- 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 move to new title, while on the surface, the invocation of WP:UE may seem the most logical way forward with these types of articles, but this article in particular has bigger problems that a title change will not fix. In evaluating this RM, there were arguments on both sides as to what this article is about—a biblical phrase or rabbinic law. However, the article itself is so poorly constructed and completely un-sourced to make the distinction between phrase and law nearly impossible. The current title does no harm to WP, the current state of the article does. Editors spent a lot of energy in this discussion, including a lot of sourcing, yet the article itself has not benefited substantially from that energy. FIX the article folks. Move protected for 30 days. Mike Cline (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
B'rov am hadrat melech → In the multitude of people is the king's honour – per Wikipedia:Article titles (particularly the nutshell at the head of that policy), WP:UE, MOS:COMMONALITY and demonstrated English usage in WP:RS.relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC) In ictu oculi (talk) 11:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: *see my newer comments below* based on the rationale and Wikipedia policy given by the nominator. We are supposed to use English for article titles. The Hebrew can definitely be used as a redirect and mentioned in the article lead. Please see the discussion in the section directly above this for more info. MsBatfish (talk) 12:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose: Apparently, In Ictu has not been fully forthcoming with the results of Google Books Search. I went to Google Books and searched for "b'rov am hadrat melech", "b'rov am hadras melech" and "b'rov am hadrat melekh". Here are my results:
The legacy of Maran Rav Aharon Kotler, Rabbi Yitzchok Dershowitz, Feldheim Publishers, 2005, page 115:
The benefit of this method is the enhanced value of a Brocha said with the entire Tzibur focusing on the Mvoreich and answering Amein in unison (as per the principal [sic] of "b'rov am hadras Melech").
Inner Peace, Yisroel Roll, Targum Press, 1999, page 78:
Thus the song sung by the Israelites after they crossed the Sea was the ultimate praise of God since it was acclaimed publicly, as King Solomon teaches us: "B'rov am hadras Melech -- With a greater multitude I praise the King."
Conservative Judaism, Volume 46, Rabbinical Assembly, 1994, page 167:
With regard to public mitzvah blessings the etiquette is to prefer a single public blessing to many private blessings, arguing b'rov am hadrat melekh (the King is best honored in public assembly).
Women at prayer: a halakhic analysis of women's prayer groups, Avraham Weiss, KTAV Publishing House, 1990 (third edition, 2001), page xviii:
They, like the hashkama minyan, can sometimes decentralize communal worship and take away from the feeling of b'rov am hadrat melekh.
Prince of the Torah Kingdom, Shim'on Yosef ben Elimelekh Meler, Rabbi Shimon, Boruch Kalinsky, Feldheim Publishers, 2006, page 271:
It will also be a great advantage for the bnei yeshiva, for "B'rov am hadras melech -- The glory of a king is enhanced by a multitude of people" [verse in Mishlei], for the distance from the city center could also result in a sense of isolation and boredom.
Gates of Joy, Ed. Adena K. Berkowitz & Rivka Haut, 2007, page xxi:
The reason for adding God's name when a sizeable group of ten eat together is explained by the concept of "b'rov am hadrat Melech" (God's glory is magnified in a large group).
The laws of reading the book of Esther twice on Purim., by Rabbi Shraga Simmons, Aish HaTorah website (Aish.com):
Because of the concept of B'rov Am Hadrat Melech -- "with the multitude of the nation is the King honored" (Proverbs 14:28) -- it is preferable to hear the Megillah at a synagogue with a large number of people.
Kol HaShoneh Halachot #208, Rabbi Eliezer Lerner, Michlelet Mevaseret Yerushalayim, 2009:
Other Poskim (see Tshuvot Chatam Sofer O.C. 56) maintain that due to B'rov Am Hadrat Melech (i.e. there is greater glory when a mitzvah is performed with a multitude of people), it would be proper to wait until after Tefillat Shachrit to recite the bracha.
So what's happening here? In some of the cases, the author adds an English translation for the benefit of readers who aren't familiar with the technical term. But the translations vary, because none of them is precisely correct. The term doesn't translate exactly. So we have:
- With a greater multitude I praise the King
- the King is best honored in public assembly
- The glory of a king is enhanced by a multitude of people
- God's glory is magnified in a large group
- with the multitude of the nation is the King honored
- there is greater glory when a mitzvah is performed with a multitude of people
And two sources that didn't even bother translating the commonly known technical term. All of these translations are reasonable. None of them really express what the Hebrew does. The two sources In Ictu cites are both Artscroll publications, so it stands to reason that they would have a unified editing methodology. Thus, they aren't really two sources, but a single source. As opposed to the multiple sources I've just produced from Google Books Search (and I did not cherry pick; this is an exhaustive list of actual books and journals based on the searches I mentioned above -- other editors are encouraged to double check).
Given the above, I recommend that the move request be closed with the result Do not move. I would further suggest that In Ictu's slew of other move requests, in the same vein as this one, be closed as well. It took me over an hour to compile those results and post them, and I don't feel like doing the same for every single article. In Ictu may have unlimited time on his hands, but I do not. And he has demonstrated in this case that his presentation of so-called reliable sources is... shall we say, flawed. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lisa, see WP:NPA and WP:AGF. You should not go around accusing other Wikipedia editors of dishonesty simply because you have not understood the WP policies they are refering to. Google Books/Scholar support the WP policies cited - read the policies and you will see that they only require demonstration that an English term exists. If you understand the policies then a Google Books search will not take an hour but can be checked in 5 min.
- As far as your Google sources above, well done for checking - please note that they fall into 2 categories. (a) standard English sources which explain the Hebrew term and therefore support WP:UE, and (b) non-standard English sources (see MOS:COMMONALITY which therefore don't count.
- The English exists in various versions, as do the variant different romanizations of the Hebrew. Among the English versions the one chosen gets by far the most Google hits. I assume it's probably the 1611 King James version of Proverbs 14:8, though I haven't checked to make sure. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlike you, In Ictu, I don't merely make claims about what Wikipedia rules say. I cite them. Going to WP:Article titles#English-language titles, it says "On the English Wikipedia, article titles are written using the English language. However, it must be remembered that the English language contains many loan words and phrases taken from other languages. If a word or phrase (originally taken from some other language) is commonly used by English language sources, it can be considered to be an English language word or phrase (example: Coup d'état)."
- What this means is not that, in your words, "they only require demonstration that an English term exists". It's that if a word or a phrase taken from some other language is commonly used by English language sources, it can be considered to be an English word or phrase. Why would you misrepresent what the rule actually says? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 23:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lisa, please, it seems that every single comment by you has to include a personal attack - this one includes 3x allegations of dishonesty. And this, with respect is the first time I've seen you cite a WP policy, and in this case one I have pasted into several talk pages already. "commonly used by English language sources". Enough. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Article name is accurate of article flavor and content.--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The content of the article is in English, so the title should be in English. This is a phrase that appears in the Bible, so it has been translated by committees of experts time and time again. See here for a list of translations given in parallel. RSV says, "In a multitude of people is the glory of a king." They invented the wheel for us. We can use it. Kauffner (talk) 00:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true, Kauffner, but the article isn't about the verse. It's about the concept in Jewish law that is described by the verse. Do you see the difference? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 23:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps this article should be about both those things? That would make it more comprehensive. MsBatfish (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. MsBatfish, if we were to add material about the Biblical phrase, what could we say other than what was already stated? I mean, OK. Its Biblical context is the Book of Proverbs, so we can say is that it's... in the Book of Proverbs! With a lot of other proverbs! And that's not all - we can translate it! Isn't that great?
- Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Each article should be about a single concept or topic. A listing of different usages belongs on Wiktionary.
- If we renamed the article because of some translation or another, and considered every single Biblical verse worthy of an article - you see where I'm going? We'd have to make a new article about every single verse in the Bible. Not to mention, redirects for every single possible translation of each. I'd rather just Google the verse or look it up in Wikitexts, which is designed for that sort of thing. So, unless there is some special external usage that is a substantial topic on its own - like the Talmudic one - I don't think it's worth it.
- And, as I have mentioned regarding several other articles In ictu has touched, the Hebrew is more exact. (And, in this case, easier/more likely to search for.) Musashiaharon (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think we should all remember to avoid personal attacks and stick solely to the relevant Wikipedia policy and evidence on how this particular article title complies or doesn't comply with it, without commenting on other users motivations, or what one might think another person "always" or "never" does, or solely citing one's personal opinions (like "flavor"?). I am not committed to my vote of "Support" beyond reason, it is possible to convince me otherwise. But I do think we need to keep in mind the relevant issues, instead of spending a huge amount of time doing research that other editors don't even feel backs up one's assertions about the title (for example, the fact that multiple English translations exist doesn't prove that the title should be in Hebrew). So, I think we need to stick to evidence on:
- - what is the most commonly-used English phrase out of all the translations?
- - do English-language sources use the Hebrew phrase far more often than an English translation, and do we have any way to prove that?
- Does this sound reasonable? MsBatfish (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, MsBatfish, I think it sounds a little unreasonable to have the article be about both things. We don't have articles, generally speaking, about single biblical verses. As you can see from the sources I cited above, b'rov am hadrat melech is a halakhic concept that informs numerous laws in Judaism. And it's not the only one. Consider Chesed. This is a concept in Judaism. But imagine if that article were to be expanded to discuss every use of the word in the Bible and/or rabbinic literature. The current case is a little different, because it isn't a single word. But the principle is the same. There's no need for an article on this or another biblical verse. It's not notable. But the Jewish concept that the verse is used to illustrate is notable.
- My irritation with In Ictu stems from the fact that he went on a campaign, including moving numerous articles without discussion, let alone consensus. And that he refuses to listen to anyone. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 04:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lisa, firstly please WP:AGF. Secondly, if you look in the archives of the Judaism project Talk page you'll find friendly discussion between myself Chesdovi and Debresser and a couple of other users, other whether to apply e.g. Artscroll-type English or Jewish/secular academic sources type English, going back several months before your involvement. You'd also find notes on the Talk pages of the problematic article creations. And I assure you, I have done a significant amount of listening, including to you.
- As regards the actual RM question, anybody is welcome to input current title and proposed title into http://books.google.co.uk/advanced_book_search , see usage, and then follow WP:Article titles. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine with me, so long as they look at the results and eliminate the ones that are only referring to the verse, and not to the halakhic concept. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does anyone know whether that is the usual way of doing things? For example, if we were trying to determine whether "baseball" was commonly used in English to describe the sport, would we eliminate all sources where they were referring to the ball it was named for? I'm just not sure on what is the usual protocol here.
- And Lisa, I think you misunderstood me when I said "perhaps the article should be about both?". Firstly, I was asking for input, not making a statement, and second, I did not mean that, if that were the case, the article would have to detail every single mention of the verse in the Bible (if it is even mentioned numerous times?) or everywhere else, I just meant perhaps it would be relevant to explain what the verse meant and where it was taken from. This is quite normal I thought. Why wouldn't a biblical verse that informs a Jewish law be notable? In addition, the Chesed article you mentioned IS about the word, so I'm not sure why you think it supports your theory that an article shouldn't be about a biblical verse or word. MsBatfish (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Chesed was a bad example. It's been a while since I looked at it. Gevurah is a better example. And MsBatfish, your baseball example isn't on point. Nor am I suggesting we omit all reference to the verse. Obviously not. But if someone wants to look up information on the Jewish concept of b'rov am hadrat melech, that's how they're going to look it up (with appropriate redirects for hadrat/hadras and melech/melekh, of course). They aren't going to be looking it up under the English translation. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 23:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that (that English speakers are more likely to look it up using the Hebrew) is a better argument. I don't think that this phrase counts as a "loan word" as in WP:article titles (like the Latin words you previously mentioned do) but I do think it is kind of a grey area. Not all Wkipedia guidelines have to be followed to the letter at all times (see WP:IAR?). I think if it is much more commonly referred to in English-language reliable sources solely by the Hebrew phrase, then I am willing to change my "Support" to an "Oppose" or a "Neutral". I do still think the content of the article needs more work and all possible English translations should re-direct to the article and the most common or accurate English translation should continue to be featured prominently in the lead. I also think the verse it is taken from needs to be explained a little better - some people might be looking for an explanation of where it comes from or definition of what it means. For example, we could add "The phrase originates in a verse in Proverbs in the Hebrew Bible..." etc. MsBatfish (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Article titles should be in English. No-Brainer.--JOJ Hutton 23:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose Jojhutton's commentary was indeed a "no-brainer"... If the term is not English, then using English is acceptable only if there is a commonly used translation in English. Debresser (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- IZAK, please assume good faith and avoid emotional appeals. The relevant WP policy relating to WP article titles is described in WP:article titles, where else would one expect it do be described?
- As regards some collective defence of these titles such as Talk:The status quo Kohen with zero Google Book hits, Talk:Osek b'mitzvah patur min hamitzvah where we have deletion of academic sources by editor before reverting page move, Talk:Kil'ayim (prohibition) where agains WP:RS which clearly support an English title were deleted, Talk:Petter Chamor where there is some case for the Leviticus "redemption of a donkey" to be written in romanization of Hebrew script, and Talk:Tzoah Rotachat, where the English sources all have English, are simply matters of Wikipedia policy and guidelines which are not a disruptive or at war with anyone, but are here for the benefit of all Wikipedia users. Please relax and look at the specific academic sources cited and the specific relevant Wikipedia policies. Best wishes. There are indeed dozens, maybe hundreds of instances where romanizations or foreign loanwords meet WP:article titles criteria. But it's evident that the above, with the possible exception of "redemption of a donkey", are not among them. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's clear that there's no consensus for a move. Which is good, because a move would be an error. In Ictu hasn't produced a single reliable source which deals with the subject of this article and uses the particular translation of the term that he wants to use. Sources that show that verse as a biblical verse are translated in a particular way are irrelevant and in context of this article, which is not about the verse, but about the Jewish legal principle that uses that verse as a symbol, border on vandalism. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lisa
- You say that, but anyone who clicks on the Google Books results will see that first of the 6,290x hits for the proposed move is Encyclopedia Talmudica: Volume 4 Page 542 Yad Ha-Rav Herzog Institute Staff - 1991 which has "Jacob too agrees that it is better to give the job to others, because, "In the multitude of people is the king's glory" ... 3:2) in order not to go up individually, for "In the multitude of people is the king's glory" (M. Bikurim 4 :16). ..." 6,290x vs 1x. Repeat 6,290x vs 1x.In ictu oculi (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment: editors are reminded to focus on an oppose/support position they favor with supporting rationale. Avoid focusing on the motivations of the participants. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Forget common name, this should be in English or at least in something pronounceable in English. I couldn't even begin to figure out how to pronounce the current title.--JOJ Hutton 21:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this is the second !vote by this editor. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support -- This is the English WP, so that an English title is to be preferred. There is no reason why the presetn title cannot be rretained as a redirect. Furthermore, the Book of Proverbs is also part of the Christian Old Testament, so that I expect there are some Christian commentators whose views might usefully be included, without detracting from the Jewish view on it. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlikely. This is about the Talmudic principle, which is not so much related to the verse per se. Debresser (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See, this is the whole thing. In Ictu is giving people partial context. This article is not, and never has been about that verse. It's about a rabbinic legal concept which uses the verse as a symbol for the concept. Peterkingiron's comment is precisely why the title of this article should not be changed. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Unfortunately keeping a WP:article title in a foreign language in order to exclude (a) Ancient Israel, (b) Hellenistic Judaism, (c) Reform Judaism, (d) any Christian/Islam/secular reference, is not a legitimate reason per WP:Content forking or MOS:COMMONALITY. Per WP:naming conventions (use English) this RM should be decided by (does anyone own an English copy of the Tanakh or Talmud?) whether this phrase in English or in Hebrew in English language sources? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing of the sort is being done. The verse, as such, is not notable, and not worthy of an article on Wikipedia. If such an article were to be created, it would be deleted, probably speedily. The rabbinic concept, however, is notable, and that's what the article was created for. You're putting things entirely backwards when you insinuate (falsely) that there's an attempt to "exclude" other interpretations. It's you who are attempting to change this article to a non-notable topic. This is absolutely vandalism, and I'll ask you one more time to stop. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 02:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lisa
- Sorry, stop what exactly? Stop not making edits to the article? Stop posting Google Books links? Stop Talk? You seem to misunderstand the nature of Talk pages. Discussion is not only allowed on Wikipedia it is encouraged. I could equally ask you "I'LL ASK YOU ONE MORE TIME STOP TALKING LISA!" but you don't see me doing that. As far as "insinuating", I read "Peterkingiron's comment is precisely why the title of this article should not be changed" as meaning that "Peterkingiron's comment is precisely why the title of this article should not be changed.". And as regards In the multitude of people is the king's honour, I note again that anyone who clicks 6,290x hits for the proposed move will see Encyclopedia Talmudica 1991 which discusses the phrase in English "In the multitude of people is the king's glory" vs 1x for the current romanization of Hebrew. The numbers on that 6,290x vs 1x could certainly be narrowed sure, but most Users when clicking on the Google Books will get the point. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Although we don't appear to have a consensus either way, it is clear that In ictu oculi is not the only person in support of renaming the article to an English title. I would like to again remind everyone to avoid personal attacks and stick to civilly discussing the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding article titles. It is certainly not, as Lisa said, "absolute vandalism" to propose that an article be renamed, nor to post one's rationale in support of renaming.
- As for the unbacked assertion that the verse is completely separate from the Jewish law and is not-notable and that this somehow proves the article shouldn't be renamed, I think all of those things are matters of opinion. Also, something's "official" name is not necessarily the best article title - please see Wikipedia:Official names.
- I am capable of being convinced that the article should keep it's current title, (as I'm sure others are), but this is not the way to convince me. Rather than going on about why I think those are matters of opinion if not backed up by proof and Wikipedia policy (and therefore irrelevant) and why I think that emotional fighting is unhelpful - which would be denying the message simply because I don't like the way it is delivered - I request that Lisa and others who support the current title come up with some other reasons as to why they think it is in line with Wikipedia's policies/guidelines on article titles. No one has yet answered my questions above:
- what is the most commonly-used English phrase out of all the translations?
- do English-language sources use the Hebrew phrase far more often than an English translation, and do we have any way to prove that?
- In addition, you can add:
- do most English-language sources refer to the verse completely separately from the principle in Jewish law?
- if so, and/or when that is the case, is the Hebrew phrase used exclusively?
- (and please explain how you determined your answer to each question). Thank you. -MsBatfish (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My personal opinion is that 1. These Talmudic principles are not notable. At most there could be one article Talmudic principles. 2. This long Hebrew title is a violation of common sense, in that it definitely has no place in an English encyclopedia. 3. But then again, the same is true for its translation. 4. There exists no "standard" translation of this phrase into English. 5. Points 2, 3, and 4 lead back to point 1. Debresser (talk) 07:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't necessarily say that. If I disagreed with 1, then I could argue:
- This principle is notable and worthy of an article.
- The Hebrew title is long, but it is better and more exact than
- The English translation, which is even longer.
- Furthermore, there is no standard translation of the Hebrew.
- Therefore, we should keep the title in Hebrew. Anyone who wants to allow others to search for it in English, knock yourself out with redirects. (And make sure not to miss any. :) )Musashiaharon (talk) 02:27, 16 December 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.
|
