text:
Talk:Names of God in Judaism/Archive 1

Do the contents of this article belong somewhere else?

 * I would recommend moving it to Yahweh. The articles are very similar at this point anyway.
 * But Yahweh deals with the name "Yahweh", so stuff about other Jewish names for God ("Adonai","Elohim","haShem") wouldn't seem to belong there...

 * One small point that likely belongs in a Talk page (but I'm too lazy to create one for a page that should disappear soon anyway) is that of the "YHVH" English rendering of the Tetragrammaton.

 * The Hebrew letter represented as "V" in this rendering is "vav" which, in Ancient Hebrew [if I understand correctly--I took Arabic, not Hebrew] was pronounced just like the ancient Roman "v" was pronounced--as a W. Is there any particular reason for rendering it "YHVH" instead of "YHWH"? Should we mention this point somewhere, or no?

 * Just added the hebrew lettering, if anyone wants to merge this page with another one please make sure to copy that bit over. Had to rummage around in unicode tables a bit to work it out. -BD

 * Yes, YHVH is a mixture of modern and ancient. It would be better as YHWH (modern English values) or JHVH (ancient Latin values). It is confused by the fact that in modern Hebrew the W is now pronounced as a V, so YHVH represents the modern Hebrew sounds, though not ancient Hebrew. Similarly, in tzevaot, that's a purely modern Hebrew transcription, and the ancient Latin Sebaoth is closer to the ancient Hebrew.

I changed the Hebrew word to display correctly on my browser (that is, right to left). Someone else has changed it back, with the comment that they also are changing it to read from right to left. Does this mean that different browsers display it in different directions? If so, we would be better to get rid of it, since it will just be misleading to anyone whose browser shows it the wrong way round. --Zundark, 2001 Sep 20

In Mozilla 0.9.4, which as far as I know is the most standards-compliant browser currently available, the string of characters encoded by &#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492; gets automatically reversed and displayed from right to left. I assume that this is because Mozilla "knows" that Hebrew is read in this direction. The same thing happens in Internet Explorer 5.0, the only other browser I currently have access to. Whoever's seeing this text rendered left-to-right instead, what browser are you using? -BD

Internet Explorer 4.01 doesn't reverse them. Nor does Netscape 6.01. I think we should use a GIF (or PNG) if we really want to show the tetragrammaton, then we can be sure that everyone is seeing it correctly. --Zundark, 2001 Sep 20

On the other hand, the note about reading direction "(Note that Hebrew is written from right to left, rather than left to right as in English)" doesn't specify which direction the letters are actually being displayed in on the page, so the reader can take a moment to figure it out for himself. The "H" character is the one there are two instances of, once that's noticed it's pretty clear which way the word is being written. :) Personally I'd rather stick to the HTML standard than fool around with images for lettering, since standard compliance by browsers should increase with time, but I'm not terribly concerned one way or the other. - BD

You might find this tag useful:  - Jan 1, 05

Elohei
The singular form of elohim is only used in "word-pair" form; where it indicates god of + the thing after it, thus elohei is only used and should be listed.

 * Elohei is plural. The singular would be Eloha, the pair version is undistinguishable from the regular version. Gadykozma 17:41, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Solving a Riddle written in Silver
Please see NYTimes Science Section, first. Sept 28th 2004, discovery of Priestly Blessing in Silver Amulets, with God's name in ancient script

 * Finally got a copy of that article and accompanied photos. Will try to make sense of it and add a comment. Thanks for the pointer. --Zappaz 16:28, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Inquiry
Shouldn't Be actually elpincha 22:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * YHWH-Ra-ah: The Lord my Shepherd (Psalms 23:1)
 * YHWH-Ro'i: The Lord (is) my Shepherd (Psalms 23:1).

Greek to me...
The quotation from the Gospel of John in the "Hashem" section seems utterly out of place, given that John was written in Greek, and probably by a Gentile. My understanding is that the use of "logos" ("the word") is considered to be a Gnostic influence, not a reference to anything in Jewish thought.

 * Well spotted. I dealt with it. JFW | T@lk  18:59, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Hebrew texts of John use the form hadavar. Should this be moved to the Gnosticism article instead of deleting? I have re-added the text for now until we fid a place for it. The reason I see this to be important is that the hebrew form is "hadavar", but most translate this as the Word. --Zappaz 00:23, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * What Hebrew texts of John? John was written in Greek.  I'll return the article to Jfdwolff's version, pending some confirmation of the dubious claim. Jayjg 01:12, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * What I mean is that the Hewbrew version of the new testament, is says "bereshit hayah hadavar". --Zappaz 22:47, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * http://dvar-adonai.org/hnt/He_htm/John001-005.htm

 * That's a modern Christian translation of John into Hebrew, it has nothing to do with Judaism. I'm removing the unrelated text again. Jayjg 00:33, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Can we find an article to place that text in? It is valuable info. --Zappaz 02:48, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Why is it "valuable info" that a modern Christian translation of the Gospel of John into Hebrew uses the term "haDavar"? Jayjg 04:18, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Because of the translation as "the Word". --Zappaz 00:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, these are unrelated concepts. Hashem or Hadavar are not even used in the Talmud, they were introduced by the Medieval Rabbis. To claim that the name Hadavar has any bearing on the New Testament is minimally an anachronism and maximally a distortion. JFW | T@lk  01:09, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, that's a translation choice a modern Christian translator made. I'm not sure why that specific choice by that specific translator is "important". Jayjg | Talk 04:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

a concern
Am I the only one who feels deeply uncomfortable that the article now includes the Hebrew tetragrammaton? This is a sacred word for Jews and should not be produced or reproduced so casually. Slrubenstein 19:04, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I understand the concern, but please note that there are thousands of reproductions of the tetragrammaton on the Internet, as well as on the online version of the Jewish encyclopedia. Out of respect to religious folk, we could add a disclaimer such as According to the Jewish tradition, if you print this page, the copy should be treated as any other sacred text since it contains the name of God.

 * Alternatively, maybe you can ask some Talmud scholars about the display on the Tetragrammaton on web pages and if there are any guidelines as how to do this.--Zappaz 19:47, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * The question that occurs to me is how should "any ... sacred text" be treated? "With respect", of course, but are there any specifics that should be observed in this case? People in general are unlikely to have access to a geniza, so what should we be telling them to do, if anything? --Kay Dekker 04:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Improving the article
moved from User_talk:Gary_D)--Zappaz 00:29, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)''

Hello Gary, Happy New Year!

I am putting my knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic to good work in expanding the The names of God in Judaism article. Could you take a look and give me some pointers on how to improve the article? I would like to submit it as a candidate for featured article. Your help will be appreciated. --Zappaz 20:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Your knowledge of Hebrew? Thank god that Jossi speaks Hebrew, to back you up. And the Humanist is a treasure for that as well, isn't it. But to have it look scholarly, it is simply to amateurish. 140.247.62.121

 * There they go again the ex-premies with their conspiracy theories... And I thought that they will leave me alone now that the PR articles are stable. But no, they lurk and check my every step. Yikes!. Oh well ces't la vie, I guess. --Zappaz 16:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

''

 * What is an "ex-premie"? Jayjg |  (Talk)  22:29, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Ouch! don't get me started... these are a small and very vociferous (to say the least, IMO!) group of ex-followers of Prem Rawat . I had quite a bit of problems with them when editing related articles. They accuse me of being paid to push Rawat's followers POVs in WP, and have also other weird conspiracy theories, and as you see above, they lurk around and check my edits.... strange people. --Zappaz 17:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Title starts with "The"?
See Naming conventions. Shouldn't this page be moved to Names of God in Judaism? Dbenbenn 20:10, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * yep. Done. --Zappaz

 * "Done"? In what way? It hasn't been entered on the Requested moves page. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  22:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Done asking for move... at Requested_moves... :) --Zappaz 23:42, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

G-d
Someone should add the bit about why it is sometimes written G-d or L-rd in english. "G-d" redirects here. I couldn't find a relvanat place to add it. Also, I don't remember how to sign things.
 * Use four tiles '~' Larklight 18:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

From peer review
I came to this article from the peer review page. I did a whole lot of little tidying jobs on the article, and I hope that the contributors here are happy with what I've done. It is clear that there have been a few different authors of the article text, and I've tried to smooth out the differences in style. I've removed referrences to the Old Testament as it seems more NPOV to use Hebrew Bible in all but purely Christian contexts. There is quite a bit of work that still needs done on tidying the article. Gareth Hughes 23:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Very much appreciated, Gareth! What other tidying-up tasks you propose? Could you make up a list? --Zappaz 04:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The cleanup looked good to me. Regarding tidying-up, is there too much about the Tetragrammaton here?  Should the section be summarized further, with a "Main article Tetragrammaton" sentence at the start? Jayjg (talk)  15:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've been through the article again. Considering the conversations here about the Tetragrammaton, I've changed the multiple instances of YHVH and Yhwh to YHWH, and acknowledged YHVH as an alternative. I've tried to deal with a few grammatical issues, and I've changed a couple of instances where 'they' is used to refer to Jews (non-inclusive POV). I've straightened out the list of lesser used names so that they all follow a similar format now. I've also linked references to biblical books to their relevant articles. I hope all of that is okay, and that the article is a more unified read. Gareth Hughes 16:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Great work again, Gareth. The article has benefited a lot from your intervention. Regarding Jayjg comment about the Tetragrammaton, I think that although there is already a full article on the subject, we need here a good summary, as the one we currently have, given its relevance. --Zappaz 21:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Raul's thoughts
Just to CC my comment on the FAC here - I really like this article (it's one of my favorites on Wikipedia, and I don't say that lightly). I think it would benefit *greatly* from having someone record themselves saying these Hebrew names and upload them (ogg format) for use in the article. →Raul654 04:01, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Files to be added
Nadav did some wonderful work. He recorded these ogg files, which need to be added to their relavant sections →Raul654 14:47, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Image:He-Abir.ogg
 * Image:He-Adonai.ogg
 * Image:He-AvinuMalkeinu.ogg
 * Image:He-Boreh.ogg
 * Image:He-EhiyehShEhiyeh.ogg
 * Image:He-EhyehAsherEhyeh.ogg
 * Image:He-EinSof.ogg
 * Image:He-El.ogg
 * Image:He-ElHagibor.ogg
 * Image:He-EloheTzevaot.ogg
 * Image:He-EloheiAvrahamYizchakYaac.ogg
 * Image:He-Elohim.ogg
 * Image:He-Elyon.ogg
 * Image:He-Emet.ogg
 * Image:He-Hadavar.ogg
 * Image:He-HakadoshBaruchHu.ogg
 * Image:He-Hashem.ogg
 * Image:He-KadoshIsrael.ogg
 * Image:He-MagenAvraham.ogg
 * Image:He-Makom.ogg
 * Image:He-MelechHaMelachim.ogg
 * Image:He-RoehYisrael.ogg
 * Image:He-Shadai.ogg
 * Image:He-Shalom.ogg
 * Image:He-Shekhina.ogg
 * Image:He-TzurIsrael.ogg
 * Image:He-YHWH.ogg
 * Image:He-Yah.ogg
 * Image:He-YhwhNissi.ogg
 * Image:He-YhwhRaah.ogg
 * Image:He-YhwhRapha.ogg
 * Image:He-YhwhShalom.ogg
 * Image:He-YhwhShammah.ogg
 * Image:He-YhwhTsidkenu.ogg
 * Image:He-YhwhTzevaot.ogg
 * Image:He-YhwhYireh.ogg

 * Thank you Nadav and Raul654 for the addition of the ogg files!
 * Question: Is there a way to make the "listen" template to take less space? Is there a "smaller" version of the template? As it stands now it may disrupt the flow of reading the article. --Zappaz 05:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * There are less obstrusive ways of putting it into the article. You can link it inline with some text, or use the smaller speaker icon on commons. However, I would prefer to keep it as is (at least for the time being) because the listen templates is becoming the standard (albeit it might not be the best for this particular artilce). →Raul654 05:23, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * Godd idea Raul. Thanks. I am looking at creating a tiny version of the template for articles like this in which there are so many ogg links. --Zappaz 05:44, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

small version of listen template
I have created a smaller version of the template (see it in action on the YHVW ogg file). Raul, let me know what you think. If OK, I will replace all the other opnes. --Zappaz 23:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't like the tiny listen template after you changed it, but I wanted to give it time to see if it would 'grow' on me and I would like it more. So I waited two weeks, and I liked it even less later, so I switched it back on the 19th. Today, you switched all of the templates to the tiny version.
 * I think I have a better idea than either template:listen or template:listen-tiny. What about using template:multi-listen, which is already used on pages like Ludwig van Beethoven for pages that have lots of ogg files? (don't look at the template itself, because it invovles several others --- check out the Beethoven page and tell me what you think) →Raul654 19:06, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Excellent idea, Raul. I will check how the template works, give it a go and see how it looks.... My main concern was that these big speaker pics all over the article, reduced readability and were too unappealing visually. template:multi-listen may resolve this! --Zappaz 21:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) --Zappaz 21:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Grammatical Number and Gender: Adonai, Elohim
My College Hebrew classes were long ago (before the birth of my grandchildrens' parents) so recollection may be faulty - I don't read it anymore. I was taught that Adonai is in the (archaic) Dual Number (as seen in the Hebrew name for Egypt: Mizraim) and that Elohim is a masculine plural of a feminine root Eloah (which becomes plural Eloth if gender is retained.) I'll skip the metaphysics of that. (Here, at least) Can someone please confirm or refute my memory? If correct, should this be placed in the article, or linked elsewhere? oreb 11:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Adonai as a name is grammatically singular, meaning that it takes singular verbs and singular pronouns. As a syntactic form it is plural with first person possessive suffix identical to the way one would say "my lords". (There would be no distinct dual form when using the possessive suffix.) The form Adonaim (if it existed) would be dual, but it does not exist - only things that naturally come in twos like arms, legs, eyes etc have distinct dual forms. Mizraim looks like a dual and can be rationalized as such (upper and lower Egypt) but it is uncertain if it really is a dual or merely accidentally looks like one, similarly with the place name Aram Naharaim (can be rationalized as referring to two rivers but may merely look like a dual.

 * Elohah as a name for God is grammatically masculine but looks uncomfortably feminine because of the ah ending so it is hardly used, the preferred form is the syntactic plural form Elohim (which is nevertheless grammatically singular) or El (also masculine). Eloth is the feminine plural of El not of Elohah which would be Elohot.

 * In both Elohim and Adonai the plural form is probably intendeded to denote abstraction - Elohim meaning Divinity (or Authority, el seems to have meant something like judge or magistrate originally not necessarly a divine being) and Adonai meaning my Lordship. The popular explanation is that it is a plural of majesty or excellance but perhaps this is more accurately abstraction (via plural syntactic form) of majesty or excellance analogous to English, Lordship, Highness, Majesty Kuratowski's Ghost 15:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * "el" means strength. The linked page on "El" states this.

 * With this pluralistic ending, it means "many strengths". This can be translated as many strengths working together or one with many strengths, refering to the "all powerful" aspect. (This is my own personal belief.) -- Chacham 5:00, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

 * I would appreciate if you make suggestionss here before making changes to the article. We have worked and researched this article for many months, and it received Featured Article status last month. I am inclined to revert your edits, but I would wait until you have a chance to explain the removal of text and the changes you introduced. --Zappaz 16:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Well lets see:

 * The explanation about a meaning of breathe or blow is a conflating of the standard explanation of the name as a form of the verb of being and an alternative explanation from the good old days of 19th century / early 20th century pseudo-scholarship which alleged that the God of the OT was a wind god. The word simply does not mean breathe or blow in Hebrew, plain fact.
 * Jamaican Jah is known to come from Yah as in Hallelujah, no mystery here so why say "may".
 * The Greek Adonis is generally understood to come from Adoni = my lord, not completely identical to Adonai which is plural, I merely expanded on this info didn't really say anything new.
 * Adonai is syntatically plural (i.e. it has the construction of a plural), what the article meant to say is that it isn't grammatically plural (i.e. it doesn't take plural verbs and pronouns). Kuratowski's Ghost 16:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Grammatically plural is rather vague. In fact, both names are morphologically plural and syntactically singular. I thought the first verse of Genesis showed that quite clearly. --Gareth Hughes 21:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Ok we obviously understand the term syntactically differently :) Kuratowski's Ghost 21:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Technically, syntax governs relationships between words: if a noun takes a singular verb as predicate, it is syntactically singular. Morphology, however, governs the internal formation and alteration of words: if a word takes a recognised plural shape, it is morphologically plural. Usually, the two are the same, but many languages have exceptions to this. The Hebrew Bereshith bara ' ' elohim has  ' elohim as its subject (which is masculine plural in form), but uses the singular verb bara ' , which makes the subject syntactically singular. In some old grammars syntax is used to describe word class, and thus is as vague as grammatically plural. --Gareth Hughes 21:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article needs more work
No offence, but this article just doesn't seem to be of Featured Article quality yet. It's often repetitive and even contradictory. In case I don't have time to fix these issues, let me try to be concrete:
 * 1) Under Tetragrammaton, first "Modern scholars conjecture that it was pronounced "Yahweh"" followed by "The name YHWH is often reconstructed as Yahweh"
 * 2) Under Tetragrammaton, first "Because Jews have, for a long period of time, considered it blasphemy to pronounce, the correct pronunciation of this name has been forgotten" followed by "The prohibition of blasphemy, for which capital punishment is prescribed in Jewish law, refers only to the Tetragrammaton".  Surely these could be combined.  Then in the next section, "All modern denominations of Judaism teach that the four letter name of God, YHWH, is forbidden to be uttered except by the High Priest, in the Temple ... Instead of pronouncing YHWH during prayer, Jews say Adonai.".  Then again, under Adonai, "Since pronouncing YHWH is considered sinful, Jews use Adonai instead in prayers".  This all seems quite redundant.
 * 3) Under Tetragrammaton, "This name is first mentioned in the book of Genesis and is usually translated as "the Lord""; then under Pronouncing the tetragrammaton, "English translations of the Bible generally render YHWH as "the LORD" (in small capitals)".  Surely these could be combined.
 * 4) The Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh section seems quite piecemeal as it is.
 * 5) The Kabbalistic use section needs extensive copyediting, especially (but not only) the 42-letter name paragraph.
 * I'm also confused by the rastafarian reference under the Yah heading. This is names for god used by Judaism, not the world. Also, the link to Yam there seems extraneous.  Any comments?Fcsuper 03:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

××× I agree that this article needs tightening up, editing, here and there. There is another, completely redundant, duplication, i.e. "Seven names of God" and "The tradition of seven divine names". These two sections, both of which are also very, very short, need to be merged. Unfortunately, I don´t yet know enough about the practicalities of editing Wikipedia, so I can´t do it until I´ve worked out how to actually go about it. Borsey379 22:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Elohim
[quote]Despite the -im ending common to many plural nouns in Hebrew, the word Elohim, when referring to God, is grammatically singular, and regularly takes a singular verb in the Hebrew Bible[/quote]

This is an opinion. The use of 'Elohim' in Gen 1 can also be understood as being a reference to "The Gods", or "The Spirits". Thus, the gods created the races of man (each in his own image and likeness), and after this background Gen 2 discusses the activities of that elohim who was the tribal deity (YHWH elohim).

However, the article is specifically about in Juadism, so perhaps this need not be pointed out. Ie: it's an opinion, but the opinion of modern Judaism.

 * Its not an opinion of modern Judaism its typical smart-ass pseudo-scholarship. It can't be understood to mean Gods or spirits, it takes the singular verb bara' not the plural bar'u. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have lso read recently a rather, umm, interesting view of the "taking gods name in vain" commandment. By that view the commandment proscribed priestcraft and religion in general, this being a holdover from their time as slaves in Egypt.

Pmurray bigpond.com 03:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article needs to include a discussion of the understanding of the -im plural form as abstraction. There are several examples of this in Hebrew: e.g. chayah = animal, ordinary plural chayot = animals, but plural form with -im chayyim = life. betulah = virgin, betulot = (female) virgins but betulim = virginity, mayah = a body of water, mayyim = water in general. Similarly elohim can be understood to mean divinity from elohah denoting a god. Similarly with the plural form Adonai Kuratowski's Ghost 18:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

 * That is good, Kuratowsky. Why don't you be bold and add it? Thanks . --Zappaz 16:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I edit articles based on bursts of motivation, too lethargic at the moment to think how to word it nicely, besides I'm meant to be working :) Kuratowski's Ghost 20:49, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Caption on Priestly Benediction Picture
I can't see the Y of the YHVH on the priestly benediction picture. Does anyone else see it? To me it appears to show Heh (possibly Samech?) Vav Heh. Is it inferred the Yud was once there or is it just very faint? --Cypherx 05:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, It is there. just that the first letter (yud) can hardly be seen. See the bigger image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tetragrammaton_benediction.png --Zappaz 14:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shadai shadayim
Something needs to be said about the possible connection between Shadai and the word shadayim that means breasts and the interpretation that it thus means something similar to English "bountiful". Kuratowski's Ghost 4 July 2005 23:32 (UTC)

 * Interesting concept, but unless we find some references of such connection made by scholars or rabbis, I am afraid we will be getting into original research, and outside of the WP policies. --Zappaz 7 July 2005 06:15 (UTC)

 * Nothing original about it is a known view popular amongst Reconstructionists. Will see what I can dig up Kuratowski's Ghost

 * Ok I've added some stuff, cheating a bit cos I haven't actually read the reference I added but used an article that referenced it

 * Fascinating angle... A feminine aspect of God... excellent find. Thanks... --Zappaz 7 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)

 * I think there is a confluence of the various meanings of Shaddai in the title The Humbler. It gets around Volcano-Chthonic perceptions that are misleading (at least in Judaism).    210.50.176.10 05:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Ian Ison

hashem duplicated
This is a great article, BTW. I see Hashem has two separate sections. I'm loathe to change it myself so as not to louse up a well crafted page, but maybe somebody who's more familiar with the history of the page could investigate? Gzuckier 15:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

ogg format?
THe ogg format is inefficient and pointless. No one (except advanced computer users) use it.

I recommend converting all the .ogg files to .mp3 as this will make the files universally listenable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.42.245.54 (talk • contribs).

 * As practical as that would be, the patents on the mp3 format unfortunately make it impossible for Wikipedia to use mp3's. Out of the formats which are unencumbered by patents, Ogg Vorbis is by far the most widely supported. —Gabbe 23:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Qumran scroll Tetragrammaton
The caption currently reads "...The Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew can be clearly seen five times in this portion." I'm no scholar, so I didn't change it, but I count 6 of what may be the Tetragrammaton. On the 7 lines shown, (top=1, bottom = 7): line 2: twice line 5: once line 6: twice line 7: once?

Anyone who can actually read Hebrew, feel free to implement this change (if I'm actually correct).Mayor Of France 01:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm still curious, paleo-Hebrew readers/scholars, is it 5 or 6?Mayor Of France 00:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Definitely six. Eliyak 04:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hadavar
What is the source for the section on Had'var/Hadavar? I have never heard of that term used as a name of God by anyone, nor have I seen it in any traditional texts. --DLand TALK 00:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As nobody has responded to this, I have removed the sentence in the article that refers to Hadavar. --DLand TALK 21:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Señor DLand, I think that the name "HaDavar" might be the source for writing God's name as 'ד, although I have never heard it used, so it may be obsolete. Also, I find that non-Jews are veery interested in Jews writing "G-d" instead of "God," so I think you should put that back too. Eliyak 04:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Why was the bit about G-d removed, G-d redirects to this page. Epson291 03:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I tried to add something, but it needs to be edited. Epson291 04:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't YHVW Ja-O-Va?
In which case it should be translated into english as JOB. The book of JOB dealt with people that used the lords name, or more pressisly a name that sounded like the word "I Am", for their own benifit. Many names have many similairities, I have heard the middle easterners pronounce john similairly to Ja-O-Va{which incidently sylibalisticly means son of the light of the moon son of light, JOB that is]. So why don't people spell YHVW as JOB? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.14.129.251 (talk • contribs).

 * Because it's wrong. Try learning Hebrew, then you'll understand that איוב is nothing like the Tetragrammaton. — Gareth Hughes 11:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

YHWH Aleim merge proposal
Support given this is the article to inform on the subject--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 23:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Transliteration
Wikipedia should adopt a uniform Hebrew transliteration. I don't particularly care which one, but some of the translits on this page are different (elohe) for constructive plural gods? Also, it's hard to put my finger on, but for an article on Judaism, this article has a goyish tone to it.--71.93.234.180 (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

about judaism
not knowing s much s I would like about this religion I ask: Isn't the existence of this article some kind of profanity in the judaism? Aren't some names of god (and the same applyis to islamism) just too sacred to be teached to those who are not initiated, or, even worst, to any atheist? --Alexandre Van de Sande 17:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, one of the reasons for not writing the name of God is that so it will not be destroyed. As wikipedia is not paper, this does not apply to us.

טז ונקב שם יהוה מות יומת רגום ירגמו בו כל העדה כגר כאזרח--בנקבו שם יומת

וְנֹקֵ֤ב שֵׁם־יְהוָה֙ מֹ֣ות יוּמָ֔ת רָגֹ֥ום יִרְגְּמוּ־בֹ֖ו כָּל־הָעֵדָ֑ה כַּגֵּר֙ כָּֽאֶזְרָ֔ח בְּנָקְבֹו־שֵׁ֖ם יוּמָֽת׃

ויקרא 24:16  "He who blasphemes the name of Yahweh, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him: the foreigner as well as the native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death." Lev 24:16; Cf: Lev 24:11 for Moses Ruling capital punishment sentence on a son of an Egyptian father and Israelite mother; Outside the camp, Witnesses lay hands on the blasphemer's head, and let the congregation stone him. [User:bwildasi] Leviticus 24:16 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwildasi (talk • contribs) 20:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

 * The name of god (specifically, the tetragrammaton) is regarded with special reverance and is typically not used except under special circumstances (if at all). On the other hand, this is not a jewish encyclopedia, and we are not obligated to follow their custom of not displaying it. →Raul654 17:59, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

××× I think this is a truth with modification. I have in my possession a laser copy of a Victorian Mizrach (created 1870 - 1880 by the well-known German-Jewish graphic artist Henry Schile, who emigrated to the U.S.A.) where the sacred name of God,YHVH, is written in Hebrew characters immediately below the Magen David. I shall try to cut and paste it, so all of you can see what I mean. Also, according to one of the Rabbis on Aish.com, it is quite acceptable to write God, rather than G-d, because this word/name is English, not Hebrew, and it is therefore not included in the prohibition. Borsey379 20:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Note that Jewish encyclopedias also display and discuss the tetragrammaton. --Zappaz 01:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Learning and teaching are important in Judaism so an article like this, which serves to inform, would be smiled upon.

So, are we just saying now that Judaism has always been monothistic? Even though this flies in the face of evidence? So, these are all different names of the same god? Really? How convenient? When did that become so? What evidence do we have of that? Is it a normal thing to have several names for the same thing?

 * Well... to answer your question, I was going to look the answer up "online" - that is to say, on the "net" - I mean of course the "Internet" - sometimes referred to as the "Information Superhighway" - y'know, on the "World Wide Web", which we usually call the "Web"... To be less tongue-in-cheek, it's pretty common to have several terms to refer to a thing.  Moreso when the thing is important, and even moreso when the most exact name is proscribed, or even just in polite company requires euphemisms to avoid profanity. 207.103.48.236 19:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Dude, it's not cool to pop in and state something like "this flies in the face of evidence" and then give no evidence! People, and me up to a short time ago, took it for granted that Judaism has always been monotheistic.  But like Borsey below mentioned, all religions are constantly changing.  There's been some work done that indicates that the Jews who invaded and settled in Israel absorbed the religious traditions of the canaanites the previously lived there (they may have even co-existed?) The pantheon of Canaanite gods included El, Ashera, others.  And so if god sounds a little schizo in the old testament and they keep calling him by different names, it is because those are the stories of several different gods with different personalities that were adopted, mashed together, and reforged in to a monotheistic Jewish religion.

 * The web doesn't contain everything (especially the less popular stuff that doesn't sit well with people's fragile religious beliefs), apparently all that stuff I just said is contained in scholarly work including these books:
 * The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel
 * http://www.amazon.com/Early-History-God-Biblical-Resource/dp/080283972X/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product/104-8624789-2362320
 * Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel
 * http://www.amazon.com/Early-History-God-Biblical-Resource/dp/080283972X/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product/104-8624789-2362320

 * But I said scholarly work, and from just reading the little preview amazon let me have those look like a pain to read. Their references take up as much and more space on page as what the author actually wrote!  Anyone want to have a go at them?  I might someday... Barnetto 01:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

 * The internet and the world wide web are different things- the internet runs on the world wide web, which also is used by emails etc. Larklight 18:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to return to the point that was made in one of the previous posts. Is this Wiki entry suggesting that for example "El" is simply another name for the monotheistic "God" of contemporary Judaism? If it is I would like to see how this conclusion was drawn, as I have read a significant amount of information to the contrary. Even in the Old Testament we there are a number of references to other gods that were honored by the different tribes of Israel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

××× I would like to make the highly relevant point that Judaism is a very OLD religion, which has been in existence for some 4.000 years, and IT HAS EVOLVED and CHANGED considerably with the passage of time! Furthermore, it is STILL evolving and changing! The Torah was written over a very long period of time, and Judaism changed in that span of time. It is rather a sweeping generalization, really, to talk about "Judaism", as though it is one, single, unified faith, when the truth is, that there are a great many variant forms of Judaism. What is acceptable to the Reform Jews, or the English Progressive Jews, would perhaps not be acceptable to, say, the Hasidim, or even to the Conservative branch of Judaism. And, please, stop referring to it as the "Old Testamente"! In terms of Judaism, it is called the Torah! Borsey379 20:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am rather new to this whole wiki scene but happened to happily stumble across this discussion and would like to throw in my 2 cents on the subject of Judaism's alleged polytheistic origins. It seems to me that being born from dessert dwelling semi nomadic people, Judaism was probably originally a conglomeration of previous religions and tribal beliefs that were realized to be the work of one creator and merely different manifestations of the almighty. Much along the same lines as Hindu's view their myriad of gods as different transmogrifications of the god head. So i don't know if it is fair to claim the origins as polytheistic or to better to view their original concept of the creator as polythalamous. Of course this is all conjecture on my part, the true beginnings seem to be lost to forgotten history. (I haven't learned yet to put my electronic signature to documents but my wiki moniker is svaangus) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.207.156 (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The most complete record of whether the Jews were polytheistic or monotheistic is the Bible itself. Exodus 20:2-5 “I am Jehovah your God, who have brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slaves. 3 You must not have any other gods against my face. 4 “You must not make for yourself a carved image or a form like anything that is in the heavens above or that is on the earth underneath or that is in the waters under the earth. 5 You must not bow down to them nor be induced to serve them, because I Jehovah your God am a God exacting exclusive devotion...

The Jews at times worshipped the gods of the surrounding nations but this was never sanctioned as acceptable by either the Hebrew Scriptures or the Christian-Greek Scriptures. There are numerous acconts of reforms and cleansing of idol worship in the Hebrew Scriptures. This conflict between the unwavering monotheistic stance of the Law and the polytheisic influence of the surrounding cultures seems to have ended after the Jews were repatriated from Babylon c.530 b.c.e. True Abrahamic Judaism has always been monotheistic and that never changed. Many of the "names" listed are more like titles such as Lord, Judge and King. These titles were sometimes also given to other rulers and even gods. Who the titles refer to can be found in the context. For instance, Cyrus the Persian was called the "anointed one" (Isaiah 45:1) as was King Saul (2 Samuel 1:14), yet there was no doubt that neither of these was the promised messiah, also called the anointed one. To say that since some of the titles of God were used for other gods or people means the Jews were polytheistic is silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.233.22 (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

the case of the case

 * In many of the passages in which elohim [lower case] occurs in the Bible it refers to non-Israelite deities, or in some instances to powerful men or judges, and even angels (Exodus 21:6, Psalms 8:5).

What does "lower case" mean in Hebrew?! —Tamfang (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Lisa
Alleichem.. The prohibition of blasphemy, for which capital punishment is prescribed in Jewish law, refers only to the Tetragrammaton. Therefore, this is the Name of which is mpst integral to all others. Alleichem (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * That's lovely original research, Alleichem. You should start a blog, or write an article.  But on Wikipedia, we use reliable sources and eschew original research. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I'd be interested in the actual sources for this -- NOT Wikipedia articles. Also, unfortunately, the Torah and the Talmud are primary sources.  Although these are helpful, they cannot function as a source for the article.  Only notable and verifiable secondary sources can be used to give their interpretations.Tim (talk)
 * Those sources were removed a while ago. I'm concerned with the way this article makes Judaism look like a polytheistic faith. Judaism should be reaching out to secular Jews, not putting them off. To be critical, it's confusing and a lot of the wording is extremely bad. Alleichem (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Alleichem, both Tim and I are Orthodox Jews, but Wikipedia is not about kiruv. Nor do I agree that the article makes Judaism look polytheistic.  Could you explain what exactly makes it look polytheistic to you, and maybe we can iron out a version of the text that will satisfy your difficulties with it. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Listen for YHVW
I will delete the listen link for YHVW, as there are so many interpretations of how this should sound. To be fair to all sides we will have to create ogg files for every and each one of these interpretations. --Zappaz 16:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, horrible idea. (I've reverted). I'd prefer to have a sound and say that we're not sure it's correct than not to have one and say we don't know how. More informative is better than less informative. →Raul654 17:48, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * The way I pronounced it in the recording is (one of) the most common pronunciation. Since there is no single "correct" way to pronounce a word we're not supposed to pronounce, I agree with Raul. I'd be glad if we had recordings of other common ways to pronounce it, but there's no reason we shouldn't have the current one. Nadavspi | talk 18:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * OK. Then please add an appropriate disclaimer, so that it is clear we do not really know how this is pronounced. Thank you. --Zappaz 20:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I added additional language with this audiofile noting that playing it would be strongly discouraged for most Jews. I may not find it appropriate to include but with a disclaimer I think that at least leaves it's playing up to individual discretion and decision, something I certainly won't impose on others. Gabriel--Gabrielwhitestone (talk) 02:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

G-d
Should we not replace God in the article with G-d (this link goes to the 'God' page)? Of course, it explains in the article that this is not necessary - but should we not follow the lead of, for example Religious Studies Textbooks, Encyclopaedias and other Books. --A.K.A.47 16:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I can't think of any reason to do that, especially since we're not about to start going that on every page of Wikipedia. --Doradus 20:24, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't understand. The article is about the Names of God in Judaism - it doesn't imply the need to go to every page on Wikipedia to do this.  In Judaism, isn't it very common to spell the English name, G-d?  Isn't it a conscientious matter?  Do we really mean to block Jews with a conscience about this issue, from writing here on an issue that they are self-evidently passionate about?  or more to the point, is it necessary to be insensitive, in order to be neutral?  Mkmcconn (Talk)  23:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * It's not very common to spell God as G-d, since this is a custom found only among religious jews. Even the Jewish encyclopedia writes "God" not "G-d" . --Cypherx 00:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I've seen Catholics and Greek Orthodox also using G-d. BTW the so-called Jewish Encyclopedia is from 1910 and despite its name seems to mainly represent the views popular amongst atheists of the time. Kuratowski's Ghost 01:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I think is is better to keep it as is: "God", capitalized. --Zappaz 14:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

G-d is sometimes used in books so that should something happen to it the name of God will not be harmed. Since wikipedia isn't paper there is no problem here.

 * While I believe the previous poster was correct as to the original purpose of writing G-d in this way, I see little reason in continuing the practice. The English word God is not the Name of the Jewish god.  It is a generic word to describe a deity in a language that was created at least 3000 years after God purportedly told Moses His true name on Sinai.  As far as I know, many Orthodox authorities write God as such.  I believe the practice is related to the fact that writing the actual Tetragrammaton in Hebrew script is strongly discouraged because of its sanctity and the requirement that the document containing the Name never be destroyed, but afforded the honor of a deceased body (i.e. being buried in a Jewish cemetery).  However, this leads to another question: Does the fact that the Tetragrammaton appears in this article constitute a violation of this precept?  When I clear my browser's cache, will I be violating this principle by deleting the files that contain the written Name of God?  --Spem 05:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

No, as it would destroy His name and thereby, defeat the point of writing "G-d" in the first place. XYaAsehShalomX 12:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Regardless of whether this page should use the spelling "G-d", I think it should at least discuss that spelling, especially since G-d redirects here. As a Gentile, I don't understand enough of the details of the history of this usage to write the section myself, but I hope someone else can add a section on it. What is the first recorded instance of the spelling "G-d" in English? Do Jews do something similar in other languages (French "D--u", Russian "Б-г", Spanish "D--s", Yiddish "ג-ט", Hebrew "אם" etc.)? Angr (talk • contribs) 13:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Good question. In Hebrew, devout Jews do in fact substitute consonants so as not to use the Holy Name in a non-prayer context, but that sort of makes sense. I don't know about other languages. "Al_ah"? Gzuckier 18:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Jews are only allowed to write G-d, without the o. WIkipedia is probably just respecting the Jews since this is an article about Judaism.

××× I would like to refer all of you who have written above re "G-d" to the aish.com web site, click on "Ask the Rabbi" and call up the question "Writing the name". It appears that according to modern Rabbinic consensus, "God" is not a holy name, or word, as it is not Hebrew. Furthermore, when we type something on a p.c., it is being neither created, nor erased, as it is all just electro-magnetic impulses, which are being repeatedly created and destroyed, many times per minute. Therefore, it is quite all right to type God, or any other name for God, on a computer. Anyway, do read the question and answer; it is all very interesting. Any of you who are non-Jews, if you are interested in Judaism, you will find a great deal of interest on that site (and on Chabad.org)! Borsey379 20:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

From an inclusionary perspective using G-d instead of writing it out with the "o" in the middle would be more appropriate in this article. This will then not offend anyone, particularly as this is an article about Judaism, even if written and edited by goyim as well as Jews (in case I don't think to check back here and someone later asks or reacts, goyim is not a word with any negativity inherent in it, it simply means non-Jew.) While it is true that "G-d" is not the four letter name of Hashem specifically prohibited to be pronounced (which by the way, is a "clause" in the Christian bible as well, given that Tanakh is 2/3 of the Christian bible), it is still generally not written out fully by any observant Jew or even those respectful of the observance of others. This is because it is generally used in reference (at least casually) to the prohibited name. This practice generally extends to electronic publishing and correspondence as well as print material, except printed material used for religious purposes which is expected to be treated with the appropriate care so as to ensure that the name of G-d is never profaned by being destroyed/deleted, etc. In part the reason for using G-d in electronic correspondence and on websites is because while the website itself, or the email, is electronic, it can be printed. Most sites that do spell out G-d (I won't here) have a specific disclaimer asking those that might print anything from the site to take this into account if they do so in order to prevent profaning the name G-d. Note that using the word god in a lower case sense is not in reference to HaShem and can be used in reference to any "god" and therefore can be written out without issue. --Gabrielwhitestone (talk) 02:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Printing
Trying to print preview this pages causes Firefox to lock up. Is this some sort of encoding error? --CableModem^^ (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I notice delays in using Firefox to display the preview on the screen, but haven't tried an actual printout.--Gabrielwhitestone (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes
They are several problems which I have identified. The first being that of the mention of Jehovah. Why would we mention more about Jehovah, which is utterly disregarded as a philogical impossibility - over the more accurate Yahweh??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alleichem (talk • contribs) 10:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I found this:

It is also found in the King James Bible, the American Standard Version, the Darby Bible, Green's Literal Translation also known as the LITV, Young's Literal Translation, the 1925 Italian Riveduta Luzzi version, the MKJV [1998], the New English Bible and the New World Translation. Rotherham's Emphasized Bible [1902], the New Jerusalem Bible, the World English Bible [in the Public Domain without copyright], the Amplified Bible [1987], the Holman Christian Standard Bible [2003], The Message (Bible) [2002], and the Bible in Basic English [1949/1964], among others, are examples of translations that use the form "Yahweh" to one extent or another.

I know for a fact, that the term Jehovah is not found in some of these Bible's. Someone is clearly trying to rub the reputation of jehovah on Yahweh, or else doesn't know the difference between the two. I'm deleting the above paragraph, until someone can accurately compile a list of the Bibles using Jehovah amd the ones using Yahweh. Alleichem (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

 * The original writing seems to have been unclear. I appreciate your bringing this to everyone's attention so it could be clarified.Tim (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the section YHWH Tzevaot/Sabaoth be right after YHWH, as YHWH Tzevaot/Sabaoth is connected to YHWH? Also, Zebaot is referenced as one of the seven most important names of G-d for scribes to be careful with, yet there is no section discussing this name of G-d? That seems like a bit of an oversight, though even more disjoint, the section that appears in seems mostly repeated as the last section of the article (as of the writing of this comment) and those two sections should be combined. I have no idea how to create new sections or reorder sections so I can only post this suggestion for someone more wikipedia savvy. Thanks.--Gabrielwhitestone (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Names & Sephiroth
Does anyone know how the different names relate to the Sephiroth of Kabbalah? I know they do, I just don't know how... ThePeg (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't think they really do, directly. I mean, Elokim is considered to reflect the attribute of Din (justice), and the sephirah of Gevurah is sometimes associated with Din as well.  Similarly, the Tetragrammaton is associated with the attribute of Rachamim (mercy), and Tiferet is sometimes also called Rachamim.  But I think they're separate paradigms. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Not Notable

I'd like to hear the input of different contributors about this subject. Apparently, some Bibles such as the MJK Bible have a mention, and other Bibles that have nothing to do with the Tetragrammaton, yet under the Tetragrammaton section no Bible is mentioned that uses the Name Yahweh exclusively. For this reason I added the note of the SSBE, the most well-known Bible in the Sacred Name Movement which uses the Name Yahweh in the OT and NT.

It's important not to get carried away with the Jehovah Bibles, because it doesn't help. I thought that at least a mention of the SSBE was fitting, but the user Skywriter (Tim) does not agree. I'd like to hear other views about the section. See history page for details. Kiddish.K (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hashem
I cannot see the ne necessity of the of the POV-section|date=February 2008 and the Copyedit|date=February 2008 warnings in the section on Hashem! Can they be removed. All that is written there is solid and uncontroversial information, and there do not seem to be any style problems. How or who can remove them? Benqish (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Benquish, I agree with you and can't find anything in the history either but we may be missing some history or understandable controversies may have spilled over. POV-wise it might work to lead by describing the practice "Many Jews . . . " and follow with an explanation of why? Would you be up for that approach? I'm hoping someone can provide reasons for the warnings. Davispeace (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

True Name?
"To show the sacredness of the names of God, and as a means of showing respect and reverence for them, the scribes of sacred texts took pause before copying them, and used terms of reverence so as to keep the true name of God concealed."

Did they even know his true name? If not, this is POV conjecture. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a question and an answer. Who were the people that spoke to God? The only ones who ever knew His Name were the prophets. The rest were just hearsay. It should be a secret, to prevent people from using God's Name in vain. I believe there is creative power in speaking this Name and for us to know it would mean just that.

Extra closing bracket
Hi, in the section entitled Elohim, the following text contains an extra closing bracket:

The Jewish grammarians call such plurals … plur. virium or virtutum; later grammarians call them plur. excellentiae, magnitudinis, or plur. maiestaticus. This last name may have been suggested by the we used by kings when speaking of themselves (compare 1 Maccabees 10:19 and 11:31); and the plural used by God in Genesis 1:26 and 11:7; Isaiah 6:8 has been incorrectly explained in this way) [Emphasis added]. It is, however, either communicative (including the attendant angels: so at all events in Isaiah 6:8 and Genesis 3:22), or according to others, an indication of the fullness of power and might implied. It is best explained as a plural of self-deliberation. The use of the plural as a form of respectful address is quite foreign to Hebrew.

I'm not sure if the closing bracket should be deleted or if there needs to be a corresponding opening bracket added. Could someone please correct this? Thanks. --— Jclu: talk-contribs 04:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Psalm 8:5
Does someone know the meaning of the Hebrew word Elohim used in Psalm 8:5?

"You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor." (NIV tranlsation)

The New International Version English translation uses heavenly beings with a footnote denoting "Or than God". The New American Standard Bible English tranlsation uses God, as does the New Living Translation English translation with the following footnote: "Or Yet you made them only a little lower than the angels; Hebrew reads Yet you made him [i.e., man] a little lower than Elohim." Yet the King James Version English translation reads "a little lower than the angels".

As a Christian growing up in church, I grew accustomed to the KJV translation, and it wasn't until recently that I realized the usage of angels or heavenly beings was a translation choice. After reading Names of God in Judaism, I'm curious, now more than ever, about what the correct translation should be. To me, from a theological point of view, there's a lot of difference between man being made a little lower than the angels (or other heavenly beings) versus a little lower than God.

Thanks. — Jclu: talk-contribs 05:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Names of God in Judaism/Archive 1


text:
Politics of Korea

Politics of Korea may mean:
 * Politics of the Joseon dynasty, regarding the dynasty which ruled Korea from 1392 to 1897
 * Politics of North Korea
 * Politics of South Korea

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Politics of Korea


title: User:BigBen212/UtahCountyMaps


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PSYCH/Proposed decision

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.
 * Only items that receive a majority aye vote will be enacted.
 * Items that receive a majority nay vote will be formally rejected.
 * Items that do not receive a majority aye or nay vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were enacted.

On this case, 0 arbitrators is/are recused and 1 are inactive/away, so 6 votes are a majority.

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on.
 * For all items:

Motions and requests by the parties
Place those on the discussion page.

Proposed temporary injunctions
Four net aye votes needed to pass (each nay vote subtracts an aye) 24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template
1) {text of proposed orders}

 * Aye:

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

=Proposed final decision=

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}

 * Aye:

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

Avoid personal attacks
1) Wikipedia users are expected to avoid personal attacks on other users.

 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 17:31, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 18:04, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

Editing from anonymous IPs
2) Wikipedia users are welcome to edit from anonymously, but are encouraged to register and edit under a username (see Why create a account?). When controversies arise this helps with accountability.

 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 18:55, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 18:04, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

Proper use of article talk pages
3) Article talk pages on Wikipedia are for discussion of the article, what information might properly be included in the article, and sources of information regarding the subject; they are not forums for debate of the topic or issues related to the topic except where such debate has a potential impact on the content of the article.

 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 22:18, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 22:57, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC) - the wording satisfies me

 * Nay:
 * In a previous case, we ruled that Wikipedia articles do not contain all viewpoints, but only meritorious ones. As such, by our own logic, talk pages have to be used in some cases to discuss and debate. In practice, this is also quite common. →Raul654 18:01, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Raul has convinced me that this needs rewording at the least, and plays a small enough part in this decision to simply remove in this case -- sannse (talk) 22:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I've added: "...except where such debate has a potential impact on the content of the article". -- Grunt 🇪🇺 16:53, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
 * OK - unstruck vote above -- sannse (talk) 22:58, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain:

Content of Wikipedia articles
4) Wikipedia articles should contain information regarding the subject of the article; they are not a platform for advocacy regarding one or another point of view regarding the topic. Sweeping generalizations which label the subject of an article as one thing or another are inappropriate and not a substitute for adequate research regarding details of actual positions and actions which can speak for themselves.

 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 22:18, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 18:04, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

Personal viewpoints
5) Injection of personal viewpoints regarding the subject of an article is inappropriate and not to be resolved by debate among the editors of an article, but referenced from reputable outside resources. See No original research and Neutral point of view.

 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 22:18, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 18:04, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

 * Aye:

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

Personal attacks
1) User:PSYCH has made personal attacks on User:Xtra, see, , , and "liar"

 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 17:39, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 18:11, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

Anonymous ips
2) User:PSYCH has edited from a number of anonymous ips, including 203.134.133.52, 210.50.113.14, 210.50.249.123, 210.50.40.50, 210.50.41.212, 210.50.201.231, 210.50.218.97, 210.50.41.61, 210.50.45.7, 210.50.45.52 and 210.50.112.28 (links are to list of contributions; list may not be complete).

 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 18:47, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 18:11, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

Focus of controversy
3) The dispute between User:PSYCH (often editing anonymously) and User:Xtra and other users has centered on the article Liberal Party of Australia, and on its editing, especially with respect to whether that party may be appropriately described by the generalizations "conservative" or "neo-liberal." See Talk:Liberal Party of Australia and.

 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 19:09, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 18:11, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

Generalizations
4) Much of the discusion on Talk:Liberal Party of Australia has been about the meaning and appropriateness of such general labels as liberal, conservative and neo-liberal,, , , , , , ,

 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 19:55, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 18:11, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

Heated debate
5. As the discussion on the Talk:Liberal Party of Australia progressed, it became heated, with User:PSYCH comparing Wikipedia to Pravda or FOX News, see original edit copyedit. PSYCH later stated "you've shown to me that Wikipedia isn't about the truth anymore, but skewing the facts to trump up one's politcal party. What's the point of an encyclopedia when the information on each page is false and misleading and not even remotely neutral?"

 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 19:55, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 18:11, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

Reaction by other editors
6) The outburst by User:PSYCH met with responses by other users to the effect that they believed they were editing fairly, response by User:Mark, response by User:Xtra.

 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 19:55, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 18:11, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

Continued debate by PSYCH
7) User:PSYCH continued the debate, citing specific examples regarding appropriate use of generalizations such as neo-liberal, "To reiterate, the Liberals are clearly right-wing, conservative and not "neo-liberal." in any sense of the word".

 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 19:55, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 18:11, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

Australian Liberal Party policies
8) As the debate continued User:PSYCH focused particularly on certain Australian Liberal Party policies and actions he sees as "anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-immigration and pro-war policies"—issues which PSYCH takes as a touchstone with respect to the classification of the Party on the political spectrum,, and

 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 19:55, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 18:11, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

Insults and discourtesy toward PSYCH
9) User:Xtra and other have at time been either patronizing or insulting toward User:PSYCH, see "you are confused about what neoliberalism is: I suggest you take a look", "ridiculous claims and partial truths", "buy a dictionary", "I suggest you read Liberalism in Australia", "i am sick of replying to your distorted nonsense",  "get a life" and

 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 21:26, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) worthy of comment imo, if not of more than that in this case
 * mav 19:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Nay:
 * I'm not convinced these are severe enough to warrant comment (or even that they're overly patronising). Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * On second thought—agree with Ambi. Neutralitytalk 18:56, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * Abstain:

Using the talk page as a forum
10) User:PSYCH and other editors used Talk:Liberal Party of Australia as a discussion and debate forum rather than for discussing appropriate content of the article,, , , and

 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 21:26, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

Personal information regarding Xtra
11) User:PSYCH inserted information regarding User:Xtra's personal life into the debate with insults added and

 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 21:26, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 18:19, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

Archiving recent posts
12) User:Xtra archived a post of PSYCH's on Talk:Liberal Party of Australia shortly after it was posted, reverted, he archived it again.

 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 21:37, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 18:19, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

Threat to revert
13) User:Xtra, apparently frustrated with PSYCH's refractory attitude, treatened, "if you edit any article to push your POV, i [sic] will revert on the spot."

 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 21:50, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 18:19, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

Failure to research the topic and cite references
14) In general the discussion on Talk:Liberal Party of Australia lacks focus on research of the topic and citation of references with respect to the matters at issue. Only with the entry of User:Stirling Newberry after listing of the article on Requests_for_comment does the focus begin to change toward information resources which could be useful

 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 22:04, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 00:58, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Nay:
 * The argument seemed to stop, but I don't see that the focus of the discussion overly changed. Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Abstain:

PSYCH - personal attack parole
1) PSYCH is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week.

 * Aye:
 * Grunt 🇪🇺 01:04, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 02:00, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) seems rather long in this case - but... ok
 * I disagree with sannse - given how vicious and personal the attack were, this seems rather short. →Raul654 18:16, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

Xtra - admonished for personal attacks
2) Xtra is admonished not to respond in kind even to severely provocative personal attacks.

 * Aye:
 * These personal attacks were provoked, and did not really originate with Xtra. Grunt 🇪🇺 01:04, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 02:00, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 05:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Nay:
 * Delirium 04:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC) Don't think anything particularly reaches the level of even admonishment.
 * sannse (talk) 17:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) as Delirium says. On an unofficial note though, I'd suggest that Xtra should consider this a near miss and take care in future.
 * On reflection, agree with Delirium and sannse. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:55, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
 * Forget the near miss nonsense; I am impressed that Xtra put up with this abuse for so long. →Raul654 18:16, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * This case is about PSYCH, not Xtra. Neutralitytalk 06:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * This does not mean Xtra is free of all blame. Cases are not targeted at any one person and should cover all involved disputants. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 16:29, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
 * No, of course not. But there is no moral equivalency here. Neutralitytalk 18:54, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * Abstain:
 * I think some things (such as the archiving of a post) are perhaps worthy of a reprimand of this nature, but I don't think the current finding of fact warrants anything at all - they're fairly minor comments. Ambi 04:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}

 * Aye:

 * Nay:

 * Abstain:

=Discussion by Arbitrators=

Motion to close
Four net Aye votes needed to close case (each Nay vote subtracts an Aye) 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

Aye

 * Everything likely to pass has passed. Do not close before 17:57 2 Mar 2005. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:57, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
 * I think we can close - I don't think that more remedies are needed here. We have stated the principles that the editors should be working to, and stated where they have not done so - that's all I think is needed here for now -- sannse (talk) 01:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with these two. Ambi 04:12, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Reinstating Aye - vote effective 24hrs from time-stamp -- sannse (talk) 23:00, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 18:52, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 20:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * mav 19:35, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Reinstate "aye". -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:42, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

Nay

 * I'm not sure we have solved this problem. I would like to see some remedy which focuses on actual research from reliable references rather than throwing generalizations around. Fred Bauder 18:14, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm going to interpret this as a "nay" vote. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 18:18, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
 * Oh no, please not the research remedies again. It's a neutrality problem, not a research problem. The only thing that I'd potentially add to this is a ban on editing articles related to politics. Ambi 04:12, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Raul's asked for more consideration on PP 3 - so I'll withdraw my Aye for the moment
 * Thanks to Neutrality's last-moment pullout on FoF 9 everything is no longer passing. I cannot close the case at this time. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:44, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
 * I voted Aye. FoF now has enough votes to pass. --mav 19:35, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)


text:
Hanshan (poet)

Hanshan (, fl. 9th century) was a Chinese Buddhist monk, poet, and spiritual writer during the Tang dynasty. He was a Chinese Buddhist and Taoist figure associated with a collection of poems from the Chinese Tang dynasty in the Taoist and Chan tradition. No one knows who he was, when he lived and died, or whether he actually existed. In the Chinese Buddhist tradition, Hanshan and his sidekick Shide are honored as emanations of the bodhisattvas Mañjuśrī and Samantabhadra, respectively. In Japanese and Chinese paintings, Hanshan is often depicted together with Shide or with Fenggan, another monk with legendary attributes.

Little is known of his work, since he was a recluse living in a remote region and his poems were written on rocks in the mountains he called home. Of the 600 poems he is thought to have written at some point before his death, 313 were collected and have survived. Among the 57 poems attributed to Hanshan's friend, Shide, seven appear to be authored by Hanshan, for a total of 320.

Date
In Lüqiu Yin's preface to Hanshan's poems, he claims to have personally met both Hanshan and Shide at the kitchen of Guoqing Temple, but they responded to his salutations with laughter then fled. Afterwards, he attempted to give them clothing and provide them housing, but Lüqiu Yin writes that the pair fled into a cave which closed itself and Shide's tracks disappeared. This led Lüqiu Yin, governor of Tai Prefecture, to collect Hanshan's writings, "the poems written on bamboo, wood, stones, and cliffs and also to collect those written on the walls of peoples' houses." However, Burton Watson is of the opinion that Lüqiu Yin did not exist in reality and that his preface to Hanshan's poems is nothing more than myth. In the introduction to his book, he says of Lüqiu Yin's preface to the poems:

"[The preface], contrary to Chinese custom, is undated. Lu-chiu Yin represents himself as a high official and prefixes his name with a very imposing title. But there is only one mention of anyone by this name to be found in other works of the period, and it refers almost certainly to another person.  This fact alone is peculiar enough, if Lu-chiu Yin was in fact as high up in the bureaucracy as his title indicates.  Furthermore, the style of the preface, awkward and wordy, hardly suggests the writing of an eminent official.  All other sources that tell us anything about Han-shan and Shih-te appear to be later than the preface and based upon it.  For all we know, therefore, the whole picture of the two recluses built up in the preface may be nothing more than literary fiction.  The poems, however, remain — over three hundred of them....If the reader wishes to know the biography of Han-shan, he must deduce it from the poems themselves."

If we follow Watson and discount the preface of Lüqiu Yin, accepting only the words of the poet himself, we see that Hanshan says only that he wrote his poems on the rocks. Nowhere in the poetry does he say that he wrote them on trees or bamboo or wood or the walls of people's houses.

The collection of poems attributed to Hanshan may span the entire Tang dynasty as Edwin G. Pulleyblank asserts in his study Linguistic Evidence for the Date of Hanshan. Wu Chi-yu in A study of Han-shan identifies him as the monk Zhiyan (智岩, 577–654), but that has been disputed by Paul Demiéville among others. The Encyclopedia of China gives his date as around 712 and after 793. Jia Jinhua came to the conclusion, after a study of Chan phrases in some 50 of the poems, that this particular group of poems may be attributable to the Chan monk Caoshan Benji (840–901). However, the dates for both Zhiyan and Caoshan Benji contradict Hanshan, who says that he was much older than either.

Translations
Early translations include those by Arthur Waley 27 poems by Han-shan, Gary Snyder Cold Mountain Poems, and Burton Watson Cold Mountain: 100 Poems.

The first complete translation to a western language was into French by (Le Mangeur de brumes : l'œuvre de Han-shan poète et vagabond). Stephan Schumacher translated 150 poems into German in 1980.

There are four full English translations, by Robert G. Henricks, Red Pine, Paul Rouzer and Peter Levitt

Other translations: Encounters With Cold Mountain, by Peter Stambler (130 poems). Cold Mountain Transcendental Poetry (96 poems) by Wandering Poet (2005, 2012).

Biography
In the introduction to his translation of Han-shan's poems, Burton Watson writes, “If the reader wishes to know the biography of Han-shan, he must deduce it from the poems themselves.” Watson goes further to describe Han-shan as "a gentleman farmer, troubled by poverty and family discord, who after extensive wandering and perhaps a career as a minor official" became a hermit. In Paul Rouzer's translation of poem 302, Han-shan appears to say that after leaving home and traveling he arrived at Tiantai Mountain at age 30, and that he was trained in the Confucian classics:

A fanciful description of Han-shan is given by Lüqiu Yin in the introduction that is included in most editions of Han-shan's poems.

During his journey to his prefect appointment, Lüqiu Yin writes, he was visited by Fenggan, who said that he came from the Guoqing monastery. When Lüqiu Yin, who suffered from a headache, asked Fenggan to cure him, Fenggan laughed and said, "The human body consists of but four great elements, and illness is only illusion," then sprinkled water onto Lüqiu Yin, curing him instantly.

Lüqiu Yin then asked if there were any sages worthy of becoming of his tutor and Fenggan revealed that at Guoqing monastery were two Bodhisattva incarnations. The first, Han-shan, a man retired to the monastery, was, Fenggan said, an incarnation of Manjushri; the second, Shide, a man who "looked like a demented beggar coming and going, worked as an errand-boy at the stoves in the kitchen", was an incarnation of Samantabhadra.

Three days after arriving at his government appointment, Lüqiu Yin asked his chief administrator if there were any information about Han-shan and Shide. The administrator reported that "seventy li (approximately 35 km) to the west of the town of T'ang-hsing, there was a cliff where a poor scholar lived. This scholar was said to be seen going to the Kuo-ch'ing Monastery." Lüqiu Yin went to the monastery and asked where Fenggan, Han-shan, and Shide were living. The monks there told him that Fenggan lived behind the library, but now it was haunted by a tiger who often accompanied him. Lüqiu Yin visited Fenggan's room but all he found was a "house full of the tiger's footprints." When he asked what Fenggan was hired to do, the monks said that Fenggan was assigned to hull rice for the monks and would spend his nights singing to amuse himself.

Lüqiu Yin writes that no one knows where Han-shan came from. He relays descriptions of the poet given by elders from Guoqing Temple who said that Hanshan was "a poor and eccentric hermit" who "often went to the Kuo-ch'ing Monastery in order to take home the left-overs of the meal, which he carried in a bamboo tube given to him by Shih-te, a monk working in the dining-hall."

"Sometimes Han-shan would stroll for hours in a long corridor of the monastery, cry cheerfully, laugh or speak to himself. When he was taken to task or driven away by some of the monks armed with sticks, he would afterwards stand still and laugh, clapping his hands, and then disappear." Lüqiu Yin says that his appearance was that of "an emaciated beggar, but every word he uttered was pithy, meaningful and inspiring. He wore a cap make of birch bark, a simple fur garment, torn and threadbare, and wooden sandals for shoes."

Lüqiu Yin found Han-shan and Shide in the monastery kitchen, where he respectfully made obeisance to them. At sight of this, the two laughed and said, "Feng-kan has a long tongue. You did not recognize Maitreya at sight, why are you making obeisance to us now?" As Han-shan and Shide left hand in hand, the monks were stunned to see such a high official make obeisance to two poor scholars. Lüqiu Yin had two sets of clean clothing prepared and asked the monks to give them to Han-shan and Shide should they ever return. Lüqiu Yin later learned that the two hadn't reappeared at the monastery and had the presents delivered to their dwellings on Tiantai Mountain. When Hanshan saw these delivery men, it is said, he cried "Thieves! Thieves!" and retreated to a cave entrance, exclaiming, "Each of you should exert himself to the utmost," and withdrew into the cave, which closed itself behind him. Han-shan and Shide were never seen again at Guoqing temple.

Lüqiu Yin had all the writings left behind by Han-shan and Shide collected. Han-shan had written on rocks, bamboo bark, trees, and the walls of houses in neighboring villages, and Shide had written a 49-line poem on the wall of an Earth God temple.

Poetry
Hanshan's poetry consists of Chinese verse, in 3, 5, or 7-character lines; never shorter than 4 lines, and never longer than 34 lines. The language is marked by the use of more colloquial Medieval Vernacular Sinitic than almost any other Tang poet. The poems can be seen to fall into three categories: the biographical poems about his life before he arrived at Cold Mountain; the religious and political poems, generally critical of conventional wisdom and those who embrace it; and the transcendental poems, about his sojourn at Cold Mountain. They are notable for their straightforwardness, which contrasts sharply with the cleverness and intricateness that marked typical Tang dynasty poetry.

Red Pine poem 283:
 *  Mister Wang the Graduate
 *  laughs at my poor prosody.
 *  I don't know a wasp's waist
 *  much less a crane's knee.
 *  I can't keep my flat tones straight,
 *  All my words come helter-skelter.
 *  I laugh at the poems he writes-
 *  a blind man's songs about the sun!

(All these terms refer to ways a poem could be defective according to the rigid poetic structures then prevalent.)

Thematically, Hanshan draws heavily on Buddhist and Taoist themes, often remarking on life's short and transient nature, and the necessity of escape through some sort of transcendence. He varies and expands on this theme, sometimes speaking of Mahayana Buddhism's 'Great Vehicle', and other times of Taoist ways and symbols like cranes.

The following poem begins with the imagery of the burning house and the three carts from the Parable of the Burning House found in The Lotus Sutra, then ends with typical Zen and Taoist imagery of freedom from conceptualizations.

Red Pine poem 253:
 *  Children, I implore you
 *  Get out of the burning house now.
 *  Three carts await outside
 *  to save you from a homeless life.
 *  Relax in the village square
 *  Before the sky, everything's empty.
 *  No direction is better or worse,
 *  East just as good as West.
 *  Those who know the meaning of this
 *  are free to go where they want.

This mixed influence is probably due to the high preponderance of Taoists and Buddhists in the same area. The eminent Taoist Ge Hong acclaimed Mount Tiantai as 'the perfect place for practicing the arts of immortality,' which is probably also why so many Buddhist temples were established in the vicinity as well.

Red Pine poem 13:

 * "Brothers share five districts;
 *  father and sons three states."
 *  To learn where the wild ducks fly
 *  follow the white-hare banner!
 *  Find a magic melon in your dream!
 *  Steal a sacred orange from the palace!
 *  Far away from your native land
 *  swim with fish in a stream!

Many poems display a deep concern for humanity, which in his view stubbornly refuses to look ahead, and short-sightedly indulges in all manner of vice, like eating animal flesh, piling up sins 'high as Mount Sumeru'. But he holds out hope that people may yet be saved; 'Just the other day/ a demon became a Bodhisattva.'

Red Pine poem 18:
 *  I spur my horse past ruins;
 *  Ruins move a traveler's heart.
 *  The old parapets high and low
 *  The ancient graves great and small,
 *  The shuddering shadow of a tumbleweed,
 *  The steady sound of giant trees.
 *  But what I lament are the common bones
 *  unnamed in the records of immortals.

While Hanshan eschewed fancy techniques and obscure erudition, his poems are still highly evocative at times: Red Pine poem 106:
 *  The layered bloom of hills and streams
 *  Kingfisher shades beneath rose-colored clouds
 *  mountain mists soak my cotton bandana,
 *  Dew penetrates my palm-bark coat.
 *  On my feet are traveling shoes,
 *  My hand holds an old vine staff.
 *  Again I gaze beyond the dusty world-
 *  what more could I want in that land of dreams?

He is hard to pin down religiously. Chan concepts and terminology sometimes appear in his work. But he criticized the Buddhists at Tiantai, and he directed criticism at Taoists as well, having had no problem bringing Taoist scriptural quotations, and Taoist language when describing his mountains, into his poems. Yet, he does not mince words but tells us precisely where to find the path to Heaven.

Red Pine poem 117:
 *  I deplore this vulgar place
 *  where demons dwell with worthies.
 *  They say they're the same,
 *  but is the Tao impartial?
 *  A fox might ape a lion's mien
 *  and claim the disguise is real,
 *  but once ore enters the furnace,
 *  We soon see if it's gold or base.

Red Pine poem 246:
 *  I recently hiked to a temple in the clouds
 *  and met some Taoist priests.
 *  Their star caps and moon caps askew
 *  They explained they lived in the wild.
 *  I asked them the art of transcendence;
 *  they said it was beyond compare,
 *  and called it the peerless power.
 *  The elixir meanwhile was the secret of the gods
 *  and that they were waiting for a crane at death,
 *  or some said they'd ride off on a fish.
 *  Afterwards, I thought this through
 *  and concluded they were all fools.
 *  Look at an arrow shot into the sky-
 *  How quickly it falls back to earth.
 *  Even if they could become immortals,
 *  They would be like cemetery ghosts.
 *  Meanwhile, the moon of our mind shines bright.
 *  How can phenomena compare?
 *  As for the key to immortality,
 *  Within ourselves is the chief of spirits.
 *  Don't follow Lords of the Yellow Turban
 *  persisting in idiocy, holding onto doubts.

The following poem is attributed to Hanshan's friend, Shide.

 *  The higher the trail the steeper it grows
 *  Ten thousand tiers of dangerous cliffs
 *  The stone bridge is slippery with green moss
 *  Cloud after cloud keeps flying by
 *  Waterfalls hang like ribbons of silk
 *  The moon shines down on a bright pool
 *  I climb the highest peak once more
 *  To wait where the lone crane flies

Red Pine's poem 307:

 *  Whoever has Cold Mountain's poems
 *  is better off than those with sutras.
 *  Write them up on your screen
 *  and read them from time to time.

Legacy
The poetry from Cold Mountain has influenced the poets of many generations and cultures. He is especially loved by the Japanese, who know him as Kanzan. Hanshan was a sympathetic and important figure for Beat Generation writers Gary Snyder and Jack Kerouac. In the introduction to his translation which appeared in the Evergreen Review, Snyder wrote of Hanshan, "He and his sidekick Shih-te (Jittoku in Japanese) became great favorites with Zen painters of later days — the scroll, the broom, the wild hair and laughter. They became Immortals and you sometimes run into them today in the skidrows, orchards, hobo jungles, and logging camps of America." Kerouac's The Dharma Bums closes with a vision of Hanshan and, at Snyder's suggestion, Kerouac dedicated the book to the fabled poet.

Paul Rouzer reads the poems as Buddhist teaching poems, referring to Hakuin Ekaku Kanzan shi sendai kimon 寒山詩闡提記聞 (1746) ("Notes on the Lectures on Cold Mountain's Poems at Icchantika Cave") that largely ignores the biographical reading most commonly found in other sources.

Translations by Snyder and by Red Pine were influential in the work of the artist Brice Marden, who executed a large series of paintings, drawings, and prints themed around the poems.

Poems by Hanshan influenced music by the Microphones and Mount Eerie, both fronted by Phil Elverum.

title: Hanshan (poet)


text: Category:Politics of South Korea

title: Category:Politics of South Korea


text:
User:Metaphorman

Hello, I'm the metaphorman. By trade, I am a software developer, professional author, and wanna be Hollywood screenwriter.

I'm a newbie here, as of Feb 17, 2005....

title: User:Metaphorman


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World of Nixon

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

World of Nixon
Antaeus Feldspar tagged this, but apparently didn't finish up. Looks like a non-notable website advertisement to me; 61 unique google hits, of which about a third aren't relevant. —Korath (Talk) 03:22, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. As it is now, it is just an ad to a web site. Zzyzx11 05:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Not Delete. Its a little backround information on one of the few great art sites on the web ran by one person. Radioactivemonkey 11:07, 19 Feb 2005 (EST) -- Radioactivemonkey has five edits, all to his user page or to this VfD.
 * Sorry I didn't finish the original VfD; I was having browser trouble and didn't even realize until this morning that the tagging of the original article had actually completed. My vote is Delete, for the reasons Korath expressed so well. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain. I have been sent notice of the existance of this page (I am the creator of the website in question). While I would admittedly not mind a constructive or philosophical discussion of the themes in my project in a wikipedia entry, I do not see the current entry in a positive light (it is more of an anti-ad, inflammatory and does not portray my project in an objective light). So, I accept either rewrite/expansion or deletion, whatever the others choose - I will not edit this entry myself because I would be biased (even though I would be greatly tempted to). (NOTE: I did make the referrer to "World of Nixon" from "World of nixon", because I hate the mix of small and large letters. I did not write any of the content of the entry, though, nor did I originally create it). -- splattergnome.
 * Delete. Non-notable.  RickK 00:41, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * With 278 google hits, I'm afraid the site is not very notable. Delete. Radiant! 10:27, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Talk:Hanshan (poet)

Speculation on existence
Is it possible to include information on the speculative nature on the reality of his existence? After all, his corpus of material was gathered by a single person (Lu Qiuyin): it could be possible that Lu simply made the identity of Han Shan up rather than discovering his poetry.

Literary context
This needs literary context. --maru 10:22 PM Friday, 18 February 2005

Critical writings
I have added a paragraph with some discussions about the Hanshan-figure. Vragebugten

Japanese
We dont need a japanese translation!

Self-published sources and self-promotion
The author pseudonym Wandering Poet ( presumably who admits to be the same person as User:Wandering Poet) occurs no fewer than 15 times in the current article text. His self-published (see Lulu.com/wanderingpoet) work, Cold Mountain Transcendental Poetry, is referenced in 30 citations in the article. Per WP:SPS, self-published material is not acceptable as a source. Since editor Wandering Poet has been adding his own translations in some 90 edits over the last two years, ridding this article the undesirable material is going to take a considerable amount of work. All assistance would be appreciated. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 09:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I've done quite a bit, but the Biography section remains problematical. It was added en bloc with this edit by user Wandering Poet (Edit summary: "I have used words from the poems of Han-shan, from my own translation, to create his auto-biography"). While it would be unfortunate to leave the article with no Biography section, if it consists entirely of unsourced original research, then there is no choice. Has anyone any constructive proposals? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Self-published sources are acceptable, as your own link says, Bagworm. The question is, is Wandering Poet the good or bad kind of SPS? Before we tear out a huge chunk of the article, perhaps that should be answered. --Gwern (contribs) 20:09 28 May 2013 (GMT)

 * Per WP:SPS the only exceptional case where self-published sources are acceptable is as follows: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." There is no evidence to suggest that this is the case, and in the absence of such evidence we have no choice but to assume that he is the "bad kind", to use your words. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Why should we assume that? Nothing he's added seems outright wrong or objectionable for other reasons. (I say this as the editor who wrote this article in the first place, in case you don't recognize my nick from the history.) Assuming bad faith as a reason to massively reduce the quality of the article seems like the sort of thing that should bear the burden of proof here. --Gwern (contribs) 21:02 31 May 2013 (GMT)

 * Gwern, I know you're an experienced editor, and this has nothing to do with assuming bad faith. It has everything to do with Verifiability, the cornerstone of this entire project. Unsourced content does not need to be "objectionable for other reasons" to be objectionable, and this is all the more true for material bearing all the marks of wp:self-promotion by an exclusively self-published writer.

That writer's latest edit is suspicious for the following reason: he has simply substituted 12 references (unpaged) to Watson where I had removed reference to his own Lulu- (i.e. self-)published book. Is it not stretching credulity a little to assert that all of the detailed material originally sourced to the editor's own book was all the time actually supported directly by the text of Watson's? Without page numbers this is effectively unverifiable. Do you (or anyone else reading here) have a copy of Watson (Cold Mountain: 100 Poems by the T'ang Poet Han-shan (1970), tr. Burton Watson, Columbia University Press ISBN 0-231-03450-4)? If so, can you please supply the page numbers to the references missing them? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

 * More: Checking the preview of Wandering Poet's book on GBooks, I've found on page 8 “With my son I gather wild fruit, I hoe the rocky field with my wife”, which the editor has ascribed to Watson. On the same page: “One or two heavenly books I read, mumbling, beneath the pines.” And "He becomes increasingly lonely. In the modern world, he sees selfishness and greed, ignorance and corruption. Nothing has changed in a thousand years. Disappointed with life and his fellow man, he becomes withdrawn, sinks into poverty and depression." On an unnumbered page, we find “Cold Mountain is hidden in white clouds, It’s peaceful to be cut off from the busy world.” I could go on, but I think the situation is already quite clear. The author's latest approach is to include his own writing in the article and pass it off as Watson's. Under the circumstances I propose to delete most or all of the Biography section as its contents are entirely untrustworthy. Any counter-proposals before I go ahead? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Done. It would be great if someone with access to reliable sources could expand the Biography section. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hanshan (poet)