Talk:Masekhet

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Isaac Alfasi#Works|Halachot]] The anchor (#Works) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Untitled

I've Merged this to Nasreddin as current article is on Afd. Dlyons493 Talk 12:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This intriguing post refers to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tractate, after which this content was merged into Nasreddin. Apparently because said content was a short piece of literature. This article was recreated half a year later, 3 March 2006, first as a redirect to Tract, and only over a year later, on 28 December 2007, as a redirect to Mishnah.[1] Debresser (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring about incorrect edit

Boruch Baum (talk · contribs) is edit warring about an incorrect edit, namely saying that the "Tur Shulchan Aruch" is an alternative name or a work by Jacob ben Asher.

Jacob ben Asher's major opus is called the Arba'ah Turim, (Tur) in short. Rabbi Joseph Karo's major work is called the Shulchan Aruch. "Tur Shulachan Aruch" is simply an edition which combines them both, so is not identical to the Tur and is not a work by Jacob ben Asher. The last sentence of Arba'ah Turim#Later developments shows my point, as does the name "Tur Shulchan Aruch" = "Tur" + "Shulchan Aruch". There is no possible justification for keeping that incorrect information in the article, and Boruch Baum must stop his edit warring to this effect. Debresser (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser edit war

For the sake of keeping all relevant information in one place, following is a paste from my user talk page. Please also refer to the comments for the original edit, "revert of Debresser edit: most people know the sefer as "Tur Shulchan Aruch". See the disambiguation page created in year 2007. Mentioning it also infers reference to the derivative sefer" —Boruch Baum (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Regarding your edit at tractate, please be warned that if you insist on making factually incorrect edits and edit warring, you will be reported. Debresser (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: Not only is the edit factually correct, but it will be very helpful to most readers, so I most certainly am restoring it, and you are quite welcome to "report", but please first calmly consider to what you are objecting: referring to a text (and only secondarily, in parentheses) by its most commonly known name.

Secondarily, may I ask: Are you stalking me? Are you doing so on the background of my edits to the Chabad page? Can I expect more of the same of all my other Wikipedia contributions? If in your heart the answer to any of those questions is yes, or even maybe, reconsider.

—Boruch Baum (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the talkpage there, where I explain why you are wrong. On a sidenote, if you don't know your stuff, don't pretend you do. Debresser (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I am backing away from this for the next 24 hours. We both violated WP:3RR and I am not interested in a block. You will have to convince me, and the community in general, because if you simply keep reverting, sooner or later, you will be blocked. I can live with your mistakes for another 24 hours. Debresser (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. What is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Hello, Robert, and thanks for offering to help. In brief, we are referring to a seminal historical text that isn't commonly known by its official name. The official name is the one used in the wikipedia article, and since 2007 there has been a redirect there from the commonly used name. One side of the dispute insists that the commonly used name not be mentioned at all; the other side of the dispute places the commonly used name in parentheses after the official name.

Below, Lokshin kugel provided his third opinion, for which I thank him, but I would also like you, as a semi-random semi-professional third-opinion kind-of-guy to give your own. The thread above should give you more than you want to know, but its there for you. —Boruch Baum (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with boruch baum here. Most yeshiva students refer to Arbaah Turim as Tur Shulchan Aruch. It is therefore fair to colloquially call it tur shulchan aruch. Given that according to debresser this majority view automatically gives boruch baum consensus, you now have full permission to revert. If debresser reverts I will be reporting him as edit warring. If he disagrees, he is a hypocrite. Lokshin kugel (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that this is no longer a content dispute, and if I had checked the history before asking what the issue was, I would have seen that both parties are edit-warring. It is less important who is right about naming the document than that Wikipedia policy is against edit-warring. I'll leave further action at WP:ANEW to an uninvolved administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lokshin kugel is factually wrong, as stated above. Since I have been a yeshiva student in my time as well, I can also testify to the fact that his claim that "Most yeshiva students refer to Arbaah Turim as Tur Shulchan Aruch" is not correct, and would be true only for an "Am ha'aretz", students who are not meticulous. In addition, since his reason for posting here is to team up against me, his words are hardly reliable. Debresser (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

Both Boruch Baum and Debresser are violating WP:3RR but I thought protection would work better. I have never heard of either the Tur or Shulchan Aruch separately referred to as Tur Shulchan Aruch because they are different works. The volume I own by that name has both the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch for the section of Yorei Dei'a dealing with Basar be-Chalav. The abbreviation is used in the Ein Mishpat in on the daf of the Gemara when it refers to the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch as a combination.[2] JFW | T@lk 12:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The edit war was yesterday. We have both been reported at WP:EW/N. I, for one, have already stated here, already yesterday, that I am not going to continue the edit war. I think you can safely remove that protection. Debresser (talk) 12:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I might leave it for another day or two. I would be more reassured if there was some consensus as to what we were going to say. JFW | T@lk 13:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jfdwolff: I'm ok with referring to it in parentheses as the "Tur", but I do prefer using the term "Tur Shulchan Aruch": 1] becuase it evokes the more commonly used derivative work, and; 2] the disambiguation page has been around since 2007 for good reason in my personal experience. The purpose of the sentence was to illustrate that the tractate method of organization is hardly universal. Let's get consensus and agree on a solution before opening this up again. I'm ok sending this to another dispute resolution forum. —Boruch Baum (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that all agree, at least implicitly, that the Tur Shulchan Aruch is not written by Jacob ben Asher. A very easy way out would be to add the Shulchan Aruch as a separate entry. We could then simply write "Major examples of literature which does not would be the Mishneh Torah, Arba'ah Turim and the Shulchan Aruch. We could keep the names of the editors, but they are actually a bit superfluous, since the works are linked and the respective articles already tell us who the authors are. By the way, it should be Mishneh Torah, another mistake which I attribute to ignorance. WDebresser (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of these works need mentioning by name here. This article is about tractates. As a compromise, could I suggest the Shulchan Aruch (generally deemed more important than the Tur) as the only example of a really canonical work that does not follow the tractate structure of the Talmud? I have unprotected the article. JFW | T@lk 19:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the examples are a good idea. I would keep the Mishneh Torah as well, together with the Shulchan Aruch. Debresser (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content of this article

The word "tractate" can refer to other writings rather than just rabbinic writings (see Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus). I wonder if this is ever going to be more than just a dicdef.

The paragraph under dispute is actually largely irrelevant. It discusses works that are organised differently from the Talmud. JFW | T@lk 13:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jfdwolff: There does exist a disambiguation page for tractatus, which includes a link to Wittgenstein's book, but not a reference to tractate or a discussion anywhere of what a tractatus or tractate is, only a list of books that have the word in its title. —Boruch Baum (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another opinion

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement about including commonly used name of a text):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Tractate and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

My opinion is that the best action is to join together to develop a quality encyclopedic article. Write for a general population with no background knowledge of Jewish literature, someone who wants to learn. Anyone may arrive at this Tractate article from the random button on the Wikipedia main page. Instead of gaining knowledge when I read the article in its current state, I was confused. For example, in the last paragraph about Rabbinic literature, is that literature sometimes organized into tractates? Formally? Informally? Please explain, with examples and wikilinks. Improve the article so that I or any of the hundreds of millions who know nothing about Judaism will learn.

I know nothing about Jewish or Mishnaic literature so I have no opinion on the original question about common name. After reading the article, looking at its history and many of the links, I judge that the article does belong in main space. It does need improvement, specifically:

Some in-line citations of source documents is needed. Textbook, published student thesis, article in scholarly journal or whatever, references are essential. Without some, this article is likely to appear in articles for deletion as original research sometime in the future.
The lead paragraph needs improvement to provide context, clarification and explanation. As written, it says "an organizational element of Mishnaic literature" such as "Baraita" but that article says "designates a tradition in the Jewish oral law not incorporated in the Mishnah. 'Baraita' thus refers to teachings 'outside' of the six orders of the Mishnah.". Is the Baraita organized into tractates or not? I'm confused.
A Etymology section is needed. How did a Latin word end up organizing literature written in Hebrew and Aramaic?
Make Major tractates and Minor tractates separate sections for clarity. Are divisions of the Tosefta and Beraita the "minor tractates"? Or am I even more confused?
Hatnotes are needed to deal with the old disambiguation. I will do that if you prefer.

Your collaboration can make this stub become a valuable addition to our encyclopedia. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 20:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lokshin kugel, when offering a third opinion, please follow the guidelines for providing third opinions. I ended up here because you didn't remove the request for a third opinion. In the end, perhaps it was best to get another one from someone with zero knowledge of the subject.

Jfdwolff, please remove the page protection now. Much better solution than blocking two valued editor. Thank you!

As I end this, I want to thank all involved. Researching how to provide an opinion here was fascinating as well as confusing. I learned a lot about the complexities of Jewish literature that I would never have seen otherwise. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 20:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One question I can guess the answer to. The first editions of the Talmud were printed by Christians, and in an age when they needed approval by the Christian censor. That is likely the reason the Latin word "tractatus" got involved with Hebrew literature. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]