Talk:Ehud

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Union? what union?[edit]

The opening paragraph states the Ehud means Union.I didn't want to delete this since I may be wrong, but I have nevere heard of Ehud meaning Union in Hebrew. Can someone back this up? conio.htalk 01:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It said here when I looked it up. I think the definition comes from Easton's Bible Dictionary. - Gilgamesh 02:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
That's very odd. Ehud is quite an irregular form(meaning it isn't used today's Hebrew) from the root א-ה-ד. I don't know how EBD came to this. Also there's a Smith’s Bible Dictionary at the same site, saying Ehud means Union too.
Problem is, not only I don't understand how they got that idea, it has no actual basis. Two major Bible Dictionaries say so, but provide no reaso to think it is so. Hitchcocks’s Dictionary of Bible Names(also at the same site) says that Ehud means "he that praises"(dictionary.com gives this too) . Now that's closer to the meaning of א-ה-ד. In Hebrew, union(for people as well as for sets) is איחוד. At first I thought that someone got confused between ה and ח and put it in wiki. Now I have two sources(that I guess are considered serious; I've never heard of Easton's Dictionary until today) that say so, so I tend to think(/hope?) they didn't make such an error, but the problem yet remains: this translation is meaningless, and has no basis. The fact that someone said something doesn't make it true.
I tend to think that if we can't put our finger on what's behind this translation exactly, we can't keep it. I'm no famous Bible researcher, but to me this translation seems simply wrong. conio.htalk 06:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

udi jedi[edit]

quite curious as to WHY those with the name 'ehud' are called 'udi'... ehud was a lefthanded man in the bible, but was a good guy.... sorta a cool secret agent name.. just quite curious about it really is a ehud good or bad? why do they call them 'udi'? je = i in french.. so jedi - not sure if it'd be the ehuds, or the opposite of ehuds. i know sith is from the sidhe (which i met an illum fam member who used) star wars is getting cooler... thoughts/comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.99.136 (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Section Blanking on Deuteronomistic Editing[edit]

I restored a blanked section (not my own contribution) called Deuteronomistic Editing, because I didn't see a warrant for its being removed. If there is a warrant from Wikipedia guidelines, please note what it is when blanking. Otherwise, the appearance is that the user has blanked the section for religious/ideological reasons. Prinplup (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Article Layout[edit]

I think the article looks better with the Judges panel at the top of the article and a slightly smaller illustration lower down. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 06:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm - it appears that the articles on the other judges are not consistent. Samson has the picture above the template, while Jephthah has it below. I think they should probably be consistent, but that is not a WP requirement. I would have thought the normal thing is to have a an image of the person above any templates, but normally that image would be within an infobox, which we don't have with the judges. StAnselm (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Good point about consistency, and thanks for checking. Gideon, Tola, Jair, Jephthah, Ibzan, Elon and Abdon have the template at the top right in the same position. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 06:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, obviously Tola, Jair, Elon and Abdon don't count because (sadly) they don't have a picture. Neither, in fact, does Shamgar the other way because I only just added the picture in. And neither do Abimelech and Deborah because they both have infoboxes. So: four have the template above a picture (Gideon, Jephthah, Ibzan, Othniel), and three have a picture above the template (Ehud, Samson, Barak). Anyway, what do you think about putting infoboxes in all the articles? StAnselm (talk) 07:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, infoboxes would also contribute to consistency - BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)