Talk:Herem (priestly gift)

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Jewish Encyclopedia[edit]

Is there a relevant corresponding article? Not that it'll be up to date, but useful to external link footnote. I ask that partly in relation to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) since there is not a single Google books hit for "Chromim" What is the correct English term?

The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources

In ictu oculi (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three duplicate articles on same Hebrew word[edit]

Addeded a topline italic note that en.wikipedia has three duplicate articles on the same Hebrew word Cherem, Herem and Chromim plural. he.wikipedia gets round this with the last of the three by putting (to the priest) in brackets. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. If there are three duplicate articles, then a merge and redirects would appear to be the solution and not renames. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hromim → Devotion of objects (Judaism) – per WP:RS and WP:EN, though this may not be the only possible English title - still better than duplication/confusion among different Hebrew spellings/meanings. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move to term which is so artificial. In addition, user is trying to forcibly remove Hebrew terms from Wikipedia, and his actions are currently being debated on WT:JUDAISM. Debresser (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Debresser. User (me) is only trying to improve articles which are not following WP:naming conventions (use English), one user cannot "forcibly" apply a WP policy if other users are against it. Can you please run a Google Scholar or Google Books check to demonstrate that the term hromim is better represented in WP:RS than English renderings? Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a technical term, which has no "standard" translation. Making up some awkward translation is not what these naming conventions are about. Debresser (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser, actually hromim isn't a terminus technicus, searches show that it only exists as the instrumental case of the Croatian adjective hromi, "limping." In English the term does not exist: spelling "hromim" occurs zero times in Google Scholar zero times in Google books.
In Sociological approaches to the Old Testament Robert R. Wilson - 1984 we read ".. of early legal activity comes from Joshua 7, the story of the trial of Achan after his theft of devoted objects from Jericho,", + standard commentary on 1 and 2 Chronicles William Johnstone - 1999 we read "devoted objects, Lev. 27.28)."
But that may not be the best translation, the JPS Tanakh has, I believe, "devoted things". Like the English language sources in the article. Which already has "devoted things". In ictu oculi (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope some oher editors will also share their opinions with us. Perhaps somebody will come up with an alternative. Debresser (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Use of English and sources in the article[edit]

Hi Debresser, I guess for the moment we can live with having a pseudo-Hebrew word / Croatian adjective as title rather than the normal English term for "devoted things" as the title of Marecheth HoElohuth's essay, but to delete academic sources like Neusner and revert all the naming, grammar and spelling corrections because "Tanakh is not Hebrew Bible" or the wrong Sifre is being silly. This is en.wikipedia and articles should be in English, like mainstream Jewish and secular academic sources are in English.

In regard to Sifre. Which Sifre do you think Marecheth HoElohuth meant? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the title sounds Croatian. Precisely my thoughts. I am sorry, but I had to revert your edits, because the good and the bad are mixed in them. This happens sometimes. Please feel free to redo the good ones, but I strongly protest saying Hebrew Bible instead of Tanach, and the Sifra and Sifri are not the same book. We can't have edits introducing factual inaccuracies, even if they introduced some other important sources. Debresser (talk) 05:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Debresser
The title doesn't just sound Croatian, it is Croatian.
(1) Hebrew Bible is the wikilink of the Wikipedia article Hebrew Bible, how can you object to it?
(2) I asked you above, in regard to Sifre/Sifra. Which Sifre/i/a do you think Marecheth HoElohuth meant? Sifra the Halakic midrash to Leviticus? or Sifre to Numbers? I think he meant Sifre to Numbers. You think that's a mistake?
I cannot see any reason for your revert if those two above are the reasons. I specifically asked above for the correction - instead of which you revert everything rather than changing an "e" to an "a". And I think you're wrong actually, I think he meant Sifre to Numbers. What he wrote is so garbled it's difficult to tell. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Hebrew Bible and Tanach are different articles. See the hatnote on Hebrew Bible for the explanation of the difference between them in a nutshell.
  2. Where he said Sifra he meant Sifra and where Sifri he meant Sifri (a redirect to Sifre). Why add "to Numbers" or "to Leviticus"? Debresser (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, Hebrew Bible and Tanach are evidently POVforks in breach of Wikipedia policies, but okay, if you really want the article to link to the latter only, then no problem.
Okay, we'll stick with Sifra and Sifre. Why add "to Numbers" or "to Leviticus"? Only if we were trying to follow the banner on the article to make this article comprehensible to general readers.
I'll make these 2 changes as you ask when restoring the edits. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey D., I think that describing this as "I'm having a problem" on the Judaism project Talk page is a bit over the top. There's not much either of us can do about Wikipedia's duplication of Hebrew Bible and Tanakh forks, but if you prefer the latter fine. The only problem is I have (sorry WP:UE and WP:RS again) there are 2 Tanakhs on my shelves and one (JPS) says "devoted things" not חֵרֶם. The other says חֵרֶם but that's because it isn't in English.... Maybe you might want to capture this distinction in your next edit? Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A naming suggestion[edit]

The title Hromim is definitely problematic. Not because it is a transliterated title; clearly WP:HE allows that when appropriate, as in the current case. But even as an Orthodox Jew, I had no clue what this article was about before reading it. The Ashkenazis / Yeshivish pronunciation used in the current title is highly idiosyncratic, and probably not that useful.

Nor does it seem proper that there are articles on Herem and Cherem. We do strive for a uniform transliteration methodology. But the three concepts are clearly very distinct, despite using the same word in Hebrew. So I suggest that we make Herem into a disambigution page that links to Herem (censure), Herem (priestly gift) and Herem (property ban). In addition, Cherem would become a redirect to the Herem dag page. And Hromim could be turned into a redirect to Herem (priestly gift).

Thoughts? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea in principle. The only problem with this is that the ban of which the Herem article speaks is more than a property ban - it also includes the annihilation of people. Perhaps Herem (ban) would work - but they may not distinguish the topic sufficiently from Herem (censure). StAnselm (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about Herem (war)? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this idea as well. I think "Herem (ban)" is best. After all, on can ban objects in peacetime as well. That is by the one of the things that are not clear enough in that article. Debresser (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with "ban" is that censure is also sometimes called a ban. So two questions: (1) In what cases is there a war-type ban during peacetime, and (2) how would you distinguish putting someone in herem from being mahrim objects or people in war? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Then I give up. Perhaps Herem (property ban) and Herem (community ban)? Debresser (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moves[edit]

Note: This same text has been posted on Talk:Herem (war or property) and Talk:Herem (censure). See also reply at 1st of those. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    1. (diff | hist) . . Herem (priestly gift)‎; 20:18 . . (+27) . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎
    2. (diff | hist) . . Herem (war or property)‎; 20:17 . . (+24) . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎
    3. (diff | hist) . . Herem (censure)‎; 20:16 . . (+33) . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎
    4. (diff | hist) . . Herem‎; 20:12 . . (+79) . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎
    5. (Move log); 20:09 . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ moved Talk:Hromim to Talk:Herem (priestly gift) (Per discussion on Talk:Hromim.)
    6. (Move log); 20:09 . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ moved Hromim to Herem (priestly gift) (Per discussion on Talk:Hromim.)
    7. (Move log); 20:09 . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ moved Talk:Herem to Talk:Herem (war or property) (Per discussion on Talk:Hromim.)
    8. (Move log); 20:09 . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ moved Herem to Herem (war or property) (Per discussion on Talk:Hromim.)
    9. (Move log); 20:07 . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ moved Talk:Cherem to Talk:Herem (censure) (Per discussion on Talk:Hromim.)
    10. (Move log); 20:07 . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ moved Cherem to Herem (censure) (Per discussion on Talk:Hromim.)
It might have been better if these moves had been proposed using WP:RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was discussion here, and WT:JUDAISM also mentioned the subject. There was no reason to seek input from outside WikiProject Judaism, and Lisa was justified and correct in making the moves she did. In addition, there is a saying that says: do not wave your fist after the fight. Debresser (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Header is at least POV and at most contradictory[edit]

The header read, "In the Tanakh, the term herem (חֵרֶם "devoted thing") is used for an object or person to be destroyed in war of annihilation. In later rabbinical exegesis the concept of "devoted thing" is also used for, herem, excommunication, or matnat herem, the devotion of property to a kohen (Jewish priest).

In Numbers, there are references to herem to the Temple and to the Priests. (Thus the two sorts in the Talmud.) At any rate, do these sound like things to be destroyed - even the one for the priests? And even if someone makes such a claim, it is certainly disputable. I removed the word later for now, but as it stands, the header is at least very POV.Mzk1 (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed that sentence. Can be improved, but I was in a hurry. Debresser (talk) 09:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, some of this seems an improvement, but who deleted "(Hebrew חֵרֶם)" and why? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Herem_(priestly_gift)&oldid=1202682960"