Talk:Sarajevo Haggadah

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sarajevo Haggadah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120203203801/http://www.tonyblairfaithfoundation.org:80/blog/entry/faith-shorts-2011-awards-ceremony1 to http://www.tonyblairfaithfoundation.org/blog/entry/faith-shorts-2011-awards-ceremony1/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sarajevo Haggadah. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110505063609/http://www.zemaljskimuzej.ba/index-en.php to http://www.zemaljskimuzej.ba/index-en.php

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Layout

I have given article a standard layout, with a proper sections, per MOS:SECTIONS and MOS:SEEALSO. Images are introduced into the article in a manner that they are related with a sections. Removal of section See also and moving images to gallery is absolutely unnecessary na d edit warring over that is bewildering. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

No it isn't - note you are talking about 2 different editors here. The "see also"s were not close at all being mostly unlike the subject in a) being made in the Balkans and b) not being in the Balkans now, not to mention differences of religion, language etc. If you want a SA the Golden Haggadah is the obvious one, plus other medieval Haggadot. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I haven't included See also for my recent layout fixes at all and yet you are continuing to edit war over See also and using it as a pretext to disrupt the page. This is fairly standard sectioning and trivial matter, which makes your persistence less a good faith. See also does not require "close relation", it requires "common sense" and I have explained that books linked in See also are all religious books and written monuments from Bosnia and Herzegovina. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Your rational for reverting is "mine is better", which is sheer pertinacity, while you are disregarding MOS:SEEALSO, which you obviously did not read or don't care about - MOS:SEEALSO very clearly says what it requires and that's not "close relation" as you continue to claim. Here's what the guideline says: Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category. For example, the article on Jesus might include a link to List of people claimed to be Jesus because it is related to the subject but not otherwise linked in the article. The article on Tacos might include Fajita as another example of a Mexican cuisine. I linked in See also few books which are all religious/liturgical books and written monuments of Bosnia and Herzegovina So, please, refer to our Manual of Style/Layout guideline and stop being disruptive.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 09:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I am precisely following MOS:SEEALSO, especially "articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category". The article covers a Jewish manuscript created in Spain. You have added Christian manuscripts created in the Balkans, and a general article on medieval literature (none Jewish) in South Slavic languages. What are the common categories? None of them are even in the same library. You have not added one obvious article also on a Jewish manuscript created in Spain. Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

It is "(M)atter of editorial judgment and common sense" - the article covers Bosnia and Herzegovina topic, and subject of it is a religious book that is in Bosnia for the last 400 hundred years and is national monument of Bosnia and Herzegovina, just like those two or three Christian books linked in earlier See also, and just as the article shows the Sarajevo Haggada book surrounded with the Catholic, Orthodox, and Muslim ones exhibited together in the same Vault room. Spain is mentioned in passing, as it should be, only as background information about the origin of the book, nothing else. But all this is inconsequential for your persistent edit warring over trivial and subjective matter like this one. It is even more worrying that you are using same pretext and justification to continually remove edits that has nothing to do with See also, which I, anyway, did not included in subsequent edits, in which I tried to reasonably split an article into sections that would finally correspond to its prose, and finally give some sensible layout, typical in every regard per MOS:STRUCTURE ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The article begins: "The Sarajevo Haggadah is an illuminated manuscript that contains the illustrated traditional text of the Passover Haggadah which accompanies the Passover Seder. It is one of the oldest Sephardic Haggadahs in the world, originating in Barcelona around 1350." That is what it is; where it relatively recently ended up is a very minor matter in comparison. I can see you are only interested in the book because of where it ended up, but I am interested in the book itself, in a way you evidently are not. There is no evidence afaik that it has been "in Bosnia for the last 400 years" - the article says "...Italy in the 16th century. It was sold to the National Museum in Sarajevo in 1894", and that is all we know. I don't mind your "layout" changes too much, but there are too many short sections, and too many images fixed very small. As far as I can see you have just invented the claim that is in the Ladino language - what source is there for this? The French and Spanish wps say it is written in Hebrew, as one would expect. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Nitpicking

Nitpicking over every minutia and detail in earlier dispute (like See also dispute) is one thing, no matter how (un)substantiated, but to remove something without obvious ground in policy or guideline, and with an explanation which is nowhere near satisfactory is another thing - this latest rv of my edit of Infobox is more in line with "I don't like it" attituded than with what we follow of policies and guidelines when we composing Infoboxes and pick info for it. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)