Talk:Latke–Hamantash Debate

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

Voting[edit]

I remember reading about this in the New York Times a while back. As a recall, there's also an informal vote for the best dessert, and the latke has won every time for many years.--Pharos 19:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about adding the New York Times reference, but the non-subscription version of the article was really short. If someone has access to the full article, it would be a nice addition. Novickas 21:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously...how is this an actual page at Wikipedia? Is this relevant to any larger discussion that is of interest to a larger audience other than a few dozen people that live in Chicago? This article should be deleted in my own opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by ToddFrary (talk • contribs) 21:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is clear notability, as several of the academic participants are well-known. Some are even Nobel prize-winners. Seriously. David Spector (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

which colleges?[edit]

this article mentions that many colleges participate in this debate yet only mentions 4 colleges shouldn't a list of all the colleges that participate in this debate be added to this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.183 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 23 May 2008

No. Enough, already. Also, sign your comments and wash your hands. David Spector (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article-- but is it good for the Jews? But Seriously Folks, count in San Francisco State, after reading this article. I'm starting tonight with the Hamantashen. Which my secular leftist parents never fed me, because they despised religion, right down to the pastries. By the way, there's a special on hamantashen at Costco this week, just before Purim. As Woody Allen said, "My parents believed that the only sin was paying retail." Profhum (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-hamentaschen bias[edit]

Just look at the choices of photographs. We're presented with a pan of partially cooked latkes that have just begun to brown, and then a beautifully presented plate of finished, well-formed hamentaschen. Clearly the intent is to make the latter seem more appetizing. Shame on you, Wikipedia! Shame! -- 173.13.202.121 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You made a good point. Sort of like showing sausage making in progress as opposed to finished legislation. I replaced the latke picture. Novickas (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current pictures are nicely NPOV, thanks. David Spector (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should that be "humorous academic debate"?[edit]

The opening sentence states that this is a "serious academic debate" (emphasis mine). Yet none of the discussion makes the debate appear to be at all serious. In fact, a later sentence states that "It is also felt to offer a humorous relief valve...". I believe that the "serious" in the first sentence would be appropriately replaced with "humorous." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.191.166.202 (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notable debates and arguments[edit]

The section here does need to have inclusion criteria. We really should not be adding in specific debates or arguments just because an editor thinks they are interesting, for instance. A decent way to start is to see whether the particular debate or argument has been presented in an independent source. That is, not a self-published source, not event information from the event coordinators, and not from the debater's website. The university's own publications is not really desirable either because it's basically publicity. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree -- the page has shown the breadth and liveliness of the Latke-Hamantash Debate over the years. Note that the entry is not "Notable Latke-Hamantash Debates." The entry is "Latke-Hamantash Debate" and as such the marketplace of strange and varied debate strategies wonderfully captures why this debate is so widespread and increasing in popularity. If you reduce the entry to only "notable" debates you are undermining the point of the enterprise! I would encourage you to rethink what you are trying to do. Sam P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.48.245.183 (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sam, Wikipedia is not a vehicle by which to fulfill some "enterprise" that the debates are about. The debates do that very well on their own. The point of the article is to summarize the debates generally, and to the extent that specific debates or arguments are covered in reliable sources, we should talk about them. If they are not, we leave them out. This is an editorial policy we follow called due weight. It's not just me trying to control the article, honest. We cannot simply add material to this section just because one of us feels a particular debate was important or funny or interesting. It needs to be based on what reliable sources report, or else anyone can pretty much add anything they want. Some of these debates/arguments I couldn't even verify that they actually happened, and that's problematic because there's nothing to reference. It also seems like some news reports actually refer back to this Wikipedia article in discussing arguments (which again, we can't verify). I, JethroBT drop me a line 09:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I added the [citation needed] tag to items that had no reference. I think Notability should be a matter of the participants (such as Shapiro) or the venue (usually a university) and reliability a matter of simple record. Sam P.
Oh dear. When I started it in 2007, I did cherry-pick my favorites and cherry-picked some favorites afterwards. An overview of the topic seems better. Would you two agree to moving all the entries to a list - possibly List of Latke-Hamantash debate arguments? In alphabetical order by participants' last names? Now that it's spread to so many other campuses, I can certainly see that the original bulleted list isn't going to work any more. The article has already had problems with well-meaning editors inserting things like "the 2011 debate at Harvard took place on November 25th." Those are more easily dealt with - so many years, so many venues now, so many arguments; it hasn't been much of a problem. Unfortunately I can foresee some argument about list inclusion (although I think it would survive an AFD). I'd be willing to include all sourced entries, even if they're sourced to a campus newspaper. Lists have a lot of room. Novickas (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Novickas: Heh, things were a little different in 2007. :) Yeah, I'm on board with getting a list article started. That said, I think we haven't really resolved whether the list should focus more on actual events, or the participants and their arguments. I think this current article can devote a section to describing some of the participants and their arguments, but that the list article can be devoted to events (which are generally easy to verify-- I'm finding the arguments much more difficult to verify in reliable sources). What do you think about List of Latke-Hamantash debates for the events? I, JethroBT drop me a line 17:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I think the section you've put in about campus venues, aka events, is good. Maybe we're discussing a list organization question. I would prefer to have it organized by participants - otherwise, it'd have to have some sort of hierarchical organization (year, campus, debater) - lists don't usually do that - am I mistaken? It would work as a sortable table but that'd be more coding work than I'm comfortable with. I guess I agree with Sam P. above - to paraphrase, they're all good. All verifiable ones. You could just take out all the ones you haven't been able to verify. Novickas (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Novickas: My (very rough) imagining of the event-based table was that they be primarily sorted by institution. I figure most institutions have done it annually, semi-annually, or just a few times. We can provide a range or list of years in those cases. And I think you are right about including participants here— another column would include the participants for that year, but we do into the need for a hierarchical table in that case. (Also, it'd be great to include the title of their debate, but I understand that's not always easily accessible after-the-fact.) If we wanted to keep it simple:
Institution Years held
University of Chicago 1946–2014
Bowdoin College 2009
Harvard University 2007
Or, more like this if we want to get more detailed. The table markup wouldn't be too bad.
Institution Years held Debate participants Presentation title
University of Chicago 1946
  • lorem
  • ipsum
  • dolor
  • sit
  • amet
  • lorem
  • ipsum
  • dolor
  • sit
  • amet
1947
  • lorem
  • ipsum
  • dolor
  • sit
  • amet
  • lorem
  • ipsum
  • dolor
  • sit
  • amet
1948
  • lorem
  • ipsum
  • dolor
  • sit
  • amet
  • lorem
  • ipsum
  • dolor
  • sit
  • amet
Bowdoin College 2009
  • lorem
  • ipsum
  • dolor
  • sit
  • amet
  • lorem
  • ipsum
  • dolor
  • sit
  • amet
Harvard University 2007
  • lorem
  • ipsum
  • dolor
  • sit
  • amet
  • lorem
  • ipsum
  • dolor
  • sit
  • amet
What do you think? I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(outdenting some) I'm glad you can do tables and support the idea. But I think I've seen a lot of entries that don't have have a formal title - how would you feel about a table column "Assertion" instead? As in, summarized for our hypothetical Harvard 2007 entries: Alan Dershowitz "Latkes increase US oil dependence." Steven Pinker: Latkes offer more calories, an evolutionary advantage, and reduce the demand for poppy seeds." [1] You can guess my bias but I have faith that editors will keep the summaries short. Novickas (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC) P.S., User:Drmies, a list/table would solve your recent objections, no? Please join this conversation. Novickas (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Novickas: Hm, well. My guess is that we still won't be able to cover every participant's assertion though, and the presentation title has the benefit of being unambiguous and does not requires interpretation / summarization on the part of editors. While I'm also sure we can do a good job at provide such a summary, I'm also a fan of the path of least resistance. :P I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I JethroBT, today I had a flashback to the warm, fuzzy, laugh-til-it-hurts times at Mandel Hall and realized I'd rather wallow in those memories than work on the article. You're clearly a good and responsible editor - have at it. Best wishes, Novickas (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Latke–Hamantash Debate. 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).

  • 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) 12:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Latke–Hamantash Debate. 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).

  • 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) 05:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Latke–Hamantash Debate. 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).

  • 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) 23:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Latke–Hamantash_Debate&oldid=1205733149"