This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
Is there a relevant corresponding article? Not that it'll be up to date, but useful to external link footnote. I ask that partly in relation to
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) since there is not a single Google books hit for "Chromim" What is the correct English term?
The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources
Addeded a topline italic note that en.wikipedia has three duplicate articles on the same Hebrew word
Cherem,
Herem and
Chromim plural. he.wikipedia gets round this with the last of the three by putting (to the priest) in brackets.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
07:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose move to term which is so artificial. In addition, user is trying to forcibly remove Hebrew terms from Wikipedia, and his actions are currently being debated on
WT:JUDAISM.
Debresser (
talk)
05:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Hi Debresser. User (me) is only trying to improve articles which are not following
WP:naming conventions (use English), one user cannot "forcibly" apply a WP policy if other users are against it. Can you please run a Google Scholar or Google Books check to demonstrate that the term hromim is better represented in WP:RS than English renderings? Thanks.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
07:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)reply
This is a technical term, which has no "standard" translation. Making up some awkward translation is not what these naming conventions are about.
Debresser (
talk)
19:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)reply
In Sociological approaches to the Old Testament Robert R. Wilson - 1984 we read ".. of early legal activity comes from Joshua 7, the story of the trial of Achan after his theft of devoted objects from Jericho,", + standard commentary on 1 and 2 Chronicles William Johnstone - 1999 we read "devoted objects, Lev. 27.28)."
But that may not be the best translation, the JPS Tanakh has, I believe, "devoted things". Like the English language sources in the article. Which already has "devoted things".
In ictu oculi (
talk)
00:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Use of English and sources in the article
Hi Debresser, I guess for the moment we can live with having a pseudo-Hebrew word / Croatian adjective as title rather than the normal English term for "devoted things" as the title of Marecheth HoElohuth's essay, but to delete academic sources like Neusner and
revert all the naming, grammar and spelling corrections because "Tanakh is not
Hebrew Bible" or the wrong Sifre is being silly. This is en.wikipedia and articles should be in English, like mainstream Jewish and secular academic sources are in English.
I agree that the title sounds Croatian. Precisely my thoughts. I am sorry, but I had to revert your edits, because the good and the bad are mixed in them. This happens sometimes. Please feel free to redo the good ones, but I strongly protest saying Hebrew Bible instead of Tanach, and the Sifra and Sifri are not the same book. We can't have edits introducing factual inaccuracies, even if they introduced some other important sources.
Debresser (
talk)
05:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Hi Debresser
The title doesn't just sound Croatian, it is Croatian.
(1)
Hebrew Bible is the wikilink of the Wikipedia article
Hebrew Bible, how can you object to it?
(2) I asked you above, in regard to
Sifre/
Sifra. Which Sifre/i/a do you think Marecheth HoElohuth meant?
Sifra the Halakic midrash to Leviticus? or
Sifre to Numbers? I think he meant Sifre to Numbers. You think that's a mistake?
I cannot see any reason for your revert if those two above are the reasons. I specifically asked above for the correction - instead of which you revert everything rather than changing an "e" to an "a". And I think you're wrong actually, I think he meant
Sifre to Numbers. What he wrote is so garbled it's difficult to tell.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
06:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Hebrew Bible and
Tanach are different articles. See the hatnote on Hebrew Bible for the explanation of the difference between them in a nutshell.
Hmm,
Hebrew Bible and
Tanach are evidently POVforks in breach of Wikipedia policies, but okay, if you really want the article to link to the latter only, then no problem.
Okay, we'll stick with
Sifra and
Sifre. Why add "to Numbers" or "to Leviticus"? Only if we were trying to follow the banner on the article to make this article comprehensible to general readers.
Hey D., I think that describing
this as "I'm having a problem" on the Judaism project Talk page is a bit over the top. There's not much either of us can do about Wikipedia's duplication of
Hebrew Bible and
Tanakh forks, but if you prefer the latter fine. The only problem is I have (sorry WP:UE and WP:RS again) there are 2 Tanakhs on my shelves and one (JPS) says "devoted things" not חֵרֶם. The other says חֵרֶם but that's because it isn't in English.... Maybe you might want to capture this distinction in your next edit? Cheers
In ictu oculi (
talk)
03:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)reply
A naming suggestion
The title Hromim is definitely problematic. Not because it is a transliterated title; clearly
WP:HE allows that when appropriate, as in the current case. But even as an Orthodox Jew, I had no clue what this article was about before reading it. The Ashkenazis / Yeshivish pronunciation used in the current title is highly idiosyncratic, and probably not that useful.
Nor does it seem proper that there are articles on
Herem and
Cherem. We do strive for a uniform transliteration methodology. But the three concepts are clearly very distinct, despite using the same word in Hebrew. So I suggest that we make
Herem into a disambigution page that links to
Herem (censure),
Herem (priestly gift) and
Herem (property ban). In addition,
Cherem would become a redirect to the
Herem dag page. And
Hromim could be turned into a redirect to
Herem (priestly gift).
I like this idea in principle. The only problem with this is that the ban of which the
Herem article speaks is more than a property ban - it also includes the annihilation of people. Perhaps
Herem (ban) would work - but they may not distinguish the topic sufficiently from
Herem (censure).
StAnselm (
talk)
21:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)reply
I agree with this idea as well. I think "Herem (ban)" is best. After all, on can ban objects in peacetime as well. That is by the one of the things that are not clear enough in that article.
Debresser (
talk)
13:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)reply
The problem with "ban" is that censure is also sometimes called a ban. So two questions: (1) In what cases is there a war-type ban during peacetime, and (2) how would you distinguish putting someone in herem from being mahrim objects or people in war? -
Lisa (
talk -
contribs)
17:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)reply
There was discussion here, and
WT:JUDAISM also mentioned the subject. There was no reason to seek input from outside WikiProject Judaism, and Lisa was justified and correct in making the moves she did. In addition, there is a saying that says: do not wave your fist after the fight.
Debresser (
talk)
15:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Header is at least POV and at most contradictory
The header read, "In the
Tanakh, the term herem (חֵרֶם "devoted thing") is used for an object or person to be destroyed in war of annihilation. In later rabbinical exegesis the concept of "devoted thing" is also used for, herem, excommunication, or matnat herem, the devotion of property to a kohen (Jewish priest).
In Numbers, there are references to herem to the Temple and to the Priests. (Thus the two sorts in the Talmud.) At any rate, do these sound like things to be destroyed - even the one for the priests? And even if someone makes such a claim, it is certainly disputable. I removed the word later for now, but as it stands, the header is at least very POV.
Mzk1 (
talk)
22:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)reply