Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Judaism: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:43, 27 November 2011 editLisa (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,446 edits User:In ictu oculi's edits: Don't do that.← Previous edit Revision as of 15:50, 27 November 2011 edit undoLisa (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,446 edits User:In ictu oculi's disruptive editsNext edit →
Line 168: Line 168:
:* any other policy you wish to bring to my attention? :* any other policy you wish to bring to my attention?
:Best regards :Best regards

::] comes to mind. - ] (] - ]) 15:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


:Hello Lisa :Hello Lisa
Line 179: Line 181:
# (Move log); 00:51 . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ moved ] to Osek b'mitzvah patur min hamitzvah over redirect (move without consensus) # (Move log); 00:51 . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ moved ] to Osek b'mitzvah patur min hamitzvah over redirect (move without consensus)
:However I'd welcome discussion on these names on the sections on relevant Talk pages, and if anyone can find then they're smarter than me, which is quite possible, but let's see WP:RS not chat. Anyway, now you've moved ] etc. Lisa, what '''do''' you want this article to be called? ] (]) 03:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC) :However I'd welcome discussion on these names on the sections on relevant Talk pages, and if anyone can find then they're smarter than me, which is quite possible, but let's see WP:RS not chat. Anyway, now you've moved ] etc. Lisa, what '''do''' you want this article to be called? ] (]) 03:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

::] or ] would probably be good. But it doesn't matter. I wouldn't change it to that without engaging in discussion on the subject in talk. You clearly don't play well with others. I wonder what you're doing here on Misplaced Pages at all. - ] (] - ]) 15:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


:Hiya Debresser :Hiya Debresser
Line 209: Line 213:


::::::My ]: these moves should be performed in concordance with the moving policy, with an entry on ], so the community can offer their input on each discussion. While the ] recommends English names, one would need evidence that the concept is actually recognised in that form in English. Some of the articles discussed above have titles that simply do not occur in their English form in English writings. Translating them to force English titles throughout is wrong, puristic, and potentially disruptive - because nobody will be able to find the article except through redirects from their more common Hebrew titles. I am not against running Googlefights to determine whether the Hebrew/Aramaic or English name is in more common usage. ] | ] 08:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC) ::::::My ]: these moves should be performed in concordance with the moving policy, with an entry on ], so the community can offer their input on each discussion. While the ] recommends English names, one would need evidence that the concept is actually recognised in that form in English. Some of the articles discussed above have titles that simply do not occur in their English form in English writings. Translating them to force English titles throughout is wrong, puristic, and potentially disruptive - because nobody will be able to find the article except through redirects from their more common Hebrew titles. I am not against running Googlefights to determine whether the Hebrew/Aramaic or English name is in more common usage. ] | ] 08:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::::I don't remember how to request an IP check. Can someone please point me in the right direction? I suspect ] may be the perm-banned editor ]. - ] (] - ]) 15:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:50, 27 November 2011

 Main Discussion Board Members Article Assessment Templates Categories Resources Manual of Style To do New Articles Articles for Deletion Sister Projects Watchlist 

Discussion Board

Discussions relating to Jews and Judaism. (edit) (back to top)

Shortcut
Archiving icon
Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39



This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Request for input in discussion forum

Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk)

Automated message by Project Messenger Bot from John Carter at 15:44, 5 April 2011

Someone to rewrite the Judaism section of an article

My original "Request for someone to rewrite the Judaism section of an article", dated 18Jun11, is now in Archive 27, and of course I hoped someone would place it where such a request should be placed. I was unable to find such a place, myself.

This followup entry is simply to let someone know I'll feel free to rewrite the Judaism section of the Matrilineality article myself when I can find the time to do so, no earlier than a month from now, and without any further notification to anyone else. As I stated in my original request, I am totally and hopelessly unqualified for this rewriting job. At the same time, my judgment (hopefully good enough in most matters) is that my result will at least be an improvement upon the present Judaism section for most readers of Misplaced Pages. Again, I'm posting this identically in my own Talk page, adding it directly with my earlier 18Jun11 entry, and would like any reply entered on my own Talk page as well. On behalf of WP readers, For7thGen (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This is quite a big job and is best tackled by someone with access to classical and modern sources. Given the fact that such editors do not abound even in this WikiProject, perhaps you may need to approach individual people. JFW | T@lk 10:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Advice needed

Two editors (Lisa, Jayjg) appear to have a problem with additions I have made to Ger toshav since Mzk1 pointed out that it was not correct to say that the term ger toshav did not occur in the Tanakh. Since then editor Lisa has deleted half the article (all content and sources related to the Tanakh) 3x. At the same time as this is going on I have had to restore the deletions in order to add sources requested by Jayjg to prove that there is a relation between the phrase in Leviticus and the commentary on the phrase in Leviticus in the Talmud.

Lede as it stands now:'

The idea of a resident foreigner (Template:Lang-he-n ger "foreigner" + toshav "resident", in rabbinical Judaism refers to a gentile who is a "resident alien", that is, one who lives in a Jewish state and has certain protections under Jewish law, and is considered a righteous gentile (Template:Lang-he-n hassid umot ha-olam "righteous among the nations"). Maimonides uses the term "a stranger-sojourner" in commentary on the term "a stranger-and-sojourner" in Leviticus without the copulative vav (Hebrew וְ "and"). The Hebrew term "a stranger-and-sojourner" (Template:Lang-he-n Septuagint πάροικος καὶ παρεπίδημος), is also a concept found in the Hebrew Bible where it refers to Abraham, Israel and foreigners in Israel, and the concept also occurs in the New Testament and Christian literature, where Abraham's example is applied to life in pagan society.

What exactly is the problem with expanding article content outside of the Rambam to look at Leviticus itself? I cannot understand the reaction being made to transparent WP:RS supported edits? The content seems completely vanilla. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be having a discussion with both editors on the talkpage. There is no need to start another thread here, other than to alert other editors to the discussion. I you think you are in a revert war, it might be best to have the article protected so you can work constructively on a consensus version.
What you are suggesting is that we discuss all instances of the phrase "ger toshav" in the Bible. This is an encyclopedia and not a concordance. It might be relevant if there are secondary sources that link the concept from rabbinical Judaism to the various instances the term occurs in the Biblical text. JFW | T@lk 10:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, yes the intention is to alert/invite other editors to the discussion. Evidently this is an encyclopedia not a concordance - but since the article is titled in a foreign language, that naturally brings in subjects covered by the foreign language term not by an English article title. And this again speaks to the more general problem of articles where WP:EN may be an issue. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Need access to Commentary Volume 11 (1951)

Does anyone have access to Commentary? I believe this is a publication of the American Jewish Committee. I am looking for Volume 51 (1951). I found the following snippet via Google Books and would like to know what the context of the snippet is. Specifically, I would like to know how the sentence ends.

"The recent release of a new film by Veit Harlan, the director of Jud Suss, who in three successive trials has been cleared of all charges of collaboration with the Nazis, and the appearance on the Berlin stage of Werner Krauss"

This is the Google Books URL. http://books.google.com/books?id=lZISAAAAIAAJ&q=Harlan+%22Jud+S%C3%BC%C3%9F%22+%22Werner+Krauss%22&dq=Harlan+%22Jud+S%C3%BC%C3%9F%22+%22Werner+Krauss%22&hl=en&ei=5bSxTpfiEMOyiQKbzrDbDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBQ

I am working on the article about Jud Süß (1940 film) and it seems that this snippet is commenting on the return of some of the participants in that project to the German entertaiment industry. Any help in this regard would be much appreciated.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Name of the Who is a Jew? article

A discussion has started regarding a proposal to rename the Who is a Jew? article. Interested parties can find it here: Talk:Who is a Jew?#Article should be renamed. Jayjg 16:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

طهارة and טהרה and WP:naming conventions (use English)

Sorry about this, re an edit 40 days ago, so not exactly timely, and I know this subject has come up on here before, but where else would it come up.
  • (1) We have not resolved yet whether under WP:EN and WP:NPOV whether WP:RS for articles dealing with practices originating in the Ancient Near East (including Ancient Israel, and with development in the worship of Ancient Israel, Second Temple Judaism, and then rabbinical Judaism/Christianity/Islam) should or should not use English terms or Ugaritic/Hebrew/Greek/Latin/Arabic ones. A case in point is this edit where Debresser and I disagree (politely I hope, Debresser has always been very friendly and collegiate with me) about, to put it simply but I hope fairly, whether Google Scholar or Rabbinical commentaries should be used the benchmark to establish what is WP:NPOV English usage in certain articles. Specifically here from Oct 1.
  • (2) Note there is an additional problem generated now by the two articles on taharah טהרה "ritual purity" in Hebrew and taharah طهارة "ritual purity" in Arabic which I nominated for page rename to English per WP:naming conventions (use English) now being imbalanced. The Arabic was renamed to English, but the Hebrew was left in Hebrew - which seems a little ... well I guess how it seems will depend on to whom....
Any comments on what WP policy should be applied here? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Help with article on Ger toshav

The article on Ger toshav has been under a kind of attack in recent weeks, primarily by User:In ictu oculi. This user is engaging in two maneuvers simultaneously. On the one hand, he is attempting to modify the article so that it's about the general concept of gerim and toshavim in Tanakh, and on the other hand, he is then arguing that the title of the article should be changed into English.

I've tried explaining to him that Ger toshav is a halakhic category, but he seems not to understand this. Or perhaps it's that he thinks any midrashic linkage between that category and the phrase גר ותושב in Tanakh means that all uses of that phrase or any similar phrase must be referring to the halakhic Ger toshav.

I've pointed out the difference between the articles on Shabbat and Biblical Sabbath, the one being a Hebrew titled article discussing a halakhic concept and the other being an English titled article discussing a general Biblical concept that, while it is obviously related to the halakhic concept, has an entirely different focus. He simply rejected this point.

I'd appreciate it if I could get some help over in Ger toshav to prevent User:In ictu oculi's continued inappropriate edits. Thanks. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Lisa
Your continued return to delete uses of ger v toshav from the Tanakh and Talmud from the ger toshav reducing the article from 15,464 bytes to 6,139 bytes as here is counter to the WP:RS in the article stating that ger v toshav "a stranger and foreigner" in Leviticus 25 and ger toshav in Talmud passages commenting on Leviticus 25 are related. I raised this in section above. Please see above. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The number of bytes in an article is hardly relevant. You could paste the Declaration of Independence in and make it even longer, but it wouldn't be any more relevant to the subject of the article. I get that you don't understand how halakhic concepts and their biblical antecedents are related. That's okay. There are plenty of people here you can ask to help educate you. The article Gevurah, for example, is connected to the word gevurah as used in the Bible. But that isn't what defines it. If you were to go into that article and start adding all the places where the word, or related forms of it, are used biblically, and discussing what its import is in those cases, and then suggest that the article be renamed to Might or some such, I'd revert those edits as well.
Folks, I'd really appreciate some more help with this. I don't want to be the only person reverting IIO's inappropriate edits, and I don't get the sense that he's planning on stopping any time soon. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Lisa,
The issue I'm afraid is one of Misplaced Pages policies:
(1) WP:NPOV - no matter how strongly you may feel that the Tanakh (in this case Leviticus 25) should not be allowed in an article about a term which comments on Leviticus 25, it is not NPOV to constantly delete material related to the Tanakh.
(2) WP:RS - the sources you have deleted (along with 2/3 of the article) explicitly say that ger toshav and ger v toshav in rabbinical materials are commenting on gerim v toshavim in the Tanakh. Unless you can provide WP:RS to contradict these sources, rather than just deleting them, you do not have a case that ger toshav and ger v toshav are unrelated.
(3) WP:EN states that the articles should be named in English anyway, as per the Jewish Encyclopedia, which evidently covers ger toshav and ger v toshav but in English.
(4) WP:POVFORK leads me to understand that to have 2 articles, ger toshav and ger v toshav, as you appear to want, would be meaningless duplication and create 2 unbalanced articles. We cannot easily exclude the Tanakh from material developing from/commenting on the Tanakh without causing a POVFORK.
Do you understand WP policies (1)-(4) above? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen quite a few articles tampered with by User:In ictu oculi, (see Mnachem Rizikoff for one), i've found that my attempts to explain halachic terms and titles to him are not receptively met.--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Marecheth Ho'eElohuth, the word "tampered with" implies your WP:OWNERSHIP, which Misplaced Pages does not recognise. I'm afraid that if someone, anyone, creates a largely WP:OR WP:POV essay style article, full of misspellings, foreign language words, cut and paste duplication, then other editors will come along and "tamper with" (pull towards WP standards) that person's creations, the alternative to editing being a deletion or merge nomination. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
In ictu oculi, accusations aside, your renaming proposal on Talk:Hromim#Three_duplicate_articles_on_same_Hebrew_word is really ridiculous. I prefer a good Hebrew term to that concocted nonsense translation any day. 06:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Debresser (talk)
Hi Debresser,
Why "accusations aside," do you think I am wrong to defend myself of the charges above?
I still find this sensitivity over WP:naming conventions (use English), and the idea that the English language can be an "attack" or "tampering" quite odd. But I will look on the Talk you have linked to find which English term you consider is not documented in WP:RS. All the best as always. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Having checked Google Books and Google Scholar, the title Marecheth Ho'eElohuth gave to his article hromim does not exist - other than in Croatian as an inflected form of the adjective hromi "lame" - while JPS Tanakh, aka concocted nonsense ;), has "devoted things" as do many commentaries, others have "devoted objects". In ictu oculi (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Righteous gentile

It seems Righteous gentile redirects to Ger toshav. That is strange, since "ger toshav" is a biblical definition, while "righteous gentile" is a title bestowed also by the state of Israel upon non-Jews who helped Jews, like Oscar Schindler. Debresser (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I see we have Righteous among the Nations for that. I think we should turn Righteous gentile into a disambiguation page. Debresser (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Please see and improve or comment. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not so sure that Righteous gentile and Ger toshav are indisputably the same thing. There are good enough sources to keep that statement in the Ger toshav header, but to say they are exactly the same is going too far.Mzk1 (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I suspect that if you check newspapers and other popular sources, you will find a lot of cites under the spelling herem. It is more important that the average Joe find what he is looking for than satisfying some ivory-tower types who shouldn't be relying on us anyway.Mzk1 (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Jud Süß (1940 film) nominated for Good Article status

I have nominated the article on Jud Süß (1940 film) for Good Article status. If you are interested in reviewing the article against the criteria for good articles, please follow the instructions at the top of the article's talk page. Only one reviewer is need for this process; however, comments and suggestions for improving the article are always welcome. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on it reaching Good Article status. Magister Scienta 01:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

New image

I just had to share this fabulous new image with everyone:

Eliyahu David Rabinowitz-Teomim

--Chesdovi (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Tribe of Dan

This and Denyen attract fringe editors. If you look at Talk:Tribe of Dan you'll see an editor attacking me as anti-Semitic for I'm not sure what, saying the tribe of Dan wasn't in America or dislinking Sunday school sources? "The Tribe of Dan was of ancient Egypt, Dan himself allied with Egyptian princes, their tribe was highly knowledgeable, especially of construction and architecture, and their tribe was the seafaring tribe, so it is not weird to believe all the pyramids in the Americas have some kind of link to Egypt via the ancient Middle Eastern diaspora ultimately of many groups, and possibly the Tribe of Dan themselves; and we're now finding through DNA those links in some of the Americas. The Druze have a high concentration of the X haplogroup and they're still in and around Israel and the region. You're an anti-Semite." (quote from an edit by Wheres Dan (talk · contribs)). Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, he's been banned for a week for edit-warrng. Magister Scienta 01:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Article rating

Hello everybody, I've been doing a considerable amount of work trying to improve Charles W. Engelhard, Jr. from its current C status. I think, at this moment, it's finally a B article. Can somebody please review the article, and if they agree, change its rating. I believe I can't do this because of some COI rule since I'm a major contributor. Thanks, Magister Scienta 05:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

User:In ictu oculi's disruptive edits

User:In ictu oculi (henceforth: IIO) has been, for some weeks now, engaged in what I can only call a campaign to disrupt articles on Jewish legal topics.

I first noticed IIO's behavior in the article on Ger toshav. This is a concept in Jewish law which applies to non-Jews living in the land of Israel. IIO decided that any reference to ger or toshav in the Bible was therefore to be included in this article, even in cases when they are completely unconnected. So he pulled in Abraham referring to himself in Genesis as a ger v'toshav, and then linked from that to material in the Christian scriptures, and then, because he had changed it from an article about a Jewish legal concept to a general article about a different topic, he wanted to change the article's title to be in English. As you can see from the talk page (which is currently more than half filled with debates on this issue), IIO refuses to stop adding irrelevant edits to this article.

I tried at one point to use the articles on Shabbat and Biblical Sabbath as an example of an article about a Jewish legal concept on the one hand, and a general article about the word in the Bible on the other. So now he has expanded his disruptive edits into those articles as well.

He has engaged in a number of unilateral moves without any discussion whatsoever in talk. Some may be justified, such as the move of Nahash to Serpent (Bible). Others, he has justified with comments such as "reverting move with no discussion", despite the move he refers to having happened in 2009 (!).

He has gone into an article on Shituf, a Jewish legal concept which refers to whether or not certain forms of Christian worship as viewed as idolatrous in Jewish law, and added an utterly irrelevant section on "shituf meal", something which has absolutely nothing to do with the legal concept of shituf.

He has gone into an article on Kareth (roughly: excision), which is also a concept in Jewish law. He did the same thing there that he has tried to do with Ger toshav, changing the article to one about the word in the Bible (with a demand to change the article title to English due any day now) and relegating the actual content of the article to a subsection of "In Judaism".

He has moved the following articles unilaterally:

The status quo Kohen => Recognition of priestly descent
Kil'ayim (prohibition) => Prohibition against crossbreeding
Osek b'mitzvah patur min hamitzvah => Engaged in one precept, exempt from another
B'rov am hadrat melech => In multitudes there is glorification of the king
Petter Chamor => Redemption of a donkey

I've moved all of them back pending discussion.

IIO has been absolutely impervious to argument and to requests that he stop. To give him the benefit of the doubt, he may simply not understand how Jewish law works. He has referred to the Talmud a number of times as "a commentary on the Bible". But even if this is the case, he is unwilling to be corrected about it.

I'd appreciate it if we could get some admins to ask him to stop, since he won't listen to anyone else. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe an RfC/U for a topic ban on Judaism? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am having the same problem with him at Hromim. And that is in spite of the discussion we had with him here on this WikiProject talkpage, and on the talkpage of that article specifically. Debresser (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


Hi Steven J. Anderson
Hello. If you want to propose a topic ban it will have to extend to all foreign-language-titled articles, including Arabic (طهارة and טהרה above) not just anglicizing Hebrew. Can I please ask you, have you contributed at any point to Wikifying Marecheth Ho'eElohuth's creations over the last 6 months, for example? Do you want those articles restored to the way they were created? The reason I'm raising this as the most egregious example, and in terms of number of articles and volume the majority of the articles under discussion.
It is possible that there may be perspective differences in play here between a secular and religious approach to these topics but nevertheless, one would hope that the deciding factor should be Misplaced Pages policies. Do you have a specific edit which you are concerned does not reflect the following Misplaced Pages policies:
Best regards
WP:HE comes to mind. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello Lisa
With all respect, you say "IIO refuses to stop adding irrelevant edits to this article." but the last edit I made to the article was 13 Nov when Lisa deleted material mainly relating to the use of the term in the article title in the Tanakh, together will all RS sources. Today is 27 November. That is 2 weeks during which I have been asking you on the Talk page to provide either a WP:RS or a WP policy to justify your deletion of WP:RS concerning ger toshav in Leviticus from the article named ger toshav. You still have failed to provide either to support your deletion (which stands now for 14 days) of copious WP:RS-sourced content. Sorry, but it's the case.
Secondly, you say that those articles which you've moved back to Hebrew (or ungrammatical nonsense-English) were done "without consensus" - but you misunderstand Misplaced Pages policy. Not every page move requires a full RM. Some, particular where the article title has no support whatsoever in WP:RS (eg Google Book and Google Scholar Advanced Search) can be done by posting comment on the Talk page so that editors watching that article can get involved. Posting sections with WP:EN on the Talk Page is an invitation for editors, which can be anyone, even someone like yourself who has made no contribution to the article, to present your feelings on the Talk page.
  1. (Move log); 00:53 . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ moved Recognition of priestly descent to The status quo Kohen over redirect (moved without consensus)
  2. (Move log); 00:53 . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ moved Talk:Recognition of priestly descent to Talk:The status quo Kohen over redirect (moved without consensus)
  3. (Move log); 00:52 . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ moved In multitudes there is glorification of the king to B'rov am hadrat melech over redirect (moved without consensus)
  4. (Move log); 00:52 . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ moved Talk:In multitudes there is glorification of the king to Talk:B'rov am hadrat melech over redirect (moved without consensus)
  5. (Move log); 00:51 . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ moved Talk:Engaged in one precept, exempt from another to Talk:Osek b'mitzvah patur min hamitzvah over redirect (move without consensus)
  1. (Move log); 00:51 . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ moved Engaged in one precept, exempt from another to Osek b'mitzvah patur min hamitzvah over redirect (move without consensus)
However I'd welcome discussion on these names on the sections on relevant Talk pages, and if anyone can find "The status quo Kohen" in Google Books then they're smarter than me, which is quite possible, but let's see WP:RS not chat. Anyway, now you've moved Talk:The status quo Kohen etc. Lisa, what do you want this article to be called? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Presumed Kohen or Presumption of Kohen status would probably be good. But it doesn't matter. I wouldn't change it to that without engaging in discussion on the subject in talk. You clearly don't play well with others. I wonder what you're doing here on Misplaced Pages at all. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Hiya Debresser
Hey there, I'm a little bit disappointed with the above. I have always been more than fair haven't I? Including shelving a subject here while you were indisposed recently, remember. As regards the specific article related to "devoted things" I am, am I not, living with the use of the Croatian adjective "lame" hromim as the title of what the JPS Tanakh and all WP:RS have as "devoted things", despite not a single source (other than Croatian books with "lame" in the text) come up on Google Books. I also changed the 2 specific corrections you requested (1) Hebrew Bible adding the POVfork Tanakh, and (2) correcting Sifri to Sifra in one instance. What I have not done that you asked me to do?
As regards the "average Joe ... ivory tower types" point, we'll, you're welcome to your view, but this isn't a great deal more true than "I prefer a good Hebrew term (which was the Croatian adjective) to that concocted nonsense translation (which was JPS Tanakh) any day". The average English-speaking Joe won't know a word of Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, Latin, Greek and will be totalled excluded by the use of foreign language terms. This is why Misplaced Pages has WP:UE. Secondly the Jewish Encyclopedia, JPS Tanakh and all the various Google Scholar and Google Books WP:RS are not all for "ivory tower types", they are simply using - where they use them - English terms, just as a French, Italian or German encyclopedia/Tanakh/ etc would do..... Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Yes, we have always discussed our issues amiably. But we have never reached a solution for the underlying problem, which is that you try to pour into English that which has no English equivalent. And in this I agree with Lisa, being completely in line with and in continuation of the discussions we have had before, here and elsewhere. I agree, that this thread is beginning to show ominous shadows for you, but that seems unavoidable in view of your persistence in doing that which, in my and others' opinion, is not the best thing to do here on Misplaced Pages. I hope, you will see that in time, because I highly value your contributions. With friendly regards, Debresser (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Debresser,
Yes you have always been very amicable, and I'll hope that you're wrong about "this thread is beginning to show ominous shadows for you." So far it's only Steven J. Anderson who has raised that.
Fundamentally this is a set of WP policy issues. Additional to those mentioned above (WP:PSTS, WP:UE, WP:NPOV) is "Misplaced Pages tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English," according to MOS:COMMONALITY. Whether specific phrases have support in English WP:RS we'll leave to the specific articles. And what I would request is that anyone who has a view on a specific edit please use the Talk pages, since that's what they are there for. That has the advantage of being at first hand to access WP:RS which may have been deleted from relevant article.
I'm not going to be around now for 24 hours, in the meantime folks - make your opinions felt, no holds barred, but on the actual articles please. Best wishes as always. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it makes sense to address the general issue, rather than argue on several talkpages about the same issue. Debresser (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Debresser,
Well, well you have a point, and you are free to make points here. Go ahead, others go ahead, I'll listen, but as I say I'll be gone for 24 hours. We've had before this exchange here of whether e.g. Artscroll or the Jewish Encyclopedia best represents MOS:COMMONALITY and it didn't get anywhere, but these are page specific edits, page specific issues, related to specific WP policies as applied to specific pages. Since everyone (I hope) accepts the WP policies like WP:UE it should be more productive to do it on the article:
etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
My €0.02: these moves should be performed in concordance with the moving policy, with an entry on WP:RM, so the community can offer their input on each discussion. While the naming policy recommends English names, one would need evidence that the concept is actually recognised in that form in English. Some of the articles discussed above have titles that simply do not occur in their English form in English writings. Translating them to force English titles throughout is wrong, puristic, and potentially disruptive - because nobody will be able to find the article except through redirects from their more common Hebrew titles. I am not against running Googlefights to determine whether the Hebrew/Aramaic or English name is in more common usage. JFW | T@lk 08:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't remember how to request an IP check. Can someone please point me in the right direction? I suspect User:In ictu oculi may be the perm-banned editor User:Alastair Haines. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  1. Rabbi Shlomo Yosef Zevin, ed. (5739 (1979)). "Ger Toshav, Section 1". Encylopedia Talmudit (in Hebrew) (Fourth Printing ed.). Jerusalem, Israel: Yad Harav Herzog (Emet). {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)