Jump to content

Talk:Rabbeinu Tam: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Title POV: Forgot to sign.
Line 29: Line 29:
::::[[User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi]] ([[User talk:In ictu oculi|talk]]) 08:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
::::[[User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi]] ([[User talk:In ictu oculi|talk]]) 08:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
: Keep as common name. It is per definition not POV if it is common. Google hits are explained as per Dweller on WT:JUDAISM because of the commonness of the names Jacob and Meir and the spelling variations of rabbeinu. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 20:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
: Keep as common name. It is per definition not POV if it is common. Google hits are explained as per Dweller on WT:JUDAISM because of the commonness of the names Jacob and Meir and the spelling variations of rabbeinu. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 20:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per Debresser. This title is no less valid than the [[Rashi]] article name, or like the name [[Rishonim]] and [[Achronim]]. It's not "POV" it's what they're called in the only scholarship that studies them not as a "fossils" but as "living" commentators on the Torah by Torah Jews in Torah scholarship which WP is obliged to deal with as encyclopedic topics, even though it may strike the uninitiated as "odd" -- but no less "odd" than any [[technical terms]] used in a specific specialized field. The original proposal was made by Newman Luke who himself had his own agenda, and now it seems that In ictu is follwoing in those footsteps.

Revision as of 21:03, 7 December 2011

Tefillin

Who can truly know what proportion of Jews wear two sets of tefillin? The custom varies. What is indisputable is that sadly "most" Jews wear NO tefillin at all. It is undeniably correct to say that "many" follow this custom.

Does anyone know a birth date for Rabbeinu Tam?

Title POV

The title isn't neutral - not only is it not even the guy's actual name, but it is made up entirely of honourifics. This violates the general Neutrality rule that wikipedia does not use honourifics (eg. Christ, PBUH, Rev., etc.). Rabbi/variants shouldn't be used any more than Rev., and Tam is even worse, its like having Muhammed PBUH.

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy). Newman Luke (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A case can be made that this is how he is universally known. I am not exaggerating when I say he is quoted hundreds of thousands of times in responsa and commentary, thousands upon thousands of times by people within a century, and exponentially greater once we look at the past 900 years. This is a case similar to Mother Teresa, which is not titled "Agnesë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu" and Pope John Paul II which is not titled "Karol Józef Wojtyła". -- Avi (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, The New Jewish encyclopedia lists him under Jacob ben Meir Tam. By the way, the current article doesn't explain what "Rabbenu" means; presumably some version of rabbi, but what in particular? --macrakis (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Avi's makes sense - everyone calls him Rabbenu Tam. I would also add that it is more correct to transliterate רַבֵּנוּ as "Rabbenu", without the 'i'. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Among the following Google Book hits the WP:IRS are very heavily weighted to the academic name:
  • Jacob ben Meir 5,180 GB hits
  • Rabbeinu Tam 895 GB hits
In ictu oculi (talk) 08:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as common name. It is per definition not POV if it is common. Google hits are explained as per Dweller on WT:JUDAISM because of the commonness of the names Jacob and Meir and the spelling variations of rabbeinu. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Debresser. This title is no less valid than the Rashi article name, or like the name Rishonim and Achronim. It's not "POV" it's what they're called in the only scholarship that studies them not as a "fossils" but as "living" commentators on the Torah by Torah Jews in Torah scholarship which WP is obliged to deal with as encyclopedic topics, even though it may strike the uninitiated as "odd" -- but no less "odd" than any technical terms used in a specific specialized field. The original proposal was made by Newman Luke who himself had his own agenda, and now it seems that In ictu is follwoing in those footsteps.