Talk:Golem: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:39, 24 October 2006

Split into separate articles?

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)[reply]

I'm getting sick of this. >50% of the article is again about popular culture. JFW | T@lk 20:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. -Zero^Talk 23:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. -Zero^Talk 23:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section moved to Golem in popular culture in line with other 'XYZ' in popular culture articles. --Shuki 23:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

The real golem legend?

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)[reply]

"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.

Golem in Revelation

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)[reply]

On a personal note

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)[reply]

Another book

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)[reply]

Keep up the good work

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)[reply]

Popular Culture Policy

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

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?
Don't mention any details that aren't related to the Jewish golem in some way.

Computer games

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) .

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Another book worth considering

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[reply]

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

The hubris theme

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)[reply]

also known to be a dæmon

The Golem as seen from outside

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

the pop culture thing

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.

@@ Line 94: / Line 94: @@
 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.--[[User:BZ(Bruno Zollinger)|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!--[[User:BZ(Bruno Zollinger)|BZ(Bruno Zollinger)]] 08:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 == the pop culture thing ==