Talk:Vatican Hebrew MS 133

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Hello! I want to inform you that I have checked your article and mark it as reviewed. Have a good day and thanks for creating the article! ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Davidbena: If you were late submitting the DYK because you were going through the additional step of having the page reviewed and improved, yeah, totally mention that and the admins & whatnots will give you extra time. — LlywelynII 03:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct.Davidbena (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

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) 13:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a Hebrew Vatican manuscript is being used as a source for analysis and for emending modern editions of the Palestinian Talmud? Source: Melammed, Ezra Zion (1980–1981). Ephraim E. Urbach (ed.). "Proofreading in the Jerusalem Talmud Leiden MS. based on the Rome MS". Tarbiz. 50 (1): 107. ISSN 0334-3650
  • Reviewed: [N/A]

Created by Davidbena (talk). Self-nominated at 22:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Vatican Hebrew MS. 133; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• On it, although @Davidbena: which DYK did you review? which DYK will you review? or is this one of your first 5 DYKs so you don't need to bother yet? You didn't mark any of the three above and it's necessary to process the submission. — LlywelynII 20:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

[snip] Long enough (4k chars), Earwig finds no copyvio issues, and mostly within policy. Minor formatting, policy, and grammar issues fixed. (The name of the MS is 'Vatican Hebrew Manuscript 133' but that doesn't make it "a Vatican Hebrew manuscript". Based on English adj order, it's a Hebrew Vatican manuscript when it's being referenced generically.)

Issues
1. Some of the Hebrew text still needs transcription and/or translation. That's kinda awkward for the longer passages, although it could be handled via {{efn}} templates and the Notes section. Nothing bad enough that it requires immediate attention except for several sources that claim to be in Hebrew but provide no Hebrew names in the refs. They can also have a translation but they need to have the Hebrew and a translit.

I have already added the Hebrew to the cited references (sources), as requested.Davidbena (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It's weird. The Hebrew shouldn't be italicizing but that's a problem with the template, not anything you've done. — LlywelynII 02:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

2. Some of the statements need sourcing, particularly the idea that it's often called the "Rome MS" in English or Hebrew. That may well be true —although a straight translation of רומי כ"י should be closer to the "Roman MS"—but it's not cited and the only source that mentions that name in English or Hebrew, upon examination, turns out not to. (See "Source Doesn't Exist" below.)

 Done Davidbena (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Great.

3. WP:LEADCITE issues should be cleaned up sooner or later, although that's not really a huge deal to me for new articles.

[No comment—Davidbena]

But also not a major problem. — LlywelynII 02:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@LlywelynII:, I read the WP:LEADCITE, but, because of its ambiguity, was unable to understand what actually needs changing in the lead paragraph. Can you please be more specific?Davidbena (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't really that ambiguous. There are 11 footnotes pointing to 8 citations in the lead of the article. There should be 0 pointing to 0. Instead, every statement in the lead should be addressed in the body as well and the citations should be there. It's mostly a stylistic thing. Having the citations somewhere in the article is, of course, more important. It is something that can be fixed down the road.

@LlywelynII:  DoneDavidbena (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

4. The sections of the manuscript with page numbers are currently buried in an external link link. They need to be removed from the link and placed in the body of the article, probably in their own section as a table with their Hebrew names and translits.

[No comment—Davidbena]

This should be fixed sooner or later but it's not important enough to block the DYK nom. — LlywelynII 02:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@LlywelynII:, I'm not sure what you mean by saying, "The sections of the manuscript with page numbers are currently buried in an external link."

It's pretty clearly stated.

The only external link that I mention in this article is "Manuscript - Vat. ebr. 133",

Yes, right.

but there are no links whatsoever directing our readers to it.

No, there is a link pointing readers there, as there should be. That doesn't have anything to do with the topic, though.

There are, instead, simple references to page numbers in that external link, but no links to the site itself.

There is a link and the page numbers are what should be in the article.

Please explain to me what exactly you mean, and I will try and fix the problem.Davidbena (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The external link should be an external link, possibly with a small gloss. Everything else shouldn't be removed but it should be in the article instead of where it is now. Rites of Zhou and Book of Rites organize it as a #Contents section. Aeneid has a #Story section. Iliad has a #Synopsis section. Codex Vaticanus 2061 is a mess that shouldn't be copied. &c. It's something that can be fixed down the road.

@LlywelynII:. Thanks for pointing this out to me. I have just now rectified the problem.Davidbena (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

5. Possible QPQ issues, although the QPQ check only lists 3 nominations so far so it's probably not an issue.

I have never yet reviewed a DYK, although I have submitted an article (viz. Bating (leather) for DYK.Davidbena (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Davidbena: If this is one of your first five submissions you don't need to review another article. It just helps a little if you make a note about that with the submission. Same thing: It's really my job to keep track of your replies here. It just helps a little if you {{ping}} me when you've made important comments and then I see that as soon as I open Wikipedia. — LlywelynII 02:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

6. Article is too old: created 4 July and not nominated until 12 July, with no 5x or GA. That can't be fixed and is against blackletter law, although per WP:DYKPN, the admins can ignore that if they feel like it.

So, is there any point at me making improvements in the article, since my DYK was submitted later than the time given to submit a DYK? Can or will administrators waive this and let it qualify, despite the lapse of a few days?Davidbena (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Happy to waive the seven-day requirement (i'm not an admin and don't need to be one, the reviewer can do that on their own), but I would love it if the formatting of this discussion thread were cleaned up. As it stands, I can't parse anything, and someone'll need to do that after the review is done. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I have worked on the format here to make it easier to read.Davidbena (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I really set this up so you could reply at the bottom of everything with 1, 2, 3 on your own. Once you reply to things in the middle, there's another way it needs to be formatted to make all the lines show up at the right indentation. Anyway, fixed now. — LlywelynII 02:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Afaik, you aren't the reviewer and it's the promoter who would make that call based on the backlog anyway. I'll second that it's better to be more accommodating since DB put in so much work on an interesting addition and it's one of their first submissions. Edit: It also looks like part of the reason for the delay was that OP was sending things. In that case, yeah, the deadline should be extended. — LlywelynII 03:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

7. Article doesn't include the hook. The name of the source provided seems to show the hook must be at least partially true and it's possible to infer it from the article, but the article doesn't actually state and cite the claim in any straightforward way. That should be easy enough to fix. If it's going to be in the hook (although I don't know why it's there in the first place), the name "Palestinian Talmud" needs to be mentioned and cited at some point in the article as well.

I will at this time make that inclusion.Davidbena (talk) 03:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this hasn't been done. "Palestinian Talmud" has been mentioned but the rest of the hook hasn't. Right now Melammed is only being used to source (a) that Vat. ebr. 133's defective and (b) that it was used by the copyist for the Leiden MS of the Jerusalem/Palestinian Talmud. The article currently mistakenly glosses the Jerusalem Talmud as the Leiden MS, when the Leiden MS is only one version. Vat. ebr. 133 isn't a source for the Jerusalem/Palestinian Talmud as a whole but probably was a source for the Leiden MS copy of it. Fixing this probably requires both adjusting the hook and the article to make all of that more clear.

@LlywelynII:, actually, the Vatican Hebrew MS. 133 was one of 3 primary sources for copying the Leiden Ms. of the Jerusalem Talmud, but almost all modern editions of the Jerusalem Talmud (including Friedman's Oz ve-Hadar edition published in New York) will cite variant readings from the Vatican Ms., and wherever there are two or more concurring versions (with the Vatican being one of them, along with, say, the Leiden Ms.), that version overrides the Vilna printed edition where a variant reading appears, and such a reading will appear in the modern printed edition of the Jerusalem Talmud published by Friedman (Oz ve-Hadar). This is all explained in the Introduction of Friedman's Oz ve-Hadar edition.Davidbena (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Davidbena: Sure, I didn't doubt that you were right. It just need to be clarified and then clearly stated and cited in the article. With the changes to the hook, this hasn't been done. CTRL+F for "all", "every", "each", &c. don't bring up anything that says what the current hook does. — LlywelynII 16:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@LlywelynII:, currently, the hook reads as follows: "Did you know that a Hebrew Vatican manuscript is being used as a source for analysis and for emending modern editions of the Palestinian Talmud? Source: Melammed, Ezra Zion (1980–1981). Ephraim E. Urbach (ed.). "Proofreading in the Jerusalem Talmud Leiden MS. based on the Rome MS". Tarbiz. 50 (1): 107. ISSN 0334-3650" (End Quote). The information provided in the hook is also sourced in the main body of the article. I'm not sure what else is needed in the hook. If anything else is needed, can I ask you to fix it?Davidbena (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

8. The hook is wrong based on its current grammar. Easy enough to fix, although I don't know if OP was trying to say Vat. Ebr. 133 was definitely used as a source for the usual modern text of the Jerusalem Talmud or if they mean it's being used as a source for researching/discussing/analyzing/&c. the Jerusalem Talmud so I can't fix it myself.

Both are correct. Vat. Ebr. 133 was used as a source for the usual modern text of the Jerusalem Talmud, as well as used as a source for researching/discussing/analyzing/&c. Davidbena (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

See the comments on 7 above. The two obvious options: (1) The hook can talk about Vat. ebr. 133 as a source for modern scholarship on the original (ur) Jerusalem/Palestinian Talmud but the hook needs to be rephrased to clearly state that and there needs to be some unambiguous mention of that in the article sourced to Melammed or (2) the hook can talk about Vat. ebr. 133 as a source for the Leiden MS of the Jerusalem/Palestinian Talmud but the hook needs to be rephrased to clearly state that and the (b) Melammed cite needs to be clearer. I can handle that last part on my own, though.

@LlywelynII:, I have rewritten the hook. Can you please help me with the rewriting of the hook, if it still needs improving? Or else, write a suggested edit and I will tell you if it is correct or not. If you can also handle the Melammed citation, I'd be much obliged.Davidbena (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

See 7 above for the remaining problem with this now.

9. The provided source doesn't exist. We normally take offline sources in good faith but they have to, y'know, at least theoretically exist. Melammed has never written an article by this ungrammatical name, even though Tarbiz has online lists of their articles. It's extremely probable that OP meant the Melammed article "MS Vatican as the Source for the Margin Glosses in the Leiden Manuscript of Talmud Yerushalmi" that exists in that issue but (a) that needs to be corrected; (b) every other source in the article would need to be checked and—if necessary—corrected; (c) the changes involved in the actual name vs the claimed one raise the issue that it might not commonly be called the Rome MS again (Melammed anyway calls it the MS Vatican for some reason); and (d) most importantly, whether this was a ChatGPT snafu or a misremembering or an unhelpful translation from another source that was quoting Melammed in Hebrew, it's clear that OP hasn't actually read the source being used so even WP:AGF it's difficult to trust that the article definitely says the things it's being claimed to say.

E.Z. Melammed was wrongly listed twice. I have since corrected the redundancy, as well as corrected all other issues. Melammed is a good and reliable source, and there is no error in the transcription of this important work. Clarification: The name "Rome MS." (KY Romi) is almost exclusively used ONLY in Hebrew articles and books. In English articles and books, the name "Vatican Ms. 133" is used.Davidbena (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Good to know and yeah for your digging in and corrections I'll go back and AGF for it saying what you're saying. Do be careful about the names of your sources, though, at least when it's an important topic and people really will be looking at them. Small thing: You're saying the Hebrew is KY Romi instead of Romi KY. I assume you're right but that means the Hebrew currently displayed in the article is backwards since כ"י is on the left and not the right. I know it's a pain formatting that, especially inside templates, but just tinker around until it will display correctly to the readers. That's not a reason to hold up the DYK but it'd be good to fix when you have time. — LlywelynII 02:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@LlywelynII:, yes, Hebrew is written from right to left, therefore making the first letter in כ"י רומי‎ K, followed by Y, followed by Romi.Davidbena (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I had fixed it. You seem to have unfixed it, given that it's displaying with the KY second (i.e. first) again.

@LlywelynII: There is no error in transcription. Since Hebrew is written from right to left, whenever one wishes to write the transliterated words in English, he writes from left to right. This is well-known. For example, if there were three words in Hebrew (e.g. ירושלים של זהב ←), they would be conveyed in the transliterated text as: → Yerushalyim shel zahav. That is exactly what we have done in our case. The first word in the English text is what appears as the "last" word in the Hebrew text, which, in actuality, is also the first word in Hebrew. KY happens to be an abbreviation for two words, viz., Ketav Yad = meaning, Manuscript. The word for "manuscript" in Hebrew is expressed by two words.Davidbena (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Davidbena: Yeah. It was a display issue with what happens when the linktext template gets used for two Hebrew words beside each other. It worked, then didn't, then did, then didn't. Anyway, it displays correctly now.

This isn't an issue for your DYK, but are you sure the current punctuation is correct? Right now the link goes to this blank page. Wiktionary's KY abbreviation looks like this instead: כ״י. Are those interchangeable and Wiktionary should add an "alternative form of ~" entry? do we need to change the text here? or is Wiktionary wrong with that? — LlywelynII 11:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The correct method used in abbreviating from the Hebrew כ"י‎ into English is this way: K.Y. I will make the correction myself.Davidbena (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the hard work and none of this is probably quite as bad as it looks, but it definitely needs a lot of cleanup and is at least technically ineligible anyway, based on the timing. — LlywelynII 23:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Major issues for the article all addressed (Good job!) assuming promoter doesn't mind about the timing. (It looks like the delay was because of an extra step of page review which we shouldn't penalize them for.) Still needs some formatting and changes around the hook though. — LlywelynII 16:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Davidbena: Sorry this has dragged on so long (although the article does look much better!) but the current hooks says "...a source for emending modern editions of the Palestinian Talmud, as well as for critical analysis of all modern editions". (a) If the 'all modern editions' also means the Palestinian Talmud instead of all Talmuds, then it's clearer to put the emending and analyzing together. That's good to fix but not essential. (b) The hook says "a source for emending modern editions..." which can mean some modern editions instead of all. That's cited in the article to Richler (2008), p. 95, and Melammed (1981), p. 107. Technically those cites should be immediately after the important sentence but you've already put in plenty of work. It's better to fix but I won't call it essential. (c) The hook says "critical analysis of all modern editions" and that's unstated, uncited, and still directly contradicted by cited sentences talking about how it's not trustworthy and only used for some editions. That still needs to be fixed in the lead, clearly stated (as all or many or some), and clearly cited in the article. Sorry for the trouble. — LlywelynII 11:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: I have reworded the hook, and it should now meet the standard. The other issues that you raised have also been addressed by me. The phrase "all modern editions" refers only to the Palestinian Talmud (since the Ms. belongs strictly to the Palestinian Talmud), and does not refer to the Babylonian Talmud or to the Talmud, in generic terms. BTW: A text that is used for "critical analysis", even though it has copyist errors, can still be used for "critical analysis" where several manuscripts concur with the view of the same faulty text in those specific instances where the text has not fallen to copyist errors (such as omissions).Davidbena (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Yep, the phrasing fits. The actual source for this statement in your article is (theoretically) Rozenboim 2010, p. Introduction, but WP:AGF it seems to finally be saying something 100% accurate and the article itself is much better and tighter. (Good job! and sorry for all the tsuris.)

@Davidbena: The Wiktionary link is still a dead end. I'm emending the version in your article to match כ״י, the version used by Wiktionary. If that's wrong, just post an explanation to Wiktionary:Tea room and let them take care of the formatting and any necessary alt form entries or changes. — LlywelynII 09:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Citations

My Hebrew is too lousy to be sure about this but it looks like there were editors of these editions of the works. Those names should be used in the citations instead of giving the title in the wrong place as the authors. If you really want to insist the editors are unimportant, you don't put the title in the wrong field. You use the additional field of |ref= to handle that. For example, if you want to use the template {{sfnp}} with "Jerusalem Talmud" and "2010", you'd use |ref=CITEREFJerusalem_Talmud2010 </ref> so the links all work but the editor is still correctly displayed. — LlywelynII 03:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. There were, indeed, editors of this edition of the Jerusalem Talmud. So, should I mention the editors as well, using your citation format?Davidbena (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@LlywelynII:, I have just now made the correction in the Bibliography, where I have inserted the editor's name. The reference is linked directly to the Bibliography. I could not do it in such a way that only the title of the book appears, as you suggested. Perhaps I was doing something wrong.Davidbena (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)