text:
Talk:Shavuot

Question

 * Why is this holiday one day long in Israel and two days long elsewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.40.104 (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2005 (UTC)
 * The months where decided by the viewing of the new moon in Israel. Runners would then run out to the rest of the diaspora (Jews in other lands) and tell them.  That led to the current agreement that all important holidays will be celebrated over two days so as to stay within the Law of the appropriate day. (Mishna / Talmud [not sure of the actual reference]) {{subst:unsignedIP|168.209.97.34|06:25, 13 June 2005

Is the picture of the bowl of ice cream really necessary? At least show a picture of a cheese belintz which is commonly eaten by Ashkenazic Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.253.197 (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

i don't like the translation, the brackets implie that the word shavuot means festival of weeks, with seven being added by brackets. the word festival is just as much not part of the word as is the word seven — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.22.47 (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Infobox holiday
Is there a reason that his article doesn't use the infobox holiday like all other holidays?Jon513 19:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Untitled
Shavuot, sometimes pronounced Shavuos (Hebrew: שבועות; Israeli Heb. [ʃa•vu•'ʕot]; Ashkenazi [ʃə•'vu•əs]; "[Feast of] Weeks"), is one of the three annual times appointed by YHWH (The LORD, Jehovah) observed by all faithful males in their appearance at the place appointed by YHWH (Deuteronomy 16:16); by Rabbinical tradition most Jews observe this on the sixth day of the Hebrew month of Sivan, corresponding to late May or early June. It marks the conclusion of the Counting of the Omer and the day the Torah was given at Mount Sinai. It is one of the shalosh regalim, the three Biblical pilgrimage festivals mandated by the Torah. Others, Torah observant Christians and Messianics, count fifty days from the day after the first Sabbath, or Easter which is on the first Sunday, after Passover; the Greek word in the Septuagint and the New Testament is "pentecost" meaning "count fifty" in accordance with Leviticus 23:15. Pentecost was from that Sunday in 34AD when the Holy Spirit was given to the first Christians, including all belivers in YHWH regardless of Nationality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.28.12.56 (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Shavuot - Sola Scriptura or Tradition as dictated by a hierarchy?
Are the definitions provided by and within the written Torah to be accepted for what they are or is everyone but a self-select few to succumb to a more or less random set of definitions or doctrines dictated by tradition as interpreted by those same self-select few?

A good example illustrating the above question is my very brief entry on "19 April 2008" under Shavuot / Counting of the Omer providing first a fundamental Torah definition of a key word, i.e. "ממחרת" and secondly a reference to how the Torah instructions were being applied 2000 years ago as recorded in Greek manuscripts originally most likely written in Hebrew by the Jewish scholar and Pharisee Paul also named Saul. In order to make available to the interested reader some more relevant context and something more re the thinking of the parties referenced in my edit, I also provided an outside reference to a previously published source authored by that same party, i.e. "An exception... are such as find that the Torah teaches...:"

 * "An exception to all of the above are such as find that the Torah teaches that "ממחרת" is a reference to the morning after the beginning of the Shabbat, i.e. Shabbat morning. Cf. Genesis 19:34 and the first occurrence of "ממחרת." Support for this stand is also found from Acts 21:27 which in the supporting manuscripts indicates that Shavout was observed on the Seventh Day by Christians and Jews alike."

Unfortunately, the day following my original edit I found my contribution edited out by someone apparently believing him or herself having been given the rights and responsibilities of a censor. I believe my brief edit was and is very much an edit in harmony with the fundamental spirit and intent of Wikipedia's stated aims as published in the left hand column link entitled “About Wikipedia:”

"“Visitors do not need specialized qualifications to contribute, since their primary role is to write articles that cover existing knowledge; this means that people of all ages and cultural and social backgrounds can write Wikipedia articles. Most of the articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet, simply by clicking the edit this page link. Anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies and to an appropriate standard...”"

Yes, said censor is providing his or her basis for removing my edit (Cf. history:)
 * "Counting of the Omer: removing per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper))"

The external link provided in my edit is clearly not intended as the basis or authority for either of the Hebrew Scriptures being referenced or for the concept conveyed by those same passages. So far as I can tell, my link is, and can only reasonably be considered such subject matter as satisfies all criteria provided under SELFPUB.

Unless my original edit and this entry of mine is rebutted while providing good cause I find the censoring of my original edit being contrary to the spirit and intent of Wikipedia's stated aims and my original edit must be allowed as originally entered.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tree of Life Time (TLT)  Talk 22:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

-

 * The policy on self-published sources states that they are only acceptable "when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" or "in articles about themselves". Neither applies here. EALacey (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

-

Re "in articles about themselves:"

If and when I lay out in the open for all to perceive and to scrutinize the thoughts that are in my mind and which thoughts shape and form my beingness and my character, how can that not be an article about myself?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tree of Life Time (TLT)  Talk 02:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

- -

 * I think you are misunderstanding the policy. Your article may be about your views, but this article, Shavuot, is not about you. EALacey (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

- -

Yes, I frequently do misunderstand things before I understand them better... Thanks for helping all of us clear up another misunderstood word, "the policy!"

Yes, it seems to me that the Shavuot article is written by a party belonging to one fraction of Jews only, i.e. by such as follow the tradition: "Shavuot... is a Jewish holiday that occurs on the sixth day of the Hebrew month of Sivan..." and that accordingly this article about Shavuot is predominantly about that particular fraction of Jews. However, Christians, Reform Jews, Karaite Jews, and the Jewish diaspora are also being referenced in the Shavuot article. Thus this article is about these latter people also and is clearly not about one select group only.

Wikipedia is not only about all of the above said, but about all, [as also quoted above] and... (emphasis added:)
 * "Visitors do not need specialized qualifications to contribute, since their primary role is to write articles that cover existing knowledge; this means that people of ALL ages and cultural and social backgrounds can write Wikipedia articles."

Thus, "the policy" is clearly about all and and although the article Shavuot could potentially be about a select group of people, as I have shown above it is not exclusively about such a select group. Accordingly, I can make no sense out of your statement that the policy and/or the article "is not about [me and mine.]" Furthermore, suppose I do identify myself with one or more of those Christian or Jewish people being referenced in the article, how can this article then not be about me? And if it is about me at all, is the Shavuot article not then misrepresenting the facts of the matter when it states without more that:
 * 1. "Shavuot... is a Jewish holiday that occurs on the sixth day of the Hebrew month of Sivan...;"
 * 2. "Christians gave it the name Pentecost... this always falls on a Sunday (Leviticus 23:16)"
 * 3. "In the Jewish diaspora outside Israel, the holiday is celebrated for two days, on the sixth and seventh days of Sivan...;"
 * 4. "Karaite Judaism today continues to follow the interpretation that the Counting of the Omer begins on the Sunday after the first Shabbat during Passover, and thus celebrates Shavuot on a Sunday...;" and
 * 5. "the Christian feast of Pentecost, which falls on the fiftieth day counting from Easter, is always on a Sunday."

Do you or anyone have a right to prohibit me or mine from identifying with anyone of the names Jew, Christian, Israel or Karaite? You don't, do you?

Since when is it ok to discriminate against the natural rights of even the tiniest of minorities?       :)

Who is "misunderstanding the policy?"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tree of Life Time (TLT)  Talk 16:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

- - -

 * I think the policy on self-published sources is quite clear. For a self-published source to be cited in Wikipedia, the author must be a recognised authority on the topic, or the article must be about the source itself or its author. It is not sufficient for the article to be about a topic on which the author of the source has an opinion – that would allow any source to be cited on any topic discussed in Wikipedia. And yes, anyone can contribute to Wikipedia, but they should do so by writing about views represented in reliable published sources. If you'd like another opinion about whether the Tree of Life website is a suitable source for this article, I suggest posting a query at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EALacey (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

- - -

Why should anyone care about anything written by an "author..." that is "a recognised authority on the topic" if that which is written is obviously in error or based upon a false foundation?

On the other hand, why should anyone care about who the author is, if that which is written is pointing out an obvious albeit long overlooked treasure, especially when that forgotten treasure may be a blessing for everyone that cares to make use of it?

I can certainly see the importance of guarding an encyclopedic endeavor such as Wikipedia against anything that tends towards error or towards Wikipedia becoming just another chat blog where gossip rules with common thought and tradition and not much more.

I am also well aware of the solid grip within which most every "scholar" is being held by each their own particular paradigm, be that paradigm ever so far from the obvious truth. Rare indeed are the scholars that dare stand alone upon the platform of truth where he is not yet seing any other stand. "Scholars" are not leaders by nature. Compliance is the name of the game aiming at climbing the ladder of the hierarchy. The winners of that competition are characterized by being more loyal, more compliant, more apt to follow and obey and to do what is expected than are the losers. They are not leaders. They will never pick a true leader to be the leader of their gang. On the contrary they will do everything they can to remove anyone that is a true leader even when such a leader would otherwise make the world a better place for them all. This is all well known, well recognized, and nothing new. Yet it is all too rarely applied in the case of the here and the now and upon the first person. That is too scary and hard to perceive or accept. It is much easier to point the finger to someone far away in time or place...

That last paragraph above is longer than I like, but the point is that it is very hard to find censors that are truly free from being caught in the grip of each their own paradigm. Is it even possible to find anyone who is truly free for that job, and that would be willing to accept the post of limiting the freedom of others? I'd say yes indeed, it is! Those that are truly free knows well how to submit to the highest principles of all. The problem may be another. There is a vested, albeit hidden interest hiding behind a smoke screen, or, like the wizard, behind the stage in the Wizard of Oz. Unfortunately the wizards are well enough hidden that the puppets being controlled do not believe that the Wizard is anything but fiction and fairy tales.

Pass the buck... "That's not my responsibility..." Someone else will take over... Change of guards... Lost in the shuffle... and so it goes on and on forever like a game of Domino. Until someone is strong enough to do nothing at all to give his support to the game any longer. Until a true blue American stands up to be counted. Until One of the true remnant People of God are encountered. Until there is a Galileo, a Luther, a Yeshua, a John the Baptist, a Moses, an Elijah, a Noah, an Enoch, that is not fearful of the Intimidators or their game, and who doesn't care if he might loose his job and his pay check or his status or the support of his "friends" or "peers."

Is Wikipedia a guardian of the truth? Or, is Wikipedia fast becoming yet another smoke screen for the purpose of hiding the real truth for the common man on the street?

Is Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia aiming towards true freedom for all? Or, is Wikipedia nothing but yet another "free" benefit tying the minds of the puppets to the strings of the Wizards behind the screen?

Let the reader be the judge... Better yet, let the consequences in the long run be the judge! As best I can understand the simple and straight forward Hebrew Torah, this is Passover night. Remember the angel, the messenger, referenced in Exodus 12:12, 23, 29! Others may not perceive what I perceive. I am not here to determine anything for anyone but me. Nonetheless...

That which is is. That which will be will be. No one can hide from reality. Not I. No one. Not even in the land of the Wizard of Oz. Let's get back to Kansas!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tree of Life Time (TLT)  Talk 08:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

- - - -

 * Hi Tree of Life Time, I have been reading this conversation for some time, and have decided that I now have to step in to help. I don't know why you are getting so worked up, and would strongly recommend that you calm down and remember that everyone here is interested in making a better encyclopedia.  If you cannot contribute in a calm and polite manner, I think it would be best if you do not contribute at all.
 * Let me take a moment to review what I see happened
 * You add a paragraph about the "correct" interpretation of "ממחרת", you support this claim by what appears to be your own website.
 * Your edit is reverted and it is explained in the edit summary that this goes against wikipedia's policy of self published sources (WP:SPS).
 * Instead of explaining the merits of your edit you launch a triad about how wikipedia is censoring you.
 * You then continue adding the material, and continue scream on the talk page without any reference to wikipedia's overall guidelines and show no inclination to learn.
 * I have carefully read what you have wrote above and you seem to be greatly confused about what wikipedia is. Wikipedia is NOT the guardian or truth; when there is a conflict between what is true and what is verifiable wikipedia choose verifiable every time.  Wikipedia is NOT "aiming towards true freedom for all", by free we mean you can copy this encyclopedia and make your own based on it as long it conforms to the GNU free document license.  Finally wikipedia DOES "discriminate against the natural rights of even the tiniest of minorities" if my "natural rights" you mean "right to be in a wikipedia article".
 * Perhaps you can find a project which more closely aligns with your world view. Jon513 (talk) 10:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

- - - -

Dear Jon,

Yeshua said:
 * Luke 9:5 "And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them."

I've many times wondered what exactly those words means. Perhaps you have too?

Yet, things definitely do look very different when one's vantage points are different, do they not?

Reading your brief note above I am awe struck by how thoroughly, based upon your own words, you are misconstruing and misunderstanding just about everything touching upon my edit. From my point of view it might seem as thought you must surely be either kidding or purposely distorting my words, perhaps in an attempt to intimidate me or for whatever purpose, yet my experience also tells me that when one person who is living in a world of fiction, such as is the world that is based upon the Vatican's calendar, aka Gregorian, then things do indeed appear very different than when one is living in the real world where things are what they are in real time. And therefore I can better understand the different realities being so beautifully represented by the book and the movie The Wizard of Oz, as well as also the different reality that you may indeed be honestly perceiving, be that reality of yours ever so different from that reality which I perceive so very very clearly.

Just as I am, from my point of view, at this very moment of writing at the very midst of the seven days constituting the Feast of Unleavened Bread as I perceive that Feast being defined in the Hebrew Torah, I recognize that from the point of view of someone believing that Passover and Easter are one and the same and that Easter this year occurred in March, surely my point of view must be in error.

Likewise when considering those two vastly different vantage points it is clear that from the point of view of Romanism and the Vatican pagan world:
 * Sabbath is on Sunday and not on Shabbat, the Seventh Day of the week;
 * Resurrection occurred at dawn on a Sunday morning and not at the sunset constituting the beginning of the Third Day of the week [Monday evening] and the beginning of the "foremost of the Sabbaths" of the Feast of the Unleavened Bread [cf. the Greek words "mia ton sabbaton" rendered in KJV "the first day of the week;"]
 * The Last Supper occurred on a Thursday night and not on Tuesday evening;
 * The Crucifixion of Christ occurred at the third hour of the Day or about 9 o'clock in the morning after Jesus had twice stood before Pontius Pilate that very day (sic!,) once at the sixth hour or about noon and the second time somewhat later that same day;
 * Jesus was born at Christmas time by one that was still a virgin, and was not conceived shortly after the Sixth month (aka Sextilis or August) as clearly stated in Luke 1:26 re a young woman named Mary who was a virgin some time before she conceived and eventually delivered her baby about nine months later in the early part of summer; and
 * Pentecost "falls on the fiftieth day counting from Easter [and] is always on a Sunday" in contradistinction from that day which is defined in the Torah by the words "עד ממחרת השׁבת השׁביעת" which words may be literally translated "until the morrow of the Seventh Day of the Seventh week."
 * The most important part of life begins at death and nothing of real or lasting value should be expected in the here and the now while life is still for real.

So, yes you are surely entitled to your point of view as well as to your own opinion - as I am also to mine. Yet, even when one person's point of view is as different from that of another as is darkness from light, we can each and all continue to respect each other's rights to be whatever we choose to be within each our own dominion while yet continually living side by side on the same planet just like a couple of tiny Whip Tails can safely build their nest within a nest of Golden Eagles while both couples safely and securely lay their eggs, hatch them and eventually raise their young nestlings to maturity.

Thus, I have no need or desire of converting you or anyone into something of a different nature than you are already so long as you are what you desire and so long as you are living in the world which is the very best you could ever wish for yourself and so long as you allow me to be me without trespassing upon that which is mine from the beginning.

All I ask is that I be equally respected for what I am and that my rights of being and my rights of singing my song for anyone who may wish to listen are not being trespassed upon:

 * An exception to all of the above are such as find that the Torah teaches that "ממחרת" is a reference to the morning after the beginning of the Shabbat, i.e. Shabbat morning. Cf. Genesis 19:34 and the first occurrence of "ממחרת." Support for this stand is also found from Acts 21:27 which in the supporting manuscripts indicates that Shavuot was observed on the Seventh Day by Christians and non-Christian Jews alike.

 * Cf. also the first occurrence of "ממחרת" in the Torah (Genesis 19:24) and the timing of this event as reflected by Acts 21:27 in the most original language available. These passages both indicate that the respective events occurred on the morrow after the beginning of a certain event or of the day (sunset; 15. "ממחרת השׁבת" and 16. "עד ממחרת השׁבת השׁביעת") rather than on the morrow following the end of a specified [שׁבת] day.

Thanks also for clarifying so distinctly what "Wikipedia is NOT...!"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tree of Life Time (TLT)  Talk  12:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Tree of Life, this encyclopedia does not belong to any specific religion or philosophy. Every calendar is just as useful as a time-telling system to those who prefer it. The claims you attribute to Wikipedia or the Christian community (how you think these are in any way similar is beyond me) are absurd. Wikipedia mentions how Christians misuse our words because it's something they're noted for saying, not because Wikipedia believes it. Wikipedia strives to avoid any choice of belief. The Jewish holidays are labeled and explained as such, but it needs to be mentioned that some Christians, syncretics, etc. have their own holidays that they consider similar — not to confound the two, but to distinguish them. If you feel you can arrange the article to better express this, Wikipedia will consider constructive suggestions.

To mention when and how a ritual occurs, that is practiced still in modern times, the correct description can only be what those who actually perform it are known to do. Finding a long-forgotten passage that says they should do something different is irrelevant to an article seeking to define and describe the ritual to a world audience. (collin237) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.203.61.98 (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Bikurim Photo
The photo of bikurim (first fruits) used in this article includes bell peppers and maize. Both are of North American origin, and would not have been offered in Temple times. Also, orange carrots were a Dutch innovation of the 15th or 16th century. Perhaps a more historically accurate example of bikurm would be appropriate? 134.174.21.2 (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of origin, carrot, peppers and maize are not fruits within the context of Bikurim. I am deleting the picture from this article. --Redaktor (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

link
can be added to ext. links. Can't do it myself since I'm part of that site. Tnx. יוסף שמח (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I deleted a vandalism at the end of "Connection with the Harvest". 12.75.*.* (collin237) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.75.42.27 (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Confusion with the article
How can Shavuot have to do with first fruits when the Day of First Fruits is over a month before?--69.146.108.94 (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As stated in the article lead, the Torah calls Shavuot "Yom HaBikkurim" (The Day of First Fruits). What other day are you thinking about? Yoninah (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In Leviticus 23 it says very clearly that First Fruits is the day after the sabbath then count 50 days and that is the pentecost so either shavuot is not the day of first fruit or pentecost should not redirect to shavuot--69.146.108.94 (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read the Bible in the original Hebrew, it makes more sense. There is a lot of discussion among the rabbinic commentators about what "the day after Sabbath" means. The halakha (Jewish law) concludes that here "Sabbath" means the first day of Passover. Thus Jews begin counting the Omer on the second day of Passover; the 50th day is Shavuot.
 * Leviticus 23:17 refers to the special offering which is brought on Shavuot: two loaves of wheat bread. Here the Torah calls this offering bikkurim, which means "first-offering", since it is the first Temple offering from the new wheat crop (the Omer offering at Passover was from the barley crop) (see Rashi).
 * The Torah discussion of the mitzvah of Bikkurim (First Fruits) appears briefly in Exodus 23:19 and in depth in Deuteronomy 26:1-10.
 * The term Pentacost has nothing to do with the Bible or with Shavuot; it is a Christian holiday celebrated 50 days after Easter. Although the church believes that Pentecost is symbolically related to Shavuot, the Torah doesn't mention it at all. Yoninah (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But it says the 50 day count starts at first fruits not for first fruits --69.146.108.94 (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Where do you see this? All I see is Leviticus 23:15: "You shall count from the day after the Sabbath" (meaning the day after the beginning of the holiday of Passover, or the second day of Passover); 23:16: "You shall count 50 days and then bring a new meal-offering to God" (there are 50 days between the first day of Passover and the day of Shavuot); 23:17: "The two loaves of leavened flour will be a first-offering to God" (as Rashi explains on 23:16, the Shavuot offering of 2 loaves is called both "new" and "first-offering" because it is the first Temple offering from the new wheat crop, which is harvested at Shavuot).
 * According to the traditional rabbinic commentators, this passage in Leviticus has nothing to do with the mitzvah of Bikkurim (First Fruits). That mitzvah is detailed in Deuteronomy 26:1-10 and briefly mentioned in Exodus 23:19. Yoninah (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 23:3 is sabbath 23:4-8 is passover&unleavened bread 23:9-14 is first fruits 23:15-22 is feast of weeks then it goes on to the remaining 3 feasts--69.146.108.94 (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for citing the verses. Your interpretation is simply wrong. This passage about the Omer offering refers to exactly that, the offering of barley beginning on the second day of Passover. It has nothing to do with Bikkurim.
 * You are confusing the words "harvest" and "first fruits". The "harvest" refers to the barley or wheat crop; "first fruits" refers to the mitzvah of bringing the first-ripening fruits from the Seven Species to the Temple in Jerusalem, as delineated in Deuteronomy 26:1-10. Yoninah (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't just my interpretation it’s also how the NIV separates and headlines them; also, the Church I go to outlines the feast on an annual feast calendar this way--69.146.108.94 (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so we probably need a page Shavuot (Christian holiday). Yoninah (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. And with regard to the IP: "pentecost should not redirect to shavuot". It does not redirect to shavuot.  Enigma msg  17:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

"forgotten holiday", "little-known"
I can't understand this edit. Sourced material was removed. Reason given is that it is an "op-ed" article — it doesn't call itself that. Another reason given is that it is "advertising" — for what? I put it back in, with another source asserting the same idea. Bus stop (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Transliteration in infobox
In the infobox, a transliteration of the actual Hebrew name could be helpful. I don't know any Hebrew, but if anyone does, perhaps they could transliterate it. --N-k (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Tikkun Leil Shavuot
This section is rather confused and confusing regarding the origin of the custom. Certainly the information regarding the text of Tikkun Leil Shavuos is wrong. Every copy of the Tikkun I have ever seen ascribes its organisation to the Shaloh. Section needs major rewrite. If no one else does it, and if no objection, I will try to do it when time allows.Kepipesiom (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Corn?
The Counting of the Omer section starts, "The Torah states that the Omer offering (i.e., the first day of counting the Omer) is the first day of corn harvest". Is this a holdover from the KJV? Shouldn't that be "barley harvest"? Pedantrician (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thanks for the heads-up. Yoninah (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Shevuot in Jewish literature of the post-Torah pre-Mishnah gap

 * Someone should probably take a look at this source from the Dead Sea Scrolls and work out the best place for it in the article.

''The date of Shevuot was disputed in the Second Temple period. The Qumran community, commonly associated with the Essenes, held in its library several texts mentioning Shevuot, most notably a Hebrew original of the Book of Jubilees which sought to fix the celebration of this Feast of Weeks on 15 of Kislev, following their interpetation of Exodus 19:1. ref Joseph Fitzmyer Responses to 101 questions on the Dead Sea scrolls  1992 p87- "Particularly important for the Qumran community was the celebration of this Feast of Weeks on 111/15, because according to Exod 19:1 Israel arrived in its exodus-wandering at Mt. Sinai in the third month after leaving Egypt.. Later the renewal of the Covenant came to be celebrated on the Feast of Weeks (see Jubilees" ''
 * Where it is between Leviticus and Bikkurim looks a bit disjointed at the moment. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Squelching a budding edit war
Since I saw this issue about the Christian holiday (not to be confused with, etc.) deleted and reverted a few times, I took the liberty of taking the fact and moving it into a footnote with a cross reference. I hope this will meet with everyone's satisfaction: it explains the connection fully, yet takes it out of the body text, where it is really a distraction. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

49 or 50?
Under "Significance", "Scriptural", "Names in the Torah":

If Shavuot happens 49 days after Passover, then Pentecost ["50th", another name for the same day] can't be the 50th day after Passover. So which is it? -lifeform (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

 * It is the 50th day, there being 49 days in between. I agree that the present text at Shavuot isn't clear in this regards and should be improved. Debresser (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Book of Ruth (and other traditions)
I did edit the section under "Book of Ruth" by asking for citations about which books are read on which holidays, and on Ruth being a convert. Also I reworded the part about Ruth being a convert to more obviously show the correlation to Torah being given at Sinai, though it still seems tenuous. I completely removed a sentence that incorrectly cited a passage in Deuteronomy, and seemed to have an agenda.

I'm not convinced that this entire section is relevant to Shavuot. I believe this information belongs in the article about Ruth because this section is focused on the thematic elements of Ruth. Perhaps a passing mention of Ruth being read during this time and a link to the correct article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.166.66.246 (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

 * I undid your edits. That Ruth is a convert is specifically stated in the Book of Ruth, and can so easily be sourced you should be ashamed for tagging it. The sentence you claim is incorrectly cited and seems to have an agenda I restored, because: 1. I think it is correctly cited 2. It is relevant 3. It is ulear to me which agenda it would promote 4. We don't censor Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

 * It's possible that the description of the other four megillot—which the IP editor did not actually remove—might be better moved to a footnote in this article, because that description is not directly relevant to Shavuot. Other than that, though, it is reasonable for it to stay. In any event, I am adding a link from there to the article Five Megillot, and we'll allow that article to carry the brunt of proof for the overall concept.

 * In any event, Debresser, it wouldn't be bad to have an overall reference or two to this entire section. To people like you and me, (1), (2) and (4) are WP:BLUE, but I'm not sure that's true for everyone. (3), especially, and (5) as well, are also often cited, but less frequently. I have to admit that I have never seen (6) cited as a reason to read Ruth on Shavuot, though I've certainly seen (6) as a justification for Ruth's marriage to Boaz. Finally, while the association of Ruth with Shavuot is fairly universal, its public reading in synagogue is less so. In many Sefardic/Edot HaMizrach communities it is not read during the tefillah, though it is often studied. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

 * I agree, and would be perfectly fine with a template. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

"Both men and women participate in this tradition."
There's no reason to say this. Both men and women participate in just about any tradition, with one obvious exception. I'm sure there are women who participate in it as well as thousands of other traditions. It doesn't belong there.  Enigma msg  17:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Well, I take your point. It's useful, though, to look at the page history, and I did that. (You can get a pretty good sense by looking back approximately every Shavuot, when [not surprisingly] much of the editing happens.) Some reference to women participating in all-night Torah study on Shavuot has been in the article since User:Yoninah added it in 2006. She did much of the work on this article over the years, and she herself modified the approach to that very subject over time. At first, the reference was pretty gender-neutral. But at a certain point, Yoninah changed that to read something to the effect of "Men learn in classes or chavruta; some communities also offer classes for women. That version was also stable for a while, but eventually the PC police got a little jumpy. That eventually resulted in "People [my emphasis] learn in classes or chavruta ...", along with the relatively useless phrase you proposed to remove.
 * So I guess the tradeoff is that something along these lines has been an explicit and stable part of the article for about ten years, and taking it out can't be taken lightly. On the other hand, what's there at present is a plain-vanilla phrase that doesn't add much. So let me propose the following: Let's give Yoninah (and anyone else interested) a week or so to come by and respond to this. And if no one else does, you and I can either take out all references or find a non-awkward way to approach it. Fair enough? StevenJ81 (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. Right now the sentence doesn't do anything. It's mostly men but some women do it in some places as well, as with many other traditions. So revisit later this month.  Enigma msg  18:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe I may be guilty of trying to teach my grandmother how to suck eggs. If so, I apologize. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all, the statement is unsourced. In addition, I for one have never seen a woman taking part in the reading of the traditional Shavuot texts, so if anything, this is something reform or fringe, and that should be properly noted. Debresser (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

 * The statement was in the general section on "all-night Torah study", not in the subsection on Tikun Leil Shavuot. If you've never seen a woman at an all-night Torah study in an Orthodox shul on Shavuot, you're simply hanging out in different places from me. (Which is probably true, as far as it goes.)
 * Beyond that, the statement was not contested as inaccurate. User:Enigmaman simply thought it didn't add anything to the page at this point. (See the comment up top.)
 * In particular, Enigmaman didn't complain that it was unsourced. I mentioned that in my own reversion of the initial edit. But as far as it goes—and considering it refers to the general concept of all-night learning, not Tikun, per se—I would have thought that it was WP:BLUE.
 * I'm not going to revert further and keep contesting this, however. At the end of the day, the statement in its current form was probably going to be dropped as not adding much to the page.
 * However, that statement has been in this article, and stable, for around four years, and some explicit mention of women learning on Shavuot night has been in this article continuously for ten years. So to say that it should be dropped first and discussed afterwards is really not correct. I will defend any effort to add a properly sourced statement to this section, or may add one myself going forward. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Still, it is unsourced and challenged, so Wikipedia guidelines are clear that it should be removed. That is in addition to the second point, that it is not a general custom in traditional Judaism. Debresser (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Debresser, the fact that you don't see women participating doesn't mean they don't. It just means they don't where you live. Even when I was growing up they had a few shiurim and where I am now they have the whole night participation. Just look at many shul's programming calendar for the night and you'll see shiurim for women or for both women and men together. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand there may be various customs. Still, participation by women is not part and parcel of the tradition of Shavuot in Judaism. So, as I said, if it exists, it should be properly noted that this is a minority custom or the custom of a certain movement in Judaism. Debresser (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Who said it's a minority custom? It really all depends on the community and also the age group. I don't see the big deal with mentioning that both men and women participate, that doesn't mean that all women and all men (many men don't, do we need to include that?) participate, just that women do in fact participate in this. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It runs against Jewish laws and customs, which stress the role of women in the house and hold that women do not have a commandment to learn Torah. If there are denominations or specific shuls where women do partake in a special learning program on Shavuot, then those deviate from traditional Judaism. So far fact Now for assumptions. I assume those programs are a minority. In any case, making a general statement that women partake in the learning creates the incorrect impression that 1. this is a traditional tenet of Judaism 2. this is commonly done. Both statements are incorrect. Debresser (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Whoa! This is starting to go way afield here. I'd like to make a couple of stipulations here, in the hopes that we can wrap this up and not keep it burning over yom tov:
 * Taken from the traditional, Orthodox perspective, there is no specific commandment for women to learn Torah (in general). On the other hand, there is most certainly, even from the most traditionalist perspective, a requirement for women to learn practical Torah in realms where they are active. And it is certainly true that women receive positive s'char ("credit") for learning they do, in any event.
 * The article at status quo ante did not say this was a traditional tenet of Judaism. It said only that within many parts of the Jewish world, the current practice is that women participate in some of the overnight Torah learning on Shavuot.
 * I'll find a source if you want, but I imagine that Dovid will take my word for the fact that there are plenty of Orthodox synagogues where women attend the shiurim. From the most traditionalist perspective, that's surely not customary, but at the same time, to say "those deviate from traditional Judaism" is an excessively strong statement. (This is especially true given how often in very "traditional" communities women leave the house to work so their husbands can learn. So I'd back off the "role of women in the house" stuff for now.) And in any event, again, the status quo ante article made no statement how traditional this might be, only that it takes place.
 * The article as it now stands is agnostic on gender in this paragraph—all the language is gender-neutral, and if you weren't thinking about that question going in, you wouldn't think about it leaving, either. I'm willing to live with that. If someone tries to change the language to suggest explicitly that it's a male-only practice, then I will work hard to revert that.
 * Can everyone live with that? StevenJ81 (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I can. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as Wikipedia goes, it's best to avoid mentioning gender altogether.  Enigma msg  17:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Shavuot. 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/20080609104529/http://www.myjewishlearning.com/holidays/Shavuot/TO_Shavuot_Community.htm to http://www.myjewishlearning.com/holidays/Shavuot/TO_Shavuot_Community.htm
 * Updated 18:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC).
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611022726/http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/vedibarta-bam/shavuot.htm to http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/vedibarta-bam/shavuot.htm
 * Updated 18:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC).
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070506110728/http://www.inmamaskitchen.com/Shavuot/shavuot.html to http://www.inmamaskitchen.com/Shavuot/shavuot.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610060653/http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/030530/loopholesside.html to http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/030530/loopholesside.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604061501/http://www.ou.org/torah/tt/5759/shavuotnaso59/specialfeatures.htm to http://www.ou.org/torah/tt/5759/shavuotnaso59/specialfeatures.htm
 * Updated 18:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC).
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110828195031/http://www.bje.org.au/learning/judaism/kids/holydays/shavuot.html to http://www.bje.org.au/learning/judaism/kids/holydays/shavuot.html
 * Updated 18:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC).

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) 22:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Checked, and updated where available. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shavuot. 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/20110923230018/http://www.torahwomen.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=461:shavuot-sleepless-nights&catid=16:general&Itemid=37 to http://www.torahwomen.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=461:shavuot-sleepless-nights&catid=16:general&Itemid=37

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) 22:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Checked. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Current reference tags
I don't get this at all, and I'm especially frustrated that this got added at 11:00 UTC on the last editing day before the holiday (since tomorrow is Sabbath). So, no, Mhhossein, I don't think this article is lacking references. And if you want to say that "we should have looked at the article earlier in the week", my response would be: Mostly looks OK to me. We should clean up the reference formatting, yes. But there are references a-plenty in the article, so I don't see why it ought to be excluded from main page.
 * There are certainly some paragraphs where the only reference is an inline reference to scripture. MOS-wise, these should probably be moved to footnotes, I'd agree. But to say that these are "unreferenced"? Not correct.
 * The section "Temple in Jerusalem": Are you calling that "several" unreferenced paragraphs? Aside from inline Biblical references, there is a reference at the end of the section. Again, should be put in a footnote. But that reference undoubtedly covers the whole topic of the section. That sort of thing happens in one or two other sections of the article. What's your problem?
 * There is at least one topic where refs exist in the article, but perhaps aren't placed in all the places they might go. In the very first (short) paragraph after lead, there is no reference. But the topic has plenty of references at the section "Giving of the Torah".

And Howcheng: I don't see Shavuot on May 19 (the date it begins at sundown) or May 20 (the first day of the holiday, which is what I thought we decided on)—neither as eligible nor as ineligible. So my point of view is: Mhhossein's tags are not appropriate, and this should be added to the page for Sunday, 20 May. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I found three places where I felt a citation was needed, so I tagged those and took out the refimprove tag. Will stick it back on May 20. — howcheng  {chat} 17:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I already did that. I also filled in two of the three cn tags. I'll see what I can do about the third one next week, but I just don't have more time today. Thanks for your help! StevenJ81 (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm no expert, but I'm not sure that Pentecost, which he also removed, deserved the refimprove tag either. I added it to the "ineligible" pages for May 20, but you should probably look at it. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Pentecost does. There are a lot of paragraphs in the "Liturgical celebrations" section that are not cited, as well as the entire "Classical compositions" section. — howcheng  {chat} 19:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * StevenJ81: I do this clean up procedure every now and then. You MUST add at least one reference to every material you bring unless the material is referenced elsewhere (See WP:Verifiablity). So, "a reference at the end of the section" is not consistent with the policy. Btw, Scripture is certainly counted as primary source (See the third footnote here) which means that the article is making use of numerous citations to primary sources. The policy also says that "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". This is while some portions of the article are interpretations cited to a primary source, against the policy. For example, it's not known how "An Aramean tried to destroy my father" refers to "to Laban's efforts to weaken Jacob and rob him of his progeny", or how Shavuot corresponds to "Bring the first fruits of your land to the house of God your Lord...". This issue is not restricted to these examples and needs to be addressed before the article appears in the main page. For now, I'm going to tag the article and please avoid removing it unless the mentioned problems are resolved. Pinging for attention. Regards. --  M h hossein   talk 19:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that nay of the 50+ references are to scripture. Can someone point out what the issue is?Attack Ramon (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You are apparently missing the numerous inline citations to scripture which are not used in footnote format. For instance, you may see the "Names in the Torah" sub-section. -- M h hossein   talk 11:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Another user has already removed the tag with the same argument I am making- if there are 50+ non-scripture references, you can't tag the article as "relying too much on primary sources". If you want, we can try and find sources for the exiting scripture references. Attack Ramon (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You are trying to ignore those clear citations to scripture. Anyway here's a list of the primary sources cited in this article:
 * (Jer. 5:24), (Deut. 16:9–11), (Isa. 9:2), (Exodus 34:22), (Deuteronomy 16:10), (Exodus 23:16), (Numbers 28:26), (Mishnah Bikkurim 1:3), (Deut. 8:8), (Deut. 26:1–10), (Rashi on Deut. 26:5), (Exodus 34:26), (Abraham ibn Ezra on Deut. 26:5), (Song of Songs 4:11), (Psalm 68:16–17/15–16) and etc. There are some more inline citations to scripture.-- M h hossein   talk 18:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Stop tagging the article, having some primary sources may or may not be an issue depending on the context, but it's not enough in this case to warrant tagging the entire article. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And some of your examples are not primary sources but commentaries which would be secondary sources anyway. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Sir Joseph. Debresser (talk) 10:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sir Joseph: I doubt if you've followed the discussion. I've already raised some of the issues; "For example, it's not known how "An Aramean tried to destroy my father" refers to "to Laban's efforts to weaken Jacob and rob him of his progeny", or how Shavuot corresponds to "Bring the first fruits of your land to the house of God your Lord...". This issue is not restricted to these examples and needs to be addressed before the article appears in the main page." -- M h hossein   talk 14:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think all of us are talking past each other just a little bit.
 * To some extent, Jews knowledgeable in Judaism see some of these sources as, in fact, secondary. But I think that is sometimes hard for people less knowledgeable to see. And sometimes, these sources aren't entirely secondary by WP standards, either. But it's often a judgment call—a gray, not black or white. It can be frustrating when people not knowledgeable about Judaism decide it's "definitely black" when it's arguably white, or at least gray.
 * It's especially frustrating when that happens within 24 hours of when many of us go off-wiki for Sabbath or holiday. We've often been told to check our articles a week ahead, just in case. But frequently we've done so, and we're seeing "white" a week ahead, and then you decide after we've gone off-wiki that it's not even gray, it's black. Very frustrating.
 * There is also an issue here in which it feels to many of us as if almost-GA standards are being required (de facto) in order for a page to appear on the MP. And that's not necessarily fair, either, especially when the notability of the day itself is not in question.
 * For example, Howcheng has made it clear over time that a limited number of cn marks does not disqualify a page from a MP appearance. Yet it feels like Mhhossein will take a limited number of such marks and decide that those marks constitute sufficient grounds to add a template which is disqualifying. Where's AGF? And, again, if that happens within 24 hours of the holiday—and in the face of an agreement on this particular article that I thought we had reached late Friday afternoon EDT—I get enormously frustrated. (If you want to know why I spend less time on enWP and more on Meta and Incubator these days, that's a big reason.)
 * I also think, sometimes, that people not very knowledgeable about Judaism are often trying to ask content questions that don't really quite work in some Judaism articles. And then we get punished for it.

 * Look. My biggest frustration is that I think we are trying to review the articles on our biggest calendar events—ones whose objective notability no one questions—and think we've done so satisfactorily. And then we go off-wiki to celebrate our holiday. And then, after that, someone comes in and decides we haven't done that well enough. That's what gets me upset. If you tell us by midnight UTC, 48 hours before the posting should go up—72 hours if the posting is for a Sunday, because of the intervening Sabbath—then we'll do our very best to get things fixed. But if you're going to tell us 12 hours before the posting should go up—very late in all cases, and absolutely too late when the posting is for a Sunday, then (a) we won't be able to fix it, and (b) all you'll do is upset us and make us not very interested in working with you to improve the articles. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * One other point, specifically to Mhhossein:
 * From above: You MUST add at least one reference to every material you bring unless the material is referenced elsewhere. No argument. But the example I tried to bring was on the section "Temple in Jerusalem". Leaving aside the question of the use of the biblical references, the secondary reference that is there substantially handles the subject. I do not —repeat not —see that MOS requires every single sentence or paragraph to have its own link to the endnote. It is absolutely sufficient for that section to call the reference once. MOS is fine. You don't need to be obsessive about it. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A quick response to your last paragraph; MOS??? which MOS? Per Verifiability: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." Instead of making such long comments, I advise you to take care of the articles which are to appear on the main page. -- M h hossein   talk 17:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

All-night study
Since Jews in the diaspora add a second day, does that mean they spend two sleepless nights studying Torah, or just the first one? I assume the latter to be true, but who knows. More information on differences between the holiday in Israel and the diaspora, preferably referenced, would be welcome. I am sure some users have enough knowledge to include references to halakhic literature (Maimonides, Shulkhan Arukh and so on) on such topics, too. --178.24.249.140 (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Karaites, Samaritans, and Beta Israel
How do these groups celebrate Shavuot, and how do their traditions differ from rabbinic Judaism? Information, preferably backed up by literature and links, would be welcome! --178.24.249.140 (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

 * Of course they do since it is a Biblical holiday. Thanks for asking, otherwise I would have started a new topic to supply this link for Karaite Judaism (author seems dubious though [considering some other content]) and that one for Samaritan tradition (by a well-known Samaritan scholar); the former writes more about the date differing, the latter about how Samaritans celebrate, sometimes compared to Jewish tradition. If someone has enough time to write sections on these groups (and Ethiopian Jews, see question above), feel free to use these! --89.204.153.233 (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Commonly known in English as the Feast of Weeks
Is there any source for this? I've *never* heard it called this. It's either Shavuot, Shavuos, or maybe Shavues if you're chassidish 208.91.158.89 (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 * I understand this is how it is described in Torah, but it's certainly not usually referred to as such in the vernacular of Jewish communities 208.91.158.89 (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems so rare in the literature that it shouldn't be in the lead or infobox. I'm removing. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Torah revealed
How could the Torah - the first five books of the Scriptures - be revealed to all the people at Sinai when most of it had not happened yet? Ok, the Lord knows all - but there is no indication that knowing their future history for some time affected the ancient Hebrews at all.

Is there something here I am not understanding? Please, someone who knows the subject edit the article for a clear statement of what is believed, cause I am probably not the only confused one. 2601:647:6680:4450:D9DB:9C6C:FF4:913A (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Shavuot


text:
Junior's

Junior's is a restaurant chain with the original location at 386 Flatbush Avenue Extension at the corner of DeKalb Avenue in Downtown Brooklyn, New York City. Other locations include Times Square area and the lobby of the Fox Tower in the Foxwoods Resort in Ledyard, Connecticut. The restaurant was founded by Harry Rosen in 1950, although his family had run a diner in that location, albeit not under the Junior's name, since 1929. The place is known for iconic New York–style cheesecake. According to the restaurant, it was named Junior's after Rosen's two sons, Walter and Marvin.

History
According to GO Brooklyn, "At the corner of Flatbush and DeKalb avenues in Downtown Brooklyn, there has been a diner run by the Rosen family since 1929. In 1950, the name was changed to Junior's, and it has been serving its famous cheesecake and other goodies ever since." Alan Rosen identifies the roots of the cheesecake in Ashkenazi Jewish cuisine.

Rosen worked with master baker Eigel Peterson to create the cheesecake known today as "The World's Most Fabulous Cheesecake", based on a recipe that was in the Rosen family for three generations, a recipe that calls for sponge cake instead of graham cracker crust. In addition to cheesecake, Junior's features deli sandwiches (particularly corned beef and pastrami), ten ounce steakburgers, cheese blintzes, and unique onion rings.

Fans of the restaurant are not limited to Brooklynites. A Kuwaiti prince was known to have taken several Junior's cheesecakes back with him. A shrine to the Brooklyn of old, Junior's has become a must-visit for politicians from borough presidents to President Barack Obama, who bought two cheesecakes and a couple of black-and-white cookies during an October 2013 visit with Bill de Blasio, who was soon to be elected mayor. In 2020, the New York Post revealed after reviewing the Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings of Senator Chuck Schumer, that the Senate Minority Leader had spent US$8,600 on Junior's cheesecakes in a decade of purchases. Schumer admitted that he had spent a bundle over the years on Junior's cheesecakes calling them his "guilty pleasure". Holding a platter of the famous dessert at a news conference, he quipped: "Guilty as charged. I love Junior's cheesecake so much. It's the best cheesecake in the world. It is made in Brooklyn. I've been going to Junior's since I've been a little boy. And it's my guilty pleasure."

In 1981, when the restaurant caught on fire, a crowd of people watching the firefighters started chanting "Save the Cheesecake!" The interior of the restaurant was modernized after the fire.

Building and future plans
The building, at the corner of DeKalb Avenue and Flatbush Avenue Extension, is 17000 sqft of red-and-white-striped menus, flashbulb-adorned signs, rust-colored booths and a wooden bar.

In February 2014 the third generation owner Alan Rosen put the building on the market for development as an apartment tower with the hope of striking a deal with a developer to allow Junior's to return as a ground floor tenant. Rosen received offers up to $45M, but that offer wouldn't accommodate Junior's on the ground floor. In September 2014 Rosen took the building off the market after deciding the existing building is Junior's identity.

In April 2015, Junior's announced it would move its baking operations from Queens to Burlington, New Jersey.

In 2016, the location inside Grand Central Terminal in Midtown Manhattan was closed.

In popular culture

 * Junior's cheesecakes have been sold nationwide through various outlets, including the television shopping network, QVC.
 * The diner was featured in the Brooklyn Public Library's children's book of Brooklyn landmarks, Brooklyn Pops Up.
 * In a 2003 Making the Band 2 episode, "Da Band" was assigned to walk to Brooklyn and get a slice of cheesecake from Junior's for Sean "P. Diddy" Combs. They also filmed their single "Tonight" from their 2003 album Too Hot for TV in front of the restaurant.
 * In 2010, Junior's defeated fellow New York City cheesecake shop Eileen's Special on an episode of Food Feuds as chef Michael Symon's choice for best cheesecake in New York City.
 * Junior's featured as an impromptu gathering location in the 2014 movie The Angriest Man in Brooklyn starring Robin Williams and Mila Kunis.
 * In Tom Robbins novel Still Life with Woodpecker, Junior's cheesecake is referred to in "How to make love stay".

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

title: Junior's


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Locke Arrakon

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:38, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Locke Arrakon
Non-notable figment of some forumers imagination. Grand total of 3 Google hits. the wub (talk) 22:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete --W(t) 22:24, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
 * Delete, unverifiable, non-notable, likely vanity fantasy. And two of those 3 hits are Wikipedia mirrors. -- Infrogmation 03:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 05:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, irrelevant to anything, vanity Citizen Premier 14:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .


text:
Dan Gallagher

Dan Gallagher (May 14, 1957 – January 20, 2001) was a Canadian broadcaster, best known for hosting the game show Test Pattern on MuchMusic between 1989 and 1991. Also in the 1980s, he appeared on the Canadian music channel MuchMusic as a VJ and host of the Pepsi Power Hour. Gallagher later hosted the CBC Television music video program Video Hits from 1991 to 1993.

He later hosted beach volleyball game on TSN, and was a featured contributor for Hockey Night in Canada.

He also guest-starred on the Canadian comedy show The Kids in the Hall.

Early life
Gallagher attended Senator O'Connor College School in Don Mills, where he was active with the school's counter-culture magazine, Gnork, then L'Amoreaux Collegiate Institute in Scarborough in the mid-1970s and founded an in-school radio station, "Radio L'Am" along with several other like-minded friends and which is still in operation as of 2023. He also was active in student council activities.

Gallagher was a DJ at the Bullring, a pub on the campus of the University of Guelph.

In 1989, Gallagher starred in the obscure low-budget horror anthology, Freakshow.

In 1991, Gallagher was the in-stadium host of Toronto Argonauts football games at the SkyDome; he worked with a sidekick named Luc Casimiri.

He hosted various weekend talk programs on CFRB in Toronto.

Death
In January 2001, he was found dead in his home by his brother Brett Gallagher after a sudden illness. It was believed that Gallagher had contracted pneumonia during a trip to Barbados.

title: Dan Gallagher


text: User talk:198.65.161.88

title: User talk:198.65.161.88


text:
Chu shogi

Chu shogi (中将棋 chū shōgi or Middle Shogi) is a strategy board game native to Japan. It is similar to modern shogi (sometimes called Japanese chess) in its rules and gameplay. Its name means "mid-sized shogi", from a time when there were three sizes of shogi variants that were regularly being played. Chu shogi seems to have been developed in the early 14th century as a derivative of dai shogi ('large shogi'). There are earlier references, but it is not clear that they refer to the game as we now know it.

With fewer pieces than dai shogi, the game is considered more exciting, and was still commonly played in Japan in 1928–1939, especially in the Keihanshin region. The game largely died out after World War II despite the advocacy of prominent shogi players such as Okazaki Shimei and Ōyama Yasuharu (who played chu shogi when young and credited it with the development of his personal cautious and tenacious shogi style). In 1976, there were about 30–40 masters of the game. It has gained some adherents in the West, having been praised as "the best of all large chess games" by David Pritchard, and still maintains a society (the Chushogi Renmei, or Japanese Chu Shogi Association) and an online following in Japan.

The main reference work in English is the Middle Shogi Manual by George Hodges (TSA).

Objective
The objective of the game is to capture the opponent's king and, if present, the prince, which counts as a second king. These two pieces are called "royal pieces", as the game is lost when a player is left without any of them. Alternatively, under the rules of the Japanese Chu Shogi Association, it suffices to capture all the opponent's other pieces, leaving a bare king or a bare prince, whereupon the player wins and the game ends early, provided that one's own king is not immediately bared or captured on the next move. Unlike standard shogi, pieces may not be dropped back into play after capture.

Gameplay
Two players alternate making a move, with Black moving first. (The pieces are not differentiated by color, but rather by facing of the pieces, with the "sharp" end pointed at the opponent; the traditional chess terms "Black" and "White" are only used to indicate who plays first, and to differentiate the sides during discussions of the game.) A move consists of moving a piece either to an empty square on the board or to a square occupied by an opposing piece, thus capturing that piece; and optionally of promoting the moving piece, if the move enters the promotion zone, or if it is a capture and any part of it is in the promotion zone.

Game equipment
Two players, Black and White (or 先手 sente and 後手 gote), play on a board ruled into a grid of 12 ranks (rows) and 12 files (columns), with a total of 144 squares. The squares are undifferentiated by marking or color, unlike a Western chess board.

Each player has a set of 46 pieces of 21 different types, and each piece has its name written on it in Japanese kanji. The writing is typically in black. On the reverse side of most pieces (i.e. except the king, queen, and lion) there are characters to indicate the piece's promoted rank, typically written in red. The pieces are wedge-shaped and their orientation indicates which player they belong to, as they point toward the opposing side. In all, the players must remember 28 moves for these pieces. The pieces are of slightly different sizes; from largest to smallest (most to least powerful) they are:

 * 1 King
 * 1 Queen (also referred to as a "running/rushing/free king", which is a direct translation of the Japanese name)
 * 1 Lion
 * 2 Dragon kings
 * 2 Dragon horses
 * 2 Rooks
 * 2 Bishops
 * 1 Kirin (sometimes called "Kylin", an anglicisation)
 * 1 Phoenix
 * 1 Drunk elephant
 * 2 Blind tigers
 * 2 Ferocious leopards
 * 2 Gold generals
 * 2 Silver generals
 * 2 Copper generals
 * 2 Vertical movers
 * 2 Side movers
 * 2 Reverse chariots
 * 2 Lances
 * 2 Go-betweens
 * 12 Pawns

Listed below are the pieces of the game and, if they promote, the pieces they promote to. Names are rough translations that have become somewhat standardized in English. Pieces are listed alphabetically by their English name.

The promotions apply only to pieces that start out with the ranks in the left-most column. That is, pieces with these ranks written in black; promoted pieces with those same ranks written in red may not be promoted further. Pieces that only appear upon promotion, that is, names that only occur written in red, are marked with an asterisk. The king, queen, and lion do not promote.

 * 1 The pronunciations of 龍馬, 奔王, 反車, and 白駒 are irregular. The regular forms ryūme, hon’ō, hansha, and hakuku are also seen.
 * 2 The alternative pronunciations 盲虎 mekura, 香車 yari, 歩兵 hohei or fu, and 鯨鯢 geigei are also sometimes seen.
 * 3 Bishops, gold generals, and rooks arising from promotion (not the ones present initially) are sometimes given the alternate readings chorokaku, と金 tokin, and kinbisha respectively.

Below is a diagram showing the setup of the players' pieces. The board setup is symmetrical: the way one player sees their own pieces is the same way that the opposing player sees their pieces.

In some contexts, one-letter abbreviations may be necessary. Those used in WinBoard are given in the second column of abbreviations. Promoted pieces are notated by a + in front of the symbol; thus a white horse is +L, and a promoted gold (now a rook) is +G.

Sometimes the kirin is abbreviated Ky (for kylin), and the queen FK (for free king).

Promotion
The promotion zone is the 'enemy camp', the farthest four ranks of the board, which are mostly occupied by the opposing player's pieces when the board is first set up. When a promotable piece enters the promotion zone from outside, or makes a capture starting within the promotion zone, it has the option of "promoting" to a more powerful rank. Promotion is not mandatory, and in some cases it may be beneficial to leave the piece unpromoted. (For example, the pawn, gold general, silver general, copper general, ferocious leopard, phoenix, kirin, vertical mover, side mover, and go-between all lose some of their powers upon promoting, so that there may be immediate tactical reasons for deferral, even though they all gain much more than they lose.) Promotion is permanent and promoted pieces may not revert to their original rank, nor promote a second time. If a piece is not promoted upon entering the promotion zone, then it may only promote by making a capture, or by exiting and reentering the zone. Pawns are an exception (see below).

Promotion is effected by turning the piece over after it moves, revealing the name of its promoted rank. Promoting a piece has the effect of changing how that piece moves. See below. For example, promoting a kirin turns it into a lion, and thereafter it behaves exactly like the original lion, even for the lion-trading rules. (Which can be a reason to defer promotion of a kirin.) A rook obtained by promoting a gold differs from an original rook, though, in that the latter can still promote (to dragon king), while the former cannot.

If a pawn reaches the furthest rank, it gets a second opportunity to promote on a non-capture. (This is because the pawn can never leave the zone, and there is a legitimate reason to defer its promotion: a pawn can stand between two protected lions without allowing either player to trade them, which is something a promoted pawn – a gold general – cannot do.) No such exception exists or is needed for lances (the only other piece with no backward moves) as there is never any reason to defer promotion of a lance in the first place: therefore, a lance that reaches the furthest rank without promoting becomes an immobile "dead piece" (死に駒). This last-rank promotion of pawns can likewise be declined, leaving the pawn as an immobile "dead piece". (Unlike for lances, this might still be done with reason, again because of the lion-trading rules.)

According to Okazaki Shimei, the go-between can likewise promote on the furthest rank on a non-capture. In the past, the Japanese Chu Shogi Association used this rule, but later repealed it because the go-between can go backwards. Some of the new rules given by Okazaki and not present in the Edo-period texts seem to be late innovations in the history of chu shogi from the Showa period.

Piece movement
An opposing piece is captured by displacement: That is, if a piece moves to a square occupied by an opposing piece, the opposing piece is displaced and removed from the board. A piece cannot move to a square occupied by a friendly piece, that is, by another piece controlled by the moving player.

Each piece on the game moves in a characteristic pattern. Pieces move either orthogonally (that is, forward, backward, left, or right, in the direction of one of the arms of a plus sign, +), or diagonally (in the direction of one of the arms of a multiplication sign, ×). The lion is the sole exception, in that it is not required to move in a straight line.

As stated earlier, this game is based on dai shogi and all of the pieces of this game can be found in dai shogi. The eight types of pieces that were removed were all rather weak and all promoted to gold generals. Furthermore, the larger board of dai shogi makes the slow-moving step movers even slower. All of this made for comparatively dull gameplay.

Many pieces are capable of several kinds of movement, with the type of movement most often depending on the direction in which they move. The movement categories are:

Step movers
Some pieces move only one square at a time. If a friendly piece occupies an adjacent square, the moving piece may not move in that direction; if an opposing piece is there, it may be displaced and captured.

The step movers are the king, prince, drunk elephant, blind tigers, ferocious leopards, the generals, go-betweens, and the 12 pawns of each side. Only the king and prince can move in all eight directions. The king and prince are additionally considered royal pieces, as losing both of them loses the game. The Japanese Chu Shogi Association, in addition to separating out the king and prince, also considers the pawns and go-betweens as a separate class of 'pawns' (歩), while the remaining step movers are called 'small pieces' (小駒).

Jumping pieces
Several pieces can jump, that is, they can pass over any intervening piece, whether friend or foe, with no effect on either. These are the lion, the kirin, the phoenix, the horned falcon and the soaring eagle. Only the lion can jump in all directions.

Ranging pieces
Many pieces can move any number of empty squares along a straight orthogonal or diagonal line, limited only by the edge of the board. If an opposing piece intervenes, it may be captured by moving to that square and removing it from the board. A ranging piece must stop where it captures, and cannot bypass a piece that is in its way. If a friendly piece intervenes, the moving piece is limited to a distance that stops short of the intervening piece; if the friendly piece is adjacent, it cannot move in that direction at all.

The ranging pieces are the queen, dragon king, dragon horse, rook, bishop, vertical mover, side mover, reverse chariot, lance, and all those pieces which do not appear in the initial setup except the prince. Only the queen can range along all eight directions. The Japanese Chu Shogi Association further divides them into greater (大走り駒) and lesser (走り駒) ranging pieces: the greater ranging pieces are the queen, horned falcon, and soaring eagle, and the remainder are lesser ranging pieces.

Lion move (multiple capture)
The lion has a double-capture ability, called a 'lion move', as to a lesser extent do the soaring eagle and horned falcon (promoted dragon king and dragon horse). The details of these powerful moves are described for the lion below.

Individual pieces
Following are diagrams that indicate the movement of each piece. Pieces are listed roughly in order, from front to back rows, with pieces making similar moves paired. Pieces with a grey heading start out in the game; those with a blue heading only appear on the board as a promoted piece. Betza's funny notation has been included in brackets for easier reference, with the extension that the notation xxxayyyK stands for an xxxK move possibly followed by an yyyK move, not necessarily in the same direction. By default continuation legs can go into all directions, but can be restricted to a single line by a modifier 'v' ("vertical", interpreted relative to the piece's current position on its path). The default modality of all legs is the ability to move and capture: other possibilities are specified explicitly. Square brackets are used to make it clear what operators the a modifier chains together: thus DaK would denote a dabbaba move followed by a king move, but D[aK] would denote a piece that can move as a dabbaba, or twice as a king. Use [crM] for the expression that could be reached and returned by moving as M.

 * The next three pieces have special movements that involve the ability to move and even capture twice per turn.

Lion moves
Below are eight examples of the lion-trading rules in action. In all examples below, the Black and White pieces are distinguished by colour, rather than their direction as they would be in a real game. (Black moves up the board.)

Repetition
In principle a player may not make a move if the resulting position is one that has previously occurred in the game with the same player to move. (This rule is usually relaxed without altering its effect, by only forbidding the 4th occurrence of any position, to allow for human error. ) However, evidence from historical mating problems suggests that this prohibition does not apply to a player who is in check.

Note that certain pieces have the ability to pass in certain situations (a lion, when at least one square immediately adjacent to it is unoccupied, a horned falcon, when the square immediately in front of it is unoccupied, and a soaring eagle, when one or both of the two squares immediately diagonally in front of it are unoccupied). (The lion, horned falcon, and soaring eagle can also be blocked from passing by the edge of the board.) Such a pass move leaves the position unchanged, but it does not violate the repetition rule, as it will now be the turn of the other player to move. Of course, two consecutive passes are not possible, as the first player will see the same position as before.

The Japanese Chu Shogi Association plays by more complex repetition rules. Only a fourth repetition is forbidden, and the burden to deviate is not necessarily on the player that reaches this first. If one side is making attacks on other pieces (however futile) with his moves in the repeat cycle, and the other is not, the attacking side must deviate, while in case of checking the checker must deviate regardless of whether the checked side attacks other pieces. In the case of consecutive passes, the side passing first must deviate, making turn passing to avoid zugzwang pointless if the opponent is in a position where they can pass their turn too. If none of these are applicable, repetition is a draw.

Check and mate
When a player makes a move such that the opponent's only remaining royal (king or prince) could be captured on the following move, the move is said to give check; the king or prince is said to be in check. If a player's king or prince is in check and no legal move by that player will get it out of check, the checking move is also mate, and effectively wins the game.

Unlike Western chess, a player need not move out of check in chu shogi, and indeed may even move into check. Although obviously not often a good idea, a player with more than one royal may occasionally sacrifice one of these pieces as part of a gambit, or trade it for more capable pieces.

A player is not allowed to give perpetual check. This is not a rule in itself, but arises from the repetition rule.

Game end
A player who captures the opponent's sole remaining king or prince wins the game. Thus a player who is checkmated or stalemated will lose. The very artificial situation of a smothered stalemate, where no moves are possible (even those that would expose the king), is not covered in the historical sources. The Chess Variant Pages rule this as a loss for the stalemated player, for definiteness.

As an alternative, there is the "bare king" rule. A historic description of chu shogi mentions, "When pieces are gone, and there are only the 2 kings, one can mate only if he has a promoted gold". Nonetheless, this is only one specific case, and the motivation for such a rule is uncertain given that king and rook (a promoted gold) against king is an easy forced checkmate. The Japanese Chu-Shogi Association has altered this into a general baring rule similar to that of shatranj, where a bare king immediately loses against any other material, unless the player can bare the opponent on the following move (in which case the game is a draw), or the player can capture the opponent's sole remaining king or prince on the following move (in which case the opponent loses). This makes a difference in the endgames of king and pawn against king, or king and ferocious leopard against king, which cannot be won by the stronger side without the bare king rule (and also in some cases with blind tigers, silver generals, and copper generals that can be trapped by the enemy king when separated from their own kings). Further detail is offered in their standardised rules: king and any piece against king is an immediate win by the bare king rule, except if the piece is a pawn or go-between, in which case it must be promoted safely (to a gold general or drunk elephant respectively) before the win can be claimed. Furthermore, "dead pieces" do not count under this rule; a king and an immobile pawn or lance at the far rank against a king is still a draw.

In practice these winning conditions are rarely fulfilled, as a player will resign when checkmated, as otherwise when loss is inevitable.

A player who makes an illegal move loses immediately. (This rule may be relaxed in casual games, and Hodges writing for a Western audience encourages players to do so.) Players can also agree to a draw at any time, or if the game reaches a position such that the winning condition is impossible to fulfill for either player (called 持将棋 jishōgi, as in standard shogi). (In practice, positions that cannot be won without the other side making a very obvious blunder are also considered as jishōgi, such as a king with only his lion blocked from getting near the enemy king by two side movers on adjacent ranks.) Under the historical rules, this means that no legal series of moves can lead to all of one player's royal pieces being captured; under the Japanese Chu Shogi Association's rules, this additionally means that no legal series of moves can lead to one player being left with only a king, or with no royal pieces. In professional play, drawn games are replayed with opposite colours.

Touch rule
Hodges reports a strict touch rule for chu shogi. Once a piece has been touched, it must be moved. Furthermore, if the piece is also moved to a square, it must remain on that square without exception. (That is, the piece cannot be moved to a different square, even if one's hand does not leave the piece.) Under the rules of the Japanese Chu Shogi Association, if a piece is touched but it cannot move, there is no penalty for the first two times, but the opponent can declare a foul on the third time, resulting in forfeiture of the game. Thus, chu shogi's touch rule is stricter than the western chess touch-move rule used in tournament play.

Handicaps
Games between players of disparate strengths are often played with handicaps. In a handicap game, one or more of White's pieces are removed from the setup—in exchange, White may move up a few of their pieces or rearrange them to fill in the gaps and protect the weaker pieces, and White plays first. Lions can also be handicapped by having Black's kirin promoted for a second lion, and, for a third, swapping Black's phoenix for White's kirin and promoting the latter.

The imbalance created by this method of handicapping is not as strong as it is in international chess because material advantage is not as powerful in chu shogi as it is in chess.

Most of the handicaps detailed in the Middle Shogi Manual, in increasing order of size, are as follows:

 * Copper General
 * Silver General
 * Blind Tiger
 * Ferocious Leopard
 * Gold General
 * Side Mover
 * Vertical Mover
 * Rook

 * Two Lions
 * Two Lions and a Copper General
 * Two Lions and a Silver General
 * Two Lions and a Ferocious Leopard
 * Two Lions and a Gold General
 * Two Lions and a Side Mover
 * Two Lions and a Vertical Mover
 * Three Lions
 * Three Lions and One Piece: Three Lions and a Queen
 * Three Lions and Two Pieces: Three Lions, a Queen and a Dragon King
 * Three Lions and Three Pieces: Three Lions, a Queen, a Dragon King and a Rook
 * Three Lions and Four Pieces: Three Lions, a Queen, a Dragon King, a Rook and a Vertical Mover
 * Three Lions and Five Pieces: Three Lions, a Queen, a Dragon King, a Rook, a Vertical Mover and a Side Mover

There are two other handicaps detailed in the Manual, of unknown exact size: one is Queen (probably slightly weaker than Two Lions); the other is Queen and Dragon King. Other handicaps may be used, such as Two Kings (where the weaker player begins with the Drunk Elephant promoted).

The relationship between handicaps and differences in rank is not universally agreed upon. Colin Adams' suggestion is as follows:

He also once suggested a grading system going downward from 20 kyū (beginner) to 1 kyū, and then upward from 1 dan to 9 dan. (That suggestion was from about 2000.)

Game notation
The method used in English-language texts to express shogi moves was established by George Hodges in 1976 ('TSA notation') in the magazine Shogi. It is derived from the algebraic notation used for chess, but modifications have been made for chu shogi.

A typical example is P-8f. The first one or two letters represents the piece moved (see setup above, except that Ky "kylin" is used for Kirin and FK "free king" for Queen). Promoted pieces have a + added in front of the letter, for example +P for a promoted pawn. The designation of the piece is followed by a symbol indicating the type of move: - for an ordinary move or x for a capture. Next is the designation for the square on which the piece lands. This consists of a number representing the file and a lowercase letter representing the rank, with 1a being the top right corner (as seen from Black's point of view) and 12l being the bottom left corner. (This method of designating squares is based on Japanese convention, which, however, uses Japanese numerals instead of letters. For example, the square 2c is denoted by 2三 in Japanese.)

If a move entitles the player to promote the piece, then a + is added to the end to signify that the promotion was taken, or an = to indicate that it was declined. For example, Px7d= indicates a pawn capturing on 7d without promoting.

In cases where the above notation would be ambiguous, the designation of the start square is added after the designation for the piece in order to make clear which piece is meant.

When a 'Lion', 'Horned Falcon' or 'Soaring Eagle' captures by igui (that is, without moving), the square of the piece being captured is used instead of the destination square, and this is preceded by the symbol '!'. For example, a Lion on 8c capturing a piece on 9d by igui would be shown as Lnx!9d.

When a piece makes a double capture with 'Lion' powers both captures are shown in the order that they were made. For example, a Lion on 3g, capturing a piece on 3h and then capturing another on 2i, would be represented by Lnx3hx2i.

Moves are commonly numbered as in chess.

WinBoard/XBoard uses non-easternised algebraic notation for the moves, differing mainly from TSA notation by using single-letter piece abbreviations, labeling the board files with the letters a–l from left to right, the board ranks with the numbers 1–12 from bottom to top, and omitting the hyphen separator between piece name and square coordinates. It reverses the names "Black" and "White" to conform to international chess. Thus it becomes White who moves first, and his king starts at f1; the Black king starts at g12. (In the TSA notation, these squares are 7l and 6a respectively.) Double moves are indicated by the same method as in TSA notation (e.g. +Dxf6-g7). Igui, however, has no special notation but is written as the back-and-forth double move it is, while a turn pass is written as -- and not associated with a particular piece. Absence of a promotion + suffix implies deferral. Some WinBoard versions use a more general notation for double moves, writing all legs as individual SAN moves, separating them by commas.

Variations
One modern variant of chu shogi, called Heisei chu shogi (平成中将棋), is played on a more open board. Forty percent of the pieces are set aside at setup and held in reserve, and at any point during the game a player may drop one of these on an empty square adjacent to a friendly piece. Captured pieces do not come back into play, and the rest of the game is played as in regular chu shogi.

The set-aside pieces are the lances, coppers, silvers, side movers, vertical movers, reverse chariots, kirin, and phoenix. As with dropped pieces in standard shogi, the piece may not be dropped on a square from where it cannot move (e.g. a lance in the far rank). If dropped into the promotion zone, the piece may promote immediately or on any subsequent move in the promotion zone.

Opening
The valuable long-range sliders have to be shielded from attack by the enemy's much less-valuable steppers by operating from behind one's own steppers, or they would get quickly lost through fork attacks. As the steppers start on the back rank, they need to be developed before one can engage the opponent. This is usually done by pushing the Pawns one rank forward, creating a passage through the 3rd rank by moving up some of the sliders there, and walk Copper, Silver and Leopard to the 4th rank and beyond through the resulting corridor. One of the Side Movers is usually moved up to 4th rank, so that when a player's own camp empties as a result of launching an attack, the Side Movers prevent entry of the enemy Lion by controlling 3rd and 4th rank.

King castle
The King is usually protected by hiding it behind a wall on the 2nd rank built from the two Tigers and the Elephant. When standing shoulder to shoulder these pieces protect each other's blind spots, making the defense hold up against a lone Lion. An even stronger castle results from leaving the Golds diagonally protecting the outer-most pieces of the wall, although this has the obvious disadvantage that these Golds then cannot be used for attacking, or protecting the wings of a player's camp from infestation by enemy promoting pieces. There is no hurry in building the castle, as it will take a long time before the opponent can fight their way through all the material that is initially in front of a player's King.

Edges
The left and right board edge are controlled by the battery formed by Lance and Chariot. Usually little can be achieved here before one somehow acquires a majority by taking out some of the opponent's pieces there from the side. But even if the opponent's edge would be completely annihilated, it will take an impractically long time before one can cash in on that, and promote Lance and Chariot so they can get involved on the real battle, as one would first have to get one's Pawn out of the way by walking it to promotion. So a majority here is more a tie breaker in case the main battle ends undecided than an immediate advantage.

Piece values
According to the German Chu Shogi Association, the average values of the pieces are:

These average values do not take into account the special status of the king and prince as royal pieces. They have also been normalized so that the pawn is worth 1 point to avoid fractions. Additionally, pieces gain in value if they have a good chance of promotion (particularly for the kirin, which promotes to the most powerful piece in the game).

Wayne Schmittberger adopts a different point of view, claiming that no such point values can be assigned, because most pieces can promote. Instead, he sorts the pieces, while grouping them by approximate value:

 * 1) lion
 * 2) queen, (soaring eagle), (horned falcon), dragon king, dragon horse
 * 3) (flying ox), (free boar)
 * 4) (dragon king), rook, phoenix*
 * 5) (dragon horse), bishop, vertical mover, (rook)
 * 6) kirin*, side mover
 * 7) (white horse), (whale), (crown prince)**
 * 8) reverse chariot, lance
 * 9) (flying stag)
 * 10) gold, drunk elephant*
 * 11) (bishop)
 * 12) (vertical mover), (side mover)
 * 13) ferocious leopard, blind tiger, silver
 * 14) (drunk elephant), (tokin), copper
 * 15) go-between, pawn

* Value varies greatly according to how close it is to promotion

** But if the player has lost his or her king, the crown prince is priceless.

= promoted and cannot promote further; e.g. "(bishop)" = promoted ferocious leopard

Promoting
Pieces that can slide forward promote far more easily than steppers or jumpers. As the board thins out their promotion becomes unavoidable, while steppers can almost always be met by an opponent stepper to neutralize it by the time it arrives at the promotion zone. The potential promotion gain of the sliders is thus always an important part of the material balance, but if it makes up too large a part of a player's total strength, they might be overwhelmed before they can develop this potential.

Particularly significant are the phoenix and kirin, which promote to the two most powerful pieces in the game. They are best not used up in tactics, but kept until they get an opportunity to survive a promotion.

title: Chu shogi


text:
Paul Bertolli

Paul Joseph Bertolli (born 1954) is a chef, writer, and artisan food producer in the San Francisco Bay Area, in California.

Biography
Paul Bertolli was born in 1954 in San Rafael, California, to parents of Italian descent. He rose to prominence in the gourmet food world at Chez Panisse in nearby Berkeley, California, working from 1982 to 1992. He eventually became executive chef and co-authoring Chez Panisse Cooking with restaurant founder Alice Waters. He was later the executive chef of the Oliveto restaurant in Oakland, California, until mid-2005.

He is most known for producing handcrafted ingredients like balsamic vinegar and salumi (cured-pork products such as salami and prosciutto). He opened a food supplier, Fra' Mani Handcrafted Salumi, in March 2006 ('Fra Mani' is derived from the Italian for 'between or among hands'; and conveys the message 'from our hands to yours'). In 2003, he also authored, Cooking by Hand: A Cookbook.

title: Paul Bertolli


text:
Austrian language

Austrian language may refer to:

 * Austrian German, the variety of Standard German written and spoken in Austria
 * One of the other Languages of Austria

title: Austrian language


text: User talk:68.74.107.137

title: User talk:68.74.107.137


text:
Prime Minister of Syria

The prime minister of Syria (رئيس وزراء سوريا) is the head of Council of Ministers appointed by the President of the Syrian Arab Republic.

Nomination
The prime minister is appointed by the president of Syria, along with other ministers and members of the government that the new prime minister recommends.

The People's Assembly of Syria then approves the legislative program of the new government, before the new government formally take office.

There are no constitutional limits on a prime minister's term, and several of them served multiple non-consecutive terms. The Syrian Presidency retains the constitutional authority to appoint or remove the Prime Minister and his Council of Ministers.

Powers and removal
Powers:
 * Enforcing laws
 * Supervising government bodies
 * Passing administrative decisions
 * Advising the president
 * Overseeing the Cabinet

Removal:
 * Upon dismissal by the president
 * Upon submission of resignation to the president
 * Upon removal or resignation of the president
 * Upon a vote of no-confidence by the legislature

title: Prime Minister of Syria


text:
Samantha Taylor

Samantha Taylor (born Myroslava Lastivka Lydia Luciw in Toronto in 1958) is a Canadian radio and television personality. She is perhaps best known as the host of the popular CBC Television music video program Video Hits from 1984 to 1989.

Early life
Born to Ukrainian parents in Toronto, Taylor's family moved to Pennsylvania when she was three years old. She began her broadcasting career while a student at Pennsylvania State University, using her birthname Myra Luciw as host of the Ukrainian students' radio  program on the university radio station while also using the pseudonym Michele Michaels at a commercial station she was an intern.

After graduation, Taylor worked briefly in Washington, DC before returning to Toronto in 1980, where she was hired as station librarian and part-time disc jockey for Q-107. At Q-107 she rose to become the station's music director. During that same period she also began hosting CFMT's Metro Music show, giving her the music video experience that would lead to the eventual job with CBC's Video Hits in 1984. On Metro Music she typically introduced the videos and then answered phone calls live on air from fans in the Toronto area. While later working for the CBC, Taylor also judged some episodes of the network's 1985 battle of the bands competition series Rock Wars.

Video Hits success
In an era in which many viewers across Canada, particularly in non-urban areas, didn't have access to cable television programming such as MTV and MuchMusic, Video Hits quickly became the best bet for many viewers to see the latest hit music videos. As the show's popularity grew, Taylor came to be regarded as "Canada's coolest young lady". At its peak, the show attracted one million viewers weekly and drew higher ratings than any other music video program in Canada.

title: Samantha Taylor