User talk:Motteleh
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
[edit]
- Hi Motteleh! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
-- 14:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Welcome!
[edit]Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.
Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
- Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
- Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
- Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
- No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
- If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
- Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
- Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.
The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Andre🚐 19:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
chabad.org
[edit]Please do not add things sourced to the official Chabad website. That's not a reliable source. Andre🚐 19:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- can you explain. Motteleh (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- Per many past discussions from many years ago [1], chabad.org is not a good general source on Judaism. It should be used only for Chabad-specific viewpoints or information. For general Judaism you need better sources Andre🚐 04:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- I see many opinions presented in the pages you linked, some quite positive some fairly vitriolic. can you specify where a conclusion can be found? Motteleh (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- The discussions from 5 years ago should be pretty clear. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_303#chabad.org Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_309#RfC:_Chabad.org It wasn't formally closed but I think it is clear enough that it shouldn't be used for general information. I didn't remove what you added, I just tagged it with
{{bsn}}. Suggest you find WP:BESTSOURCES such as academic journal articles in stuff like BRILL, Jewish Quarterly Review, Cambridge University Press, etc., or reliably published academic books. Sefaria is ok, but those are mostly WP:PRIMARY. When you have enough edits you can sign up for The Wikipedia Library. Andre🚐 21:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)- I appreciate it. I believe these sources close out a certain POV which is possibly less scholarly but equally rich in applicable information. For example, observance of certain customs. I saw some of the points from those discussions and they were mainly aimed at Chabad.org's marginal status. I believe many of Chabad.org's articles are completely uncontroversial to an orthodox person and many to any Jewish person. A cursory check of the sources provided would confirm that, if you are at all familiar with the subject matter. Chabad.org simply provides an accessible format for the subject. That is before we discuss the POVs of Chabad Chassidut which is applicable in many contexts such as with regards to Teshuva in the Yom Kippur article. Additionally, some of the info added is information about the Chabad movement such as the mitzvah campaigns of Shofar and Lulav. Tell me what you think. I do see where you're coming from though and appreciate the pointers. Motteleh (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- My background is Reform but the question isn't about that. It's about the best sources for Wikipedia. We should choose independent, academic, reliable sources such as journal articles and books, not Chabad sources that may be better used for Chabad-specific stuff, and not general information on Jewish holidays. I agree that most of the basic information isn't inaccurate per se which is why I didn't remove all the information but it should be sourced to a better source. Andre🚐 23:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- My main point is can we judge on a point by point basis and see if what they are saying is reliable? Additionally my point about orthodox people was not to exclude reform people but rather to address the point that I saw on the discussions that Chabad is a marginal orthodox sect. My point is that in certain cases the Chabad view may be marginal, just not in the topics I referenced. In such cases they would be the most accessible and reliable version of the information. I appreciate your input. Motteleh (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- So, for general information on top level articles, Sukkot, shofar, Four Species, Rosh Hashanah, Simchat Torah, Yom Kippur, etc., general information about Judaism should be sourced from general best sources, NOT the Chabad website. If there is a section or another article about the specific practices of Chabad, or specific material about the Orthodox Hasidim, I think that using them for information WP:ABOUTSELF or as pertains to specifically Hasidic stuff if we are pretty sure it is accurate of the non-Chabad sects, is OK. But, when it comes to WP:WEIGHT, you should be guided by general works such as Blackwell Companion to Judaism, The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies, Judaism: A Very Short Introduction, or the Oxford Concise Companion to the Jewish Religion. That will help make sure we are covering a broader and more generally understood view of the Jewish religion for the general audience. Andre🚐 00:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- I echo Andre's comment here. You should tone down the Chabad linking. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- I believe I am following the guidelines laid down by Andre with regards to the WP:ABOUTSELF concept. I encourage you to check and see what I am talking about. I appreciate your concern. Motteleh (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- I echo Andre's comment here. You should tone down the Chabad linking. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- So, for general information on top level articles, Sukkot, shofar, Four Species, Rosh Hashanah, Simchat Torah, Yom Kippur, etc., general information about Judaism should be sourced from general best sources, NOT the Chabad website. If there is a section or another article about the specific practices of Chabad, or specific material about the Orthodox Hasidim, I think that using them for information WP:ABOUTSELF or as pertains to specifically Hasidic stuff if we are pretty sure it is accurate of the non-Chabad sects, is OK. But, when it comes to WP:WEIGHT, you should be guided by general works such as Blackwell Companion to Judaism, The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies, Judaism: A Very Short Introduction, or the Oxford Concise Companion to the Jewish Religion. That will help make sure we are covering a broader and more generally understood view of the Jewish religion for the general audience. Andre🚐 00:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- My main point is can we judge on a point by point basis and see if what they are saying is reliable? Additionally my point about orthodox people was not to exclude reform people but rather to address the point that I saw on the discussions that Chabad is a marginal orthodox sect. My point is that in certain cases the Chabad view may be marginal, just not in the topics I referenced. In such cases they would be the most accessible and reliable version of the information. I appreciate your input. Motteleh (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- My background is Reform but the question isn't about that. It's about the best sources for Wikipedia. We should choose independent, academic, reliable sources such as journal articles and books, not Chabad sources that may be better used for Chabad-specific stuff, and not general information on Jewish holidays. I agree that most of the basic information isn't inaccurate per se which is why I didn't remove all the information but it should be sourced to a better source. Andre🚐 23:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate it. I believe these sources close out a certain POV which is possibly less scholarly but equally rich in applicable information. For example, observance of certain customs. I saw some of the points from those discussions and they were mainly aimed at Chabad.org's marginal status. I believe many of Chabad.org's articles are completely uncontroversial to an orthodox person and many to any Jewish person. A cursory check of the sources provided would confirm that, if you are at all familiar with the subject matter. Chabad.org simply provides an accessible format for the subject. That is before we discuss the POVs of Chabad Chassidut which is applicable in many contexts such as with regards to Teshuva in the Yom Kippur article. Additionally, some of the info added is information about the Chabad movement such as the mitzvah campaigns of Shofar and Lulav. Tell me what you think. I do see where you're coming from though and appreciate the pointers. Motteleh (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- The discussions from 5 years ago should be pretty clear. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_303#chabad.org Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_309#RfC:_Chabad.org It wasn't formally closed but I think it is clear enough that it shouldn't be used for general information. I didn't remove what you added, I just tagged it with
- I see many opinions presented in the pages you linked, some quite positive some fairly vitriolic. can you specify where a conclusion can be found? Motteleh (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- Per many past discussions from many years ago [1], chabad.org is not a good general source on Judaism. It should be used only for Chabad-specific viewpoints or information. For general Judaism you need better sources Andre🚐 04:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)