Jump to content

Talk:Society for Crypto-Judaic Studies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The material on this page was published (with some modifications for NPOV) with the permission of the author, Dr. Abraham Lavender. But feel free to edit it as necessary to conform with the requirements of Wikipedia! -- BD2412 thimk 04:28, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

Old Sephardic Sites

[edit]

There are other Sephardic Jewish community sites from the old Internet (late 90s, early 2000s) that were shared in the HaLapid's issues. I will include them here for historical/research references as they include links to research articles, websites from past SCJS presidents, and affiliate sites to SCJS that are no longer available without Wayback Machine.

Morogris () 06:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 12:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source: "Stanley M. Hordes, Joshua Stampfer and Rena Downs found the Society
for Crypto-Judaic Studies; first SCJS meeting is convened at Fort Burgwin, near Taos, New Mexico." HaLapid
Created by Morogris (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 106 past nominations.

Morogris () 15:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General eligibility:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: The article was about 2,500 bytes pre-expansion. In order to qualify through 5x expansion, that would mean that it needs to be about 12,500 bytes post-expansion. From my count, it looks like its about 5,000 currently, well short of the requirement unfortunately. Am I missing something? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I mistakenly believed that a fully unsourced article would qualify for DYK if it was later cited and expanded. Since the article had been unsourced for almost 20 years, I decided to work on it. I'm not sure why I thought this was a rule, perhaps it was an old one? I can't seem to find any current guidelines supporting this, so it looks like the article isn’t suitable for DYK after all. Morogris () 13:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]