Talk:Menora v. Illinois High School Association
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | Menora v. Illinois High School Association is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||
 | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 25, 2026. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 11, 2025. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a court ordered a U.S. basketball league to let two schools into its tournament, but both were knocked out in the first round? | |||||||||
| This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Did you know nomination
- 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: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:14, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
- ... that a basketball league was ordered by a U.S. federal court to let two schools into its tournament, but both were knocked out in the first round?
- Source: Eleff 2020, PDF pp. 92–93; Evansville Press 1981. see second para of Menora v. Illinois High School Association#District court. want a copy of either source? email me!
- Reviewed: State Hearse; also submitting Contra: Hard Corps and Top Gear (video game) here as a bit of protest on quickfails counting as QPQs.
- Comment: we are so back
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC).
The article has been moved from draft space within a week of being nominated (a month ago...), is fully cited, has no major copyvio concerns, and does not have any other issues. The hook is cited, is interesting, and properly structured. Congratulations! I am willing to pass this hook. But for personal knowledge, what does Ref 23 cite? It appears to cite both Authentically Orthodox: A Tradition-Bound Faith in American Life and the Evansville Press. GGOTCC 16:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks so much, GGOTCC!! Yeah, the time it took for someone to get to this is probably my bad for putting a 3k+ word new article at DYK. The newspaper is just for the exact date, here's the relevant bits of each source:
The athletes triumphed, at least for the moment. Judge Milton Shadur issued the order, vowing to summon all sides to a hearing if either the Yeshiva or the Academy team advanced to the next round of the tournament. As it happened, later that evening Harvard trounced Yeshiva, 99–54. Likewise St. Gregory overwhelmed the Academy a few days later by a score of 79 to 51.
–Eleff 2020, pp. 92–93
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)After a brief hearing yesterday [Feb. 23, 1981], U.S. District Court Judge Milton I. Shadur issued a temporary restraining order...
–Evansville Press 1981
- You are welcome! I was surprised to see Evansville mentioned on this page. Thank you for explaining the reference–my brain is smooth so I did not realize you can combine two citations into one. Keep up the great work! GGOTCC 18:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks so much, GGOTCC!! Yeah, the time it took for someone to get to this is probably my bad for putting a 3k+ word new article at DYK. The newspaper is just for the exact date, here's the relevant bits of each source:
AN establishment
The article quotes the First Amendment as saying "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..." The correct language of the Amendment is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." AN establishment, not THE establishment. The difference in meaning is huge. ~2026-31398-57 (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
- so it does! fixed, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:53, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
Confusing "along with" sentence
In § case, we have a complex sentence:
Unwilling to play without kippot, students from the two Jewish schools sued the IHSA, along with their parents and the schools themselves; the lead plaintiff, Moshe Menora, was the parent of Sholom Menora, one of the Yeshiva's players.
The part I bold-faced is confusing because the "along with..." phase sounds like it's adding additional defendants to those being sued (IHSA being the antecedent of "their"). It's not until my brain spends a while and I read further that I figured it was the parents of the student plaintiffs, and that the phrase is instead adding additional plaintiffs. How about solving the grammar/logic flaw and simplifying the whole thing as:
Unwilling to play without kippot, students from the two Jewish schools, along with their parents and the schools themselves, sued the IHSA.[sentence break] The lead plaintiff, Moshe Menora, was the parent of Sholom Menora, one of the Yeshiva's players.
DMacks (talk) 06:35, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- works for me! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:37, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
