Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biblical wedding


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. Many participants share the nominator's concerns about the sourcing, but there is no consensus to delete it outright.  Sandstein  07:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Biblical wedding

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Apparent original research from primary sources. Avi (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Here's a suggestion. Give NL a couple of days to clean up his sources. Then we can look and see if the article is irredemably POV or OR. "I don't have time" is an argument for delaying a source a little, not for making them impossible to find WITHIN THE ARTICLE. Or we get a ruling on whether you can do cites like that.Mzk1 (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Secondary sources, public domain encyclopedia articles, are cited. The topic needs to be a little better defined. The Bible covers about 3,000 years of history so customs must have changed over time. Is there an article on ancient Jewish weddings? If so maybe delete this one or merge. If not then keep this one and improve. The topic is clearly notable and important. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't argue that the topic has merit, but the majority of this is not from secondary sources that discuss the bible (like commetaries, the Talmud, or even contemporary sources) but it seems to be comprised mainly from biblical quotes and the wikipedia editor's personal opinion (WP:OR) as to how they reflected biblical society. As an essay, this may be nce for some website, but not for wikipedia. A massive cleanup would help, but I think as the article stands now, it is better deleted and recreated. -- Avi (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the article on Erusin also need to be considered with this one. I mentioned some of the issues on the discussion pages (including a whole section of the article that appears unrelated to Erusin). I am not sure that this article adds to the general article on Jewish marriage. But I do not have a firm opinion on the matter. BTW, can people stop making general references to the Jewish Encyclopedia and leave the reader to guess whether a particular paragraph has a source or not?Mzk1 (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to fix the article on erusin to be NPOV and to remove some of the uncited material; at this point, I do not want to remove erusin. However, I am worried about the author. In places he puts in lots of OR, with a reference that does not say what he says or even contradicts it. (See, for example, the original version of the section in erusin that I replaced with "Other issues".) It is difficult to check through every possible article in JE to see if his quote is authentic. Plus, he is starting to use non-internet sources (an idea I would normally recommend), which would be fine except that he is difficult to trust. I realize that not every word in my writing may be in the source, but NL goes way beyond that. He needs to make some commitment to reform, so we can trust him that he is not inventing sources.Mzk1 (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Very definitely based almost entirely on secondary sources. You'd have worked that out for yourself, avraham, if you checked the full edit history (including that of the article which the first edit notes that this article was originally split from). I'm sorry that the ref tags often appear to refer to primary sources, but that's only because I've wikified the references to them that the secondary sources use - as far as I can tell there isn't a wiki markup to distinguish references that the source refers to from the source itself. 100% of these references originate from the secondary sources I've used - I haven't touched copies of the Torah/Talmud/Shulchan Aruch/Mishneh Torah/etc. in making this article, its just that the secondary sources point out the references to them, and I've preserved mention of those references for the sake of completeness. If you check the secondary sources out yourself (there are online copies of most of them - and I've mentioned which articles/etc. they are explicitly in the edit history), you'll see those references there. Newman Luke (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that this is the way it's supposed to be done? Wouldn't to be better to say, JE, so-and-so based on Gen. 23? It is very hard to track your sources. In erusin, I found a rather impressive reference to Kiddushin 50-something, which to my surprise turned out to be completely accurate. But I have no idea where you got it from.Mzk1 (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you do that, you end up with absurdly long convoluted references to JE. Its also extremely tedious when you're wikifying the original public domain text (sorting out all the references in it is fairly tedious anyway). As for Kiddushin 50-something, if you go through the edit history and trace the content you'll find out where it came from - or if you explain to me in detail what the reference is about, I'll see if I can remember the secondary source I took it from more directly. Newman Luke (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the point, Mzk1, the article needs serious cleanup; right now it looks like Newman's own essay and it's impossible to tell what is sourced and to which source. Furthermore, there are better sources than the JE, older and newer, but better and more authoritative, which has been explained to Newman before. We should use those. -- Avi (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Define authoritative, bearing in mind wikipedia's policy of not favouring one denomination of a religion above another, in a way that doesn't include primary sources/original research, while still rejecting very respected encyclopedias. Besides, Avraham, that's you claiming I haven't had time to confirm what you wrote. I have other obligations besides wikipedia, you know and/or I don't own that book, so I can't confirm your source, which is behaviour forbidden by WP:OWN. What it isn't is a dispute about existence of articles, so you should retract the nomination. There is a tag for suggesting serious cleanup and it isn't afd Newman Luke (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know; I prefer Say Where You Found It. At least put the JE reference at the end of the paragraph. As it is, I find (not in this article; I did not examine it) references in your articles to things that are not in any of the JE articles you cite. I have to say, if I see Kiddushin 1:1 (actual case), and it is not there, and the actual page in Kiddushin says nothing of the sort, then I assume OR. (I do check the general references too, just in case, but it wasn't there, either.) I wasn't aware that we were obligated to look through the change log, but, in any case, how would you find the particular change that entered a particular line? If you can tell me how, I will try.Mzk1 (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * NL, I think you are wikilawyering. Where does it say that one is supposed to look at the change log? (Perhaps it does; I will appreciate the reference.) That is NOT what those pages mean. It means if I don't have the book, or if I don't know Hebrew, or I am too busy. It doesn't mean that I have to guess at your source.Mzk1 (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the problem with that. Unlike Newman Luke, I can read the original Talmud, Shulchan Aruch and other normative sources in their original language, and I have found, as you have Mzk, that NL's citations are often inaccurate. Newman Luke has been doing this for months. If giving him a little more time now would result in properly sourced articles, so then a determination could be made as to what is accurate and what is not, what is appropriate and what is not, what is properly represented and what is not, I'd be the first to sign up for that. However, already having to have re-written and re-source a number of the inaccurate articles he has created or to which he has made major changes, I am not confident that a few more days will result in a new Newman Luke. -- Avi (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Avraham, I can and do read the Talmud, etc. Not the original copy because it doesn't exist anymore, but a copy at least as good as yours. However, when I'm writing for a Wikipedia article I deliberately avoid looking at the Talmud, etc. That's because its a Primary Source, and using it directly is abhorred by wikipedia policy, despite your desire to do so . My citations are from secondary sources, my 'citations' of the Talmud, Shulchan Aruch, etc. are just wikifications of the citations from the secondary sources. Its the secondary source that makes them, not me; maybe it gets them wrong, but I haven't seen you cite any evidence that other reliable sources think the secondary sources I use get the cites wrong, and until you do, I don't think your argument has any merit whatsoever. Newman Luke (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep -- I thought the use of Primary Sources was no longer deplored as it was when I first used to edit WP several years ago. Certainly I have seen articles on subjects from Classical Antiquity with extensive citations from classical authors.  Citations from the Bible are at least as legitimate.  If the author has used secondary sources and quoted from them as if he had read primary ones, I would certainly consider it illegitimate, but that is a reason for cleaning the article up, not deleting it.  I would prefer the title to be Marriage in the Bible (or something like that) to exclude material on how modern Christian and Jewish groups have interpreted the texts.  If Newman Luke is misbehaving, by citing original sources which he has not actually read (rather than his secondary source - or better still, secondary source citing primary source), he needs to be warned and, if he persists, threatened with administrative action.  If he reappears as a sockpuppet (or non-logged in editor), there are means of dealing with that too, by reverting his work until he realises that it is futile.  If my guess is that he is spuriously citing original sources not available to him, it is possible the fault is not with him but in the secondary source he is using.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point. The author does NOT believe in primary sources - I do. But he insists (see above) that it is legitimate to put in sources that he has not seen, if it is quoted in another source that he has seen. He said we are supposed to check the comments in the history pages, which I do not believe is a valid citation method. Basically, I am supposed to find in the history page where he created it, or check every reference in the footnote section (there isn't even a reference section, which would be the place for this), as well as any other possible atricle in the same reference that might be applicable, but he forgot or was lost with the deletion of some other part of the article by someone. I am assuming Good Faith, but this is making a mockery out of Verifiability. How can I put "citation needed" next to a citation?


 * I think the remedy is as follows:


 * * Find the articles in Judaism that are mostly his.
 * * Have him give us a list of the actual references he used, and if he won't, make an educated guess (encyclopedias, probably)
 * * Delete all other references, and put "citation needed"
 * * Give him some time to show a good faith effort to put in real citations, or delete the writing. If there is no article left (and in most cases there will be something left), so be it.
 * NL likes to quote guidelines as if they were policies, and Say Where You Found It is a guideline while Verifiability is a Policy, but how are we to have Verifiability without it? Good Faith is one thing, but if the author himself says he doesn't need to see it? I have to go find a book he doesn't have to find and perhaps can't even read (if in rabbinic Hebrew)?Mzk1 (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW, I disagree - strongly - that "in the Bible" would disallow traditional intepretation. I certainly would add it, and it is the first item in the Project Judaism Style Sheet to allow both sorts of interpretation.Mzk1 (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Mzk1, you should NOT believe in primary sources - see WP:PRIMARY. Its a policy that strongly disapproves of using them. Use secondary sources. That's wikipedia policy, its not me being odd, that's actually what the policy tells you to do, I'm just obeying it, unlike some.
 * As for verifiability, the policy is say where you found it not keep repeating where you found it every time any tom dick or harry asks you. I have already said where I have found it; check the edit summaries in the edit history, and the associated edits, that's what its there for. If you want to find out the sources, where I've got it from, the detail is there for you; it is not my responsibility to repeat this for you.
 * As for 'traditional interpretation', that's fine, as long as it is clearly marked as such and not given undue weight. This is an article about the Bible and the Bible isn't exclusive to Judaism, so don't distort it to suggest that the view of Orthodox Judaism is the norm from which all other views deviate.
 * And as for Delete all other references, and put "citation needed", that is EXTREMELY inappropriate behaviour, and constitutes vandalism. Newman Luke (talk)
 * (1) I do not read it that way. Primary sources are valid when used carefully, and I use them VERY carefully. Furthermore, the policy tends to consider encyclopedias more as tertiary sources than primary; please stop mis-stating it. Finally, a hundred-year-old encyclopedia widely understood (see the page on JE and the library journal article) to represent a particular school of German thinking strikes me as more of a primary source - but I have no reason to push that, as long as you properly cite it and allow other viewpoints.
 * (2) The point is that your use of "wikified" footnote implies that you are quoting them directly, and you are not. The user has no way of knowing this, and they should be removed. There is no reason you cannot put your footnotes in a shortened form (Gen. 15:16, as per JE article Wedding), or at the end of the paragraph.
 * (3) If all I can see is your "wikified" footnote, then there is in reality no citation. Please explain to me how anyone will accept a "citation needed" next to a citation?
 * (4) A comment in an edit summary is nice for defending reverts, but it is NOT an inline ctation. Period. You like wikilawyering; please quote the policy or guideline that states otherwise. There are only three policies in Wikipedia, and you are completely ignoring one of them. I do not want to be a purist in this; but, in general, uncited material needs to be cited or removed. A cite MUST be on the article page. I just edited one of your articles, and it was FULL of uncited material. I'm sure you got it from a good source, but there was no way to tell what it was by looking at the page.Mzk1 (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.