Talk:Herem (war or property)

See old merge discussion at Talk:Cherem

3 duplicate articles now on same Hebrew word. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Herem → suitable English term - options include "genocide" "total destruction" "total war" etc – not sure what may not be the best final English destination, but per WP:EN and WP:RS has for the time being to be better than 3 forks on 3 variant spellings of 1 Hebrew noun. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently it's true to recognise that the Hebrew word, under the spelling herem, has some currency as a terminus technicus in many scholarly sources input herem + deuteronomy into Google Scholar for example. But when we get down to a broader selection of WP:RS, i.e. the bottom end of Google Scholar and more of Google Books, the discussion of the topic defaults to more normal English terms such as illustrated by "men and women, children and infant" +Bible -herem in Google Scholar or "do not spare them" in G S or indeed something simple like genocide +canaanite in Google Scholar.

Back to Google Books, to establish how common the Hebrew term herem is, is fairly simple:

"to death men and women" +Bible = 565
"to death men and women" +Bible -herem = 558

565 -558 = 7, or 1.5% of references use "herem" in explanation of "to death men and women" + Bible. And this 1.5% includes many examples of "in the Hebrew the word is herem which means..." which cannot be counted as an English word, even as a terminus technicus.

For another example:

Amalekites + herem ="abut 3,700"
Amalekites +extermination OR genocide OR destruction ="about 51,800"

It's really this, the 3,700 vs 51,800 (and yes these are long tail estimates) which indicate that English words such as "extermination" "genocide" "destruction" are 10x more common than the Hebrew term in reference to the Amalekites, and again, these sources include a large number of "in the Hebrew the term is herem, which cannot be counted.

Per WP:EN the default should be to use an English term where one is available. Here several English options are available, not least that English language general practice - including modern scholarly translations such as NRSV NJB NJPS do not transliterate herem but translate. Fiddling around with the "version" key linked to Gesenius' Lexicon entry for herem on this website shows the noun form being translated into English, not transliterated. Same for the verb form.In ictu oculi (talk) 03:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It's all very well to say "per WP:RS", but what are these sources? The phrase "total war" doesn't even appear in the article. But herem is the word consistently used in scholarly articles, such as
- Lilley, J. P. U. "Understanding the herem," Tyndale Bulletin 44 [1993] 171-173.
- Monroe, Lauren. "Israelite, Moabite and Sabaean war-hērem traditions and the forging of national identity: reconsidering the Sabaean text RES 3945 in light of biblical and Moabite evidence," Vetus Testamentum, 57 no 3 2007, p 318-341.
- Wiley, Henriette L. "The war hērem as martial ritual service and sacrifice," in Proceedings - Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies, 25 2005, p 69-76.
- Gangloff, Frédéric. "Joshua 6: Holy war or extermination by divine command (herem)," Theological Review, 25 no 1 Ap 2004, p 3-23.
- Hoffman, Yair. "The Deuteronomistic Concept of the Herem," Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 111 no 2 1999, p 196-210.

St Anselm (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per User:StAnselm. The English sources use "herem", not "total war". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moves

Note: This same text has been posted on Talk:Herem (priestly gift) and Talk:Herem (censure).

1. (diff | hist) . . Herem (priestly gift)‎; 20:18 . . (+27) . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎
2. (diff | hist) . . Herem (war or property)‎; 20:17 . . (+24) . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎
3. (diff | hist) . . Herem (censure)‎; 20:16 . . (+33) . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎
4. (diff | hist) . . Herem‎; 20:12 . . (+79) . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎
5. (Move log); 20:09 . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ moved Talk:Hromim to Talk:Herem (priestly gift) (Per discussion on Talk:Hromim.)
6. (Move log); 20:09 . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ moved Hromim to Herem (priestly gift) (Per discussion on Talk:Hromim.)
7. (Move log); 20:09 . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ moved Talk:Herem to Talk:Herem (war or property) (Per discussion on Talk:Hromim.)
8. (Move log); 20:09 . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ moved Herem to Herem (war or property) (Per discussion on Talk:Hromim.)
9. (Move log); 20:07 . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ moved Talk:Cherem to Talk:Herem (censure) (Per discussion on Talk:Hromim.)
10. (Move log); 20:07 . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ moved Cherem to Herem (censure) (Per discussion on Talk:Hromim.)

It might have been better if these moves had been proposed using WP:RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was discussion at Talk:Herem (priestly gift), and WT:JUDAISM also mentioned the subject. There was no reason to seek input from outside WikiProject Judaism, and Lisa was justified and correct in making the moves she did. In addition, there is a saying that says: do not wave your fist after the fight. Debresser (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Debresser, no I'm not making a fuss (do you see me reverting?), and this actually seems to a be a reasonable set of moves, but at the very least it could have been at least hinted at on the Talk pages - before or after - given a series of merge/RM discussions on all 3 of these.

Btw I'm curious, I've never heard of do not wave your fist after the fight, where does this saying originate from and what does it mean? :) In ictu oculi (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a Russian saying, после драки кулаками не машут (as referred to in the third link in that search). Meaning that it is bad style to argue post factum. Debresser (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, I agree that Lisa was quite bold in making those mo0ves, and they surprised me as well. But she made the right choices, and applied WP:BOLD a the right time and in the right situation, and I for one agree with her on this one. Debresser (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re the Russian phrase, searches show up differently depending on Google users. I hear what you're saying and you're welcome to agree, still in view of the recent merge/RM discussions on these 3 articles I stand by the observation "It might have been better if these moves had been proposed using WP:RM." Or at least mentioned on Talk. It's an observation. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not one scholar takes Herem literally?

I find that tough to believe. Are we not trying hard enough to find the sources, or is WP biased against ancient texts speaking for themselves?66.141.235.58 (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, take "Herem" literally? Debresser (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"...exaggerated, fictional, or metaphorical."

In 'Sources': "Most scholars conclude that the biblical accounts of extermination are exaggerated, fictional, or metaphorical." This is fine as far as it goes, but it leaves the whole thing sounding like a rather harmless literary trope. In fact, most of the stories describe direct orders by religious authorities (and religious/civil/military authorities, e.g. kings) to commit cold-blooded mass murder, including that of women and children. It is clear from the texts that this is driven by fanatical religious zealotry and/or ruthless greed/jealousy/covetousness hiding behind a facade of zealous piety. It is also clear in general that the murderous/greedy intent was real, that it was without doubt impressed upon the common soldier as a central, crucial, and imperative religious duty, and that best efforts were made to carry it out. Failure to do so does not mitigate the intent one iota. Let's not forget, too, that in the context of religious studies, "most scholars" over the last 1700 years have been tied to orthodox religious authority. Trying to make their religion look good was a (usually) unspoken part of their job descripion. So 'We all agree our god didn't really mean that thing about mass murder.' or any such conclusion is highly suspect. Heavenlyblue (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything you'd like to propose here, in terms of making an edit to the article, I mean? Debresser (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]