DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Hebrew language

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác
Former good articleHebrew language was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseNot kept
July 23, 2006Good article nomineeListed
October 14, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Hatnote explanation

[edit]

@Triggerhippie4, it's sensical that a footnote might want to make explicit why it's there, but in cases like these I really do not think the statement that Hebrew redirects to this article serves any identifiable utility for readers. Remsense 🌈 论 12:26, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What defines what you refer to as "cases like these" and what distinguishes them from cases where you do see the redirect tag as useful? Also, I think you meant "hatnote" instead of "footnote". Largoplazo (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. Checking just to make sure I hadn't wandered away from the plain meaning of WP:HNS, the relationship between the lexemes Hebrew [language] and Hebrew [people] seems as it would be transparent to nearly all readers. As the language is almost always referred to as merely Hebrew, with the guidance provided in the hatnote the semantic relationship between the articles would seem clear enough. Maybe it's not worth whatever benefit is afforded by being so terse, I accept that possibility. Remsense 🌈 论 12:44, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily hatnotes aren't to be placed at all on articles whose titles are themselves disambiguated: John Doe (astronomer) wouldn't have a hatnote leading to John Doe (poet). Therefore, without the clarification that the hatnote is here on account of the redirect, an editor might reasonably think it shouldn't be here at all and remove it. Largoplazo (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any possible benefit really would be outweighed, I'm seeing that now. Sorry for the unnecessary timewasting. Remsense 🌈 论 13:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When people type 'Hebrew' into the search bar, they need a brief clarification of why they got here and what other meanings the term has. Without an explanation that 'Hebrew' redirects here, it's unclear why 'Hebrews' and 'Hebrew (disambiguation)' are listed in the hatnote of the article titled 'Hebrew language'. Please, see WP:HATREDIR. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, sorry. I didn't pay enough attention to that section of the guideline, thank you. Remsense 🌈 论 13:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hebrew (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 November 2025

[edit]

Final paragraph of "current status" section ought to be removed. Some of it is supported by unreliable sources and all of it is unrelated to the broader topic of the article. Axoluna (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: It's clearly related to the topic of the Hebrew language, and none of the sources appear to be unreliable. Day Creature (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2025

[edit]

Hyperlinks at the very last sentence of the text are repetative:

Change "distinction between tsere and segol" to "distinction between tsere and segol" Тежава (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: I linked tzere and segol to their individual articles. Day Creature (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Fact Ignored

[edit]

There is No Such Thing as the “Jewish Bible”! Calling the work by that name is as incorrect as referring to Christianity’s “The Bible” as “the Christian Quran”, an insult to the separate nature of the major holy works of the first 3 surviving Abrahamic faiths - I suggest a universal change throughout this work (this from agnostic Jew) The Jewish central holy book is called (in English) The Holy Scriptures, or universally, an abbreviation for torah, prophets and writings “tanach”. Note: as ivrit has no capital letters, I try to follow the practice on words written in what is known northwest of the Nile as “Hebrew“. The generally accepted as canonical writings beginning with (transliteration) bershit (in common usage, based on the initial reworked books of the first 2/3rds of the Christian central holy book “The Bible”, a section the faith calls “The Old Testament“ ending with Esther. Note: traditionally the sections of the tanach are named after the first noun or a descriptor noun, but in English translation, the Greco-Latin names, based on the language spoken by the upper class of the Roman Empire, so bersheit becomes “Genesis” and the ivrit for “words” becomes “Numbers” even in the generally accepted Jewish Publication Society’s English translations of The Holy Scripture - the title of its first and second translations. Linguistic Irregular (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right but you're a little too long winded. (Takes one to know one.) Try to keep your arguments more succinct if you can. People will read it more. Also, you should read WP:COMMONAME. And this is about Hebrew Bible, correct. The argument would be to demonstrate with a table of reliable sources that Tanakh is a more common name than Hebrew Bible in qualified reliable sources. This may be difficult to do since people also call the Tanakh the Torah interchangeably. And many academics do still use Hebrew Bible as well as a few other names. Andre🚐 07:53, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both the second and third words of the title you gave this discussion are inapt. It isn't a "fact" that "Holy Scriptures" is undeniably the name of the collection of books, and no one's "ignoring" it.
It's a complicated question that's been discussed at Talk:Hebrew Bible. An archived discussion about moving that article to Tanakh that was declined can be found at Special:PermanentLink/1180568779#Requested_move_13_October_2023. A more recent discussion is at Talk:Hebrew Bible#"Hebrew Bible" being WP:COMMONNAME maybe a mirage?. As for your contention that the book is called "The Holy Scriptures" in English, as opposed to the other names given to it—that is certainly not the name by which I've heard it called throughout my Jewish upbringing and decades of synagogue participation. The Jewish Publication Society also uses "Bible".[1] The Soncino Press uses "Bible", including in the title of its "Soncino Books of the Bible" series.[2][3].
The Greek "βιβλία", meaning "book", is what Hellenized Jews were calling it back at the time of the Roman Empire. It's what the Jewish historian Josephus, writing in Greek, called it at the end of the first century.[4] "Bible" is simply what the Greek "βιβλία" has evolved to in English. So, it's basically called "the book", which it is. It's not like calling it a "Qur'an". Largoplazo (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(The user didn't figure out how to reply in the same thread so produced another one, but we can't keep starting a new topic every time that user responds. I've removed the new heading, which read "Apologies: could not reply to comment on Fact…", which was followed by what's below.) Largoplazo (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So will do it here: I hold in my hand the JPS 1 and 2 - both are entitled “The Holy Scriptures”. While the publisher lists 46 pages of books containing the word Bible, including its “portable” edition, that is the title on the main releases. But there’s a second more crucial problem to people’s common everyday spoken language: Ivrit (Hebrew) is a language and there are many “Bibles” printed in Hebrew containing a version of the Christian text. The verbal informal is not the written formal! Soncino chooses the sloppy verbal familiar. an encyclopedia should use formal language that does not cause confusion. It’s the difference between the DARE and the OED. English falls apart when linguistic obscenities fall into formal usage: Merriam-Webster declaring “they” a legitimate formal singular pronoun for formal usage not just by choice by people who use it for personal (gender identification) or political reasons but out of sloppiness. Linguistic Irregular (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I showed you other published works from the JPS that use "Bible". So, obviously repeating that they do have titles with "Holy Scriptures" doesn't establish that as the "correct" name, it only shows that multiple alternative names are used, even by the same publisher.
As for Soncino, I gave you it to you as a source. Rather than accommodating that information into your viewpoint, you rejected the source based on your existing viewpoint. The bottom line is that you're arguing "It's this way because this is the way I say it is, and any evidence to the contrary is wrong because it isn't what I say."
There's nothing about "Holy Scriptures" that's more "formal" than any other term. People know what "Hebrew Bible" means, and there's only one thing that it does mean, so there's no basis for confusion. Meanwhile, "Holy Scriptures", from the point of view of Christians, includes the New Testament, so how is that not confusing if you think it should be used as the name of only the pre-Christian part? Largoplazo (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]