User:Ayenaee/General research and comments

‘nuther (sic) Interlude: Hebrew transliteration
1. Hebrew Transliteration

2. Naming conventions (Hebrew)
 * Apohstrophe is used in transliteration in two ways: (a) to transliterate unpronounced aleph, ayin or shva na (can sometimes also use "e" for shva); (b) to separate two vowels in hiatus (a sequence of two syllables with no consonant in the middle).
 * A shva will be transliterated as "e" if both of the following conditions apply: (a) it is a shva na at the beginning of a word; (b) it is actually pronounced in Hebrew
 * Between a shva and a vowel sound or between nikud and a vowel sound, an apostrophe will be used to indicate a short stop. For that same reason, two vowel sounds in sequence are separated by an apostrophe

I’m a bit confused on the transliteration and capitalization (in titles) of words like "She’al" ([that is] [on]), "Hamitah" ([the] [bed]), Le’Olam (lit. [to] [the world], fig. [Forever]) and B'Koach ([with] [your strength]). So in other words prepositions or articles which in English modify nouns by coming before them as standalone words, but in Hebrew modify nouns by becoming part of the noun. All the above words form part of the transliterated names of prayers.

Empirical rules
Although there are some words where ‘ is ok as a replacement (only one in thes e.g.s is b’Koach), in many words, English speakers my be led to mispronunciation. Therefore: '''Rule 1: Don’t use apostrophe to replace letters, unless it’s accepted use for that word, and won’t cause confusion for non-Hebrew speaking person. Always use the letter.''' Rule 2: Only use an apostrophe in its role as indicating a vowel hiatus, together with the letter. Rule 3: Where a word can be spelled without confusion either with or without a letter replacement apostrophe, provide the apostrophe version as a redirect for lookup.

What about capitalization of the preposition / article part
so: Working Rule 3: Capitalise both parts of compound words. ("Working" because I’m not totally convinced)
 * It makes sense to capitalise the noun part as is done in English titles.
 * Not obvious for preposition / article part which isn’t capitalized in English title.
 * Even more complex where both parts aren’t nouns [She’Al]
 * I can’t find any guidance in WP on this issue
 * Most sources seem to capitalise both

Interlude Talk:2023 Hamas attack on Israel
My comment isn’t about what I think the result parameter should say. It’s to point out that Wikipedia policy clearly states how you should determine the value. If you follow policy then you can stop all the reverting and anger. Those of you inserting things like "Israel repelled Hamas attack" should stop doing that because the template being used only allows certain values for the parameter ‘result". You might not like what the guidelines say, but if you don’t follow them you shouldn’t edit. Wikipedia’s house, Wikipedia’s rules.

In terms of guidelines likeMOS:INFOBOX], [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history|MOS:MIL etc. and specifically (the template used here for the Infobox) there are a limited number of values for the result parameter:

'''There are only the following possibilities for this parameter (all of which require refs from reliable sources): 1. "Hamas and its allies victory" (if refs show they where victorious) 2. "Israel victory" ((if refs show they where victorious) 3. "Inconclusive" (if refs are ambiguous or conflicting) 4. Link or note to section of the article where the result is discussed (e.g. Aftermath section). [I don’t see such a section in the article now]. 5. Leave the parameter out of the Infobox.'''

That’s it. Nothing else. This covers all scenarios and must be followed.

if there are reliable sources showing that (1) is appropriate, the ONLY way to use one of the other options is to show there are refs showing (2) or refs showing ambiguity in the outcome.

Above is per the following from the infobox’s data sheet:
 * This parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say.
 * In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat".
 * Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

Third
I’ve attempted below to summarise the discussion so far. I’ve tried to see through the emotion and find things the discussion agrees/disagrees on without attribution to any specific person. I’ve drawn the various proposals from the debate out in the last section. It’s these I think we should debate (not vote or !vote), rather than the already aired disagreements.

Agreement (I think mostly RS’able as well)
(a) Certain groups (comprising non-Jewish, and to some extent Jewish people) find the specific blue SoD used as the current image offensive/hurtful/anti-Palestinian because of its historical political associations with the blue SoD on the FoI, the State itself and the Israeli military. (b) The use of the image has not been substantively debated before. The current image was inserted just over three years ago, with no debate then or since (two images used in the past were of a painting of Jacob fighting the angel, and a collage of European Jews before that). Many Jewish related articles have blue themes. (c) The SoD with various colouring is a mainly cultural symbol associated with Jews from ancient times. (d) The colour blue (in different hues) has been religiously associated with Jews from BCE times due to the techelet tassle commandment in the Tanach. For religious reasons post-Diaspora Jews use prayer shawls with blue lines on the shawl and white tassels (mainly Ashkenazim), while some continue to use blue tassels as well as lines (some Sephardim). A dissenting voice stated that blue as a colour was not associated with Jews before its use in the FoI, but the general agreement was that it was religiously. [The colour white is also associated with Jews religiously but this wasn’t explicitly discussed. The association with the colour gold was discussed tangentially.]. (e) Jews use of blue colouring and of the SoD (using many colours incl. hues of blue), predates the choices made in the creation of the FoI. (f) The FoI flag with its colours and symbolism was created by a meeting of the Second Zionist Congress in 1898. The choices made for the FoI borrowed from previously existing Jewish colour and symbol associations and combined them, in the way they now exist. Blue coloured SoD’s existed (together with manyother coloured SoDs) before the creation of the FoI, but its specific colouring and use on the FoI did lead to it being considered a political symbol among some groups. (g) An image should be used which represents all Jews. (h) Real life events and emotions effect this discussion, but we must try and set that aside in the interest of the encyclopedia (or stop editing if we can’t - which is a fair and understandable human reaction). WP:Cool

Disagreement
(i) The use of the blue star of David as the main image appears to suggest that Zionism = Judaism, or that Zionism is the most notable expression of Judaism vs The SoE (any colour) and arguably the blue SoE is the best known Jewish Symbol, so there’s no need to change it. (j) The current image should be rejected because of its political connotations vs Just because it may have certain connotations for some groups, those connotations are not there for many Jews who the image does represent. (k) The colour black was proposed by some but rejected by others. The menorah as a representative image was proposed by some and rejected by others [I declare my COI on this]. (l) Where WP:Burdan lies.

The first two disagreements (i) and (j) are the major fault line ones [imho]. They are based on existential issues on all sides and don’t seem solvable by wiki-editors. Although i’m sure fingers are flying to refute or support them, that won’t add to the debate we’ve already had. I therefore propose that we stick to the topic - the best image, and review the proposals which arose.

Proposals from the debate
1. Use current image but colour it differently (various colour’s proposed). 2. Use another form of the SoD colored differently (various shapes and colours proposed). 3. Use another religious symbol (gold menorah, tablets, prayer shawl with blue). 4. Use an appropriate painting (previous image used Jacob fighting the angel). 5. Use a collage of diverse and/or famous Jews (Image of European Jews used previously. The choice of collage images is problematical)). 6. No change. Place wording Re the controversy under FoI:C (controversy section of FoI article). Ayenaee (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Second
As I said above the art of making tekhelet was lost which why Askenazi Jews moved the blue from the tassels to the shawl. But discussion in the Talmud as to what the colour was continued. That together with modern experimentation as lead to several options. I am not a rabbi by far so the following is from a lay-person and can be ignored if you want. But I took the various colour descriptions and tried to connect them to hex colour codes. This may be totally wrong but I came up with the following:

if someone can take these and apply them to to the current image, that might help the discussion?

First
The blue Star of David (SoD) is not a symbol taken from the Israeli Flag. It’s the opposite way around, the color blue for the flag was chosen for its religious association with Jews and Judaism. In the rest of my comments I’m going to reference 4 sections from Wikipedia articles: &lsqb;I’m not writing an article here or citing in the wiki way, so referencing Wikipedia is fine for the purpose. If we get to "dueling references" - which I hope we don’t - we can do it the WP:RS way.] I accept that that for some Jewish and non-Jewish alike the blue SoD may be seen as arising from the Israeli flag, but this is a misconception (FoI). Blue in Jewish symbols comes from the Torah commandment: "37 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying: 38 Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them throughout their generations fringes in the corners of their garments, and that they put with the fringe of each corner a thread of blue. [my emphasis] 39 And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye go not about after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go astray; 40 that ye may remember and do all My commandments, and be holy unto your God." This lead to the millennia long religious association between blue (Tekhelet in Hebrew) Jews and Judaism (T). This is what I’m talking about: After the Jewish Diaspora the method for producing Tekhelet colour was lost, so Halacha (Rabbinical decrees which are followed by Orthodox Jews as the Oral Torah given at Sinai) was to no longer color the tassels. Some Jews transferred the blue color to the stripes on the prayer shawl, in remembrance of the commandment. This is Askenazi Jewish practice (Ashkenazi Jews originate from central and Northern Europe, but are now distributed worldwide). I read in research for a recent article (although I’ll have to find it again) that Sephardi Jews (the second largest group originally from Spain, Portugal, Northern Africa and the Middle East, but also now distributed worldwide) still use blue colouring on the tassels of prayer shawls based on different Halacha. [The two groups orthodox practices are interchangeable, theres no difference religiously only regional tradition]. So, religious practice and tradition is the source of the Israeli flag not the other way round. In essence the flag is meant to symbolize a prayer shawl including the Tekhelet and the SoD, as an acknowledged symbol of Jews and Judaism. From (JS): "From the 19th century at the latest, the combination of blue and white symbolized the Jewish people, and this combination was chosen for the Flag of Israel [my emphasis]. Other symbols: Suggestion: The FoI article includes an FoI:C criticism (of the flag section) which among other anti-arguments includes Arab-Israeli citizens criticism of it biasing the state away from them, and some ultra orthodox Jews practice of burning the flag on Independence Day. Criticism of the Blue SoD (it being seen as political which I understand) belongs there, or alternatively on the Star of David page.
 * Flag of Israel &sect; Interpretation of colors (FoI)
 * Flag of Israel &sect; Criticism
 * Tekhelet &sect; Tekhelet in Jewish culture (T)
 * Jewish symbolism &sect; Colors (JS)
 * The articles also refer to blue symbolizing "G-d’s glory, purity and…severity" (FoI) and "the heavens and divine revelation" (JS)
 * Tekhelet was used in the Priest’s (Kohanim) temple vestments, and more so in those of the High Priest.
 * Black SoD: There isn’t an inherent problem with the Black SoD, but it lacks the religious connotations, which are important to Jewish identity (irrelevant of the observance level). It is a political symbol only in that it represented the Kings of Israel (David/Solomon - long story not for now). It has a slight (not large) negative connotation because of its use in the yellow patch Jews were forced to wear during the holocaust. You’ll notice that the SoD page uses the black SoD as a main image (I’ll be looking into that 😀).
 * Menorah: Although symbolic of Jews, it doesn’t have the same symbolism for Jews as it might have for non-Jews. It’s an item used in Temple practice. Its use was stopped after the destruction of the Temple after which Halacha banned its making or use. It is often remembered by Jews as part of the relief on Titus’ Triumphal Arch in Rome, which is not a happy Jewish memory. It’s a mixed symbol for Jews.
 * 10 Commandment tablets: Not a mixed symbol, but also not as strong as that of the Techelet which is reflected on by Jews everyday when they put it on for prayer. The tablets are associated to the shawl and Tekhelet in the command related to the tassels to "…remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them…that ye may remember and do all My commandments". Halacha explains how the tieing of the tassels represents the 613 commandments and how these are subsumed by the 10.
 * The idea of using pictures of famous or diverse Jews comes from a discussion in 2011 "Main Image of Jew is not representative - only shows European Jews", when it seems the article had a main image collage only showing European Jews. I fully support having more pictures and text representing Jewish diversity in the main body. But I don’t think the discussion is relevant to this one anymore. At some point after the discussion, the image was changed to the "Jacob fighting the angel" painting, and then to the blue SoD, as I mention in my first comment above. If the article needs more diversity that must be discussed and improved. But the star is an appropriate unifying symbol for the main image.