This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 17 dates. show |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
Is there a reason that his article doesn't use the infobox holiday like all other holidays? Jon513 19:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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...:"
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:)
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 Wikipedia: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)
-
-
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)
- -
- -
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:)
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:
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)
- - -
- - -
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)
- - - -
- - - -
Dear Jon,
Yeshua said:
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:
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:
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)
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)
[4] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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"
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)
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)
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)
{{
Unreferencedsection}}
template.
Debresser (
talk) 18:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Mhhossein and Howcheng: 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.
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)
"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 @ Howcheng: for attention. Regards. -- Mhhossein 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)
"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."-- Mhhossein talk 14:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Illustrative example from a different page, not directly about this page. |
---|
|
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)
"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. -- Mhhossein talk 17:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 17 dates. show |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
Is there a reason that his article doesn't use the infobox holiday like all other holidays? Jon513 19:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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...:"
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:)
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 Wikipedia: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)
-
-
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)
- -
- -
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:)
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:
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)
- - -
- - -
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)
- - - -
- - - -
Dear Jon,
Yeshua said:
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:
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:
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)
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)
[4] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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"
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)
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)
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)
{{
Unreferencedsection}}
template.
Debresser (
talk) 18:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Mhhossein and Howcheng: 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.
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)
"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 @ Howcheng: for attention. Regards. -- Mhhossein 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)
"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."-- Mhhossein talk 14:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Illustrative example from a different page, not directly about this page. |
---|
|
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)
"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. -- Mhhossein talk 17:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)