Talk:Mishpatim

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 February 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Volcano???[edit]

Why is there a picture of Mt. Saint Helens on the top of this article? If you are trying to get the "feel" of Mt. Sinai with the cloud, a volcano won't do - it's too inaccurate. You'll have to find a drawing or a real mountain with clouds over it. Althepal 00:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the picture is meant to convey the sense of the text in the verses that say:

15 And Moses went up into the mount, and the cloud covered the mount.

16 And the glory of the LORD abode upon mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days; and the seventh day He called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud.

17 And the appearance of the glory of the LORD was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel.

Many people visualize this as a volcanic moement. I'm not sure that an image of the base of a mountain with the peak in the clouds would convey the remarkable nature of the event. But I welcome folks trying to find better images. -- Dauster 11:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was no lava and smoke coming out of Mount Sinai, and I think a picture of a volcano (with one side missing) just gives the wrong idea. Probably a picture of a mountain with clouds would be better than a volcano: First of all, there is no "fire" in this picture. Second of all, God's light/glory and the earth's lava/fire do not go hand in hand at all - they are very different, even if some people will say that "fire" in this case means "lava". But probably the best replacement would be a drawing of the mountain with a cloud above it with bright light emanating from that cloud, or something like that. Even a total removal of the picture might be better than the volcano. Althepal 17:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. I've spent some time going through mountains and clouds in Wikipedia Commons, and I cannot find a picture closer to what you are describing. I invite you to try to find one. Good hunting. -- Dauster 12:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

;) Althepal 20:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, I think Mount St. Helens should come down. The page is better with no picture than this somewhat random picture. To me, it's problematic because the Mount St. Helens eruption is so iconic, and so I don't see Mt. Sinai at all, just the famous Pacific Northwest eruption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.97.191 (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link Farm[edit]

This article is incredibly hard to read because of all the external links. This does not conform with WP:NOT. Please make an effort to reduce the amount of unnecessary links. Thanks, 134.29.231.11 (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Hobbes (portrait).jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Thomas Hobbes (portrait).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Thomas Hobbes (portrait).jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

REQUEST: Please see the centralized discussion about this subject, relating to sources, links, content, etc at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 82 external links on Mishpatim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mishpatim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exodus 21 and 23 are Bible chapters, not a parashah[edit]

There is no justification for Exodus 21 and 23, which are also part of the Christian Bible, automatically linking to a rabbinical discussion of a parashah.

A majority of potential users of English Wikipedia are not practicing Jews. I will elaborate: a majority are not Jewish, and a majority of Jews are not practicing Judaism and rabbinical studies, but all these people are potentially interested in the Bible for their own cultural and religious reasons. Therefore, when the topic is a particular Bible verse shared by Jews AND Christians and, frankly, the entire humanity, the Bible passage is of interest, not (just) the parasha & discussion in Judaism. Thank you for considering this.

The discussion is happening here. Arminden (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]