# Talk:Birds' Head Haggadah

This review is transcluded from Talk:Birds' Head Haggadah/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 09:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Starting with the "Description" section, other parts will follow in a day or two.


### Description
"The Birds' Head Haggadah is dated to the beginning of the 14th century and sourced to the Upper Rhine region of Southern Germany. The style and coloring of the figures reflects that of other illuminated manuscripts from that region and era."

Use a word other than "sourced," which makes it sound as if its provenance circa 1300 has been verified, not that it has stylistic parallels with works from a particular region. However you reword it (perhaps have one short sentence about age, and a longer sentence about location), make it clear that the second sentence is what "sources" the manuscript to the Upper Rhine region.
 Done Yoninah (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
"The Haggadah was copied by a scribe named Menahem, whose four-letter name MeNaHeM (Hebrew: מנחם‎) is marked out in the letters of the word MuNaHiM (Hebrew: מֻנָּחִים‎, "are placed") in the Maggid passage of the Haggadah."

You've lost me here. What does "is marked out in the letters of the word MuNaHiM" mean? What is the Maggid?
 Done I edited the explanation; hope it's clearer. Yoninah (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
"This same scribe produced the Leipzig Machzor, also circa 1300."

Explain what the Leipzig Machzor is.
"also circa 1300" is missing a verb.
 Done Explained, and added a source that connects Menahem, the Birds' Head Haggadah, and the Leipzig Machzor. Yoninah (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
"The extant manuscript contains 47 folios"

Minor point, but it's not as if there are two manuscripts. Something along the lines of "In its current condition the manuscript contains..." would be more correct.
 Done Reworded, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
"Smaller script on the pages delineates the laws of the Passover festival and directions for conducting the Seder."

Another small issue, but how exacting are the directions? The word "delineates" would suggest precision in addition to general explanation.
 Done Reworded. Yoninah (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
"The script and illustrations were executed with pen, dark brown ink, and tempera on parchment."

Did they have pens back then? Other than the image caption in Hourihane 2012, is there anything to support the use of pen?
 Done My mistake. No pens were used. Yoninah (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
"The second, appearing at the end of the Haggadah, shows a scene of the heavenly Jerusalem."

What does "heavenly" mean in this context? If it's just fluff, then it should be either removed or quoted, since it is taken from the source.
 Done Reworded per source. Yoninah (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
"Thirty-three pages contain illustrations in the outer margins."

Perhaps make explicit that this is in addition to the two full-page miniatures.
 Done Reworded. Yoninah (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, I'm getting confused by the page numbers. 50 folios=100 pages? So 35 out of a remaining 94 pages contain illustrations?
 Done I believe the words "folio" and "page" were used interchangeably by Epstein; this is clear from his captions which number the pages as "25r" and "25v". Re-reading the Hebrew source, it also is not talking about folios but about sheets – i.e. pages. I reworded the description. Yoninah (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
"These illustrations depict Jewish men and women performing Passover and Seder practices, and also enacting the historical events surrounding the Exodus from Egypt."

"enacting" is perhaps the wrong word here, for it makes it seem like the illustrations show people recreating an event, rather than immediately engaged in it.
 Done Reworded as "reenacting". Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
"The figures are dressed in medieval German-Jewish clothing, and the conical "Jew's hat" mandated by the Church beginning in the 13th century is also seen."

Shouldn't "Jew's hat" link to Jewish hat, not pointed hat?
 Done Yes, thanks, I didn't know about that link. Yoninah (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
"Features were added to some of the blank faces in later centuries."

Any more details on this? Why/by whom/what sorts of features?
 Done I only found that in one source, quoting a lecture by Professor Marc Michael Epstein. Without further details, I just went ahead and deleted it. Yoninah (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Overall:

I think you should split the second two paragraphs in "Description" into its own section or sub-section, and expand it. The illustrations are what make this manuscript special, after all. The image in this section is also too small to be of much help. Something showing the bird-headed people would be better; if you can't find new images, you could also just crop one out of the high-resolution lead photograph.
OK. I'll see how much I can expand it. My goal was to describe the illustrations, and then to present the scholarly interpretations. I'm not sure how much more I can describe them.
I moved the detail of the figures into this section temporarily. I will try to ask another editor about cropping out some of the heads from the lead image. Yoninah (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 Done Description of illustrations expanded. Yoninah (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
You also need something about what the manuscript actually says, perhaps in a new third paragraph (i.e., right before the proposed "Illustrations" section). The lead says that the manuscript "contains the traditional Hebrew text of the Passover Seder in block calligraphy," but that does not appear anywhere else. Nor is that phrase explicated (I have no idea what the "traditional Hebrew text of the Passover Seder" says), and the article that it links to is about the feast, not about the related "traditional Hebrew text."
I put in one line as a place-marker; I'll expand that and add a reference. Yoninah (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 Done Added explanation of what a Haggadah is. Yoninah (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


### Provenance
"In the 20th century, the manuscript was owned by the family of Johanna Benedikt and given as a wedding present to Benedikt's new husband, German Jewish lawyer and parliamentarian Ludwig Marum."

I don't see the "wedding present" reference in the article. If that is correct, wouldn't it be a gift to the couple, not just the husband?
It's right there in footnote 2: Barzilai says the 14th-century Haggadah was a wedding gift from his grandmother's family to his grandfather, Ludwig Marum. In Jewish circles, the groom often receives gifts from his bride's family. Yoninah (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
"In 1984 Marum's daughter penned a letter to the museum allowing it to keep the Haggadah on exhibit 'for the benefit of the public'."

This suggests that the question of ownership has been around for decades. Is there anything else published about ownership questions in the 1980s (or really, before the 2010s)?
 Done I expanded on the story to answer your question. Yoninah (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
"But in 2016 Marum's grandchildren, led by 75-year-old Eli Barzilai . . ."

Who's Barzilai?
Not a fan of sentences beginning with "But."
 Done Fixed. Yoninah (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
"In addition to financial reimbursement, the family wants the manuscript to be renamed the 'Marum Haggadah'."

"Wants" should be "wanted," or "asked for."
 Done Yoninah (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
"The Israel Museum has acknowledged the family's ownership claim predating World War II,[2] but it has requested documentation of ownership between 1933 and 1946, when it purchased the Haggadah from Kahn."

Perhaps break this into two sentences.
 Done Yoninah (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
"when it purchased the Haggadah from Kahn" could be read as referring to the period between "1933 and 1946," rather than just 1946. Perhaps use "at which point" instead of "when," to make clear that the date is specific.
 Done Yoninah (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
"In late 2016 the Marum family obtained more than 1,000 documents from German historians in Karlsruhe, which depict Kahn as a low-paid schoolteacher who was in constant need of cash."

You could strike "who was" and just go with "schoolteacher in constant"
 Done Yoninah (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
"The family does not believe that he stole the Haggadah, but that he somehow obtained it without their permission."

Why?
You might flipflop this sentence (speak of obtaining it without permission first, and then disavow outright theft) to convey the proper weight of the accusation, which is that it left the family's hands without permission.
Minor point, but you're not in the head of the family members, so you can't speak to what they do and do not believe. You can, however, speak to what they say they believe.
 Done Yoninah (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Overall:

is there mention of what the first recorded reference of the Haggadah is?
No one knows who the original patron was. And all the literature and commentary that I've seen on the manuscript and its history reference its exhibition at the Betzalel National Museum (predecessor of the Israel Museum), which acquired the manuscript in 1946. The facsimile edition published in 1965 gave it further publicity in the art history world. Yoninah (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I might put the second two paragraphs into a subsection entitled "Ownership dispute" or similar. The first paragraph speaks only to what is known about the manuscript; the second two speak to the unknowns.
 Done Yoninah (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


### Images
Images generally look good, both in quality and tagging. Two need to be addressed:

The license on File:BH_Exodus.jpg needs to include "PD-old-100" or similar
I'm a bit confused by the license on the photo of Ludwig Marum. If the photograph's author is unknown, how can the uploader attach a CC license to it?


### Interpretations
I think you need an additional sentence at the end of the first paragraph. You have a lead sentence ('numerous theories abound') and then explain one of the common theories (graven image), but give no introduction to the following five paragraphs. An additional sentence, along the lines of "Some other scholars, however, have postulated that the birds' heads are not simply a Second Commandment workaround, but represent particular characteristics of the Jewish people" would set up the following paragraphs.
Epstein: Is there a reason you're using his shorter 2015 work, rather than his much longer 2011 work (The Medieval Haggadah: Art, Narrative and Religious Imagination)? That book contains nearly 100 pages on the Birds' Head Haggadah. (If you don't have the book, I have online access and can email it to you.)

Yes, please send me online access. Yoninah (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Yoninah, just downloaded the relevant pages. Email me and I'll send them on to you. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Schapiro: What is the significance of the two biblical passages that identify Jews with eagles?
Zemel: How does the "connection elevate[] the spiritual importance of the Jews' work"? The reference to "a tongue-in-cheek allusion" in the first sentence makes it sound as if the Birds' Head Haggadah was made for humor, not to elevate spiritual importance.
Malinkoff: Do you have any sense how credible this theory is? If it's not widely accepted, it's worth saying something to the effect that most scholars disagree with that interpretation.
Schapiro: As you're using Schapiro as a response to Malinkoff, and as it is only one sentence, I would remove the paragraph break and have it follow immediately after "according to Malinkoff."


### Lead
I would turn the part starting with "The Birds' Head Haggadah is so called because ..." into a second paragraph.
A line or two summarizing the theories would be helpful.
Following "The Haggadah is in the possession of the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, where it is on permanent exhibition" should be a sentence mentioning the current ownership dispute. Depending on length (after adding a brief summary of some of the theories, this could possibly be a short third paragraph.


### Other editions
"In 1965/1967": what does the "/" indicate? That the precise year is unclear? That it took 2–3 years for publication?

It is a 2-volume work; the first volume was published in 1965 and the second in 1967. Yoninah (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


### References
Currently the references are split between the sfn style, and <ref></ref> tags. Do you have any objection to using sfn for all footnotes (example)? I'm happy to help with this if you like.

I notice that you made this change; thank you. Yoninah (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


### Comments
@Usernameunique: thank you for initiating the review! I hope to address all these issues this week. BTW it sounds like you are not familiar with a Haggadah. It is the traditional text of the Passover Seder. I could add a very brief explanation and a link, but to go into it in any more detail on a page about a Haggadah seems superfluous. Yoninah (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@Yoninah: My pleasure! I'll add what I can later today and tomorrow, but will be away Tuesday through Friday. You're right that I am not familiar with a Haggadah. I think a brief explanation would be helpful—I see the article as being about an archaeological artifact first, and a religious object second (indeed, it is an art and architecture GA nominee, not philosophy and religion), so adding the contextual information would help. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Okay, added comments for the "Provenance" section, which will be my last for a few days. For what it's worth, my "overall" assessment of the "Interpretations" section will be a suggestion to more cohesively summarize the various theories in the first paragraph. Also, at some point the article's lead should be expanded. Looks good so far, though, and definitely on track for GA> --Usernameunique (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@Usernameunique: Thank you. I'm just wondering if I made a mistake by categorizing this under "Art and Architecture". It is an important illuminated manuscript, but first and foremost it is a Haggadah. Could I re-categorize it under "Philosophy and Religion" instead? Would that affect the GA review? Yoninah (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Yoninah Nope, I'd be fine with that. I don't think it matters too much, though—we're really just talking about an extra line or two to give context, and even some people coming to the article as a religious item might not be familiar with the ins and outs of Judaism. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Yoninah (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@Usernameunique: I think I've covered all your editorial points. I've asked another user to crop out some images so I can use them in the article. Yoninah (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Yoninah Sounds good! I'm pretty tired up today, but will give it a read through tomorrow and add my remaining comments. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
OK. The cropped images have been added, and I also added an infobox. Yoninah (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for all the improvements Yoninah, it looks great. I really like the expansion of the "Description" section in particular. I've finished the review of the other sections.
@Usernameunique: thanks. But I feel like this is an FA review. My other GAs have all passed without such significant and in-depth rewriting. Yoninah (talk)


### Status query
Usernameunique, Yoninah, where does this review stand? The last edit to this page was over a month ago, and it's been over two weeks since Yoninah's most recent edits to the article. Any chance of finally finishing this one up? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
It looks like everything's been addressed above, and given the detail of the review, I can safely pass this as a GA. Wizardman 16:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The three things remaining above are:
Expanding the lead
Synthesizing the "Interpretations" section
Potentially integrating the 100 page article by Epstein (only his short summary is used). I sent this to Yoninah some time ago and have not heard back since then.
I won't stand in the way of someone else's assessment (especially when I should have been more proactive on pushing for the above), but may address some of these issues myself if time permits.  --Usernameunique (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
@Usernameunique: I did add what I could from the 100-page article here. The rest of the article goes off into all sorts of topics. When I have time, I will try to finish up some of your points above.
@Wizardman: thanks for the approval. As I mentioned above, I would like this to be listed under Wikipedia:Good articles/Philosophy and religion together with the other Passover Haggadahs. I think that my listing it under Art and Architecture led to the protracted and in-depth review that followed. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
@Johnbod: I see you've switched the GA category listing back to art and architecture. But essentially this is a Haggadah, a ritual object. The art beautifies it but doesn't define it. (As a "proof", note that this and other Haggadahs are full of wine stains, as they are meant to be used at the Passover Seder.) Yoninah (talk) 10:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
This and other illuminated MS are individual objects, typically containing, as here, a (fairly) standard text, in this case the Haggadah.  Articles on the texts would go under Philosophy and religion, but articles on individual artwork copies go under art. As in other cases, the article has little to say about the Haggadah text itself (as opposed to the scribing of it here) beyond a quick general description of the Haggadah, except for owner's additions etc. I know there is a printed edition, Maxwell House Haggadah in Philosophy and religion, but that a) certainly isn't art, and b) mostly deals with aspects of the text and translation. Rather wierdly, we don't seem to have any other religious MS as GA, but there are some at FA (eg Book of Kells), which are classified under art.  We would not classify a painting of a battle under military history.  Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
@Johnbod: OK, that makes sense. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


### Comment
Congratulations! I don't know what the concern above about pens was - of course they had them back then. Not ballpoints or fountain pens obviously, but quill pens. What else would they use for script - not brushes on this scale. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:Scribe- Menahem - The Birds' Head Haggadah - Google Art Project.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for March 28, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-03-28. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)