Wikipedia talk:Hebrew

Links

Many links seem to point to wp:Hebrew, which currently links back to this article. Is there a reason for these links, as it is not usual for an article to link to itself. Stephen B Streater 11:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The suggested format itself includes a link back to here, so people unfamiliar with the new standard can discuss it. Those not interested in the Wikipedia Hebrew format can link to one of the related links at the top of the page. --Haldrik 23:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I didnt understand the meaning of the warning:

Is this more-or-less what was intended?

--Haldrik 08:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the top part of the proposal:

• please get a grip of the wikipedia:namespace concept, and the AVOID CROSS NAMESPACE REDIRECTS rule.
• please understand how the {{merge}} tag works: cross namespace merge suggestions can't be done with a transclusion of the template. Note that a cross-namespace merge is not likely to be going to happen in this case. --Francis Schonken 09:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

+ trying to draw attention to Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, which is linked from the first template shown above. TIP: when encapsulated in a template self-references are sometimes acceptable, per Wikipedia:Avoid self-references#In the Template and Category namespaces. But then you'd need a strong consensus to use a template with a self-reference. For example, I seem to remember that some time ago the {{IPA}} template had such self-reference to a "wikipedia:" (="project") namespace page, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation) - but anyway the template doesn't have such self-reference any more currently: I really think most wikipedians would try to avoid that, wherever non-XNS solutions can be found. --Francis Schonken 09:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of the "self-reference", is to make clear that when the Wikipedia:Hebrew format is used elsewhere, it requires the use of the wp:Hebrew link to link to this page so that readers can understand the various aspects of the format. The format including its required link must somehow be immediately obvious. --Haldrik 09:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, what you describe above is a type of self-reference that is generally undesirable, and would need a *broad consensus* before it could be deployed. --Francis Schonken 10:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What about having a warning use the self-refernce link once, to clearly explain its requirement in the format, and then remove the rest of the self-referencing links from the examples. --Haldrik 10:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

How about?

Again I refer to the following guidelines/policies. Please read them carefully:

• Wikipedia:Redirect
• Wikipedia:Namespace
• Wikipedia:Avoid self-references

These should make you see:

1. wp:Hebrew and Wp:Hebrew are by themselves inappropriate page names, and shouldn't be used as redirects to another namespace, i.e. from ARTICLE (="main") namespace to PROJECT (="wikipedia:") namespace. Correct names for cross namespace redirects in this case would be, for example, WP:HE (already exists), or WP:NC(HE) or WP:HEBREW, etc...
2. It is not generally allowed to put links to "wikipedia:" (= "project") namespace pages in wikipedia ARTICLES (that are pages in the "main" namespace). So neither "WP:HE", nor "Wikipedia:Hebrew", nor "Wikipedia:Naming conventions" can be mentioned in encyclopedia articles (per WP:ASR), and even less are *links* (piped or not) to WP:HE, Wikipedia:Hebrew, Wikipedia:Naming conventions, (etc) allowable in *main* or *article* namespace (except for the "WP:" pseudo-namespace which consists exclusively of redirects, as explained in the Wikipedia:Namespace policy). Unless with the *template* trick, but then you'd need *broad consensus* for the template that deploys this cross namespace ("XNS") link. Which would not be very likely to accomplish, as far as I estimate this situation.

The guideline proposal still recommends to use cross namespace redirects (with furthermore an inappropriate redirect name) in article namespace. That is a problem, not yet solved by a broad consensus to override Wikipedia:Redirect, Wikipedia:Namespace (policy!) and Wikipedia:Avoid self-references (...which personally I wouldn't do). As long as that problem isn't solved an appropriate warning template regarding the problem is more than on its place in the guideline proposal IMHO.

The problem is *not* that the Wikipedia:Hebrew page contains a self-reference to itself via a redirect. Please, again, read Wikipedia:Redirect, Wikipedia:Namespace and Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. As long as you don't read and understand these guidelines and policies, we're still talking next to each other (and indeed, the newest template you propose above doesn't tackle the problem, it draws the attention to something that is not a problem). --Francis Schonken 10:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"It is not generally allowed to put links to 'wikipedia:' (= project) namespace pages in wikipedia ARTICLES."

The above policy seems problematic. How can (spontaneous) Wikipedia editors use a standard format if they are unaware of it? I myself have been editing Wikipedia for about a year now and was unawre the Wikipedia:Naming convention even existed. I came across it by accident while Googling the globe a few days ago about another topic. Achieving a standard for Hebrew transcription is notoriously difficult. It requires the consensus and participation (and awareness) of all editors who refer to Hebrew. --Haldrik 11:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Re. "I myself have been editing Wikipedia for about a year now and was unawre the Wikipedia:Naming convention even existed", exactly, that is the core of what WP:ASR wants to accomplish. If there are no problems (or: after a problem or issue is resolved), the attention of the readers of the encyclopedia should not be diverted to the "behind the scenes" pages. Or, as Jimbo Wales put it (in another context, but it isn't inappropriate here): Wikipedia is something like sausages: you may like the taste of them, but you don't necessarily want to know how they're made.

Re. "Achieving a standard for Hebrew transcription is notoriously difficult." exactly, that's why this is still in proposal stage. Try to achieve consensus on the standard first, before implementing. I can't help you with the Hebrew transliteration/transcription standard. I'm as unaware of it as I'm about Arabic ([1]), but there are enough wikipedians that would be quite capable to help you with this. I don't know what would be the best way to draw their attention. I don't know whether there's a "Hebrew" project going on or so, just try to mention the proposal on as many places as you think fit. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) could be a nice start for example. Once there's agreement on the preferable standard there's still another step to be taken for implementation as a naming convention etc... but also there I'm sure you'll find wikipedians to help you (and then, when we're that far that we're talking "implementation", I might maybe again be of some help) --Francis Schonken 11:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL! As if I or many others knew Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) existed. --Haldrik 11:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You know about it now :-) Unfortunately there's no way to tell in advance if you're in the right place, but the higher your profile, the more people will tell you what to do. You've just reached the threshold for Wikipedia:Village pump. Stephen B Streater 12:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems that until Wikipedia editors reach a consensus for a Hebrew transcription standard, a link to the discussion to achieve the standard seems necessary. --Haldrik 12:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Rewording the warning as follows,

--Haldrik 12:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, here's the project I was looking for to recommend to you: Wikipedia:WikiProject Hebrew languages - has several Participants. Might I recommend you to join that project. There are currently 16 people indicating Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) as the project page to work on these issues. There is currently one person thinking these discussions should be concentrated on Wikipedia:Hebrew. I'd like to invite you, again, to take a collaborative attitude with those 16 people currently working on these issues by (1) joining that project, that is list yourself as participant; (2) Limit yourself to one Hebrew naming issues guideline (I've put a merge tag for the *discussion* pages of "NC(HE)" and "HE" now too); (3) not to go solo on this, fishing for people that were previously not involved in these issues via wikipedia articles in the main namespace: I'm quite sure that with at least 17 people collaborating (soon), you'll be able to come up with something workable that satisfies all in a swiff.

Re. your new proposed template content: nah, if you ask me (but that's only my personal opinion), there's absolutely no common sense in creating exceptions to WP:ASR for directing general readers of the encyclopedia content to *unsolved* discussions. Soon we'd be directing them to pages with ongoing WP:RfAr cases... IMHO the only exceptions to WP:ASR, always *exclusively* in templates and when this is the only real commonsensical solution, should be limited to non-contentious project pages (that is *after* the discussion has lead to an acceptable consensus) --Francis Schonken 13:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Merger with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew)

Hello, it appears that there have been two parallel attempts at establishing approaches to Hebrew transliteration, none of which have had complete input from all the various hebrew users, or those interested in Hebrew transliterations. I would recommend that additional input be obtained before any official policy is formed. I would recommend that a uniform policy be reconsidered as there may be multiple needs. As but one example, would seem somewhat artificial to put the name of a Hassidic Rebbe in Tiberian Hebrew, or to use Modern Israeli Hebrew in the article title, since few knowledgable people would call the individual or refer to the subject-matter by such pronunciation. There are a number of angles here which need to be taken into account before any uniform opolicy is adopted, if a uniform policy should even be adopted. --Shirahadasha 19:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

One personal comment: Mercy on us poor ignoramuses, who merely want to be able to search for a Jewish/Hebrew subject in an English-language encyclopedia and be able to find it!! Best, --Shirahadasha 19:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"merely want to be able to search for a Jewish/Hebrew subject in an English-language encyclopedia and be able to find it" ... Seriously. --Haldrik 04:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merging sounds like a good idea. Combining your efforts would likely yield better results. >Radiant< 21:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• I looked at the two proposals and without coming up with an opinion (yet) on either one (or whether there should be a standard at all) - this is what I see as the only differences between the two:

	Naming conventions	WP:Hebrew
א,ע (when occuring mid-word and followed by a vowel)	' (apostrophe)	none
ח	h	kh
י (when used to denote a diphthong)	i (e.g. ai, ei, oi, ui)	none
ְ (when SHVA NA)	' (apostrophe)	e in following two instances 1st syllable and before ע ,א any syllable if BOTH after another shva AND before ע ,א none in all other cases

Also, WP:Hebrew has ג׳=j and ז׳=zh, while Naming conventions has no provisions for these 2, but these 2 shouldn't be controversial--Jms2000 18:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This proposal

Is totally ridicilous. I oppose this as much as I oppose Zionism, Reform or Christianity. It is totally ridiculous and will not ever receive my support. --Daniel575 | (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Besides your hatred for people who have different opinions than you, do you have any rational difficulties with the transcription? It seems you hate Israeli Hebrew because you hate the State of Israel. Your argument seems to be 'sinat khinam'. --Haldrik 03:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This page seems to have sprung up since August 22 [2] through some very dedicated work by Haldrik. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew), on the other hand, is the result of some long discussion among various people since at least September 2005, when it was split off of Wikipedia:Naming conventions. I think many of the issues Haldrik brings up are probably addressed somewhere within the deep archives of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew). Of course, Haldrik's opinions are valued as much as anyone's, but I think the proper way to go about this is for him to have a look at the Archive and bring up any issues he has on the talk page there. --Eliyak T·C 20:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, see Niqqud and the other various relevant Wikipedia articles, which can be easily accesed at template:Hebrew alphabet. --Eliyak T·C 02:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the links. The work here is large and comprehensive, and I needed to present it in a coherent way, without disrupting the work that the others had done. Sometimes a fresh start can be helpful, and I suspect that may be the case here. --Haldrik 03:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Haldrik, I do not hate anybody except for heretics and idol worshippers. And yes, I very strongly dislike the Zionist language, which is a dirty perversion (more properly, a raped version) of loshon hakoidesh. Please quit your Zionist supremacist behavior and accept that there are also Ashkenazim who do not want their rabbonim to be renamed according to Zionist norms. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad for your response. "I do not hate anybody except for heretics and idol worshippers". Even then, it's better to hate the actions but not the person (referring to the "anybody" who does it as opposed to an "anything" which is being done). "Please quit your Zionist supremacist behavior." Well, I'll put up with your "supremacist behavior" if you put up with mine. *grin*. The history of Jews is filled with civil wars between the conservatives and the liberals. The conservatives were inflexible, poor and backward, but tenacious, stable and loyal. The liberals were productive, rich and powerful, but inconstant and assimilating. Ultimately, only the conservatives survived, but only the liberals made a difference. I feel the secret to the Messianic Era is if Jews stop their civil wars and learn to love eachother because of their differences. If these two forces can work together, the universe can change. --Haldrik 23:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"Accept that there are also Ashkenazim who do not want their rabbonim to be renamed according to Zionist norms." Practically speaking in terms transcription, what are the transcription requirements? Do you require all articles about Judaica to be transcribed in Ashkenazi, or are there only specific requirements, such as articles about specific people? --Haldrik 00:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand the desire for a unified approach to transliterating. However, many of the articles about Ashkenazi leaders would be rendered inaccurate if their names are written in a non-Ashkenazic fashion. No follower of the Sfas Emes ever called their leader the Sfat Emet. That's silly. On the other hand, If some guy like Daniel here wants to label the article about a certain city in the Northern part of Israel Tel-Oviv, that would similarly be silly. Of course, within Ashkenazic spelling, there is still differences of opinion. I, for one, would appreciate some collaboration on the matter. But I don't believe that all transliterations should be uniform. (This to begin with. We'll have to hammer out the details later).--Meshulam 12:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with articles on Ashkenazi leaders using spellings that reflect the Ashkenazi dialect. Other arrangements can be made to assist the searches for people using the standard Israeli Hebrew dialect. --Haldrik 13:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Daniel. Oh, Haldrik, in case you are wondering, these yiddisher civil wars were started by zionistic reformist heretics. Everything related to yiddishkiet, unless it is Litvish Zachen or Chossidiche Zachen, should have both Sefardic and Ashkenazi transcriptions. If it is Litvishe or Chossidiche Zachen, then it should be only the loshon ashkenazis. --Shaul avrom 20:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If a Yiddishkiet article specifically uses the alternate transliteration system, it should be clearly stated at the top of the article. Is there a Yiddishkiet template that can be used to link all the appropriate articles together? --Haldrik 20:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

When I say Yiddishkiet, I mean anything realted to the yiddisher religion. I.E. Tallit should be Tallis/Tallit. That just makes more sense, most people call it a tallis. --Shaul avrom 22:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

How can that be? All Jewish traditions use Talit, not just Yiddishers. --Haldrik 23:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Ultra-Orthodox may speak Yiddish where you live, but where I live many (most?) have already switched to Israeli Hebrew because of Israeli immigrants joining their community and close ties with communities in Israel. Humorously, the only time I hear Yiddish is when Reform are showing off. --Haldrik 23:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I speak yiddish. Yiddisher is an anglecised version of the Yiddish word for Jewish. And no, most Yidden use Tallis unless the are S'fardim or the mamish meshugenah zionist apikorsim. Tallit should probably be switched to Tallis. --Shaul avrom 00:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC) <Font= Wingdings> Talk to me

"Most Yidden use Tallis unless the are S'fardim or the mamish meshugenah zionist apikorsim". That's a lot of unlesses. --Haldrik 02:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand, the Ashkenazic-speaking community has legitimate needs that need to be met. On the other hand, I don't think it can realistically expect to call all the shots. A little diplomacy and restraint in language might be in order. --Shirahadasha 04:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. The discussion in this subsection is totally ridiculous. I believe a doze of classic Wikipedia laissez-faire is in order, and refer you to my compromise proposal below. - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

Names to be rendered either in the accepted English spelling if extant (Maimonides), or, if not, that of the person's own preference (Yosef Sholom Eliashiv but David Ben-Gurion). Places in Israel according to Israeli spelling (Tzfat, nor Tzfas). Concepts in Judaism either Sfardi or Ashkenazi spelling and adopt a do-not-revert rule as with British v. American English (e.g. Kapparos not to be moved to Kapparot and plenty of redirects to go around). - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is: We must have no transcription standard! ;) --Haldrik 23:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

CORRECT!! :) :) - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

OMEIN--Shaul avrom 00:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean, Amen! :) --Haldrik 00:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

He means, UMAYN... hehehehe - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No, your right. Umayn. Sounds like Lipa Shmeltzer. --Shaul avrom 20:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Talk

Ah guteneh Yor. --Shaul avrom 13:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Nu, so tell me something