Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public menorah
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Public menorah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While this is a very nice thing that people do, it is not notable. It seems to be a shill for Chabad sites. The sources cited are primary sources about the topic, not about coverage the topic has garnered. If it stays at all it should me a section under Menorah_(Hanukkah) Joe407 (talk) 05:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I find it odd that you think it's not notable. Did you bother doing a basic Google search? Google has 28,000 hits. The concept receives massive press coverage every year, almost entirely from non Chabad sources, and keeps growing in popularity. True Chabad started this and are the main ones doing it today, but that does not make it any less notable. Shlomke (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Shlomke, it's still only an article about a type of menorah, nothing more and nothing less with all its press coverage, and as such it is a violation of WP:POVFORKing and belongs in the main Menorah (Hanukkah) article. Chabad has taken many things and elaborated on them, but that does NOT always make the subjects worthy of new articles. Thus even though Chabad has instituted serious Public tefillin or Public Shabbat candles or Public Four Species or Public Jewish music or Public shofar or Public Chabad messianism etc etc (and you can find notices in papers about that happening), it does NOT mean that those are subjects that are somehow "new" and "deserve" articles apart from the regular Tefillin or Shabbat candles or Four Species or Jewish music or Shofar or Chabad messianism etc etc articles, because if so it would all be violating WP:POVFORK especially when it's an OBVIOUS attempt to promote solely Chabad-Lubavitch activities from a Chabad-slanted WP:POV and in violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTWEBHOST because, simply put, Wikipedia is NOT Chabad.org! Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. The article is much more then about a "type" of Menorah your trying to make it be. It is about public lighting, to which thousands attend every year (how many people attended your Menorah lighting?), about spreading the miracle of Chanuka to the greater world, about making the Menorah and Chanuka a medium for spreading Judaism to Jews - Kiruv, and Non-Jews - Noahide. It is a major event people come to and take their children to, and for all of these reasons it gets such major coverage in the press. Since you seem to be a Lamdan you surely understand that this is taking the concept of pirsumei nisa (spreading the miracle) to a whole new level, which was never done before mainly because Jews did not have the opportunity to do it on this scale. Your argument about this being just a type of menorah sounds similar to saying Gefilte fish is just a type of "fish" and should thus be merged into the Fish article, or the Shabbat article, because we eat it on Shabbat. The article could definitely be made more NPOV, but the article is absolutely notable and merits its own space. Shlomke (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Shlomke, you are mixing up categories and not following logic. Thousands of people go to Macy's every day and windowshop at it's fantastic catchy displays, but that doesn't mean that there should be an article about that like Public Macy's because it's all part of what Macy's does. And you only add to the confusin by saying this is a medium for "kiruv" because it proves that this article was written for "kiruv" and not for Wikipedia. Playing of ball games on beaches is also a major event, but gaining the attention of a crowd on beaches does not make the subject of the crowds watching those games significant nor does it change the definition of the ball games being played because the location of the game/event does not matter. It also does not matter if anyone is a "lamdan" here, but you disprove your own argument by saying this is about "pirsumei nisa" which automatically means this should be part of either the Menorah or the Chanukah articles. Your comparison of "gefilte fish" (a food) to actual fish is both foolish and illogical. They are of different categories. One is an ancient Ashkenazi Shabbat food, and it is categorized as such but the word fish denotes something far different and much more important, as anyone knows it's about those billions+ of creatures that swim in the sea. And the point is, that there is just not enough significance to make a "public menorah" WP:N because it is no more important than any other type of menorah, such as "children's menorahs" (with over Google 234,000 hits) or "antique menorahs" (over 2,500 Google hits) or "modern menorahs" (over 11,000 Google hits) or the Israeli named menorahs: "Chanukiah" (over 63,000 Google hits) etc etc. Finally, gefilta fish could be merged into Shabbat as Shabbat foods, but gefilta fish does not and is not what Shabbat itself is about, it's a spiritual and concept and day of rest that is not related to food as such unlike any public menorah that is of the same logical category, reality and Halachic definition of any other type of menorah. Otherwise, what you are advocating is any time Chabad, or any group, decides to take an ancinet Jewish custom or law and then to do things a little differently it should allow for a new Wikipedia article. This is like Chabad following the Lubavitcher Rebbe's diktat to blow Shofar in public so should there then be another article for Public shofar above and beyond the regular Shofar article and in this way anything Chabad or any Chasidic or religious group does something slightly differently there should be articles about that, like Reform Judaism Shabbat because they do it differently, Conservative Judaism conversions etc etc and split off topics needlessly like that instead of keeping things more focused within one coherent article and have sub-sections WITHIN that article for the varying points of view, unless it's something too large or obviously vastly different which in this case it is not. IZAK (talk) 07:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Izak, funny that you think I'm mixing up categories, because that's exactly what I think you're doing. The reason that there are no articles about the thousands of people going to Macy's everyday, that people attend ballgames on the beach etc., is because people dont find them notable.While thousands of people do find public Menorah lightings notable as can be seen from the massive press coverage it gets every year. Get it?? a public menorah is not just a "type" of Menorah, as anyone with common sense knows, but everything that goes on with it. The ceremony, the lighting, the speech, the Latkas, the Chanuka Gelt, the immense joy and pride of being Jewish (I know, you're really cringing now...), as well as spreading the miracle "pirsumei nisa" on a scale that has never been done before, spreading Judaism to Jews and Non-Jews alike. So tell me again now, is it just a certain type of Menorah like a glass Menorah, ice Menorah, clay Menorah, childrens Menorah, brass Menorah, etc.? while many of your "type" Menorah's have Google hits, they dont get press coverage, people don't get excited about them, the Governor won't come to light them, and they don't end up in supreme court. It makes no difference why the article creator started the article and if he had "Kiruv" in mind, but whether the subject is notable and deserves it's own space. When public Shofar blowing becomes so popular as Public Menorah lightings that it get's the same amount of press coverage, then yes, we should have an article about it too. 'Nuf said. Shlomke (talk) 07:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Shlomke, there is a huge difference between objective press coverage and staged events designed to attract the media's attention in violation of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for the obvious pro-Chabad editors who do not even hide it anymore. It is Chabad itself that instigates, creates and manages the events, and then you expect that "presto" with that it somehow means that Wikipedia must roll over and admit such events into this encyclopedia when the lighting of public menorahs is nothing but huge Chabad-generated PR stunts meant to get the public's attention and maybe there should be an objective article about Chabad media campaigns. Therefore, the lighting of a public menorah is no different in Jewish Law than the lighting of any other kind of menorah. A private individual does so and his neighbors may see it in his window, and when a local community Chabad rabbi does so by hiring a cherry-picker crane to light a fiften foot menorah it is nothing more than a Chabad PR stunt (you can refer to it as a greater pirsumei nisa mitzva if you like, but Wikipedia does not and cannot measure spiritual phenomena) or it's merely a regular menorah lighting but on a larger scale. To follow your adhesion to this topic one could come to it in another way: Large menorah which then only brings us full circle that a large menorah according to Jewish Law as expressed in the Talmud a menorah is KOSHER as long as it follows this: "If the Chanukah lights are placed at a greater height than ten 'tefachim' (handbreadths), but less than twenty 'amot' he has still fulfilled his obligation, although not in the ideal manner. One 'amah' is a length somewhere between eighteen inches and two feet; therefore, twenty 'amot' is somewhere between thirty and forty feet. If the lights are raised above twenty 'amot,' he has not fulfilled his obligation." (from OU.org). So NO menorah can be kosher if it is above twenty amos meaning even the largest menorah, no matter where it is placed or by whom, is still a menorah, cannot be higher than 30 to 40 feet. Thus ALL Chabad public menorahs fall within these parameters. IZAK (talk) 08:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Izak, you keep revealing more and more of your anti-Chabad bias here. You are essentially saying that when Rabbi Schneerson told his followers to light public Menorah's, he did it as a publicity stunt. Your about the only one that expresses such views here, at least openly. What a Shanda. Although you may hold your own views (and I think I know why), writing this on Wikipedia is Original Research and I must remind you that that is against WP policy of WP:NOR. The facts remain that the ones reporting Public menorah lightings are independent Journalists in independent newspapers, with no connection to Chabad, and sometimes even generally anti religious ones. They still find it interesting, fascinating, and above all notable to write about. This makes it notable for Wikipedia too and thus it can and should be covered here. Regarding the Halachik Issue of large Menorah's, it is generally accepted that 20 amos is at least 32 feet. I'm not sure why you are getting into this here, are you trying to get into a debate of whether these Menorah's are Kosher? In any case that is not for a AFD. Shlomke (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Shlomke, there is a huge difference between objective press coverage and staged events designed to attract the media's attention in violation of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for the obvious pro-Chabad editors who do not even hide it anymore. It is Chabad itself that instigates, creates and manages the events, and then you expect that "presto" with that it somehow means that Wikipedia must roll over and admit such events into this encyclopedia when the lighting of public menorahs is nothing but huge Chabad-generated PR stunts meant to get the public's attention and maybe there should be an objective article about Chabad media campaigns. Therefore, the lighting of a public menorah is no different in Jewish Law than the lighting of any other kind of menorah. A private individual does so and his neighbors may see it in his window, and when a local community Chabad rabbi does so by hiring a cherry-picker crane to light a fiften foot menorah it is nothing more than a Chabad PR stunt (you can refer to it as a greater pirsumei nisa mitzva if you like, but Wikipedia does not and cannot measure spiritual phenomena) or it's merely a regular menorah lighting but on a larger scale. To follow your adhesion to this topic one could come to it in another way: Large menorah which then only brings us full circle that a large menorah according to Jewish Law as expressed in the Talmud a menorah is KOSHER as long as it follows this: "If the Chanukah lights are placed at a greater height than ten 'tefachim' (handbreadths), but less than twenty 'amot' he has still fulfilled his obligation, although not in the ideal manner. One 'amah' is a length somewhere between eighteen inches and two feet; therefore, twenty 'amot' is somewhere between thirty and forty feet. If the lights are raised above twenty 'amot,' he has not fulfilled his obligation." (from OU.org). So NO menorah can be kosher if it is above twenty amos meaning even the largest menorah, no matter where it is placed or by whom, is still a menorah, cannot be higher than 30 to 40 feet. Thus ALL Chabad public menorahs fall within these parameters. IZAK (talk) 08:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Izak, funny that you think I'm mixing up categories, because that's exactly what I think you're doing. The reason that there are no articles about the thousands of people going to Macy's everyday, that people attend ballgames on the beach etc., is because people dont find them notable.While thousands of people do find public Menorah lightings notable as can be seen from the massive press coverage it gets every year. Get it?? a public menorah is not just a "type" of Menorah, as anyone with common sense knows, but everything that goes on with it. The ceremony, the lighting, the speech, the Latkas, the Chanuka Gelt, the immense joy and pride of being Jewish (I know, you're really cringing now...), as well as spreading the miracle "pirsumei nisa" on a scale that has never been done before, spreading Judaism to Jews and Non-Jews alike. So tell me again now, is it just a certain type of Menorah like a glass Menorah, ice Menorah, clay Menorah, childrens Menorah, brass Menorah, etc.? while many of your "type" Menorah's have Google hits, they dont get press coverage, people don't get excited about them, the Governor won't come to light them, and they don't end up in supreme court. It makes no difference why the article creator started the article and if he had "Kiruv" in mind, but whether the subject is notable and deserves it's own space. When public Shofar blowing becomes so popular as Public Menorah lightings that it get's the same amount of press coverage, then yes, we should have an article about it too. 'Nuf said. Shlomke (talk) 07:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Shlomke, you are mixing up categories and not following logic. Thousands of people go to Macy's every day and windowshop at it's fantastic catchy displays, but that doesn't mean that there should be an article about that like Public Macy's because it's all part of what Macy's does. And you only add to the confusin by saying this is a medium for "kiruv" because it proves that this article was written for "kiruv" and not for Wikipedia. Playing of ball games on beaches is also a major event, but gaining the attention of a crowd on beaches does not make the subject of the crowds watching those games significant nor does it change the definition of the ball games being played because the location of the game/event does not matter. It also does not matter if anyone is a "lamdan" here, but you disprove your own argument by saying this is about "pirsumei nisa" which automatically means this should be part of either the Menorah or the Chanukah articles. Your comparison of "gefilte fish" (a food) to actual fish is both foolish and illogical. They are of different categories. One is an ancient Ashkenazi Shabbat food, and it is categorized as such but the word fish denotes something far different and much more important, as anyone knows it's about those billions+ of creatures that swim in the sea. And the point is, that there is just not enough significance to make a "public menorah" WP:N because it is no more important than any other type of menorah, such as "children's menorahs" (with over Google 234,000 hits) or "antique menorahs" (over 2,500 Google hits) or "modern menorahs" (over 11,000 Google hits) or the Israeli named menorahs: "Chanukiah" (over 63,000 Google hits) etc etc. Finally, gefilta fish could be merged into Shabbat as Shabbat foods, but gefilta fish does not and is not what Shabbat itself is about, it's a spiritual and concept and day of rest that is not related to food as such unlike any public menorah that is of the same logical category, reality and Halachic definition of any other type of menorah. Otherwise, what you are advocating is any time Chabad, or any group, decides to take an ancinet Jewish custom or law and then to do things a little differently it should allow for a new Wikipedia article. This is like Chabad following the Lubavitcher Rebbe's diktat to blow Shofar in public so should there then be another article for Public shofar above and beyond the regular Shofar article and in this way anything Chabad or any Chasidic or religious group does something slightly differently there should be articles about that, like Reform Judaism Shabbat because they do it differently, Conservative Judaism conversions etc etc and split off topics needlessly like that instead of keeping things more focused within one coherent article and have sub-sections WITHIN that article for the varying points of view, unless it's something too large or obviously vastly different which in this case it is not. IZAK (talk) 07:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The pointiness of IZAK's opinion is proven by this edit on the WikiProject Judaism talk page. Debresser (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. The article is much more then about a "type" of Menorah your trying to make it be. It is about public lighting, to which thousands attend every year (how many people attended your Menorah lighting?), about spreading the miracle of Chanuka to the greater world, about making the Menorah and Chanuka a medium for spreading Judaism to Jews - Kiruv, and Non-Jews - Noahide. It is a major event people come to and take their children to, and for all of these reasons it gets such major coverage in the press. Since you seem to be a Lamdan you surely understand that this is taking the concept of pirsumei nisa (spreading the miracle) to a whole new level, which was never done before mainly because Jews did not have the opportunity to do it on this scale. Your argument about this being just a type of menorah sounds similar to saying Gefilte fish is just a type of "fish" and should thus be merged into the Fish article, or the Shabbat article, because we eat it on Shabbat. The article could definitely be made more NPOV, but the article is absolutely notable and merits its own space. Shlomke (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Shlomke, it's still only an article about a type of menorah, nothing more and nothing less with all its press coverage, and as such it is a violation of WP:POVFORKing and belongs in the main Menorah (Hanukkah) article. Chabad has taken many things and elaborated on them, but that does NOT always make the subjects worthy of new articles. Thus even though Chabad has instituted serious Public tefillin or Public Shabbat candles or Public Four Species or Public Jewish music or Public shofar or Public Chabad messianism etc etc (and you can find notices in papers about that happening), it does NOT mean that those are subjects that are somehow "new" and "deserve" articles apart from the regular Tefillin or Shabbat candles or Four Species or Jewish music or Shofar or Chabad messianism etc etc articles, because if so it would all be violating WP:POVFORK especially when it's an OBVIOUS attempt to promote solely Chabad-Lubavitch activities from a Chabad-slanted WP:POV and in violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTWEBHOST because, simply put, Wikipedia is NOT Chabad.org! Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I find it odd that you think it's not notable. Did you bother doing a basic Google search? Google has 28,000 hits. The concept receives massive press coverage every year, almost entirely from non Chabad sources, and keeps growing in popularity. True Chabad started this and are the main ones doing it today, but that does not make it any less notable. Shlomke (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge any relevant content into Menorah. I don't see any evidence that a "public menorah" is anything but a menorah that happens to be displayed in public. This is the same reason we don't have Public Christmas tree. --Glenfarclas (talk) 11:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For some reason I don't recall hearing or seeing Christmas tree lightings in the news. The only one I've heard about is the one at Rockefeller center, and there is an article on that too: The Tree at Rockefeller Center. Shlomke (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Come on, this article is still just a stub. Yet again people are zealously recommending articles for deletion before they've had a chance to be developed. Leave a "this article needs to be expanded" tag. As for its notability, a public menora is quite different from the regular Menora that each Jew traditionally lights in his house. Rather, it is a new practice spearheaded by the Lubavitcher Rebbe for the purposes of publicising the miracles of Chanuka and outreach to Jews and non-Jews. It has also garnered much public attention in the USA because of the religion and state controversies surrounding it being displayed publicly. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now: It could certainly use a section about the litigation in the USA. There should probably also be something about public menorot in Israel, where the practise is long-established, and probably a pic of the giant one on the Jerusalem-Tel-Aviv highway. If after a few months it seems that the article still belongs as a section of Menorah_(Hanukkah) then we can reopen the merge discussion. -- Zsero (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is an issue outside the scope of the general Menorah article, being that it is 1. an event that is organised around the Menorah lighting, 2. extensively covered by media (so the claim by the nominator that it is not notable is fairly ridiculous, see e.g. Emanuel lights National Menorah at White House, AP), and 3. part of a series about Chabad. Debresser (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Chabad article on outreach, or part of the menorah article. Yossiea (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added a controversy section to the article, which proves that in the US, the constitutionality of displaying public menorahs was challenged by the ACLU, and it went to the Supreme Court. This surely proves the independent notability of this article. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this means we may close this Afd per WP:SNOW. Debresser (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You'd be wrong; there isn't only a single option being put forward here. AfDs run for seven days. pablohablo. 20:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Extremely notable. As stated above the topic gets massive press coverage every year. 28,000 Google hits. I cant think of one reason this is not notable. Shlomke (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete FORK article, salvage some information into Menorah (Hanukkah) and Chabad. This is similar to having a separate FORK for a 'Public Nativity scene' article, even with some juicy 'controversy' section (controvery = legitimacy?). Anyway, 'Public menorah' is a new phenomenon that the vast majority of Jews do not 'practice' and most other rabbis 'deprecate' in importance by discouraging the main lighter from saying the blessing with God's name, in contrast to the public lighting of the Hanukiah in the synagogue. And in this day and age, 28,000 Google hits is nothing special. --Shuki (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Barack Obama is also "new", nor do most American "practise" the presidency. Nevertheless he has a huge Wikipedia article. 2. Lighting public menorahs has been an active campain for I think some 15 years by now. 3. It follows that your opinion to delete is a result of your prejudice against the public lighting of menorahs, and not a matter of rationale application of Wikipedia standards. Sorry, but your problem with Chabad you had better leave out of this discussion. Debresser (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, Shuki has actually strengthened the argument for the independent notability of the article from the general Menora article, by confirming the claim made early that "'Public menorah' is a new phenomenon", and that, at least in his estimation, many rabbis oppose it. May I add that anyone perusing the google results for "Public Menorah" will see that not only are these ghits from blogs or the like, they are from reputable news sites, as public menorah lightings are regularly reported in the media as a notable public religious event. And they have received much recent coverage of late after Moldovan Christians tore one down. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Barack Obama is also "new", nor do most American "practise" the presidency. Nevertheless he has a huge Wikipedia article. 2. Lighting public menorahs has been an active campain for I think some 15 years by now. 3. It follows that your opinion to delete is a result of your prejudice against the public lighting of menorahs, and not a matter of rationale application of Wikipedia standards. Sorry, but your problem with Chabad you had better leave out of this discussion. Debresser (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to the main Menorah (Hanukkah) article because: (1) This whole notion of lighting and pushing "public menorahs" was an outright brand new very recent WP:OR invention of the last Lubavitcher Rebbe, it was never practiced by any Jewish community for 2000 years in exile to go and place huge menorahs in public squares, even though there is a custom to light ONE'S OWN menorah outside one's house, weather permitting, and it does not look nice that his disciples have the audacity to act as if Wikipedia is now Lubavitch territory in violation of WP:OWN! (2) There is no such thing as a "Public menorah" in Jewish law or that is in any way notable above and beyond a regular dinky menorah in one's home since if that is so one could create articles about Apartment menorah, Rooftop menorah, Hallway menorah, Bedroom menorah, or for that matter Clay menorah, Gold menorah, or Ashkenazi menorah, Sefardi menorah etc etc etc -- all of which are valid topics even in Jewish law but there is no point in splitting hairs for this: (3) Clearly violating WP:POVFORKing. (4) Thus it violates WP:POV-pushing because if, as in this instance, there is major significance that Chabad Lubavitch places on this subject, and it clearly does, then that subject matter should be moved to the pro-Chabad article about Mitzvah Campaigns that really have nothing to do with menorahs as such but are aimed at furthering the Chabad world view upon everyone. (5) Violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTWEBHOST because Wikipedia is NOT Chabad.org! Happy Chanuka to all! IZAK (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All these arguments are nonsense and almost self-refuting. (1) The Lubavitcher Rebbe was certainly qualified to do original research! What has that got to do with the WP article, which contains nothing not found in reliable sources? (2) Public menorahs certainly exist — you can see one not far from wherever it is that you live — and are the subject of much coverage. How OWN is relevant is beyond me; it seems more like your opposition is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (3) It's not at all clear to me; no POV is expressed that couldn't equally be expressed in Menorah (Hanukkah). (4) It is one among many activities in which Chabad is a major (but far from exclusive) player; why should they all go in one article? Especially since not all public menorot have anything to do with Chabad. (5) Huh? I can't even parse that one; it sounds like the SOAPBOX is under your feet. -- Zsero (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Zsero: Do you even know what WP:NONSENSE means? Check it out. (1) Regardless of what the Lubavitcher Rebbe was allowed or not allowed to do, and outside of Chabad-Lubavitch the Orthodox rabbinical establishment did not follow him, in fact they opposed him and his drive for hegemony, therefore by a Wikipedia editor adopting a unilateral directive of the Lubuvitcher Rebbe and then posting and foisting it on Wikipedia, that editor has taken ownership of the subject and is thereby himself guilty of WP:POV-pushing a WP:NOR subject simply because: Lubavitcher Rebbe=pro-Chabad Wikipedia editors. There is NO consensus in the Orthodox world about public menorahs and the ONLY ones who push it are the Lubavitchers for only ONE reason, because their Rebbe ordered them to do so, and they do so robotically and unthinkingly, so this is then part of Mitzvah Campaigns and has zero to do with any types of menorahs be they public, private, communal or hidden. (2) Actually I like ALL menorahs including public ones as a curiosity item, but I do not think that because one group runs around and as part of its mindless creed pushes it, that I or any editor on Wikipedia needs to agree with having an article about it when the main Menorah (Hanukkah) is fair, open enough and will do just fine. (3) So just put this information in the main Menorah (Hanukkah) article or have your druthers and plop it into Mitzvah Campaigns where it more strategically belongs. There really is nothing special or significant or even WP:NOTABLE about having huge outdoors menorahs sponsored by Lubavitch only to go up in competition with outdoors Christmas trees, and there is no article for Public Christmas tree either and rightly so or articles for big floating air-filled balloons or blimps of Disney cartoon characters, like having Public Mickey Mouse displays on public parades. (4) Simply because there is a rule on Wikipedia of WP:POVFORK -- read up on it, you may learn something about Wikipedia policies. (5) Good joke. Have you noticed how a small band of pro-Chabad editors has been relentlessly creating articles on Wikipedia in the spirit of Chabad.org and they then violate WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:WAR whenever any serious editors oppose them with rational, logical and factual arguments, this being a clear-cut case in point. Get real, you're fooling no one but yourself. Shalom. IZAK (talk) 05:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All these arguments are nonsense and almost self-refuting. (1) The Lubavitcher Rebbe was certainly qualified to do original research! What has that got to do with the WP article, which contains nothing not found in reliable sources? (2) Public menorahs certainly exist — you can see one not far from wherever it is that you live — and are the subject of much coverage. How OWN is relevant is beyond me; it seems more like your opposition is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (3) It's not at all clear to me; no POV is expressed that couldn't equally be expressed in Menorah (Hanukkah). (4) It is one among many activities in which Chabad is a major (but far from exclusive) player; why should they all go in one article? Especially since not all public menorot have anything to do with Chabad. (5) Huh? I can't even parse that one; it sounds like the SOAPBOX is under your feet. -- Zsero (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, Izak, it's amazing how in everything you wrote, aside from lots of utterly blatant POV-pushing (e.g., that you don't approve of Public Menorahs from reasons a,b,c, and since some rabbis disagreed with some things the Lubavitcher Rebbe said, therefore his widely followed directives shouldn't be considered notable enough to be on Wikipedia, and certainly not to be given independent articles, and one who does so violates ... WP:OWN!), you didn't give even one cogent argument to respond to the claims for this article's independent notability, such as the fact that it is 1) new and different historically from a private menorah (as you yourself point out (and Shuki before you)!); 2) the entire community is invited to ceremonies for public lightings, where famous dignitaries are honored with the privilege to kindle the Menora, and these ceremonies have become widely accepted in communities all over the world as an occasion of note, leading to the fact that 3) ceremonies for public Menora lightings are reported regularly in the media all over the world; 4) the issue of displaying a public Menora reached the Supreme Court, which had far-reaching implications for constitutional law. May I add that no one took "ownership" of a subject; we are writing on a topic that we think is notable, and in fact, there is now also a controversy section to create what some might call "balance". Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 07:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yehoishophot: The point here is very simple, everything you say is very nice but basically not to the point simply because the notion and existence of placing and pushing king size public menorahs in pulic today is 100% the invention of an idea and command that came from one man, the 7th and last Lubavitcher Rebbe, so that you may in fact even want to merge the article to its true and accurate source Menachem Mendel Shneerson. I have stated the views to merge and redirect very clearly, and it serves no purpose to go round in circles. Let's see where this AfD discussion leads. Thanks a lot. IZAK (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. The concept of public Menorah's was started by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, just like Kiruv was started by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, and later adapted by other Jewish denominations (Oorah, Aish Hatora NCSY etc.). And this passed the notability test because of all the press coverage it receives. To redirect public menorah to Menachem Mendel Shneerson would be like redirecting Who is a Jew? to Jew. Your readily apparent dislike for Chabad and the Lubavitcher Rebbe is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT Shlomke (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yehoishophot: The point here is very simple, everything you say is very nice but basically not to the point simply because the notion and existence of placing and pushing king size public menorahs in pulic today is 100% the invention of an idea and command that came from one man, the 7th and last Lubavitcher Rebbe, so that you may in fact even want to merge the article to its true and accurate source Menachem Mendel Shneerson. I have stated the views to merge and redirect very clearly, and it serves no purpose to go round in circles. Let's see where this AfD discussion leads. Thanks a lot. IZAK (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, Izak, it's amazing how in everything you wrote, aside from lots of utterly blatant POV-pushing (e.g., that you don't approve of Public Menorahs from reasons a,b,c, and since some rabbis disagreed with some things the Lubavitcher Rebbe said, therefore his widely followed directives shouldn't be considered notable enough to be on Wikipedia, and certainly not to be given independent articles, and one who does so violates ... WP:OWN!), you didn't give even one cogent argument to respond to the claims for this article's independent notability, such as the fact that it is 1) new and different historically from a private menorah (as you yourself point out (and Shuki before you)!); 2) the entire community is invited to ceremonies for public lightings, where famous dignitaries are honored with the privilege to kindle the Menora, and these ceremonies have become widely accepted in communities all over the world as an occasion of note, leading to the fact that 3) ceremonies for public Menora lightings are reported regularly in the media all over the world; 4) the issue of displaying a public Menora reached the Supreme Court, which had far-reaching implications for constitutional law. May I add that no one took "ownership" of a subject; we are writing on a topic that we think is notable, and in fact, there is now also a controversy section to create what some might call "balance". Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 07:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to the main Menorah (Hanukkah) - For all the reasons that Izak cites. He is simply correct in his analysis. Now, I happen to sort of like Chabad's public menorah displays, but my personal taste has no effect on Wikipedia article policy. And since we do follow article policy, this kind of information must be merged into the appropriate article as Izak says. RK (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge suggestion. While I'd like to go on record against IZAK's tone of voice, he has some good points. As per IZAK and RK, I'd like to suggest that the info in this article get merged into both Menorah (Hanukkah) and Mitzvah Campaigns. It would also be the start of a much needed expansion of Mitzvah Campaigns (IMHO). Joe407 (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A lot of the information presented in this article wouldn't fit in the basic Menorah article, let alone the Mitzvah Campaigns article. For example, the recent anti-Semitic attacks against public menorah lighting (moldova and vienna). While I'll admit that this isn't the most important topic, I definitely recognize its notability as strong enough to have a Wikipedia article. Breein1007 (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. This is not about Menorah lighting itself, which is only done in one's own house or in synagogues. The fact that the public lighting is only practised by Chabbad does not make it less notable. It is disputed by Jews and non-Jews alike, for various reasons, and serves as the background for many an antisemitic scene. All this should be expanded on in the article. -- Nahum (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge + redirect to Menorah (Hanukkah). pablohablo. 14:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think we need a new article dealing with the conflict between religion and public policy. There is the issue of public displays of Christmas trees, menorahs and the ten commandments. As well, I can recall hearing about conflict regarding the use/display of mezuzahs and wreaths in apartment complexes, and there was a recent case which went to the Illinois Supreme Court regarding a man who disinherited several of his grandchildren because they married non-Jews. --Eliyak T·C 19:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or may as well create an article Exhibitionism in religion or just simply redirect the article to Exhibitionism and be done with it. IZAK (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Many innovations in Judaism begin as projects of one Jewish movement or another (the chavurah and Jewish renewal, for example) and gain wider acceptance over time. The fact that Chabad is currently the chief, or exclusive, sponsor of public menorot does not diminish the notability of the subject. The article has been suitably expanded since this AfD began that it no longer seems like a POV fork. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, Malik, yes all menorahs are notable and not because any one group, besides ALL the Jews, use them, it's a serious rabbinic commandment of over 2000 years and specified in the Talmud and the Shulchan Aruch that makes it notable so what's the "innovation" here? The Jewish sages of 2000 years ago said that ANY menorah is a pirsumei nisa/"publicization of the miracle" of Chanuka. So that if someone said go set up big ones at street corners, that's a craze not an "innovation" in Jewish law, it's ONLY a menorah. It's just a menorah placed in a public place. It would be like advocating for articles about Seaside menorah or Countryside menorah or Basement menorah etc etc -- no matter where they are placed, they are menorahs, hence this is a violation of WP:POVFORK plain and simple. IZAK (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to get into an argument with you, IZAK, but if somebody started a new tradition of lighting menorot on beaches, and the subject attracted both news coverage and lawsuits, Seaside menorah would satisfy the notability guidelines and might merit an article (or a section within Public menorah). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, Malik, yes all menorahs are notable and not because any one group, besides ALL the Jews, use them, it's a serious rabbinic commandment of over 2000 years and specified in the Talmud and the Shulchan Aruch that makes it notable so what's the "innovation" here? The Jewish sages of 2000 years ago said that ANY menorah is a pirsumei nisa/"publicization of the miracle" of Chanuka. So that if someone said go set up big ones at street corners, that's a craze not an "innovation" in Jewish law, it's ONLY a menorah. It's just a menorah placed in a public place. It would be like advocating for articles about Seaside menorah or Countryside menorah or Basement menorah etc etc -- no matter where they are placed, they are menorahs, hence this is a violation of WP:POVFORK plain and simple. IZAK (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ... or a section within Menorah (Hannukah). pablohablo. 20:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I suppose one could say that's nice to see people paying attention to Menorahs at the proper season. (some irony is intended) This particular aspect is independently notable, because of the controversy involved. The article however is still not neutral, and does need some attention.--in particular there needs to be a search for earlier and other proposals or adoption of the idea outside Chabad. The proper coverage of major topics requires specialized articles, not lumping all under a few headings. (It is also true that a topic should not be split into as many possible topics as possible--I'm a little startled at some rather general topics in the Chabad navigation box, which does sort of imply a tendency to take credit for various good but nonspecific things in Judaism, but I will discuss this elsewhere. I should mention there there has been some off-wiki discusion of this in various directions, and I find some of what I have seen rather deplorable. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Mitzvah Campaigns with a "see also" under Menorah (Hanukkah). The Chabad menorah is more a public-relations tool than a fulfillment of the actual mitzvah of lighting the menorah. I'm sure all the Chabad rabbis light their own menorahs at home first :). Speaking of public menorahs, why doesn't the article mention the electrically-lit menorahs that Chabad posts at street corners in major Israeli cities, or the Chabad cars that drive around Israeli cities with an electrically-lit menorah on the roof, one light for each night? Yoninah (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The claim "The Chabad menorah is more a public-relations tool than a fulfillment of the actual mitzvah of lighting the menorah" is a blatant POV statement, considering that public menorahs are lit with a blessing, making them a fulfillment of the Mitzvah of lighting the menorah. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update. I've just revised the article to reflect a npov and to include some non-chabad lightings. I still feel that it is not notable and should be deleted. Let's see what consensus this AFD brings. Joe407 (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Advice to 407: Avoid updating/improving an article that you have voted for deletion and certainly one you Afd'ed. --Shuki (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Conflicting advice to Joe 407: the AfD process doesn't mean that the article must remain in a state of stasis for 7 days; editing can continue and is usually a good thing. pablohablo. 00:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you both for your advice. I do understand the wisdom of not improving an article that one wants removed. On the other hand, I have no personal issue with the article and no vested interest in removing it. I'm looking for WP content to be of a certain quality level. If we can move closer to the quality level by deleting an article or by improving it - either one is good. Joe407 (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why did you bother with an Afd?? Slap an 'improve' template on the top, canvass other relevant editors to improve the article, post a note on the Judaism wikiproject, anything but the extreme 'last resort'. Afd which means deletion, not merge. Are you softening your tone on purpose now? --Shuki (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you both for your advice. I do understand the wisdom of not improving an article that one wants removed. On the other hand, I have no personal issue with the article and no vested interest in removing it. I'm looking for WP content to be of a certain quality level. If we can move closer to the quality level by deleting an article or by improving it - either one is good. Joe407 (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Conflicting advice to Joe 407: the AfD process doesn't mean that the article must remain in a state of stasis for 7 days; editing can continue and is usually a good thing. pablohablo. 00:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge either is acceptable, my preference is to keep it. if consensus goes towards merge, the target should be Menorah (Hannukah), definitely not Chabad. menorah are known by the gentiles, but Chabad is not. information should go where readers will find it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Merge. Should be dealt with in context, not in a standalone article. JFW | T@lk 20:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above. The article name is a made up term (a menorah is inherently "public") and the article includes a bunch of WP:SYNTH. The topic of the First Amendment vis a vis these "public menoras" is notable and if formatted correctly worthy of its own article, but this whole WP:OR/WP:SYNTH article started off on the wrong track.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The term "Public Menorah" is one used in countless news reports, as a google search will show you. And although many light their private Menorah in a window, for those who light it in the inside of the house in the doorway, a Menorah lit in a house is not public, in the sense that it can only be seen if someone is peering in the doorway at a certain angle. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Inherently WP:SYNTH. Jayjg (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: See similar AfD and issues at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tefillin campaign. IZAK (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable enough. We have an entire Category:Individual Christmas trees with articles on 10 different public trees; we certainly can have one article covering public menorahs. --agr (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This proves the point of delete. Bordering on OTHERSTUFF, but if any of the Chabad hanukiot were notable, then perhaps a seperate article would be legitmate for that location. You example proves that there is no Public Christmas tree. --Shuki (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The choice of covering a topic in 10 articles vs. one is an editorial judgement and has nothing to do with notability. Notability on Wikipedia is determined by coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, not the personal opinions of editors. There is plenty of such coverage for public menorahs. There's even a National Menorah in the U.S. that gets enough regular press coverage to justify a separate article parallel to National Christmas Tree (United States). The one in Boston generally gets covered by the Boston Globe. Controversy surrounding them generated numerous lawsuits and made it to the US Supreme Court. They were an issue in the confirmation of one Supreme Court justice, Samuel Alito. All of this received extensive press coverage. That editors chose to lump this material in one article does not make it less notable, quite the contrary. On the other hand, this is a very recent phenomenon and giving it more than a mention in Menorah (Hanukkah) would be undue weight, so a separate article is totally appropriate.--agr (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If this article is kept, should it be renamed "Public menorah lighting"? This would reflect the fact that there is no distinction between a public or private menorah. As pointed out above, a menorah is inherently public. This article is talking about a public lighting. (BTW, I still think it should be deleted.) Joe407 (talk) 04:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The name should not be changed, because although the lighting ceremonies are a significant part of the public menorahs, and they receive much press coverage, the menorahs are displayed throughout the 8 days of Chanuka, and it is that very display and not the ceremony of lighting as such that was considered by the ACLU and co. problematic, which has led to controversy, etc. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 06:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I for one would have no problem with such a rename. Debresser (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IZAK asked me to comment. Probably notable enough to be handled somewhere; I have no strong feeling about whether it belongs (1) in an article of its own, (2) merged to menorah, or (3) at least in part, in an article about the U.S. controversies over placement of religious symbols in public space, which is the main context in which I think it is notable. The U.S. had a long tradition of public Christmas trees (vaguely Christian) and creches (very Christian), and on the whole Jews wishing to place menorahs comparably prominently were the first of several other religious or anti-religious groups who objected to this exclusive Christian prerogative to challenge it by asking for equivalent treatment rather than by the removal of these Christian symbols. - Jmabel | Talk 06:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into relevant articles. So is my humble opinion, without spending a PhD level study on the subject. These questions are quite confusing because there are always reasons to either side. But the intuition is that it is more a chabad related sub-topic than a stand alone one. Besides, the fact that there is a strong motivation by Chabad related parties to create special entries for them, creates the counter-intuition as a default (like whereever there is a strong related party). I hope this argument to be understood on both sides. No need to make wiki a warland about minute definitions. Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep by all means, it is a very reaction of Chabad to the "Happy cholidays" and "Maccabee Festival" things, to keep the "jewish flame" on, in others words a sheer act of kiruv !--'Inyan (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC) (P.S: I don't visit this page often, should you leave me a message, post it at fr:Discussion utilisateur:'Inyan[reply]
- 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.