Talk:History of the Jews in Chicago

Cutler Irving
Cutler Irving has written a lot of sources about the Jews in Chicago. I think a "singlesource" template applies if all of the cited works are by the same author, but it's hard to diversify the sources because Irving has written so much about it and what he has written is accessible. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:History of the Jews in Abkhazia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC
The title of this article is potentially impacted by the outcome of this Request for comment re: entries about ethnic groups in the United States. Page watchers are invited to participate in the ongoing discussion. Thanks! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 5 December 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. I find the opposing arguments by warshy convicing enough that we should not violate consistency with many other similar articles (cf. Category:Jewish-American history by city. If having a mixture of history and present information is indeed a "common error that should be rectified across Wikipedia", then please propose a multi-move, or establish a consensus at the Wikiproject. Doing it piecewise is not the way to go. P.S. see also Jews in New York City.  No such user (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Chicago → Judaism in Chicago – Only some of the content in this article is about the history. Much of it, including virtually the entire lead, the entire Geography section, the entire Education section, and half of the Congregations section, is presented not as a history but as a description of the status quo of Judaism in Chicago from the perspective of 1995, which, without delving into it, is when I'm supposing the source(s) of the information were published. From the perspective of 2022, there's little or nothing of historical note in the material about 1995 to justify covering it here as history. Rather:


 * "History" should be removed from the article's title, moving the article to Judaism in Chicago.
 * Actual historical (pre-1995) information should be kept.
 * The content that was current in 1995 should generally be considered outdated and should be replaced with much more up-to-date information to reflect Judaism in Chicago circa 2022.
 * Information from the period 1995 through 2022 about events of actual historical note should be added (or kept if it was already here among the material that was merely a snapshot as of 1995 and not of historic significance).

Largoplazo (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: Wikiprojects Chicago, Judaism, and Jewish history have been notified of this discussion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I just think it would completely veer off of the Wikipedia standard. Wikipedia has hundreds of articles about Jews just about everywhere in the world, and they are all called "History of the Jews in..." I just skimmed through this one and it does not look any different from any of the other ones, with a proper section on history, etc. Why make this single article veer from the Wikipedia standard? Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 17:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm certain that Wikipedia has no standard that articles should have misleading titles, or that, more specifically, that articles across Wikipedia should be titled "History of ..." even though they're primarily not about history. If it's a common error, then it should be remedied across Wikipedia. Article titles should be suitable to the content. Otherwise, it's a WP:COATRACK situation. Otherwise, why isn't the article Chicago titled History of Chicago just because it has a history section? Largoplazo (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose "Coatrack" is an essay, and it is a hard subjective decision what really constitutes a 'coatrack' in my view. But if so, I disagree and I oppose, because this article is really about the History of the Jews in Chicago, or it should be. "Judaism in Chicago" (or anywhere else, for that matter) would be a complete misnomer, and an improper title for a Wikipedia article, in my view. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 18:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm perplexed. Have you neither looked at the article nor noticed my pointing out that the bulk of the article is not about the history? That the article is really about the History of the Jews in Chicago is false. The fact that it has a history section in it underscores that. You say that alternatively the article should be only about its history. But that would mean non-history content should be removed. Where should it go? Wouldn't keeping it and renaming the article to suit the content make more sense? Largoplazo (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am perplexed also. This is not a major issue at all, and I hate it that it is causing such disagreement between us. I never had any issues with any edit I've seen of yours, and I don't want to prolong a disagreement here on such a minor issue. I guess we just disagree and see things differently here. If there is any history missing it should be added to the article in my view, and "Judaism in Chicago" is definitely not a name I think is proper/fitting for it. As I said, I know there are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia (if not more than a thousand?) about "History of the Jews in...", and I wouldn't change any of them, because in my view that is the subject of the article, including this one. But I don't really care. If there are others here that do agree with you, go ahead and change it as you like. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 20:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per nom. It appears this article is about more than just history, and the proposed title is more concise and natural sounding than the present. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)