December 12
Category:State terrorism
Category:Energy Subsidies
Category:Databases by nationality to Category:Databases by country
American skyscrapers
Category:Jewish foods to Category:Jewish cuisine
Category:Hebrew Bible
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 17:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
This category should not have been created because the VERY comprehensive Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh already exists with many specific sub-categories in it.
- NOTE:
Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh represents
Judaism's beliefs. To use "Hebrew Bible" alone would mean a partial acceptance of a Christian "compromise" by Judaism which would not be truthful. Christianity's beliefs are already adequately conveyed through
Category:Old Testament books and
Category:Biblical books (which includes the purely Christian
Category:New Testament). And, in the end, all the above DO fall under
Category:Bible (representing both the Christian and Jewish criteria for the categorization/s).
IZAK 16:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Hebrew Bible/Tanakh for ANOTHER vote to rename the above, thank you IZAK 12:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC):
- Delete this double ASAP, (or perhaps redirect it to
Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh).
IZAK 11:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Or even better, create Category:Tanakh as suggested by Olve below, for categorization that would be in keeping with Judaism and since Christianity already has Category:Bible. IZAK 20:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep policy states we do not use / in an Article or Category title because it designates a subpage (or at least it used to) ... all content in the Hebrew Bible/Tanakh category should be merged upwards to the Hebrew Bible category.
ALKIVAR
™
18:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Alkivar: So according to your logic then just leave it at
Category:Bible? And the problem with that would be, how do you indicate the differences between
Judaism's and
Christianity's views of these Holy books? Furthermore, the point is that
Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh is not for
Category:Torah (which is only for those articles in the Five Books of the the
Torah) and
Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh is for the remainder -- it's been that way for almost two years now. The problem with just having
Category:Hebrew Bible is it creates too large a category and makes it harder to locate
Torah-based articles.
IZAK 15:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- That is not what I said... merge upwards to HEBREW BIBLE... there should be a Bible category, within it a Christian sub folder (Christian Bible) ... and a Jewish subfolder (Hebrew Bible)... as both religions have a claim on said book's contents, and different interpretations. The name Tanakh could be a redirect to the Hebrew Bible category (I think category redirects work now?) if not it could be listed as an alternative title on the Hebrew Bible Category page.
ALKIVAR
™
16:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Alkivar: Firstly: No-one can "re-arrange" historical and religious facts. You are confused, the Hebrew Bible is
Judaism's ONE and only Holy book and Jews have ALWAYS called it the
Tanakh (similarly, just a small thought, why is
Das Kapital always known only by that name???) (See my comments above that Christianity's beliefs are already adequately conveyed through
Category:Old Testament books and
Category:Biblical books.) Only a long time later did Christianity come along and decide to take for itself the
Jews' Holiest books (that would be called a "
copyright infringement" or "
plagiarism" in today's legal parlance to be kind) and then they decided that it was to be "
replaced" by a "
New Testament" and they left the Hebrew Bible "behind".
Judaism's view is NOT as you write: "..both religions have a claim on said book's contents" (which is
Christianity's argument.) Because you can't "claim" what is not yours to begin with! But leaving historical and theological arguments aside for a moment, please NOTE: "Hebrew Bible/Tanakh" is the compromise version, because "Hebrew Bible" alone is still used by Christians as another name for "
Old Testament" (see
Hebrew Bible article intro: "Hebrew Bible refers to the common portions of the Jewish and Christian canons") which is absolutely NOT universally used by Jews. When
Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh and all it its sub-categories were created in June 2004
[1] this matter was given a lot of thought and this was meant to bridge the differences and the discussions at
Talk:Hebrew Bible which were incorporated. Because there is a lot of information in the Hebrew Bible/Tanakh it was necessary to create additional sub-categories to hold all the information. Thus in addition to
Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh events;
Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh people;
Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh places;
Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh prophets, you also have
Category:Torah (for the
Humash/
Pentateuch);
Category:Jewish texts/Ketuvim and
Category:Jewish texts/Nevi'im. Finally: Why are you talking about "sub-folders"? You seem to be confused about how categories work. And by the way, redirects are not usually used for categories.
IZAK 16:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Izak, I think you're conflating a few unrelated issues here. First, Tanakh isn't one book but 24, not that this matters here. Second, either the Torah category (if referring strictly to the original five books) should be a subcategory of Tanakh, or, if the latter is restricted to the Prophets and Writings, it ought to be a Nakh category. Third, your analysis above suggests that Christianity developed as a wholly seperate religion before claiming the Jewish bible, which is contrary to fact; depending on your perspective, either Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism, or the two are forks from a common origin. That modern Christianity has become a totally different religion than Judaism in no way makes the Hebrew Bible / Tanakh / Old Testament less fundamental to it. That said, this isn't really the place for that discussion. So. Getting to the main claim, by Alkivar, that "policy states we do not use / in an Article or Category title because it designates a subpage (or at least it used to)" if true, this would be a compelling reason to rename the existing category. However, that's not what the relevant policy actually states. What is prohibited is a name that uses a slash to suggest a hierarchy. That is, if /Tanakh here were meant to be a subset of Hebrew Bible -- which some have suggested, and which I'll return to in my reply below -- then Hebrew Bible/Tanakh would be out. As an equivalent term, however, there's nothing in the policy to discourage it. 24.91.213.44 19:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC) (That is, Shmuel 19:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC) . Sorry!)
- Shmuel: See Olve's comments below about how they overcame this conundrum on the Norwegian Wikipedia! We already have a "Nakh category" in two parts:
Category:Jewish texts/Ketuvim and
Category:Jewish texts/Nevi'im. I would be overjoyed to have
Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh become purely
Category:Tanakh with three main sub-categories (1)
Category:Torah (it's the the T in Tanakh, for
Humash information), (2)
Category:Jewish texts/Ketuvim should then be renamed
Category:Ketuvim, and (3)
Category:Jewish texts/Nevi'im should be
Category:Nevi'im. Finally, your views about "early Christianity" are moot in terms of the reality of things, meaning: Christianity as we know it today, rejects the Jews' views of the
Tanakh because for the Christians it has been replaced by the
New Testament. It's that simple. The history of Christianity is an exercise in futility at this point, and I certainly hope you are not trying to introduce the arguments of
Hebrew Christians here. It is important to see that one cannot be both Christian and Jewish and think that it's "normal" to "unite" opposites, i.e. the conflicting views of how Christianity view the
Bible vs. how Judaism views the
Tanakh.
IZAK 20:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- No, I'm not claiming that Christianity and Judaism are compatible in their current forms; they're definitely distinct religions. With that said, Christianity does not hold that the New Testament replaces the Old Testament. It does hold that God's covenant found in the OT has been superceded by a new covenant, but it certainly sees the OT as both vital and relevant. Christianity has a different view of the scriptures in question than Judaism does; that doesn't inherently make it a lesser view. Shmuel 20:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Shmuel: If they maintain that "God's covenant found in the OT has been superceded by a new covenant" they are telling the Jews to "buzz off" -- and no Jew could ever take such a claim seriously. Nice of some of them to think of "the OT as both vital and relevant" but I wonder who you are speaking for or about? Your average Christian thinks that the Jews are the agents of " Satan" a far cry from your detached view of things here. IZAK 21:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- That is not what I said... merge upwards to HEBREW BIBLE... there should be a Bible category, within it a Christian sub folder (Christian Bible) ... and a Jewish subfolder (Hebrew Bible)... as both religions have a claim on said book's contents, and different interpretations. The name Tanakh could be a redirect to the Hebrew Bible category (I think category redirects work now?) if not it could be listed as an alternative title on the Hebrew Bible Category page.
ALKIVAR
™
- Alkivar: So according to your logic then just leave it at
Category:Bible? And the problem with that would be, how do you indicate the differences between
Judaism's and
Christianity's views of these Holy books? Furthermore, the point is that
Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh is not for
Category:Torah (which is only for those articles in the Five Books of the the
Torah) and
Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh is for the remainder -- it's been that way for almost two years now. The problem with just having
Category:Hebrew Bible is it creates too large a category and makes it harder to locate
Torah-based articles.
IZAK 15:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. And move the "/Tanakh" into it. The / in titles creates confusion. Not to sday it is redundant:
Tanakh article says that the word denotes nothing but
Hebrew Bible. It also says that the words Mikra or Miqra are also used, so by this logic the proper name of the category would be
Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh/Mikra/Miqra. Finally,
Hebrew Bible article says that Tanakh is a less neutral term.
mikka
(t) 00:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Mikha: No-one in their right mind would add "Mikra/Miqra". The word "Tanakh" in this category indicates that it is category according to Judaism because only Jews use the designation Tanakh for the Hebrew Bible. On the other hand, Christians do use the name "Hebrew Bible" as another name for the Old Testament which is rejected by Judaism. This is more complicated than it seems. IZAK 15:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Use as renaming target This should probably have been listed as a Category-for-renaming from Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh → Category:Hebrew Bible; whether this now would require a deletion and re-creation I don't know. I agree with the comments on proper titling above. Courtland 00:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as per
Courtland and
mikka. The contents of the "Hebrew Bible/Tanakh" category should be moved into this one. "Hebrew Bible" is a much more recognizable term to the majority of the English-speaking populace, and is arguably a more neutral term as well.
LordAmeth 00:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- LordAmeth: "Hebrew Bible" is "neutral" to non-Jews but not always to Jews, and there is a need to convey the desigantion of the category in a more specific way the way Jews and Judaism would use it too, and "Hebrew Bible" would be insufficient in this case, that is why having "Tanakh" in it is important. IZAK 15:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Adooni, when I look up on my shelf, it doesn't say Hebrew Bible it says Tanakh: the Holy Scriptures. Yes, for the record, it's an english translation. I think the goal here should be accuracy, not convenience or what's more generally recognizable. -- Hersch 22:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Tanakh is more precise and should be used. JFW | T@lk 16:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect. -- Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect. Per IZAK. Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No need for it and I agree that including Tanakh is important. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect per SlimVirgin. -- Yodamace1 17:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete the Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh is more than sufficient for this. The inclusion of the word "Tanakh" is quite important as it demonstrates the non-acceptance in Judaism of the terms "Hebrew Bible" and "Old Testament" as they imply that there is another Bible that is relevant - which, in Jewish tradition, there isn't. Thus, the Tanakh category is necessary. pm_shef 18:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep but rename it "Tanakh". As this categories contains the hebrew views on the bible, it might as well be denoted by the proper hebrew word.
- Hey anonymous, you did not sign your vote or comments with the four tildes ~~~~. Why? Your vote cannot be counted unless you do so. Thanks. IZAK 20:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete
category:Hebrew Bible and move
category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh to
category:Tanakh. Thus, one keeps the necessary multiple-point-of-view with practical, short and clear category names:
category:Old Testament (Christian POV) and
category:Tanakh (Jewish POV). This has already been deemed the most suitable way in the
Norwegian (Nynorsk) Wikipedia. --
Olve 18:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Wow Olve: Even I never went that far (to create a "pure" Category:Tanakh), but I would most definitely support such a move! Thanks for this important information as to how this was resolved by the Norwegian Wikipedia contingent. Well done! Finally, in point of fact, there is already a de facto division between the Christian and Jewish categories for Bible vs. Tanakh, but your system has used clearer words. IZAK 18:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and ideally restructure. I agree that having
Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh and
Category:Hebrew Bible is redundant, and that, in the absence of a compelling reason to change, the established category ought to be the one to stay. In this case, I think the current one is also closer to the NPOV ideal. With that said, I have two problems with the status quo. The minor one is that Torah ought to be a subcategory of Tanakh, not a separate category, as explained in my reply to Izak earlier in this section. The major one is the current division between the Christian Bible and the Jewish perspective, found on the
Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh and
Category:Old Testament books pages. This strikes me as artificial, substituting a choice of two POV approaches rather than devising a NPOV compromise. This might be the best we can manage right now, but I'd like to encourage the development of a more integrated scheme.
24.91.213.44 19:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC) (That is,
Shmuel 19:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC) . Sorry!)
- Shmuel: The solution is simple, as per Olve above, let us then rename
Category: Hebrew Bible/Tanakh to
Category:Tanakh, plain and simple, see my response to you above. Thanks.
IZAK 20:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Izak: If we're going to keep the two perspectives separate, then sure; as regards my concerns, however, this proposal makes the problem worse, rather than being a solution. Shmuel 20:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Category:Tanakh makes things worse? How so? We have just been informed that that was the precise solution used on the Norwegian Wikipedia, and I think it's a marvelous idea worth exploring. IZAK 21:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Shmuel: The solution is simple, as per Olve above, let us then rename
Category: Hebrew Bible/Tanakh to
Category:Tanakh, plain and simple, see my response to you above. Thanks.
IZAK 20:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- DELETE as per Izak. Hebrew Bible is just not a term used by Jews. But used by Christians. The goal is to be neutral. Therefor we use the /. Not a big deal. No one should be offended. -- Kempler video 19:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Category:Hebrew Bible -- Rachel1 20:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- DELETE category:Hebrew Bible and move category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh to category:Tanakh (Jewish POV). This is a true original name of Torah, Neviim & Ktuvim --
fivetrees 20:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Fivetrees had said: Please wait - I feel I have some wise decision for this problem. I'd like to chat directly with all of you about this question --
fivetrees 20:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Er Fivetrees what are you up to? The discussion is talking place here, use the Talk page here if you must. There is no need for a major conference in cyberspace. Olve has given the best exmaple of a resolution above: A Christian categorization would use Category:Old Testament and the Jewish categorization would use Category:Tanakh as explained above. That would be perfect. Thanks. IZAK 20:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Fivetrees had said: Please wait - I feel I have some wise decision for this problem. I'd like to chat directly with all of you about this question --
fivetrees 20:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete The problem I believe is with the name Hebrew Bible/Tanakh. Hebrew Bible may be used as a common reference and a compromise name for the Old Testament and the Tanakh, but should not be used next to Tanakh as it refers largely to the same content. The name is worthy only in order to reach a common discourse and should not be used to refer to the Tanakh exclusively (yet may be used sometimes to alternate phrases in an essay). Hebrew Bible refers as much to the Old Testament as it does to the Tanakh. The name of the Jewish Holy Book is Tanakh and not Hebrew Bible. Therefore, the names should be either Old Testament and Tanakh seperately or Hebrew Bible combined. In the Dutch Wikipedia I have initiated shared categories, with Hebrew Bible as a theoretical shared reference to these books. The categories Hebrew Bible is now the Tanakh and Protestant Old Testament combined and Old Testament is now the Catholic and Orthodox ones combined, i.e. Hebrew Bible plus Deutero-Canonial Books. Such a shared structure is extremely complicated to reach and took endless debates. In all other cases I would go for the plain Tanakh category. Theoretically Hebrew Bible could still contain Old Testament and Tanakh, but in practice this brings only confusion. The terminologies are complicated anyway. In short: delete Hebrew Bible, rename Hebrew Bible/Tanakh to Tanakh. gidonb 21:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to the already existent category. No need to waste space on the 'pedia if we already have a more correct version of the sort. Evolver of Borg 21:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per a less passionate IZAK. We should not condone anti-semitism, however subconscious it may be. We should, however, promote accuracy. Wikipedia's ultimate goal, as any encyclopedia's goal, is accuracy. Alkivar's reasoning is archaic and contrived from a formulaic mindset. So therefore I vote to delete the new category. If it kept, it should redirect to the Hebrew Bible/Tanakh category... the category should ultimately be renamed to Tanakh for accuracy reasons, but since that is unlikely, my current vote is delete. -- Hersch 22:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per Kempler video and IZAK. I support keeping the term "Hebrew Bible" in there simply to avoid confusion, but feel it is important to have "Tanakh" be present, as well. The ideal solution is a compromise, accomplished by the /. ShalomShlomo 22:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and restructure as per Olve et al. As an observant Jewish person I am unoffended by the term Hebrew Bible: be its origins Christian as they may, I have no inferiority complex when "my" bible is compared to the Christian Bible. However, IZAK is correct in his point that since this category basically reflects Jewish POVs, its title should also reflect the Jewish name (at least in addition to the "common name"). To preserve WP naming conventions and sort out the mess in the different related cats/subcats, I suggest a super-cat of Category:Tanakh with sub-cats Category:Tanakh events, Category:Tanakh prophets, Category:Tanakh texts Torah, Category:Tanakh texts Ketuvim etc. altmany 23:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- delete Judaism uses certain terms to describe the Hebrew Bible/Tanakh - create Category:Tanakh maayan 23:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect per IZAK. Given that it is coming from the Jewish perspective the term Tanakh should be used. Alansohn 23:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Izehar ( talk) 23:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and restructure as per Olve et al., especially altmany. As another observant Jew checking in, but also (as we all are, I assume) supportive of the NPOV goal of Wiki, I regard the term Hebrew Bible as a specifically non-Jewish one. Calling a category Hebrew Bible/Tanach is philosophically like having a category Dogs/Cats, or cats which are really dogs. Category:Tanakh and sub-cats (no pun... well, almost no pun :) ) is clear, precise, and ideologically clean D'n 00:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Delete -- In Judaism, the word Tanakh means Bible. Jews do not call their Bible the Old Testament. They do not call it the Hebrew Bible, so such a term would be confusing. There is a pattern to the year where Jews study portions or parsha from the Tanakh, in sequence. If someone searches for a Parsha, they will look for the word Tanakh. Joaquin Murietta 01:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and go with Olve's suggestion. There is nothing wrong with something being categorized twice. Other than, "Hebrew Bible" is only slightly less POV than "Old Testament," and "Tanach" is problematic only because it is only used in Jewish circles - it is not the least bit POV beyond that. -- Leifern 01:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect. Per above. -- Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect Per above. -- Nahum 02:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per IZAK's arguments above. Since there is already a very comprehensive (and more accurately titled) category, this one serves little purpose. -- אריאל יהודה 03:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per IZAK's arguments above. I'd like to add that the Christian view of the Hebrew Bible is based on their interpretation of the translation, which is English based on Latin based on Greek based on the original Hebrew. The Jewish view is based on the original Hebrew. The way the interpretations come out are therefore completely different. (Moreover, early Christians deliberately mistranslated certain passages to enforce a different interpretation. For example, the names of most biblical characters are pretty similar in Hebrew and English, e.g. Avraham - Abraham, Yosef - Joseph, Shaul - Saul, but then you get Chava - Eve. Here the translation was skewed to suggest that Woman introduced "Eve-Evil" into the world.) Because Wikipedia insists on NPOV, each article must reflect both the Jewish and Christian "interpretations," but it's like comparing apples and oranges since they're not even working with the same text. Therefore there's a need to keep the articles and categories separate. Yoninah 05:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Also, as an ideal, split Tanach/Hebrew Bible into the three subcategories for the three sections and put everything in there. Not that's wishful thinking! Frikle 06:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and use for the previous /Tanakh category. (!) For an English NPOV encyclopedia, I think the term "Hebrew Bible" is completely adequate for the Tanakh/Torah/Miqra. I find this discussion unnecessarily polemical and political. Numerous Christian and Jewish academics use "Hebrew Bible" as the best (yet) effort at a neutral terminology, moving away from Old Testament. Sure, I wouldn't use this term among Jews (except w/my wry academic humor) but Wikipedia is for a general English-speaking audience, probably mostly Chrisian. Tanakh isn't really much of an English word, if at all, and why use such an unfamiliar term for such a key category? Look, old Jewish Encyclopedia doesn't use Tanakh and the EJ only has Tanakh as a tiny stub (for "Bible"). So it looks like some of my fellow Jews are just voting for Tanakh in a petty way, to get back at the Christian POV. I think it would be more mature to go with "Hebrew Bible". Furthermore, it would be better pedagogically to familiarize Christians with this term (HB) as a less offensive alternative to OT. It takes the high ground and leaves open the possibility that we'll eventually get rid of the JPOV and CPOV and move to a single set of NPOV articles for these beloved books.
HG 06:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- As I wrote above, when making a compromise between Christianity and Judaism "Hebrew Bible" is equally good (i.e. bad) for both sides and as such an optimizing option for scientific use or a shared categories here. But when the choice is not finding the best compromise between the religions (which has at a common project as ours a virtue of its own), but rather finding the optimal name for the Jewish book, Tanakh without Hebrew Bible is clearly the more accurate choice. gidonb 07:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- HG: While what you write may have a nice theoretical touch to it, it is at best a " daydream" and at worst a " nightmare". How on Earth can one possibly believe that (as you say:) "....we'll eventually get rid of the JPOV and CPOV and move to a single set of NPOV...?" It is liking wishing for a day when an article will emerge that will prove that " fire" and " water" will live in a "chemical NPOV" of "peace" which would be impossible in this world as we know it to be. Do not project notions that relate more to the subject of Jewish views of religious pluralism than they do to learning what are Judaism's strict and exact definitions, descriptions, and explanations of the תורה and תנ״ך with its כתובים and נביאים without getting side-tracked. If non-Jews are ignorant about Tanakh as a definitive name, then here is a golden opportunity to educate them and not allow them to impose "definitions" and terminology for Judaism's sacred texts. Christians are free to do with the New Testament as they wish, but they should not tell (nor "suggest" to) the Jews what to call the Jewish religion's texts. This is very logical I think. For example, Wikipedia respects Islam's holiest texts calling them Qur'an (not the English "Koran" -- and certainly not "Arabs Bible") and Aqidah ("creed"), and so without any apologetics they have created Category:Quran (a variation of "Qur'an" I guess) and Category:Aqidah and many more. Nobody is running around telling the Islamic editors to adhere to "English" standards all the time. Same goes with the Chinese, remember the days when Mao Tse Tung was called just that and not Mao Zedong as they want him known today, and when Peking was Peking and not Beijing? (Oh, and the Polish editors on Wikipedia never stop reminding everyone to spell things in Polish as much as possible, never mind that no-one will have a clue what they are trying to talk about, for example did you known that Żydowski Związek Walki is actually about "Jewish Fighting Union"? or that Żegota refers to the "Council to Aid the Jews"?) So if the Arabs, Chinese, and Polish don't feel bad about making the world aware of how they would like to have their important words spelled, why should Jews be concerned that non-Jews won't latch on to a little word like Tanakh? Maybe it'll take time, but like " Oy!" and " Shalom" the good word will get out. You have nothing to fear! IZAK 18:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Definitely delete the redundant Category:Hebrew Bible. The question of renaming or restructuring Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh should be dealt with in Category-for-renaming. Grika 15:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Redundant. Jayjg (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- IMO 'Tanakh' is as legitimate a term as 'Qur'an' and should be respected as such. Mississippifred
- Delete. Certainly The other category is better, that little "Tanakh" clarification will prevent confusions ( Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh). -- Vizcarra 19:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Sounds like a nonsense category. Sethie 19:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect, Per Izak. I hate it when people try to justify an edit solely on the basis of it being more widespread, by this logic we should just call it the old testament, and refer to Jews as evil satan spawn.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. In an ideal world, we would not have separate Tanakh and Old Testament categories, since both refer to the same thing (more or less), but just have in the same category appropriately labeled Jewish and Christian POVs. More realistic would be to retain the old Tanakh and Old Testament categories reflecting the different views of the two different religions (or more accurately, two different families of religions). I don't see what the point of adding a third category does to bring us closer to the ideal. I also think that there should be Torah, Nevi’im, and Kethuvim categories within the Tanakh category, reflecting the traditional division of Tanakh in Judaism. Side note: I seem to be rather odd for an Orthodox Jew, since I use the term "Hebrew Bible" in English with the intent "this is what I recognize as Bible, to the exclusion of apocryphal and Christian material, and that this Bible is written in Hebrew and Aramaic, not English or any other language". As such, the term "Hebrew/Aramaic Bible", which I have also seen, is arguably slightly more appropriate. (By User:Aaron Solomon Adelman, see [2])
- Delete I like the idea of an old testament category for christian references and a tanakh category for judaic references. if relevant, of course an article might fall into both categories. Gzuckier 15:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Gzukier (but with proper Capitalization). ← Humus sapiens ←ну? 06:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
CityRail stations with Easy Access and subcategories
Subcategories of railway stations in Australia
Subcategories of prisons in Australia
Category:Sporting grounds in Perth
Category:Brisbane bus stations to Category:Bus stations in Brisbane
Category:Brisbane railway stations to Category:Railway stations in Brisbane
Category:Nude users
Category:Wikipedians who have ran for a public office
Category:Wikipedians who love Julianne Moore
Category:Wikipedians accused of being possessed
Category:Wikipedians by input device
Category:Qwerty keyboard users
Category:Dvorak keyboard users
Category:Longhorn Wikipedians
Category:Anthropomorphic Wikipedians
Category:Furry Wikipedians
Category:Drug Free Wikipedians
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 16:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a social welfare project. If people want to sign up for good causes they should do so in an appropriate place. Delete Rhollenton 01:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Possible Rename to "Illegal Drug Free", Its not like putting this in Wikipedia for people to put in their talk pages is doing any harm.
- Keep per my comments at Dvorak users. Not inclined to tell others how they can define themselves. Herostratus 04:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe keep. Rename if kept. Category title is ill-defined. Does it refer only to people who have not used illegal drugs, do not currently use illegal drugs, or shun legal or even prescription drugs? Sikyanakotik 04:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or rename as "Drug" is POV. helohe (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. If kept, shouldn't this be named Category:Drug-free Wikipedians. Valiantis 14:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, harmless. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Not harmless. Divisive and cluttersome.
Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- How is it any more divisive than say, Category:Christian Wikipedians? Part of what makes Wikipedia great is diversity. -- Aleron235 22:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep provided the category is renamed per Valiantis, and an explanation is given as to what kind of drugs they mean. Using "drug" to mean "illegal drugs" as well as "prescription drugs" is vague, perhaps an Americanism (is it?). -- Aleron235 22:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Another meaningless mode of unnecessary categorization. If users feel strongly enough to declare this sort of thing, let them do so in their user space. Soltak | Talk 00:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Mushroom 08:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Unmaintainable. -- Sachabrunel 17:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep reasonable user cats -- JiFish( Talk/ Contrib) 20:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a political campaign.
Carina22 17:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Good, neither is the drug-free category... -- W.marsh 20:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Vizcarra 19:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and rename per Valiantis. It's as reasonable as most user categories I see out there. I think people are making this too political, it's just a way of describing people... like all user categories out there. -- W.marsh 20:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - this category is acceptable, but there really needs to be some definition of what 'drug free' means. Otherwise the category is useless. See the Project page if you need more context. -- Dschor 20:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I don't even know the list was deleted. It's harmless and it's preposterous to say it pushes for a pov. How is it divisive? Too sensitive to drug users or what? Maybe we can specify it so it only excludes recreational drugs. BlueShirts 01:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep of course. Don't see how having something like this promotes an agenda? Does Category:Wikipedians in Washington promote regional strife and secessionism? -- Миборовский U| T| C| E| Chugoku Banzai! 01:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Because one mentions a preference for a political agenda and the other one the place of residence. --
Vizcarra 01:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Then feel free to shut down the entire user categorisation programme. -- Миборовский U| T| C| E| Chugoku Banzai! 07:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- No, one makes you falsely assume there's a political agenda. Saying that I'm drug-free does not automatically mean in any way that I think you should be too. By your logic, anyone who added the 'in Washington' category is advocating everyone else move to Washington... which is obviously silly. So is saying that adding the drug-free category is automatically advocating something... it isn't. --
W.marsh 15:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Exactly. Kindly point out where exactly does this category promote a drug-free lifestyle. It does not, in the same sense that Users in Washington doesn't promote anyone to move to Washington. -- Миборовский U| T| C| E| Chugoku Banzai! 02:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as good a user catagory as any-- Akako | ☎ 12:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, rename, and define "drug" - 'tis a reasonable user category.
Danthemankhan(
talk)
15:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC) - Keep - and change wording to "This user does not use illegal drugs." Rlevse 15:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Good point. Perhaps 'Hallucinogens' or some other clarification will be appropriate. Although one could say 'illegal in my country', that would defeat the purpous.--
Akako
|
☎ 01:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- how about just say "this user doesn't use recreational drugs" BlueShirts 19:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Cognition 20:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep — Moe ε 00:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep if we delete this, we'll also have to delete the others; they add spice to a userpage and allow for people to sum up the user in a quick manner. Deckiller 03:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Why is that important, or even desirable?
Soltak |
Talk 00:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Different users may edit or create different sections based on their interests. It is quite possible that a user may have an interest in finding users who are into a certain topic so he or she can get some assistance. I agree that "drug free wikipedians" is not really significant as such. At the same time, "Users who don't use illegal drugs" may not be harmless; it may make users who are not in this category look like druggies, which may be unfair. Nevertheless, it doesn't bother me too much, hence my "Keep" vote. Deckiller 00:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Drug-free is very vague. I would suggest Drug-using Wikipedians is a more appropriate category. I'm guessing the majority on here would not take illicit drugs, so why make a big point of it? Rogerthat 05:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Rogerthat. -- Eagle a m n 01:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. -- Lumijaguaari 04:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Irrelevant. Osomec 14:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This category is necessary because it sends a positive message. -- OldRight 17:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedians by astrological sign
Category:Wikipedians suspected of being Extraterrestrial
Category:Kinky Wikipedians
category:Professional sports and category:Professional basketball
Category:Russian radio stations to Category:Radio stations in Russia
December 12
Category:State terrorism
Category:Energy Subsidies
Category:Databases by nationality to Category:Databases by country
American skyscrapers
Category:Jewish foods to Category:Jewish cuisine
Category:Hebrew Bible
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 17:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
This category should not have been created because the VERY comprehensive Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh already exists with many specific sub-categories in it.
- NOTE:
Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh represents
Judaism's beliefs. To use "Hebrew Bible" alone would mean a partial acceptance of a Christian "compromise" by Judaism which would not be truthful. Christianity's beliefs are already adequately conveyed through
Category:Old Testament books and
Category:Biblical books (which includes the purely Christian
Category:New Testament). And, in the end, all the above DO fall under
Category:Bible (representing both the Christian and Jewish criteria for the categorization/s).
IZAK 16:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Hebrew Bible/Tanakh for ANOTHER vote to rename the above, thank you IZAK 12:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC):
- Delete this double ASAP, (or perhaps redirect it to
Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh).
IZAK 11:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Or even better, create Category:Tanakh as suggested by Olve below, for categorization that would be in keeping with Judaism and since Christianity already has Category:Bible. IZAK 20:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep policy states we do not use / in an Article or Category title because it designates a subpage (or at least it used to) ... all content in the Hebrew Bible/Tanakh category should be merged upwards to the Hebrew Bible category.
ALKIVAR
™
18:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Alkivar: So according to your logic then just leave it at
Category:Bible? And the problem with that would be, how do you indicate the differences between
Judaism's and
Christianity's views of these Holy books? Furthermore, the point is that
Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh is not for
Category:Torah (which is only for those articles in the Five Books of the the
Torah) and
Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh is for the remainder -- it's been that way for almost two years now. The problem with just having
Category:Hebrew Bible is it creates too large a category and makes it harder to locate
Torah-based articles.
IZAK 15:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- That is not what I said... merge upwards to HEBREW BIBLE... there should be a Bible category, within it a Christian sub folder (Christian Bible) ... and a Jewish subfolder (Hebrew Bible)... as both religions have a claim on said book's contents, and different interpretations. The name Tanakh could be a redirect to the Hebrew Bible category (I think category redirects work now?) if not it could be listed as an alternative title on the Hebrew Bible Category page.
ALKIVAR
™
16:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Alkivar: Firstly: No-one can "re-arrange" historical and religious facts. You are confused, the Hebrew Bible is
Judaism's ONE and only Holy book and Jews have ALWAYS called it the
Tanakh (similarly, just a small thought, why is
Das Kapital always known only by that name???) (See my comments above that Christianity's beliefs are already adequately conveyed through
Category:Old Testament books and
Category:Biblical books.) Only a long time later did Christianity come along and decide to take for itself the
Jews' Holiest books (that would be called a "
copyright infringement" or "
plagiarism" in today's legal parlance to be kind) and then they decided that it was to be "
replaced" by a "
New Testament" and they left the Hebrew Bible "behind".
Judaism's view is NOT as you write: "..both religions have a claim on said book's contents" (which is
Christianity's argument.) Because you can't "claim" what is not yours to begin with! But leaving historical and theological arguments aside for a moment, please NOTE: "Hebrew Bible/Tanakh" is the compromise version, because "Hebrew Bible" alone is still used by Christians as another name for "
Old Testament" (see
Hebrew Bible article intro: "Hebrew Bible refers to the common portions of the Jewish and Christian canons") which is absolutely NOT universally used by Jews. When
Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh and all it its sub-categories were created in June 2004
[1] this matter was given a lot of thought and this was meant to bridge the differences and the discussions at
Talk:Hebrew Bible which were incorporated. Because there is a lot of information in the Hebrew Bible/Tanakh it was necessary to create additional sub-categories to hold all the information. Thus in addition to
Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh events;
Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh people;
Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh places;
Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh prophets, you also have
Category:Torah (for the
Humash/
Pentateuch);
Category:Jewish texts/Ketuvim and
Category:Jewish texts/Nevi'im. Finally: Why are you talking about "sub-folders"? You seem to be confused about how categories work. And by the way, redirects are not usually used for categories.
IZAK 16:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Izak, I think you're conflating a few unrelated issues here. First, Tanakh isn't one book but 24, not that this matters here. Second, either the Torah category (if referring strictly to the original five books) should be a subcategory of Tanakh, or, if the latter is restricted to the Prophets and Writings, it ought to be a Nakh category. Third, your analysis above suggests that Christianity developed as a wholly seperate religion before claiming the Jewish bible, which is contrary to fact; depending on your perspective, either Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism, or the two are forks from a common origin. That modern Christianity has become a totally different religion than Judaism in no way makes the Hebrew Bible / Tanakh / Old Testament less fundamental to it. That said, this isn't really the place for that discussion. So. Getting to the main claim, by Alkivar, that "policy states we do not use / in an Article or Category title because it designates a subpage (or at least it used to)" if true, this would be a compelling reason to rename the existing category. However, that's not what the relevant policy actually states. What is prohibited is a name that uses a slash to suggest a hierarchy. That is, if /Tanakh here were meant to be a subset of Hebrew Bible -- which some have suggested, and which I'll return to in my reply below -- then Hebrew Bible/Tanakh would be out. As an equivalent term, however, there's nothing in the policy to discourage it. 24.91.213.44 19:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC) (That is, Shmuel 19:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC) . Sorry!)
- Shmuel: See Olve's comments below about how they overcame this conundrum on the Norwegian Wikipedia! We already have a "Nakh category" in two parts:
Category:Jewish texts/Ketuvim and
Category:Jewish texts/Nevi'im. I would be overjoyed to have
Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh become purely
Category:Tanakh with three main sub-categories (1)
Category:Torah (it's the the T in Tanakh, for
Humash information), (2)
Category:Jewish texts/Ketuvim should then be renamed
Category:Ketuvim, and (3)
Category:Jewish texts/Nevi'im should be
Category:Nevi'im. Finally, your views about "early Christianity" are moot in terms of the reality of things, meaning: Christianity as we know it today, rejects the Jews' views of the
Tanakh because for the Christians it has been replaced by the
New Testament. It's that simple. The history of Christianity is an exercise in futility at this point, and I certainly hope you are not trying to introduce the arguments of
Hebrew Christians here. It is important to see that one cannot be both Christian and Jewish and think that it's "normal" to "unite" opposites, i.e. the conflicting views of how Christianity view the
Bible vs. how Judaism views the
Tanakh.
IZAK 20:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- No, I'm not claiming that Christianity and Judaism are compatible in their current forms; they're definitely distinct religions. With that said, Christianity does not hold that the New Testament replaces the Old Testament. It does hold that God's covenant found in the OT has been superceded by a new covenant, but it certainly sees the OT as both vital and relevant. Christianity has a different view of the scriptures in question than Judaism does; that doesn't inherently make it a lesser view. Shmuel 20:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Shmuel: If they maintain that "God's covenant found in the OT has been superceded by a new covenant" they are telling the Jews to "buzz off" -- and no Jew could ever take such a claim seriously. Nice of some of them to think of "the OT as both vital and relevant" but I wonder who you are speaking for or about? Your average Christian thinks that the Jews are the agents of " Satan" a far cry from your detached view of things here. IZAK 21:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- That is not what I said... merge upwards to HEBREW BIBLE... there should be a Bible category, within it a Christian sub folder (Christian Bible) ... and a Jewish subfolder (Hebrew Bible)... as both religions have a claim on said book's contents, and different interpretations. The name Tanakh could be a redirect to the Hebrew Bible category (I think category redirects work now?) if not it could be listed as an alternative title on the Hebrew Bible Category page.
ALKIVAR
™
- Alkivar: So according to your logic then just leave it at
Category:Bible? And the problem with that would be, how do you indicate the differences between
Judaism's and
Christianity's views of these Holy books? Furthermore, the point is that
Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh is not for
Category:Torah (which is only for those articles in the Five Books of the the
Torah) and
Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh is for the remainder -- it's been that way for almost two years now. The problem with just having
Category:Hebrew Bible is it creates too large a category and makes it harder to locate
Torah-based articles.
IZAK 15:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. And move the "/Tanakh" into it. The / in titles creates confusion. Not to sday it is redundant:
Tanakh article says that the word denotes nothing but
Hebrew Bible. It also says that the words Mikra or Miqra are also used, so by this logic the proper name of the category would be
Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh/Mikra/Miqra. Finally,
Hebrew Bible article says that Tanakh is a less neutral term.
mikka
(t) 00:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Mikha: No-one in their right mind would add "Mikra/Miqra". The word "Tanakh" in this category indicates that it is category according to Judaism because only Jews use the designation Tanakh for the Hebrew Bible. On the other hand, Christians do use the name "Hebrew Bible" as another name for the Old Testament which is rejected by Judaism. This is more complicated than it seems. IZAK 15:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Use as renaming target This should probably have been listed as a Category-for-renaming from Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh → Category:Hebrew Bible; whether this now would require a deletion and re-creation I don't know. I agree with the comments on proper titling above. Courtland 00:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as per
Courtland and
mikka. The contents of the "Hebrew Bible/Tanakh" category should be moved into this one. "Hebrew Bible" is a much more recognizable term to the majority of the English-speaking populace, and is arguably a more neutral term as well.
LordAmeth 00:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- LordAmeth: "Hebrew Bible" is "neutral" to non-Jews but not always to Jews, and there is a need to convey the desigantion of the category in a more specific way the way Jews and Judaism would use it too, and "Hebrew Bible" would be insufficient in this case, that is why having "Tanakh" in it is important. IZAK 15:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Adooni, when I look up on my shelf, it doesn't say Hebrew Bible it says Tanakh: the Holy Scriptures. Yes, for the record, it's an english translation. I think the goal here should be accuracy, not convenience or what's more generally recognizable. -- Hersch 22:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Tanakh is more precise and should be used. JFW | T@lk 16:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect. -- Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect. Per IZAK. Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No need for it and I agree that including Tanakh is important. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect per SlimVirgin. -- Yodamace1 17:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete the Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh is more than sufficient for this. The inclusion of the word "Tanakh" is quite important as it demonstrates the non-acceptance in Judaism of the terms "Hebrew Bible" and "Old Testament" as they imply that there is another Bible that is relevant - which, in Jewish tradition, there isn't. Thus, the Tanakh category is necessary. pm_shef 18:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep but rename it "Tanakh". As this categories contains the hebrew views on the bible, it might as well be denoted by the proper hebrew word.
- Hey anonymous, you did not sign your vote or comments with the four tildes ~~~~. Why? Your vote cannot be counted unless you do so. Thanks. IZAK 20:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete
category:Hebrew Bible and move
category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh to
category:Tanakh. Thus, one keeps the necessary multiple-point-of-view with practical, short and clear category names:
category:Old Testament (Christian POV) and
category:Tanakh (Jewish POV). This has already been deemed the most suitable way in the
Norwegian (Nynorsk) Wikipedia. --
Olve 18:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Wow Olve: Even I never went that far (to create a "pure" Category:Tanakh), but I would most definitely support such a move! Thanks for this important information as to how this was resolved by the Norwegian Wikipedia contingent. Well done! Finally, in point of fact, there is already a de facto division between the Christian and Jewish categories for Bible vs. Tanakh, but your system has used clearer words. IZAK 18:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and ideally restructure. I agree that having
Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh and
Category:Hebrew Bible is redundant, and that, in the absence of a compelling reason to change, the established category ought to be the one to stay. In this case, I think the current one is also closer to the NPOV ideal. With that said, I have two problems with the status quo. The minor one is that Torah ought to be a subcategory of Tanakh, not a separate category, as explained in my reply to Izak earlier in this section. The major one is the current division between the Christian Bible and the Jewish perspective, found on the
Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh and
Category:Old Testament books pages. This strikes me as artificial, substituting a choice of two POV approaches rather than devising a NPOV compromise. This might be the best we can manage right now, but I'd like to encourage the development of a more integrated scheme.
24.91.213.44 19:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC) (That is,
Shmuel 19:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC) . Sorry!)
- Shmuel: The solution is simple, as per Olve above, let us then rename
Category: Hebrew Bible/Tanakh to
Category:Tanakh, plain and simple, see my response to you above. Thanks.
IZAK 20:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Izak: If we're going to keep the two perspectives separate, then sure; as regards my concerns, however, this proposal makes the problem worse, rather than being a solution. Shmuel 20:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Category:Tanakh makes things worse? How so? We have just been informed that that was the precise solution used on the Norwegian Wikipedia, and I think it's a marvelous idea worth exploring. IZAK 21:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Shmuel: The solution is simple, as per Olve above, let us then rename
Category: Hebrew Bible/Tanakh to
Category:Tanakh, plain and simple, see my response to you above. Thanks.
IZAK 20:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- DELETE as per Izak. Hebrew Bible is just not a term used by Jews. But used by Christians. The goal is to be neutral. Therefor we use the /. Not a big deal. No one should be offended. -- Kempler video 19:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Category:Hebrew Bible -- Rachel1 20:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- DELETE category:Hebrew Bible and move category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh to category:Tanakh (Jewish POV). This is a true original name of Torah, Neviim & Ktuvim --
fivetrees 20:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Fivetrees had said: Please wait - I feel I have some wise decision for this problem. I'd like to chat directly with all of you about this question --
fivetrees 20:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Er Fivetrees what are you up to? The discussion is talking place here, use the Talk page here if you must. There is no need for a major conference in cyberspace. Olve has given the best exmaple of a resolution above: A Christian categorization would use Category:Old Testament and the Jewish categorization would use Category:Tanakh as explained above. That would be perfect. Thanks. IZAK 20:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Fivetrees had said: Please wait - I feel I have some wise decision for this problem. I'd like to chat directly with all of you about this question --
fivetrees 20:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete The problem I believe is with the name Hebrew Bible/Tanakh. Hebrew Bible may be used as a common reference and a compromise name for the Old Testament and the Tanakh, but should not be used next to Tanakh as it refers largely to the same content. The name is worthy only in order to reach a common discourse and should not be used to refer to the Tanakh exclusively (yet may be used sometimes to alternate phrases in an essay). Hebrew Bible refers as much to the Old Testament as it does to the Tanakh. The name of the Jewish Holy Book is Tanakh and not Hebrew Bible. Therefore, the names should be either Old Testament and Tanakh seperately or Hebrew Bible combined. In the Dutch Wikipedia I have initiated shared categories, with Hebrew Bible as a theoretical shared reference to these books. The categories Hebrew Bible is now the Tanakh and Protestant Old Testament combined and Old Testament is now the Catholic and Orthodox ones combined, i.e. Hebrew Bible plus Deutero-Canonial Books. Such a shared structure is extremely complicated to reach and took endless debates. In all other cases I would go for the plain Tanakh category. Theoretically Hebrew Bible could still contain Old Testament and Tanakh, but in practice this brings only confusion. The terminologies are complicated anyway. In short: delete Hebrew Bible, rename Hebrew Bible/Tanakh to Tanakh. gidonb 21:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to the already existent category. No need to waste space on the 'pedia if we already have a more correct version of the sort. Evolver of Borg 21:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per a less passionate IZAK. We should not condone anti-semitism, however subconscious it may be. We should, however, promote accuracy. Wikipedia's ultimate goal, as any encyclopedia's goal, is accuracy. Alkivar's reasoning is archaic and contrived from a formulaic mindset. So therefore I vote to delete the new category. If it kept, it should redirect to the Hebrew Bible/Tanakh category... the category should ultimately be renamed to Tanakh for accuracy reasons, but since that is unlikely, my current vote is delete. -- Hersch 22:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per Kempler video and IZAK. I support keeping the term "Hebrew Bible" in there simply to avoid confusion, but feel it is important to have "Tanakh" be present, as well. The ideal solution is a compromise, accomplished by the /. ShalomShlomo 22:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and restructure as per Olve et al. As an observant Jewish person I am unoffended by the term Hebrew Bible: be its origins Christian as they may, I have no inferiority complex when "my" bible is compared to the Christian Bible. However, IZAK is correct in his point that since this category basically reflects Jewish POVs, its title should also reflect the Jewish name (at least in addition to the "common name"). To preserve WP naming conventions and sort out the mess in the different related cats/subcats, I suggest a super-cat of Category:Tanakh with sub-cats Category:Tanakh events, Category:Tanakh prophets, Category:Tanakh texts Torah, Category:Tanakh texts Ketuvim etc. altmany 23:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- delete Judaism uses certain terms to describe the Hebrew Bible/Tanakh - create Category:Tanakh maayan 23:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect per IZAK. Given that it is coming from the Jewish perspective the term Tanakh should be used. Alansohn 23:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Izehar ( talk) 23:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and restructure as per Olve et al., especially altmany. As another observant Jew checking in, but also (as we all are, I assume) supportive of the NPOV goal of Wiki, I regard the term Hebrew Bible as a specifically non-Jewish one. Calling a category Hebrew Bible/Tanach is philosophically like having a category Dogs/Cats, or cats which are really dogs. Category:Tanakh and sub-cats (no pun... well, almost no pun :) ) is clear, precise, and ideologically clean D'n 00:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Delete -- In Judaism, the word Tanakh means Bible. Jews do not call their Bible the Old Testament. They do not call it the Hebrew Bible, so such a term would be confusing. There is a pattern to the year where Jews study portions or parsha from the Tanakh, in sequence. If someone searches for a Parsha, they will look for the word Tanakh. Joaquin Murietta 01:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and go with Olve's suggestion. There is nothing wrong with something being categorized twice. Other than, "Hebrew Bible" is only slightly less POV than "Old Testament," and "Tanach" is problematic only because it is only used in Jewish circles - it is not the least bit POV beyond that. -- Leifern 01:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect. Per above. -- Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect Per above. -- Nahum 02:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per IZAK's arguments above. Since there is already a very comprehensive (and more accurately titled) category, this one serves little purpose. -- אריאל יהודה 03:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per IZAK's arguments above. I'd like to add that the Christian view of the Hebrew Bible is based on their interpretation of the translation, which is English based on Latin based on Greek based on the original Hebrew. The Jewish view is based on the original Hebrew. The way the interpretations come out are therefore completely different. (Moreover, early Christians deliberately mistranslated certain passages to enforce a different interpretation. For example, the names of most biblical characters are pretty similar in Hebrew and English, e.g. Avraham - Abraham, Yosef - Joseph, Shaul - Saul, but then you get Chava - Eve. Here the translation was skewed to suggest that Woman introduced "Eve-Evil" into the world.) Because Wikipedia insists on NPOV, each article must reflect both the Jewish and Christian "interpretations," but it's like comparing apples and oranges since they're not even working with the same text. Therefore there's a need to keep the articles and categories separate. Yoninah 05:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Also, as an ideal, split Tanach/Hebrew Bible into the three subcategories for the three sections and put everything in there. Not that's wishful thinking! Frikle 06:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and use for the previous /Tanakh category. (!) For an English NPOV encyclopedia, I think the term "Hebrew Bible" is completely adequate for the Tanakh/Torah/Miqra. I find this discussion unnecessarily polemical and political. Numerous Christian and Jewish academics use "Hebrew Bible" as the best (yet) effort at a neutral terminology, moving away from Old Testament. Sure, I wouldn't use this term among Jews (except w/my wry academic humor) but Wikipedia is for a general English-speaking audience, probably mostly Chrisian. Tanakh isn't really much of an English word, if at all, and why use such an unfamiliar term for such a key category? Look, old Jewish Encyclopedia doesn't use Tanakh and the EJ only has Tanakh as a tiny stub (for "Bible"). So it looks like some of my fellow Jews are just voting for Tanakh in a petty way, to get back at the Christian POV. I think it would be more mature to go with "Hebrew Bible". Furthermore, it would be better pedagogically to familiarize Christians with this term (HB) as a less offensive alternative to OT. It takes the high ground and leaves open the possibility that we'll eventually get rid of the JPOV and CPOV and move to a single set of NPOV articles for these beloved books.
HG 06:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- As I wrote above, when making a compromise between Christianity and Judaism "Hebrew Bible" is equally good (i.e. bad) for both sides and as such an optimizing option for scientific use or a shared categories here. But when the choice is not finding the best compromise between the religions (which has at a common project as ours a virtue of its own), but rather finding the optimal name for the Jewish book, Tanakh without Hebrew Bible is clearly the more accurate choice. gidonb 07:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- HG: While what you write may have a nice theoretical touch to it, it is at best a " daydream" and at worst a " nightmare". How on Earth can one possibly believe that (as you say:) "....we'll eventually get rid of the JPOV and CPOV and move to a single set of NPOV...?" It is liking wishing for a day when an article will emerge that will prove that " fire" and " water" will live in a "chemical NPOV" of "peace" which would be impossible in this world as we know it to be. Do not project notions that relate more to the subject of Jewish views of religious pluralism than they do to learning what are Judaism's strict and exact definitions, descriptions, and explanations of the תורה and תנ״ך with its כתובים and נביאים without getting side-tracked. If non-Jews are ignorant about Tanakh as a definitive name, then here is a golden opportunity to educate them and not allow them to impose "definitions" and terminology for Judaism's sacred texts. Christians are free to do with the New Testament as they wish, but they should not tell (nor "suggest" to) the Jews what to call the Jewish religion's texts. This is very logical I think. For example, Wikipedia respects Islam's holiest texts calling them Qur'an (not the English "Koran" -- and certainly not "Arabs Bible") and Aqidah ("creed"), and so without any apologetics they have created Category:Quran (a variation of "Qur'an" I guess) and Category:Aqidah and many more. Nobody is running around telling the Islamic editors to adhere to "English" standards all the time. Same goes with the Chinese, remember the days when Mao Tse Tung was called just that and not Mao Zedong as they want him known today, and when Peking was Peking and not Beijing? (Oh, and the Polish editors on Wikipedia never stop reminding everyone to spell things in Polish as much as possible, never mind that no-one will have a clue what they are trying to talk about, for example did you known that Żydowski Związek Walki is actually about "Jewish Fighting Union"? or that Żegota refers to the "Council to Aid the Jews"?) So if the Arabs, Chinese, and Polish don't feel bad about making the world aware of how they would like to have their important words spelled, why should Jews be concerned that non-Jews won't latch on to a little word like Tanakh? Maybe it'll take time, but like " Oy!" and " Shalom" the good word will get out. You have nothing to fear! IZAK 18:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Definitely delete the redundant Category:Hebrew Bible. The question of renaming or restructuring Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh should be dealt with in Category-for-renaming. Grika 15:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Redundant. Jayjg (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- IMO 'Tanakh' is as legitimate a term as 'Qur'an' and should be respected as such. Mississippifred
- Delete. Certainly The other category is better, that little "Tanakh" clarification will prevent confusions ( Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh). -- Vizcarra 19:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Sounds like a nonsense category. Sethie 19:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect, Per Izak. I hate it when people try to justify an edit solely on the basis of it being more widespread, by this logic we should just call it the old testament, and refer to Jews as evil satan spawn.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. In an ideal world, we would not have separate Tanakh and Old Testament categories, since both refer to the same thing (more or less), but just have in the same category appropriately labeled Jewish and Christian POVs. More realistic would be to retain the old Tanakh and Old Testament categories reflecting the different views of the two different religions (or more accurately, two different families of religions). I don't see what the point of adding a third category does to bring us closer to the ideal. I also think that there should be Torah, Nevi’im, and Kethuvim categories within the Tanakh category, reflecting the traditional division of Tanakh in Judaism. Side note: I seem to be rather odd for an Orthodox Jew, since I use the term "Hebrew Bible" in English with the intent "this is what I recognize as Bible, to the exclusion of apocryphal and Christian material, and that this Bible is written in Hebrew and Aramaic, not English or any other language". As such, the term "Hebrew/Aramaic Bible", which I have also seen, is arguably slightly more appropriate. (By User:Aaron Solomon Adelman, see [2])
- Delete I like the idea of an old testament category for christian references and a tanakh category for judaic references. if relevant, of course an article might fall into both categories. Gzuckier 15:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Gzukier (but with proper Capitalization). ← Humus sapiens ←ну? 06:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
CityRail stations with Easy Access and subcategories
Subcategories of railway stations in Australia
Subcategories of prisons in Australia
Category:Sporting grounds in Perth
Category:Brisbane bus stations to Category:Bus stations in Brisbane
Category:Brisbane railway stations to Category:Railway stations in Brisbane
Category:Nude users
Category:Wikipedians who have ran for a public office
Category:Wikipedians who love Julianne Moore
Category:Wikipedians accused of being possessed
Category:Wikipedians by input device
Category:Qwerty keyboard users
Category:Dvorak keyboard users
Category:Longhorn Wikipedians
Category:Anthropomorphic Wikipedians
Category:Furry Wikipedians
Category:Drug Free Wikipedians
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 16:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a social welfare project. If people want to sign up for good causes they should do so in an appropriate place. Delete Rhollenton 01:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Possible Rename to "Illegal Drug Free", Its not like putting this in Wikipedia for people to put in their talk pages is doing any harm.
- Keep per my comments at Dvorak users. Not inclined to tell others how they can define themselves. Herostratus 04:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe keep. Rename if kept. Category title is ill-defined. Does it refer only to people who have not used illegal drugs, do not currently use illegal drugs, or shun legal or even prescription drugs? Sikyanakotik 04:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or rename as "Drug" is POV. helohe (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. If kept, shouldn't this be named Category:Drug-free Wikipedians. Valiantis 14:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, harmless. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Not harmless. Divisive and cluttersome.
Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- How is it any more divisive than say, Category:Christian Wikipedians? Part of what makes Wikipedia great is diversity. -- Aleron235 22:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep provided the category is renamed per Valiantis, and an explanation is given as to what kind of drugs they mean. Using "drug" to mean "illegal drugs" as well as "prescription drugs" is vague, perhaps an Americanism (is it?). -- Aleron235 22:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Another meaningless mode of unnecessary categorization. If users feel strongly enough to declare this sort of thing, let them do so in their user space. Soltak | Talk 00:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Mushroom 08:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Unmaintainable. -- Sachabrunel 17:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep reasonable user cats -- JiFish( Talk/ Contrib) 20:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a political campaign.
Carina22 17:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Good, neither is the drug-free category... -- W.marsh 20:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Vizcarra 19:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and rename per Valiantis. It's as reasonable as most user categories I see out there. I think people are making this too political, it's just a way of describing people... like all user categories out there. -- W.marsh 20:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - this category is acceptable, but there really needs to be some definition of what 'drug free' means. Otherwise the category is useless. See the Project page if you need more context. -- Dschor 20:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I don't even know the list was deleted. It's harmless and it's preposterous to say it pushes for a pov. How is it divisive? Too sensitive to drug users or what? Maybe we can specify it so it only excludes recreational drugs. BlueShirts 01:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep of course. Don't see how having something like this promotes an agenda? Does Category:Wikipedians in Washington promote regional strife and secessionism? -- Миборовский U| T| C| E| Chugoku Banzai! 01:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Because one mentions a preference for a political agenda and the other one the place of residence. --
Vizcarra 01:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Then feel free to shut down the entire user categorisation programme. -- Миборовский U| T| C| E| Chugoku Banzai! 07:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- No, one makes you falsely assume there's a political agenda. Saying that I'm drug-free does not automatically mean in any way that I think you should be too. By your logic, anyone who added the 'in Washington' category is advocating everyone else move to Washington... which is obviously silly. So is saying that adding the drug-free category is automatically advocating something... it isn't. --
W.marsh 15:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Exactly. Kindly point out where exactly does this category promote a drug-free lifestyle. It does not, in the same sense that Users in Washington doesn't promote anyone to move to Washington. -- Миборовский U| T| C| E| Chugoku Banzai! 02:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as good a user catagory as any-- Akako | ☎ 12:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, rename, and define "drug" - 'tis a reasonable user category.
Danthemankhan(
talk)
15:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - and change wording to "This user does not use illegal drugs." Rlevse 15:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Good point. Perhaps 'Hallucinogens' or some other clarification will be appropriate. Although one could say 'illegal in my country', that would defeat the purpous.--
Akako
|
☎ 01:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- how about just say "this user doesn't use recreational drugs" BlueShirts 19:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Cognition 20:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep — Moe ε 00:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep if we delete this, we'll also have to delete the others; they add spice to a userpage and allow for people to sum up the user in a quick manner. Deckiller 03:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Why is that important, or even desirable?
Soltak |
Talk 00:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Different users may edit or create different sections based on their interests. It is quite possible that a user may have an interest in finding users who are into a certain topic so he or she can get some assistance. I agree that "drug free wikipedians" is not really significant as such. At the same time, "Users who don't use illegal drugs" may not be harmless; it may make users who are not in this category look like druggies, which may be unfair. Nevertheless, it doesn't bother me too much, hence my "Keep" vote. Deckiller 00:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Drug-free is very vague. I would suggest Drug-using Wikipedians is a more appropriate category. I'm guessing the majority on here would not take illicit drugs, so why make a big point of it? Rogerthat 05:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Rogerthat. -- Eagle a m n 01:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. -- Lumijaguaari 04:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Irrelevant. Osomec 14:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This category is necessary because it sends a positive message. -- OldRight 17:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.