text:
Talk:Susan Foreman

Comments
I only have one question...do you stop being a grandfather (or father) just because your offspring is deceased?
 * Dr Constantine seemed to think so, and the Doctor was empathising. --khaosworks 09:42, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Race
It is currently unknown if Susan is actually from the race Time Lord/Lady, she could merely just be from the planet Gallifrey. Most people think that you have to attend the Academy to be a Time Lord/Lady and there is no evidence that Susan ever attended. Thus there is no real evidence that Susan is a Time Lord/Lady so it was changed to reflect that she is merely from Gallifrey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.73.234 (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I believe she should be changed to "Gallifreyan" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.169.144 (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Granddaughter
The article currently says "...Although it was never explicitly stated that she was the Doctor's biological granddaughter..." I don't think this quite is true/and/or/makes sense - surely Susan & and the Doctor explicity refer to each other onscreen as "grandfather" and "granddaughter" in virtually every story. And surely the word "granddaughter", spoken in English without further qualification, always means "biological granddaughter"? If you want to qualify it, you say "adopted grandfather" or "my stepfather's dad" etc etc. Wouldn't it be more accurate to have a sentance in the article "Although Susan continually refers on screen to the Doctor as her 'grandfather', some fans have speculated that this should not be taken literally to imply a biological relation" or somesuch?--feline1 16:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "Biological granddaughter" is certainly the default meaning of "granddaughter". I also agree that the article should first reflect the clear intentions of the original production team, and deal with fans' later interpretations afterwards.  I'll see what I can do. —Josiah Rowe 18:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Another possible origin
As the Doctor stated many times before, one cannot go back in one's own personal history so this possible origin VV is impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.142.136 (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: This theory has absolutely no basis and/or support, but since this theory has been discussed on several sites before, I thought I might share it.

Let's just say...hypothetically...that the Doctor and Rose Tyler have a child. Now, the depths of time and space are no place for a child, but with all of the Timelords gone, where can she go? Easy--to the last remaining timelord...HIMSELF.

So the Doctor travels back and meets with his former self (the 1st Doctor) and gives him the child. As he raises Susan, he tells her that she is his granddaughter...and because of his age, she does not question this.

If this were the case, though, we would have to assume that the Doctor knew that he would fall in love with Rose all along. Opinions? -- P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 19:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Ew. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Ew what? I am confusèd. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 00:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Susan could hypothetically be the daughter of the Doctor's daughter from The Doctor's Daughter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Or, just as hypothetically, Susan could have been created from the DNA of The Doctor's Daughter (Jenny) in much the same way that Jenny was created from the Doctor's DNA... of course, as I write this, we have no idea what Jenny is up to - but the episode certainly left the character available for a return visit. On the other hand, IF either of these interesting hypotheses were true, then presumably the (first) Doctor would have been aware of Susan's origins - and so the (tenth) Doctor would have been somewhat less surprised at Jenny's appearance? This is starting to get confusing (I love this show :-) DrVxD (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"Fans are incorrect"
wrote:

"These fans are in the minority and would seem to be incorrect. As stated above, in the episode Fear Her, the Doctor reveals he was a father once. Susan would hence be the offspring of the Doctor's child or one of the Doctor's children."

My difficulties with this are several:

 * "These fans are in the minority..." - needs cite; no census has been taken, and given the popularity of the "Other" theory, this may not actually be the case.

 * "would seem to be incorrect." - This is POV, production team intentions notwithstanding (since Hinchcliffe, for one, intended there to be incarnations before the First Doctor and we know how that turned out). We should not place a definitive statement; people can figure out for themselves if this theory is incorrect.

 * "Susan would hence be the offspring of the Doctor's child or one of the Doctor's children." - Not necessarily. Although the default meaning of grandfather or father (as the case may be) is biologically, you can still be a grandfather without biological descent. People don't normally call their step-grandfathers "Step-Grandfather". In fathers by marriage, the use of "father" rather than "stepfather" is equally common, given the fairy-tale negative connocations of "step-mother". But again, this calls for a conclusion coming from the earlier "Doctor reveals he was a father once"; as the former is already mentioned, this conclusion is not necessary — the reader can figure it out for themselves. They're smart people. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

 * For a start, the title of this section of the discussion page has taken my words out of context, with no ellipse between 'are' and 'incorrect', and implies that you are trying to inflame the discussion or provoke a reaction. Anyway, in response to your points:

 * The minority point comes from the fact that most literature, references, documentaries etc. give Susan as being the biological granddaughter of the Doctor. The 'Other' theory is irrelevant as it is non-canonical, or 'fanonical' at best. However, I must concede that I cannot provide a citation to support my claim.

 * I disagree that that is POV - 'would seem to be' covers those who disagree.

 * It is also uncommon for one to usurp one's granddfather by using this name for a following step-grandfather. Again, as you say of my earlier point 'no census has been taken', so neither of us know for sure how normal or common the use of these terms is. Whilst I take your point that the note has been made earlier and so may not require direct repetition here, I think that the speculative fan points are more worthy of removal. Why should they be included just because some fans, whom I still believe to be a minority, are uncomfortable with the idea that the Doctor has had sex? -- Finallycreatedaccount 04:37, 25 June 2006

 * I'm not removing it to pander to any fan sensibilites; for the record I am firmly in the camp of those who believe Susan is the biological granddaughter of the Doctor. My point is that without a cite, those statements are indeed POV. "would seem to be incorrect" is POV because it comes down on one side without mentioning the other. At best, the line should be "unclear" or "debatable" or some such to be neutral. The "Other" theory, while canonicity is unclear, is much more than fanon - it is the basis for the Cartmel Masterplan as well as the New Adventures. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I consider the 'Other' theory non-canonical as it never came to fruition on screen, despite its links with the Cartmel Masterplan. As you mentioned earlier, Hinchcliffe intended the First Doctor not to have been the first - whilst being the theory of a programme maker this has been contridicted on screen. Whilst fan media may contradict the programme makers intentions to have Susan as the biological granddaughter, something I see you agree with, to my knowledge it has not been contradicted on screen - correct me if I'm wrong, people...I'm sure someone will find something... -- Finallycreatedaccount 16:14, 25 June 2006

 * Isn't it correct to say that the show has never suggested a relationship other than the stated one between Susan and the Doctor? Yallery Brown 00:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I would just like to point out, that the 11th Doctor's reply of "No" was in response to the baby Melody Pond (he speaks baby) and not to Amy's question of family - or at the very least it is purposefully ambiguous as to whether he was answering Amy or the baby...however it's pretty obviously the baby given the pains made to connect the nu-Who Doctors as the same man we have seen from Classic Who and the character of the Doctor has mentioned both having family and of course the whole Grandaughter debate. I should think that her NOT being his Grandaughter was never made explicit on screen, and as much as the actor playing a character has any clout in determining that character's fictional existence, Carole Anne Ford has always been adamant that she was the Doctor's GRANDAUGHTER and not just his first companion. signed MadProphet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.147.242.234 (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Dimensions in Time
Why was Dimensions in Time removed from this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ken Arromdee (talk • contribs) 07:22, August 28, 2006 (UTC)

 * Dunno, but it was obviously restored at some point. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

More on granddaughter
Considering the extremely long life that the Doctor has had, and the fact that he can almost always be found surrounded by young women, I am sure he has a plethora of children out there (acknowledged and perhaps unacknowledged). I really don't see what all the fuss is about as to whether or not Susan could be his grand-daughter or not. She says she is, he says she is, and she's the same race as he. --68.154.71.137 20:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

 * You're right that Occam's razor would strongly suggest that she is his granddaughter — but the problem stems from certain aspects of Doctor Who fandom and production in the 1980s. As odd as it may seem nowadays, when the Doctor "dances" with any pretty blonde who passes his way, in the 1980s it was a cardinal rule of Doctor Who, often stated by the show's producer in the press, that "there is no hanky-panky in the TARDIS".  There was a widespread assumption that the Doctor was asexual, an assumption which the production team encouraged.  One obvious problem with this view of the character, though, was the existence of Susan — if the Doctor has a granddaughter, then presumably he must have had sex at some point.  Therefore, two different script editors came up with different stories explaining how Susan "wasn't really the Doctor's granddaughter".  Lots of Doctor Who fans at the time agreed with the premise of an asexual Doctor, and so were happy to explain Susan away.  Things are different now, but that's why it was historically an issue. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I think that the whole "asexual" thing is misunderstood. Given the portrayal of the Doctor, Time Lords are far smarter than humans, far far smarter. If you think there are difficulties with a 30-year old adult having a relationship with a 20-year old, just imagine the vast difference between a 20-something and a 900-something. Since humans look like Gallifreyans, of course there could be a physical attraction. But assuming the Doctor is past the "nail anything that moves" phase most teenagers of any species should go through, he'd likely be beyond interest in a "friend with benefits." To put it in human terms, how many people would be interested in sleeping with a beautiful 20-year old woman whose mental development is the same as a five-year old? Sure, some would be interested but to me that would seem an awful lot like pedophilia.
 * But that's all just a canon rationalization, just like "the TARDIS being hard to fly" is the canon rationalization for why the Doctor winds up in crazy places. In reality, we know that's just because it makes for fun stories to write. The real world reason for "no hanky panky in the TARDIS" is that this isn't what the show is about. Doctor Who is about goofy fun scifi for the whole family. It has to be safe enough for parents to show the kids and well-written enough to keep the older set engaged. Who does this brilliantly. Sure, raunchy humor can be done well. I've seen excellent examples of shows aimed explicitly at being erotic, others that try to work through the emotional turmoil of realistic relationships, etc. But that's not Who. Imagine if someone took Sex and the City and threw space aliens into it. Actually, seeing the fan reaction to that would be hysterical but it would still be rude. :) --Gmuir 16:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Intent
In Background is this sentence:

The original outline for the series did not intend for the pair to be related, but writer Anthony Coburn created the family tie as he was disturbed by the possible sexual connotations of an old man travelling alone with a teenage girl.

And yet, in Relationship to the Doctor, is this:

...it is clear that the original programme-makers' intent was that the two were biologically related.

These statements contradict themselves; either originally they intended her to be his granddaughter, or they didn't. Which is true? Neither have citations - Weebiloobil 20:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This appears to have been corrected, though I don't know who by - c'est la vie - Weebiloobil (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Jenny
In Series 4 Episode 6, We meet Jenny, who is the doctors daughter, it is unknown if she is the doctors biologoical daughter yet because the episode has not yet aired, should we add something about jenny to this article? Harmless 77 (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably best to wait until we learn if Jenny is Susan's mother or aunt. DonQuixote (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Jenny isn't his daughter as such, she's cloned from his DNA. 86.135.209.39 (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously she is not a "clone", as she is not genetically identical. The doctor refers to her as his "daughter", and she refers to him as "dad", which is, at the very least, sufficient for a premise that a daughter of hers would be regarded as the Doctor's grand-daughter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And if I were given the chance, I'd make sure she eventually grew up to have a little girl named "Susan" and that Jenny arranged to have Dad take care of Susan for at least a time.173.12.172.149 (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Target novelizations
I don't have any of the Target books anymore, but I remember reading one or two in the early '80s (I don't remember which story or stories, or know when the books were written) where they wrote Susan thinking of the Doctor as "the man she called Grandfather", which would imply that maybe he wasn't. Does anyone else recall anything like this? --Logotu (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC) PS: My pet theory was perhaps she was actually his daughter.

 * Timelords live so long that The Doctor and Susan could be brother and sister. She would just be calling him grandfather to hide the age difference from humans.  Just a thought.   Andrew Swallow (talk) 05:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

 * It was probably the novelisation of either the Dalek Invasion of Earth or the Five Doctors, both by Terrance Dicks. Contrary to some of the claims above the idea that Susan wasn't actually the Doctor's granddaughter has been around since at least 1972 when it was introduced in The Making of Doctor Who by Dicks and Malcolm Hulke, notably leaving her out completely in the chapter on the Doctor's origins and suggesting it was just a term of endearment elsewhere (in fact the complete lack of any mention of Susan in the War Games suggests that as early as 1969 the same authors did not feel any need to adhere to her being his actual granddaughter) and Dicks continued to push this in subsequent years in his novelisations and the script for The Five Doctors. The Making, even more than many of the actual episodes, had a massive impact when fandom started organising itself in the next few years and often became the gospel word on canon even either it contradicted stuff from before Dicks's time on the show or when subsequent episodes disagreed with it. Come the 1980s it, via a fan continuity adviser, seems to have become one of the bedrocks of continuity followed by the production office in that decade. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

An Earthly Child and The Forgotten
An Earthly Child has already been released, so please don't revert that. Also, Appearances in other media is a list of appearances with occasional summaries of the appearances themselves that affect the character described within this article. Please don't revert unless you can explain why the additional detail is necessary for this article. DonQuixote (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"Name of the Doctor" appearance?
Since I did the first entry back in May 2013, I thought it would be worthwhile to have discussion on whether or not the line item appears within the wiki article. I understand why we shouldn't assume the person in "The Name of the Doctor" is Susan (or the person who looks like Susan). It seems to me that argument that it is not Susan because we did not see Carole Anne Ford, this would also apply to the different "body-doubles" that are dressed in the various Doctor incarnations outfits. If we were to assume that the girl with William Hartnell's Doctor was not Susan because we did not see Carole Ann Ford's face, would we could also assume the possibility that the other Doctors are not really the Doctor. For example, maybe John Hurt's Doctor was somehow placing look-a-like Doctors for some unknown reason. But I have to believe the simpler interpretation and that is it was Susan. My vote is to keep the sentence in the article.Docob5 (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Time Lord / Time Lady
Less Eric Seward's short story, it is possible that only a certain people from Gallifrey arise to the Time Lord / Time Lady status. If this is the case, then Susan may just be from Gallifrey rather than being a Time Lady. But either way is ok by me; if the article is changed back, it can remain as "Time Lady".Docob5 (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But the thing is that the race as a whole is called "Time Lords". I've changed it to "Time Lord". DonQuixote (talk) 12:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Question
Could a time-travelling Gallifreyan regard 'the biological child' of a subsequent regeneration a grandchild, should they happen to cross paths? Fanficcy perhaps - but one way to 'explain' things. 128.127.29.19 (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources modified on Susan Foreman
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just attempted to maintain the sources on Susan Foreman. I managed to add archive links to 1 1 source, out of the total 1 I modified, whiling tagging 0 as dead.

Please take a moment to review my changes to verify that the change is accurate and correct. If it isn't, please modify it accordingly and if necessary tag that source with to keep Cyberbot from modifying it any further. Alternatively, you can also add  to keep me off the page's sources altogether. Let other users know that you have reviewed my edit by leaving a comment on this post.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

49th century
For reference, the 49th century bit deleted today comes from the "pilot" episode, a remounted version of "An Unearthly Child". It's widely available to see on DVDs of An Unearthly Child, but it didn't air until decades after it was made, and isn't part of the episode proper as aired in 1963. TardisTybort (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

 * That is precisely what makes it WP:OR, WP:SYNTH as well as WP:SPECULATION. MarnetteD|Talk 23:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 21 September 2015

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved: malformed request Red rose64 (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Susan Foreman → Susan Foreman – Currently a redirect is in place so that searches for ‘Susan Campbell’ bring visitors to the article Susan Foreman. However, there is another article on Susan M. Campbell which I believe should be the one that visitors find when conducting a search on ’Susan Campbell’. Susan Foreman is a fictional character in a television programme and I think the character’s married name was Campbell, which may be why the redirect was put in place originally. However, this seems a little confusing for visitors to Susan M. Campbell. She is actually more usually known as Susan Campbell but the article title appears to have had an ‘M’ added to it when it was created to differentiate between her and the TV character. Would it be possible to have the redirect deleted? Fbell74 (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Speedy procedural close Wrong Process. You wish to discuss the target/existence of the redirect that does not affect the naming of this page, so this is the incorrect manner in discussing the topic. Instead you need to follow the instructions at WP:RFD and do that for  and not Susan Foreman. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Essentially, you're asking for the article Susan Foreman to be moved to itself, which is pointless. I am assuming that you created this discussion following User talk:Redrose64; there I advised you to start a WP:RFD, not a WP:RM. I'm therefore speedy closing this. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

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

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Susan Foreman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140322111800/http://benjamincook.net/writing/doctor-who-magazine/interviews-and-articles/who-on-earth-is/carole-ann-ford/ to http://benjamincook.net/writing/doctor-who-magazine/interviews-and-articles/who-on-earth-is/carole-ann-ford/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

RE: Princess Suzanne
You can mention that Princess Suzanne was an earlier version of the character, but you cannot engage in original research. A 2020 discovery cannot have influenced a 2004 book. And you would need to cite reliable sources that make the connections between different works of fiction--we can't do it ourselves because that would be original research. DonQuixote (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're talking about when you claim that Princess Suzanne was a "2020 discovery". It was not, it was always known that Susan was originally intended to be an alien princess - which was reworked as part of the 2004 novel. Please do not vandalise pages intentionally. Connorguy99 (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * By, bad, it was 2013...from the source you cite: Mysteries of Doctor Who explained: "Unbelievably precious" Doctor Who scripts lost for 50 years discovered in Kent]. DonQuixote (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That marks the event where this information was first "discovered" by the public, it does not mean that all memory of this original concept was magically forgotten by the BBC as a whole and the reworking of the story in the 2004 novel was a fluke. Connorguy99 (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Then you would need to cite a reliable source that that influenced the 2004 novel--otherwise it's unverifiable, and probably false, information. DonQuixote (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nowhere does it need to state outright that this was intentional, just that the original concept later did happen - which it did. I can source the book for that. Connorguy99 (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Everything and anything can be challenged. Tertiary sources, such as an encyclopaedia absolutely needs it to state outright that it was intentional--or a reliable secondary source has to make a connection for us. Editors can't do that because it's all too easy to stray into original research. DonQuixote (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In the original scripts the Doctor's granddaughter was intended to be an alien princess called Suzanne, in the novel the Doctor's granddaughter WAS an alien princess called Zusanne. That is not a coincidence and worth a mention, I'll tag the book as the source. Connorguy99 (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a connection that you're making. It's synthesis. We would need a secondary source (not an editor) to make that connection. DonQuixote (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a connection I'm making. A connection made by the books. Connorguy99 (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless you can directly quote the book as saying "the 2004 book is based on an unpublished script", then it is you making the connection between the books, per WP:SYNTH. DonQuixote (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if the work wasn't based on the original concept, which it clearly was, it still deserves mention to her page as this character has the exact same experiences as the First Doctor / Susan with them residing in a junkyard in London, 1963. Connorguy99 (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Then you can move it to Other media and let the reader make the connection themselves. DonQuixote (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps you should have done that? As it was valid work all along and deserved mention, rather than deleted. And to not even say that you were deleting the work, but to pretend in the edit summaries that you were bettering it. Connorguy99 (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And where's the explanation for the removal of the President's Daughter information? Connorguy99 (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The episode doesn't make the connection between the President's daughter and Susan--so it can't be Conception and development of the character (that will be off-topic and a little dishonest). It's the novel making the connection, so it has to be Other media. DonQuixote (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why does the "spin-off" media have to be treated as valid? That is very subjective. The audio stories featuring Susan have been praised by the actress herself as the best work she's ever done with the character, so why does that information take a back seat? For example; why is her surname Campbell tagged with "spin-off" it's all relating to the same character. Connorguy99 (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of the articles are primarily focussed on the television programme. The general reader doesn't have to dive into other media to understand the topic. The other media can be mentioned in their own right but, unless they affect the primary medium, that can't be said to affect the primary medium. DonQuixote (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, we don't need to amalgamate all versions of the character into one character. We can list and describe each version in their respective medium individually. DonQuixote (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Doctor Who has no "primary medium" so that's just wrong. The show thrived for years away from television, and Susan's appearances in alternative media far outweigh her handful of screen appearances. Who are we to say what the "general reader" is most familiar with? A fair few will only be familiar with Susan from her recent audio series! Connorguy99 (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC
 * Whether you like it or not, the primary medium for the general reader is the television programme. That doesn't preclude the mention of other media, though, and they're mentioned in the articles. What we can't do is treat the character as having only one version because that isn't factual. DonQuixote (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right, I don't like it - where is this stated? You removed any mention of Susan's appearances in Big Finish Productions from her intro because it was spin-off, but many other pages (the Master for example) have this mentioned in their intro. Connorguy99 (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You can add that back if you want, it's the other stuff in that edit that I objected to. Look, the original medium is television, and when we talk of creation and development, that's what we should refer to because that's her origin. We can discuss her further development in other media, but we must be careful when we do so because there are several different versions created for the different media. We cannot say that there was a single line of evolution for the character. DonQuixote (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So... you've changed now from "primary" to "original" medium. Where does it state anywhere that only the original medium should be focused on with all other sources being shoved into an alternate section? All her subsequent appearances have... "developed" her character. You now admit that you had no objection to a mention about Big Finish in her intro, and you've also said that you think the Princess Suzanne / Doctor's Daughter can be placed in the "other media" section - so why was all of this information removed? Connorguy99 (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry that me using primary and original medium interchangeably is somewhat confusing to you, but it's the consensus for a lot of the articles. See Superman where the primary medium for the article is the original medium, comics. Other media are also mentioned, and, if there's enough material, they're spun off into their own articles. DonQuixote (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well it is confusing, because in this situation "primary" is often used as the main / most important source - otherwise you would just say "original". And I don't believe that characters from Doctor Who are in any way similar to those from DC or Marvel. We are repeatedly told that there is no canon in Doctor Who and all sources co-exist, which is different to those other sources where their universes are individually documented. Connorguy99 (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The general reader is mostly aware of the television programme, so that is the primary meduim--which is also the original medium. Look,as I've said, we're not ignoring the other media, but we can't give them more weight than they're due. DonQuixote (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And why are you the one to make all these calls based on your own assumptions of what the general reader is most familiar with? Connorguy99 (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How many nonfiction books are there for the programme? How many nonfiction books are there talking about the novels?--comics?--audio plays? That's a good scale for due weight. DonQuixote (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How is it? Connorguy99 (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Due weight means that we reflect the secondary sources. DonQuixote (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The thing is that the "spin-off" mediums featuring Susan are not intended to be different versions, they are all supposed to be the same character. Like I said, far different to your example of Superman - or any other DC / Marvel character - as there's a number of well-documented universes and different versions of the same character for each. I understand why we would want to separate the television and alternate media when we're actually covering the stories, but things like her name? That's the same character, so why are we listing her as "Susan Campbell in spin-off media". And why can't we cover significant development in spin-off media in the given development section? Connorguy99 (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Lungbarrow says that Susan is the granddaughter of the Other, an ancestor of the Doctor. History of Timelords says that she's the daughter of the president, a contemporary of the Doctor. So, no, they're not a single character. DonQuixote (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, the Other isn't an ancestor of the Doctor - the Doctor is a genetic match of the other, re-loomed millions of years after his death and is technically therefore the Other himself. So... why can't Susan be the Other / Doctor's granddaughter and this President (the Other / Doctor's son)'s daughter? That's just an assumption you're making. Connorguy99 (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Because you're the one making the claim, so the burden of responsibility is on you. That is, it's original research. You would need to verify that the Other is the President--either the primary source has to specifically say it (direct quote) or a secondary source has to make that connection. DonQuixote (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're the one making the claim that they're different versions without proof...??? You tried to suggest that Susan being the President's daughter somehow confirmed that she was a different version - when this President could always be the Other / Doctor's child and therefore disproves anything. They are the same character, Doctor Who has no canon. Connorguy99 (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Being a contemporary of the Other, being a contemporary of the Doctor and being an alien princess are different things. You're making the extra-ordinary claim. You need to do the minimum amount of work and cite a reliable source, otherwise it's your fan theory, which isn't encyclopaedic. DonQuixote (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You've genuinely lost me. If a novel / audio hasn't explicitly stated that they're using a different version of Susan - like the alternate universe Susan used in the 'Doctor Who Unbound' series - then it is complete speculation to suggest that they ARE different versions. So... "the burden of responsibility is on you". The only proof you have given is that Susan was said to be the granddaughter of the Other in one story and the daughter of some President in another - you claim that these contradict each other, and I have pointed out that they do not as the President could easily be the Other / Doctor's child...!
 * And no version of Susan was an alien princess, that was the original concept for the character - which was later reused for the Doctor's granddaughter Zezanne in a novel. However, I still believe that deserves mention due to the similarities. Connorguy99 (talk)
 * could easily be the Other / Doctor's child.
 * Nothing actually says that. The 'could easily be' is you speculating. Look, wikipedia operates by citing and summarising reliable source. In the absence of sources specifically saying something, we just state the facts and let the reader make the connections. We can state that Susan appears in this thing with this background and she appears in that with that background. We should not draw a connecting line between the two unless a secondary source does that for us, otherwise you're pushing your favourite version, which isn't neutral. DonQuixote (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you wanting me to give you a biology lesson? The Other is named as Susan's grandfather - the President is named as Susan's father. You see this as a "contradiction" and I'm telling you... it's not. While it is not *confirmed*, it still does not "prove" that each Susan is a different version - as you are hoping it does. You are trying your hardest to try and find evidence that the television Susan / alternative media Susans are different - but you wont. Connorguy99 (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Seriously, the point is that it is not confirmed. Everything in an encyclopaedia article has to be verifiable by anyone. That's the most basic rule of wikipedia. You need to be able to abide by the basic rules, otherwise you're pushing your fan theory. Wikipedia is about citing and summarising reliable sources in accordance with due weight. If you can't or won't understand that, then there's always tardis wiki or your own fan site. DonQuixote (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you unable to see how much of a hypocrite you are? It is YOU that is speculating. You are trying to suggest that the Susan who appears in media other than television is a different version. But you have NO PROOF to your claims (other than the fact that somehow having both a grandfather and a father is contradictory?). If this was a character like Dodo Chaplet I would tend to agree that the versions must be different as each of her appearances in alternative sources have been extremely contradictory - but that is not the case with Susan. Most of Susan's appearances fit in a timeline, and creatives have gone to great lengths to ensure that they don't contradict each other. Connorguy99 (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If versions of Dodo are contradictory, then versions of the Doctor are contradictory and thus versions of Susan are contradictory. That's basic logic (which is also original research on my part).
 * Look, just state the facts and don't make claims that aren't explicitly stated. I admit that I tried to explain the situation by assuming that you understood writing about fiction and used words and phrasing that might have been confusing, but the fact is that you're making claims that cannot be verified by anyone (which include people unfamiliar with the franchise). The conception and development of the character should only be about the television programme because that's the only thing that is documented in the sources. "Developing" the character in other media require sources that directly discuss the development of the character. We cannot draw conclusions and connect the dots ourselves because that's original research. The only thing we can do with any honesty (unless we have secondary sources discussing it) is to mention and describe her appearances in other media. DonQuixote (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Authorial intent, all of these authors clearly intended Susan to be the main Susan. That can be proved by the fact that the majority, if any, do not contradict - and you will need to find individual cases (such as the alternate Susan in 'Doctor Who Unbound' where the creator DID intend for an different version of Susan to be used). Sorry. Connorguy99 (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * all of these authors clearly intended Susan to be the main Susan
 * If you have to say 'clearly' rather than citing a reliable source, then it's original research. Seriously, all you need to do is cite a reliable source, otherwise it's you speculating all of this. Citing and summarising sources is the name of the game. We can only state what the sources state. We should not put two sources together and claim something that they don't explictly state (even if it's implied).
 * Look, I'm not saying that we can't mention any of it, but we should trim back on things not explicitly stated and write things from a real world perspective. Susan was developed in the 60s like this, she appeared in the television programme, she appeared in this novel, she appeared in this comic, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 02:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All I want to know is why you feel it necessary to force her actual name to be tagged with "in spin-off media". I can live with you forcing the development section only to be about television, even though she's getting the most development in nearly sixty years in audios at the minute. This is the same Susan as in the television, ignoring your unsupported attempts to deny that. Her name should not be tagged "spin-off media" as its all the same character. Connorguy99 (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it's undue weight. Most of the secondary sources refer to her as Susan Foreman--i.e., her common name. Sometimes she is referred to as Susan Campbell, but that's in the context of the spin-off medium that they're discussing. Context matters for fictional characters. DonQuixote (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no reason for it to be tagged "spin-off" rather than just have it as the name. Spin-off is far, far too subjective. Connorguy99 (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also you keep harping on about me being "unable" to post a source... that's because I'm not talking about individual stories at the minute? If I was talking about individual stories I could post sources till your heart was content, but I'm talking about alternative media Susan in general being the same as television. Connorguy99 (talk) 02:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I keep harping about you being unable to post a secondary source--nonfiction books, articles, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 02:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes... you do, when I'm talking in general and not about a single story. But then again, you weren't able to post any evidence about Susan actually being a different version (other than your confusion about people having both fathers and grandfathers!). Connorguy99 (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no reason for it to be tagged "spin-off" rather than just have it as the name. Spin-off is far, far too subjective.
 * It's not subjective if that's the medium in which she's being referred to as Susan Campbell. Susan is a fictional character. She is not a real person. In the primary medium, she is only referred to as Susan Foreman--and this is reflected in the secondary sources.
 * Seriously, the name of the game is citing reliable sources--preferably secondary sources (primary sources can only be used to summarise it's contents and nothing else). You need to show that a 2004 novel was in any way influenced by an unpublished script. You need to show that the television programme developed Susan as the Presiden't daughter. Citing secondary sources accomplishes this. These things should be described from a real world perspective and not in-universe because that's how a general encyclopaedia is written. DonQuixote (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Spin-off" is subjective. The novels Susan was named as Campbell in were not "Spin-offs" of the main Doctor Who brand, they were published by the BBC - and were not "Spin-offs" of the television series either as they came during the gap where the television series had been cancelled and they were the only form of material in the series.
 * Also, if a novel like 'A Brief History of Time Lords' references Susan as the President's daughter - that's enough to make the page. Connorguy99 (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * They weren't the television programme--that's the point. Look, due weight means that this article is primarily about the television programme. Other media, such as novels, don't hold much weight because they don't compare to the programme in the sheer number of secondary sources (nonfiction works). And yes, Brief History can be mentioned (which it was), but it can't be given more weight--it cannot have been said to have continued the development of the character in the primary medium. It does not belong in the conception and development section. DonQuixote (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Still not making much sense so I'll leave it there. Continue to gatekeep the page for anyone else, and I'll open the conversation again. Connorguy99 (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It makes perfect sense if you step out of in-universe thought. These are works of fiction. More nonfiction prose has been written about one medium than another. This makes one medium more important in terms of the secondary sources than other media. You think that the novels were important, good for you, and write a book or article about them so we can cite you for it. The point is do secondary sources consider them important?--if so, how much has been written about them. Citing sources is the name of the game.
 * I'm going to move the novels to Other media, where they belong. Note that I'm not ignoring them or excising them--they'll still be mentioned in this article but with due weight. If you can cite a secondary source that mentions anything about how these novels influenced the development of the character for the primary medium, then they can be moved back with those sources cited. DonQuixote (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As a reminder, I can live with you forcing the development section only to be about television, so that's what I'm going to do. DonQuixote (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You were always going to get your way with your aggressive approach, but I'll be watching to make sure that you don't remove the information again like last time. Connorguy99 (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Cite. A. Reliable. Source. That's the minimum requirement to get 'your way'. DonQuixote (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Page Gatekeeping
It seems like this page is being undergoing some gatekeeping - literally seconds after I have edited it, on two very different occasions, the same individual has swooped in and completely removed the work. All mention of Susan's original conception as "Princess Suzanne", and how this was reworked as part of a 2004 novel, and the 2015-2017 references to her as the President's daughter have all be removed without valid explanation. Also, this individual likes to think of this page as *television only* and wants any outside of television information (like her married name of Campbell) to be listed as such. Why is this? Connorguy99 (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to be able to handle constructive criticism, as well as avoid original research. Some of the things that you have added are unencyclopaedic and need to be reigned in. Other things need to cite secondary sources because you're making assumptions of your own (even though they might be true, they need to be verifiable). I explained why some of the things have been trimmed in the edit summaries. If you want to contest them, then do so individually so that we can reach a consensus. DonQuixote (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Constructive criticism" - that's what you call sneakily pretending to change minor things to somebody's work, while over the course of several edits removing the work in its entirety? Nothing I wrote was based on assumptions, all was correctly sourced - all was vandalised repeatedly. Connorguy99 (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Dude, it's not always about you. As I've mentioned, you would need to cite reliable sources for some of those things. You would need to cite a source that the 2004 novel was based on an unpublished script, for one. It's the process that all edits must undergo. I'm just asking you to do a little bit of work for the things that need to be verified. DonQuixote (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What isn't always about me? I'm asking you to either engage with others, or help change the FACTUAL work, not remove it in its entirety seconds after publishing. Connorguy99 (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The factual work can stay, your unsourced interpretations and connections need to be trimmed unless you can cite reliable secondary sources that make those observations. And everything is stored in the edit history, which can be restored once you provided the secondary sources. DonQuixote (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Susan Foreman


text:
Talk:Albert Marshall (veteran)

Pictures?
''Albert Marshall "Smiler" is my great-grandfather. I live in Australia, and search the net often for updates on my grandfather to hand onto his great-great-grandchildren. All information on granddad or clippings from his funeral would be appreciated.

Tracey Smith (Australia)

Hi - my name is Corinne, I live near Manchester, UK. I am Smiler Marshall's granddaughter, and Steve's daughter. I have a complete clippings file and pictures of Grandad's funeral. CorinneMoore 20:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Nice, but have you also got pictures from him alive for me, please? Extremely sexy 22:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Check out the recent book THE LAST POST By MAX ARTHUR ISBN 0-297-84644-2

There is a whole chapter in there containing Albert's memories from growing up to going into the army. It also contains the same accounts from: Alfred Anderson, Albert Smiler Marshall, Henry Allingham, Cecil Withers, Alfred Finningan, Fred Lloyd, Harry Patch, William Roberts, Tom Kirk, Harold Lawton, George Rice, George Charles, Charles Watson, John Oborne, Kenneth Cummins, Nicholas Swarbrick, Ted Rayns, William Elder, George Hardy, Bert Clark and Bill Stone,

Hope this helps

Roy Partington

Florence Nightingale
-- librarianofages

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

title: Talk:Albert Marshall (veteran)


text:
Talk:Christian Democratic Union of Germany

Factions
I think we should remove the factions section from the ideology section of the infobox, since the infobox is meant to be concise, not overly detailed. However, I'm not sure which ones to keep. I'd say that at the most, conservatism, liberal conservatism, and Christian democracy (and possibly pro-Europeanism, though I understand that editors feel that is unnecessary) should be maintained. However, should either conservatism or liberal conservatism be removed, too?

P.S. Please ping any editors you know who might be interested/involved with this. Ezhao02 (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree with the removal because they should be under a Factions parameter which I am proposing to add. Since we have a section about factions on several political parties articles, I believe they should be in the infobox, not under Ideology because that would be the wrong parameter, but under a new Factions one. Since the infobox is supposed to list key facts, factions may be important enough to be listed. Of course, there would need to be a sourced section about them, etc. Otherwise we would simply leave the parameter blank and only have one main ideology under Ideology. Any thoughts?--Davide King (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a good idea. The one concern I have with having a specific "factions" section is that it could lead to overuse. Personally, I feel like ideological factions are already listed on too many political party pages. Factions should only be listed in the infobox when there is a significant divide within the party, especially an abnormal one (something like Christian rightists and Christian leftists in the same party, for example), because the infobox is intended to be a concise summary of information on the article topic. I'm worried that people will use the factions section of the infobox even more this way. Ezhao02 (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your comment. I agree that it should be used with parsimony, like there would need to be a section where we discuss the various factions (some party articles already do that), where they are properly referenced and for parties where there are big divides. As for your worry, I do not think that should justify us making no use of it; we would simply revert those users like we would for any other unreferenced edit. Factions need to be discussed first in the main body before they can be added to the infobox. I do not think the few parties who have a properly references section about factions should be held back because most others do not; for now, we would use the parameter only for those who are properly referenced in the main body and this should actually incentivise us to properly reference much more parties in the main body. I also propose we create a Political position parameter (with the current Political position parameter being renamed Political spectrum) so we can add political positions such as Anti-immigration and Pro-Europeanism that are often wrongly put under Ideology, where ideally we would put only 1–3 ideologies. I mean, just look at National Rally. Ideologies should be only Right-wing populism, French nationalism and national conservatism while all the rest should go in Political position. If that would be too much for the current infobox, we may create another, small infobox only for factions and political positions that we would be in an Ideology section in the main body which include ideology, political positions, factions, etc.--Davide King (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would work for pages for major political parties in large countries, but what about parties in smaller countries? I'm worried that we wouldn't be able to patrol these changes well enough. I also feel like if a "factions" section is created, it should only be used for organized factions, not just the views of particular members. I also don't see why ideological factions couldn't just be listed under ideology. Regarding the National Rally page, I totally agree that it has too much listed in the ideology section, but I feel like we could remove all the extra information/details without putting it in a separate section of the infobox. Ezhao02 (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , one solution may be to use it only for those who warrant it; and to avoid edit warring, rather than leave it blank, we simply do not list the parameter at all in the infobox, so that it will not be changed every time since it will not be there.--Davide King (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could try it and see if it works. However, I'd stil like to know why these ideological factions can't simply be listed in the ideology sections. Ezhao02 (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Because Factions would be, exactly as you wrote, for organised factions and not just ideological factions, although Factions may also be used to list minority ideological views while Ideology would be for the majority which pretty much everyone agrees.--Davide King (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for the clarification! Ezhao02 (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Hebrew cantillation

Italian synogogue in NY
The article mentions an Italian synogogue in NY, anyone know of this?

Hebrew naming conventions
Urgent: see Naming conventions (Hebrew) to add your opinions about this important matter. Thank you. IZAK 18:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The musical function
The old Sephardic tradition, represented amongst others by the Syrian, Egyptian, Moroccan, Italian and Spanish/Portuguese melody, is widely used in its Moroccan variety both in Israel and in the diaspora among descendants of immigrants from that country.
 * Um- which country? from Morocco? I'm confused.  - Eric 02:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a note to Suzanne_Haïk-Vantoura reconstruction from The Music of the Bible Revealed. It is a huge topic which not much material has been published about. But it is a complete musical work of the entire Tanach. --Aviwollman (talk) 06:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Chart
None of the symbols seem to show up in the chart, yet they look fine here: ֥ ֛ ֥ ֖ ֑ ֣ ֔ ֖ ֽ Is it because of the nature of the symbols as superscript and subscript? I'll try to find a solution to this. --OneTopJob6 23:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an
According to the page for Qur'an, cantillation is also often used in recitations of that text. If that is in fact the case, I think a section needs to be added to this page to elaborate on it. QuinnHK 04:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If cantillation is in use in other cultures, then perhaps this page should be moved to something like "Jewish Cantillation" and the "Cantillation" page be a much shorter general discussion of the prevalence, relevance and historical context of the practice, with short sections on specific cultures and links to "Jewish Cantillation" and a new "Islamic Cantillation" page or an anchor section within Qur'an. That page does not currently appear to mention cantillation. Can you provide a reference? Was it deleted at some point? CaptainLepton (talk) 09:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the page should be called Cantillation(Jewish), and Cantillation (Islamic) should redirect to a page called "Tarteel." 24.46.207.111 (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Torah portion
Torah portion does not belong on this page; it's irrelevant (and too long btw).—msh210 ℠ 19:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi msh: (1) Cantillation is the unique way the weekly Torah reading of the Parsha (Torah portion) is "read/sung" in synagogue on Mondays and Thursdays during Shacharit services, and notably in the services on Shabbat. (2) The template Torah portion is at the bottom of the Cantillation article's page, so essentially it's part of the "See also" section which is a legitimate way of connecting related and connected topics on an article. (3) If a reader finds the Torah portion to be "too intrusive" then any reader is free to click "Hide" on the top right section of the template's heading which shrinks it to an unobtrusive one liner. Finally, (4) the Torah portion is presently diligently updated weekly by User:Dauster early each Sunday so that any readers may learn more about the weekly Parsha. User:Dauster summarizes each week's Parsha and adds some interesting graphics which surely adds life and color to a page that may gain the attention of readers who don't know much about this subject and may want to learn more. Please refer all further comments and discussions to one centralized location at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism Thank you. IZAK 06:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

trope v trop
Both spellings exist. Google returns c.300,000 hits for "trop+Hebrew" and c.100,000 for "trope+Hebrew", so it seems "trop" is the more common. Therefore, I'd suggest both should be referred to at the start of the article, but trop should be the more commonly used. --Dweller 10:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as my experience in the Orthodox communities in the UK and Israel is that this is always pronounced with a Yiddish-accented ʃrɒp ("tropp"), "trop" is better to avoid confusion with troʊp ("trope"). CaptainLepton (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Trope (music)
See discussion of proposed merge of Trope (music) with Cantillation at Talk:Trope (music). Hyacinth 09:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be nothing to merge; every aspect for the information from Trope (music) is contained in the article here with the exception of observation that it is possible to hear "variants in the same synagogue by different readers."

I've referred Trope (music) to Cantillations. The previous content at Trope (music) was:

from Trope (music)
In Jewish liturgy, tropes are musical phrase contours (cantillations) which are applied to the words of a sacred text during public readings. It also refers to the markings in some copies of those text to indicate the vocalization.

It is not known whether trope developed from a single form used in the ancient Temple. Following the destruction of the Temple and the dispersion of the Jews, diverse trope systems have developed regionally. As Jews continue to move about the world, it is possible to hear these variants in the same synagogue by different readers.

Different trope apply to different parts of Tanakh (the books that largely overlap with what is referred to by Christians as "the Old Testament"). Within any regional tradition, there are different trope for Torah (first five books of the Bible), versus Haftorah (Neve'im or "Prophets" (e.g Isaiah)), or various "megillot" or scrolls used on particular occasions, such as the reading of Esther at Purim.

Within Judaism, the standard accepted text of Tanakh is the Hebrew Masoretic Text. Words in the Masoretic Text contain three sections: the letters (consonants), vowel points, and trope. These cantillation marks are called te'amim in Hebrew, and the markings are standard, even though the pitch contours they represent to the reader may differ.

The trope are not random strings but follow a set and describable grammar. For more information, refer to [Jacobson, Joshua. Chanting the Hebrew Bible: the art of cantillation. 2002.] Nearly Human 17:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Integrate "Meanings" into chart?
why only the lithuanian names ? (mercha,tipcha etc) instead of the more international names for the tropes Maarikh tarkha,shophar holech etc

Looks like a good idea. All it's doing now is taking up extra space. --OneTopJob6 03:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid that what you call "Lithuanian" are the universal Ashkenazi names; maarich, tarcha etc. are purely Sephardic, and the Italians have different names again. I do sympathize (I'm Sephardi myself), but the general convention for resources of pan-Jewish interest is to use the Ashkenazi names.  For example, the Ashkenazi names are used in all Hebrew grammars (Davidson, Gesenius, Weingreen etc.) and even in the Keter Shem Tob of that fine Sephardi rabbi Shem Tob Gaguine.  This is an oddity (grammars follow Sephardi conventions in all other matters), but it may be explained by the fact that ta'amim were first explained to a Christian audience by Reuchlin, who lived in Germany.

 * I do agree with merging the two tables, but I do not have the technical expertise to do so myself. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 10:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Almost all study cantillation study-tools published in Israel today give the student all the options for the names of the teamim, according to all communities. Of course the chart should include the Sephardic names, and anyone who wants to update it is welcome! Dovi 18:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I am not against this. However, it will then be impossible to incorporate into the table the explanations of the meanings of the names, as each ta'am will have more than one name. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 21:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

 * It shouldn't be so much of a problem to construct the chart in a way that shows the various names for each ta'am and explains them. Especially if it is primarily organized in terms of different levels of dividers and joiners, as it should be, rather than by name. Dovi 11:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm strongly against the merge. The result would be hopelessly cluttered and confusing.--R613vlu 23:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Coda" motif?
Are we talking about the descent to D (where Ashk. Torah is in F major, and Seph. Torah is in E1/2b Siga, Ashk. Haftara in d minor, Seph. Haftara in G Nawa)? I'm not even sure the "coda" is significant in the melodies, but then again, the term is pretty poorly defined. --OneTopJob6 12:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I was thinking of the English modes. In Western Ashkenazi, every Torah reading ends with C C B A top-A E, C C D E D A (in A minor), while every verse of the haftarah ends A F E D E D C C bottom-G A.  The final verse of the haftarah ends A F E D E D C C D E top-G F.  In the Spanish and Portuguese mode, every Torah reading ends D G G G G E E D E G E D (in D Rast), and every verse of the haftarah ends with D E D C B D D E D A B C B A (in A minor).  I am not acquainted with the Lithuanian melody, and have left a note on the page asking anyone who knows to contribute. As I remember, Syrian Torah readings do indeed descend to D (something like E D E F E D, with E half a tone flat throughout), and I am not sure about haftarah.  The basic point is that, in all these reading/verse endings, there is a tune which overrides the normal value of the taamim. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 09:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

'leyen'
I would think that a Yiddish word would more likely be related to the German 'lesen' than the less similar Latin 'legere'. Yiddish is not a Latinate language at all, and is mostly German. I don't know if I'm pushing any buttons by saying that, but in the interest of scholarly accuracy... Too bad there isn't any reference for that claim. Linguistica (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But lesen itself was a Romance loan word, with its roots in 'legere'. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

History - Old Babylonian
Does Old Babylonian refer to Old Babylonian/Old Assyrian — 1950 – 1530 BCE? Where is it sourced from?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 02:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

 * No. It meant Babylonian-Jewish, of the period of the Geonim, c. 8th - 10th century CE.  The point is that, in addition to the Tiberian system of accentuation and vowel notation we have today, there were formerly Babylonian (in the sense I have just defined) and Palestinian systems, which were superseded by the Tiberian system by the 12th century. (The Yemenites carried on using the Babylonian system a little longer.) The source for the Babylonian cantillation letters is Kahle, Masoreten des Ostens. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

 * A remark along the same subject: I recognize that in the Babylonian system there were eight different letters in representing the disjunctive accents. However, for example, depending on the Babylonian manuscript you look at, a 'v', an upside-down 'v', or possibly others represents the athnach, a disjunctive accent that would no doubt be represented in Yemenite Hebrew. The first fact about the eight different letters and the eight different disjunctive motifs seems misleading to me because there are symbols besides the eight letters that represent important disjunctives as well in the Babylonian system. Any clarification or explanation would be appreciated.

Syrian Origin For Yerushalmi Tradition
Is there any proof that Yerushalmi is a direct decendant of Syrian system? sure it uses maqam sikah (as does turkish,As does Greek,As does Egyptian,As do karaites) but the tropes dont correspond one on one or even closely to the Paterns of Ajnas, If anything Yerushalmi is Closer to turkish System, also does anyone know the origin of the "barkai SYrian" system? Thanx --74.72.241.193 (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Zohar

 * For some time (certainly since the mid-nineteenth century) the Turkish, Syrian, Jerusalem and Egyptian musical traditions have formed a continuum; despite the diverse backgrounds (Arab for the Syrians; Spanish for the Turkish and Jerusalem communities) these were all overlaid with the general "Ottoman" musical system. However, the Jerusalem tradition (not only in cantillation, also in baqashot etc.) was strongly influenced by the Aleppo immigrants in 1850 and again in 1900, and the present "Jerusalem-Sephardic" tradition, while it is an amalgam of all the Ottoman systems, has a strong Syrian element.  I have not done a detailed comparison of the cantillation systems; in some ways Syrian retains a resemblance to Baghdadi, which is outside this continuum and more purely Arab.  I'd be very pleased if someone contributed more detailed information.  By "barkai", do you mean the more elaborate system for Torah cantillation? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Remove the crap from external links
The external links category is full of spam. Some of the links are in the wrong section for example the temani link. (Which I found very helpful.) 89.138.123.192 (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

 * If you find a mistake please fix it. To the best of my knowledge, all of the links are to helpful material. Dovi (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sound isn't Trop
The recording there isn't trop- it's a bracha before leining (as it says) and doesn't follow this (or any) cantillation system. Anyone want to replace it?YosefK (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"Vandalism"
See wp:no self references and wp:neutral point of view.

Wp:head states that headings are noun phrases.Curb Chain (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

link rot
"Wikimedia Commons: Free content audio recordings of cantillation at the Wikimedia Commons are listed at category:Cantillation and/or category:Jewish cantillation." The link goes to a page that says it's been moved; change it to point only to the right place. 2. Hebrew University Oral Tradition site gives the dread 404 message. 4.249.96.244 (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)==

Confusing information on Suzanne Haik-Vontura
I am "layperson" and I find this subject so confusing and these article don't help much either. I am confused did Suzanne succeed in deciphering the ta'amim? or was her work only a theory? Mr. John Wheeler presents some evidence Suzanne was right yet scholar Joshua Jacobson said Suzanne has all wrong, and I do not know why. This article's mention is too brief and her article on wiku gives the impression Suzanne did indeed rediscovered the musical value of the ta'amim. Which is it? Any scholar here to break--Anaccuratesource (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC) it down?

A--Anaccuratesource (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)lso the article discusses much differing Jewish chants but nothing on Samaritan chants.

Eichah/Lamentations
We should make some reference to the fact that, in Ashkenazi tradition, Eichah has two seperate methods of cantilation: 1 for chapter 3 and 1 for the remainder of the book. I am not sure whether this should be considered a 7th style of trop, or simply a subsection of the eichah category, but it deserves a mention. g.j.g (talk) 05:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

More to Names in different traditions Section
Dear page editors, the maqqaf, מַקַּף, shouldn't be added to this table? Cheers.

--Connection (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

link rot
The 613.org website no longer exists. 71.163.117.143 (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

tifcha (f) meant where tipfcha (pf) appears?
This is in the table.

Also, in the corresponding Hebrew, was tifcha meant where tipcha appears, i.e. was fe meant where pe appears, i.e. was no dagesh meant where the dagesh appears? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdenckla (talk • contribs) 18:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

 * I think it is the other way round. The name Tipcha contains a dagesh -- at least in R' Breuer's book on cantillation -- and should be transliterated Tipcha.--Lantani (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lantani (talk • contribs)

 * if the dagesh follows a short vowel in a closed unaccented vowel wouldn't that daghesh be Hazaq, further any letter that has a daghesh and a shewa that shewa is na` so either it does have a daghesh and its tippecha or it doesn't have a daghesh and it's tifcha but Tipcha seems like an imposibility to me

 * Yes, it is "tippecha" with dagesh chazaq and shwa na`. See Price's and Beuer's book.--Lantani (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lantani (talk • contribs)
 * Addendum: A very similar for is the feminine perfective pi`el of טפח in Is.48:13. (BTW: why does SineBot declare my signed contributions unsigned?)--Lantani (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lantani (talk • contribs)

All that is very fine and dandy, but the problem is that טפח in this context is not a verb and therefore cannot have a pi'el. It is a segolate noun "tefach", meaning a hand's breadth (probably an allusion to a hand signal to the reader). The same word in Aramaic would indeed come out as "tifcha", ending with "alef". The pronunciation "tipcha" is simply a mistake, and "tippecha" is an unconvincing attempt to rationalize it. If it meant anything, it would be "she (intensively) hand's-breadthed", and then it would have to end with "he". --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

 * If "Tipcha" is a mistake, it has become common enough among Ashkenaz Jews that it has crept into many books including the one of Rav Breuer Z"L which I consider particularly reliable. A Yemenite Jew living in Israel whom I asked for clarification yesterday answered that "Tipcha" is the most frequent term among Ashkenazim, "Tarcha" among Sefardim, and "Tifcha" among Yemenites. The name "Netuyah" in the table of names appeared strange to him.--Lantani (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Ashkenazic names
The Ashkenazic names are not transcribed in Ashkenazic Hebrew. This should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yak314 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's just an academic convention, used in all or most Hebrew grammars. The te'amim have their Ashkenazi names because the first Christian scholar to devote detailed attention to them was Johannes Reuchlin, who was German. But the names are transliterated in Sephardic because that is what is done with all other grammatical terms. I know it's illogical but there it is. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Missing translation
טעמי המקרא can someone give the literal explanation of the phrase please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giftzwerg 88 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

 * The literal translation would be "tastes of the Bible"! But here "ta'am" is being used in the metaphorical sense of "sense", as in what is needed for a passage to make sense; it can sometimes even mean "reason". So normally we just say "Biblical accents". --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Meaning of Geresh
The article gives as meaning of Geresh: "'Expulsion, driving out'. Reason not clear."

I do not know the reason, but could it be that the punctuation Geresh, i.e. the apostrophe-like sign to show the place where letters have been "driven out", has its name from there, and the cantillation sign Geresh has its name from its form which resembles the punctuation Geresh? --Lantani (talk) 12:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lantani (talk • contribs)
 * I doubt it, said the Carpenter. I think the use of "geresh" for an apostrophe came long after the ta'am. As for why the ta'am is so called, I don't know: it's generally quite a long series of notes, so it may mean an expulsion of breath. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of the Yemenite column...
I propose temporary deletion of (until someone knowledgeable will work on) the Yemenite column in the table at Cantillation. So many details in it are plainly absurd and wrong. To put it mildly, it's a sad joke. Is there even one editor here that can take it seriously? If so please comment, because from שִׁישְׁלָ֓א and צִנּוֹר֮ to תַּבְרָ֛א and תְּ֠לִישָא גְדוֹלָה, there is absolutely no Yemenite source. I'm literally dumbfounded to see gibberish like this (shishla?!) enshrined and passed off as Yemenite in a generally reliable encyclopedia.

Why deletion? Because the way it is now is beyond disgraceful--more appropriate for a joke book than encyclopedia--and if there is no one here with sources to adduce to justify the chart as a whole (and like I said there are no Yemenite sources), it belongs in a sandbox/history until the time someone knowledgeable is ready to post the correct facts (preferably with accompanying citations which could have prevented this from happening to begin with). I'm as unhappy as the next person (possibly more unhappy) to see the Yemenite section go without mention here (if I had the time I'd work on it myself), but better nothing than a misleading table that badly needs to be reworked and, as it is now, only serves to reflect and impart egregious ignorance of the Yemenite tradition.

If there's anyone interested in sources you can start with one of the following
 * מלמדי תינוקות ודרכי הלימוד (Hebrew), beginning on page 50 in Rabbi Yosef Qafih's Halichoth Teiman (1963).
 * נקוד, טעמים ומסורת בתימן (Hebrew) in Rabbi Yosef Qafih's Collected Papers, volume 2, pages 931-936.
 * אלף בי (Hebrew): A popular Yemenite alaph bei book.

Don't take all the negativity above the wrong way (it's not directed at any individual). It just pains me to see the t'amim in the Yemenite tradition distorted beyond recognition as they are now. I think waiting a month until February is more than enough time for notice, but if anyone wants to go ahead with deletion sooner I'm not opposed. Sigh. Contributor613 (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Deleted. Contributor613 (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your this action. I am involved in the German articles on the teamim and this artcles contain the Yemenite Spellings taken from the English article. I also had some serious doubts about the Yemenite spellings and I will do so in all other cases as well. In every case there might only be few readers of enwiki or dewiki who find the Yemenite versions usefull for understanding the teamim in general. All others will not even realize, there might something be missing.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Zarka tables
I'd suggest replacing the Askenazi Zarqa table with something more accurate. I found this one, unfortunately only on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9Nxsix2-Xo What makes it more accurate: (a) zakef katan and zakef gadol have a maqaf (hyphen) to join them into single words. That's especially important for zakef gadol, which by definition is only allowed on a single word. (b) same with tlisha ketanah and gedolah: they should be joined into a single word with a maqaf. In addition, the ta'amim for them are in the wrong places: tlisha always goes all the way to the left or right of the word(s) involved, and not over the accented syllable. The syllable(s) they currently appear on aren't even the right one(s), as anyone who teaches this trope (AFAIK) sings the note on the very last syllable of the second word, tlisha gedola-a-a-a-a-ah.

This is certainly like the list I was trained on, and like most of the lists I see in chumashim: with all the notes in their proper places on the words that are their names. MikeR613 (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah - I should have looked there first. https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/טעמי_המקרא#/media/File:TAMI_MIKRA_ASHKENAZ.svg is a good one. How do I add it instead of the current one? MikeR613 (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC) - Okay, switched it. MikeR613 (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm - doesn't look as good as the old one, though it is more accurate. If anyone knows how to make it match with the Sefardi version (same size, nice border), please do it, thanks. MikeR613 (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC). - Okay, figured it out and fixed it. MikeR613 (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cantillation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119150730/http://vineofdavid.org/remnant_repository/ezekiel_margoliouth/ to http://vineofdavid.org/remnant_repository/ezekiel_margoliouth/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cantillation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://hazzan.qpon.co.il/Front/Multimedia/albom.asp?mBoundary=11371&aType=3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719054230/http://pizmonim.org/text/PAGE%2099-II.pdf to http://pizmonim.org/text/PAGE%2099-II.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120605211304/http://www.urjbooksandmusic.com/product.php?productid=152 to http://www.urjbooksandmusic.com/product.php?productid=152

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Examples off topic
The two audio examples at the top of this article, the Torah blessing and Amar Rabbi Elazar, are not examples of Cantillation as defined in the lede. Ideally they should be replaced by the real thing. In the meantime should they be kept?--agr (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Purpose of cantillation
I would like to modify the section on Purpose, as I think the following is definitely wrong: "A primary purpose of the cantillation signs is to guide the chanting of the sacred texts during public worship... The cantillation signs also provide information on the syntactical structure of the text..." Both parts of this need to be fixed. The first part is just wrong, and the second part misleading.

The first part: every part of Tanach (the Hebrew bible) is cantillated, every word. But only a small fraction - the Chumash (five books of Moses), some sections of Prophets here and there for Haftorah, and the five Megillos - are read during public worship. There is even a unique different cantillation for Job, Proverbs, Psalms - see the chapter here on them - none of which are ever read in public worship at all. So that cannot be correct. Rather, as Rav Mordechai Breuer z"l points out in his Taamei Hamikra (see Bibliography), it is a Talmudic tradition that all Torah should be learned with a melody, whether the Tanach or the oral parts like the Mishnah. So a much more likely suggestion made by Breuer, is that the cantillation is to provide a melody for studying the Torah, even privately. [A few parts of the Torah even have separate cantillations for public and private reading ("taam elyon" and "taam tachton"), according to many customs.]

The second part is maybe correct, but misleading. As Breuer again points out, for the purpose of syntactic division, you wouldn't need a couple of dozen cantillation symbols: he says five would suffice. Most of the rules of cantillation are clearly results of its musical purpose. However, being competent, the cantillation follows the grammar of the Hebrew sentence. You want your song to follow the commas and semicolons, not stop or flow in the wrong places. As a result, you can see a syntactical division of each sentence according to its cantillation - as a happy side-effect. It is misleading to call it a purpose. You see in the detailed rules of cantillation that this syntactical division gives way in many places to the main musical purpose. I'll give two examples of literally dozens from Breuer or any of the classical sources: Segol is found only in the first half of a verse, never the second half. Unlike almost any other taam, two revias are never found close together; instead, the later revia changes into a different taam. These kinds of rules make sense musically [unfortunately, since we don't know how they sounded we aren't in a position to know exactly why], but are very hard to justify on any syntactical or grammatical grounds.

The same problem but worse is found in the section titled Function... - it makes the musical function seem secondary to the syntax; that's just backwards.

None of this is original research, it's all sourced from Breuer. MikeR613 (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Meaning of "revia"
About:

Revia "Quarter" or "fourth", probably because it splits the half verse from the start to etnachta (or etnachta to the end) into quarters (as it ranks below zaqef, the        main division within the half verse). Other possibilities are that it came fourth in the zarqa table (in the current Ashkenazi table it comes fifth) or that it was regarded as occupying the fourth level in the hierarchy.[17] Its apparent appro- priateness to the square or diamond shape of the symbol is coincidence: in most manuscripts, it is simply a point.

Sorry, but all of that is just plain wrong, castles in the air built upon a misconception that has persisted for indeed a long time (I don't know how long exactly, but I am thinking that a century or two would be a rather conservative estimate).

The cantillation name "revia" has nothing to do with the number four, or a fourth, or a quarter, or anything along those lines. Rather, "revia" is an Aramaic word meaning "lying down" (i.e., horizontally positioned). This can be very clearly seen in the Targum of Onkelos at Shemot 23:5, where the Hebrew רֹבֵץ תַּחַת מַשָּׂאוֹ (referring to a donkey brought low by its burden) is translated to Aramaic as רְבִיעַ תְּחוֹת טֻעְנֵיהּ. That a cantillation mark would have such a name is entirely consistent with the names of various other marks in the same list that are also Aramaic (or of apparent Aramaic derivation), and have meanings that refer to the position of a body at rest or in motion. E.g., "pashta" (stretched out), "qadma" (advancing), "mahpach" (turning, or turned), "munach" (resting). And so, then, "revia" -- lying down.

This error is compounded yet further in the great multitude of chumashim -- many very highly regarded (by the masses, at least) for accuracy -- in which the cantillation mark "revia" (in the list of cantillation marks that appears at the front or the back of the chumash) has been renamed "revi'i". What happened, evidently, is that the proofreaders or printers, many (or most?) of whom knew Hebrew reasonably well, but knew little or no Aramaic, "corrected" what they considered an error, "revia" (a very unfamiliar Aramaic word) to what they imagined it was supposed to be, "revi'i" (a very familiar Hebrew word). And so the misconception and the error have been perpetuated down to our day, even in some of the "best" chumashim -- and show little hope of being rectified any time soon. Toddcs (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

 * Now fixed. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Notice of related discussion
A discussion related to this page is underway at Articles for deletion/Trope (religion). Ibadibam (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Alphabets in Wikipedia
I don't get why the Semitic Alphabets have one shared set of articles, each one of a group of parallel letters from different writing systems. The absurd is that the small things, that are unique to one alphabet and for a minor use today, are represented one by one here, while the Hebrew Wikipedia stayed back in this subject. הראש (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

History section uses conflicting terms for the second system
The opening paragraph of the History section says, "the Babylonian, the Palestinian and the Tiberian, only the last of which is used today." The three subheadings under History are "Babylonian system", "Israelite system", and "Tiberian system".

Should the second system be called Palestinian or Israelite? The name used in the opening paragraph and in the subheadings needs to match for clarity of reading. If both names are appropriate, then we should either list both (e.g. "Palestinian/Israelite system) or pick one for the text and note the alternate name in the body under the subheading. AristosM (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The 3-colour graphic differentiating the diacritics
The graphic shown on the main page shows a verse of Hebrew text in which the letters and the two sets of diacritics are visually differentiated by colour. The letters are in black, the vocalisation points are in red and the cantillation marks are in blue. It seems to have originated in a word processor from which a screen shot was taken to produce the graphic. Does anyone know which word processor was used to set the characters in those three colours and if there is a way to reproduce that in Microsoft Word or by some other means? To clarify the question, there is a setting in Word where you can specify a colour for diacritics, which can differ from the colour of the base letters, but there does not seem to be any way to get it to use two different colours for two ranges of diacritics. --Moongazer29.53 (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Dating
Would be really beneficial if the article could provide some historical dates to ground the time periods involved in the historical discussion. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:6200:98C:2DC7:6175:4CCB:5A7E (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Please split!
Most of this articles' content is not about cantillation but about the Teamim  it is based on. These two should be demarcated against each other. --Vollbracht (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The Psalms, Proverbs and Job section needs citations
The Psalms, Proverbs and Job section needs citations Jay Schro (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Who is who?
The text says, under "In Christian missionary uses":

The Jewish-born Christian convert Ezekiel Margoliouth...

But in the biography of Margoliouth, the translator and orientalist, says that the father was Ezekiel ("His father, Ezekiel...) and the son was David Samuel Margoliouth. 2001:9E8:BA84:1E00:D192:486B:8AEF:40C8 (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hebrew cantillation


text:
Izet Dibra

Izet Dibra (1878 – 1964) born Izet Shatku was an Albanian politician and mayor of Tirana from 1927 to 1928. He also served as minister of public works in Pandeli Evangjeli's cabinet. His brother Faik had served as attorney general and minister of justice.

Life
Izet Dibra was born as Izet Shatku on May 19, 1878 in Debar, back then Ottoman Empire, today's North Macedonia. His father Murat Ibrahim Shatku was a local merchant and financier.

Shatku took his initial studies in his native town, and followed later in Monastir. Preceding the Balkan Wars, his family moved to Turkey. There he completed studies in the Istanbul University for jurisprudence before returning to Albania in 1920. After certain lower positions in the judicial system, he was elected shortly sub-prefect of Elbasan prefecture. With the new assembly constitution, he became assembly member representing the Dibër prefecture. Until 1930 he served in several prefectures. A pro-Zog politician, he was elected minister of public works in Pandeli Evangjeli's cabinet. 1n 1937 he was elected assembly member again.

After World War II, his properties and belongings would be confiscated and his family deported. He died in Shkodër in 11.02.1964.

title: Izet Dibra


text:
Talk:Gregory Hill (writer)

Untitled
greg hill was most certainly not a pen name for robert anton wilson. my mother married greg when i was five years old, and i met wilson, thornley, benares and others throughout the course of my childhood. greg was a very dear man, i would like to make sure no one is confused about the fact that he and wilson were two separate and distinct people. nmckv@nyc.rr.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.53.34 (talk • contribs)

removed merge request
Greg Hill appears to be an unwiki'd paste of a resume of an unrelated person named Greg Hill. It shouldn't even be in the wikipedia AFAICT and certainly shouldn't be merged into this page or vice versa. DenisMoskowitz 19:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, that's right. I have put the template in, because I thought it was a text about the same person and didn't read it. -- Amtiss, SNAFU ? 20:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

death
Social Security Death Index accessed via Rootsweb has a Gregory H. Hill b. 21 May 1941, d. 20 Jul 2000. Schizombie 07:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * with SSN of 566-52-4984, died in California. It all matches up. NTK 12:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

rumoured to be?
The article on Malaclypse the Younger states "The name is most likely a pen name used by Greg Hill". Is Malaclypse's identity speculation or fact? These two articles should synch up either way. --irrevenant [ talk ] 11:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This article should simply redirect to Malaclypse the Younger. — [ aldebaer] 22:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really. The two personas are not necessarily related. There are theories that the name was later adopted by a different person. -- 62.143.139.233 (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

not real
Greg Hill is a fictional creation of Robert anton Wilson. There are no RELIABLE sources that he is a real person at all. Rich.lewis (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, we're going to ignore you now. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gregory Hill (writer)


text:
Talk:Iota Phi Theta

}}

Please create List of Grand Polari Template
At this point seven of the 9 NPHC members (all except the Iotas and the Omegas) have lists of their National Presidents (or equivalent terms) as Templates (See Category:Fraternity and Sorority President Lists), please add a referenced template for Iota Phi Theta.

Notable brother - Lance London.
There are three issues here:
 * I can't find a reference other than perhaps facebook indicating that Lance London is an Iota.
 * I can't find anything indicating how large Carolina Kitchen is to indicate whether he is notable.
 * Founder and CEO are both terms that are definitely overlinked.

What I would like to see is the addition of more of the brothers from the list at https://web.archive.org/web/20150213051221/http://www.iotaphitheta.org/about/notable-iota-men-2, or any equivalent current list. Naraht (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

One of his many post, https://www.facebook.com/511901874/posts/10154742401441875/?d=n Dascreen (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Personal facebook posts aren't reliable sources.Naraht (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Iota Phi Theta


text:
Attic War

In Greek mythology, the Attic War was the mythical conflict between the Amazons, a race of women warriors led by the Amazon queen Penthesilea, and the Athenians, led by Theseus or Heracles. The war lasted 4 months and concluded with a peace treaty in Horeomosium, near the temple of Theseus.

Depending on the version of the myth, the Amazons fought to free either Antiope or her sister Hippolyta from captivity after her abduction at the hands of a Greek hero, or to simply fight against Troy. Another version states Antiope waged war on Theseus to avenge him marrying Phaedra.

In some myths, Hippolyta was killed during the ninth labor when Heracles attempted to obtain her girdle peacefully until the Amazons attacked him, and Theseus, who had joined Hercules during his expedition, abducted Hippolyta's sister Antiope, who was an Amazon that Theseus married in a separate myth.

Siege of Athens
Plutarch states that the Amazons had most likely conquered most of the Athenian state, for having reached the Pnyx and the Museum of Athens (Museum here refers to a building or temple dedicated to Muses). Hellanikus relates that they crossed the Cimmerian Bosphorus when it was frozen; which Plutarch does not find plausible, and states that the portion of the city where the Amazons had camped bear many Amazonian hallmarks, names and graves. Once the Amazons set siege on Athens, both sides remained disengaged for a period of time. Theseus then sacrificed to Phobos and attacked the Amazonian camp during the Athenian month of Boedromion. Kleidemus writes that the left wing of the Amazon army stood in a place in Athens that came to be known later as the "Amazoneum", and the right flank reached to the Pnyx. The Athenians attacked from the Museum towards the Amazonian right wing, situated on the Pnyx, Plutarch states that the tombs of the fallen from this battle could be seen then along this area. The Athenian attack was repulsed by the Amazonians on this side, and the Amazonians counterattacked and pushed the Athenians as far back as the temple of Eumenides. On the other wing, where the Athenians attacked from the temples of Pallas and Ardettus and the Lyceum drove back the Amazonian left to their camp.

One myth states that Antiope was slain while fighting with the side of Theseus when a javelin thrown by an Amazon named Molpadia hit her, in another version of the Myth Antiope led the Amazons in battle against the Athenians and was wounded in the fighting, upon which Molpadia killed the wounded queen to save her from being captured by the Athenians, another version where Antiope is the wife of Thesesus relates that Antiope helped secretly transport wounded Amazons for treatment on the island of Chalkis that was located somewhere in the Black Sea, where some of them were buried in a place that later became known as the Amazoneum. A peace treaty was concluded on the 4th month of the war in the Horeomosium (near the temple of Theseus). The Athenians agreed to make sacrifices to the Amazons before each festival of Theseus. Plutarch writes that more Amazon graves were near Chaeronea (by the stream of Haemon, anciently known as Thermodon) and more burial places across Thessaly (Skotussa and Cynoscephalae) suggest that the Amazons had to fight more battles with other Greeks on their way back to their homeland. Plutarch also visited burial places of Amazons at Megara, where he mentions a lozenge-shaped Amazon crypt is located.

title: Attic War


text: Category:Prime ministers of Australia

title: Category:Prime ministers of Australia