Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Taylor0323.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 April 2020 and 13 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nicoleglen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 23 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LoCo Wiki 1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intro[edit]

I replaced the cool. I felt it lacked organization as to the actual requirements, and instead focused on particular non universal customs, and minority interpretations to them.

I tried to focus on displaying the bare legal necessities, and the most popular customs without too much extra detail, while retaining the key points mentioned previously.

It would be a good idea though to perhaps elaborate more on these below where it has not already been done so.

--Nachman 89.0.146.193 (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a bigger issue is that a non-jew (for example, someone who has been invited to a jewish wedding, and wants to know what to expect, or someone who is writing a report for school, and so on) is going to be completely lost after the first few sentences. This needs some rewrite to explain what is essentially jargon, and to draw parallels to other ceremonies. (I can try to do some of this) FiveRings (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, what to expect can vary greatly depending on location, and customs of those involved. I'd love it to be clearer, but we also have to be careful not to make a fact out of something which may only happen at only 25% of Jewish weddings. Also, Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a primary source for writing reports. --Nachman 85.250.68.210 (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

The references in this article are insufficient and based on primary sources, thus constituting original research. Proper references are needed.--Gilabrand (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a hodge podge of nonsensical statements in a chaotic order. My attempts to create an encyclopedic article have been blanket reverted, which is unacceptable. The material is not referenced. It is based on bits and pieces of citations from the Shulchan Aruch, and has been thrown together by people who don't understand anything about Judaism or Jewish wedding customs. I have down-rated it to Start, and expect the person who reverted my changes to restore them.--Gilabrand (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"My attempts to create an encyclopedic article have been blanket reverted, which is unacceptable"
you might like to explain this edit, and then take your own advice, before casting aspersions on others
"It is based on bits and pieces of citations from the Shulchan Aruch"
So its cited, and its from a reputable and significant source. Explain how this is wrong.
"expect the person who reverted my changes to restore them"
you performed this edit, first, which reverted my changes. I expect you to restore them before you touch the article again. Especially given your rant above.
Newman Luke (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see from my note from last year, this article was - and continues to be - a badly written piece of OR. A few snatches from Shulchan Aruch citing various bits of esoteria (the wierder the better) is not acceptable referencing for Wikipedia. The Shulchan Aruch is a primary source. What we need is secondary sources. This article (like many of the Judaism articles) is not organized in any logical sequence. It is repetitive and provides no lucid picture of what a Jewish wedding is. If you think you can fix it up, go ahead. But the solution is not to revert back to what it was a few hours ago. The lead, for example, was a joke. What is this? Grandma's storytelling hour?--Gilabrand (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm not sure why you've decided to indent quite so far), but...
its strange that you should suddenly decide to rewrite the article shortly after i've started sorting it out, having waited a whole year...
Whatever your opinion of the Shulchan Aruch, there are an awful lot of articles that cite it directly. If you disagree with that, go and argue your point on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, before trying to wholesale delete. In fact, what you should be doing is adding cite-needed tags, not deleting; the Shulchan Aruch DOES SAY THAT. What you seem to be asking for is another source which says what the shulchan aruch says that orthodox jews think. That's ridiculous. But besides that, discuss it on WikiProject Judaism before making such a massive change - almost every article on Judaism quotes it directly.
"If you think you can fix it up, go ahead."
Good. Thank you. Not that I need your permission.
"The lead, for example, was a joke. What is this? Grandma's storytelling hour?"
The previous lead basically just said "A jewish wedding is composed of bits, stuff, and things", which is utter meaningless drivel. The lead has to contain the phrase jewish wedding due to the manual of style. Its not up to you to deem what style of writing is good or not. "Grandma's storytelling" is much more readable than "mr bureaucrat's official statistics", and makes by most people's opinions, a much better article.
"But the solution is not to revert back to what it was a few hours ago. "
Actually, your rant above says that it is. Your "how dare anyone revert me" after reverting me is really quite unacceptable. Newman Luke (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is the job of editors to decide what is good writing and what is drivel. Of course it is the job of editors to decide what is important and what is fluff. Of course it is the job of editors to weed out nonsense and insist on proper referencing. If you think otherwise, I don't know what you are doing on Wikipedia.--Gilabrand (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this article is a blend of nonsense and esoteric facts that create a muddled article fit for Mad Magazine (gotta love that "step on the lightbulb custom").--Gilabrand (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether you like the 'step on a lightbulb' custom or not. If it is a custom among many Jews, its clearly a notable variation. Imagine if you came from such a tradition, and read this - you'd be wondering what all this 'step on a glass' nonsense was as everyone you knew used a lightbulb.
Nor is it the job of editors to decide what is important. That decision is already made - see Wikipedia:Importance
The Shulchan Aruch is regarded as a major authoritive work by Ashkenazi Orthodox Judaism. Its referenced everywhere by this denomination. You may think it trivia, but its views on even the most minute things are really quite important in Judaism, and set the trend for, in this case, Ashkenazi Orthodox weddings, and thus the basis from which other (non-Sephardi) forms of Judaism diverge.
Newman Luke (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah? Where does it say anything about lightbulbs? Where does it say anything about a chuppa being optional or bridesmaids walking around the groom? Where does it say anything about bridesmaids?? What a laugh (and your answers are good for a laugh, too). Have fun writing your fictions and perpetuating falsehoods to the world. I have better things to do than argue with someone whose idea of the truth is what it says on Wikipedia.--Gilabrand (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Oh, and please insert the following information: Grooms must make sure to use energy-saving lightbulbs in the interest of saving the planet while they contemplate death.--Gilabrand (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits on breaking the glass[edit]

With all due respect, Gilabrand, and with recognition of the work put in to reediting this article, you do not have the authority to decide what is and what is not appropriate to include here. Specifically, references for the lightbulb and the groom putting his foot down were provided. WRT the first, the reason the lightbulb is used in some traditions is not because it has religious symbolism, but because a lightbulb is easier to break, and makes a very loud noise (and because the couple often want to keep the glass as a memento). WHY it is used, however, it not the issue. The fact that IT IS used is sufficient basis to document the use. WRT to the groom putting his foot down, again, when discussions as to why the glass is broken take place, this is one of the explanations that comes up. (Again, references provided). Comedy is not a basis for exclusion (in fact, comedians are a traditional part of a Jewish wedding). FiveRings (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major edits[edit]

Howdy, I carved up a large amount of this article and would like to hear responses and suggestions for further improvement. Joe407 (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

added glass breakage. For most non-jewish Americans, this is the defining feature of a jewish wedding - it shows up in the movies on a regular basis.FiveRings (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its mentioned heavily in the Erusin article. Newman Luke (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glass breaking[edit]

For God's sake, the only reason I came to this article was to find out what the deal is with breaking the glass. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Why is it apparently such a problem to include that information here? I tried to find it (since it was apparently included here at some point, or included in some other article that doesn't exist anymore) and add it back in but with all the moves and redirects it's just a headache. Can't someone just stick in a "Breaking of glass" heading and write a couple sentences explaining to us goyim why the hell this is done? Propaniac (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the drama. It seems that it is a subject of contention which rational to put down. To the best of my knowledge it is to remember the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. The Talmud records the story of a Rabbi breaking an expensive piece of glassware at his daughter's wedding when he felt that the rejoicing was more that people should be indulging in while God's temple was still destroyed. Joe407 (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, this information belongs in the article. Along with citations.FiveRings (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've got a job these days. I may get to it down the line but my days of heavy editing are behind me for a while. Joe407 (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone moved the section on breaking the glass from erusin. I agree, but my carefully researched rewriting of NewmanLuke's original is replaced by a paragraph with no citaions (and not even necessarily normal practice). I would like to put some of it back, although admittedly it is kind of large in relation to the rest of the article.Mzk1 (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please do. FiveRings (talk) 03:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions on recent edits.[edit]

WRT the wedding blessing, not all jews are observant, so not all will necessarily have a blessing. Jewish symbols such as the breaking of the glass and the chuppah are still used, however. (Please dont' start an argument about what counts as a jewish wedding). FiveRings (talk) 06:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but it is still a basic part of the wedding, and should be returned to there. "A bride without a blessing is prohibited to her husband like a Niddah", although some refer this to the Chupah itself. Breaking a glass is not an essential part of the wedding ,and chupah is questionable.Mzk1 (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not a "basic" part of the wedding. It is part of a traditional (Orthodox, observant, whatever) wedding. You're not getting it. FiveRings (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting what? It is a basic part of the wedding in its source. Jewish weddings aren't a bunch of superstitious customs. They have structure, history, and legal backgrond. The way you are doing it is not very scholarly.
Besides, you are making there mistakes here:
  • 1. Unsupported claims as to what is in the "normal" Jewish wedding.
  • 2. Bias as to place. Israeli weddings are almost all traditional. Probably South American ones are also. This article is not titled "American Jewish Wedding".
  • 3. Bias as to time. Same argument as above. The article is not called "Modern Jewish Wedding".
What I find interesting is that you are taking an Orthodox POV (which I agree with) to define traditional. But Conservative will also claim to be traditional, and other denominations will also claim to come from there. So I would suggest what is done in some other articles, which is the you start with a traditional viewpoint, and then describe the differences.
But I would compromise in just giving every section similar weight.
However the real question is: why does this article exist at all? It seems that there is not clear distinction between material that goes here and material the goes in Jewish views of marriage? And why is it so abbreviated?Mzk1 (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If I put the legal background and other traditional material in here, will you object?Mzk1 (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First off, this is the English-language Wikipedia, so unless you are writing an article on Jewish weddings in Israel, it's not clear why that practice would take precedence over Jewish weddings in the US and England. Second, I dont' object to any content as long as it is properly arranged and cited, and considers the audience. The audience here is not your study partner. It is most likely a non-Jew who cares a lot more about what to expect from the wedding he's been invited to attend than about the footnote to the footnote to the Rashi commentary. Third, a "wedding" is a celebratory event - stuff about "marriage" belongs elsewhere, if only to avoid untenable bloat. FiveRings (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not giving precedence, just giving it as much weight as anything else. Secondly, it is important, as I said, that people understand that the wedding is not a bunch of meaningless rituals. Thirdly, you can't separate a wedding from a marriage. The main part of a wedding is a marriage ceremony. To a Catholic, a wedding is basically a religious ritual, a sacrament.
But this is all pretty irrelevant. You have given no source for your contentions as to what is normal and what isn't. Also, you made the change, so you need to defend it.Mzk1 (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up the intro a bit, but haven't made other changes yet. (Someone else addressed the trivia bloat, not me). When I do I'll include sources. I do have a life.FiveRings (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, this is an encyclopedia, not an magazine article; it should be scholarly. (Can you give me a reference for "Bloat", BTW?) Second, this is your personal opinion as to the audience. It could be that the audience is a Jew seeking to understand his wedding. Otherwise, we should just reference caterers.
Look, I am not saying I should have to have my way. I would like an article that serves all audiences. Let's compromise.Mzk1 (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am going to make a change based on the current assumptions. Based on your assumptions and those of the other editor ,there is no reasson to meantion anything but a ring or other object of value, since this is the only way this is done today. (Yes, I have sources.) I did NOT want to get into this issue at all, frankly. I would like to have a life, myself.Mzk1 (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, you need sources for your statements. I have sources for mine. Alos, non-Orthodox people differentiate between "Orthodox" and "traditional", and it is part of a traditional wedding.Mzk1 (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll certainly find sources before putting anything in the article. FiveRings (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More questions[edit]

Dos & Donts ?[edit]

Might be good to have a short section on what to do and what not to do as a guest at a Jewish wedding. I'm not jewish but am invited to a wedding, which is how I came to this page. Mazel tov ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.91.114 (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't overdo the alcohol. Getting drunk is a no-no. Do avoid provocative clothing (plunging necklines, micro minis). Men wear a kippa during the ceremony (baskets of them are often placed near the entrance for those who don't have their own). Do eat and dance. Do join the circle dancing and have fun. You don't have to know the steps. --Geewhiz (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hava Nagila?[edit]

"* Hava Nagila, a dance in which the bride and groom hold opposite corners of a handkerchief while they are lifted up on chairs by the guests and whirled around."

Really? Is there any reason to assume that this dance has any realtion to the song?Mzk1 (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed as something which is definitely not a tradition. At most, many people like the song, which is in any case quite modern. Debresser (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By consensus (I disagree, but gave in), this article is about modren Jewish wedding ceremonies as practiced in the West, which means light on tradition. I suggest a hatnote referring to Jewish views on marriage for the more in-depth/legal/traditional stuff.Mzk1 (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We definitely should not restrict ourselfs to the West. See Wikipedia:Systemic bias and Template:Globalise.
We could have a hatnote, but we already have a link in the see also section, so perhaps that is overkill. Debresser (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

I think the articles Erusin and Chuppah are both rather short and so closely related to this article called Jewish wedding that I think they should be merged here, resulting in one main medium sized article about all aspects of the Jewish wedding. In my humble opinion this article then could be made into a Wikipedia Good Article. Debresser (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is a good one. I still would like to hear other opinions, though. I even agree with you that making this article into a general article for all those other ones could be a good idea. But please do not mix up "Jewish wedding" and "Jewish views on marriage", which are two completely different things. The one being about the event, the other about the institution of marriage in Judaism. Debresser (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I am not saying that there should be only "one" article for all the topics (as you seem to imply when paraphrasing me "making this article into a general article for all those other ones"), but what I do mean to say is that all the articles should be retained, and expanded, while Jewish wedding becomes a more generalized "navigational page" with sub-sections that link to all the topic. The topic Jewish wedding is the result of Jewish views on marriage, see all the sections in it that repeat and duplicate much of what the other articles here state. IZAK (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understood the point you clarify. As to "wedding" vs. "views on marriage". Issues should be in only one of them. If it is about the wedding, then in "wedding"; if it is about the way Judaism views marriage, then that one. Repetitive content should be removed or at least pruned. Debresser (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From what I have seen, Jewish views on marriage serves as the parent article, and Jewish Wedding moves back and forth depending on the views of the editors. If we don't agree what Jewish Wedding should be, it's hard to move further. I think there is a severe risk of duplication here; I don't see how you can split the law and the ceremony. I already have to duplicate in the secular articles (betrothal, engagement, etc., or rather correct the material someone else put there. (P.S. I've tried to put a skelaton of non-covered topics in articles that are close; for example Nesuin (which was long-ago deleted) in Chuppah and Talmudic engagement (shidukhin) in Shidduch.) Of, and Nesuin should not direct to Jewish Wedding.Mzk1 (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jewish wedding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jewish wedding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking of glass[edit]

Someone requested a breaking of glass section.

The most widely accepted reason is to remember the destruction of the Temples in Jerusalem. Even at the most joyous of occassions we must stop and remember the sad things in life. Some say this also recalls the more recent event of Kristallnacht or the Night of Broken Glass; 1938 Germany. Many Rabbis do not approve of shouts of "mazeltov" when the glass is broken by the groom. But it is the norm.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.239.124 (talk • contribs)

I am not familiar with Rabbis who do not approve of the customary shouting of "Mazl Tov!" when the groom breaks a glass. So I think the word "many" would be incorrect, and probably "some" would be better. If that can be sourced, at least. Debresser (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Prenuptial Agreements[edit]

This section could possibly benefit from information about how the Ketubah sometimes includes provisions for divorce, and how although it’s not before the wedding it does act as a prenuptial agreement in some circumstances. The source I would use is Hoffman, Lawrence A. “The Jewish Wedding Ceremony.” Life Cycles in Jewish and Christian Worship, University of Notre Dame Press, 1996, pp. 129–153. Lawrence A. Hoffman has a doctorate and acts as a professor at University of Notre Dame. I will make sure to add this source to the reference section and cite it as there are no sources cited in this section already. If anyone wants to comment on these changes, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk Page. In all I will add around 50-100 words. Taylor0323 (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have my reservations about how pertinent this information will be in this article. This might be most relevant in Ketuba. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Debresser that it shouldn't be too ketuba focused. But seeing as the ketuba serves as a prenuptial agreement, and this section is on prenuptial agreements, I think this would actually be a valuable addition. I would just make sure that it really is only on the prenuptial agreement function of the ketuba, nothing more. Thanks for making this article better! Chapmansh (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Due to your concerns here is the complete draft of what I want to include in this article: Although the ketubah is the actual marriage document, in Conservative Judaism it also acts as a prenuptial agreement. The ketubah serves this function in Conservative Judaism in order to prevent husbands from refusing to give their wives a divorce. To do this, the ketubah has built in provisions where if predetermined circumstances occur, the divorce goes into effect immediately. Please let me know if you have any recommendations on how to make this addition the best if you happen to see this by morning tomorrow. If you still have concerns after I publish the addition, feel free to comment on or even edit it.Taylor0323 (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Categories