Talk:Presumption of priestly descent

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

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

[[Kohen#Ritual defilement|prohibitions]] The anchor (#Ritual defilement) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

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

Clean up

This article is incomplete and may require expansion or cleanup. Please help to improve the article, or discuss the issue on the talk page. Marecheth Ho'eElohuth

The Maharshal, quotes a story where Rav Hai Gaon found himself in Jerusalem. After being told that where he to circle the temple mount with ASHES OF A RED HEIFER

Google-translated from he.wikipedia?

What would be the correct title of this article in WP:EN WP:RS? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above was 20 Nov 09:40, following look at the original he.wikipedia article (presumed source) and checking with Google Books moved to (cur | prev) 10:11, 20 November 2011‎ In ictu oculi (talk | contribs)‎ m (31,419 bytes) (moved The status quo Kohen to Recognition of priestly descent: following he.wikipedia presumed source) (undo)

Since the term "status quo Kohen" is non-existent in any English language source, not just WP:RS, but even non WP:RS, it should count as non-controversial (just moving bad English to better English), but anyway 27Nov it's been reverted:

(Move log); 00:53 . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ moved Recognition of priestly descent to The status quo Kohen over redirect (moved without consensus)
(Move log); 00:53 . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ moved Talk:Recognition of priestly descent to Talk:The status quo Kohen over redirect (moved without consensus)

Does the editor having reverted this wish to discuss.....? Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that you, Alastair? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa, I looked at this earlier and thought "What the... ??", then I saw your post making clear that you've misidentified me as a banned user you had fights with in the past. Fantastic :( I suppose we can both learn from this. I'll know next time someone goes at me for no apparent reason to say "please stop, I don't know who you think I am, but I'm not." I have never had any other log in than this. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename suggestion

I suggest that this article be changed to Presumed Kohen or Presumption of Kehuna or Presumption of Kohen status. The last being, in my opinion, the best choice. Thoughts? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa,

I hope I'm allowed to speak :)

Helpful suggestions, but unfortunately try them on Google Books / Scholar and see; they all produce "O" hits, and therefore fail Wikipedia:Article titles tests.

I'm not pretending that "recognition" and "priestly descent" is a perfect rendition of the he.wikipedia title. But this isn't wholly a translation from he.wikipedia, and at least "recognition" and "priestly descent" produce a healthy number of hits. For example the Kohanim entry in Lawrence A. Hoffman My People's Prayer Book: Welcoming the night: Minchah and Ma'ariv 2005 p235 has "... a reference to the priests who offered sacrifices in the ancient Temple until its destruction by Rome in the year 70 CE Also the name of modern-day Jews who claim priestly descent and who are customarily given symbolic recognition" so moving the article to follow these words wasn't some kind of attack, it was simply following the kind of usage you can find in what looks to me like a fairly mellow source. It may well be that the verbal noun "presumption" is more accurate than "recognition" per S. Zalman Abramov Perpetual dilemma: Jewish religion in the Jewish State 1976 p183 "Persons whose names are Cohen, Katz, Kaplan and certain other names are presumed to be of priestly descent, and may not marry a divorcee or a lady converted to Judaism. In many instances, this difficulty is overcome by such couples"

Let it be admitted I don't know what the exact answer is, but it should be one which fits Wikipedia:Article titles and is testable against GoogleBooks/Scholar. I'm sure you want that too. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Naming conventions

Hi PiMaster3, I'm sorry but your edit restoring all Marecheth Ho'eElohuth's romanizations and words like Beit HaMikdash for Temple and so on, isn't in line with MOS:COMMONALITY among other WP policies. Rather than discuss each one, Is there any special reason why this article should be exempt from normal Wikipedia practice? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While there were some legitimate edits that you made to this article, they were intermixed with so many problematic ones (such as changing Kohen to priest) that it was easier to just revert to a previous version of the article. I have now restored the helpful edits you made to the article. --PiMaster3 ^talk 04:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Generally, following WP:RS, references to kohen away from the context of the Jerusalem Temple should be romanized, kohen. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Equal term?

What does "recognition" have to do with the halachic word "chazakah" ??--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing whatsoever. The closest you can get in English to the word chazaka, or its conjunctive form chezkat is "legal presumption". So chezkat kehuna could be "legal presumption of being a Kohen". But of course, no one says that. They say chezkat kehuna. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The status quo Kohen → presumed kohen – per WP:CAPS and WP:article titles where if not "commonly used" at better than zero hits and not a translation of the he.Wikipedia original. Suggested per Evolving halakhah: a progressive approach to traditional Jewish law Moshe Zemer - 1999 "Thus, the prohibitions that apply to a presumed kohen according to the codified Halakhah are not canceled by the fact that he is not a certain kohen,.. " In ictu oculi (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"presumptive kohen" = 0 hits (and is also grammatically wrong, the kohen would be doing the presuming)
"presumed kohen" = 1 hit
"recognised/ized kohen" also gets zero hits

Evidently in terms of what is actually in mainstream published sources the article's previous title, recognition of priestly descent or alternatively ..ancestry is better supported than these attempts to get the word kohen into the title at all costs. But it seems what is in mainstream sources stands no chance of being accepted.

In ictu oculi (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't need to be a source that specifically uses "Presumed kohen" or "Presumptive kohen" as a translation for kohen muchzak. It's sufficient to establish that the correct and reliably sourced translation of chazaka is "presumption". Which I have done in the section below entitled "Presumption". - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename somehow. I am not a Jew and not sure it the target is the right one, but if it is it should be Presumed kohen. However might Kohen status be better? Peterkingiron (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article needs to be moved since the current title doesn't make much sense. (Someone has apparently confused the terms "status quo" and "status".) My first choice is recognition of priestly ancestry, or the article's previous title, recognition of priestly descent. But if the consensus insists on the use of the word "kohen", then perhaps recognition of kohen status. Kauffner (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're mistaken about there being a confusion between status quo and status. The article isn't about the status of Kohen. It's about the legal presumption that a person who is known to be a Kohen really is one. That's where "status quo" comes in. The burden of proof is on anyone who wants to dispute the status quo by claiming that a Kohen isn't really a Kohen. But yes, it's a very odd phrase, one that I've never heard used. Ever. Still, the suggestions you've offered aren't really what the article is about. It isn't "recognition" of being a Kohen, but "presumption". Actually, the best title would probably be Presumptive Kohen (כהן מוחזק), as opposed to a Pedigreed Kohen (כהן מייוחס). - Lisa (talk - contribs) 04:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As pointed out by Lisa status quo is the closest term to identify the articles content (good job Lisa). A change to "presumptive Kohen" would be misleading by incorrectly indicating the kohain is only "presumed" -a far cry from the halachic status of "muchzak" ("holding firmly and strongly").--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is such a thing as a presumption made by the average person, and there is such a thing as a legal presumption, which is "firm and strong and binding" until proven false. Legal presumption is the most widespread and accepted translation of חזקה. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 23:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose till capitalisation is clarified. Noetica^Tea? 03:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noetica, very good point in general, thanks, but having double-checked, English WP:RS do support common noun capitalisation of kohen to the extent that the noun appears at all in English WP:RS. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: I have completely had it with the recent unilateral moves here, and have moved the article back to where it was before. Any attempt to move it will result in a report to WP:ANI.

Opppose Both "presumed" and "presumptive" are bad translations of the Hebrew word "muhzak". The present translation, "status quo", is also bad as a translation, but correctly reflects the intent of the term.

Note, the capitalisation should be fixed to "kohen" with a lowercase "k". Debresser (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See section on "Presumption" below. Given the fact that many, many reliable sources say that presumption is the correct translation of chazaka, what is your basis for saying that presumed and presumptive are incorrect ("bad") translations of muchzak? I assume you must have reliable sources backing that up, or you wouldn't be (a) insisting that it's the case and (b) threatening another editor and making personal attacks against her based on that opinion. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leave as is. today's kohen is status quo such.--חודר לעומר (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pros and cons of present title: The status quo Kohen Please first explain the pros and cons of the present title as it appears now: "The status quo Kohen". Does it meet or fit in with any of the above suggestions? Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move and keep article as is. The problem is that In ictu has come along with motions for sweeping changes like this all over the place that has just engendered WP:DISRUPT and near WP:WAR more than anything else. More WP:CONSENSUS is required otherwise such suggested changes just amount to being railroaded into In ictu's WP:POV. So let's all ease up and make improvements to the articles' WP:CONTENT rather than quibble over headings that can easily be accommodated by WP:REDIRECTS! See Category:Hebrew words and phrases for thousands of instances where transliterated Hebrew language words are legitimately used in WP articles.IZAK (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, cutting and pasting the same angry paragraph on eight Talk pages acheives what? And oppose what? There hasn't been an RM. See below In ictu oculi (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi In ictu: Not sure what you are complaining about, I am not "angry" at all. I am just following your example and just as you are doing the same thing over and over again asking for the same changes from Hebrew to English for your own ends, I am entitled to do the same thing to oppose your requested moves that are causing so much controversy. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Changes to title/title use in article during RM

Lisa, minor changes to page during RM, when noted on the Talk page, can sometimes be helpful. These substantial changes aren't helpful.

(cur | prev) 13:49, 9 December 2011‎ Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ (30,068 bytes) (Undid revision 464912556 by In ictu oculi (talk) Absolutely not. If you want sources to support the fact that the correct translation of chazaka is presumption, just ask.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 06:54, 9 December 2011‎ In ictu oculi (talk | contribs)‎ (30,297 bytes) (Undid revision 464902186 by Lisa (talk) reverted - please do not sow new term unsupported by WP:RS during RM) (undo)
(cur | prev) 05:09, 9 December 2011‎ Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ (30,068 bytes) (undo)
(cur | prev) 17:54, 8 December 2011‎ In ictu oculi (talk | contribs)‎ m (30,297 bytes) (moved Presumed Kohen back to The status quo Kohen over redirect: An RM had started) (undo)
(cur | prev) 17:48, 8 December 2011‎ Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ m (30,297 bytes) (moved The status quo Kohen to Presumed Kohen: More common term in English, if English has to be used.) (undo)

Can you please self-revert your last edit and let discussion continue with the page as it was at the beginning of the RM? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done that. You are right, that pages shouldn't be moved, while discussion is ongoing. Debresser (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa,

One of the reasons I suggested that you revert yourself, without mentioning it explicitly, was that 17:48 8 Dec, 05:09 9 Dec, 13:49 9 Dec fall 3x within a 24 hour period. So I'm a little disappointed to see your response to the request to revert to the original page state was to move it a second time to your preferred title/caps while the RM is ongoing.

1. (cur | prev) 02:12, 11 December 2011‎ Debresser (talk | contribs)‎ m (30,309 bytes) (moved Presumptive Kohen to The status quo Kohen over redirect: Undo recent unilateral move.) (undo)
2. (cur | prev) 00:13, 11 December 2011‎ Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ m (30,309 bytes) (moved The status quo Kohen to Presumptive Kohen: More correct translation of the Hebrew כוהן מוחזק changed per consensus on talk page.) (undo)

I actually don't object to "presumptive kohen" as at least having one WP:RS, but while an RM is listed let it take its course. Also kohen is a common noun, please see WP:CAPS.In ictu oculi (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser, thanks for restoring the article text as well.In ictu oculi (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my warning in the section above, and let's end this one on that note. Debresser (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumption

In Ictu just reverted my change to this article, using the word "presumption" ("presumptive" being the adjective) instead of "recognition" to translate the Hebrew חזקה (chazaka). If you go to Google Books and enter the words chazaka and presumption, you get a whole slew of results, all of which showing that this is the normative translation of chazaka. If you enter the words chazaka and recognition, you get nothing. For those who don't want to bother, here are some sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. In Ictu seems bothered by the changes going on during a move request. Well, no one asked him to start the move request, particularly when he had no consensus for a move. The edit is proper, and no reliable source needs to be given in the body of an article in order to change an incorrect translation to a correct one. If the changes affect the move requestion, then they affect it. They weren't done for that purpose. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa, well said, i agree with you here.--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm curious as to why Debresser thinks that no one agrees with "presumptive". - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the literal translation, but there exists no such term. In addition, see the discussion above that none agreed with this rename, and not only because of the rename, but because the term is flawed and non-existent. Another non-consensus edit like this will result in getting you reported for edit-warring. I know your aggressiveness, and will not tolerate it. Debresser (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa, i'm sorry for this misunderstanding. My agreement was for disciplining In Ictu's ill-spirited edit warring and over-reliance on google books and the likes. Regarding using the word presumptive as a translation for muchzak i've already stated that using that word is innacurate.--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you're saying. But I think you need a source that states specifically that presumption is not a correct translation of chazaka:

Rabbi Berel Wein (link) "In Jewish law this is called the concept of chazaka – the presumption that what was, still is."

Rabbi Gavriel Z. Bellino (link) "PRESUMPTION (CHAZAKA)"

Rabbi Gil Student (link) "This is based on the principle of "chazaka", presumption, which teaches that once something is established there is no reason to suspect that its status has changed."

Joseph Seckbach (Seaweeds and Their Role in Globally Changing Environments - Page 445) (link) "Occasionally, legal obstacles could be placed before the removal of a nuisance, as when its owners have legal rights due to precedence (Chazaka: legal presumption)."

Rabbi Avraham Rivlin (link) "The difference between three and four is quite clear according to the acquired legal presumption of tendency [Chazaka]..."

Nishmat (The Jeanie Schottenstein Center for Advanced Torah Study for Women) (link) "Chazakah – A halachic presumption (e.g., that a woman has stopped bleeding)"

Rabbi Yissocher Frand (link) "We do not approach the Almighty with a presumption of what has been (chazaka d'm'ikara)."

Rav Michael Siev (link) "The second issue is also important: it is one thing to say that parents are not believed when it comes to disqualifying a child of theirs who already has a chazaka, a presumption of acceptable lineage; a chazaka cannot be overturned without hard evidence."

Rabbi Yaakov Klass and Rabbi Gershon Tannenbaum (link) "The Mishna on our daf states that a chazaka (a presumption of ownership) is established for houses and other real property through their being occupied/used unhindered for three years."

Daniel Pollack (Contrasts in American and Jewish law - Page 131) (link) "In other words, there is never a chazaka (presumption) based on a prior behavior such that one neighbor has waived his right to protest."

Leigh S. Cauman (How many questions?: essays in honor of Sidney Morgenbesser - Page 467) (link) "The entry 'presumption' ('Chazaka') in the Talmudic Encyclopedia..."

Sol Steinmetz (Dictionary of Jewish usage: a guide to the use of Jewish terms - Page 57) (link) "chazakah or chazaka, plural chazakos. A legal claim of ownership based on its possession for a certain time. A chazakah is also a presumption or assumption based on probability."

See what I mean? Rabbis and scholars who translate the term into English use "presumption". But "A person presumed to be a kohen" is too long for an encyclopedia title, so "Presumptive kohen" seems to be a correct English rendition, based on reliable sources. Ignoring Debresser personal attack for the time being, since כל הפוסל במומו פוסל, can you explain what your objection to this reliably sourced translation is? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All very nice, but no connection with kohanim. There just isn't such a term. Apart from the fact that even in those cases the word "chazaka" is more than a presumption. But at least, there it is the accepted translation. You remind me of certain other editor, who used to bring dozens of "proofs" that were unrelated to the matter at hand. Debresser (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have an RfC on it, then. Or your mediation of choice. Because your opinion doesn't trump the sourced facts. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is it with all those editors who don't understand why they are wrong, even when literally everybody says so, that they want an Rfc? Opening an Rfc is not the way to get what you want when you are wrong. Also, aren't there some other things to do in dispute resolution before opening an Rfc? Debresser (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is it with these editors who don't understand that saying someone is wrong doesn't make it so? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 23:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Call for consensus

The move request is now more than a week old. And a lot of discussion has gone on during that time. Can we get a show to see whether we have a general consensus to change the title of the article to Presumptive Kohen? I'm assuming In Ictu will oppose this, but if everyone else agrees, I think we can call that a consensus. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 23:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, both per content as per procedure. Move discussions are closed by uninvolved editors after a certain time, usually as week has elapsed. Debresser (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

כהן מוחזק in the Schottenstein Talmud

Hi Marecheth, couple of questions.

How frequently, if at all, does the term כהן מוחזק occur in the Hebrew/Aramaic text of the Talmud?
If it occurs in Hebrew/Aramaic, how is כהן מוחזק translated into English in the Schottenstein Talmud?

In ictu oculi (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term doesn't exist till the time of the Rishonim. Debresser (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That is difficult to tell from the both the he.wikipedia article and this version with the discussion of כהן מוחזק in connection with Tannaim such as Jose ben Halafta for example. Can we conclude from the he.wikipedia article that the Rambam uses the term כהן מוחזק in Mishneh Torah 7? If it's used in Mishneh Torah then Moses Hyamson should already have translated this, there is an English equivalent out there. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there is some translation, that does not mean the term is an English term, or that the translation is the only and/or authoritative translation. Point being, stop searching for translations of non-English terms. You have been told this many times already, and I for one am starting to lean towards the commentary of IZAK. Debresser (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser,

With respect you misunderstand my intention. The only thing happening here is an attempt to follow WP:article titles in respect to an article translated to en.wikipedia from he.wikipedia. But if you are ordering me not to look at how כהן מוחזק has been translated by Hyamson then I will not do so. Finish. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "ordering" anything. :) But in my opinion there exists no normative and/or authoritative and/or standard translation of this term. In addition, the present title very adequately brings out the point of the word "muhzak". So basically there is no reason and no possibility of improving this specific title. Such is my opinion. Debresser (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Focus

I believe the focus of this article must be kept on the "lack" of proof that modern day Kohanim have. In conjunction with genetic testing that only 15-46% of modern Kohanim share the same genetic marker (depending on the study), this proves that the halachic authorities that said the Kohanim have been mixed up were indeed correct. Therefore, emphasis must be given to those opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.232.23 (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since in practice we do have kohanim, the lack of proof is an academic matter only, and should therefore not be overly stressed. Debresser (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In current practice though there is much debate regarding how to treat Kohanim among the authorities (such as giving pidyon haben money). This debate is contingent regarding if they have proper yichus (pedigree). Therefor, the genetic studies along with the rishonim who say kohanim have become mixed up must be made clear at the beginning of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.232.23 (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sources that the genetic studies are at all relevant to the halakhic status of kohanim? Debresser (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

much debate? hasn't the yaabetz been the lone opinion about the pidyon haben money?--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Article

This article is obviously written with bias. Throughout Jewish history the achronim maintained that people were not careful with treating kohanim with kedima (precedence) because they did not have proper documentation/tradition. Genetic evidence indeed corroborates this. Why is it that this is not even mentioned until the end of the article- after every possible reason is giving to support that Kohanim are valid in the face of clear genetic evidence and a 500 year tradition of not being careful with the treatment of kohanim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.232.23 (talk • contribs)

I think "bias" is the wrong word here. I do agree that there is too much detail in this article. And that the English is sometimes rather poor. Debresser (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, i missed all this action.. anyway, by and large the authorities ruled that the chazakah overrides the need for documentation --Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marecheth, welcome back, please see couple of questions above:

1 How frequently, if at all, does the term כהן מוחזק occur in the Hebrew/Aramaic text of the Talmud?
2 If so how is it translated in English?

In ictu oculi (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

why isn't Debresser's response of 13:08, 14 December 2011, sufficient? if you are looking for more meat and potatoes than that I may have to consult with you first.. --Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marecheth Ho'eElohuth, surely as article creator it would have been easier to say "yes", "no" than talk about meat and potatoes. Do you have access to a copy of the Talmud? Do you know if your article subject is directly mentioned there? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term "כהן מוחזק" appears first in a Tosfot (Baba Batra 81b) and is more prevalent in responsa. These works have not been translated into English at all, or at least not on a scale that we can speak of an "accepted" translation. This is what stands behind my statement of over a year ago. Debresser (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Debresser, is there anyway that this can be sourced and included into the article. What then was the term used by Jose ben Halafta if the term "כהן מוחזק" is not found till the Rishonim? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As to the source request, sorry, but this is my own original research. :) I'll have a look at that second question in another 4 hours, and shall post here. Debresser (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The words are "gdola chazaka" - great is a chazaka. Debresser (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser, thanks. It seems likely that the term "כהן מוחזק" is behind S. Zalman Abramov Perpetual Dilemma: Jewish Religion in the Jewish State 1976 Page 183 "Persons whose names are Cohen, Katz, Kaplan and certain other names are presumed to be of priestly descent,.." The Jewish Spectator 1990 School of the Jewish Woman (New York, N.Y.) Volumes 53/54 - Page 5 "ACCORDING to Jewish law, a Jew presumed to be of priestly descent, that is a Cohen, is forbidden to marry a divorcee or a childless widow who received Halitzah" so it would be helpful if the arcticle had a sourced/footnoted exact fix on the origin and notable use of the term. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term is more widespread in later literature, by which I mean responsa of the last 400 years or so. The first time we find the precise term "kohen mukhzak" is in the Tosfot I mentioned, but the word "chazaka" as in "gdola chazaka" which we have in the gemorre is of the same root. So I'd say that arguably the term originates there. Debresser (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser. Thanks, are we any nearer to finding if the subject of the article has ever been mentioned in a single English-language source? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the phrase from lead trying to imitate language used in printed sources. The fact that the title is stuck where it is is still not a reason for unsourced neologisms in the lead. As it stands this article is likely to cause citogenesis and leak into English texts. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still trying to push your point... Debresser (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am trying to push the point that the article should not create a neologism but should use the language used in the article sources, such as those of Jacob Neusner. I do not understand why this article should not follow the norms of the rest of the encyclopedia as described in WP:RS, WP:AT and WP:MOS. It's not as if this is a conflict between the language of one school with another since no school uses "status quo kohen" and wikt:status quo is not an accurate translation of the he.wp title either. So why is this point not a good point? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is good you are willing to ask yourself that question. I suppose because the words "status quo kohen" are at least some translation of the corresponding Hebrew term, and that is better than some English description. Debresser (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but why should an inaccurate translation be prefered to the terms used by Adin Steinsaltz for example?

Accordingly, we consider this man to be a presumed priest, who is permitted to eat terumah (according to the Sages), but does not have the priestly status necessary to marry a woman of unblemished lineage." The Talmud Adin Steinsaltz 1992 Page 195

In ictu oculi (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was that suggestion made here, that is, to use this source? If so, I missed it. Debresser (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's just an example to show that the subject exists. But yes, why can't we use Adin Steinsaltz's term rather than an inaccurate one that isn't used anywhere, not on blogs, let alone WP:RS. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you propose to rename this article "Presumed priest"? Or, in order to avoid confusion, "Presumed kohen" or "Presumed priest (Judaism)"? Debresser (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, we had an RM, and there was clear opposition to using language from print sources such as Adin Steinsaltz' Talmud in the title, I'm simply replying to your comment that putting language like Adin Steinsaltz's in the article lead is "Still trying to push your point..", and I'm wondering what point exactly you are making (I won't use "pushing") by your opposition to the language of such sources? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 February 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to presumption of priestly descent - there are a number of different suggestions on the table here, but this one seems to have the most support surrounding it, from the conversation that I can see. I don't see a need to for disambiguation, since the presumption of priestly descent doesn't exist in other faiths. Incidentally, for the record, I think the argument that status quo is not English is weak - in my experience this is a commonly used English expression... but that doesn't really affect the outcome here. (non-admin closure) — Amakuru (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The status quo Kohen → Presumed priest – Firstly fails WP:THE and WP:CAPS so a move of some sort is required. The existing title appears to the result of using a translation engine (?), in any case there is no such term as "the status quo kohen" in English books. The term comes from the Talmud where it refers to a "presumed priest, who is permitted to eat terumah (according to the Sages), but does not have the priestly status necessary to marry a woman of unblemished lineage." The Talmud Adin Steinsaltz 1992 Page 195; and the exact RM title "status of a presumed priest" is found in Ketubot 25B on p.200 of the Steinsaltz edition. Gamaliel says "Just as eating heave-offering is a presumptive evidence that a person is a priest..." in Jacob Neusner A History of the Midrashic Law of Women: Ketubot 1980 p.30 then "no presumption that he is a priest". Here the key terms, in any combination, are presumption and priest (Judaism). Also presumed priest (Judaism) or presumed priest in Judaism or presumption of priestly descent in Judaism are also possible. The current title only exists in LLC Books compiled from Wikipedia articles. Relisted. Number 5 7 17:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC) In ictu oculi (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In ictu oculi, you should really have mentioned that this is the third time you propose a rename of this article, see first and second. Not to mention that User:Lisa has twice proposed Presumed Kohen. I personally prefer her proposal to yours, because "priest" is ambiguous. Debresser (talk) 09:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I think "kohen" should not be capitalized, so Presumed kohen. Debresser (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser, yes, and I think this is also the third time you have disagreed with the existing title. Thank you for support of change of "The status quo" to "Presumed". Presumed kohen would get rid of the non-English "status quo" so would be an improvement. If the RM succeeds in removing "The status quo" it will have corrected 2/3 of the problem. However priest (Judaism) is not ambiguous, and as far as I am aware there is no issue of presumption of priestly descent in Catholicism or Hinduism etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, but still the article is at Kohen, while priest (Judaism) is a redirect. Obviously we should prefer the main title. Debresser (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not obviously, the sources used "presumed priest" it isn't our job to direct the sources such as Steinsaltz and Neusner. The context in the Talmud is clearly "presumed priest" because of descent from Aaron, the context is the Jewish priesthood not kohen. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IIO has a point… that’s WP:SYNTHESIS using ourselves as a source. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy move to Status quo Kohen per WP:THE. I do not support the proposed title (don’t oppose it either), but I would support a move to Presumption of priestly descent, which judging by the opening sentence is what the article is about. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record as nom I would also welcom Presumption of priestly descent with or without (Judaism) or "in Judaism". Anything that gets rid of "status quo". In ictu oculi (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I agree with the speedy move removing "The" if this discussion won't lead to consensus about a rename. Debresser (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How about merging with Kohen? Could this subject be sufficiently addressed there? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On first glance I wouldn't know why not. Debresser (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no, per WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT: that article is already overlong and covers everything from Melchizedek to modern rabbis. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In ictu oculi, WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT is the same. You must have meant WP:LENGTH. Debresser (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per WP:USEENGLISH. "Kohen" is simply the Hebrew word for priest. You can see how various Bible translations give the relevant passage here. The eigenvector (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.