Jump to content

Talk:Haggadah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Haggadot)

Article needs a lot of help

[edit]

There are many mistakes in the article, it doesn't use the right tone. And there are more links than text in the article. In my opinion, the article should start again. I am starting a new version at Wikipedia:Sandbox/Haggadah. ems 11:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more point, the article doesn't even talk about Kaddesh to Nirtzah. And it would seem the Artscroll haggadah isn't Orthodox, which isn't the case. ems 11:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and "rewrote" the article, but only in terms of the language, not so much the facts. I also incorporated your ordering of the Seder. Perhaps you can add some more beef to the article factually and fix the errors you mentioned. (My knowledge of the Haggadah isn't so large ;) Also... I couldn't find much of anything that wasn't self-referential on the Kafra Haggadah. Chris 10:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

[edit]

Should it be Haggadah of Pesach or Haggadah shel Pesach? ems 14:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haggadah of Pesach with a redirect from Haggadah shel Pesach? I'm also partial to Haggadah of Passover, because I don't know how many people will look for Pesach over Passover. Chris 04:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant Haggadah of Pesach with everything redirecting to it, or Haggadah shel Pesach with everything redirecting to it? ems 11:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with what's normally done for articles related to Hebrew things. I'm more inclined to have Haggadah of Pesach because "shel" will be confusing for people who aren't familiar with Hebrew. Chris 03:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well is Yinglish known better than Hebrew? ems 14:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this article also disambigulate to Aggadah?

It should be in the "See also" section. ems 01:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bbcjchcjv jvjvvh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:4E80:CAC0:66D9:ED83:5BE0:B4E6 (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

[edit]

Voicing my disagreement with merger with Passover Seder. Both articles have potential in their own right, even if right now they are merely repeating each other. Chris 02:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Passover Seder article "repeating" of this article is also highly incorrect. Another vote of keeping both, I will work on fixing both, before Pesach this year. ems 11:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These two articles must have a clearly defined scope. As it stands now there is a lot of overlap. As neither article links to each other, and there isn't anyone to my knowledge who contributed to both it seems that they were created independently with the same subject in mind. As the Haggadah is a book about the Pesach seder, I would suggest that Passover Seder deal with what goes on the first night of Peasach and Haggadah of Pesach deal only with the actual book, not what is inside it. It can deal with different manuscripts such as Sarajevo Haggadah, the history of the work, and the different commentators to it. Jon513 20:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I had in mind for the two articles. I've been working on doing some research on the history, but haven't had as much time as I'd like. I'd much rather see this article focus on the history of the book itself than on a description of what happens throughout the night. Chris 23:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The order of the Seder is the whole haggadah. I plan on fixing both up. The haggadah article can talk about the haggadah while the Passover Seder can talk about the actual service. ems 00:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So we seem to be in agreement that the Kaddesh, Urechatz, Karpas section should only be in Passover Seder. But if it is removed from the Haggadah there is no article left (alternativily: there is an article that needs to be written). In any even there should be some sort of tag at the top that point people who want the Kaddesh, Urechatz, Karpas to Passover Seder. perhaps:
This page is about The Haggadah as a book. For information about what is inside the Haggadah, see Passover Seder.

Jon513 12:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying just the other way around. Those are the actual contence of the haggadah - they just need expanding. Passover Seder should be about the service. Just like Sidur and Tefilah. ems 15:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don`t understand. In Sidur it does not talk about the different part of prayer, or what is in the Sidur - that is in Tefilah. In Sidur it talks about the history of the sidur, different versions and variations. should`t it be the same here? namely kaddesh, urechatz karpas etc should be in passover seder Jon513 18:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the Passover Seder article should be merged with the Haggadah article. The Haggadah is only the guide to how to conduct a Seder; there are other reasons and symbolism for why the Seder is going on. However, the way the Passover Seder article is written, it is nothing more than another version of the Haggadah article. And the way the Haggadah article is written, it looks like a laundry list rather than an encyclopedia. Let's rewrite both! Yoninah 23:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah: It was you that had a talk with me about both the articles on IRC? If yes, what is your opinion now? And what would you say should be on what article? ems 20:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NO, that was me. we both see that there is too much overlap with these two articles and one has to be severly cut. I think most of the information should be in Passover Seder, you think most of it should be in Haggadah. Frankly I don't really have such strong feeling either way. If you want to change it, go ahead. If you don't do it soon (one week), I'll do it my way. deal? Jon513 21:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I think that the information on the order of the Seder that's at the bottom of this article right now should be in Passover Seder, but fleshed out in much more detail. Just thought I'd add my two cents ;o) Seqsea (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The order of the Seder is the whole thing that makes up the haggadah. The Passover Seder article should be about anything that isn't the order. Eg. minhaggim. ems 21:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry of the confusion, I thought you might of had a different wikipedia and IRC nicknames. Its was nice talking to you. :) ems 21:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is kind of entertaining

[edit]

The four questions in Klingon[dead link]

Link dead. --Thnidu (talk) 07:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it can be appended to the article or one of the related ones, in a tasteful way. I'll leave this to the discretion of the regular editors. Phr 00:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there is currently an inactive klingon wikipeida [1], but I don't believe this belongs here. Jon513 16:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haggadah

[edit]

Article haggadah should not redirect here as the Haggadah of Pesach is not the only haggadah. As I understand it haggadah is any traditional Jewish literature, including many portions of the Talmud. The redirect can and will confuse people into thinking that this article is what haggadah is, not what this specific haggadah is.--24.137.137.229 09:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast, I suggest that this article should move to Haggadah with a note at the top about aggadah. That would gibe with dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com. They define haggadah as meaning in one sense "aggadah" (spelled differently only because it's adopted into English from Aramaic) and in another sense the text of the Passover seder. Dictionary.com puts those meanings in the opposite order.
To the best of my understanding, "Passover Haggadah" is by far the more common meaning of "Haggadah" in the English language. "Haggadah" gets six times as many Google hits as "aggadah". When I checked the first 50 hits for "haggadah", every single one referred to the Passover Haggadah.
Also, consider the Jews. Among Jews, participation in the seder is the rule while participation in study of Jewish texts is the exception. In the USA, 4.3 million Jews attend a seder according to the 2000 survey. [2] Now consider the 5.2 million Israeli Jews. I didn't find the statistics, but it's safe to say that most of them attend a seder. Therefore the majority of the world's 13.0 million Jews attend a seder. [3]
--Hoziron 07:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Hoziron, although the lead here should explain the other uses. Johnbod 14:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

set text of the haggadah

[edit]

user:Rickyrab edited the article to reflect the view that there are many texts of the haggadah. While I can understand his confusion, as there are many different printings of the haggadah with different commentaries, the main text of the haggadah (a collection of Mishnaic passages) is almost invariably the same. 13:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a traditional Haggadah text, true, but there are many variants based on this original plank. So, yeah, I reverted. — Rickyrab | Talk 06:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, "almost invariably" implies there are variations nonetheless. — Rickyrab | Talk 06:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to a single different text of the haggadah? I cannot think of any. When I said "almost invariably" I was referring to minor difference in kiddush and some of the songs at the end. It it is still at it's core the very same text. There may be a few feminist, communist or Christians who change the haggadah for their own reason, but it would be giving them undo weight to present radical changes from fringe groups in the last few decades (of a book that is 2000 years old!) as a major alternate text. Jon513 17:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky, I understand your perspective. But you have to acknowledge that until the 19th century there was the Tannaitic source that the Haggadah is, with some Rishonic and Early Acharonic additions. After that, modifications have been made by various streams of Judaism. Those tend to be minor. JFW | T@lk 23:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, My family uses the goyische(Reconstructionist/secular humanistic) hagadah(because my grandfather is so vehemently anti anything that smells even remotely frum, even if it is reform.)So the text is so drastically different, it lacks most of the canonized text and the integral parts(I have sat my family down and actually handed copies I made of the hagadah (the canon text) so that we could have a real Seder, in the original Hebrew/Aramaic. So, yea there are modern day changes that have become normal(If you could call a hagadah printed in 1902 and used in my family, however torn., stained or ragged, since we came to America, Modern) Then again, it skips most of magid and the eser hamakos.

Ah git voch und a git moed --Shuli 01:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful to organize a discussion of the texts by denomination, noting that Orthodox Judaism uses a fairly consistent standard text with only very minor variations, that Conservative Judaism generally uses the same standard text but may make somewhat more variations, and that Reconstructionist Judaism, Reform Judaism, and Humanistic Judaism use different texts, and provide some of the text(s) they use. In addition to its wide contemporary use (Orthodox Judaism is the dominant denomination in the world and the other variants are widespread only in North America), the standard text is very old, key elements of it go back to the days of the Talmud almost or completely verbatim, and hence has a great deal of history to it. I believe its historical role adds to its notability. --Shirahadasha 04:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not Jewish and know next to nothing about Jewish celebrations. I have only the foggiest notion of what Passover is about. But in light of the above comment, I am including one of my own.
Recently at the supermarket, I saw a display filled with copies of the Passover Haggadah that Maxwell House Coffee distributes gratis. It's 58 pages long, and reads back to front with Hebrew on the right-hand pages and English on the left-hand pages. There's also a photograph of the Seder plate and discussion of what goes on it. The introduction says that they were the first company to market Kosher coffee. Beginning in 1932, to mark the relationship with their Jewish customers and to ensure that tradition passes between the generations, they began distributing these booklets. They currently print over 1,000,000 copies a year for a total of 50,000,000 to date. They claim that it's the most widely used Haggadah in the world. It is produced under the guidance of "Rabbis and scholars". From the brief introduction: "While this Haggadah is complete, with no deletions from the traditional version, it has been revised to create the most meaningful Seder experience." And: "The English text has been edited for greater clarity."
My point is that if the claims are true (The NYT article linked below quotes the same numbers), then this version of the Passover Haggadah (the title on the cover) must be quite influential, at least in the USA, especially for those persons who are not particularly religious and just want to celebrate their heritage this one time a year. If you didn't know about this booklet's existence before, at least now you do.
  • A New York Times article that says, in part: "But of the 7,000 known versions, not to mention the countless homemade editions, there is one that is used more than all others combined. Since 1932, the Maxwell House Haggadah — as in the coffee company — has dominated American Jewish ritual." (There's even more NYT coverage and also coverage in other papers.): http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/opinion/sunday/why-a-haggadah.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Meanwhile, it's interesting and I'm learning a lot. I hope this helps your article in some way, Wordreader (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Birds' Head Haggadah?

[edit]

No mention of the Birds' Head Haggadah? -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karaite and other versions

[edit]

Perhaps it is possible to mention in this article that there also Karaite and Reform publications of the Haggadah. When I try to write this I see that my edits are permanently deleted from the same user. I think that Wikipedia articles should be neutral and not influenced by religious fanaticism. Informationskampagne (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If complaining about an experienced editors "religious fanaticism" looks like the best way to make your point, then perhaps the half year of no replies to your post has convinced you this was really not the best way to start off a good discussion on a community edited encyclopedia? Debresser (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have also found Samaritan versions. If wikipedia is really neutral, then the reader should have the possibility to get all informations about the Haggadah that he needs, instead to get only an orthodox-jewish view co-edited by Hashem. Informationskampagne (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find your attitude insulting. Your edits violate WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE, and I am really not inclined to discuss with an editor who insults me and edit wars. Please be aware that both personal insults and edit warring may lead to restriction of your editing privileges. Debresser (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are the only person who can not accept my edits about the Karaite versions etc. Let us please solve the problem in peace. You are welcome to write a sentence about the Karaite and Samaritan versions. The Reform version is mentioned. Informationskampagne (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources:

Karaite:

A Russian version: Hagadah Ḳaraimtsa ṿe-Rustsa = Povi︠e︡stvovanīe na Paskhu po-karaimski i po-russki, Abraham Firkowitsch, Vilʹna : Tip. I. T︠S︡īonsona, 1907

Egyptian version: Passover Haggadah according to the custom of the Karaite Jews of Egypt / [Hagadah shel Pesaḥ : ke-minhag ha-Yehudim ha-Ḳaraʼim] = Passover haggadah : according to the custom of the Karaite Jews of Egypt, edited by Y. Yaron ; translation by A. Qanai̤, Pleasanton, Calif. : Karaite Jews of America, 2000

The Samaritan:

זבח קרבן הפסח : הגדה של פסח, נוסח שומרוני (Samaritan Haggada & Pessah Passover / Zevaḥ ḳorban ha-Pesaḥ : Hagadah shel Pesaḥ, nusaḥ Shomroni = Samaritan Haggada & Pessah Passover), Avraham Nur Tsedaḳah, Tel Aviv, 1958

Informationskampagne (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does all of this do to answer my objections? Debresser (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: At first,

I would like to say that you have never argued in the sense of the problem and then, I also think that it is not fair to say that I am doing an edit-war. I think you are doing the edit war.

I also think that it says something about you and your way to edit that on the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests is this to read: "Debresser (talk · contribs) is banned from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, for three months. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)" about you (the matter of the thing is also jewish).

If you will continue to allow no objective processing (and I think that your problem has a political-religious matter and not the matter of objectivism) I will also bring this before the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Informationskampagne (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If anything my conduct here has been overly civil in view of your personal attacks and constant reverts. I would have dragged you to WP:ANI a long time ago, if not that your edits are so lame. Debresser (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

[edit]

A Third Opinion has been requested, but it isn't clear what the question is. I see that there is an old history of edits and reverts, but it isn't even obvious from that what the question is. The discussion here only indicates antipathy between the editors, and I don't know what the question is. The article should, in my non-Jewish opinion, list all of the versions, but I don't know what the question is. I am leaving the question up in case someone can parse it. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Is it objective and right to mention or to present the Karaite and Samaritan version in this article?

Another Thing: I would also like to know why debresser is against this presentation (still don't know his arguments) and what to do with him if he he is doing vandalism? Informationskampagne (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, it is my non-Jewish opinion that all of the various versions of the Haggadah, such as the Samaritan and the Karaite versions, should be mentioned.
As to the other question, User:Informationskampagne, read the boomerang essay, and read what is not vandalism. The allegation of vandalism, when there is a content dispute rather than vandalism, is a personal attack, and a very strong personal attack. User:Debresser is sometimes a stubborn editor, but he absolutely is not a vandal, and allegations of vandalism, when there is a content dispute rather than vandalism, may warrant a block of the editor making the false allegation of vandalism. If you really think that Debresser is engaging in vandalism, then you should report him at WP:AIV. If there really was vandalism, his account will probably be blocked, likely because it was compromised, because he is not a vandal. If you were merely yelling "vandalism" to "win" a content dispute, you may be blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I agreed with you, User:Informationskampagne, until you asked about vandalism, at which point you made your entire case unworthy. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am removing the Third Opinion request as answered. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with mentioning other traditions. I would be very happy if Informationskampagne would write a section about Karaite and Samaritan haggadas. After that we could also add a mention in the lead. The edit made by Informationskampagne previously violates WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE, as I said above. Not to mention that the English was no good, and I wasn't especially inclined to fix it, for several reasons. Debresser (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. The question about if he is doing vandalism, is a question and at this point not more. 2. Debresser: "I have no problem with mentioning other traditions" ok, I do not know why you changed your opinion, but I will mention this variations with a sentence under the section about the reform haggadot.Informationskampagne (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: I would also like to say that Debresser tried or is still trying to block my account, see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Informationskampagne (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. You were told clearly that there is no question whether I am a vandal or not.
  2. I didn't change my opinion. I said from the beginning that there problems are WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. Check above.
  3. I am not trying to get your account blocked. My request at WP:ANI is for some admin to talk some sense into you and to stop the personal attacks.
  4. I am, however, seriously doubting your fitness to be an editor on Wikipedia. Your latest response shows you can not even understand what people write. Debresser (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your usage of references. Is the Samaritan haggadah a source for the statement that "the Samaritans developed their own Haggadot which they use to the present day", or is it an illustration of that fact. In the latter case, it is not really a reference. And the same is true about the two Karaite haggadas: from the location where you put the references, I understand that these are illustrations, not references. So basically, your section has no sources, just examples. Debresser (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request Edit - Public Domain and CC0 English Text

[edit]

I have a COI (I work for Sefaria), and have discussed it on WikiProject:Judaism.

Sefaria has 8 different full English translations of the Haggadah - a modern one which is licensed CC0, and 7 historically interesting ones, all in the Public Domain.

  1. A. Alexander 1787 - The First English Haggadah
  2. D. Levi, New York, 1837 - First American Edition. Translated by David Levi, of London.
  3. Times of London, 1840 - Printed in response to Damascus blood libel
  4. Mendes, London, 1862
  5. Chicago, 1879
  6. Green, 1897 - First Bowdlerized Haggadah
  7. Luncz, 1901 - First haggadah printed by blind printer — Preceding unsigned comment added by LevEliezer (talk • contribs) 06:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that a link to this would fall under section 2 of WP:ELYES.

Link should probably be to the Table of Contents for Pesach Haggadah

LevEliezer (talk) 06:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard and WikiProject Judaism, which were favorably disposed to granting this edit request, I have added the link. Altamel (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Haggadah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haggadah&oldid=1207507595"