Talk:Q-D-Š

Lettering

 * per the following diff - 

Perhaps we should add a subsection with all the possible lettering and link to it from the introduction? Certainly this is encyclopedic content.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  15:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We can eventually add a table with all the alphabets and their transliterations. No need to clutter up the lead and feed the lkelihood of edit wars. Besides which, the ultimate root remains unknown and is neither Hebrew nor Arabic.  T i a m u t talk 15:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How about, you add the Arabic root next to the Hebrew one for now instead of deleting encyclopedic content?  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  20:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't delete it. I moved it down into the body of the article and I added the Arabic name for al-Quds in there too. Please read more carefully.  T i a m u t talk 20:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Saw it. Glad to see this point resolved.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  20:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't see how it will cause clutter and is nonetheless very important for the lead. There's no reason to bury that information into the body. Epson291 (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's inaccurate to list only Hebrew and Arabic, when the root is used in languages older than that, like Ugaritic and Akkadian. Its also used in many more. Arbitraily selecting Hebrew and Arabic from the lot, does not seem right. I think the best thing to do is create a table for the roots in different languages, conjugated as nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc., when possible. There is some information available at List of Proto-Semitic stems. The MoS tends to frown upon multiple entries of non-Latin characters squashed together after the bolded term under discussion. It's hard to read.  T i a m u t talk 00:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Accoding to the MoS, relevant foreign non-latin terms are supposed to be in brackets after the bolded term in English, I'm not sure where it says that the WP:MOS says that is multiple entries of non-Latin words are frowed upon, but rather any that relavent words should be included. Almost any word found in both the Bible and Quran for instance have all their relavent langagues listed in the lead (i.e., Greek, Latin, Arabic, Hebrew, Ge'ez). It doesn't look that bad. Anyhow, Arabic and Hebrew were not chosen arbitraily, they are the only living languages of the ones you listed and the only ones categorized (here and here) so far. If the words are categorized as being part of that language, the words should undeniably be in the lead. Epson291 (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's take a worldwide perspective, shall we? Aramaic is still alive (though barely), as is Amharic, which is the second most spoken Semitic language in the world today, after Arabic. Don't forget the other Ethiopian Semitic languages, of which a few are still kicking around today. I really do think it's better to avoid cluttering up the lead with the root as written in each of these languages. None of which are the original root words. Why give preference to these again?
 * I think the table is the best way to go. There, all the languages can be listed in chronological order with their conjugations. That's really much more encyclopedic. No?  T i a m u t talk 01:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The ones you listed were dead, Ugaritic and Akkadian. By all means include  the other langagues you mentioned if in fact they are roots in them and are discussed in the article. The thing is though, ק-ד-ש is a Hebrew root, regardless if its a Arabic root, or a Phoenician root, or a root in any other langague. It doesn't matter if its the 'original root word' because Kuf-Dalet-Shin is the original root in that language, not "Q-D-S". So if this page is going to be about a shared triconsonantal root which exists in differnet languages, Hebrew in this case, then this Hebrew (and any other) root should be listed in the lead.  Epson291 (talk)


 * I don't see at all why we should prefer Hebrew in the lead. Q-D-S is also qaf-dal-sin in Arabic. So what? Its the same for most of the Semitic languages. They all derive from the same triconsonantal Semitic roots.
 * This article is anywhere close to being done I don't think. More in-depth discussion of the proto-Canaanite and proto-Semitic root system is definitely needed.
 * I am totally against leading with only one language in the lead, particularly when it is not the oldest, since it's misleading. I think you will see above I explained that people do and will edit war over which languages should be in the lead, their order, etc. To avoid all that silliness and provide a good, encyclopedic article to the reader, I think we should focus on constructing that a small table to be included right below the lead that give the derivations in the different languages concerned with their original transcirptions and English transliterations.  T i a m u t talk 01:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I never suggested there should be only one language (Hebrew) in the lead, quite the opposite actually. Consensus can be formed on things like order, such as simply ordering based on the age of the language, but what I'm totally against, is including something in the Category:Hebrew words and phrases and then not stating in the lead what this Hebrew word or phrase actually is. Epson291 (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are trying to say, I really do. However, I don't see why the Hebrew letters and all the others cannot be directly under the lead in a table that gives the conjugations of the roots as well. That's what I had in mind when I created the article, but I'm not good at coding those kinds of things (though once the template is up, no problem). Anyway, that's why that category is there, as are the Aramaic and Arabic ones, there is no Canaanite one, but I think there should be, or perhaps something like West Semitic. Tangent though and I'm awfully tired. It's 4am where I'm at. Isn't it the same for you? Or do you not live in the Jerusalem time zone? Anyway, til later.  T i a m u t talk 02:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a table for conjugations is a good idea, and I would be happy to make/set it up if you gave me the information, but I absoutely think that any relevant langague that this article is about should be included in the lead. If Q-D-S was only a root in Hebrew, and nothing else, an article could still be written on it, that's the point I'm trying to make, and this article is really a series of articles in one. Any article shared with the Semitic langagues (i.e., Arabic, Hebrew, Syriac, Phoenician, etc...) should list in the lead what they are. You can't just include something in the Category:Hebrew words and phrases and not briefly write what the Hebrew word actually is. Good night though. Epson291 (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Epson291 here. There's really no advantage in moving the letters further down the article.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  04:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per the WP:MoS, its more important to the reader to see non-Latin words transliterated into Latin characters and not the Semitic characters. Nevertheless, all this information could be included in the table, which could appear directly below the lead in a section on the basis forms in different languages. There, you could Hebrew words to your heart's content, as well as Aramaic, Arabic, Amharic, Ugaritic, Akkadian, etc. I think I mentioned above that this is till a work in progress. I'm still amassing the information on the different forms. If you have them for Hebrew, I'd ove if you could post them here, and I will post whatever I find and then you could help in constructing the table as you offered above. For now, until the table is ready, I'm willing to keep the Aramaic, Hebrew, Arabic in the lead. But I think it's clear why they should not remain there once that is done.  T i a m u t talk 10:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Six hours is you're compromise? Come on, that's a little ridiculous. You're table is fine, not so sure why it's under orgins though, but the letters should be in the lead, and as according to the MOS, non-Latin words in brackets after, the latin term. It only needs to be transliterated if it is different than the Latin term (I'm sure you know that), and in the case of Q-D-S, that is not true, however it is true for Hebrew, where it isn't Q-D-S, it is Q-D-Š. That is other other issue. The root is Q-D-Š in Hebrew, not Q-D-S. Q-D-S would be Kuf-Dalet-Samekh (קדס), which is a different root. Arabic doesn't have the problem since convientiently Samekh isn't an Arabic letter (and Sin and Shin are seperate letters), but I am insisting to see the correct Hebrew root shown in the lead, I've proposed to include all the langagues not to favour one over the other. But if that can't occur, then the correct Hebrew root must be shown in the lead, which one do you want? Epson291 (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Whoa, whoa, whoa ... please assume good faith. I'm barely following what you are saying here. By all means we can include the Latin transliteration Q-D-Š in brackets after the bolded Q-D-S for those specialists who understand the difference between and s without a mark and one with. But you should know that the Š is not unique to the Hebrew root as you can see from the Latin transliterations of the proto-west-semitic, syriac, and aramaic roots. So there is no reason to include the hebrew lettering in the lead after the three letters. Again, it would be undue highlighting (why not put syriac, aramaic too?) And in the end the root of all of these is the proto-Semitic languages like Ugarit, for which there is no easily used alphabet system in digital terms. So why we would put anything at all (besides Q-D-Š)? Especially when the chart with the all of tem is directly below the two sentence, there for all to see.  T i a m u t talk 23:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I moved it to Q-D-Š, since as you pointed out it is mostly that in most of the languagues and you want it at the original root. It is not outside specialists, all it is is "S" verus "SH". Epson291 (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of that, though of course it's all speculation. How would modern scholars know if Akkadians pronounced the symbol they used for the sound "s" as "ssss" sound or "shhhh" sound? In any case, I have no strong opinion about it one way or the other and you seem to feel rather strongly about it, so no objections here.  T i a m u t talk 23:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Disambig linkage
With all due respect to the thousands of places Muslims give the title Quds to, I fail to see how that is beneficial to the article. There is certainly a long list of similar attributes in Jewish culture that is far more relevant than a few militant groups calling themselves holy. To clarify my note here, I would not expect the article of Islam to be linked with all the terrorist groups that add the word to their name. p.s. I'm open to an RfC on this though.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  15:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose you followed Nishidani here? No matter.
 * I was very much enjoying editing this article, far away from the I-P conflict stuff. Please, it's a link in the see also section to a page which discusses the various pages that contain the words "Quds" which is a direct derivation from the Q-D-S Semitic root. Let's try not to let any biases we may hold against Muslims influence our editing choices here, okay?  T i a m u t talk 15:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Heyo Tiamut,
 * A personal attack is not an explanation to why you'd assume adding a 'see also' link to a few militants (al-Aqsa brigades and the like) who call themselves 'holy'. I gave an example of a similar mislinking option but I don't see addressing the example or the raised concern.
 * With respect,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  20:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've already explained it a number of times. This article is about the Semitic root Q-D-S and words that derive from it. Al-Quds is one of those words. It is however, a word that is used by many different people. The Al-Quds (disambiguation) page, points to some examples of its everyday use today. Plus, you keep characterizing the contents of that page in a way that misrepresents it. Of the seven articles linked there, only three deal with militant groups; the others reference a university, the Palestinian stock exchange, a newspaper, etc. Please stop letting your bias interfere with your editing choices here and give WP:BATTLEa good re-read. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 21:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how "holy" militant groups and a "holy" propaganda newspaper are suddenly important for inclusion. This is not a link to a 'word' which derives it's root from Q-D-S, but rather an irrelevant (more than 50%) link to extremists who call themselves "holy" despite some clearly unholy activities. I can see a link from these articles to Q-D-S, but the opposite direction link seems silly. Maybe if there was a list to words which use the root rather than a link to a few hate movements who consider their ideology holy. To further clarify this perspective, I'd note that similar groups which use "Islam" or "Allah" in their name are not listed on the relevant articles, and they certainly shouldn't be listed. Please address this point as it's central to my argument and I've repeated it more than once already.
 * p.s. please comment on content, not on alleged editorial bias.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  16:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Offtopic

 * I concur with Tiamut. The remark


 * "'There is certainly a long list of similar attributes in Jewish culture that is far more relevant than a few militant groups calling themselves holy.'"


 * appears to mean that Jewish holiness is more relevant to Q-D-S than 'thousand of places Muslims give the title of Q-D-S to' (the latter remark then glossed by 'a few militant groups calling themselves holy'). This is an ethnocentric put-down, once more, Jaakobou, and insinuates that there is a rough equivalence of Muslim claims to holiness and militancy. Please refrain from politicizing an interesting article which, as written so far, shows the common roots of the 'holy' in all Semitic cultures, and does not equivocate with a partisan'holier than thou' tone with regard to any one of the dozen cultures which are heir to this concept.Nishidani (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nishidani,
 * I appreciate your notes on cultural sensitivity but my removal of links to militant groups is actually helping de-politicize the article rather than the opposite. I'd have to also note that Jewish usage of the term 'Kadosh'/'Kidush'/etc. is far more proper than a list of extreme guerrilla militants who like to assign an air of holiness to their endeavors.
 * Cordially,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  20:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you have had some helkp from my notes on cultural sensitivities, but remember you have a record of insensitivity in this regard in wiki. The Jewish word from the Q-D-S root is everywhere to be found in militant Jewish activist literature in the West Bank settlements, to justify their taking land from owners on the grounds that it is 'holy' to Judaism. Holiness has its militant reflexes (as in 'holy war'). There are no intrinsic grounds for eliding information because it alerts readers also to this aspect.Nishidani (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Jaakobou, an article about the Semitic root Q-D-S, might benefit having a link to an article on all the different meanings and applications of the Arabic word al-Quds (disambiguation) which is derived from it. That's encyclopedic. Your soapboxing is not.  T i a m u t talk 20:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I broke this section because we were discussing the issues above Nishidani's notes. If this is a problem, we can start another subheader maybe.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  18:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Jaakobou, the sub-header is misleading. It makes it seem like this discussion was not part of the discussion above, when in fact, it preceded it. Do you mind not re-formatting the page in this fashion or reverting my removal of the inaccurate sub-heading? Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 18:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking it would be best to start fresh on a new section. Currently, there are too many bias accusations which are irrelevant to the content discussion.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  18:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Breaking down a tendentious argument

 * Note:
 * I find this section's title improper and offensive.
 * I found the partial quotes on my arguments made in the subsection opening misleading and suggestive and certainly, not a way to move the content forward.
 * After giving it some thought I've decided to blank the misquotes as they represent a personal attack rather than a collaborative attempt to resolve the content dispute. If Tiamut so chooses to change the title of this section, that would be greatly appreciated.
 * Cordially,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  22:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I might also point out that Quds is written in Arabic as the three consonants Q-D-S, ie. al-Quds (al meaning "the") is not a derivation of the root. It is the root as used in Arabic and is therefore directly relevant to this page.  T i a m u t talk 21:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Jaakobou, you are making a total mess of this talk page. With the "Offtopic" sub-header above and now the blanking of most of my last comment, while retaining the pararaph above, it's become hard to follow. What is the point of all this? My last (blanked) comment was a summary of your own words and mine designed to point out that you have made no real argument as to why this page should not be linked here. So if you do have an argument, please, make it here and let's get this over with already, okay?  T i a m u t talk 22:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Groups which use "Islam", "Allah", "Quds", etc. in their name are not listed on the respective articles and it is improper to promote a link to a list of organizations that use "Quds" as it would be to have a similar link for "Hezbollah" in the see also section for the article about "Allah". This is my main argument that I've repeated a couple times and I would appreciate a response to this argument.
 * I would also appreciate the somewhat improper title of this section, where you charge me of having made a tendentious point, to be changed.
 * Cordially,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  22:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Al-Quds (القدس, literally "The Holy", derived from the ancient Semitic root Q-D-S) is the most commonly used Arabic name for the City of Jerusalem.

Al-Quds may also refer to:


 * Al-Quds Brigades, the armed wing of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
 * Al-Quds University, the Palestinian university in Jerusalem
 * Al-Quds Open University, an open university with campuses across the Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates
 * Quds Force, a special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
 * Al-Quds (newspaper), a Palestinian newspaper
 * Al-Quds Index, the primary stock index of the Palestine Securities Exchange.
 * Al-Quds Mosque, in Hamburg, Germany
 * Al-Quds International Institution (QII)

I have re-posted them here because you seem to have trouble reading. The opening sentence defines the word Al-Quds. It links to this page because its root Q-D-S is identical. Then comes a list of other Wikipedia articles that contain the word Al-Quds. As you can see, two are universities, one is a newspaper, another is the Palestinian stock exchange, and there's a mosque. Besides that, there are two militant organizations: one Palestinian and one Iranian. In other words, your argument is fallacious since it misrepresents the contents of the page completely. This page defines the word Al-Quds and points to articles on Wikipedia that contain that word. Nothing wrong with linking it in the see also section here. In fact, it could even be a hatnote since its root in Arabic is identical to the root described here. But a link in the see also section will do just fine I think.  T i a m u t talk 00:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, your argument avoids my irrelevancy concern (see above "Groups which use" comment) but, regardless, a hatnote link for those who got on the page by mistake seems far more appropriate. I can agree to a hatnote if that is an accepted compromise suggestion. Let me know.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  21:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The page defines the term Al-Quds which is a direct derivative of this root, while providing the reader with links to a wide variety of pages which also include use of the term. Hardly irrelevant information.
 * As to you second suggestion, I don't actually think a hatnote is actually appropriate to use in this case, and it would unduly highlight the article. I also find your suggestion strange, since I remember you wanting to include Mujahadin as a hatnote in the Palestinian fedayeen. Remember? Pyrospirit in the 3O suggested that "'According to the manual of style, specifically Hatnote, disambiguation links such as this should be used only where there are multiple meanings of the article title. In this article, the issue is two article on related topics, not with similar titles. Therefore, I am of the opinion that this sort of disambiguation note is not ideal here. However, this would be perfectly appropriate for a link in the see also section near the bottom.'" I think therefore, that having Al-Quds (disambiguation) in the See also section is the appropriate course of action here.  T i a m u t talk 00:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There's an option that someone would make the error of looking for a Q-D-S named group/institute so a hat-note seems like an option. A list of groups who call themselves 'holy' is not really a related topic to an article that discusses a linguistic root. 'Al-Quds' as a term is indeed a direct derivative but the groups who use that term are not. A hatnote can be used for directing people to the article they were looking for if they got on the page by accident.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  11:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear Jaakobou. This is the last time I will be engaging you in discussion, on this, or any other subject, for some time. Our interactions have been corrosive, time-wasting, and distract us both from actual article editing. I hope you can understand why I feel this step is necessary, and that you will respect it by giving me my distance as well, and by not following me to articles that you have never edited before where I am hard at work.
 * About the link to Al Quds (disambiguation) and where it should be placed, I've been doing some reading of MoS guidelines.They say that: As noted above, disambiguation links should be placed at the very top of an article, where they are most visible. For alternatives that are related to the article but are not a source of ambiguity, the "See also" section at the end of the article is more appropriate.
 * I interpret this statement to mean that when a disambiguation article does not share the same title as the article to which it is being linked, but is nevertheless related, it should be placed in the "See also" section. In this case, it is clear that Al-Quds (disambiguation) is not going to be confused with Q-D-S. The titles are different. The content however, is related, since both pages contain terms derived from the root QDS, meaning "holy". Therefore, Al-Quds disambiguation should be linked in the "see also" section. Putting it in a hatnote would be incorrect usage due to the dissimilarity between the title names.
 * I would urge you to simply drop this matter altogether. I recall that at the Palestinian fedayeen page, you wanted to have Mujahaddin added as a hatnote, and opened two a 3O 's on the subject, that explained to you why unlike but related terms should only be lnked in the "see also" section, and not on the top of the page. I would offer that the same holds true here, and suggest that you spend less time arguing over where to put a link here and more time editing at other pages where your skills might be better used.  T i a m u t talk 15:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply & Suggestion: Suggestion: Let me know what you think of the suggestion,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  16:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm afraid you seem to remember the Fedayeen issue incorrectly as I tend to remember the 3rd Opinion giving some credence to my position and that we achieved consensus based on a compromise suggestion which I was the one to make.
 * 2) You do have a point that a hatenote link is probably not the best way to go, but the organizations that use Q-D-S are non relevant for this article as organizations with the word "International" in them are non relevant for the International article.
 * I would suggest another option, which is to make a list of words deriving from the root. This is certainly more appropriate than organizations who use these words in their title.


 * Make a list yourself. Propose it. It will be considered. As to organisations, Tiamut has responded thoroughly to your objections. Nishidani (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My suggestion for a compromise doesn't make the original see also link relevant for the article. It should still be removed.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  19:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Two obviously intelligent, creative people arguing over (please excuse me for saying) not really very much. Should we never have world peace, not even within the borders of this small wiki space? I am shedding tears for both of you, and for our common future. Attack me if it helps. Kindest blessing to you both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.149.207.242 (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What I can't understand is why a simple argument is turned into a racism allegation. Certainly there are better ways of handling content disputes.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  23:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Not so much a matter of understanding but rather doing. In other words, any excuse will do when people are so ready and willing to have an argument, simple or otherwise. The direction is inconsequential; i.e., "racial" (if that even applies in this case), nationalism, religion, etc. These are just the excuses to vent in specific ways. Again, any excuse will do, and it takes at least two to maintain a fight or argument. If either side would like to disengage, then two simple principles apply; 1) do not even offer simple arguments and 2) do not accept the opportunity to engage in such discourse if it is offered. An argument, like a cell wall, requires a force from both sides to remain viable. Remove either force from one side, and the wall (argument) will collapse. If you two creative and intelligent people would really like to stop arguing, simply focus on the much larger body of common ground that you seem to have, and be productive in that way. Just a suggestion. My very best regards to you both (still intentionally unsigned) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.149.207.242 (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 1) do not even offer simple arguments and 2) do not accept the opportunity to engage in such discourse if it is offered. That's what I'm trying to do my dear and it would help greatly if you would just drop this discussion, which isn't related at all to article improvement.  T i a m u t talk 14:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Though NSH is not really an external observer in these matters, I will take his revert as a consensus of sorts and leave this issue be. It's a shame that people have still refused to address the main concern regarding offtopic linking.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  15:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been asked to come and give an outside opinion, and I suggest going easy on including strings of words/places that happen to include this string of letters. You run into WP:INDISCRIMINATE territory before long. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Conjugation
Thanks for that work, Epsom Epson. However, the conjugation list in Hebrew is way too long, since much of it is just that, and could of course be done paradigmatically for Syriac, Arabic etc. with similar results. A bit like discussing 'love' in Roman culture by an illustrative paradigm, amo, amabo, amavissem, amaturus etc. It is useful only if we obtain distinct concepts from the root, which is the case with several that, however have been covered in the text in good part. Nishidani (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Nishidani here. Would you mind if the table was cut down to include only those words not already discussed in the text?  T i a m u t talk 00:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, it absoutely shows how the root is used to form the differnt words, which all have with different meanings but relate to the root. It's encyclopedic and it really isn't that big. The point is to see how the root is used to form different words, and 19 words isn't really that much. Tiamut, it was you who suggested conjugation tables to begin with. Epson291 (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, the solution is simple. You need to have a the master page on triconsonantal roots, to illustrate the general principle, with an illustrative paradigm of this kind in several languages, and put a link to that paradigm page on every triconsonantal article in the class. Otherwise you simply get Hebrew, and by imitation, were someone (not Tiamut, who I think sees the danger of this precedent) to then put in a balancing Arabic paradigm, someone else to give Aramaic, then Syriac, then Amharic, then Akkadian, and the reader's patience would be tested. I suspect this technical objection is subject to suspicions of POV, but I am a philologist who delights in these paradigms and learn from them. I just think the innovation is unworkable. As I have noted on the other page.Nishidani (talk) 12:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true. My bad. However, looking at the article now with the table at the top listing the main roots in each language (in both Latin and non-Latin characters) and seeing how the article text has developed (at least for Arabic and Hebrew) to include a discussion of the some of the conjugations derived from the root, it does seem a bit redundant. Should we have comprehensive conjugation for all the Semitic languages like the one you made for Hebrew alone? Wouldn't it be somewhat boring and redundant?  T i a m u t talk 01:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is boring or redundant, it is different in every language. And the other reason it isn't redundant is this way you don't have to pick at the body to get the words and from the table you have a comprehensive table of all the derived words. And this isn't really like discussing 'love' in Roman culture. This article isn't about the conjugations of one word, for instance Qodesh (holly) is about its root QDŠ and its derivatives. Epson291 (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the discussion above, when I suggested a chart, I initially had in mind a comparative chart. Not separate charts for each language. The suggestion was also a way of addressing concerns over the need to include non-Latin characters. Now that we have that comparative table at the top, the chart you made of transliterated Latin forms for the Hebrew alone seems WP:UNDUE by itself. And adding the others in a similar format seems repetitive and odd, considering there will be only minor variations in meaning and spelling.
 * I realize you do not want to lose the chart, so you may want to create a separate article in which to discuss the concept of "holy" in Hebrew in the amount of detail you would like to, that links back here. Here, we could retain all of the prose you wrote. There, you could put the chart, discuss the concept of holiness in Hebrew, it related roots, etc.
 * As a compromise here, I suggest following Nishidani's suggestion to at least cut the chart down, removing the words already discussed in the text. The chart would not be comprehensive and could be prefaced with: Other words derived frm the qds root in Hebrew, not discussed above are or something like that.  T i a m u t talk 02:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is hardly an issue of WP:undue, from what I've read here and from Talk:K-B-D you have me feeling you are making this into a competition between langagues. "To be dedicated" means something different then "to be sanctified" so I don't see how in Arabic this would only constitute minor variations. This shows actually how roots are used to form different words with different meanings. I got rid of two non-unique words, and we can still to a comparative chart and then remove the words from the list, I'd actually prefer that but couldn't do it myself, but I don't agree with you to remove enycolpedic content. Epson291 (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No we are trying to precisely avoid a competition between languages. On a point, to show just how dangerous these charts can be from a philological perspective. 'To be dedicated' can mean (a) to be dedicated (to a task) or(b) to be dedicated to a god, a shrine, i.e. two distinct meanings. Charts privilege succinct definitions that, as here, are question-begging, whereas a text exploring meanings allows one ample space to clarify precisely ambiguities like this.Nishidani (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is my compromise, I reduced the number of words to only unique ones, I got rid of tenses (so basically not a conjugation list). There were originally 19, now there are only 12. I hope at least this is something we can gain consensus on. Following Nishidani's/your suggestion it would have probably reduced by less words. Epson291 (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Prod
It was featured as a DYK. The community had a chance to give feedback then and did not reject it. If this is because the title now includes a non-Latin character, that was a recent change, which can be reverted.  T i a m u t talk 23:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * From the talk page of the user who did the prod Epson291 (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is a category for them, then obviously the prevailing opinion is that they should be included, so I withdraw my request.--Editor2020 (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

kudos
Unfortunately, Martin Bernal is really not a reliable source for linguistics or etymologies. I'm not sure what he can be considered a reliable source for, but etymologies/linguistics definitely does not qualify. AnonMoos (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The article as a whole is a rather depressing exercise in cargo-cult "referencing". Why would you cite baroque stuff like Bernal for perfectly pedestrian facts you could and should look up in a dictionary? And is there any point to this glorified wiktionary entry? Of course the word expresses a concept central to Semitic religion. So it might be appropriate to discuss the word at some article about ancient Semitic religion, idk, maybe Ancient Semitic religion? (and then leave the "list of words derived from the Hebrew root" to wiktionary)--dab (𒁳) 08:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Kedeshah
There's a section on Kedeshah, a word which, according to the article as it now stands, means "sacred prostitute." The only citation gives to back this claim up is a website called "Blue Letter Bible" which is simply a website some people put on the internet. It doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source (WP:RS) because it is self-published on the internet (WP:SELFPUBLISH). It's not an expert source: it's a compilation of various old expert sources and various unsourced material mashed together. In more recent biblical scholarship, there is debate over whether a kedeshah is to be understood as a sacred prostitute, or as some other form of cultic functionary. I'm going to revise the paragraph to mention the modern scholarship instead of the BBB site, and I'll be removed and/or rewriting some of the uncited parts of the paragraph in the process. Alephb (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)