Talk:Beth Israel Cemetery (Meridian, Mississippi)

Page Move

I think this page should be moved, possibly to Congregation Beth Israel (Meridian, Mississippi). While the cemetery is the entity listed on the National Register of Historic Places, it is undoubtedly listed because of its relation to the Jewish congregation in the city. There is hardly any information relating to the cemetery itself (though I haven't yet requested the NRHP nom form yet) but there are tons of information about the congregation. See the following links: [1] [2] [3]. The cemetery would still be mentioned, and the infobox could stay, but I believe since most of the information out there is about the congregation, the article's title should reflect that. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I just confirmed the NRHP docs are not available online in the National Park Service's FOCUS search system. Could you request the docs by regular means (email request to nr_reference (at) nps.gov ? This is the only Beth Israel cemetery that is NRHP-listed, I believe. At one end of the spectrum of possibilities, it could have been listed as the only substantial surviving artifact of a historic congregation. At the other end, it could have been listed for monument/stone-carving work by an artist. It seems better to get the free docs in order to make an informed decision. --doncram (talk) 11:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I just requested the NRHP nomination form (along with all the others in Lauderdale County haha). I'll let you know when I receive it/them. Until then, we can just leave this page here. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I received the nomination forms today for all locations in Lauderdale County (so maybe I'll be able to create/expand some articles in the near future). Turns out the cemetery is actually listed for being an example of Victorian funerary art, and there is little said about the congregation itself. Even so, since this is really the only source out there about the cemetery itself, I believe the article should still be moved. I'll add as much from this nomination form as possible, but I don't believe it will be enough to warrant an entire article about the cemetery itself. I believe it would be more suited as a section of an article about the congregation. I'll add in the info from the nomination form and then bring this up at WP:NRHP to get some more input. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I just added as much information as I could from the nom form.. I still don't think this warrants its own article. I'll bring it up at WT:NRHP --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the nom form. Is it in electronic form that you could share easily, by the way? You say here that the NRHP listing is for reason of the Victorian funerary art. That isn't yet developed in the article; the article doesn't state why the cemetery is NRHP-listed. I imagine that there is some more detail in the NRHP document that could be used to develop this, including mention of specific tombs / vaults / gateways / tombstones that are of Victorian era and style. If those would be specifically mentioned in the Wikipedia article, that implicitly would call for others to eventually add photos of them, which would probably be good for communicating what is important about the cemetery.

About the split/merger question, since you say the reason for the cemetery's listing is the Victorian art, rather than the association with the synagogue, it seems to me that keeping separate articles is appropriate. You may not want to develop a lot of further detail about the cemetery yourself, but it is okay/good to leave that for other editors. Even though you are by far the most productive Wikipedia editor in the Meridian, Mississippi area, there can be and will be others. However since you have done all the development so far, I also feel it is good to defer to your opinion as to what's best. Overall it doesn't matter greatly, especially if a complete section on the cemetery in the congregation article is created, and I do defer to your judgment. But, I don't really understand what is your reason for wanting this merged into an article about the congregation. And, you asked for my and others' opinions, and my opinion based in information given is that separate articles are appropriate (because the NRHP listing is not particularly related to the congregation). --doncram (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. About the NRHP nom being the only source about the cemetery, what about sources cited in the NRHP nom itself? Usually a NRHP nom is largely secondary research, and includes references to local newspaper articles and primary sources and other material that is likely held at a local library or a local historical society. In this case, some materials may be in possession of the associated congregation, or whomever wrote and/or supported the nomination. If the article is merged, I think that tends to downplay the attraction for others to develop more about this topic, either by going to those sources, finding others, or adding photos (the form of original research that we are allowed by wikipedia policy to engage in). If it is merged, one would tend to think that adding a gallery of 20 or 50 photos would not be helpful, as it would tend to overwhelm the article's primary topic of the congregation. If it is separate, then adding several good photos and adding many more photos in a linked Commons gallery seems more clearly beneficial, and i think it is good to encourage that. Again, though, i am not likely to visit soon, myself. :) --doncram (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S. Oakwood Cemetery (Troy, New York) is perhaps the only NRHP-listed cemetery having a featured article, thanks to User:UpstateNYer's great work. There are other very good cemetery articles about major representatives of the picturesque rural cemetery movement in the late 1800s etc. which also could serve as good models. --doncram (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The nomination form is in a pdf format. I could email it to you if you wish, or I think you may be able to ftp it from the NPS haha.. they sent me a username/password combo and directed me to their ftp server, where I downloaded the entire folder of NRHPs in Lauderdale County. If you'd like the form, I'm sure that can be arranged.

The Victorian era funerary art is specifically mentioned in the article haha.. in the Features section. The only examples that were in the nom form are listed in the article. Not word for word of course, but sufficiently so that very little extra pertinent information could be extracted from them. I actually have a photo of the Winner Monument as well as the angel atop the Meyer monument, but I've chosen to refrain from uploading those until the decision to merge is or is not made. One thing that does bug me is that there is this gigantic mausoleum with "ROSENBAUM" and "1912" on it, yet I can find no information whatsoever about this monument. It is on the south side of the cemetery, so according to the sources, it is a relatively new addition, and the NRHP nom says nothing about it. This leads me to believe that it was added sometime after the 1989 form was written, but that would make it much more likely to show up on the internet somewhere, possibly in a newspaper. I can't find anything about it. You can see the mausoleum in the infobox image in the background to the right (I also have an up close image), and it clearly stands out as the most prominent structure in the cemetery. I'm bewildered as to why I can find no information about it.

As to the other sources mentioned in the nomination form, many of them only talk about rural cemeteries themselves or include examle of funerary art from other cemeteries. Only one of them really contains relevant information to the cemetery itself: Jews in Early Mississippi by Leo and Evelyn Turitz. The online preview only contains the introduction and back cover, so there's no information there. The nomination form cites a claim about the age of the cemetery to p. 89 of that book. I suppose I could buy the book for information, but I don't see how spending $25 for a few sentences in a Wikipedia article is a good investment haha. I'm not that dedicated :P.

The problem with trying to expand this article is that at 2.9 acres, it is a very small space. Indeed when I arrived at the cemetery, I was surprised at its size. I can't find a claim that it is the smallest rural cemetery out there, but I wouldn't be surprised if this were so. I suppose I could add a little more information about its unusual size, but other than that (which can't add up to much more than a single paragraph), I honestly don't see how I could extract anything from this nomination form. I believe this information would be better suited as a section in an article about the congregation itself, which has much more information out there. Maybe I'll work on some information about the congregation in my user space and try to do the merger there, so we can see it before we decide to move it into mainspace or not. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding more to the article, adding the NRHP nomination as a reference and explaining more about some of the markers. I think the mentions of specific details such as names of selected markers and the shoes and stockings that are part of one monument, are just great! In general, in articles about historic districts too, I think that mentioning some details like these conveys a lot, makes the place accessible to readers. It also gives permission / encourages possible future editors and photographers to add more. Overall, I think this is a very nice article now and it could stay at this size and just be nice that way. It doesn't need to be developed to be a big thing was done for the Oakwood Cemetery in Troy. Anyhow, you made it a nice read for me and, as a reader, i am interested in reading more. I sent you an email just now; please do send a copy of the NRHP nom. I might be able to add a little bit more to the article or maybe i will just read it and not have anything much further to add. About the proper treatment of congregation vs. cemetery articles, I don't want to stand in your way. I think you have developed this cemetery article nicely into something whole and coherent, which i think is good on its own. But if you did transfer it to serve as a section in the article about the congregation, I believe it would stand well there too and not get lost. I would be a tad concerned that the cemetery might have included more than just congregation members, and merging the cemetery into the congregation article then tends to encourage future development about the congregation members only, and dissuades other development, but that may be a lesser concern. Mainly you have done some good work and i do wish to defer to your choice now. I am noting to myself that this situation is different than in many cases of historic districts vs. villages/hamlets in Connecticut, where the mergers proposed were seeming to me to wipe out or at least lessen any good prospects for further/detailed development of the historic district information. It seems important to me to give a good start to talking about the details of specific houses and their architectural details and addresses and so on, so that readers/visitors can find and see those same things, in order to make the historic district alive and serve as the museum / the collection of artifacts evoking the past, and to encourage further development by others along those lines. A merger into a village article can tend to dissuade all that. Anyhow, your article here now does seem to be inviting rather than shutting off. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

List of burials

This page shows a transcript of all people buried in the cemetery. There's just one problem... or well technically three haha. The NRHP nom form says that the oldest grave marker in the cemetery belongs to "Fanny, wife of N. Feibelman." However, this list doesn't show anyone by the name of Fanny, and there are no N. Fiebelmans. The only person who died in 1870 buried here is Henrietta Meyers (12.22.1870). On top of that, there are people buried before that: Jacob Greenwald (9.28.1869) and Sarah H. (wife of Samuel Levy) (6.13.1861).

I could see Jacob Greenwald, but I believe Sarah H. may be a mistaken transcript? Possibly 1961? Regardless, one of the sources is wrong... this walkthrough transcript or the NRHP official nomination. I'm not sure which to trust. The walkthrough has names like Alex Loeb, Marks Winner, Mattiemore Meyer, etc., that are mentioned in the NRHP nomination (and that I saw for myself), but no Fanny. Anyone know anything? Can this walkthrough be trusted as a reliable source?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I would view it as pretty reliable about the grave markers that it reports, from its walkthrough in 2007, unless there's proof of a lot of outright errors; there's no reason to expect bias or any wish to report inaccurate info. It's easy to understand it not finding one or a few markers that were reported in the NRHP application from 1988: those markers have been worn away and are no longer readable, or are totally gone, or are grown over, or the 2007 walkthrough just didn't find them. And some of the NRHP nom form's assertion could have been based on other information from the cemetery's records, rather than from what the NRHP nom preparer saw personally. About the finding that the 2007 source shows 2 buried before 1870, actually contradicting the NRHP nom, I suppose it is possible either the dates are wrong in the 2007 source. Could you find and check those gravestones yourself? Perhaps it is a matter of interpreting somewhat worn numbers. Or the NRHP nominator could also have missed some stones and/or mis-interpreted worn numbers. You can report assertions from all 3 sources, noting contradictions or avoiding them by your wording "Among the oldest grave markers is ...". Your own assertions can be supported by photos which you can provide. It's great you're doing this! --doncram (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)