Talk:Divine soul

Requested move

For some reason bot didn't fire

Requested move

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: page moved to divine soul. Consensus was to move, with a concern about correct capitalization. Better to move and then discuss if the capitalization is an issue rather then leave it at a wrong name. But since Kabbalah is not part of the new name, this may not be an issue. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Nefesh ha'elokit → divine soul (Kabbalah) – – Another new article. Same again, if Wikipedia really needs an article on the "divine soul" in Kabbalah, then according to Google Books "divine soul" kabbalah no reason why it can't follow WP:article titles and be in English. Again, also needs linking to soul, etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for linking it to soul.

• Object. Problem with moving to "Divine soul" is that in English "Divine soul" could refer to several different levels of the soul described by Kabbalah, whereas nefesh ha'elokit refers to one particular level, namely, an enclothing of the neshama in the nefesh. In English, Divine Soul could refer to this, or to the neshama before enclothment, or to the "hidden" aspects of the soul, which are chaya and yechida (chee, ח"י‎). More generally, it could even refer to all five levels of the soul together, i.e. nefesh, ruach, neshama, chaya, and yechidah (naranchee, נרנח"י‎), in contrast to the "less Godly" body.

Because nefesh habehamit is typically paired and contrasted with nefesh ha'elokit, it might be best to leave nefesh habehamit in Hebrew also, per WP:article titles regarding consistency.Musashiaharon (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, Thanks. Could you provide some source evidence in the article of these distinctions into the article? As far as I know nefesh ha'elokit is the main Hebrew form of divine soul (kabbalah) as used in WP:RS. And conversely divine soul (1,950 hits) and animal soul are far more common than spiritual soul (395 hits) in addition to the animate soul. And both divine soul 1,950 and spiritual soul 395 are more common than the Hebrew, with only 6 hits, half of those bracketed behind the English. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Other levels and and vestitures of the levels of the soul are outside of the scope of the article, so let's insert links to the other levels in a "See also" section. Renaming to English, as I explained, would introduce ambiguity. I suggest that, since the other manifestations and levels of the soul are each deserving of their own article, they should be listed in a disambiguation page titled "divine soul".

I believe that the frequency of "divine soul" in the search results is partly due to the combination of all its various usages, directly stemming from the vagueness of the English term. It appears to me that the bracketing you mentioned serves, in part, to clarify which of the many manifestations of the soul is under discussion. Usually it is only of interest to the informed reader (and writer), and can often be deduced by such an informed person from the context.

Regarding a source describing these divisions, Lessons in Tanya, already cited in the article, is an excellent introduction to the topic. Musashiaharon (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support. There are three post-1980 English-language Google Books results for Nefesh-ha-elokit OR Nefesh-haelokit -- and in each case the phrase is immediately translated. This compares to 834 results for kabbalah "divine soul". Here is the relevant guideline from WP:UE: "If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader." Kauffner (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Rename to Divine soul. While this is a Jewish theological concept, there is no reason why it should solely be a Jewish one. This is the English WP, so that article titles should where possible be in English. The Hebrew version can of course continue to exist as a redirect, as is normal after moves. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose till capitalisation is clarified. (There is a difference in titles between "Kabbalah" and "kabbalah".) Noetica^Tea? 03:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Noetica, apologies, overcompensating for continual overcapitalisation of Hebrew loanwords in populist sources. Kabbalah is capitalised in WP:RS. Have corrected the proposal above (though expect it will not feed through/update to the actual RM page). In ictu oculi (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Rename to Divine soul. No need to have "kabbalah" here. And by the way, it should be "kabbalah" with a lowercase "k". Debresser (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that Divine soul is at present a disambiguation page, but in my opinion, that is incorrect, since Atman is not a divine soul. Debresser (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, without a background in those faiths referring to Atman, I am reluctant to remove them from the disambig page. I'll put in a question over there, to see whether there are objections. Musashiaharon (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait... Debresser, you just made that page yesterday? And you are disagreeing with its accuracy? Wha??? Musashiaharon (talk) 08:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I made it based on the fact that Divine Soul used to be a redirect to Atman. So i didn't want to remove the connection to Divine soul (now with correct capitalisation) of my own accord. But I do have sincere doubts, whether that disambiguation should be there at all, which is why I raised the subject here. Debresser (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

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.

Quoting the Tanya/Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi

Zalman is not a last name. Both Schneur and Zalman are part of his given name, and are invariably used together. However, since quoting "Rabbi Schneur Zalman" all the time is a mouthful, it seems simpler to quote the Tanya, esp. since he wrote many works. Musashiaharon (talk) 04:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, calling his father Baruch Zalman (in one source) appears to be an error. WP:naming conventions (clergy) doesn't properly cover this, but WP:RS do generally use Schneur Zalman as a name, and Tanya as a book. See Jan Lynn Feldman Lubavitchers as citizens: a paradox of liberal democracy 2003 p28 "When Dov Ber died in 1772, Schneur Zalman of Liadi became the third Rebbe and the first Rebbe of the Lubavitcher ... In 1796, Schneur Zalman wrote the central text of Lubavitch Chassidism, the Tanya. The Tanya is a comprehensive system ..." That's the sort of encyclopaedic writing style we'd expect following MOS. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem with quoting a book like the Tanya the way I originally wrote the article; is there one? After, we do say "According to the OED", "The Encyclopedia Britannica mentions", "The Bible says that" or "The MoS states that".

Also, since the Tanya is a significant religious text, I usually see it without italics or underlining. But I guess I also wouldn't be too picky about making sure it's italicized or not. Musashiaharon (talk) 08:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization of G‑dly

In Judaism, spelling god in lowercase implies reference to false gods. Therefore it was spelled here in uppercase, even in related adjectives such as "G‑dly". Regarding the hyphen, see Names of G‑d in Judaism#In_English. Musashiaharon (talk) 04:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes but see MOS:COMMONALITY. It is acceptable to quote a source which is actually written "G-d" in quotation marks, but Wikipedia MOS cannot use "G-d" "G-dly" (please note WP:CAPS also) in the main text. I'm afraid you will have to take those out. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I must continue to spell it hyphenated, as a religious obligation. I hope this won't bar me from writing further articles. About the caps, I considered it a grammatical matter of course. Abraham -> Abrahamitic; Freud -> Freudian; G‑d -> G‑dly. Also, couldn't terms like "Divine" and "G‑dly" fall under the category of Platonic ideals, and therefore require caps? I'm not really sure what your objection is here. Musashiaharon (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Not according to WP:CAPS, no. As to what you yourself write, I suppose fair enough. Other editors will spot and correct anyway. I don't think there'll be an issue unless you revert their corrections. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)