Talk:Ushpizin

Untitled

What are the Ushpizin apart from Sukkoth? What is Sukkoth without the Ushpizim? If they don't have a group existence separate from Sukkoth, they would gain context as a redirect to Sukkoth, with all this text included there. --Wetman 2 July 2005 21:29 (UTC)

Merge

I suggest we pick a title and stick to it. I personally prefer two Zs so we can have "The Geusts" be a separate article, and use the approprite form of {{otheruses}} to disambiguate the two.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

merge

merge with ushpizzin. However, we should not merge with Sukkoth.Akerensky99 20:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Redirrect both to Sukkot

REDIRECT both articles to sukkot. Both article are stubs, but don't see any way for either to be expanded beyond what is already in the article sukkot. In fact, User:HereToHelp made ushpizzin by coping from sukkot. I assume that (s)he indended the page to be expand, but I don't see anywhere it can go. the only thing that the page adds is "In recent times, the list of "guests" has been expanded by some to include the Matriarchs:" which I am not such a fan of for many reasons: Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, and Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability Jon513 21:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Info about this article

General information for my fellow Wikipedians, who might wonder what the above comments are talking about:

Until 22 Oct 2006, this article was titled "The Guests", and the "Ushpizin" article was a redirect page. Following some discussion (see Talk:The Guests) we chose to change things, and now the "Ushpizin" article is about the movie, and it also has a disambig notice at the very top, where people can click for more info about the Sukkot holiday. --Keeves 12:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Haredi Culture

A) How can it be known that "heavy downloading and infringement of the movie" was done by "people who otherwise had no access to see the film"​?

B) If indeed the infringement was done by "people who otherwise had no access to see the film" then how can that have led to "financial problem that resulted from the file sharing"?

2A01:6500:A049:C8D2:15ED:64F5:45A4:3418 (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Bumy Goldson

The article only says "The advertisements told the public of the financial problem..." There is no reason to doubt that the advertisements did say that. As for A, we are relying on the Hebrew source.--agr (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)