Talk:Mi Shebeirach/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Lingzhi.Renascence (talk · contribs) 03:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tamzin. I saw your name among the nominators, and since you're the admin who (inadvertently) blocked me, I thought I'd help you with some work. Moreover, I am curious about Jewish topics. I'll take a hard pass on Mike Tyson's tattoos. :-) Please be advised that I am juggling things IRL and will work on this at a slow pace. The GAN instructions say seven days, but I think I'll be lucky to be done that fast. Maybe 2 weeks. If that's too slow, let me know, and I'll bow out... This article is somewhat long and detailed and will take a while to process. If I raise a point that is actually covered later in the article, please forgive me. I also hope you won't get bothered if I request some sources from time to time (?). That's just who I am. Anyhow, later § Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh PS: If I mention things that don't seem to be covered in WP:WIAGA, please be patient with me. The odds are extremely low, almost non-existent, that I'll drag you through coals over such stuff. I just enjoy finding content. Moreover, if I mention stuff that seems unneeded to you, feel free to say so. The article is important, not the reviewer. :-). § Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lingzhi.Renascence: First, welcome back. I can't recall if I ever had the pleasure under any of your past accounts, but I see you have the respect of several editors I quite respect, so glad to have you around. On that note, not entirely sure what block you're referring to, but if there's some rangeblock you're caught in or anything, do let me know, or contact a checkuser if it's that sort of thing. I shan't further "mix business with pleasure," but wanted to get that out of the way.

As to timeline, I'm on day 2 of a 16-day period where the longest I'll be in any one city is 4 days, so definitely take your time! And as to quality, it matters a lot to me that GAs I write be not just Good but also good. So I'll say what I said to Guerillero when he said something similar in a past GAN, which is I absolutely welcome feedback beyond what WIAGA requires, as long as you don't mind any pushback that may come. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, found some time to edit while over Wyoming, got 2 done before I got to California. I've gotta go organize a cross-country move, so might not be able to do any more till I'm on the Zephyr on the 13th; we'll see. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lingzhi.Renascence: Well, as promised, greetings from the Zephyr, currently in middle-of-nowhere, Nevada. (inb4 WP:NOTTRAVELBLOG.) I think I'm all caught up with your first round of comments now. No rush at all, seriously, but just letting you know. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your call as to whether anything below is relevant:
"The custom is for the sick person to be named as the son (or daughter) of, and then the mother's rather than the father's name is invoked." p. 242 Gross, D. C. (2003). 1,401 Questions and Answers about Judaism. Hippocrene Books. p. 242
Aha, I found this text in our WP article: "Such prayers traditionally refer to the sick person by matronym rather than patronym". That seems to have the same meaning. It also does seem a tiny bit unclear, and I'm not sure if the wikilinks help much either. Your call. § Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 05:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Elaborated upon. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting abstract discussing the mitzvah bikur cholim, meaning "visitation of the sick." Mi Shebeirach is apparently part of, but does not fulfill, this mitzvah, see Relating to the Sick and Dying: Jewish Relational Care A-Z

I can't get this source, but perhaps you can: "He makes the case that the contemporary Mi-Shebeirach healing prayer, with its centering of an embodied Judaism, its recognition of "difference and frailty as fundamental to the human …" Frank, G., Kranson, R., & Krasner, J. (2020). Introduction: Sexuality in American Jewish History. American Jewish History, 104(4), 487-491.

"as Rabbi Perlin says, this prayer is no longer restricted to just the Rabbi's Manual, as it had been until the 1980's..." § Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cited Moss in re bikur cholim. Frank et al. are just summarizing Drinkwater's article later in the same issue, but I've added the relevant bit of Drinkwater (a sip?) to § Analysis. The third quote, I assume that's from Tzvia Rubens? (Hey, my Hebrew name!) I'd love to include that detail, but every source I can find mentioning it is a) not too reliable and b) ties back to this 2016 sermon by Perlin. I guess a rabbi's sermon does barely pass WP:RS with respect to claims within the rabbi's area of expertise, but given the existence of multiple high-quality academic sources regarding the status of the Mi Shebeirach for healing in Reform Judaism before AIDS, I'm hesitant to add anything on that note that's sourced only to one rabbi's sermon. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are apparently many sources discussing ambivalence for saying Mi Shebeirach for the mentally ill, specifically because the prayer involves publically mentioning people by name. One discussion with interesting quotes here: Besamim:Exploring Jewish Identity, Mental Illness And Gender In Poetry, a 2018 MPhil thesis by Anna Jacobson. The MPhil may not be WP:RS, but the sources of her quotes may be. Plus, as I said, this may be an interesting topic. § Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added a bit from Silverman on this, plus Fried (cited in Jacobson). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redlink for gay and lesbian synagogues. Nope, don't worry, I ain't gonna ding ya for it. Redlinks are OK if there aren't too many. Instead, I have a suggestion: it can be a pain in the neck to create a new article. However, creating a one- or two-paragraph subtopic/subheader in Synagogue might be a good way to get the ball rolling on this. Then you can link to the subheader in this article, redlink be gone. And then if you're ever chatting with folks about whatever, you can see if anyone wants to build that subtopic up gradually until it looks big enough for its own article. Just a suggestion. § Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have that article on my todo list (as LGBT synagogue) so I think I'll leave it red for now. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I dunno. The paragraph beginning "Friedman and Setel's setting has drawn.." and the one beginning "As Friedman lay dying of pneumonia..." both look to me like they should be moved up to become the last two paragraphs of the "Friedman and Setel's version" subtopic. Oh... ditto for putting this up there somewhere: "Silverman, who conducted an ethnographic study of liberal Jews in Tucson,[52] recounts..". Your thoughts solicited.
I stand by most of this per my earlier comments about the inseparability of Friedman's setting from the Mi Shebeirach for healing in general. I think it flows more naturally to have analysis and use of Friedman's setting in with the rest of the analysis and use. If that makes the section headings misleading, we could do [h2]Specialized versions -> [h3]As a prayer of healing -> [h4]History -> [h5] Friedman and Setel's version, but that's a lot of headings, so 🤷. I have, though, merged the graf about Friedman's death into another graf, to put slightly less weight on it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "Other contexts" section is 100% list. While lists certainly aren't automatically anathema, it might be possible to trim it down a bit, convert it to prose, and move it up into the "Use" ["Uses"?] section. § Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 06:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Found a few more good examples while I was at it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. You know, I'm reluctant to say this. But there is so much about Friedman's version that it's starting to look like that version of the prayer/song should be its own distinct article. This causes problems here because it removes a huge chunk of text from this article. § Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been mulling this over. I'm not sure what I think of the idea and think the only way to know for sure is to try and see if it flows right. I probably won't have the chance to do a big edit like that for a few days; feel free to hold off on reviewing the rest of this till then. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tamzin, I hope you won't mind that I started a discussion on this question at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. The very first reply raises the valid point that his article is already pretty short.... § Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tamzin, as per the brief discussion at WT:GAN, let's just proceed as is. Spoiler, I'm gonna ask you to change the listy section as mentioned above, and edit the matronym/patronym wordage for increased clarity. Other things are less certain; will consider. And certainly must do a check for WP:CLOP. § Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 05:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources spot check:
Tamzin, Got any pdfs you can email me? Drinkwater wold be a good start. I'll do a spot check. § Lingzhi (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Silverman, Gila (2016)
current note 12, Silverman 2016, pp. 170, 173. "Liberal Jews refers generally to those who are not Orthodox. The main liberal denominations are Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Reconstructionist Judaism, and Jewish Renewal". First sentence found, but list of specific varieties not found.
See p. 173 (ctrl+f Reconstructionist). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

current note 57, Silverman 2016, p. 174: "Liberal Jewish commentary on the Mi Shebeirach for healing often emphasizes that it is not a form of faith healing, that it seeks a spiritual rather than physical healing, and that healing is not sought only for those who are named." First two statements found; "not only for named" not found. Then... Silverman notes that "a small number of" participants in her study "attributed physical improvements to the prayers that were said for them" (p. 181). found
See p. 174, "we are not asking God (whatever we understand God to be) to cure only those we are praying for". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

current note 62, Silverman 2016, p. 173: "The prayer is now seen as central to liberal Jewish[b] ritual" found

current note 64, Silverman 2016, p. 173. "Mi Sheberach lists" found; names, sing found

current note 65, Silverman 2016, p. 175. "preoperative checklists" found; "ethnographic" found

current note 66, Silverman 2016, p. 177. "stigmatized" found; anonymity found.

current note 70, Silverman 2016, p. 170. cancer.. not religious. found. § Lingzhi (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question about current note [61]: "Elyse Frishman, Mishkan T'filah's editor, described including it as a "crystal clear" choice and that Friedman's setting had already been "canonized". The quote was spoken by Frishman, who is also listed among the sources, but the note links to a chapter by Sermer, Tanya (2014). Did Sermer quote Frishman? § Lingzhi (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, based on correspondence between the two. I could add "quoting personal correspondence" if you think that would be clearer. (Sermer PDF coming soon.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's spot check Drinkwater:
Drinkwater 2020, p. 628, current cite #59: "fundamentally queer... narratives of wholeness.." found, but source says "fundamentally queer insight" instead of "fundamentally queer". Those don't mean the same thing, at least not to me. Easy fix, just say "views it as speaking from a 'fundamentally queer insight'" or something similar. "added to the Reform siddur Mishkan T'filah in 2007" found. "the emotional highlight ..." found

Drinkwater 2020, p. 606, current note#49:"October 1987" found

Drinkwater 2020, pp. 617–618, current cite# 43: "Rabbi Janet Marder ... health, success, and forgiveness" found

Drinkwater 2020, p. 615 n. 39, current cite 42: "Rabbi Margaret Wenig... elderly congregation..." found

Drinkwater 2020, p. 612, current note#25: "name...reason...request.." found

PASS GA I'm feeling pretty good about everything, including the spot check. I hope you'll change "fundamentally queer" to "fundamentally queer insight". § Lingzhi (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section):

b. (citations to reliable sources):

c. (OR):

d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects):

b. (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)