Talk:Halakha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Judaism (Rated C-class, Top-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Theology (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theology 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Law (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Halaqa[edit]

Recently an IP editor has tried three times to add a hatnote, {{Distinguish|Halaqa}}. I reverted him, and told him to discuss. Since he didn't do so, I decided to open this discussion myself.

I think the disambiguation is not necessary, because the people looking for Halakha, often spelled Halacha, will not be the people looking for Halaqa. Also, the difference in spelling is minor but quite clear. Opinions, please. Debresser (talk) 10:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I've protected the page to prevent anyone getting blocked over such a stupid edit war. WP:LAME is thattaway. --Dweller (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Can you pass the Hummus, the Israeli cuisine? Sir Joseph (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Before anyone rises to that, it was a reference to Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars/Ethnic_feuds#Hummus_and_friends. --Dweller (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Nobody was about to be blocked, and I really think this protection was uncalled for. If anything, it would be easier to simply explain to the IP user that he should participate in the discussion. Dweller, don't you think this was a tad heavy-handed?
And instead of referring to WP:LAME, perhaps somebody can comment on the issue itself. Debresser (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Edit warring is bad. Protection is the better cure than WP:3RR. If you agree not to revert until discussion is done, I'll be happy to remove the protection. --Dweller (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Good news. I'm participating in the discussion.

So, in response to your genuine inquiry posted on the Halaqa page as to why I thought you didn't want to discuss, I was referring to your previous comment while we were engaging in the edit war. You requested that I “Please discuss this on the talk page.” I noted that at the time, “There [was] nothing on the talk page.” And you replied “Precisely! :)” This implied to me that there was nothing to talk about, as, though there were multiple implications to your short remark, the vibe that I got was snobbery. Perhaps I misunderstood, as now I see that you were serious and are going to far lengths to prove your point.

I am basing my action to include the hatnote on BOTH pages so that there may not be any bias towards one side against the other. While I am pleading from the perspective of someone with no prior knowledge on the Jewish term of “Halakha,” but so happened to fall on the page for it when I misspelled “Halaqa” as “Halaka,” I assume that as a rabbi, you, Mr. de Bresser, have a more extensive knowledge on the topic than I. My response to my unfamiliarity was to avoid such a confusion for future users by adding a hatnote on both pages. Mr. de Bresser’s response to his unfamiliarity with the Arabic term was to revert my first edit and forbid any suck link. While kaf (כ, kh) in Hebrew and qaf (ق) in Arabic have distinct pronunciations, k & q have almost identical pronunciations in English. Therefore, someone who is reading “Halaqa” is likely to pronounce the word as “Halaka,” which has its own disambiguation page that directs a user only to the Jewish term.

I would also like to note that the “Halaqa” page was untouched after my edit on December 27 for almost a month. It wasn’t until yesterday when Dweller protected the “Halakha” page that a new edit war was initiated by Mr. de Bresser on the “Halaqa” page. Perhaps you had good intentions and the purpose was simply to grab my attention; if so, mission accomplished.

In light of our differences and my presumption that you have an adequate knowledge of both Hebrew and Arabic, given that you are a Jew living in the Arab-majority West Bank (aka Judea), I have a proposal to settle this issue. If you can prove to me that Halakha, which is Jewish law, and Halaqa, which is a discussion that is concerned with the interpetation of Islamic Sharia law in a Muslim's daily life, do NOT have the same Semitic root, I will unequivocally concede to your point of view.

--100.15.134.190 (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You should really stop reverting while the discussion is open. Per WP:BRD, challenged edits have to show consensus before they are repeated. Please also be aware that you came very close today to a [{WP:3RR]] violation at Halaqa (by a margin of two hours). Debresser (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
In reply to your post, I have stated my opinion above, and will await the opinions of other editors. Debresser (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Is that it? Is that really all you have to say? "I have stated my opinion above," now let's wait for a third-party to decide whose opinion is better! I'll have you know that opinion means nothing without substance to support it. In any argument. Point blank. Even on Wikipedia. You didn't bother to refute my claim that you have an adequate knowledge on Hebrew and Arabic. I gave you the opportunity to use that knowledge and land on the etymological distinction between the words. You didn't take that opportunity. And as per WP:NOR, instead of using "original research" (aka, opinionated analysis), you could pull up an actual source and not a Wiki guideline to prove me wrong. You didn't. Unless you desire to contend further, I rest my case. --100.15.134.190 (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't go all legal on me. You gave me no opportunity, and I didn't have to take any, nor do I have to prove anything or refute anything. I raised the issue, stated my own opinion, now I am interested in the opinions of my fellow editors, and will await consensus, possibly chipping in on the discussion when I deem that desirable or necessary. That is a normal way of establishing consensus. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I see only good to come out of including this and certainly nothing bad. If it helps a few editors, that's what it's there for. It's a reasonable misspelling of transliteration. --Dweller (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It changes two letter to one, they are far removed on the keyboard. I see nothing reasonable about this. Debresser (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

You know, it's kind of funny how you referred me to Wikipedia's consensus-builidng guidelines page on my talk page. You also ardently urge me to reach some sort of compromise with you. I totally understand. You see, according to the same page you referred me to, and I quote directly:

"In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever."

I think I made a fair argument. In acknowledgement of that, one administrator, and frankly so far the only administrator who cares, agreed with me. So far, you have made no substantial arguments. The only meaningful argument you made was "the people looking for Halakha, often spelled Halacha, will not be the people looking for Halaqa." Who are these people? Jews and Muslims. The implicit argument there is that these two groups of people are inherently alien to each other, which I disagree with, and proved false simply by my own presence. I am a Muslim who sought the Muslim term, found the Jewish term, and put a hatnote on both pages in case there are any other lost boys out there like me. Am I the minority? Maybe. But did I make a good argument? I think so.

So what's your case? Well, let's look at the history of this edit war. On December 27, you made the first revert to my edit. Your objection was very opinionated: "Not likely to be confused. Never heard of the word, actually." You made that case based on your own personal experiences. But think about it in terms of this analogy: a divergent North Korean is frequently censured by his parents and society for his dissenting views but has never known what it means for the media to be censored. He manages a hypothetical Wiki page on the word censure and an editor writes a hatnote Not to be confused with censor. The ignorant North Korean undoes the revision and writes Not likely to be confused. Never heard of the word, actually. You see, it's all a matter of personal experience. So do not dictate what other people should know on the free encyclopedia just because you don't know. The solution to ignorance isn't more ignorance, it's knowledge. I realize this is a far-fetched example, but what else can I say?

Oh yeah, you simply don't like the hatnote. The administrator, Dweller, asserted that the issue of Halaqa and Halakha was a "reasonable misspelling of transliteration." After 10 days of closure, you contended once more "I see nothing reasonable about this." In other words, you just don't like it. Well sir, it's two against one. Sorry. 100.15.134.190 (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

One editor has expressed his opinion apart from us. That is not consensus! Moreover, he just expressed an opinion, but did not discuss, because he never replied to my arguments against. That is not discussion! Debresser (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
So what do you want? 100.15.134.190 (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
That's an easy question: I want you to stop edit warring, and I don't want the hatnote. By the way, in reply to your post from January 21: Halaqa is an Arabic word meaning circle or ring, while the word Halakha comes from the root of to walk or to go. So now please do as you promised and "unequivocally concede" to my point of view. Debresser (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Wonderful. I congratulate you on finally wanting to search for knowledge. I already knew that Halaqa, or Halaqah, meant circle. The etymological origin for the word as it is used today is this: the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) would form circles, or Halaqahs, around him as he lectured much in the same way that Muslims do around lecturers at Halaqahs today. I know that all it took you was a simple Google search and a click on Yahoo Answers, but I hope that instead of relentlessly asserting authority and claiming righteousness over an issue, you continue to search for knowledge in any dispute so as to understand the viewpoint of the "others." I hope you will be able to apply this memo in your daily life (*Ehem* be more friendly to your Arab neighbors *Ehem*). And as per my offer, I will drop the argument of the obvious English pronunciation similarities between the two words, the argument that you simply not wanting or liking the hatnote is an invalid point of contention, and my endorsement from the only administrator to comment so far, and "unequivocally concede to your point of view."

P.S: Whether you like it or not, you are still my brother, fellow son of Adam. ;) 100.15.134.190 (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I understand, and that is fine with me. I just don't like it when people call me "bro". That is not a respectful way to address a person, in my understanding, and based on how I was brought up. Debresser (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

diff person here. i find it arrogant to say that the people looking for one term would not be looking for the other, and vice-versa. i am neither jewish NOR muslim, and i was looking for...BOTH!

i find it amazing that these words are not cognates, but even if they aren't, both entries deserve either "see also..." or "do not confuse with..." hatnotes. it is standard practice on other pages. even when the resemblances are no more than coincidence. 209.172.23.76 (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What you find arrogant is irrelevant to this discussion. See WP:NPA that remarks of a personal nature like this are best omitted from discussions. Debresser (talk) 11:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
ok, fine, but that goes double for your high-handed declaration about what people "are looking for" here, and how that gives you a mandate to suppress much needed hatnotes.
your assumption was not correct in my case, and I suspect not correct in the general case. the need for hatnotes is so self-evident, i don't know how you can even make such claims.
actually...i take that back. an issue like this is usually addressed in the article ITSELF. i propose a section entitled "Halaqa vs. Halakha". if they are indeed unrelated, u can assert it THERE. i speak for the vast majority of clear-thinking human beings who would naively assume they are cognates.
i might also note that one of my korans spells the arab one "halakha", so you're 0 for 2 assumption-wise.
cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.172.23.52 (talk) 04:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I think you should remove "i speak for the vast majority of clear-thinking human beings who would naively assume they are cognates", since these words are again a personal attack.
You are wrong. Never are disambiguations like this discussed in the article itself Debresser (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
oh please. if i wanted to waste half an hour, i could cite hundreds and hundreds of such examples. wiki has entire articles on "false friends" and "false cognates".
u just like making stuff up, huh? 209.172.23.160 (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not "Halaqa" nor "Halaka" - it's a "ch" / "kh" sound, like the Dutch G. English doesn't have that sound. The usual way of writing is with "ch" or sometimes "kh" (personally I favour the former). However it is certainly not "Halaqa" nor "Halaka". Should we also include notices in the article on Sharia that it may also be called Saria, Sariya, Sharya, Shariya, Charya, Chariya, Charia, etc, etc, etc? Does every potential wrong spelling need to be listed? No. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

no u don't need to list *every* "mispelling" (sic), but when both halacha and halaqa are using halakha as a popular alternate...and when their meanings are SOOOOOO similar to begin with, it stands to reason that "halakha - body of jewish law" and "halakha - body of islamic law" needs some sort of commentary.
again, see the article on "false cognates" and scope the articles on any of THOSE word pairs. "not to be confused with" a common element there. 209.172.23.160 (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

seems to me there's a dab of islamophobia here. nobody wants to "soil" this article with mention of islam. despite common practice on other pages when similar word pairs are involved. 209.172.23.160 (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Please be careful with bad faith accusations. They are not appreciated by other editors, and are likely to be simply removed from the page. Debresser (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
well, then, stop ACTING in bad faith!
maybe i'm missing something here. article on kombu (kelp), for example, says that resemblance to chinese kunbu -- ANOTHER type of kelp -- is (likely) coincidental. that is not only a hatnote, that is a lengthy discussion spanning multiple paragraphs.
kombuCHA, meanwhile, has a hatnote to distinguish itself from the related-but-different-japanese-tea konbucha (also frequently spelled kombucha). once again -- similar meaning, similar-and-sometimes-identical spellings.
how are either of these the slightest bit diff from the issue HERE?!
u deadpanned above that no such articles exist, when in fact they are legion. steamroll the rest of us here if you will, but pls spare us the silly rationalizations and farfetched claims. 209.172.23.190 (talk) 01:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

well, waddya know -- the "chia" disambig page lists "(see also) chai" and the "chai" disambig page lists "(see also) chia". guess a spanish plant has more in common with an indian drink than "jewish law" v "muslim law"!!

can we all agree here that this is STANDARD WIKI PRACTICE with easily-confused terms, even when they are NOT semantically similar??

anyone have any objections left to adding similar hatnotes here? i'd do it myself, but i sense debresser will unilaterally revert it.

can we have a vote, at least? pretty lame if all the evidence and all the precedents are held hostage by one guy's personal agenda. even if he means well, that's not how wiki works. 209.172.23.155 (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception[edit]

This source, recently added by an IP, is actually quite comprehensive and could be used to expand the article. I have cited it only in two places in the etymology section, but it should be further consulted and cited. Ibadibam (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)