Talk:B'rov am hadrat melech

For more disputes between the houses of Hillel and Shammai, see Hillel and Shammai. Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:EN or just AfD?
Not at all sure what this is supposed to be about. Are there WP:RS sources which can shed some light? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There were sources, added, but English language sources use the term in English and hence stub moved to accord with sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note - Moved back 27 Nov by Lisa. Lisa, would you care to discuss please given that you've moved counter to the English language sources in the article? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

English language sources supporting English title deleted

 * There is a problem here. These lede English language WP:RS were deleted with no edit summary:
 * 1) Binyomin Forst, Aaron D. Twerski Pitḥe halakhah 1990 Page 102 "... it is preferable that one person be motzee the others rather than have each person reciting his own b'racha.3 The teaching of Shlomo Ha'melech in Mishlei 14:28 ברב עם הדרת מלך — "In the multitudes there is glorification of the King",
 * 2) Yosaif Asher Weiss A daily dose of Torah 2007 "The verse in Mishlei (14:28) ברב עם הדרת מלך, In the multitudes there is glorification of the King, is taken to mean that a mitzvah performed as part of a larger gathering bespeaks greater reverence to God.
 * Assume good faith always, but it is to be hoped these unmarked WP:RS source deletions weren't done with the intention of justifying the page move revert? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The intent was to revert the page move. Turns out that didn't work, so I had to manually revert the page move.  But neither of those sources justify the move.  They both use the Hebrew term first.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't think that a source using a non-English term before the English one was rationale for titling an article in a non-English language. It's my understanding that the editor was providing sources to show that there is a commonly used English translation. This is the English Wikipedia after all, and ENGLISH states "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language". That justifies the move to.
 * You can still have a redirect from the Hebrew phrase to the article and include the Hebrew text in the article as well.
 * If you still think this merits further discussion perhaps someone should propose the move on Requested Moves. MsBatfish (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * MsBatfish, when an article is about a concept in another language, it doesn't make sense to use a translation for the title when a literal translation doesn't reflect the way the words are used. And it isn't only law.  We have articles on Reductio ad absurdum rather than Reduction to the absurd.  We have Carpe diem rather than Seize the day.  We have  Habeas corpus, Quo warranto, and Ultra vires.  rather than You may have the body, By what warrant?, and Beyond the powers.  Changing the title of this article to In multitudes there is glorification of the king makes no sense.  No one says that, while the Jewish legal concept of B'rov am hadrat melech is a common concept in Judaism.  I don't see that Latin has a privileged position relative to Hebrew, do you?  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 02:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that in this case Google Books shows that there is an English form. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Every single example you (Lisa) gave is in Latin. And yes, I do actually think Latin has a "priveged position" in these cases, because those are the most widely-used and commonly known phrases which are used in the English language by English speakers to describe their subjects. Just because they are borrowed from Latin does not really equate them to the Hebrew text used in this article title. The translations you gave are not the established English equivalents and those phrases aren't used anywhere (note that they don't even redirect to the articles you say they are the English equivalent of). In my view they are more akin to French words that we have borrowed and are commonly used in English, such as "foyer" or "pannier" etc - we wouldn't ban those from Wikipedia titles if there was an article about one of those things (not that they meet notability guidelines but you get what I mean hopefully). One of the key differences with this article is that there is an English phrase which is used and has been established in sources (for example the ones In ictu oculi provided that you deleted). We have to think, what is going to be clearer to the average English-speaking reader?
 * In addition, I can provide several examples of other articles which were not titled in English and after a move discussion the consensus was to re-name them with the English title. One recent example off the top of my head is the Squamish people article, formerly titled in the Squamish language. MsBatfish (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

ברב עם הדרת מלך in Bikkurim (Talmud)
The original Proverbs 14:28 is requoted in Bikkurim. How does the Schottenstein Talmud render this in English? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)