Talk:Golem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Judaism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

the modern golem[edit]

wouldn't it be better to have a part about the modern version of the golem ? Meaning what the word commonly describe in recent medias. That would be something like "an human-shaped creature made out of inanimate matter or objects, and given life by magic to serve the magician." Mention that fidelity to the original jewish legend vary - the jewish part is often left out, any material can be animated, words in the head are not mentioned - Remind the comon element - servant made out non-living stuff by magic. Then a quick word about how hundreds of comics / video games / TV shows use variations of the golem. And how hundred of others refers to creature that can be considered as golem-inspired. And get rid of the pointless references. English not being my native language, I think it would better to have someone else do it. I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to avoid mispelling or maintain an encyclopedic tone. Main idea : having 2 distinct part. One about the original Golem tale. An other about what the word describe nowadays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.157.112.26 (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yiddish IPA[edit]

The Yiddish pronunciation depicted in the opening paragraph is non standard, and non IPA. We should either put a template warning about non-standard pronunciation description (if only I knew which and how) or correct this (if only I knew how to use IPA on the internets). User:John1987

What is the normal pronunciation in English? Is the O pronounced as in "goal" or as in "Gollum"? SpectrumDT 23:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It is pretty much pronounced like the Lord of the Rings 'Gollum'. JRRT even writes in one of the introductions (FOTR, I think) that the name is related to Golem. Ashmoo 23:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Er, I think there's actually a lot of variation. This is just a discussion thread, but it does demonstrate that there's a variety of pronunciations extant. http://boards.ign.com/dragon_age/b7686/187494239/p1/ 7daysahead (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Split into separate articles?[edit]

I'd say that the use of Golem in a Hebrew-language publication is of more significance than your average entry under 'the Golem in popular culture'. It returns the Golem to his original mythical position (in the stories of the Prague golem, at any rate) as a defender of Jews against a dangerous world, thus reconnecting the myth with Jewish ideas of vulnerability. That's why I put it in the history section. If no-one has a problem with this justification, I'll put it back. Nomist 11:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting sick of this. >50% of the article is again about popular culture. JFW | T@lk 20:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree. It's an unfortunate aspect of wikipedia that every fanboy wants to add a line about some game, movie or novel that contains a reference to the subject of an article. I don't know if there is any established guideline for it. But, does a reader who comes to the Golem entry really need six lines describing a Terry Pratchett novel that includes a golem and a list of every console game that has a golem in it? Ashmoo 02:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
A little while ago I actually removed the whole lot on grounds of diminished notability (heh), but it rapidly reaccumulated. Where do we draw the line? I'd say the Golem has to be a major player in a film/book/game to be worth mentioning here. JFW | T@lk 14:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I suggest splitting off the list of popular culture references into a separate article with an appropriate title. Then put all of the relevant material from this article into one called something like 'Golem (cultural history)', and leave the main 'Golem' article as a disambiguation page. Any objections? Nomist 15:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Split. There might be a relation between the 'historical' Golem and his modern namessakes, but not in one article. I suggest that this be the main page, and this section split off into a seperate article. I do not suggest a disambiguation page. --Shuki 21:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Split. There are enough monsters called golem in games and literature that bear only superficial similarity to the mythical Jewish golem that they deserve a place in a disambiguation page, but not a place here. The Final Dream 21:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I made trouble when I inserted a reference to Golem (Mega Man Zero) earlier. There's no disabiguation page for golem, so I simply inserted the link via sentence format in the respective section. -ZeroTalk 23:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Scratch that, I misspelled. There is a diasambig page. I belive it not productive to split the page though. What will that do...? All the rest of these Golem descriptions scarcely make up a pharagraph or two. Certainly no need for a seperate article. -ZeroTalk 23:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Section moved to Golem in popular culture in line with other 'XYZ' in popular culture articles. --Shuki 23:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus[edit]

Can we get consensus on what popular culture references are notable? I'm inclined to slash a lot of them. JFW | T@lk 07:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Slash away! Actually, the whole article should be upgraded. As is the case with many tales, the golem notion has hundreds of offshoots and one can draw many parallels (e.g., "My Fair Lady")… but this is not the right container for all that. Instead, the article should review how the legend gained its current prominence, summarize the vicissitudes of the several themes underlying or derived from the legend, and link to serious external resources. The article should not mention every variant and derivative in an uncritical, unstructured and exhaustive listing. Myron 14:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Could you help identifying which ones may be notable? JFW | T@lk 21:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Eek! It's gotten even worse. Someone has add a large list of computer games that mention golems, along with line after line of descriptions of the golems in the game. They've also add mention of the Scarecrow etc from Wizard of Oz. If every fictional simulacra gets a mention, this will be a long article. We really need to pare it down, and maybe put a notice on this discussion page, outlining the reason, for all future editors. Ashmoo 00:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Ashmoo, you're a star. Thanks. JFW | T@lk 07:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The real golem legend?[edit]

There is no "real" golem legend. Even many stories put into written form in antiquity have come down to us in several variations. In the case of the golem stories, the idea of someone creating a living creature appeared here and there in old Jewish tradition, but didn't really generate what we nowadays think of as the golem legend until some time in the 1500s, and the story was set in Chelm and later moved to Prague, where it became associated with Rabbi Jehudah Löw ben Bezalel ben Hayim. It was later elaborated this way and that as suited various individual authors. In other words, it was no longer a legend passed along by oral tradition and subjected to evolution by common folk. It had become a vehicle used by various professional artists to express their own ideas. In the earliest stories, the man-made creature was an animal to be eaten. The earliest human-like golem just performed menial duties. The notion of protecting a Jewish community arose considerably later and probably did not arise from oral tradition. There is no constant description of animating and disabling the Golem: a name of God or Hebrew word for "truth" may or may not be used and may or may not be written on a piece of paper and pushed into the Golem or may be directly inscribed in the Golem's forehead or erased. The Wikipedia article should not select one version of the legend/story as the "real", main or central one.

The Wikipedia Golem article should not discuss all the artistic works that were or might possibly have been based on, inspired by or influenced by the "original" legend. That is a matter for literary criticism or some other discipline, not for an encyclopedia. Here the telling of the story should be as basic as possible, perhaps with some mention of the earliest variations as well as the first printed version, the first play and first movie. It should not include juvenalia or video or other games, popular songs, nor works (even venerable ones) vaguely resembling the legend, such as Frankenstein, "RUR", Pinocchio, "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" "Pygmalion"/"My Fair Lady" or the various manifestations of The Incredible Hulk. Myron 00:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

"In the earliest stories, the man-made creature was an animal to be eaten." I have no idea what this guy is talking about. Golem made to be eaten? Perhaps he is confusing it with the man-made chickens or the calf mentioned in the Talmud..none of which is referred to as a Golem. But I agree, most of the Golem-makers made use of pieces of paper with holy names NOT writing directly on the golem's head. I shall edit thusly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.131.75.52 (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2006

Golem in Revelation[edit]

I removed the mention that there may be a reference to a golem in the book of Revelation. I think a cite is needed for this to be included, along with an explanation of who believes that there is a ref. to a golem. As it stands it the sentence sounded like one wikipedian intrepretion of a scripture that is open to millions of interpretations. Ashmoo 01:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

On a personal note[edit]

I resemble a golem in the morning before my coffee. Howzat for inclusion into the article? JFW | T@lk 21:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd say a visual reference or photographic proof is necessary before inclusion into the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.37.82.116 (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2008

Another book[edit]

There's a book by Norbert Wiener, named God and Golem, Inc.. I forgot what it's about, but should it appear somwhere in this article?--Niels Ø 03:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep up the good work[edit]

Although you guys seem to be having alittle trouble controlling the popular-cultural references to golem, I'd say that overall this is an excellent article. It provides a comprehensive overview of the etymology, history, and meaning of the term golem, as well as giving various theories on its popularization, to cite some aspects of the article I like. you guys deserve a gold star, and i thought i'd throw some good vibes at you. Keep up the good work! Shaggorama 09:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree! I came here looking for the etymology and traditional uses of the word 'golem', and this article was perfect. 7daysahead (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Popular Culture Policy[edit]

In an attempt to keep the popular culture section at a manageable level I'm going to chop anything that doesn't meet the following criteria. If anyone thinks I'm being heavy-handed, please discuss it here to work something out.

Books, comics

  1. The entry should explain how the golem is used in the work. Is it the Golem of Prague, a golem with 'Emet' on the forehead or just a robot called golem?
  2. Don't mention any details that aren't related to the Jewish golem in some way.

Computer games

  1. I've pared the list down to 3 representative examples: Nethack (the original text based dungeon crawl), Final Fantasy (arguably the acme of the party-style mission based genre) and Magic: The Gathering (the best known CCG). Don't add other games unless they are notably different or the golem plays an important role in the game.

Regards, Ashmoo 00:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

New fans will come by this page and add their favorite info again and again and again. A compromise that would limit the harm done would perhaps be to include a section entitled e.g. Use in popular culture without explicit relevance (or reference?) to the jewish Golem. What do you think?--Niels Ø 11:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that the Dragon Quest golem plays a more prominent role in the games than the Final Fantasy golem, so I'm going to make that switch.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pepper2000 (talkcontribs) .

I would like to point out (even though I'm not a registered member of wikipedia) that golems and other simulacra are the predominant theme of White Wolf's game Promethean: The Created. I thought this warranted a footnote in this article, as it is the only example (that I know of, at least) of a pop-culture roleplaying game where the protagonists take on the roles of golems and Frankenstein-esque monsters. Regards, Neil K., unregistered user. 64.6.42.20 01:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting to note the Golems of Promethean actually do use the Loew story as one of their origin tales. 71.76.218.40 03:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There's something truly sad about a centuries-old mythical tradition having not only a pokeman reference, but one that gets into a description of the creature/pokeman/whatever that is completely arbitrary, pointless and unconnected with the actual golem mythology. The white wolf PC game Vampire: The Masquerade actually involves a golem in medieval Prague much more closely connected with actual golem myth, and I still wouldn't warrant putting the reference on this page. Maybe there needs to be a time-scale and/or relevance criterion: if your pop-culture reference is A)1/100th as old as the original subject or B)totally, mind-numbingly unrelated to the original subject save for a name recycled through multiple sources... please don't use a wiki page to happily babble about it as if people could care less. I can't shake the mental image of a pokeman enthusiast trying to chat-up an old Rabbi: "Hey, golems are Jewish right? COOL! Those are in POKEMAN! See, in pokeman its this..." 142.59.29.202 (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

above section copied to Talk:Golem in popular culture --Shuki 23:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. [1] Pelarmian (talk) 13:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Another book worth considering[edit]

Bruce Chatwin's novella 'Utz' discusses the concept of the Golem with relation to a (Jewish?) Czech porcelain collector's passion for his subject (making something from clay). Perhaps this could be included somewhere?

86.133.116.70 18:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)estragno

Is it historical or fictional? Is that work considered authoratitive? JFW | T@lk 21:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The hubris theme[edit]

I added a section called "The hubris theme", combining material that was removed in an earlier edit. Removing all references to Frankenstein and The Sorcerer's Apprentice seems inappropriate to me. Of course, they might go into a "See also" section, but I think the paragraph I added has potential to be a better solution, though it still needs attention, esp. reference and year for the particular version of the narrative it mentions.--Niels Ø 08:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

also known to be a dæmon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeplayer117 (talkcontribs) 01:40, 27 May 2006

The Golem as seen from outside[edit]

Re NUMBERS. The article states the American view: Ten characteristics are in a learned person, and ten in an uncultivated one. In Switzerland, where I come from, we see it very similarly. Only the numbers differ. Instead of ten and ten, we have four in the learned and four in the uncultivated. But we also see the uncultivated as the Golem, just as the American Wikipedia.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 18:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Re PRAGUE VERSIONS. Wikipedia is to be highly recommended for focussing on the Prague versions with their Golem that can be controlled and stopped if necessary, a Golem created in the city of learning by intelligent men. The Golem of the earlier versions, on the other hand, can be safely ignored: A Golem with nothing that can be removed to stop him, a Golem created in a village that nobody has ever heard of, a Golem built by hicks who think they are smarter than our Lord, what kind of Golem would that be? Totally unrealistic!--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

the pop culture thing[edit]

for all the good talk about getting rid of all the extraneous "who cares" notes on every appearance of a golem in entertainment ever, there sure are a lot of references to stuff like monster rancher and magic the gathering on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.61 (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2006

Picture[edit]

The current picture does not look like the traditional image of the golem, which was a man made out of clay rather than a dinosaur-like creature. --Folantin 11:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This image should be transferred to the Golem in popular medium. The replacement looks like a Ninja Turtle.--Drboisclair 18:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
At least the 1st picture should more closely resemble the traditional image of the golem. Other pictures could come afterwards. -- -- -- 00:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree, the recent representation of golem by Philippe Semeria and any other, should come afterwards. Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Why do you think the "Prague reproduction" should be the 1st picture in the article? And why do you think that the one by Philippe Semeria does not resemble the traditional golem (made of clay, etc.)? Please explain yourself. -- -- -- 06:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Because Prague reproduction looks more like made of clay, and is much older, one by Philippe Semeria does really looks like dinosaur-like Ninja Turtle as somebody stated above :-) Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please help us determine which image more closely resembles the traditional image of the golem and which looks more like a Ninja Turtle? -- -- -- 03:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The image on the left is preferable. --Folantin (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Altneuschul redundancy[edit]

The following appears under the "The classic narrative" heading:

(According to legend, the Golem of Prague's remains are stored in a coffin in the attic of the Altneuschul in Prague, and it can be summoned again if needed.)

The same appears under "The Golem in the Czech Republic"

It is said that the body of Rabbi Loew's golem lies in the attic where the genizah of the Old-New Synagogue in Prague is kept.

These two should probably be consolidated (as they make the article read poorly, and refer to the Altneushcul by both its english and yiddish(?) names), although I'm not sure what the best way to do so would be. 71.146.130.162 00:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

אמת as "real" in adjective form[edit]

Someone more familiar with the background of the Golem story may disagree, but stating Emet as simply "truth" seems a little vague in its connection to giving life to the Golem (although it is literal translation). It may be worth noting that the word "real" is from the same root, and historically is only different from "emet" by adjectival voweling and a hireq yod suffix. (modern renderings give it two hireq yods, but that is for ease of reading without vowels). Anyway, its not a huge addition but it may help to illustrate why inscribing emet should make any sense for bringing it alive in the story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avatar82 (talkcontribs) 07:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Popular culture trivia dump[edit]

Recently, the standalone article Golem in popular culture was deleted following a discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golem in popular culture. I was thinking of nominating it for a deletion review because although it was full of trivia, something good could be strung together from it. Then, a user dumped all the trivia back into the main article. I think that is just asking for trouble. The better way is to dump the trivia here into Talk, and scratch off items not up to snuff or move items to the main article or to Golem (disambiguation) as required. To see the hidden list, just click on Show.

--Canuckle

Excuse me, Canunckle, I did not DUMP the material back here. Why don't you see how to make this material interesting to our modern culture by including how it influenced it rather than making this article like a dry, boring paragraph buried in a dusty old tome. If you had kept the separate article, that would have been fine, but now you simply want to delete information and oppose further research and study.--Drboisclair 16:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
You are incorrect. If you bothered to read the deletion discussion, you would see that I voted to Keep Golem in popular culture, and as stated above, I was exploring whether I could appeal the decision to delete. It is hardly accurate to blame me for deleting that article (as per your comment "if you had kept the separate article"). Contrary to what you say, I do not "simply" delete information and "oppose further research and study." Actually, I moved it to this Talk page so that editors could discuss it without having undue clutter on the actual article. See Talk:Medusa and gorgons in popular culture for such an example. You did "dump" the material here because you initally placed a huge list of unsourced, loosely-associated information without additional clean-up. Yes, I could invest time and energy in making it benefit the article. But in case you hadn't noticed the Kill Pop Culture Cult has been on a crusade recently and there are no end of candidates for saving and improving. I'm interested in helping out but not if it means engaging in multiple pissing matches between editors who should share common purpose. Canuckle 17:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I further edited the material, so you can delete the stuff here if you want. I did not dump the material back. I resent that charge, Sir. What I also resent is an elitist attitude on the part of some here who pontificate on what is and what is not "data" in their opinion. I also wonder who is behind all of this rating business. That is arrogant.--Drboisclair 17:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
If you edit it then cross it off the list above. That's its purpose. If you want to yell at someone, go yell at User:Eyrian for his anti-pop cult essay and crusade. Canuckle 17:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. When i said the material got "dumped", I was referring to this edit [2] and not to any of your subsequent edits to improve the material. Canuckle 17:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
My apologies. I guess that this essay that you refer to is having its way to delete everything contemporary, and make this website like a dry dusty tome. I think that they should have a mention of the Meyrink (sp?) movie and other popularizations of the Golem, but proper sourcing is also necessary.--Drboisclair 17:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not about the age of the references, it's about how important they are. Classical references tend to me more important, because they have had a more obvious role in shaping perceptions. But they, too, must be cited. Modern works are far less likely to be important, and thus generally get removed. --Eyrian 18:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
What if they are properly sourced and not OR? Who is going to presume to arbitrate this? As long as material is properly sourced and it is germane to the article, it should not be removed simply because an editor judges it not important to be included. One has to remember NPOV policy.--Drboisclair 18:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
If the importance of a reference is reliably and independently sourced, I most certainly wouldn't remove it, and I wouldn't want anyone else to, either. --Eyrian 18:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) That is all I am concerned about here. I appreciate this clarification.--Drboisclair 18:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the AFD. Now I see that we are going to start all over again and mess this article up. I would have voted to keep the 'Golem in popular culture' article but if that failed, then the info there should not be 'dumped', yes, 'dumped' back into here, and then thinned down either by some POV/OR. None of the current mentions in that section are N beyond anything else that was in the original split article. I can only expect that the section will merely get filled up again over time with more junk. Delete all examples. --Shuki 17:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
At least the Meyrink work should remain. Material should remain that shows the impact of the subject on contemporary culture. I think that we can keep the "junk" out. How a topic makes its appearance in the present time shows how people become aware of it, and it spurs interest. I did NOT dump the material; I returned the article back to the original state which it had before the split into two artilces. --Drboisclair 14:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Modern culture reference[edit]

I saw that there was a video game reference to the modern culture references. Tit for tat, I think there should be a reference to the X-Files episode where a golem was employed for revenge. The year of that episode was approx. 1997 (Sorry, I just deleted the episode from my DVR!). Lighthead þ 22:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

-- I just checked it out right now the episode is Kaddish if anyone ever wants to take out the time to input that into the article. I might do it myself if I ever have time. Lighthead þ 22:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Other wikiprojects[edit]

If the article goes on to explore Golem's influence in Prague and in German Expressionist film and in science fiction, would it be appropriate to add those Wikiprojects to this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canuckle (talkcontribs) 17:37, 10 August 2007

Fair use rationale for Image:Golemwiki1920.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Golemwiki1920.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Gollum?[edit]

What relation does Gollum have to a golem? Aside from the sounds of the name, nothing thats just speculation and original research. Gollum is in fact the name he goes by, infact if you click on the Smeagol there you go to a page called Gollum, and does not describe his nature but rather a cough like thing he does with his throat. There is also nothing to suggest that ghola from Dune is really connected to the golem, nothing that is not original research and opinionated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.155.35 (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Gollem ? retort[edit]

Just because you SAY it isn't so doesn't negate strongly valid arguments presented. The Ghola aspect from Dune couldn't be much more clear. Duncan Idaho is created, cloned from a bit of DNA, and programmed. He's referred to as an abomination, etc. The reference from LOTR? THAT is laughable. No one with authority ever said that the name refers to the sound he makes in the films. Meanwhile, once again we have an unnatural recreation. Now what axe is it you'd have go grind that would have your unsigned post objecting to that others have used the idea of a Golem in their fiction? --JT 13:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this has all been covered many times here. Tolkien's Gollum is totally unrelated to the Jewish Golem (he is not 'created', he can talk, he doesn't have writing on his head, etc). The authority for the name Gollum being based on the sound he makes is Tolkien himself. I'll try to dig up the quote and reference.
And as for ghola from Dune, it is more likely that Herbert based it on the Arabic word ghul ( الغول ) which is a type of zombie like creature, as he based many of the names in Dune on Arabic words and the universe itself is based on the Middle East. PS. CHOAM = OPEC, spice = oil, Fremen = bedouin.
Either way, there are absolutely no sources, so it all violates WP:Verifability. Ashmoo 22:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Sad that there is no mention of Gollem. Any version of Occam's Razor says it's the easiest answer. In any case, there are 20,900 sources on google for someone to make a case from.--Mrcolj (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
JT: "in the films"? It happened probably long before you were born, but since you're commenting here you apparently can read. Pay attention now: The Lord of the Rings was created as A BOOK!: a single epic tale, usually split into three volumes for publication. The movies are... how shall I say this gently? ... not the real thing. Not the original. And certainly not authoritative, though that hardly matters in this case.
Mrcolj: It's easy to find kazillions of Google hits for any combination of things that people chatter about. (By the way, if you want to talk about being authoritative, spell the words right. "Golem" has one L and an E; "Gollum" has two L's and a U.") That's not authoritative.
"Bless us and splash us, my precioussss! I guess it's a choice feast; at least a tasty morsel it'd make us, gollum!" And when he said gollum he made a horrible swallowing noise in his throat. That is how he got his name, though he always called himself 'my precious'.
The Hobbit or There and Back Again, J. R. R. Tolkien, Chap. V "Riddles in the Dark", p. 83 in the US edition, Boston:Houghton Mifflin, ©1966 by J. R. R. Tolkien, ISBN 0-395-07122-4.
That's authoritative. ("Crocodile" Dundee)
--Thnidu (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Revert, Signatures, and Personal Biases[edit]

I've reverted the article, removing the unnecessary edits performed by the unsigned party. Dune and Lord of the Rings characters are being used PRECISELY as the Simpsons golem referenced - artificially created creatures being employed for personal gain. The other changes likewise seemed to be random, and were not justified here in Talk, so I'm putting them back.

If that Editor reverts this again, we'll be in a edit war and I'll call staff in to put a stop to it. --JT 13:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Golem in popular culture, redux[edit]

The section is once again being turned into a dumping ground for any mention of the word Golem in the last hundred years. I suggest removing them all and leaving only the introductory paragraph. I can't see the need for mentioning each appearance in a cartoon or video game spell. --Shuki 16:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Tolkien[edit]

GOlem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.2.11 (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Owning and Activating Golems[edit]

In the article as it stands it is stated that golems could not work on the Sabbath lest they go beserk.

This seems to me false: my impression is that the Golem of Prague was activated precisely to act as a Shabbas Goy, i.e. a friendly non-Jew who helped Jews by doing work, e.g. lighting the candles at the synagogue, which Jews could not do on the Sabbath. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidLJ (talkcontribs) 11:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Paragraph has been removed by KP Botany (04:24, 17 March 2009). -- -- -- 00:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a Funny, FWIW[edit]

Two of the most important and productive intellectuals in modern Artificial Intelligence are Marvin Minsky, co-founder of the MIT AI Lab, and Terry Winograd, an MIT graduate who is now a professor of computer science at Stanford, among his many other accomplishments.

In the folklorique literature, Minsk and Winograd are the home of two of the most imposing golems.

<End funny. You may larf now.>

In AI technology Marvin was for some years the main exponent of the homunculus- or perhaps Turing-oriented style of artificial intelligence, and Terry's very impressive PhD thesis consists of a machine acting plausibly like a very intelligent human child moving blocks around. Once he had his PhD, however, Terry denounced this style of AI research, with such power that it affected the entire field.

For a generation, then, maybe 1970 to 1995, that style of AI pretty much vanished -- with the result that genuine artificial intelligence became very prevalent throughout our lives: much smarter Blackberries in the hands of doctors; traffic lights which acted in "sensible," as opposed to mechanical, ways (e.g. by switching to let ambulances through); huge increases in the amount of self-diagnostic machinery in the world, and hence a decline in the number of ways a careless tool and die maker could get an arm chopped off by a hundred-ton press. Etc.

Ironically, there was then a turn-around: because of the huge amount of witty research that came out of Winograd's apostasy, the earlier dream of humanoid robots became much more practical than it had been in the days of Turing, Asimov, and the AI labs of 1954~1973.

Today we are seeing Aibo (the Sony dog, whose name is the amusing "love a stick"); Japanese clothing models who/which are not merely mechanical, that's part of the job, but are in fact metal and plastic machines; and kids at MIT are trying to get their PhD's out of making old style heads with reflective faces, connected to fangriferous computing power, in the hope that they might be useful in medical diagnosis, if not in promoting chewing gum at the corner store. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidLJ (talkcontribs) 12:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hubris theme[edit]

I removed the assertion that Chelm did not exist. That this eastern Polish city became the butt of "moron jokes" did not obliterate it. (What, by the way is the appropriate Wikipedia link for the category of "moron joke"?) Myron (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes in Classic narrative section[edit]

I eliminated reference to "Josefov". The Prague ghetto area received that name long after the time of the legend. I removed pedantic and unilluminating alternative transcriptions of Hebrew. I rendered the Golem as neuter in gender: nothing is gained for today's readership by attributing masculinity here in English (why be gratuitously sexist?), although the early tales in Yiddish, of course, used masculine forms. I don't believe that Rudolf II himself issued edicts particularly inimical to his Jewish subjects, but there supposedly were forces intent on harming the Jewish community, for whatever reason. The Prague courts were not medieval... indeed, the Renaissance could reasonably be considered to have given way to the Early Modern era by the end of the 16th century. I don't think that the spirits of the dead were admissible as witnesses in the Prague courts, which were quite enlightened and usually rational, albeit corrupt. Myron (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Changes in Earliest stories[edit]

1. The story in Sanhedring 65b is about Rava and not Raba.

2. According to this story Rava created a man (gavra), not a golem.

3. Sefer Yetzirah is not mentioned in this story.

4. R' Zeira said "min chabaraya at", lit. "you are from the chabaraya". The chabaraya are the Persian charmers. This is how the dictionaries of Jastrov and Sokoloff rendered the word chabaraya.

The last sentence: "It is said that if a golem were made able to speak, that would give it a soul, and — because a golem cannot be made perfectly — that ability could make it very dangerous." has nothing to do with the Talmudic story and is inappropriate in a section dealing with earliest stories.

Tryingmybest (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Opera[edit]

I recall hearing on the radio in the last couple of years that a local (Australian) composer wrote an opera based on the story of the Golem. I can't for the life of me remember the composer's name, but if somebody else knows it I believe it would be a relevant addition to the modern culture section of the article. 121.217.2.114 (talk) 06:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

In modern culture[edit]

Which of these are really notable? How about we require a source for the notability and include the source and information about the notability rather than making it a dumping ground for every time the word golem appears in a video game, comic book, or tv show?

  1. The Golem of Prague has appeared in stories across many media, including the novels The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, in which Josef Kavalier helps save the Golem of Prague from Nazi invasion, A Calculus of Angels, Foucault's Pendulum, He, She and It, Donald Tyson's Tortuous Serpent, and Pete Hamill's Snow in August.
  2. It! is the 1966 British-made film about a golem run amok in England. Well-known actor Roddy McDowall stars as mad assistant curator Arthur Pimm who evokes, i.e., brings to life the museum's golem statue. Pimm finds an ancient scroll in a hollow compartment of the golem's right foot and, following the tradition, places it under the golem's tongue. Suffice to say, all hell thereupon breaks loose.
  3. Several creatures in the Pokémon universe and video game series are named after, or based on, golems. "Golem" is the name of a very heavy rock-like Pokémon that serves as the second stage evolution of Geodude. There is also a trio of legendary Pokémon directly based on golems: Regirock, Regice and Registeel. Their master is Regigigas, a colossal white golem. In the games, it must be awakened before coming to life, much like the mythological golem; however, in this case, this is done by having the aforementioned golem trio as party members when encountering Regigigas.
  4. The character Astaroth in the Soul series of video games is a large, axe-wielding golem. Created by a cult in order to carry out the will of the god of destruction, Astaroth initially appears human, but in Soulcalibur IV, once his self-consciousness develops, he refuses to take orders and assumes a more demonic, inhuman appearance.
  5. In issue #167 of the Hellblazer comic series (part 4 of the 4-part Highwater story arc by Brian Azzarello and Marcelo Frusin), John Constantine kills four Neo-Nazi murderers by reanimating their victim as a golem. Constantine later deactivates the golem by erasing the letter aleph (א) on its forehead, consistent with the technique mentioned above.
  6. In the Fablehaven series, there is a golem named Hugo on the Fablehaven preserve.
  7. Also inspired in part by the story of the Golem of Prague, Ted Chiang wrote a short story, Seventy-Two Letters, which explores the role of language in the creation of golems. The story won the Sidewise Award for Alternate History in 2000. It can be found in the collection Stories of Your Life and Others.
  8. The first trilogy of movies about Rabbi Judah Loew and his golem were Der Golem (1915), the Golem and the Dancing Girl (1917), and Der Golem, wie er in die welt kam (1920) Directed by Paul Wegener. Only the last film, which is a prequel, has survived, though stills exist of the earlier films. This Golem is the main subject of the British film It!, Gold Star Productions Limited (1966), staring Roddy McDowell as Arthur Pimm, who evokes (brings to life) the Golem.
  9. Edward Einhorn's Golem Stories appearing in his book of plays entitled The Golem, Methuselah, and Shylock[1] includes a golem that has the soul of a young man who was the fiance of the Rabbi's daughter.
  10. In Jonathan Stroud's Bartimaeus Trilogy, golems were used by Prague in their war against the British Empire in the story's late 19th century alternate history. The name of the golem's master was written on a parchment on its mouth, and the golem would be destroyed if its master was killed.
  11. In Terry Pratchett's Discworld novel, Feet of Clay, the Golem Dorfl becomes conscious and is given free will after Captain Carrot alters his "Chem", the slip of parchment in the Golem's flip-top head so that he 'owns' himself. The novel also features a number of other encounters with golems, and even a flawed Golem-made Golem, which commits murderous atrocities across Ankh-Morpork. Golems appear as supporting characters in Going Postal and Making Money. Free (self-owned) golems buy the freedom of owned golems. The economic and social impact of slave-like labor is a theme, as well as the morality of sentient labor without liberty or free choice.
  12. In The Puttermesser Papers, a National Book Award finalist by Cynthia Ozick, the main character Ruth Puttermesser, a Jewish lawyer, creates a golem, who loyally serves Puttermesser's quest to convert New York City into an urban Utopia.
  13. In The Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror XVII", Bart steals a Golem from Krusty and uses it to do his own bidding. This cartoon Golem is drawn to resemble the golem in Wegener's film. Krusty gives a brief history of the "Jewish Golem of Prague", given orders by placing a written command in its mouth.
  14. Gargoyles, Season II, Episode 28, "Golem"; Charmed, Season IV, Episode 5, "Size Matters"; and the The X-Files Season IV, Episode 15, titled "Kaddish" all feature golems as a plot element.[3]
  15. In Mendy and the Golem, the title character is a Golem named Sholem.
  16. China Miéville's novel Iron Council features a character named Judah Low, who creates golems from a wide variety of materials.
  17. Michael Chabon's novel, The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay, features the Prague Golem.
  18. In the Castlevania series, the Golem is a recurring boss and lesser enemy, in various forms like the Flesh Golem, Iron Golem, Wooden Golem and more.
  19. The Golems of Gotham is a novel by Thane Rosenbaum.
  20. In Vampire: The Masquerade – Redemption there is a golem that comes to life in Prague from a rabbi that the main character must battle.
  21. Also in World of Darkness, Promethean: The Created has one of the playable lineages as a Golem. Golems are depicted as being connected to alchemical element of Earth and are based on the legends above.
  22. In the game, Legendary, a golem composed of cars and city debris is featured as a boss. It is described as holding itself together by means of a magnetic force.
  23. An episode of the TV series, The X-Files is centered around a Golem. The episode is entitled "Kaddish," and is episode 15 from season four.
  24. A graphic novel entitled "The Golem's Mighty Swing" (written by James Sturm) centers around a very unique all-Jewish baseball team who, in order to garner an audience as well as respect, add a "Golem" to their roster.
  25. In Warcraft III, Golems are ancient neutral creeps, with three different types: mud, rock, and granite.
  26. The game Hexen II gives players the ability to spawn Golems to help combat enemies.
  27. In Vampire: The Masquerade – Redemption, Christof Romuald, still a recovering crusader, battles with a golem in the Jewish Quarter.
  28. The novel Watch Your Mouth by Daniel Handler features a dysfunctional Jewish family being terrorised by a golem.[4]NoJoy (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

--KP Botany (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The Golems in Discworld are more notable that some that remain on the list. These Golems are much more like the Golems of legend (made from clay, brought to life by a written word placed inside them) than are some popular uses of golem, some of which share only the name.--RLent (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Good start, can you get a good reference for this? --KP Botany (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I restored a brief version of this section without the examples, as most of the notable ones seemed to be on the disambiguation page. If there's an article on a particular usage of golems, then it meets notability, but there's no need to have the entire list here when the disambig page will serve the same purpose. PaulGS (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I've removed it. The "has appeared in a lot of pop culture works" is entirely uninformative, as it could be said of almost anything on this encyclopedia. The rest of the text was original research. Mintrick (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not uninformative that the concept of the golem has been used elsewhere. It's also not OR, as the works themselves are the sources since there's no interpretation of them going on here. "In pop culture" sections should be limited to notable examples, but not simply removed. PaulGS (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
If you limit notable examples to those that verifiably have had an impact on perception, then you've got a good idea. Mintrick (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Golem or golem?[edit]

What is the correct spelling? Sometimes it is spelled with a capital letter and sometimes not. It seems inconsistent. Regards, Metzujan (talk) 06:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting question! I can only guess... This my opinion: As the Prague golem was the only "seen" till that time, it was always called Golem as to be his/its name. In later history it was generalized into more common term for such class: golems. So, in Prague, we had a/the golem called Golem! ;) Franta Oashi (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm so you say both are correct, Golem referring to the Prague's Golem, and golem as a general term. Makes sense, thanks for your reply, Metzujan (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The OED notes that both are okay, but as it is a dictionary not an encyclopedia does not elaborate overly much (and I have the longer oxford...)Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the section on Capitalization in the main article. Proper nouns are properly capitalized; otherwise most words are not. A golem as a member of the class of golems is not capitalized; one particular golem, that of Prague circa 1600 was a unique entity and hence a proper noun and hence capitalized. There is nothing special about golems in this, and discussion thereof does not belong in the instant encyclopedia article. Myron (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Oho! "There is nothing special about golems in this" Without the Golem of Prague all the world would never turn a notice to the class of golems at all. The existance (in legends) of the first well known golem is worth to be stressed out. Reverting back. — Preceding comment added by Oashi (talkcontribs) 03:58, 17 July 2009
Anonymous, you mistake what I meant by "nothing special". I meant to convey the fact that the issue of capitalization is a general one and pertains to all sorts of names, not just golems. I'm talking about capitalization, not about golems. My point is that discussing whether or not to capitalize is a matter for an article on printing format, not on golems; otherwise we could have repeated, redundant and irrelevant discussions in many Wikipedia articles about when to capitalize and when not. My point is that this does not belong in the Golem article. It can be discussed her in the Talk section, and it has. Someone wanting to learn about golems and the Golem of Prague is likely to be sufficiently educated to understand when to capitalize; and, if not, is unlikely to have interest in or benefit from a technical discussion about capitalization. I hope more people will express opinions about this. I'm not going to get into a revert war, but that section should be striken. Myron (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is not only about all golems, it is also about the very first important ancestor, "Golem of Prague". --Franta Oashi (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oashi, this is true, and the article is quite clear about that. There is a discussion about golems in general and quite a bit about the Golem of Prague. That golem is not exactly an ancestor, but just a notion that acquired cachet and has been exploited, developed and copied in all sorts of ways. Similar important notions of an artificial being have appeared in far earlier literature (such as the Greek myths described in the Pygmalion article) and have had a strong influence on contemporary works (such as My Fair Lady). Thus the Golem of Prague is hardly the "first important ancestor", whether "importance" is assessed in relation to recent spin-offs or assessed with respect to Jewish legend and folklore (where, as Wikipedia notes, golems were described well over a thousand years before the Maharal's lifetime and, indeed, where the Adam of the Bible may be considered the first golem.) Myron (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Hm, well: So let's talk about the scope of this page... I see these possibilities, i.e. from the point of view on all "artificial beings of human shape": 1) pre-Prague, i.e. Greek myths and Pygmalion, as you said, 2) the Prague story and its tighly related versions, 3) postPrague: golems as a term, but more distant meaning of the term, started by Golem of Prague, but no more referencing it nor jewish myths: i.e. computer games. So, what is the scope of tis page? My suggestion is, that 2+3 should be covered, the 1 only as "see also" or related... To see your's soon! ;) --Franta Oashi (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
There is also another possibility to create a separepte page, just for the Golem, leaving this page for the rest of golems... However, that would be a split of 2 from 3, but still not describing 1, at most as links to ther pages, or "possible source of inspiration". --Franta Oashi (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I thought a fresh-eyed view might be helpful: I just read this article for the first time ever, and I got confused by the fact that the word is used alternatively as a common and as a proper noun. This isn't only about capitalization, it's about articles too. I notice in the discussion above people sometimes use The Golem of Prague; the wiki entry however only uses “{a/the} golem” or “Golem” (without any definite/indefinite article). First I got confused (though I hadn't noticed from the start why), and then I thought this might be the result of different editors not agreeing in how to call it, and only when I got to the discussion page it got a bit clearer. I think a one-sentence note in the beginning would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogdanb (talkcontribs) 19:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I made a bold edit capitalising Golem throughout, but if it's thought better to capitalise only the Golem - of Prague, of Chelm, of Vilna, or wherever - I wouldn't object.
The Golem of Prague is not "the origial Golem" in any historical sense, since he is not a real person, and he is not the original character in literature either since the Golem of Chelm literature is older by 120 years. Cathy Gelbin and the blogger Mississippi Fred MacDowell suggest that the Chelm narrative may well have fed into the Prague narrative via folk tales. Marshall46 (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but that seems incorrect. In English captilisation is only done for proper nouns, nationalities and languages. Since in most cases, 'golem' is being used in the general sense, it shouldn't take a capital. I can see how the 'Golem of Prague' would be capitalised, because it is referring to a specific individual. The general rule is, following 'a ' shouldn't, following 'the ' should. With the capitals it looks very strange, like a native German speaker with a poor command of English has come and edited the article. Ashmoo (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, I retained capital G only in Golem of Prague and titles. Marshall46 (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Minor cultural references/Original research[edit]

I've removed the list of minor cultural references from the article. They are simply not important individually. What I think is important is the idea that golems have developed into the general idea of an automaton, but that needs to be cited to a reliable source. Mintrick (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the citation is needed. However, instead of deleting it, why not to just use the existing template {{cn}}? We have such nice formulation, so let's keep it, marked as unreferenced. What about the Incrementalism? ;) Sure, that it will be not perfect on the first try, but give it a chance. :)
Please, can you revert the deletition back? Or tell me, I can do it... --Franta Oashi (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Because I question whether it can be cited to a reliable source. I use fact tags when I believe one can be found. I would encourage you to look for a citation. Mintrick (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
(f) The intention was to interconnect the existing terms "umbrella term for automaton and simulacra" (recently deleted) together to "Golem". Well, I do not believe I could find such reference to link/cite it here: This so low-level relation seems to me so trivial and obvious, that nobody really had to state it explicitly anywhere. Even if some others could know about some such reference: You said that you see these terms related too! So, why not to use them in the "See also" section? Or even in the introduction: I really like the Automaton, too.
(ff) My point is, that I feel there some theshold of importance for references: Saying that "Golem was 7' tall" is very specific information, which a reader cannot have any opinion about. But such relation as we see here seems to be "obvious", I mean, that the reader can judge such relation her/himself. Do you agree?
(fff) Another example could be another paragraph (mine as well): "Golem/golem" ("Capitalization" now). Do you really want to delete it too? There are no reference neither. And again, I do not believe you could find any. I had written the paragraph as by my experince (I am from Prague): Are you going to delete it too, as "Original research"? --Franta Oashi (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
After thinking it over a bit, you're right; the "capitalization" section should be refactored into something about "genericity of golems". But, again, that does need to be done by citing reliable sources. Mintrick (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I have just marked the section as {{SectOR}}. --Franta Oashi (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
You can rename the section as you wish. ;)
As I can compare the cases (f) to (fff), the (recently deleted) "Automaton etc" still seems to me to be related and valuable (See also/1), not the "trivia" case (See also/ i). I still believe, that (f) should be undeleted: At least it provides an information that some terms/articles are related, Golem - Automaton. Let (f) is present, as well as the (fff) is, the same rule. Sure I should mark it {{SectOR}} then too. Do you agree this? --Franta Oashi (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

See also[edit]

Also, let me a question, just curious: your reason/comment was "Trivial/OR". What doeas it mean? Some general WP shortcut? Thanks for teaching me.Ah, nevermind, I see. --Franta Oashi (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Although "trivial", 1) may be, some reader still has not noticed the related topic on WP, so let's interconnect them this way.
2) "See also" is a good place for a "summary" of (selected) related links, even if referenced on the page already: These are hid in the text, but here would be a) summarised and b) put to expected usual section. Even if the internal references were repeated here, it is not wrong, is it? --Franta Oashi (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
(i) "Trivial" simply refers to unimportant information; truth or verifiability does not necessarily mean something needs to be in Wikipedia, particularly in a certain place.
The (f) really brings a new information, it is not a useless tautology. It provides 1to1 connection between terms, and these would not be on the same disamb page neither: these are related, but not interchangable. --Franta Oashi (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
(ii) I find that common allusions or references to mythological creatures are endless in supply, and do nothing to contextualize this work. If they appear anywhere, it should be at a disambiguation page, as long as those references meet the requirements laid out in the appropriate guidelines (WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB).Mintrick (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I have marked Mintrick's comment (i, ii), for reference.
Hm, I can create a disamb page (ii), and to move there all the (recently deleted) "See also" references. Say a word to stop me, if I should not: It's not bad idea for me. Thanks. --Franta Oashi (talk) 01:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
As I said, it's important that the entries at the dab page meet the requirements there. Not all references belong there. I encourage you to read WP:MOSDAB and WP:DAB. Mintrick (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

niqqud[edit]

Hi all. Does anyone know the correct vowel pointing (Niqqud) for גולם ?

-- TimNelson (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Holam (Vav/ו) & Segol (Lamed/ל), I think.217.132.188.167 (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Ori Segel

Activating golems[edit]

It sez:

some scholars believe that no actual physical activation of an anthropoid object took place

Whoever wrote that has got to be kidding. Some scholars? There are actually scholars who think that real live golems were once wandering around Europe? The source actually puts it this way? Are they insane? 192.91.173.42 (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I took that as an analysis of the rituals, and whether or not they involved golems or that was just some sort of symbolism etc. 193.226.105.89 (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Played with some clay in the back yard and created a man. Even insscribed the correct Hebrew letters on it's forehead... nothing. Waited for a thunderstorm and stood out there waiting for it to be struck by lightining so I could scream, "Its ALLLLLLIIIIVVVVEEE!". All I got was a cold. Too much discussion about useless side issues.. go back to the original "Golem" stories in the Mishna and Poland. Everything else is irrelevant. Wait... what's that at my back door? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.205.162 (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The Golem and politics[edit]

it seems that the Golem story had becone a politically charged concept for the Jews and Israel or aginst the Jews and israel. an article about it there is here : The Golem as an Israeli –Zionist- Jewish monster http://no666.wordpress.com/2011/09/01/the-golem-as-an-israeli-%e2%80%93zionist-jewish-monster/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by מאגוס (talkcontribs) 11:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Earliest text?[edit]

The article says that "The famous story of the Golem of Prague is usually considered to be a Jewish folk story from the 18th century, at the latest. Israeli literary historian Eli Eshed considers it to be a later literary invention." In which case it is critical that the earliest text should be cited. What is it? The Jewish Enyclopedia cites David Gans's Zemech David (1592). How reliable is Eshed and how widely supported is his thesis? Marshall46 (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Eshed says in the source given, "Before the publication of this novel [Spinoza, 1837] there is no evidence for the existence of any story about Golem in Prague." This is flatly contradicted by Zemech David (1592). I have left a brief reference to Eshed's theory, but unless it is shown that he has support from mainstream writers, I will remove it completely. Marshall46 (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added some material on the origins of the narrative, which cites better authorities than Eshed for the view that it dates from the early C19th. Marshall46 (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

i suggest to add to the entry this part which expand on the part of the Gaon of W — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.120.53.157 (talk) 06:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Other classic Jewish legends.[edit]

More should be added about the Golem of Chelm and the Vilna Gaon's Golem. Marshall46 (talk) 08:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

i suggest to add this section :There is a similar tradition relating to the Vilna Gaon (1720-1797). rabbi Caim of Volozhin (Lithuania 1749–1821)[5] had reportes in a introduction to a gaon book Sifra Dezniuta (1818) [6] that he once presented to his teacher, the Vilna Gaon ten different versions of a certain passage in the Sefer Yessira, and asked the Gaon to determine the correct text. The Gaon immediately identified one version as the accurate rendition of the passage. The amazed student then commented to his teacher that with his clarity in this passage he should easily be able to create a live human. The Gaon affirmed Rabbi CHaim’s assertion, and said that he once began to create a person when he was a child, under the age of 13, but during the process he received a sign from Heaven ordering him to desist, because of his tender age. see it here: [7] see also discussion in Hans Ludwig Held Das Gespenst des Golem, eine Studie aus d. hebräischen Mystik mit einem Exkurs über das Wesen des Doppelgängers, München 1927 [8]
  • As far that we know The Vilna Gaon is the only Rabbi which had actualy claimed that he had tried to create a Golem ( all such stories about other Rabies were in every case a very late legends created far after the original Rabies times.The Gaon had also h wrote the most exensive commentary on the book of creation "sefer Yezira" [9] which shows again about his very real interest in the subject.
  • H.L. Gordon, The Maggid of Caro, (New York, 1949, p. 176.) [10] tells that in his childhoud at Vilna there were stories there that the Vilna Gaon’s Golem rested in the Great Synagogue in Vilna
  • similar stories exist of cours in Prague about their Golem.
  • But such traditions were elso in Chelm about their Golem remains according to memeories in ספר הזכרון לקהילת חלם : מ' שנה לחורבנה / תל-אביב : ארגון יוצאי חלם בישראל ובארה"ב, תשמ"א 1981
  • Gordon tells us that his father Elija Gordon who was grand rabi of Vilna confirm to him the exitence of the tradition when he was a child probably at the beggining of the 20 century.
  • so it must have been a long exiting tradition.
  • about the prague story of the Golem remains in the Synagogue there we here about it for the first time in 1864 in the editor notes for MEGILAT YUCHASIN .
  • the probality is that the Vilna Golem story was the first.
  • It was known to all from 1818 at least and about it there is no question.
  • The prague Golem story on the other hand dosent seems to exist before the 30s of the 19 century.
  • The probality is that it was copied ot inspired from a real Vilna tradition about the Gaon and his golem which as far that we know was the only Jewish Golem story which was actually in print in the Jewish sources at the beggining of the 19 century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.120.53.157 (talk) 06:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Please read the reliable source guidelines, and the no original research guidelines. You need to find a book which makes your whole point for you, not just books which make one point or another to be combined into something which none of the books state. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Moshe Idel suggests that the Prague account is derived from the Chelm account because of a confusion between Rabbi Eliyahu of Chelm and Rabbi Yehudah of Prague, both of whom were called Ba'al Shem. According to Idel, the Chelm story dates from no later than 1650, the date of the first written account, and it records an earlier oral tradition. Therefore the Vilna story, dating from 1818, cannot be the first Marshall46 (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

the referances given to the golem of vilna at the gates of jeruslaem as referred in the gordon book is a complate mistake. the exact reference in the Koll Ator book was brought and for some reason delated and was replaced in a cmplate mistake. Gordon has spoken about diifrent thing altogader that the golem body is still at Vilna . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.168.53 (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2011

Hebrew sources[edit]

Can someone with a knowledge of Hebrew translate the Hebrew sources into English. please? Marshall46 (talk) 10:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Related: El hombre de Palo[edit]

Unfortunately, due to my lack of knowledge of english I believe that I am not able to translate this article from the spanish wikipedia, but in Toledo there is a legend about a man made of wood. It may have existed, as a very basic robot.

You can find the spanish article here, if you want to learn about it:

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hombre_de_palo (Use google translator).

If you are able to translate it, you can do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.89.105 (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Megillat Yuchasin[edit]

From the section on sources of the Prague narrative I have removed this passage. "There is a Hebrew source in Megillat Yuchasin (1864).[citation needed]" This book is the same as The Chronicle of Ahimaaz, composed in 1054. It cannot be a source for the Prague narrative. Marshall46 (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Correction: The work referred to was probably Megillat Yuchasin, Rabbi Meir Perels biography of the Maharal, first published in 1718, which I confused with the Sefer Yuchasin of 1054. Nevertheless, Perels' biography is still not a source for the narrative because, as both Leiman and Gelbin observe, it does not mention the creation of a Golem. Marshall46 (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

(Done). The article currently cites Levin's notes on Meg. Y., to which I have provided a link. -- -- -- 07:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Trivia in 20th and 21st century list[edit]

It seems that gradually every reference to a golem in science fiction is being added. I have deleted the most recent and will delete additions that are of no particular importance, per Wikipedia:Trivia sections. Marshall46 (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Good work. Unfortunately, this article needs such work every few months. Ashmoo (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The part about the Golems in Noah being inspired by Gerry McLaughlin seems false. Can anyone find info to back this up? I couldn't find anything. Cjkuijt (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Links[edit]

I posted three links, two of which were removed. Both seem relevant/interesting. I am not a frequent editor, but I did look at the list for appropriate links and they seem correct.

The two links are as follows:

http://www.codypublishing.com/goska/golem.html http://www.theater61press.com/essays/guide-golem-legend.html

The other link I posted remains.

Can I have feedback from either the editor who changed them or others on this?

Zerthimon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The Theater61 link was originally added as spam, and does not meet WP:RS. It also goes against WP:ELNO #13, "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject." Codypublishing also goes against that, though the link could be used as a citation for new information, like this: <ref>[http://www.codypublishing.com/goska/golem.html Golem as Gentile, Golem as Sabra: An Analysis of the Manipulation of Stereotypes of Self and Other in Literary Treatments of a Legendary Jewish Figure, by Danusha V. Goska New York Folklore XXIII:1-4 (1997):39-64.]</ref>
Ian.thomson (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I looked over the citations your provided, and it seems to me to meet WP:RS, and it also directly relates to the article, as far as I can tell. Can I have other feedback on this? Any other opinions? I would be glad to include the other as citation for new information, would you explain more--what particular new information did you have in mind? Zerthimon (talk)

The theater61 page does not meet RS (it's not an academic journal or ), though the codypublishing one does. Both sites are overall not about Golems, Jewish folklore, fantasy creatures, or mythology, but are the sites for publishers. Publishing companies do not relate to this article. The golem pages are rather off-topic tangents for those sites.
Any information that's on the codypublishing page and not in the article could be summarized and added with a reference tag as given as an example. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The link is an additional place where more material can be found, something I often (and gratefully) encounter on wikipedia. It is not a main source for the article, although your link does specify that "reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues" The page references interesting material specifically at teh golem legend--it is not pointing the site as a whole, just a page on the site. Since I was not using the codypublishing page as a source for revising the main article, I did not use it as a reference. A link seems a more appropriate designation. As I asked last time, I would appreciate a third party analysis. Could a neutral party weigh in on this issue? Zerthimon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Film and TV[edit]

Piotr Szulkin's 1980 film "Golem" is missing. (film, Polska, 1980)


82.170.235.28 (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ The Golem, Methuselah and Shylock