Talk:Yimakh shemo
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 24 July 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Probable vandalism
[edit]Someone editing from IP address 24.186.172.5, on 1 March 2013, made a series of edits that I suspect are vandalism. The word Purim was changed to Lichter, and it was suggested that the curse might be applied to "any other Lichter-like specimen". I cannot find any especially notable enemy of Judaism named "Lichter", so my guess is that this is just someone taking a personal dig at someone he knows. The series of edits made by 75.99.50.122 also appear to be vandalism, and also attack "Lichter". So I am reverting to the last version by Astros4477. I'm not going to redo the Wikidata stuff — if anyone cares about that, please go ahead. --Trovatore (talk) 05:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
שבתי צבי
[edit]Jayaguru-Shishya, are you joking? It seems like you were ignoring that “the average person does not know who שבתי צבי was” is still valid, and therefore it is inadequate to remove the link to the article about him (and to undo everything else I changed at the same time). If you look at the article about him, you will see several ways of spelling his name, including the one from the footnote. Should that not be enough? Otherwise, what do you suggest? To add to the footnote that there are various ways to spell שבתי צבי in Latin script, referring to Scholem’s book about him? It is definitely not acceptable that you remove the link to the article (it is actually vandalism), so we have to find a way for that. --132.187.85.182 (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Greetings 132.187.85.182! According to the source (Shore, Eliezer (2002). A Chassidic Journey: The Polish Chassidic Dynasties of Lublin, Lelov, Nikolsburg and Boston), the name is Shabsai Tzvi, not "Shabbetai Tzvi". Moreover, the version you are proposing[1] is suggesting yet another variate, "Sabbatai Zevi". Neither of the latter two are supported by the source. Unfortunately another Wikipedia articles do not qualify as sources.
- I'd suggest that you will find a source that supports the variation you are proposing here. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- There is no need to repeat that Shore has “Shabsai” for שבתי (s for ת being obviously Ashkenazi Hebrew), hardly anyone writes his name this way though. Sabbatai Zevi is what somebody chose as the name for the article, I wanted to avoid any redirect (obviously).
- If you had read my summaries correctly, you would have noticed that I have found and mentioned one, Scholem’s book mentioned above (which has, among others, Sabbatay Sevi, Shabbethai Sevi [th for ת and e instead of a are obvious if can read the name with vowel signs, שַׁבְּתַי], Shabsai Tzvi [all three to be found on one and the same page], and, of course, Sabbatai Ṣevi, as in the book’s title) and referred to by the article about שבתי צבי. You didn’t even reply to my suggestion in the same sentence, nor did you keep any of my other changes (again, this is vandalism), and I still have my doubts you ever understood that one should link to the article since not everybody knows who this person was, especially if written that way (see above). I know “another Wikipedia articles do not qualify as sources” [sic!] and never claimed otherwise. Read again, try to read correctly this time and to reply to what I wrote days ago. --132.187.85.182 (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
As you have not replied (which you haven’t really done the first time), I have undone your vandalism and edited the footnote according to my suggestion; besides, I have now added more material which includes other spellings of the name. I am sure it would have been enough to add a note referring to Scholem to an existing footnote, but you obviously preferred to go on with your vandalism instead of really discussing. I will report you if you will go on with that nonsense, so you better come up with an idea after reading the talk page and the summaries instead of undoing my whole edit again. --132.187.85.182 (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi there 132.187.85.182. I appreciate your enthusiasm with the topic, but we cannot rely on user user introduced WP:OR, such you introduced above. Instead, we should rely on the sources, and what they say in regards of the etymology. I understand that you want to avoid any redirect, and therefore a source such as this [1] might do the trick. It is an academic source, University of Pennsylvania Press, and it justifies the usage of "Sabbatai Zevi", just like the destination article is named. At the moment, there are four sources given to verify one simple name, which constitutes a clear WP:OVERCITE. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ Maciejko, Pawel (2011). The Mixed Multitude: Jacob Frank and the Frankist Movement, 1755-1816. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 14. ISBN 9780812204582.
In the words of Rabbi moses Hagiz: "It is their custom to argue that with the arrival of Sabbatai Zevi, the sin of Adam has already been corrected and the good selected out of the evil and the 'dross'. ... "
- Are you kidding me? How many times do I have to repeat that I have been referring to Scholem’s book, which means that I did “rely on the sources” and which therefore is not “WP:OR”? Again, you were not really answering to my posts, and apparently you did not understand even one of them.
- I do not need you to mention that this book “is an academic source” if the template includes “publisher=University of Pennsylvania Press” which is obvious enough; however, the book does not seem to mention the phrase ימח שמו which this article about, therefore it may justify the usage of the name, but it does not justify the mentioning of שבתי צבי within this article. --132.187.85.182 (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Spelling yimmaḥ šəmō (weziḵrō)
[edit]Jayaguru-Shishya, you have once more proven that you know nothing about about transcription or transliteration (see section about שבתי צבי above); if you did, you would see that yimmaḥ šəmō (weziḵrō) is perfectly acceptable (ask any scholar) and therefore did not need to be explained by the person who added that to the article. Besides, even someone who cannot read square script will notice that the spelling vezikhro does more justice to וְזִכְרוֹ than ve zikhro does. Keep your fingers away from the article if all you can do is undo useful edits (which is vandalism, see former summaries). --132.187.85.182 (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Greetings, 132.187.85.182. According to the source, it's yimakh shemo,[[1] just like the article is named. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ Steinmetz, Sol (2005). Dictionary of Jewish Usage: A Guide to the Use of Jewish Terms. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 39. ISBN 9780742543874.
yimach shemo! 'May he be cursed! Literally, 'May his name be blotted out!' Also, yimach shemo vezichro!, plural, yimach shemom (vezichrom). (Literally) 'May his name and memory be blotted out!' Used after an individual's name, as in Haman yimach shemo!
Feminine and plural forms?
[edit]Do people ever say "Yimakh shemah" in reference to a woman or "Yimakh shemotav"/"Yimakh shemoteha" in reference to multiple people? Or is "Yimakh shemo" the fixed term no matter what? —Mahāgaja · talk 12:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yimakh Shemah in reference for woman, and Yimakh Shemahn for women Hamelehh (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reference, please. See how it was done for "shemam" in section Yimakh shemo#Usage. (I cannot imagine it can be used in reference to a woman by a Jew, though.) - Altenmann >talk 18:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)