Talk:Passover songs/Archive 1

Dayenu merge

If there was only 1 article for passover songs..Dayenu!

I agree. Merge Dayenu into this article. In addition, since this is essentially a list of songs, how about pluralizing the article (e.g. Passover Songs)? --Micahbrwn 04:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it should be seperate, because each song should have the lyrics (Hebrew/Aramaic, transliteration, and translation) Epson291 05:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with putting lyrics on WP anyway.. Wikisource is for that, not WP. Zargulon 08:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, this isn't lyrics to the latest pop hit. And it wouldn't really be called lyrics, rather "text". Generally national anthems, folk songs, and religious songs contain the lyrics and for good reason. I suppose part of understanding it's signigicance is to see it. See the national anthem, O Canada, the Christian hymn, Rock of Ages, and folk song This Land Is Your Land, it is almost universal on WP for there to be the accompying words to it. Epson291 05:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is a true statement that accompanying words are "almost universally" given on WP.. it seems you are making an unjustified generalization from the specific cases which you have identified. You also say "for good reason" but do not then go on to identify that "good reason".. it may be obvious to you, but it is not to me. Happy passover/Easter. Zargulon 19:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

A happy holiday to you too. I know I only gave specific ones that were off the top of my head, it wasn't to make sweeping generalizations, but if you think of any hymns(the psalms and piyyutim in Hebrew specifically) and religious songs you are already familar with from either Judaism or Christianity, you'll find the text mostly included in the pages (as a generlization). The reason I had given those 3 was just to show that national anthems, hymns, and folk songs are the three types that often contain the text (and of course are not copyrighted), though I realize that those were only 3, but search some other ones to see it's quite the norm. To put them into Wikisource is a very good idea for something longer, but it is really unnecessary for something so short as a song. Now if the the song's text was no way related to the article (i.e., This song is sung after this prayer), then it wouldn't really be right to put it in. However, when you dealing with religious songs, hymms, etc..., many are very very old, so there is quite a lot of signifcance, and a lot of explanation (or even some) so seeing the accompying orignal text makes it quite clear. Also, it is particularly useful for the Jewish ones considering most are in Hebrew, so you get the translation, the transliteration, and the original Hebrew side by side. If you are talking about a pop song on Wikipedia, it's discusssing it's sales and significance to the artist (generally), and that was the point I was trying to make. Anything of length, from a prayer to a holy book, naturally wouldn't fit in an article, and should be a in WikiSource, and WikiSource would be it's best place, but if you are looking at something in disection, such as a psalm, or in this case a specific song from the haggadah, it makes sense to see the attributing text to it. Epson291 22:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

One thing that makes very old works like liturgy and folk songs distinct from national anthems, is that the text is not standardized. Ma nishtanah is a good example.. at my family seder a guest read the equivalent from Saadia Gaon's haggadah in 9th century Judeo-Arabic and the direct translation revealed that there weren't even four questions at that time.. so presenting a particular version of the text as canonical is, in my view, misleading. Furthermore, even looking at the version of Mah Nishtanah in most varieties of modern western haggadah, we see a diversity of translations whose differences are significant.. my uncle is horrified when the first line is translated "Why is this night different from all other nights?" (it should be more like "How different this night is from all other nights!"). That is point number one. Point number two is that even for so-called short poems/songs, I feel that a block of verses makes browsing the page vastly less ergonomic. Take Dayenu as an example.. when I reach the text, which in itself has no discursive content (which is what I came to wikipedia for) I have to scroll through 2 screenfuls to discover the categories and the fact that there is no further content underneath. I have to ask you, what exactly is wrong with putting at the top of the page "for the full text of this song, please see <wikisource page>" .. For both these reasons I really think it would be an improvement. Zargulon 23:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add different versions of the haggadah, it would be great the have history on there different ones. Ashkenazi and Sephardic Haggadah alone are quite different. If you are afraid uncle may be mordified, feel free to improve on the English translation. I wasn't trying to make Ma Nishtana seem like it was present in the 9th century or that all songs were present for all versions of the haggadah at all times in all locations. Epson291 05:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say you were trying to do any of those things, but I'm glad you seem to agree that they are undesirable side effects of putting the text in. I'm not sure you addressed my other point, and I still haven't heard a good reason for the text being on the article pages rather than on wikisource and linked from the article pages. Zargulon 17:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think building a database of Jewish songs on wikisource is a great idea but unrelated to this. Most user's will not see the link and it does no benefit to them not to have it on the page. (and it does no harm either that you've made a point of, other then people might not be happy with the translation into english, but BTW, I speak English and I'm really not sure how "Why is this night different...." and "How is this night different" imply anything really different). Take Psalms for instance, there is a link for wikisource, at the bottom, most users will never see it. If you look at template:psalms, which I created, it gives direct links to the different christian sources wikisource has on it, to try to make it more obvious, as well as prominent ones with there own explanation, if you take any of the individual psalms, they already have the Hebrew/Engligh right there on the page, it just makes sense, for convenience and for referencing the page to the source text (of the song or otherwise), you havn't really given a good reason why it shouldn't be there, I think it clearly makes it a lot easier for the average searcher (and not member) of Wikipedia. (I'm honestly surprised this is even an issue, like, how can you talk about a Jewish song or tehilim, or piyyutim and not include the source text, it makes no sense to me) It seems to me you're making issue where there isn't any. And I don't agree there is an undesirable side effects of putting the text in as you claim, as that would be the same issue if it was put in Wikisource, so that comment make no sense, one could take the same issue with it there, and moving it there does not solve to claimed problem you make with it. Adding the history of different hagaddas would be great, for instance if you look at Adir Hu, I added the history of how it was written, and how it's melodoy became the standard one as it is today. If you look at Geshem it contains different molodies (Ask and Seph) So as I said before, include different versions, however for translation, it should be only translated once unless notable, such as with Chad Gadya it is often either translated as "one little kid" or "one little goat" based on the fact there is no unique word in english for a young goat (since kid is used most often in slang for a child, and I assume it would sound a little bad if Chad Gadya sounded like a father buying a child). Epson291 22:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The difference between the two translations which I provided, of the first line of mah nishtanah, is that one is a question, and one is an exclamation. You actually misquoted the second one I gave, which probably explains why you didn't realize the significance of the difference. I have given two good reasons why the source should be in wikisource, and you have neither addressed them nor given a good reason (as you promised you would) why the text should be in the article. You assume that the link to wikisource would be at the bottom, and then use this unreasonable assumption to argue that casual searchers would not notice it. Of course the link should be at the top, just like a disambig/redirect, which everyone notices. You have made good edits to Adir hu, Geshem and Chad Gadya but I think you are being a little compulsive about this text issue when it is clearly the wrong thing to do both from a common sense perspective and a "What Wikipedia is for" perspective. I wish you would reconsider and move the texts rather than expecting people to clean up after you. Zargulon 00:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Clean up after me? These texts were already here when I got here. Do not ruin good informaiton in these pages. Example: Adom Olam in French and Dutch (and English). I guess those wikiuser's have no common sense either, eh Epson291 08:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How about Hava Nagila, let's see if those users have a common sense perspective and know "What Wikipedia is for" perspective. Arabic?, nope, German?, nope, Spanish?, nope, Dutch? nope, Russian?, nope, and the rest of them too, and how about English (which I did not add), English, apparently that Wikiuser has no common sense either.

How about other articles on other songs, Jerusalem of Gold? nope, no common sense, how about we look at religious songs, Category:Christian_hymns, rather then list every hymm here, I will tell you, 90% have the text there, so according to you, no common sense. Epson291 08:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite aware what wikipedia is for. I addressed your points quite clearly twice now, readdress them if you aren't satasfied. You did not address my points in regard to the claimed problem of translation and why moving it to Wikisource will solve that, and the point of referencing the page to the source text right there. But I just have a hunch you won't give it to me and respond with something rude. There is a desire to see the text included on the page, other wise, so many Wikiusers (in English and otherwise) wouldn't have gone to the trouble to add it. Epson291 08:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

But your examples are either in English with a single canonical version of the text, or in a foreign language with a single canonical version of the text an no substantive translation issues. Zargulon 10:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

So other langugues are exempt from "translation issues"?, that's a pack of lies, if you see the examples they clearly have translations into Russian, German, Arabic or whatever. And for these translation issues, what are they? How does anything on Wikipedia or news get translated from the orignal langague, if there are translation issues. Not everyone can speak Hebrew, Aramaic, or otherwise. If there are issues with the translation, fix it. Epson291 05:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think that other languages are exempt from translation issues? Zargulon 11:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Good morning if you are in the USA. I don't think that, but this is what I interpreted from what you wrote, I assume that it is inncorrect then. I'm still not exactly clear on the problems with translating you said there are from the original text to the native tongue. Please fill me in. Did you fix ma nishtanah to what you would like better? But to me מה means both why and how. Epson291 12:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Good morning.. it is not that I have a preference, rather, it is that there is no unique correct translation, and the differences between proposed translations are significant, unlike your example songs. Moreover, there is not even a unique original. These are just two reasons why it was a mistake to just blindly dump your favourite version of the text onto the page. Hopefully you get it this time and I won't have to repeat myself yet again. Zargulon 14:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I did not put the text there, and I don't have a favourite version, and apparantly you don't have either (from above), so what are you kvetching for? As long as it translates from the Hebrew or Aramaic what's the issue? It has to be translated somehow, you really don't except people to learn Hebrew so they can understand a song? Are you telling me that there are so many different ways to translate Adon Olam that it won't be a fair and a accurate translation?. How many widely different ways are there to translate a sentence that the context changes greatly. And I didn't realize it was possible to have a "unique" translation, thats news to me, I bet professional interperters would love to hear that. Or, maybe since it's impossible to translate anything, since it's all unique, we should just give up translating and learn 30 languages. Do you even speak Hebrew? Epson291 16:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I keep telling you what the issues are and you keep asking "what's the issue?".. I keep giving reasons to that the song text is better on wikisource, and you just keep listing existing WP pages with song text, as though that proves anything! Do you even speak English? Zargulon 17:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I asked if you speak Hebrew as a serious question, I would like an answer, becuase your grasp of the ability for something to be properly contextually translated seemes to be laking. I'm still not sure what the issue with the translations are. If it simply is there could be different translations, thats not a very good reason. You havn't explained yourself very well, clearly I speak English, we're speaking in it. Epson291 17:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I asked you if you speak English as a serious question, since you keep asking questions that I have already explicitly answered, you seem not to notice when I ask you questions, and your spelling is very bad. Zargulon 17:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I answered it already, you didn't, it's a common pattern happening Epson291 17:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You did not have a legitimate basis for asking it, unlike all of my questions which you haven't answered. Zargulon 17:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)