Talk:Chaim Tzvi Schneerson

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 01:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Article issues remain unaddressed.

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in 1874, Rabbi Chaim Tzvi Schneerson was forced to ride through Tiberias naked on a donkey as punishment for his opposition to the Ottoman Government? Source:
  • Reviewed:

Created by EytanMelech (talk). Self-nominated at 21:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Chaim Tzvi Schneerson; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• The article has been flagged for WP:V and WP:NOR by another editor. That being said, it's a great article and with some more work on the aforementioned issues, could be a great DYK. Maximilian775 (talk)

@Maximilian775: Thank you! I am still unsure what parts are "original research", but would be happy to correct any issues with the article if given examples of what needs to change.

EytanMelech (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Miraclepine, could you possibly elaborate on the notice you left on the article? TIA. Maximilian775 (talk)

• Comment. I don't think this is main page-ready. At minimum, it needs a top-to-bottom copyedit: there are confusing sentences and basic grammatical errors like not capitalizing the first letter in a sentence but also capitalizing random words like Speech. Here's a single paragraph I took a look at. More problematically, while this is great material for, say, a website or an extended blog post, I think there's far too much detail on weak sourcing from a giant hunt for any mention of Schneerson's name at all for Wikipedia standards. Not every contemporary news article is significant or reliable. For example, the "feats of the assembly" of this Melbourne meeting was mentioned, but there weren't any "feats". It was an awareness and fundraising event that clearly didn't actually go that far, and Schneerson is not even mentioned by name in the resulting book nor is it clear it's his article being quoted from, and even if it was (it probably was, sure), it was two pages in a 256 page book stashed in an appendix. Is this really THAT important to bring up? I think a Wikipedia article needs to be a little more focused on the important things that secondary sources say, and a loving full treatment of every single mention is more for a book or specific website on the topic. The 1860s were an era when print was fairly cheap; saying "news about Schneerson's actions and speeches continued to be published in Europe" is kind of the equivalent of saying that a modern-day newsletter writer continues to write posts. That's nice, but not really THAT special. SnowFire (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
  • @EytanMelech: It's been a month or so. Do you think you have the time or implication to look into the concerns above? If not, it's no big deal, but we can withdraw or close the nomination then. SnowFire (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
    • @SnowFire: A decent amount of copyediting has been done by various users since I worked on the page, so that is taken care of. There are no more sources available for Schneerson. I scoured every newspaper archive I could find and every web result from every web browser in every variation of spelling of his name in both English and Hebrew. If you are not happy with the detail here, then there is nothing else I can do. EytanMelech (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
      • @EytanMelech: I believe you, but to be clear, the complaint above is not "the article is not comprehensive enough." Per above, the issue is "far too much detail" - that by scooping up every single contemporary newspaper article, the article lacks focus, and my lend undue weight to events that weren't actually that important (e.g. see above about how a passing reference, in an appendix of Rome and Jerusalem, to an article that Schneerson wrote, that did not mention the journalist by name, gets some time). Which is wonderful work in many ways, but it's really better for a book / website / journal article than an encyclopedia overview article. And even if trimmed, it needs copyediting. SnowFire (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
        • I understand what you mean. A lot of those very niche details I think were mostly stuff that I adapted from originally uncited claims on the Hebrew article. EytanMelech (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@EytanMelech: I still see concerns in this article, including sections that are uncited. Are you working on this in the next few days, or should this be withdrawn? Z1720 (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• @Z1720: As I have stated, I have no more sources. There is nothing that I could do to find more citations for any other information in the article. I assume most of the information that is uncited is found somewhere in the book on Otzar (under Sources, Klausner 1973) but I do not have a subscription to the site and cannot access the book. EytanMelech (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@EytanMelech: DYK does not allow uncited statements in the articles that are listed. I suggest removing the parts that you cannot find a citation for, and post here when the article is ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Uncited statements are still present in the article, so I am marking this as rejected. Z1720 (talk) 02:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

References