Jump to content

Talk:Burnt offering (Judaism)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Korban Olah)


Burnt offering?

[edit]

Is there a precise place in the bible, or the oral law, which says that the offering of the ola was entirely burnt? Or could it have been a "total offering" to the temple. It is not clear from the sourcing what kind of textual evidence there is for the interpretation as a burnt offering. Is it all based on the septuagint's analogy with Greek burnt offerings?69.86.66.128 (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

entire save the skin, as quoted in article--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)

[edit]

Please see Wikipedia conventions, regarding use of English, including:

The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources

In ictu oculi (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from above, with no comment for 10 days, and for the record, Google Books showing:
  • burnt offering 211,000 hits
  • whole offering 8,460 hits
  • Korban Olah 111 hits
Therefore moved In ictu oculi (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Korban Olah -> Burnt offering (Judaism), the Google searches are misleading, the move puts it at odds with Korban and Korban Pesach, and there's no consensus for the move. I'm moving it back, pending a consensus in a broader discussion. Jayjg (talk) 01:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re the above
1. when the Google Books hits are this far apart there is little call for fine tuning. Trying ["burnt offering" +Israel] also produces 74,200, and similar for ["burnt offering" +Moses] ["burnt offering" + Bible]. Wheras the hits for "korban olah" - only 97 today not 111 as per last run, mainly fail WP:IRS. Similar for JSTOR and Athens. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. The point about Korban and Korban Pesach, is valid, but in each of these cases as well WP:RS support WP:EN so it would be convenient to do all three at the time.
In ictu oculi (talk) 02:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page move to Burnt Offering?

[edit]

The bracket (Judaism) seems redundant looking at Google Books/WP:IRS. This term is rarely used to refer to Ancient Greece. In ictu oculi (talk)

GOOGLE SCHOLAR
(A) GOOGLE SCHOLAR comparison of English "burnt offering" vs Hebrew "korban olah"
(B) GOOGLE SCHOLAR comparison of Ancient Israel context vs Ancient Greece context

In ictu oculi (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


A more accurate google scholar search:

It's fine to note that "burnt offering" gets more hits, but it's not good to pretend the difference is far greater than it really is. Jayjg (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg,
Can you give me an example of where when I've disagreed with your opinions I've used the verb "pretend" in interpretation of your readings? It really doesn't raise the level of discussion.
As far as your alternative searches:
Yes removing the word "korban" increases hits for "olah" to 1,270, thanks for that.
That still falls far short of Greek holocaust, let alone English
GOOGLE SCHOLAR holocaust with leviticus OR levites 6,090 results
The main issue here remains Wikipedia:naming conventions (use English). If we focus on Wikipedia policy we can save wasting a lot of time. Note again that Wikipedia already uses English for most other terms relating to animal sacrifices in Ancient Israel. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2011

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to support of move. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Korban Olah → Burnt offering (Bible) – Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). WP:RS Google Books "burnt offering" = showing over 1000, have looked up to page 32, of which roughly 20% of hits refer to the holocaust (sacrifice) of Ancient Greece. A narrower search ["burnt offering" +israel] less results OPTION 2 "whole offering" about half referring to Greece ["whole offering" + israel] , reflecting that in Ancient Israel correct etymology is "burnt" not "whole" as in Ancient Greece. In comparison OPTION 3 "korban olah" gets only 97 hits per http://books.google.com/advanced_book_search mainly in texts that don't meet WP:IRS. There would be a case for burnt offering to be a disambiguation page and then burnt offering (Ancient Israel) but this could be covered by a hat note, and in any case the article already links to precedents/parallels in other Ancient Near East contexts. All uses refer to sacrificial rite practised in Ancient Israel, not practised in modern Judaism. Standard academic practice to refer to this in English even regarding rabbinical discussion of Ancient Israel: ["burnt offering" + rabbi] 9230 hits, ["korban olah" + rabbi] 10 hits. So no case to depart from WP:EN. Similar hits in JSTOR/Athens. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. A more relevant book search would be +"burnt offering" +bible, which gets ~ 63,000 hits, vs. olah torah OR bible, which gets ~4,500 hits. In any event, the problem with "burnt offering" is that it fails WP:PRECISION - there are too many other "burnt offering" possibilities besides the Biblical one, whereas "Korban Olah" is pretty specific. Also, other related articles are Korban and Korban Pesach, so this name should match theirs. I think we need to have more holistic discussions about these names. Jayjg (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm easy.
Amended and relisted as per Jayjg's counter-proposal above:
"burnt offering" + Bible 74,700 hits
"korban olah" + Bible 3 hits.
Hope everyone happy now. A regards holistic discussions, there is also a page move proposal for korban Pesach per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). In ictu oculi (talk) 05:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In ictu oculi, this is a deliberate distortion of what I said. I pointed out that a proper search would be +"burnt offering" + Bible, which gets ~63,000 hits, vs. olah torah OR bible, which gets ~4,500 hits. You proceeded to do two entirely different searches, which strongly distorted the actual number of uses of these terms, and then claimed it was "Jayjg's counter-proposal". Please make more honest talk page statements. Jayjg (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to "Burnt offering (Judaism). Chesdovi (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to "Burnt offering (Bible)," per original proposal. The narrative contents of the Hebrew Bible are not only significant to Judaism, and are also not only significant in Hebrew. If "Bible" isn't to people's liking I'd prefer "Ancient Israel" or "Ancient Isrealite" to "Judaism" for reasons I'm happy to explain but wont unless asked. In the end this is the English language Wikipedia, and we need to use the most common English terms in our titles.Griswaldo (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While the narritve has significance for an array of people and things, it looks as if this page covers only the Jewish aspect. Chesdovi (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it covers the proper historical aspect, which is Biblical, that historical aspect is part of Christian religious heritage as well as that of Judaism. No sect of Judaism practices this as far as I know. It is a relic of the religion's past, as it is Christianity's.Griswaldo (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for procedural reasons. First, if you make substantive changes to the proposed new title mid-stream, people are not accurately informed from the start. Prospective early commenters consider commenting on one version (and some will just go away), and actual later commenters comment on another. Second, the Google searching here is not well managed. See the discussion for the RM at Talk:Korban Pesach for details of such failures. The correct procedure here is to withdraw the present RM, think the matter through, and start a new RM with a properly considered title. Then find and weigh the evidence properly. Consider also a multiple RM, toward consistency between related articles. NoeticaTea? 23:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noetica, maybe, but at this point this is a discussion - we're all thinking the matter through right now. We can indeed withdraw and resubmit. However personally I'm easy/flexible - as long as there is consensus to follow Wikipedia:naming conventions (use English) the exact English can be worked out. NB you didn't help in that it seems the information you gave me about Google Books was incorrect, per Kwami's comment "It's not that those other thousands of hits are invalid, but only that we can't verify them. Rather like a return with no available preview." on that basis I amended the supporting details of the paragraph - when the original information may have been more correct. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then by all means take the opportunity to talk things through, so long as due process is eventually respected. I appreciate your work. These things are tricky, and we're all learning. NoeticaTea? 02:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google scholar just about says it all when it comes to this entry. This entry is not Korban Pesach, and should not be judged by what is going on over there. English language scholarship on the Bible and the Biblical religion of the Jews refers to this as a "burnt offering." That much is certain, and no amount of argument about the nature of Google searches will change that fact.Griswaldo (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Griswaldo, I can't see how your comment engages with mine. I called for for proper procedure, without judging the merits in this case. And the reference to Korban Pesach was explicitly concerned with how to do these things, not with the term itself. NoeticaTea? 02:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's consider tertiary sources here for a minute. I have access to a suite of online reference sources from Oxford University Press via my academic library. "Korban olah" appears in none of them. "Burnt offering" does, however. A Dictionary of the Bible has entries for both "burnt offering" and "offering, burnt" referring to the same practice. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions has the following to say at the entry for "sacrifice" - "Burnt offerings ('olah) were offered twice daily in the Jerusalem Temple as part of the regular ritual, with two additional lambs offered each Sabbath."Griswaldo (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

"Ascending offering"

[edit]

Strictly speaking, Korban Olah can't mean "ascending offering." I agree that as a loose translation it's acceptable, but Korban Olah is a smichut construction, i.e. noun–noun, not noun–adjective. (If it were noun–adjective, it would be Korban Oleh.)—Biosketch (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So how would you better translate it? "Burnt" certainly isn't a literal translation. Jayjg (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your first edit was fine in that you removed the "ascending offering" from the template. What belongs in the template after the Hebrew form is (a) the English phonological form and/or (b) the literal translation. The equivalent expression in English, whatever that is determined to be, belongs outside the template. "Burnt offering" and "ascending offering" aren't literal translations of קרבן עולָה – they're extrapolations of the meaning of the expression and therefore belong outside the template.
What belongs in the template? I don't know. We'd have to figure out what exactly olah means literally in this context. But what's for sure is that olah is a noun, not an adjective. It doesn't mean "burnt" and it doesn't mean "ascending." If it meant those things, it'd have have been oleh. My guess is that olah is a noun referring to a type of burnt offering. Until we have a means of determining what the literal English equivalent of olah is, maybe the template should just say "olah offering." Granted, it's not a particularly helpful solution, but at least it won't be our original research.—Biosketch (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the "literal translation"? Jayjg (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, it's something to be looked into more carefully. We have expressions like עולת התמיד, עולת הבוקר, etc., so there's probably a nuance that we're not capturing by translating olah simply as "burnt" or "ascending."—Biosketch (talk) 05:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Biosketch, by all means expand the existing Etymology section, that's what it's there for, one assumes. It does already mention the connection to עָלָה . It should be fairly easy as well to find a WP:RS to illustrate the most notable MT use of the noun form outside animal sacrifice, which I believe is the Queen of Sheba fainting when she saw the magnificance of Solomon's ascent/olah into the Temple. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Encyclopedia "Burnt Offering" English title in refs restored

[edit]

Jayjg, please - you were specifically asked not to delete the Jewish Encyclopedia "Burnt Offering" title while there is a Talk going on. Part of the Talk discussion relates to sources in the article, the article repeatedly 8x cites the Jewish Encyclopedia, it is meaningful to let readers know the title of the article is in English. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're referring to - can you please point out where I was specifically asked not to delete the Jewish Encyclopedia "Burnt Offering" title while there is a Talk going on? The link you've provided merely shows me adding an alternative name, "Olah". Also, the article's current title should come first, in bold, per WP:BOLDTITLE. "Burnt Offering" is also included in the first sentence, exactly where it belongs, as an English translation/alternative name. We follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not the lead of a hundred-year-old encyclopedia. Please do not violate WP:LEDE again. Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg, re WP:LEDE, the "lead of a hundred-year-old encyclopedia" is relevant when an article is in large part a cut and paste of "a hundred-year-old encyclopedia" with apparently the original article editor having changed all the English "burnt offering" in the hundred-year-old encyclopedia to Hebrew, and then referenced "a b c d e f g h i Jewish Encyclopedia" but having omitted that the article was entitled "Burnt Offering" - and it's that that is the problem with your edit, to redelete the title of the "Burnt Offering" article in the Jewish Encyclopedia on which this article is based. Yes I know 100 year old references are a problem, which is why the only other ref given (Neusner) was one I added. I ask you to please restore the title of the Jewish Encyclopedia article "Burnt Offering" to the footnotes so users can see the article is based on an article title in English. Please, thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you need to provide a link to where I was specifically asked not to delete the Jewish Encyclopedia "Burnt Offering" title while there is a Talk going on - you accused me of WP:POINT based on that, and this is not the first time you've made false accusations about me. In fact, I'm getting quite tired of this. And we don't use footnotes on an English translation of a Hebrew term "so users can see the article is based on an article title in English" - this is not information that is of any encyclopedic value to the reader. However, I have added the correct and standard template that indicates that this article incorporates information from the Jewish Encyclopedia. Jayjg (talk) 04:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg, how am I meant to deal with "this is not the first time you've made false accusations about me"? I am allowed to hold the opinion that your removal of the original Jewish Encyclopedia title "Burnt Offering" from the article is WP:POINTy. And the place I asked you to please not remove the original footnote ref showing that the Jewish Encyclopedia title is in English "Burnt Offering" was under your post to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism about this move discussion. I am not talking about the template, I am asking you to restore the actual article title "Burnt Offering" that relates to refs.^ a b c d e f g h i Jewish Encyclopedia. Anyone looking at the article in the context of a rename discussion might imagine that refs 2.^ a b c d e f g h i Jewish Encyclopedia contains an article "Korban Olah." Will you please restore the English article title "Burnt Offering" behind 2.^ a b c d e f g h i Jewish Encyclopedia. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the citation to link directly to the Jewish Encyclopedia article, and name it. Regarding your claim that I was specifically asked not to delete the Jewish Encyclopedia "Burnt Offering" title while there is a Talk going on, I see now that you made some sort of vague statement somewhat like that on the talk page of a project board. Next time, if you have a statement to make about this article, make it here, especially if you want it to be noticed. Also, if you want to name of an article to be included in a citation, then include it in the citation - don't instead create a useless reference to an alternate name, and put it in the front of the lede so that it no longer complies with WP:LEDE. I understand you want to move the article to an English name. That's fine. But do it at the WP:RM section above; don't use weird citations and non-guideline-compliant lede sentences as some sort of bizarre way of fighting your battle by proxy. Jayjg (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg, if I may, the comment "some sort of bizarre way of fighting your battle by proxy" isn't enormously helpful since Wikipedia:naming conventions (use English) is not "my battle," and even if it were, please note e.g. that I two days ago merged Nathinites to Nethinim. Whatever, thank you for having restored the English article title "Burnt Offering" behind refs 2.^ a b c d e f g h i Jewish Encyclopedia, that is helpful. Is there any chance you will change your oppose to support the use of any English title for this article under any circumstances? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is really WP:OR?

[edit]

Hello Jayjg, at some point it would be helpful if you could explain your long standing aversion to (a) the use of English for this item, and (b) if using English, then aversion to the English used in most WP:RS. You have today changed "It is typically translated "burnt offering" in English versions" to "Its traditional name in English is holocaust". But (a) "It is typically translated "burnt offering" in English versions" and (b) "Its traditional name in English is holocaust" are not equivalent sentences. Most English versions do, like it or not, use the term "burnt offering" for most of the 289 occurences of olah in the MT. Holocaust is Greek/Latin, it does not traditionally occur in English versions. Do you know of any English language version which uses either Greek/Latin holocaust or Hebrew olah within the English text? If not, then why did you delete this sentence? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In ictu oculi, your comment started with if you could explain your long standing aversion to (a) the use of English for this item, and (b) if using English, then aversion to the English used in most WP:RS - it's not accurate, and it's a violation of WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, which both state "Comment on content, not on the contributor", so I didn't read further. I'm happy to have a friendly collegial discussion with you, but only about article content. Jayjg (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg, I suppose if we saw an IP making persistent changes to this article for over a year which replace the WP:COMMONNAME/WP:UE "burnt offering" with a non-English term and failing to give a clear reason then with respect it would not within the realms of "personal attack" for any reasonable editor to infer that the IP had an wikt:aversion to "burnt offering." However.... in the interests of collegiality, if you dislike the word "aversion" then my apologies, I strike it through. Correction: You appear to have a "preference" for olah instead of English. Would you please be willing to explain your preference? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what is unclear about what I'm saying; "You appear to have a "preference" for olah instead of English" etc. is a comment about me, not article content. I'm happy to have a friendly collegial discussion with you, but only about article content. Jayjg (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically, not pointing at any editor in particular, one could also note that calling sourced edits of other editors "WP:OR" in edit summaries without good reason or explanation is itself a comment about the other editor, but let's move on.
Okay, I'll happily try again.
Question: a removal for example, of WP:COMMONNAME/WP:UE "burnt offering" in favour of non-English doesn't does not appear to contribute to the article, or be in line with WP:RS. Does any editor have a comment to make about whether the article content should follow apparentWP:COMMONNAME / WP:UE / WP:RS for "burnt offering" in this case, in relation to the article content?
Also as regards this edit: we now have two sources saying olah is "usually" and "traditionally" translated "burnt offering" which stand, but also have the sentence "Its traditional name in English is "holocaust",[2] and the word olah has traditionally been translated as "burnt offering."[3][4]" - evidently this doesn't make much grammatical or logical sense. Yes Schwartz does briefly note ";its traditional name in English is "holocaust"." it is there in Schwartz's tightly packed paragraph on BURNT OFFERING, p154, but to leave the sentence standing like this should prompt common sense to intervene, and substitute something more complete, such as Mark F. Rooker, Dennis R. Cole Leviticus 200 p85 "The Septuagint translates the Hebrew term olah, “burnt offering,” with the Greek word holokautoma, from which we get our English word “holocaust.” In ictu oculi (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's deal with one issue at a time. When I removed the statement "It is typically translated "burnt offering" in English versions", what WP:RS supported the contention? Jayjg (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not every statement on Wikipedia without a specific ref footnote is a "wikt:contention." A statement that it is typically "burnt offering" in English versions defaults to (i) common knowledge, (ii) easily verifiable fact, and most pertinently (iii) the main main source on which the article is based: a b c d e f g h i Morris Jastrow, Jr.; J. Frederic McCurdy; Kaufmann Kohler; Louis Ginzberg. "Burnt Offering". Jewish Encyclopedia. 1901–1905, (iv) one might also note that it is supported by the repeated sources here on this Talk Page. However, yes, sometimes, it may be appropriate for an editor who wishes to see a specific source for a comment he or she considers a "contention" to tag it [citation needed] if he or she feels a specific citation, beyond generics where articles are based on earlier encyclopedia entries, is needed. Generally a [citation needed] tag is a more constructive and harmonious approach than deleting an edit and writing "OR" in the edit summary.
By the by, there is no disagreement that the Hebrew root means 'go up' as in "Moreover I will cause to cease in Moab, saith the LORD, him that offereth (causes to ascend) in the high places, and him that burneth incense to his gods." Jer 48:35 - but that doesn't change that as Bamberger says "In English, olah has for centuries been translated "burnt offering." "(Unrelated what happened back here?)
Now, can we please move on to address the article as it stands, is "Its traditional name in English is "holocaust",[2] and the word olah has traditionally been translated as "burnt offering."[3][4]" a coherent statement, and is it the best edit than can made? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If your argument is "Not every statement on Wikipedia without a specific ref footnote is a "wikt:contention" and "there is no disagreement that the Hebrew root means 'go up'" then why would you remove the statement "lit. "Sacrifice (that goes) up" from the lede using the edit summary "removing original research about the meaning of the term"? This seems highly inconsistent. Jayjg (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three reasons: (1) Because of the difference between a verb root and a noun, (2) because of the difference between "meaning" and etymology, and possible also (3) because of varying opinions, Rashi and so on. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand this response - can you be more specific? Jayjg (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, can we try again with this sentence please: "Its traditional name in English is "holocaust",[2] and the word olah has traditionally been translated as "burnt offering."[3][4]" Is this a coherent statement, and is it the best edit than can made? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so we've established that I didn't remove anything that was (at the time) reliably sourced, and, in fact, removed what appeared to be WP:OR. Regarding your next question, yes, of course it's coherent; it had an English name, and an English translation. Names and translations are not necessarily the same. It's hard to assess whether or not it is "the best edit than can be made", which is hypothetical and to a great degree based on personal taste. What alternative would you propose? Jayjg (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of English "Burnt offering" from lede again

[edit]

It didn't register but "burnt offering" has been deleted from lede entirely. Could the editor who deleted "burnt offering" from lede, please explain the removal of the term that is the title of the Jewish Encyclopedia article and WP:COMMONNAME for the subject of this article? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were many burnt offerings on the altar (not just the olah), and the usual English name for this specific offering (as attested by reliable sources) was "holocaust". The contextless statement in the lede was confusing, and is better elucidated in the Etymology section. Jayjg (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly it is usual for articles on en.wikipedia to give the actual term in English, not an etymology only. An etymology is an etymology, not the English term. You do understand the difference?
Secondly, despite what you claim - please check in JPS, Artscroll, etc. translations of Leviticus, you will not find "holocaust", and the usual translation for this offering is not holocaust. You will also not find a reliable source which says that "In English, olah has for centuries been translated "holocaust" " or "The term olah, literally referring to a sacrifice “which goes up,” is usually translated as “holocaust.”
  • Bernard Jacob Bamberger Leviticus: commentary Jewish Publication Society of America, Central Conference of American Rabbis 1979 p.9 "In English, olah has for centuries been translated "burnt offering." "
  • Lawrence H. Schiffman, Florentino García Martínez The courtyards of the house of the Lord: studies on the Temple scroll 2008 p354 "The term olah, literally referring to a sacrifice “which goes up,” is usually translated as “burnt offering.”
I can see this is going to need to go to RfC Religion and RfC Language. It is one thing to have the page entitled in a foreign language when there is a perfectly standard English term, it is another to insist on deletion of the "usual" (Schiffman) "for centuries" (Bamberger) English term from the lede sentence. It is not WP's job to reengineer or correct English usage. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a translation and a name are different things, and we've hardly even begun discussing this, but since you've gone to RFC already, there's no point in continuing here, I guess. Jayjg (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jayjg. Peer Review isn't RfC as I understand it. Yes a translation and a name are different things, however a common noun (or two nouns) in English is not a name. Would you now agree that burnt offering can be restored into lede sentence as the WP:COMMONNAME in English term for the subject of the article? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you've brought state that "burnt offering" is a common (or traditional) translation of olah is "burnt offering". That's also what the Etymology section of this article states. They do not, however, say that "burnt offering" is the common name for olah, so I don't know why you've invoked WP:COMMONNAME, which is a guideline for the names of articles. Also, what do you mean when you write "a common noun (or two nouns) in English is not a name"? I'm not sure how it is relevant to this discussion. Which common noun did you have in mind? Jayjg (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jayjg,
Ideally, for the lede I would propose
  • The burnt offering was a twice-daily animal sacrifice offered on the altar in the tabernacle and the temple in Jerusalem.
We have myriad articles in WP which use English without supplying foreign language translations in brackets. However that is not going to fly so:
  • The olah (etymology "that which goes up [in smoke]") also korban olah (Hebrew: קָרְבַּן עוֹלָה, "offering which goes up"), burnt offering, was a twice-daily animal sacrifice offered on the altar in the tabernacle and temple in Jerusalem that was completely consumed by fire.
As regards the line on etymology, I would propose:
  • The noun used in the Hebrew text, olah (עוֹלָה), is usually translated in English as "burnt offering"[3][4], though it was rendered "holocaust" in Greek and Latin, and this is also became a traditional name for the offering in English.[2]
That is the approach I think one would take to a normal WP article. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your proposed changes to the etymology section, "holocaust" is not a Greek word, it's an English word, and the grammar would have to be fixed. Also, your proposed changes to the lede don't follow any standard forms, and don't make clear that "burnt offering" is a traditional translation. Is your whole point here just to get "burnt offering" into the lede somehow? If so, there are undoubtedly easier ways of doing it that are both accurate and grammatically correct, and which actually follow Wikipedia norms for lede sentences. Would you like me to propose one? Jayjg (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please restore the English common name to the lede. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the common English translation to the lede. Jayjg (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

[edit]

I think this article needs new eyes on it (I've watched it since I happened upon it but don't seem to have been able to contribute anything meaningful) so I listed it on Peer Review. Never having created a Peer Review before not sure what will happen, but if it does attract new eyes, welcome and over to you. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. I was on the fence about relisting this again. I generally dislike relisting an article for a second time (although the requestor seems to be okay with that), so I'm just going to make a decision on the information available. Numbers are fairly close, so one can't conclude anything on that. However, the strength of the arguments in favor of the move outweigh those against. The opposing rationales of Dimadick and Jheald seem adequately rebuffed, and neither editor has returned to reinforce their positions. Llywelyn's opposition has reasonable points and is duly noted, but, alas, the points regarding consistency, using English, and common name presented by others support the move. -- tariqabjotu 01:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Korban olah → Burnt offering (Judaism) – The current title is almost never used. "burnt offering was" israel OR judaism OR bible OR talmud About 104,000 results (0.41 seconds) compared to "korban olah was" 8 results. original proposal was Burnt offering. The redirect Burnt offering currently redirects to an article on Ancient Greek Holocaust (sacrifice), but What links here] shows the redirect is misdirecting articles about Ancient Israel to the wrong article. That is still available as an option. Also per AP:AT CONSISTENCY with Wave offering, Peace offering, Thank offering, Incense offering, Heave offering, Sin offering, Slaughter offering, Guilt offering, Gift offering, all of which, like Burnt offering, ended in 70CE with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem - why is this one article not following WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:UE?. Relisted. BDD (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC) In ictu oculi (talk) 03:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that added line "Also per.... WP:UE" to template on 7th day of listing. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that, have added footnote to proposal In ictu oculi (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support the changed proposal. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 07:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – partially out of annoyance that you're not addressing previous concerns; partially because you're completely misrepresenting the content of the holocaust article; partially because you're cherry picking google results. No, no one is going to write the sentence "korban olah was" – they're going to have readers who already understand the context and go straight to the simple English version, possibly after first defining the Hebrew term (or use the shorter form "olah"); here, we have to deal with WP:PRECISION and just be sure that the common name can find us (which it can: first of all on the burnt sacrifice article's Jewish sacrifice section and through that section's hatnote linking here and through redirects).
    This is the precise name of the particularly Jewish practice; it is used by reliable sources per commenters above; and there is consensus here and at other Jewish pages to use the Hebrew terms as precise names (besides which, it's shorter to link to this name than the one you want). — LlywelynII 05:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    LLywelyn
    If I may you also don't seem to be addressing previous concerns, and "annoyance" isn't a en.wp guideline. The reason for doing a search "burnt offering was" vs "korban olah was" is to weed out parentheticals such as "Shim'on bar Yohai said: "The sacrifice of the burnt-offering (korban olah) is brought to atone for the evil thoughts in a person's mind that incite him to commit a transgression"" where "korban olah" appears in an English source but evidently isn't the English term. If you want to present a different search 104,000 results compared to 8 results then please by all means adjust the parameters in the search table. But if you do a different search then you should also get a ratio something like 104,000 to 8 results.
    As for the other points, that has to do with the other articles. This is a RM for this article. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Those parentheticals are precisely on point for a WP:PRECISION-appropriate title.
    Your own search just returns 244 (not 110k) results for "burnt offering" and "olah was" returns 83. Not that it really matters; everyone accepts that the common name is burnt offering. We just realize it's not going to meet WP:PRECISION.
    And no, those other articles are part of your rationale for why this page needs to be changed, when it's functioning just fine. — LlywelynII 06:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment – Fwiw, though, the material currently being covered at holocaust (sacrifice) should be moved to burnt offering instead per WP:COMMONNAME. Then, it can give an overview dab, with holocaust focusing solely on the Greek ritual and korban olah focusing solely on the Jewish one.
    To my mind (and the editors above and before us), that has seemed preferable to burnt offering, burnt offering (Greek), and burnt offering (Jewish), which is all rather bland, nondistinguishing, and unhelpful. That's not to say you couldn't edit the terms in the current running text of the article to read "burnt offering", "holocaust", and "olah" instead of awkwardly repeating "korban olah" over and over. — LlywelynII 06:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's another issue. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not. It's directly on topic concerning what we call this article. — LlywelynII 06:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment – this same user is apparently responsible for all the previous (failed) move attempts as well. What's the relevant policy setting the limit where his repeated (no doubt WP:GOODFAITH) requests becomes WP:GAMEy? — LlywelynII 06:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Llywelyn, could you please indent your comments so it doesn't look like 3 !votes by different editors. By "all" you mean "1"? A second RM from 29 September 2011 (UTC) to now is nearly 2 years. Can you please provide a search from Google Books to justify that "korban olah" passes WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support as per nomination, WP:UE, etc. The original nomination, moving it to burnt offering, might have merit as far as primary topic goes, but we can decide that further down the road. In the meantime, surely burnt offering (Judaism) would be best. Good proposal. Red Slash 00:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The world's moved on since 1900. Whereas 'foreign' (ie Hebrew) words used overwhelmingly to be re-rendered into something Greek-derived (even in synagogues), or some clumsy English literalism, practice has changed. Now overwhelmingly it is Sukkot instead of Tabernacles; Shavuot rather than Weeks; Tefillin not Phylacteries. This article is about a historical Jewish practice, with its own customs and requirements. It is treating it in its own right, on its own terms. So let's call it by its specific proper original name. Jheald (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jheald, what is the ratio between "burnt offering" : "korban olah" in English printed books? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jheald, or what is the ratio between "burnt offering" : "korban olah" purely in English Jewish sources excluding academic and Christian texts? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Jheald: In ictu oculi (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dimadick, sorry but that isn't the proposal. The proposal is for Burnt offering (Judaism), an objection to (Judaism) that (Judaism) might be confused with the cultural practices of other ancient people is only a valid objection to a proposal that doesn't have (Judaism), but this proposal does. The basis of the proposal to use the name found in English sources is that some English readers will not know what the Hebrew קָרְבַּן עוֹלָה means any more than Hungarian égő áldozatot. The usage is also WP:NPOV reflecting non-standard Jewish usage, since secular Jewish and reform Jewish texts have "burnt offering," In ictu oculi (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick:. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canvass

[edit]

Llywelyn, please see WP:CANVASS re diff. The RM mechanism alerts all Projects anyway through alerts - it does not require selecting one project with a heavily pointed message as you have done. Please focus on policy WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RS, WP:UE, and sources such as Google Books and Google Scholar. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

....The current title breaks so many guidelines, and also in view of canvass it should be relisted. But still disappointed with the point blank refusal from editors to address the basic problem - that English sources are 10,000:1 against the use of a non-English name for what is a Leviticus subject, finished 70CE, not a rabbinical practice. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, you know it's right when In ictu oculi and I agree. This seems so clear and easy, I'm really surprised. Red Slash 02:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Red Slash oh I hope it's not always like that. I can only remember one RM a month ago (and I can't remember which) where I felt moved to be critical, excuse me if there have been others. I'm assuming Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near East/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Article alerts Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Article alerts are all working and wider Project notification isn't needed. What is annoying is editors refusing to click simple Google Book links. I've never seen this, at least that I can recall to this extent, on any other article. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, not that I take it personally at all! But we do often see things from different perspectives, and that's fine--we probably end up helping the encyclopedia more that way by bringing more perspectives to the table. Yeah... I mean, there sometimes are times when I support one side, but I totally see where the other side is coming from, but here I just don't get it. There seems to be a disconnect between the move proposal and our policies here, and what the responders have said so far... Red Slash 02:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the original part of the RM proposal before relisting didn't make it clear that burnt offerings ended in 70CE. The visual impact of a Hebrew language title so naturally leads one to expect that this is a rabbinical practice. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
REQUEST RELIST AND WikiProject Religion notify - in view of the stalemate of 4 support, 3 oppose and the somewhat unusual situation of this article being at odds with the main source http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3847-burnt-offering, and in view of the Canvas issue earlier someone should post a request for wider input at WikiProject Religion. I don't want to do this as nominator in case seen to be phrase non-neutrally. But a passing User could do so.... In ictu oculi (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why so special?

[edit]

(Request for more info). Why is a burnt offering extra special? Why is it so special in the Bible?

What other offerings existed [i.e. is “burnt” the top level of offering], and when (in what situations) was it necessary to go “burnt”? [The article and Google say a total burn gets the offer to the gods easier, and fully… anything else?]

Til when?

Wiki mentions Greek at Holocaust (sacrifice) … any others [Persian, Aztec, African?] Common occurrence? MBG02 (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burnt_offering_(Judaism)&oldid=1221245001"