Talk:Patach Eliyahu

Dating authorship - unknown?
With permission, I'd like to delete the section that states that the dating and authorship of the preface (to Tikkunei Zohar, I assume?) is unknown. In contrast, Tikkunei Zohar (together with its prefatory material) constitutes the 17th section of the Zohar, and is attributed to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, as is the rest of the Zohar. This is mentioned in first paragraph of the article. Musashiaharon to (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

 * The article Patach Eliyahu has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
 * Minor esoteric religious subject with no real evidence of substantial scholarly coverage as a topic in its own right outside of the discussion of the "sefirot", with which it overlaps and where much of it is already covered - inline citation and sourcing are almost wholly absent.
 * -- Iskandar323 to Musashiaharon's talk page
 * -- Iskandar323 to Musashiaharon's talk page

I would consider it minor or esoteric if no one knew what it was and it wasn't used so frequently. But, given that
 * many Jews recite it every week, or even every day,
 * it is notable as one of just two passages in the prayer book taken from the Zohar,
 * it is one of just a handful of passages recited in Aramaic instead of the usual Hebrew of the siddur, among hundreds of pages of liturgy,
 * it is the only place in the prayer book that defines what the sefirot are, rather than a simple listing without explanation,
 * it is the most well-known early source using modern names for the sefirot,

it would be mistaken to consider this passage minor. Its uniqueness and common use is its significance. And to explain the esoteric is the point of an encyclopedia.

Typically lack of citations merely means a request is put for sources, rather than a call for deletion.

I have deleted the PFOD (Proposal For Deletion) template. Musashiaharon (talk)
 * The subject may have religious significance to some people, but that is very different from it having encyclopedic relevance, and different again from it having available sourcing that is compliant with Wikipedia's expectations with respect to notability. Without sources, all of the information above is circumstantial. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Who, what, when, where, why
This article currently lacks basic utilitarian, encyclopedic information. There is no information on when, where and by whom it is thought to have been composed - failing any availability of such analysis, it also lacks any mention of the when and where of the first extant copy of the text. A simple description of the prayer is also fairly lacking, i.e.: its length, number of words, lines etc. There is also no mention of when or why the prayer emerged as a major feature in Sephardic liturgy, per the article's key claims. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)