," is wrongly translated in the page's title as "Yom Tov" / "Yamim Tovim." It is a misnomer, and should have rather been translated as " Chagim Yehudim " (Heb. חגים יהודיים). This is because, in classical Hebrew (or in rabbinic Hebrew), the word "Tom Tov" has a limited meaning, and excludes some Jewish holidays, such as Purim, Hanukkah and Yom Kippur.Davidbena (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- What David is saying is true. There is a distinction between jewish holidays (chagim) and yamim tovim, which include another set of restrictions. This is the first thing someone reads on the article, and it is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddogpc (talk • contribs) 05:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- "Jewish holidays" is the right name in English (or at least "Jewish holidays and commemorations"). § Terminology used to describe Jewish holidays goes through the terminology issue. So is it better not to put anything in the lead? If we're going to put something in the lead, I'm going to vote for מועדי ישראל, because we start with Shabbat. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- It does, and it is. I actually didn't add that translation in; it was one of the few things that existed before I reworked the page, and I just left it alone. I would argue that moed is most general (and can include Shabbat and fasts), chagim next, and yom tov last. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
@StevenJ81: When readers click on a wikilink, they expect it to take them to the article on the linked topic, if such an article exists. That is the way the vast majority of wikilinks on Wikipedia work. So, for example, if the text "Rosh Hashanah" is linked, the link normally leads to the article Rosh Hashanah. The links in this article that work differently are confusing and disorienting, and I see no benefit to them. I tried to fix that with these edits, but you reverted them. Could you please explain why?
To be clear, I'm not objecting to the use of section links altogether. There are some section links in this article that I think are appropriate. The problem is when a link that looks like it should go to Rosh Hashanah instead goes to Jewish holidays#Rosh Hashanah, for example. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Mr. Granger: I certainly take your point. However, this article is relatively unusual, in that it contains material summaries on each of the holidays. It's more than a list article, yet is not a fully detailed article on any one particular holiday. My assumption in building the article this way—and it was done intentionally—was that people might or might not be looking for full-blown articles on particular holidays. Instead, they might equally be looking to see how the individual holiday fits into the overall scheme of holidays. Therefore these links go to sections, which in turn all have links to the full article on the linked topic. Someone wanting to go forward to the full article has to click twice instead of once—not a great strain—while someone wishing to stay in the general article can easily navigate around.
- Additionally, the article has generally been stable for a while. So I'd like to give others who watch this page an opportunity to comment. If they prefer your approach I'll be more than happy to go along. But I'd like to leave it open for discussion for a few days first, if you don't mind. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)