Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Hebrew)/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Consonants questions

Relevant standard Israeli sound:

1. Why is ח denoted as "h" basically, and only optionally as "ḥ" or others? Soft כ is at better situation with its own "kh" sign.

A result of 3.5 years of discussion. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Relevant oriented Israeli sound:

1. Why isn't ע denoted with its own sign?

A result of 3.5 years of discussion. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Different Hebrew letters:

1. Why should "q" be avoided for ק?

A result of 3.5 years of discussion. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that you cut my message, I think the real answer would be more efficient and hearing my answers to it are worth it too. Ly362 (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Why isn't ט denoted with it's own sign, for example "ṭ"?

A result of 3.5 years of discussion. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Unknown instructions:

1. What has to be done when wanting to write the clusters /tz/, /sh/, and /kh/? נכהה, תזוזה, האוסהולד Ly362 (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for a separate instruction on these, it is quite clear from the guideline what to do with them. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, can you tell me where it is? I'm searching and searching and can't find the answer. Ly362 (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding different Hebrew letters, "q" should be avoided for ק because it is not used in English except in words derived from Latin or French that use "qu". Q is never used alone in English. "ṭ" shouldn't be used for ט because it doesn't display in standard browsers (mine has most language packs added, but it displays as a box). пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What does the Romanizatino of Hebrew have to do with the orthography rules of English? We don't change other languages' orthographies when they don't follow English rules. "q" by itself is used many times here for representing Arabic and other semitic texts, and Arabic words such as "Iraq" do appear in English as well. Ly362 (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ly362, please realize that this guideline wasn't the result of some guy waking up one day and deciding to provide rules for Hebrew romanization on Wikipedia. It is the result of years of discussion, and each case has been discussed ad-nauseum. Feel free to read this page and its archives, and draw your own conclusions. Also, please note that Wikipedia is meant for the general audience, not linguists. No one is expected to know what ṭ is, and it also presents a technical problem because some computer systems cannot display such symbols at all. Please don't re-ignite each discussion before reading all of the previous ones at least. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ynhocky, it's obvious to me that many things here are the results of long discussions from long before I came. I though that I had seen all the talks but maybe there are archives of it somewhere and I'm just not so familiar with Wikipedia yet to realize where everything is. Second, I wasn't here, and now that I'm here after already igniting the discussion in a messy way, I try to see if there are several things I can improve by asking some simple questions and there might be people that would like to answer. I know that ṭ is not showing in all fonts etc, so the question can be reduced to simply another unique sign. "No one is expected to know what ṭ is" and "Wikipedia is meant for the general audience, not linguists" are irrelevant arguments in my view, because many different languages use many "complicated" Unicode characters for their orthography, and these orthographies are used on Wikipedia to represent these languages, and no one expects the general audience to immediately know to read it, and they are usually much more complicated than any Hebrew romanization we can come up with. They are not meant to be automatically understood by every English speaker. There are rules of writing and reading that come with the orthography. Ly362 (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

And by the way you responded to the middle of my message, is it accepted? It can be misleading, since my signature is only at its end. Ly362 (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, the use of weird unicode characters for Hebrew romanization have been flat-out rejected multiple times by the entire Wikipedia community—both Hebrew speakers, and those who do not speak it; both Israelis and foreigners. I appreciate your drive to improve Wikipedia, but this is really not an improvement, and we've been over this before many times. In fact, your argument about other languages is not relevant because Hebrew is not "other languages"... although, even in inline Arabic for example, you don't see any weird unicode characters (AFAIK just that strange quote for ayin). The consideration is simple: make it as accessible to as many people as possible. That's all. People who are expected to be able to read this are mainly those who have no knowledge of Hebrew and can't read Hebrew script, and I refuse to believe that anyone who knows what ṭ is (in Hebrew) hasn't taken the time to learn a whole 22 letters.

Alright, then why didn't you choose other letters combinations like you did with "kh"? Why isn't ח represented like this but כ is? And if what you're saying is true, then why give a transliteration at all and not just the Hebrew script? What is the purpose of the transliteration, to deliver partial information? Informatively asking. If yes then OK, I guess this is the flawed orthography used here like many other languages, only that here it is a representation of another script with some other information. And where do I see all the deep discussions about it? Is it just this page? But then, is there a consensus that this guideline can be used in grammar? Is Mo-Al the only one objecting? Can I edit Hebrew Grammar article so that it gives this transliteration, the Hebrew script, and no IPA when it isn't about pronunciation? Ly362 (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"Only this page?" Do you realize that just the 4th archive has over 100 KB of text, and all of the discussions together (4 archives + current) make up for about 100 printed pages, just on this page? And this does not include the talk at WP:Israel which is a bit harder to find.

The answer to your comment is simple: we don't invent entirely new transliteration systems. Again, the transliterations are meant to be understandable to people who do not have any understanding of Hebrew script, and are not linguists. Those who do can just read the Hebrew script. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In other words, the audience we've already reached with the current guideline is everyone; the audience you're trying to reach, at best, consists of a few dozen people worldwide who completely understand what strange unicode symbols mean in Hebrew, but can't read Hebrew. It's a clear choice to make.

About replying to the middle of a message, it's done sometimes when it's important to reply to specific points. Although this is generally discouraged, there is no rule against it, and I felt it was appropriate in this case. Feel free to move my inline replies down, since you have already read them. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTICE. Request For Comment: Changes to Naming policies which may affect WikiProject naming conventions.

Following recent changes by some editors to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy page, a Request For Comment, (RFC) is now being held to debate the removal of the passage specifying that individual WikiProject and other naming conventions are able to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles.

This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at this location. Xandar 02:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The above "notification" is a grossly biased misrepresentation of the changes under discussion. The old version of the naming conventions policy tried to lay down binding rules; we don't work that way, so it was necessary also to make explicit exceptions. The new version articulates principles, and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. These changes are good for specific conventions. Xandar is trying to induce moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a dispute unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. Hesperian 02:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Differences in scripts/fonts

Confusing I took a look at Yitzhak Rabin and Tzipi Livni and wondered why one of them employs one style of font—Rabin has a serif style, more elaborate than a Rashi script—while the other is simpler—Livni uses a square style, more like cursive Hebrew. It appears that the difference is the use of {{lang-he}} (simpler) versus {{lang-he-n}} (complex) for the presence of niqqud. If this is the case, it seems important to mention that on this page. If not, then why are they presented in different fonts? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This was the consensus on the page; Initially I supported changing all the Hebrew text on Wikipedia to the serif font, but met with opposition, so this was a suitable compromise. It's not really a big deal and I don't see how the Rashi script is relevant here. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Big deal I'm not objecting to the idea of using one font over another; what I'm saying is that if such is the consensus, that should be explained on this page, with examples given to users. Otherwise, it's just courting confusion and conflict. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have clarified the issue on the page. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you I think this will prove useful (I know that it would have helped me.) Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, according to the guideline, in inline text there should be no problem using the spelling nikud. I would like to also rename that article, but the last thing I have time for right now is to look for sources on the other usage, so it's probably best left as it is. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi

According to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(clergy)#Judaism, this Wikipedia project page is supposed to discuss the naming conventions for Judaism's clergy. But it doesn't. In accordance with Wikipedia:Honorifics#Honorific_prefixes where it says "This guideline permits inline use of honorific titles that in general have significant sourced usage or recognition" and Wikipedia:Honorifics#Subsequent_uses_of_names, and taking into account the reverance Judaism traditionally accords its rabbis, I think it is obvious the guideline should be that people who are mentioned in sources as rabbis should have their name preceded by the word "Rabbi" in the first sentence of the article, while subsequent use should be by last name and not by the word "rabbi" (as some zealous editors "fix" it). Debresser (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Since this page is appearently not too well visited, I placed some notifications pointing to this discussion. Debresser (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me add at this point that I have seen the argument that "rabbi" is more of an academic title, which we do not mention usually in the first sentence. Although it is true that the title "rabbi" is acquired through learning, being a rabbi is also a most central function in Jewish life, which far exceeds the mere fact of having learned something. As such, I think that the argument of "academic title" is insufficient in this case. Debresser (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Who are these "zealous" editors, Debresser? Chesdovi (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I have seen it happen in a few articles, where editors added the word "rabbi" every time a rabbi's name was mentioned. I'd have to try and find them. Is it really important who those editors were? Debresser (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I always was under the impression that the title is allowed in the first sentence and then elsewhere, we just use the name. I thought that ws the actual policy, I could almost swear/affirm that I've seen it as policy. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps they are following the Talmidic statement (sorry, no source at the moment, but it is learned from Saul's use of ben Yishai for David) that calling someone by their last name is an insult? Could first and last name be used in the middle? By the way, I would agree that the use of "rabbi", post-Talmudic, is a degree (like Doctor), so perhaps it should be limited to those who made use of the title?Mzk1 (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Rabbis should not have their name preceded by the word "Rabbi" in the first sentence of the article, unless it is used as a epithet, e.g. Rabbeinu Tam.Chesdovi (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to bring arguments (from Wikipedia policies and guidelines or otherwise) for your opinion? Debresser (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'd be more supportive of a leading sentence that was "xxxx is a rabbi" than "rabbi xxxx". This being said, the lead sentence honorifics has been very inconsistent across the religions. There are extensive cases, across the religions, where this is the case. So frankly, if other religions are doing I don't see an issue with using the honorific title in the lead for Jewish leaders.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be very common across rabbi articles. So if it is more or less consistent within Judaism articles, I don't think we really have to consider other religions. Debresser (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The opposite, however, is more common in Jewish articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MOSBIO#Academic_titles: "Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name." Rabbi is clearly not an "honorific", though, but actually an academic title, awarded after a number of years study at an institute of higher education. It's not merely a title one bestows on a religious functionary, absent the requisite study and testing. In fact many (likely most) rabbis do not earn their livings as "pulpit rabbis"; nevertheless, they are still rabbis, by virtue of their academic achievements. Also, it's unclear why this is being discussed here, since we are discussing an English convention, not a Hebrew one. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

In all my years on Wikipedia, the title "Rabbi" was never inserted as the first word in an article's name that always first starts with the name of the rabbi, and it seems even the Tannaim or Amoraim almost always get to be called by their names, see Category:Mishnah rabbis and Category:Talmud rabbis. Debresser is just wrong on this one and he is misquoting and twisting policies as was correctly pointed out by Chesdovi and Jayjg at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Removal of "Rabbi". But even more reprehensible in my view is that Debresser saw fit to do his usual antic of running to WP:ANI when he doesn't get his way, in this case attacking User Chesdovi (talk · contribs) one of the most reliable and most respected long-time Judaic editors who knows what he's doing, when he (Debresser) should and could have started a discussion here about it and notified other editors that he wants input. This is no way to create a sense of harmony and unity in WP:JUDAISM. IZAK (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, come one, IZAK. I discussed it with a user on his talk page and he went on a sprey of edits without replying to my post. So I went to WP:ANI and they told me I was right and that Chesdovi should have discussed it. Even Chesdovi agreed with that. Don't stick your nose where it doesn't belong, or I will get you back on ArbCom. This was the second time you start foaming for no other erason but your allergy for me, and the next time I will do every thing necessary to make that stop forever. Also, please don't accuse me of "twisting" or "misquoting". I am just arguing as to how correctly understand the pertaining guidelines.

Anyway, the part of your input that related to the issue at hand was appreciated. I have no problem with you and others telling me I am wrong. That is the reason I started to discuss this in the first place: to find out what is right and what is wrong. Debresser (talk) 07:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Debresser: You violate WP:CIVIL and then you threaten me with the ArbCom while you forget that the ArbCom has put you on notice. Please stop threatening people, especially reliable and highly respected editors in a warlike fashion violating WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND by taking them to ANI or yelling "ArbCom" or whatnot at them but rather try to concentrate on cool, calm and rational DISCUSSIONS and DEBATES. Trying to shut up, or control or censor those you do not agree with is not the way to attain WP:CONSENSUS. Also try to remember that because of our mutual interest and active editing in Judaic subjects that we are bound to keep on meeting and bumping into each other and that you need to approach this maturely and not run to the "big daddy" on the outside to help you bully me or others to agree with you or shut me up when we have genuine differences of opinion. You need to change your tactics and strive to attain WP:CONSENSUS and not act unilaterally or with only a pro-Chabad POV. IZAK (talk) 08:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It is you who violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA time and again, with personal attacks and incivility in the middle of discussions. Accusing me of what you are doing is only showing how completely mixed up you are in your rational assessment of your edits whenever I am in the picture. However that may be, please be informed and warned, that if you do not stop, I will do everything Wikipedia allows me to have it stopped. Happily, Wikipedia guarantees, that I do not have to put up with your attitude problems here. Debresser (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"Stop" what Debresser? You are issuing broad ultimatums that make no sense. Are you saying that I cannot participate in any discussions you are in? Now that would be a truly unique "Wikipedia rule" don't you think, one designed only for you? My only suggestion to you is to discuss the issues as they arise and sometimes it means that a user's editing style and editing history is part of it, but why are you getting so nervous and barking at me? Cool it, Wikipedia is meant to be enjoyed. 23:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

By all means edit and discuss. Just without personal attacks. You hvae valuable contributions and opinions. But so do I. I like to be appreciated as well, and I do not like being accused of ulterior motives every time I make an edit or disagree with something. Debresser (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Using the clause at WP:Honorifics#Honorific prefixes which states "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included" is not applicable to the majority of rabbis. That clause refers to rabbis whose titles are so common that they can be used as the page name itself, or used as a redirect, e.g. Father Joseph, Mother Teresa. The case of Charles Coughlin, (Father Coughlin being a redirect), where "Father" is used in the introducory line, is because that name was a byname. For example, Nosson Tzvi Finkel (Mir): Sure, Reb Nosson is called Rabbi Finkel, but only in the same way as normal people are called "Mr" Arthur Grigg or Dr. Michael Baden. We would not call this page "Rabbi Finkel". (There are however example of Jewish honorifics which are used, e.g. Rabbeinu Tam). Debresser in his first post here has again used the wrong policy at MOS. He quotes from Wikipedia:Honorifics#Honorific titles, (although he claims it was from Wikipedia:Honorifics#Honorific_prefixes), which are actually titles such as "Sir"/"Dame" and prenominals used by some knights. If we are to view the word "Rabbi" as an Honorific prefix, (some have suggested it is more correctly an Academic title), we should stick to the current policy which states that: "Styles and honorifics related to clergy...should not be included in the text inline but may be discussed in the article proper." This is standard in encyclopedias. I think the matter is quite clear here. Chesdovi (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, everyone agrees with you. Debresser cannot come along and on his own volition and overturn the conventions that have been followed for ten years. There is no name "Rabbi" in the beginning words of an article about a rabbi, period and full stop. IZAK (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we could come to a compromise and placate Debresser by allowing it for Chabad rabbis only? Chesdovi (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I really appreciate the idea, but if that is the rule on Wikipedia, so be it. I don't have to personally like all Wikipedia rules. Debresser (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

We can change the rules of wikipedia if we reach a consensus. I am personally against the idea as it is not standard elsewhere. Chesdovi (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I personally feel it is not respectful to have a rabbi's name with the word "rabbi", at least in the first sentence. I do not have this feeling regarding people who are Ph.D.'s or the like. And I think many editors active in Judaism related articles might agree with me on this. So far though, most reactions here tend to be of the opposite opinion. Debresser (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a mistake to generalise. The guideline is where a "name is rarely found without" the honorific, then the honorific should be used. This has to be judged on a case by case basis, and should not be determnined using a 'one size fits all' rule. --Redaktor (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see

To get some more opinions, please see Talk:Mussar literature#Spelling. Debresser (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Translation of source-titles in Reference-list

I was told there's the practice of translating source-titles from Hebrew into English in the reference-list. I find that extremely un-academic; usually, the title of the original work remains, no matter what language. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I often do it when it is descriptive, because otherwise a large percentage of people will have no idea what is happening. For example, I would leave Maimonides' (itself a translation) Mishneh Torah alone, but I would translate the volume (Sanctity) and section (Laws of Prohibited Relations). It is often significant where Maimonides puts things. Similarly, I would not translate Shulchan Aruch, but I would not object if someone put in Concise Shulchan Aruch intead of Kitzur Shulchan Aruch. I think it is not that uncommon outside Wikipedia, and just needs good judgement; it should not be done for the sake of making things sound archaic. Often Hebrew books are printed with translated titles; for example, the back of the Encyclopedia Talmudit, Hebrew Edition, has a translated title.

Scope

Suggested box, or addition to existing box:

This guideline covers:

• The conventions for naming an article or section based on a Hebrew word ("article naming").
• The conventions for including a Hebrew word or phrase in an article ("in-line Hebrew").

It's possible that not everyone clicks to general WP:naming conventions link at head, so it may be helpful to some users to add a clearer link to WP policy, MOS, concerning the related question:

• When to use an English term, when to use a romanization of a Hebrew term

Just a suggestion. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

There is another link to the general naming conventions guideline in the lede, but I do not object to making it even more clear. Do you have anything specific in mind? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't make it clear Some variant on the above box perhaps.In ictu oculi (talk) 06:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Application of this guideline

Until I saw a reference to this page in a page-naming discussion, I'd no idea that Wikipedia was using its own "official" transliteration scheme these days. Can someone talk me through how the application of this interacts with WP:V and WP:COMMONNAME? On the face of it, this seems to completely undercut the intent of those. 84.203.36.42 (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, this guideline has been in existence since September 2006. And other languages have similar guidelines. Please see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Hebrew)#Standard_Anglicized_name that there is no contradiction with other naming guidelines. Debresser (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Continuing what Debresser said, WP:V and WP:COMMONNAME take precedence over WP:HE (as this guideline points out), but neither of them is relevant in the vast majority of cases. For one, there are few sources that discuss the transliteration of a specific Hebrew word or phrase. The transliteration being used in a source would not satisfy WP:V alone, you need a source that actually discusses that transliteration—which is very rare to find. WP:COMMONNAME, on the other hand, does happen often and takes precedence. It was the main argument for using almost all non-WP:HE-compliant transliterations on Wikipedia. However, it's very hard to prove WP:COMMONNAME for more rare words and phrases. For example, if one form has 100 Google results and another has 25, or if one has 50,000 and another has 40,000, that doesn't say much. Also referring specifically to the argument at Otzma LeYisrael, capitalization is not generally relevant for WP:COMMONNAME. Each source may have its own manual of style for capitalization irrespective of its transliteration scheme. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the first part of that is reassuring, though I must admit it was far from clear from my initial reading of this document. If it's only applied to terms that have no, or no "stable" rendering in reliable sources in English, then clearly there's no conflict, and this guideline would merely "fill in the gaps". Capitalisation is by no means the only issue, even in that one particular case. As I pointed out there, it has several different variations beyond the two that differ only in y/Y: those just happen to be the two most common. But even if it were, I don't see how WP:V and :CN suddenly don't apply. For comparison (and indeed, equal applicability) WP:NCCAPS says the following: "If the article is about a work in a foreign language (such as a book or other written work, movie, album, or song), using the capitalization found in most English language reliable sources is recommended." 84.203.36.42 (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you care to give an example of where these guidelines would be at odds with each other? Debresser (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

How do you translate oculus into Hebrew

Oculus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.239.5 (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Romanization of ב (without dagesh)

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Omnipaedista#Merkabah mysticism. Thanks. -- -- -- 03:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think that conventions based on modern Israeli pronunciation should be extended to words which did not come into English through modern Israeli. AnonMoos (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

MOS:HE - When only the Engilish translation and the Anglicized Hebrew word are available...

Greetings!

What should you do when you have only the English translation and the Anglicized Hebrew word available? At the moment you see a lot of diverse practices, but I was wondering if there was some established practice to which lean to. The current MOS:HE goes only about examples where you have all the three blocks there: (1) the English translation, (2) the Hebrew one and (3) the Anglicization of that. For example:

• Israel Railways (Hebrew: רַכֶּבֶת יִשְרָאֵל‎, Rakevet Yisra'el)

But how about when you only have (1) and (3)? For example, "Kochos HaNefesh-"Powers of the Soul"". Should it be:

1) Powers of the Soul (Kochos HaNafesh),
2) Powers of the Soul ([Kochos HaNafesh] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help)),
3) or something else? :O

Thanks for your attention! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

If you're talking about the first few words of an article, it depends on whether it's at an English or Hebrew title.

• At an English one, I'd go for Powers of the Soul (Hebrew: כוחות הנפש, Kochot HaNefesh)...
• At a Hebrew one I'd go for Kochot HaNefesh (Hebrew: כוחות הנפש, lit. Powers of the Soul)...

Is that what you were after? Number 57 20:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Oooh, you got the Hebrew one as well! :-) Thanks for your quick reply, 5. Sorry, I had to make quite a lot of edits at the article, and I didn't have enough time to find the Hebrew one for every term :P

Anyway, my question is mostly about such situations where the Hebrew one is not available (e.g. that {{langx|he|כוחות הנפש}}), but just the Anglicized/Romanized/Latinized version (transliteration) aside the English translation. Okay, before I start to sound any more confusing, I'll just throw the links to the specific matter :-D

Here is the version before my edit (just find for Kochos HaNefesh-"Powers of the Soul"): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sephirot&oldid=630695274#Inner_dimensions_of_the_Sephirot_and_the_Powers_of_the_Soul

Here is the version after my edit (please find Powers of the Soul (Hebrew: Kochos HaNefesh‎)): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sephirot&oldid=630697500#Inner_dimensions_of_the_Sephirot_and_the_Powers_of_the_Soul

...and naturally the diff here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sephirot&diff=630697500&oldid=630692564

I've encountered such situations with Japanese-related articles as well, and they already have guidelines for such. I think we might come up with some kind of guideline for the Hebrew-related articles as well! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

If you're talking about mentions in the text of another article, the version used should be based on what the title of the article is – this should be based on common usage in English, and any mentions of it elsewhere should follow the same lines. So:

• If the article title is in Hebrew, use that with an English translation – e.g. "... Kochos HaNefesh (lit. Powers of the Soul)..."
• If it's English, use that with the Hebrew transliteration – e.g. "... Powers of the Soul (Kochos HaNefesh)..."

Cheers, Number 57 21:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Translation request

Please translate the following text into Hebrew. It will appear as a Wikipedia user warning template at Template:Not English.

• Please do not contribute text in Hebrew to English Wikipedia. Your contributions are more than welcome at the Hebrew Wikipedia.

Thank you.– Gilliam (talk) 06:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

We already have Template:Welcomeen-he. -- -- -- 02:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out Template:Welcomeen-he, but this new template would be for problem users so I still need a translation please.– Gilliam (talk) 08:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gilliam: My Hebrew isn't particularly good, but until you get a better version, try "נא לא לכתוב בויקיפדיה האנגלית בעברית. נא לכתוב בויקיפדיה העברית במקום.", which directly translates as "Please do not write on the English Wikipedia in Hebrew . Please write on the Hebrew Wikipedia instead." Number 57 19:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the translation. Please look over the new template at Template:Contrib-he1.– Gilliam (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Transliteration New Forms Idea

Based on disambiguity, recognizability, and use. Based of Formal Israeli Mizrahi Hebrew. Note that while not listed here, dagesh always doubles the consonant it appears in, while shwa na' is always e/è (except initially where it is zero) or à (after gutturals). The length of niqqud vowels merge into one form, so tzerey, segol, and chataf segol merge into <e> (but hataf o and a become ò and à, respectively). This is a plan for hebrew transliteration in all Wikimedia. Lemme know what ya think. This is based off precise transliterations by the Academy of the Hebrew Language.

Also, if a word is known in English, used the anglicized version.

Alef- nothing Beit- Bb (dagesh), Vv Gimel- Gg or Gg gg (dagesh), gh Dalet- Dd He- Hh, not written finally unless hey mappiq Waw- Vw or Ww, except as a mater lectionis where it is Oo or Uu Zayin- Zz Heit- Kh kh (if Qof is Kk) or Ch ch (if Qof is Qq) Teit- T't' Yod- Yy, except as a mater lectionis where it is Ii Kaf- Cc (dagesh if Qof is Kk) or Kk (dagesh if Qof is Qq), Ch ch (if Qof is Kk) or Xx (if Qof is Qq) Lamed- Ll Mem- Mm Nun- Nn Samex- Ss Pey- Pp (dagesh), Ff Qof- Qq or Kk Tzadi(q)- S's', 'Ayin- ' Reysh- Rr Shin- Sh sh or , Çç or Ss (Sin) Taw- Tt

Thank you for reading, and for the record i have a basic knowledge of modern hebrew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zontas (talk • contribs) 14:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You mean "mappiq hey", instead of "hey dagesh", I guess.

I don't know. 1. Please clearly list the differences between the system we have in place now and the new system you propose. 2. I understand new guidelines from the Academy of Hebrew Language is important, but let's think well to see if we really need a new guideline here on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The differences are between every letter but Dalet, Zayin, Yod, Lamed, Nun, Samekh, Reysh, and Taw. It is changed for closeness to Mizrachi Hebrew (specifically Israeli-Syrian), and disambiguity for Hebrew learners.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zontas (talk • contribs) 17:30, 24/April/15

What I meant is, could you please show for every letter that would be changed what we have now and what it would be according to this proposal, so that editors can compare and discuss in detail? Something like:

• Gimel - g - Gg or Gg (dagesh), gh

By the way, I already have 3 questions about this example along. 1. "Gg" means "G" or "g" depending on whether it should be capitalized, or "double g"? 2. Should we differentiate in this guideline between with or without dagesh if they are transliterated the same? If so, in what way? 3. Is "gh" an alternative transliteration, or should "gh" be used in certain cases"? If it is an alternative, do we in Wikipedia want to decide on one specific form, or will all alternatives be acceptable? Debresser (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Debresser (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I meant to put double g for dagesh. I edited the post above. If digraphs are used as letters, a space is put between the upper and lowercase versions.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zontas (talk • contribs) 15:29, 26/April/15

I don't think "gg" is a common transliteration for gimel with dagesh. Also, what is "gh" for, see question 3 above. Debresser (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

"gg" is sometimes used on Wikipedia. See, for example: Maggid. (On Shin, see: Talk:Manasseh (tribal patriarch)#Menashshe or Menashe). -- -- -- 02:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Reversed text confusion

In the article Moshe Tamir, I can't get the reversed text for the Hebrew to work right. The year of birth "1924" won't stay before the date of death. It keeps moving to the front of the Hebrew name. If anyone here can either fix it or, better yet, explain how to fix it, I'd appreciate it. Thanks,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike: Done. Use {{lang-he}}. Cheers, Number 57 21:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you were able to fix it. I tried {{lang-he}} and couldn't have figured out that {{langx|he|משה טמיר}}; 1924 – 13 November 2004 would get "Hebrew: משה טמיר; 1924 – 13 November 2004". Thank you.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike: Although it appears in the wrong order in the edit box, when it's in the article, it displays correctly (as the above example does too). Number 57 22:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Article name Waw-consecutive

Since the majority of the article is about Hebrew, should the name of the article, and the hebrew specific sections be changed to Vav rather than Waw? Note, Vav-consecutive is currently a redirect, and I have no problem with both names pointing there, I just think that Vav-consecutive should be primary.Naraht (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

An important general rule is WP:COMMONNAME. A Google search can show you that "Waw-consecutive" has about 14 thousand result, while "Vav-consecutive" 3.5 thousand, one fourth. That would be a likely reason to stay at "Waw-consecutive". Debresser (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

When a topic originates before the Diaspora

For topics that originate before the Diaspora, i.e. many topics involving the Hebrew Bible, the guidelines here state that article titles should use (somewhat flexibly) the SBL general-purpose diacritic-less system. That sounds good; no argument here. However, this section does not explicitly say what should be done in in-line transcriptions of Hebrew on topics originating pre-Diaspora. Are we to assume, based on the article's silence, that the in-line citations should match the same SBL-based standard on pre-Diaspora topics? And if so, would it be possible to add this convention to the article. And if not, would it be possible to make the article state this more directly?Alephb (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Help needed: writing down the source name in Hebrew from a picture

Greetings!

Could some of our Hebrew speaking contributors please help to write down the name of this source in Hebrew[1]?

Moreover, is there any policy with respect to maintaining the original source-language of the title when citing a non-English source? The closest policy I could thought of is WP:NONENG, but it mainly deals with providing an English translation aside from the original source-language quote; it's not really about including the original source-language title into the reference. The problem is that some sources — such as the one in question — are only available in the source-language, and thus omitting the original title loses all sense of trackability, which is essential for fact-checking.

Thanks a lot in advance for your help! :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Professor Avshalom Mizrachi, The Yemenite Kitchen - Hawaij, Love and Folklore. Debresser (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Debresser. Sorry for not being clear, I was looking for the name in Hebrew alphabet :-) Thanks! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jayaguru-Shishya: It's המטבח התימני: חואיג׳, אהבה ופולקלור. Number 57 14:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57: Does anyone have any idea why only the third word has Niqqud?

@Naraht: It's not nikkud, it's a geresh – a form of an apostrophe which is used for turning a "g" into a "j". See Hebrew alphabet#Sounds represented with diacritic geresh. Number 57 15:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57:Not talking about that character, see the Hiriq under the Aleph and the other Niqqud under the first two letters.Naraht (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Because it is essentially not a Hebrew word, and its spelling could be debatable. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

What language is it? I tried pronouncing it out and didn't get anything I recognized.Naraht (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Naraht: Arabic (or possibly Judeo-Yemeni Arabic). It's Hawaij, the spice. Number 57 20:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanx.Naraht (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57: Thanks mate! I really appreciate that! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jayaguru-Shishya: Sorry for sidetracking your request.Naraht (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Ibn vs ben for medieval Jewish figures

I see the patronymic names of medieval Jewish figures sometimes rendered with "ben" (e.g. Judah ben Solomon ha-Kohen and Kalonymus ben Kalonymus) and sometimes with "ibn" (e.g. Samuel ibn Tibbon and Jonah ibn Janah). What's the difference between these two? Is there a recommended default approach about which one to use? HaEr48 (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I presume its to do whether they are better known under the Hebrew or Arabic version of their name; "ibn" is the Arabic version of "ben". WP:COMMONNAME would be the answer here. Number 57 20:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Ben is Hebrew, while ibn is Arabic. A quick spot-check suggests to me that we're just taking it person by person and calling each character whatever he is called in reliable English-language sources, but there's likely more to it that is determining what those reliable English-language sources use. Perhaps Jewish writers who wrote more in Arabic or were originally documented in Arabic-language sources are more likely to wind up with an ibn. Alephb (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how I missed that Number 57 already covered this. Never mind. Alephb (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alephb and Number 57: Thanks for the answer. My confusion about the "Arabic name" vs "Hebrew name" theory is that sometimes someone had a Hebrew name and an Arabic name, yet the ibn applies to even the Hebrew name. For example, Jonah ibn Janah's Arabic name is Marwan and not Jonah, but the article and its sources could consistently use "ibn" together with the Hebrew name. Another confusing case is Solomon ibn Gabirol, which says he can be either Solomon ben Judah or Solomon ibn Gabirol. Could it be that one is used with father's name and another with an ancestor's name (kind of like a family name)? HaEr48 (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Generally, I think you'll see ibn somewhat more often for further back ancestors who are becoming part of a sort of "family" name, while you'll see "ben" for more immediate ancestors, at least among medieval Sephardi Jews. I don't know that it's a hard-and-fast rule. I do know that ibn did find its way into names written in Hebrew characters, like אבן אזרא, "Ibn Ezra" or "Aben Ezra". Alephb (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Obviously these people had both a Hebrew and an Arabic name. Again, it is WP:COMMON which determines which one we use on Wikipedia. If we use "ibn" that does not mean that such was the Hebrew name, just that such is the name we decided, based on sources, to use on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, the curiosity is when one name contains both ben and ibn and why a ben tends to occur earlier in a name than an ibn, but of course you're right -- WP:COMMON will get us through. Alephb (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

When do we have both in one name? Debresser (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

There is for example the Rambam's student Joseph ben Judah ibn Simon ([2]), or Joseph ben Judah ibn Aknin. In the great majority of these kinds of cases, it appears the ben appears earlier in the name. Alephb (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

And not just in English! There's a Vikipedya article about Ibn Ezra that begins by calling him רבי אברהם בן מאיר אבן עזרא. This one follows the same pattern, ibn X is at the end.Alephb (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, one is the name of the father, and the other of the family. But yeah, funny cases. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)