Talk:Jewish views on lying
 | A fact from Jewish views on lying appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 September 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Notablility, essayish?
[edit]Hmmm. I do have concerns whether this topic meets WP:GNG and doesn't fall afoul of WP:ESSAY... thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- There are similar articles already on Christian and Muslim views on lying (taqiya). I do think the subject meets GNG, based on multiple reliable sources that discuss the subject. If you have any specific suggestions for improvement, please let me know... (t · c) buidhe 02:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Did you know nomination
[edit]- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
... that, according to the Hebrew Bible, a perjurer should receive the same punishment he sought to inflict on the falsely accused?Source: "False witnesses receive as punishment that which they schemed to have done to the defendant by their testimony (Deut. 19:16–21)." 10.5325/jjewiethi.3.1.0001
- Reviewed: Rights of nature
Created/expanded by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 01:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
earwig shows a number of text passages copied, but these are all direct quotes which are properly attributed, so we're good on that. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The bolded link makes one think this is an article about the Jewish bible. Please re-pipe the link. Yoninah (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Disagree. Hebrew Bible is part of the Jewish tradition. (t · c) buidhe 19:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't understand your response. The bolded link should be on something that pertains to the
views on lying
, not to the bible as a whole. Like this: - ALT1: ... that according to the Hebrew Bible, a perjurer should receive the same punishment he sought to inflict on the falsely accused? Yoninah (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: In my opinion, the original is clearer because the addition of "according to" indicates it's not the Hebrew Bible article. However, if you prefer ALT1, I don't have a strong objection. (t · c) buidhe 19:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Well, okay. I just took a look at the article, though, and I find the Torah (renamed Tanakh) section incredibly simplistic to the point of misleading. You have a whole page in Trevino (p. 564) which provides the nuanced approach of the rabbis to lying, and all you're saying is
The Torah does not prohibit lying if no one is harmed.
? You also have an odd discrepancy between saying the Patriarchs showed deception but the Talmud forbids lying. And what are "Later views"? I don't think Rabbi Dessler, Louis Jacobs, or the Reconstructionist fellow would fall under the category of Acharonim. Yoninah (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yoninah, It's just a start class article. The statement in Trevino is "The Torah allows for lying when no harm to others is caused". "Later views" includes significant views of Jews after the Talmud. This article is not "Orthodox Jewish views on lying" and therefore, necessarily includes the viewpoint of non-Orthodox Jews. If you would like to expand it with more information, please go ahead, but it meets DYK requirements. (t · c) buidhe 21:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Ugh. This is really distasteful to me. Restoring tick (for offline source) per RoySmith's review. Yoninah (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Well, okay. I just took a look at the article, though, and I find the Torah (renamed Tanakh) section incredibly simplistic to the point of misleading. You have a whole page in Trevino (p. 564) which provides the nuanced approach of the rabbis to lying, and all you're saying is
- I'm sorry, I don't understand your response. The bolded link should be on something that pertains to the
Bava Metzia
[edit]Three exceptions: Numbers 2 and 3 seem self-explanatory, but number 1 does not. I think the article would benefit from an explanation as to why it is permissible for a Jew to lie about being familiar with a part of the Talmud. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Keeping regular user in mind: link to Bible passage and English before Hebrew
[edit]Immediate links to the actual biblical text is always needed and readily available, no need to force users to do additional searches. There are a few Wiki articles offering the actual verses in an easily visible position, in those (few) cases a wikilink does the trick, but most don't.
Also, I have the vague impression that a majority of potential users of English Wikipedia might not be practicing Jews :))) , therefore I would suggest that generally, when the topic is a particular Bible verse shared by Jews AND Christians, the Bible passage is of interest, not (just) the parasha & discussion in Judaism.
The English term should always be presented first on English Wikipedia, it's the norm and a logical one. As much as not everybody looking up Islamic terms shouldn't be automatically "educated" in Arabic, or even much more so, as the Hebrew Bible also works as the Christian New Testament. Everything else, I may suggest, is sectarianism and cultural missionising - or isolationism.
Thank you, have a great day, and happy holidays Arminden (talk) 10:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)